New perspectives on the notion of collective unconscious

Dear all,

I am re-wrapping my head around the Zeitoun case, but here is something new.

Thank you for your patience.

 

The sociologist Susan Greenwood (1990) noted twenty years ago that Émile Durkheim’s concept of “collective consciousness” and Carl Jung’s notion of “collective unconscious” are very similar in their explanatory structure, and draw from a common origin in the writings of the early 20^th century French anthropologist Lévy-Bruhl. The psychologist Harry Hunt (2012) came to the same conclusion in a recently published article (without referencing Greenwood’s paper in any shape or form).

What makes Hunt’s paper particularly interesting is that his paper was based on the recently discovered Jung’s Red Book, a journal where Jung wrote his most inner thought about various aspects of his research and therapeutic practice. This additional confirmation that the notions of collective consciousness and collective unconscious are closely related constitutes an important argument in support of the parasociological project.

Most parapsychologists agree that psi-related phenomena are somehow linked to unconscious processes. By extension, a fundamental premise of parasociology is that social psi phenomena should be linked to collective unconscious processes. For this reason, Jung’s research on what he termed the “collective unconscious” is of primary interest in parasociology. Yet, Jung was less than clear on what he meant by collective unconscious. This was, in many ways, because he was addressing a topic that could easily be turned into ridicule by the scientific establishment of his time. Having now the benefit of his inner thoughts from the Red Book, many ambiguities in his writings can be resolved.

 

The first ambiguities that Hunt attacks is whether the collective unconscious is something based in our biology (genetically hard wired) or something based in common human experience (and thus being collectively shared through culture and language). Jung tended to propose a biological explanation but it was mainly because biological reductionism was very much the dominant flavor in academic circles in his days, but he could see also a cultural version of it too. In light of modern advances in neuroscience, it appears that it is a bit of both, and Jung’s ambivalence was actually warranted. The human brain is hard wired to grasp the surrounding environment by using some fundamental mental structures. As Hunt notes, “in cognitive psychology, Lakoff and Johnson (1999) have similarly identified cross-modal ‘image schemas’ (container, path, centre, force, etc.) that not only underlie all thought, but seem necessary as the inner form of fully adult feeling – as differentiated senses of anger as ‘heated’, ‘streamed’, ‘boiling’, ‘exploding’ (see also Knox, 2004). These metaphors, already exteriorized in nature, will also be broadly cross-cultural, but independent of any specifically phylogenetic or ancestral mind” (2012, 79). And later he adds that “Jung’s collective unconscious most directly defines a kind of symbolic cognition” (Hunt 2012, 80).

 

In other words, the collective unconscious is collective because, on one hand the human brain is wired to think in certain ways, while on the other hand there a number basic common human experience (hot and cold, wet and dry, male and female, etc.) that provide fundamental metaphors for our thinking. Culture, then, builds on those basic wiring and common experience to deal with the particular situation of a given community (hence explaining the great degree of variation between cultures).

As Hunt underlines, “in socio-cultural terms it is comparable to Durkheim’s (1912) concept of ‘collective consciousness’, which he understands as most apparent in the ‘collective representations’ of myth, ritual, and religion. This idea of a ‘collective consciousness’ takes on a cross-cultural component once we add in the largely unconscious roots of archetypical imagination in Lakoff and Johnson’s ‘image schemas’ – as also embedded within the expressive patterns of physical and animate nature, and so continuously available as exteriorized sources of metaphor” (2012, 80).

 

The sociological concept of collective consciousness can be easily re-defined as the external (or observable) dimension of the collective unconscious. For instance, in most cultures major aspects of reality are gendered, but not in the same way—in patriarchal societies the moon is oftentimes construed as feminine because it is the reflection of the sun (the male principle), yet in a few societies the moon is represented as a male concept because it is at night that warriors get ready for battle and having moonlight is critical. Either way, the moon is assigned a gender, as a common and deeply wired way of relating to reality.

This brings us to the Jungian notion of archetype, the fundamental building blocks of the collective unconscious, according to Jung. Archetypes are deeply internalized in the unconscious, and they are “idea-and-feeling forms” (i.e. ways of thinking with an emotional value) that become strongly associated with a natural form or object; e.g. light is good because this allows us to live; we tend to have special positive rituals about the sun and sunlight--like going in vacation to sunny places in the middle of winter...). To put it differently, archetypes are special nodes of the human mind that we all share in way or another, thus making the collective unconscious that will be seen in various myths and social practices. To take another example, one well-known archetype is the magician (also known as the wise man). It is this idea-feeling we have when we meet someone more knowledgeable than us. It is based on our brain wiring of quantity thinking (i.e. more or less knowledge) and on a common childhood experience of meeting an adult who by definition is more knowledgeable (well, one hopes so!).

