From the President: My View of the Field (Part 2)

In continuation of my previous Mindfield article, I explore further my thoughts on the current state of parapsychology and its possible futures.

The varieties of… What?

There have been many attempts over the history of our field to name the experiences we investigate in a precise, scientific manner. Over time, these terms went into general use, acquiring new (and often pejorative) meanings among the general public. One of the first names employed was “psychic.” Authors such as William Crookes (1832-1919) and Edward William Cox (1809-1979) used this term to indicate the possible existence of a new force in nature, a “psychic force,” which somehow originated from (or was influenced by) the activities of the human mind (Crookes, 1874).

The idea that psi experiences point to the existence of an unknown force is valuable because it attempts to provide a "positive" definition or explanation instead of simply reiterating our ignorance about the nature of such occurrences

Unknown

The idea that psi experiences point to the existence of an unknown force is valuable because it attempts to provide a “positive” definition or explanation instead of simply reiterating our ignorance about the nature of such occurrences. Crookes’ notion of psychic force has fallen into disuse among psi researchers, but not the term “psychic,” which is still used today by some colleagues and organizations in the field as well as by members of the public to describe individuals who seem to evidence psi abilities.

The most curious thing in this history, however, is the fact that a term that was initially considered scientific later acquired a distorted, pejorative connotation quite unrelated to its original, intended meaning. This becomes clear when one does a quick search on the internet. The same happened with several other terms employed by parapsychologists to describe either their subject matter or their field of investigation, such as “paranormal,” “ESP,” “parapsychology,” and so on. As past PA president Renaud Evrard (2018, p. 67) once remarked: “Believe it or not, all these terms were first coined with a neutral meaning, i.e. they fit with an agnostic and scientific approach.” Although a similar social phenomenon may be observed with terms developed in other scientific disciplines (such as, for example, the old term “ego” in psychology), this terminological degradation has often been more negatively impactful to our field.

This recurring situation has forced us many times to search for new nomenclatures in order to both improve our definitions and avoid previous negative connotations, aiming in this way to ultimately establish a more serious reputation for our field. These attempts have proved many times successful, allowing for the attraction of funding, the establishment of laboratories in renowned universities, the formation of young researchers under the new rubric, publications in mainstream journals, and even fruitful interdisciplinary collaborations. One good example is the adoption of the term “anomalous” by various colleagues who are also recognized for their contributions in more mainstream areas, such as psychology, medicine, and social sciences.

However, in the end, these terminological changes do not alter the face of our field substantially and permanently, especially regarding ontologically oriented research. The excitement is short-lived; when the gatekeepers of mainstream science realize that we are giving new clothes to the same emperor, they rapidly depose him, and the long cycle of obtaining academic acceptance restarts.

The excitement is short-lived; when the gatekeepers of mainstream science realize that we are giving new clothes to the same emperor, they rapidly depose him, and the long cycle of obtaining academic acceptance restarts.

Unknown

Another important downside of such attempts at terminological and disciplinary reconstruction is the tendency to ‘reinvent the wheel’ and market the new brand as something innovative and original. The problem with this is that our field has actually more than a century of existence… When we devise new names, we run the risk of forgetting that history and its importance, or even worse, the struggle and efforts of those who preceded us.

A new science?

I must note, however, that it is not my intention to completely discourage the creation of new terminologies and classifications for our field. Some interesting suggestions have been made as to how we could overcome existing terminological limitations (e.g., Radin, 2019). I also do not discard the possibility of completely redefining the face of parapsychology as a discipline. For example, some colleagues have suggested that each scientific field has its own “anomalies” and that researchers from diverse areas should be encouraged to look at them more seriously (e.g., Mayer & Schetsche, 2016). This perspective seems to involve, among the many possibilities, a division in many subfields of what we consider today as a unique and identifiable field of research. This “cross-pollination approach,” as I call it, would probably entail substantial changes in the way science is being carried out today in different laboratories and universities around the world including the development of a new mindset, more open to disruptive, paradoxical, and heterodox ideas.

This “cross-pollination approach,” as I call it, would probably entail substantial changes in the way science is being carried out today in different laboratories and universities around the world including the development of a new mindset, more open to disruptive, paradoxical, and heterodox ideas.

Unknown

This seems to me the most challenging, but also one of the most interesting scenarios because it could transform parapsychology (or the way we investigate and think about psi phenomena) into an essential part of the scientific endeavor in any given discipline. Paradoxically, it would be our “death” as a specific field that would allow us to “survive” as a scientific activity. In a more pessimistic scenario, however, that could actually represent the beginning of the end of parapsychology in any existing form, a way of destroying our contributions by fragmenting our field and throwing up our research achievements into the trash bin of different scientific disciplines.

As a matter of fact, we cannot know for sure what could happen if we massively adopted and reinforced a “cross-pollination approach.” On my part, I advocate a middle-path in which we maintain our autonomy while encouraging the discussion of more disruptive topics in other fields of science. To a certain extent, this is already taking place, with some recent examples of openness to parapsychological topics in psychology, neuroscience, and social sciences, as mentioned in my previous article. Another reason for advocating a middle-term approach is the fact that our object of study requires an interdisciplinary perspective. Whatever “psi” is, it seems directly connected to social, psychological, and physical/biological processes, as different studies have indicated. If we ignore one of these aspects, we will be unable to understand these experiences in their entirety.