 

One can see the direct link between archetypes and common recurrent themes found in collective representations such as myths and rituals (e.g. god is often represented as an older man in the Western world). Once again, the psychologist Jung and the sociologist Durkheim are treading on the same waters. As Hunt put it, “as with Jung, fully developed mythological thinking is not a simple handover from childhood animism, but is itself metacognitive. It is an expressive cognition of underlying cognitive processes, but here on the grounds of cognitive psychology and sociology” (2012, 84). In other words, our collective imagination and representations are the visible expressions of our collective notions deeply buried in the unconscious.  

Archetypes, even if they are lived at the individual level, are in fact showing us that we tend to thinking and feel in very similar ways at the unconscious level. As Hunt wrote, “in the modern West, with our extreme individualism, inevitably shared by Jung himself, we tend to miss the socially collective nature of ostensibly individual states of high imaginative absorption and numinous imagery” (2012, 88). As an interesting empirical support for this notion, Hunt (2012, 90) notes Beradt research on ordinary German night dreams during the mid-1930, which were pointing towards impending disasters on Nazism and the Second World War. One could go further and say that the entire field of anthropology is based on the notion of understanding how myths are constructed, shared, and how the regulate the life of pre-modern societies. Similarly, research in marketing is very much based on seeking the archetype that would support the sales of a particular product. The empirical evidence to support the collective nature of archetypes is overwhelming, and one could say that without the collective unconscious and archetypes, society and especially large complex modern societies would simply not be possible.

This brings us to the interesting notion that archetypes can be activated also at the collective level, not just at the individual one. For Jung, when an archetype is activated (it becomes present in our consciousness through dreams, visions, or just ideas popping-up in one’s mind) , it means that something unconscious is bothering us and the archetype can be used as a clue for the clinical psychologist to help the patient.

But Jung ventured a bit further, and this where his research become particularly useful for the parasociological project, in stating that in some situation an archetype can activated in an externalized way through synchronicities (meaningful coincidences) or paranormal phenomena. This essentially means that one’s unconscious is using external means to get attention about a problem. This was explored by parapsychologists at the individual level (and it is one of the main explanations proposed for poltergeists events or RSPKs). With respect to the usefulness of Jung’s notions, now better understood through his insights described in the Red Book, there is no logical reason to reject the possibility of collectively activated archetypes being also exteriorized through collective synchronicities and paranormal phenomena.

One important dimension of collective archetypal activation is the issue of time. For spontaneous paranormal (or psi) cases, the same unconscious problem would require to bother many people at the same time. In this regard, I found an interesting article by Tim Edensor (2006) that speaks to both deeply held and shared beliefs (archetypes) and time. Here is a somewhat long quote that sums up well the gist of his argument.

 

“Part of the way in which rituals and habits cited above ‘enable the nation to be thinkable, inhabitable, communicable and therefore governable’ (Mercer, 1992: 27), is through synchronization, the simultaneous participation of millions of people in timetabled routines. Zeruvabel (1981) asserts that synchronization is a fundamental principle of social organization which usually eludes analysis, overlooked because of its familiarity. Repetition is surely essential to identity, for without recurrent experiences there would be no consistency given to experience, no temporal framework within which to make sense of the world. As I have already mentioned, the state synchronizes much nation-wide practices, regulating the time spent at school, work and the release of exam results, governing drinking hours, and so on. But in addition to this official temporal framework for everyday living, national synchronicity is achieved through temporal customs about when and where specific social practices should occur.” (Edensor 2006, 534)

As well, if modern societies are more complex than pre-modern ones, this does not mean that they not have means to share myths at the same time, and thus allow archetypes to be activated. As Edensor notes from other researchers: “Moores describes this mediatized timetabling as the ‘domestication of national standard time (1988: 67), and Silverstone highlights how television schedules organize household routines through which time ‘is felt, lived and secured’, producing repetitive viewing experiences embedded in the times of biography and the life-cycle, and in the time of institutions and societies themselves’ (1994:20). In this way, television links ‘the national public into the private lives of its citizens, through the creation of both sacred and quotidian moments of national communion’ (Morley, 2000: 107)” (Edensor 2006, 535).

Now, with the advent of the Internet and satellite television, time is spent in a less homogeneous way, as a greater amount of content can be viewed on a wider timeframe. But standard time routines have not changed that much (Edensor 2006, 541-542). This idea supports my argument that the UFO phenomenon might be in declined because we are less synchronized as societies (post-modern) than during the "television era", mostly occurring in North American from the late 1940s to late 1990s.

Nevertheless, this issue of temporality of collective action, combined with the greater similarity of thought and feeling found in what has been termed the collective unconscious create the necessary conditions for social psi to be possible.

 

References

Edensor, Tim. (2006). “Reconsidering national temporalities: Institutional times, everyday routines, serial spaces and synchronicities”. European Journal of Social Theory 9(4): 525-545.

Greenwood, Susan F. (1990). “Émile Durkheim and C.G. Jung: Structuring a transpersonal sociology of religion.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 29(4): 482-495.

Hunt, Harry T. (2012). “A collective unconscious reconsidered: Jung’s archetypal imagination in the light of contemporary psychology and social science”. Journal of Analytical Psychology 57(1): 76-98.

Jung, Carl G. (2009). The Red Book. (Edited by S. Shamdasani). New York: W.W. Norton.

Owen, Iris M. and M. Sparrow. (1976). Conjuring up Philip: An Adventure In Psychokinesis. Harper & Row.

Storm, Lance. (1999). “Synchronicity, causality, and acausality”. Journal of Parapsychology 63(3): 247-269.

The parasociological hypothesis in a nutshell

Here is a short post where I am trying to summarize my efforts to make sense of what parasociology is all about.

******

I am also taking a break for the month of July, and I wish everyone a good and safe summer.

******

Parasociology is mostly about studying and understanding the sociological dimension of anomalous phenomenon, by integrating the concept of psi within its core analysis. Hence, it is starting from the key findings of parapsychology, but aims at extending them outside the realm of individual psychology. Below is a short description of the parasociological hypothesis.

At the individual level, parapsychologists who have studied spontaneous paranormal cases tend to think that there are mutual interactions between the subject (experiencer) and the phenomenon. For instance, in the case of poltergeists (RSPK), people are seriously impacted by the disturbances and oftentimes ascribe the phenomenon to an “evil spirit” or some sort of non-human entity. Yet, it is pretty clear that the main person around whom the phenomenon is occurring is influencing its nature, namely his/her deeply buried anger and frustration appear to be what gives the phenomenon its violent character. It can be graphically represented as follow:




At the social level, sociologists who have studied controversies, which includes paranormal claims, have found that such events put in motion a social dynamics where the meaning attached to the phenomenon is debated, and usually determined by the social and political status of the key actors involved, and by the existing social and cultural pre-dispositions. For instance, the case of cold fusion was determined by the scientific establishment as a hoax, while in fact there was something like cold fusion going on, but at a very low level. In the paranormal world, the children who saw the “lady” in Fatima did not know what to think of it at first. But through various social dynamics involving a debate between the Church and the republican lay authorities, it was deemed to be the Virgin Mary who appeared to the children. Hence, the phenomenon impacted social dynamics already occurring in the Portuguese society of 1917.

The question is whether there is a parallel to be made with the individual level, where society would also influence the shape of the phenomenon, so that the interaction is also mutual at the sociological level? For instance, during the 1896-97 airship wave in United States (and Canada), the phenomenon was first described as strange lights in the sky, but it was reported by the press, nationwide, as “airships”. Could the social expectations to see an airship in the sky influenced the phenomenon so that it took an airship shape in the days and months that ensued? This question illustrates the core of the parasociological hypothesis. Graphically, it looks like this:



If one accepts that the parasociological hypothesis is a valid field of inquiry, then one should also look into the possibility of mutual interactions between the individual and sociological levels. Some of those interactions, in fact, have been studied already. For instance, the individual-level reactions to a poltergeist outbreak can create social debates in a society about what is the “true” nature of paranormal events. Conversely, if in a particular society some views about the paranormal are already accepted, then it is likely to impact the individual reactions. The clear case is the one of Marian apparitions, which tend to occur among Catholic communities. Strange and bizarre events, which meaning is not that clear to the witnesses, will eventually become interpreted as Marian apparitions because of strong cultural views about such apparitions.