Interdisciplinarity… again!

The inherently interdisciplinary nature of our field may sometimes confuse us as to what discipline or methodological approach should receive more emphasis. Should we emphasize our connections to psychology – as the term “parapsychology” seems to imply? Should we emphasize our connections to physics or biology? Should we prefer a social sciences perspective? The fact is that these approaches are all interconnected and their contributions have helped us move forward on different occasions. Without the insights provided by psychological and social investigations, we would be unable to develop the diverse array of experimental protocols that made part of our history from dream telepathy to Ganzfeld and remote viewing studies, to name just a few examples. All the major developments in parapsychology were possible because of interdisciplinary collaborations between areas as diverse as medicine, psychology, biology, physics, statistics, and anthropology. I firmly believe that what will make us thrive and achieve higher academic acceptance is precisely the strengthening and expansion of such collaborations, combined with systematic attempts to publish high-quality studies in more mainstream journals, and relying on a diverse range of terminologies, the ones that are best suited to captivate the audience in a respective field of investigation. In scientific presentations, I usually start by explaining that there is no ideal term and that the way we name and define these experiences may vary according to the scientific discipline or the cultural context under consideration. I also usually explain that these terms reflect different research traditions that may sometimes overlap. This is important because it acknowledges the contribution of similar, “sibling” research areas such as transpersonal psychology and anomalistic psychology.

My experience collaborating with researchers from other areas has shown that they are often more open to accepting the possibility of psi and other anomalies than many colleagues from our field!

Unknown

My experience collaborating with researchers from other areas has shown that they are often more open to accepting the possibility of psi and other anomalies than many colleagues from our field! Perhaps because of their lack of knowledge or experience in parapsychology – including the negative stereotypes we routinely face as parapsychologists –they approach these topics with an enthusiasm and interest that is usually absent from more experienced researchers in our field. My collaboration with psychiatrists, psychologists of religion, and religious studies scholars in Brazil and abroad has many times proved this to be true. The only difference – a crucial one – is that they don’t call themselves parapsychologists – which once again illustrates that words have power.

I think one of the main reasons for the resistance against parapsychology is the lack of basic knowledge or information about parapsychological research. In this sense, it is important that we approach colleagues from other fields with some historical introduction and some basic, updated references for consultation. Unfortunately, a similar problem also happens within the field, with some colleagues criticizing certain studies or research programs (for example, investigations on séance phenomena and other observable physical anomalies) without having sufficient knowledge about these studies and their scientific value.

Initiatives like the Psi Encyclopedia by the Society for Psychical Research should be praised and are of fundamental importance to our field. As president of the PA, I am now working with the PA board and a committee of interested researchers to update (and eventually expand) the content of our website, which comprises a relevant, contemporary source for introductory information concerning psi research.

Facing the world… for the benefit of the world!

All this discussion about how terminology impacts the academic and public acceptance of our field is certainly relevant, but another – maybe more important – reason for refining current terminologies is the search for more precise definitions for the phenomena we investigate. In the future, I believe we will be able to develop new concepts and definitions based on a well-grounded, empirically supported theory of psi. I also hope we will develop terms that are more sensitive to individual and cultural variation. I have many times observed how the terms we use do not reflect the perspectives of those who regularly have these experiences. When we call these experiences “anomalous,” for example, we are virtually ignoring the many prevalence studies showing how common and widespread they are in different cultures (Maraldi & Krippner, 2019).

It might take some time to develop an integrative, largely consensual framework for psi. In the meantime, I defend a pluralistic approach in which one should rely on different terms depending on 1) the journal to which the paper is being submitted, 2) the theoretical background employed, or 3) the cultural context in which the study is being conducted. I and other colleagues have recently adopted this approach in a systematic review of the mental health implications of these experiences. We devised a Boolean search strategy in which various terms (e.g., nonordinary, paranormal, mystical, anomalous, transpersonal, dissociative) were used with the aim of capturing the diverse terminologies employed in different research areas within the mental health field (Maraldi et al., 2023).

My final suggestion in this article is for us to expand our horizons and explore the many interconnections between parapsychology and other areas, instead of being mostly confined to our associations, forums, terminologies, and research traditions. It is time to lose our fears, abandon our academic shyness, and show the scientific community the relevance and impact of what we do.

References

Crookes, W. (2013). Researches in the phenomena of spiritualism. Cambridge University Press. Original work published 1874.

Evrard, R. (2018). Facing the taboo. Mindfield, 10(2), 66-70.

Maraldi, E. O., & Krippner, S. (2019). Cross-cultural research on anomalous experiences: Theoretical issues and methodological challenges. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(3), 306–319.

Maraldi, E. O., Taves, A., Moll, J., Hartle, L., Moreira-de-Oliveira, M. E., Bortolini, T., & Fischer, R. (2024). Nonordinary experiences, well-being and mental health: A systematic review of the evidence and recommendations for future research. Journal of Religion and Health, 63(1), 410–444.

Mayer, G., & Schetsche, M. (2016). On anomalistics research – The paradigm of reflexive anomalistics. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 30(3), 374-397.

Radin, D. (2019). Parapsychological Association Presidential address, 2018. Journal of Parapsychology, 83(1), 5–12.