Another set of interactions that should be investigated out of the parasociological hypothesis is the possible mutual interactions between the individual and social layers of a phenomenon. For instance, how an individual UFO close encounter relates to an overall UFO wave occurring at the same time? Or, how a set of Marian apparitions to a few children relate to a series of anomalous lights and healing in the community around? How a particular haunting relates to an overall high rate of hauntings in a particular region (England and Scotland)? These challenging questions have received little attention so far by researchers interested in the paranormal. Graphically, this can be represented as follow, with the dotted lines showing relationships requiring some serious conceptualisation and empirical research:




It is also possible to think of other mutual interactions. For instance, can the particular shape an individual-level anomalous phenomenon have a direct impact on the social dynamics about the interpretation of an anomalous phenomenon ? Landmark cases like the Barney and Bettey Hill UFO abduction incident clearly had an impact on how UFO abductions are construed socially later on. But what about the interaction in the other direction? For instance, could the extra-terrestrial “flavour” and shape of a close encounter be determined by socially shared views about extra-terrestrial visitations and not by the individual psychological make-up and dynamics of the experiencer? This question is at the center of the debate between the French Bertrand Méheust and François Favre about whether we have UFO witnesses of a relatively objective (i.e. of a social origin) parapsychological phenomenon or do we have only “psi subjects” living and influencing directly the phenomenon’s shape. There is very limited research on this issue.

The last set of mutual interactions, between a social-scale phenomenon and individual psychological make-up and dynamics, is also split in terms of research. The impact of those large phenomena on individuals has been studied by people like Jacques Vallée in his seminal book Messengers of Deception. UFO wave can have an impact on UFO-related cults and their capacity to recruit new members. Similarly, Marian apparitions led oftentimes to create religious fervour among people who had little interest in religion before the events. If the relationship is taken in the other direction, could it be possible that the individual psychological make-up and dynamics of some individuals have a defining impact on the shape of a social-scale anomalous phenomenon? For instance, in one of my researches on the Canadian UFO wave of 1966-67, there are some indications that the phenomenon was “responding” to a major politician’s series of key decisions, which were to have a very significant impact on the Canadian society but could not have been known at the time the phenomeon was unfolding. This is another area requiring much more investigation.

The overall parasociological hypothesis creates a relatively specific research programme, enough to keep many people busy for a long time. Graphically, it can be represented by all the dotted arrows shown below:




Eric Ouellet © 2010

The psi circuit: A tentative model (part 2)

This post is describing in greater details the proposed model to study the social dimension of psi effects, and UFO events in particular. The emphasis is placed today on the overall architecture upon which the model is built, and the rational for such architecture. The next post will look in more details at the individual elements of the model.

Architecture

Split between the empirical and the interpretative
The overall architecture of the model is based on a synthetic view of a number of researches in parapsychology, and especially research on psychokinesis (PK). One important finding in parapsychology is that psi effects are most likely the outcome of unconscious mental processes. This conclusion was expressed by the founder of the discipline, J. B. Rhine, already in 1954[1], and remains one of the most enduring issue in parapsychology. The issue is that if unconscious processes are at the centre of the phenomena, then it becomes very difficult to study it. North American psychology is particularly adverse to the study of the unconscious, as cognitive psychology (emphasizing conscious perception) and behaviourist psychology (emphasizing a “black box” approach through an input-output stimulation view of the human mind) are the dominant perspectives. North American parapsychology also suffered from this problem, and it can be clearly noted by the undervaluing of researchers who focussed on the unconscious such as Fodor Nandor and Jule Eisenbuld. In spite of these internal debates within psychology and parapsychology, any models of psi (and social psi included) need to locate the most dynamic portions of the phenomena under the threshold of empirical observation.

It is for this reason that the proposed model for social psi has a built-in ontological assumption that divides between empirical sociology (i.e., what can be observed through social behaviour), and what requires interpretation to understand such behaviours. The interpretative sociology has a long history and is well-established but it would be beyond the scope of this discussion to present such history here. Suffice to say that there are many sociological tools available, developed by classical sociologists such Max Weber, Georg Simmel, and more recent ones like Erving Goffman, Herbert Blumer, Alfred Schutz, Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, as well as all the research conducted in the present field of “cultural studies". The key here is to not ignore what is beyond the threshold of direct observation, which would otherwise lead one to the same trap as the one positivist psychology found itself, and in my opinion the greatest barrier to the advancement of parapsychology.

The role of consciousness
The proposed model is also synthesizing some of the key findings on PK research. If unconscious processes are at the centre of psi effects, then consciousness is very much in the way when it is time to produce psi effects. It is for this reason that most parapsychologists think that spontaneous psi effects are stronger than the ones produced in laboratory or experimental settings, and that “ongoing psi on demand” is all but an impossible task. Batcheldor[2] noted that in his group PK experiment he had to use all kind of tricks to get people mind off the experiment (like using humour, playing illusionist tricks, etc.) so that the unconscious can act without interference from the consciousness. Pamela Heath, in her extensive survey of PK research[3] found that the suspension of the intellect, altered states of consciousness, dissociation, openness to emotions, meditative states were keys to produce PK effects. Once again, the conclusion is that consciousness has to be circumvented.

This fundamental issue in parapsychology is represented in the model by the difference between the red and green lines. The red line represents spontaneous psi effects which are circumventing consciousness, while the green line represents the conscious task to produce psi effects in experimental conditions that is then setup in a way where the unconscious is given a chance afterward to circumvent consciousness. Batcheldor was able to do so in his group PK experiment, although it was not easy. It is less than clear if a social-level experiment could be produced in such a way. The fact that an action would be socially known as being “an experiment”, and then finding “social-level distractions” afterward to make the social consciousness “forget” about the experiment so that a social psi effect could occur might be impossible. In other words, given the nature of social relations and social communications, I think it is nearly impossible to do social psi experimentation. The only exception would be to use unethical deception (for instance hooking up with a group of UFO believers, feeding them with believable stories about UFOs having a very particular content, and then see if some of that content emerges in future sightings where a degree of objectivity can be assessed—like multiple unconnected observers). [4] The net result, however, is that there are serious reasons for limiting research on spontaneous social psi. In turn, this has serious consequences. Predictive statements cannot be verified experimentally (the preferred approach in Western science), but only through confirming after the fact how a social psi event unfolded. This is essentially the approach used in the 1952 Washington case study.

Circular nature
The model was not presented as circle essentially due to my very limited artistic abilities. But once a psi effect occurs, it can modify behaviour, which in turn becomes a new element of one’s memory about psi. If one sees a UFO, or has a telepathic feeling, it is very likely that he or she will have a much different attitude in the future about UFOs or ESPs. The circular nature of psi is certainly validated through the well-known notion of declining results in parapsychology. When someone tend to guess correctly more often than normal, then his or her confidence is boosted which in turn is both helping the process in reinforcing the unconscious belief in psi and disabling the process by causing stressful expectations to perform. The more loops in the circuit are completed, the less likely someone will perform because the conscious stress eventually overrides the unconscious belief. In cases where expectations to perform are neutralized, then it is boredom that replaces stress but with the same declining results in the end.

In the case of spontaneous psi, however, the circuit works somewhat differently. A psi event will reinforce the belief in the paranormal, which reinforces the unconscious belief that there is “something” to it. Yet, this “something” has to be attributed to a non-human force or entity so that there is no stress related to performing (it is not me but “it” that does that), and no boredom as it is seen as something extraordinary. This issue is clearly addressed in von Lucadou’s model with the notion of “displacement”, and discussed at length in the 1952 Washington case study. From a social psi perspective, it is critical for spontaneous social psi effects to continuing occurring to have a community of believers, be it about aliens, ghosts, demons, etc., to create such a displacement. In the proposed model, this translates in the creation of new social representations, or the reinforcement of existing representations. UFOs, which are simply Unidentified Flying Objects, were rapidly equated with extra-terrestrial visitors in spite of having very little evidence to support such a view. But without such social representations, a “semi-permanent” displacement towards the non-human to explain social psi effects cannot occur at the social level. In other words, contrary to von Lucadou’s model which is dealing with small groups of people’s (family or co-workers) belief that a ghost is responsible for the events and where the events eventually dissipates , social-scale phenomena like UFOs need to be continuously reinforced by an ongoing active belief system (what would be in von Lucadou’s terminology an “ongoing displacement”). That’s one of the key differences between the individual level and the social level.

This synthesis from parapsychology plays in particular ways at each step of the circuit, and these will be discussed in the next post.


[1] Rhine, J.B. (1954). “The science of nonphysical nature”. Journal of Philosophy 51: 801-810.
[2] Batcheldor, Kenneth J. (1984). “Contributions to the theory of PK induction from sitter-group work”. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 78(2): 105-122.
[3] Heath, Pamela Rae. (2003). The PK Zone: A cross-cultural review of psychokinesis. Lincoln: iUniverse.
[4] For those who are strong believers in conspiracy theory, such an experimental scenario might be the most realistic one about UFOs, science, and governmental authorities.


Eric Ouellet © 2010

A Research Program: UFO waves

Some basic methodological considerations

A very wide-range of topics can be used to study how psi-related phenomena, but not all of them, are linked to social dynamics. Given the limited resources available to a single researcher like me, pragmatic choices have to be made to maximize the return on the time invested. The challenge here is that psi-related phenomena must be amenable to sociological analysis, and therefore must go beyond the individual in terms of the key unit of analysis. Again, most of the work in parapsychology, being a sub-discipline of psychology, has for its foundational unit of analysis the individual. Theoretical conclusions from parapsychology will be used, but most empirical data will not as the basic unit of analysis is different.

For instance, it is possible, in theory, to see telepathy as a social phenomenon, if one aggregates individual experiences and then look for collective patterns and dynamics. But from a pragmatic standpoint, it is very difficult to do. How can one have access to mass data about individual experiences of telepathy without being quickly overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of such task? Furthermore, most of the data available is essentially laboratory experiments from parapsychologists taken outside the normal social environment. The rest is anecdotal and therefore very hard to use in a systematic way. Yet, theoretical conclusions from parapsychology such as telepathy and other psi-related faculties seem to be based in unconscious processes is, indeed, very valuable to parasociology.

So, a sound research program in parasociology should be guided by specific criteria. The first one is data should be already collective in nature (e.g. about a society, or some specific sub-groups in a society). The second criterion is data be available from open sources, which is usually the case when dealing with social phenomena. A third criterion is that if parasociology looks at “how society is possible”, then it is easier to explore “abnormal” situations where social tensions emerge. This is a usual way of doing business in social sciences, simply because these situations can reveal how people are linked together when the bond is actually missing or weakened. (For instance, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, industrialization was causing enormous strains on Western societies, and this is how the “father” of modern sociology, Émile Durkheim, developed his classical sociological theory about the different forms of social solidarities). Hence, unusual paranormal events, given the assumptions and hypotheses described in the previous posts, should be signs that the social link is under tension. Otherwise, if specific paranormal events, at the social level, cannot be linked to specific social tensions, then parasociology cannot be tested.

UFO waves as case studies

Given the above criteria, it appears that UFO waves would constitute good cases for parasociology. UFO waves are by definition social phenomena, as they are noted and persistent observations of UFOs by a wide array of people. UFO waves eventually become public through mass media and other forms of open source information. Historically, there have been several UFO waves, for which there is a fair amount of information available from open source. Lastly, it is event-based, as it is possible to estimate a start and an end date, even if those dates maybe not 100% free of debate. Hence it is possible to at least attempt to correlate a specific UFO wave with specific social tensions in a specific society. In other words, UFO waves are testable from the point of view of parasociology.

Another important factor is that with the analysis of several historical UFO waves, it is possible to generate a list of social factors closely associated with UFO waves. These factors in turn can be developed into predictive factors to further test parasociology to assess under what conditions and when the next major UFO wave may occur. This additional possibility makes, at least theoretically, parasociology falsifiable, a major criterion for positivist science. Dialogue with positivist scientific communities is therefore possible.

Why not ufology instead of parasociology?

One may wonder, if the starting research program of parasociology is UFO waves, then why not simply embrace ufology? This is a good question. The short answer, however, is that ufology and parasociology have different approaches. Ufology tries to discover and prove what UFOs are, and so far has failed to do so. Parasociology tries to discover social paranormal linkages and prove how they work. In the case of parasociology, UFOs are just one expression of such linkages; one among others. Yet, if parasociology succeeds then ufology will have more to say than before. In other words, parasociology is more promising than ufology.

There are also other reasons to not pursue UFO waves from a ufological perspective. The main one is that establishing any dialogue with ufologists, particularly in North America, without first fully espousing the “nuts-and-bolts” approach to UFOs is almost impossible. Jacques Vallée described very eloquently the situation in a 2006 interview with the online magazine SUB ROSA, when answering the following question:

“SUB ROSA: What are your thoughts on the state of ufology in 2006?

Jacques Vallée: It’s a mess. There is valuable research going on, but it is carried out by individuals working with almost no financial or logistical resources. The few scientists who are still actively involved are forming a new version of the old “Invisible College,” communicating privately to stay away from the sensationalism that has taken over the field. As for what remains of the organized groups, they are not playing the role of disseminating information, conducting field research or encouraging critique and open debate. They are little more than lobbies for a particular point of view. This is a pity, because periods of low UFO activity like the current one present the best opportunity to do quiet research. By centering the whole discussion of the phenomenon on highly-charged, but poorly-researched issues like Roswell and abductions, ufologists have lost credibility, alienated the scientific public and opened the floodgates to hundreds of Internet sites where the wildest rumors circulate. No wonder serious researchers are going underground!”

That is said, quality research done by ufologists will be integrated to the parasociology research program, as some of it attempts to understand the paranormal and parapsychological dimensions of UFOs, as well as their social ones. The wheel will not be reinvented, as much as it is possible. But crooked wheels and flat tires will be discarded without hesitation. The quality material from ufology will be the object of an ongoing literature review. The first instalment will be provided as part of the next few posts, and any new discovery on my part, will be posted in the form of book or article review.

Copyright © 2008 Eric Ouellet

Paranormal or Psi?

In my previous post, I have used the words “paranormal” and “psi” interchangeably to ease the presentation of parasociology. However, it is now time to provide some clarifications. In the context of parasociology, the word paranormal is used as a descriptor for those phenomena that are outside the norm, and that defy conventional explanations, such as UFO, ghosts, telepathy, etc. The word “psi” is used in the same way as it is used in parapsychology, i.e. it describes a human faculty that is at the origin of paranormal phenomena.

Psi instead of psychic phenomena

This above statement leads to a second core hypothesis of parasociology, and constitutes by the same token a key ontological assumption: paranormal phenomena are objective products of the human mind. From this stand point, although studies done under the auspices of psychical research may yield interesting results, the assumption that some paranormal phenomena are the product of non-human entities (e.g., aliens, ghosts, demons, etc.) is not retained. Hence, parasociology formally builds on parapsychology, as it shares the same ontological assumption. Many would argue here that research requires to keep an open mind and to let facts speak for themselves. This is a simplistic and inaccurate view of scientific work.
Keeping an open mind: what does it mean?

If one really wants to keep an open mind as implied by many, then he or she has to take into consideration the entire universe while researching. For instance, if one studies an alleged UFO landing, then he or she has to take into consideration what is the preferred meal of the witness, what the mayor of his/her hometown did that day, what was the name of his/her first girlfriend/boyfriend, etc, etc. Obviously, this does not make any sense. Why? Because people take only into consideration what they think of as “relevant” facts, otherwise it would lead simply unmanageable research. Any research actually keeps only a tiny amount of facts from that standpoint. The key questions are which facts are kept and which ones are discarded, and more importantly why? Real research requires that key assumptions are made very explicit and transparent so that others know how and why certain facts are included and excluded. The assumptions may turn out to be wrong, but because they were explicit from the onset it is possible to go back and find out where is the problem.

The other issue is that facts don’t speak for themselves. Facts are constructions that attempt to make sense of our surroundings. How they are constructed has also a lot of impact on “what they say and don’t say”. This is because when facts are collected, to be facts, one has to define what he or she is collecting. For instance, it is well-known that many ufologists collecting facts on a sighting (i.e. interviewing witnesses) tend to not take into consideration elements of the testimony that give the impression that the “craft” was not all that solid. Hence, the facts collected are overwhelmingly about “solid crafts”, and surprise-surprise, the same ufologists let the facts say that indeed UFOs are solid objects. Such ufologists cannot claim they were open-minded. They should rather say that they are pursuing the so-called “extra-terrestrial hypothesis,” and for now exclude any other facts. This way of doing research provides to others the possibility of understanding where you are coming from, where you are going, and how you plan to get there. By doing so, by being transparent, one opens himself/herself to constructive criticism and therefore can improve his/her work. This is what having an open mind is all about. To keep an open mind, therefore, is to take one’s assumptions for what they are: tools to help us to distinguish between the “noise” and the “signal”, and accept that these tools are imperfect and may require change or tune up along the way. What is to avoid is take assumptions for beliefs. Beliefs is for believers and people engaged in religious or spiritual endeavours, not for scientific research.

Why parapsychology and not psychical research approach?

Modern parapsychology has a large body of quality research already available on the paranormal and the research is continuing. There is no point to reinvent the wheel with the limited resources that a researcher like me can put on parasociology. The choice is essentially a pragmatic one.

The psychical approach is not retained for reasons that are more epistemological in nature. As stated above, studies in psychical research have provided useful studies, but the interpretations and conclusions they contain are not kept if they imply that paranormal phenomena are the product of non-human entities. The reason being that such assumption makes scientific research impossible. Sociology, and therefore parasociology, are possible because we can study human beings. They can be studied in an experimental way, by creating conditions similar to laboratory where variables can be more or less controlled. More often, however, human beings are studied in situ, i.e. in their normal environment. To do so, a good dose of interpretation is required to understand why communities and societies are behaving the way they do. It can be done because the researcher as human being too is able to understand other human being, and is able to engage in a dialogue with humans. This second approach, less known to people who never studied social sciences, is actually the most common one and it is well established. For more, one can look to the classical analysis of Max Weber on interpretative understanding, Berger and Luckmann’s famous book on the social construction of reality, Goffman’s studies in symbolic interactionism, or Habermas’ work on communication (to name a few).

If one is studying non-human entities that appear to call the shots as to when and how they manifest themselves, then it is impossible to study such phenomena. The experiment is not possible given their capacity to avoid human if they want to. As well, given that they are not human they constitute true otherness, and therefore their motivations and intents are simply incomprehensible, and thus prevent meaningful in situ research.

Copyright © 2008 Eric Ouellet

What is parasociology?

Short explanation: Parasociology is a new branch of sociology dedicated to the study of how societies and paranormal or “psi” phenomena interact. In other words, parasociology is to sociology what parapsychology is to psychology.

Full explanation: To understand what parasociology is, it is important to explain first what sociology is, and how this discipline has studied the paranormal so far.

Sociology 101
Sociology is the mother discipline of all social sciences. Its original focus was to explain how societies are possible, and how can we live together in large and complex groups? It is no surprise that sociology emerged during the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s. Western societies were becoming rapidly and increasingly complex and urbanized, causing major changes such as less people involved in agriculture and more involved in industrial waged labor; rapid demographic growth and its associate pressures on public infrastructures; creation of a large business owners class and labor unions to defend the interest of industrial workers; a lesser role for religion, etc.

The first sociologists, such as Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim, Max Weber, looked into how the new industrial society was able to continue existing in spite of major social changes. They emphasize different aspects: Marx focused on the dynamics of social class conflicts; Durkheim emphasized the evolving role of social institutions such as religion; while Weber looked into how shared understanding and acceptance of cultural patterns (such as working for bureaucratic organizations) contribute to maintaining societies together.

Over time, sociology became more specialized. A series of sub-disciplines emerged to provide a more detailed account of how narrowly defined social phenomena play their part in making society possible, such as sociology of the family, sociology of the professions, political sociology, sociology of science, sociology of gender, sociology of religions, etc.

Starting with the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, sociology took what many called a “critical turn.” For many sociologists, the discipline was not only there to understand social phenomena, but also to change society by uncovering and denouncing unfair social patterns such as colonialist attitudes, sexism, racism, etc. In many ways, sociology has been effective, as Western societies became more aware of these injustices, and implemented measures to address them such as maternity leave programs for women protecting their job, zero-tolerance programs against racism in school, etc.

Sociology, however, has become victim of its own success. Most social injustices are now well-known and well-researched, and at least partly addressed through various public welfare programs. Hence, many sociologists are now digging for increasingly minute issues and injustices that are quite irrelevant for the majority of the population such as alternate sexuality, radical eco-feminism, economic disparity among trans-gendered communities, etc.

ParasociologyParasociology, first of all, breaks away from sociology’s increasing social irrelevance by going back to its fundamental question: what makes society possible? One may ask what this has to do with the paranormal? Well, paranormal phenomena have been described and discussed in one form or another as far as written records go back in time. They might have been described under other names such as magic, shamanism, miracles, etc. But they are a permanent fixture of human societies. Then, it is not irrational to think that the paranormal may have something to do with making society possible.

Early sociologists and anthropologists, like Marcel Mauss and Herbert Spencer, noticed the important role that magic and religion play in human societies. They extensively studied magical practices in so-called primitive societies (primitive to be understood here as “primal”, i.e., structured like the first human societies in history). But their main focus was the belief in magic and how such belief plays a role in structuring social interactions (e.g., the social role of the shaman in a tribe). This approach to the paranormal was extended later on to the study of Western societies through researches on beliefs in UFOs, ghosts, etc. Sociologists doing this type of research are usually considered as belonging to the sub-disciplines of sociology of religion, and sociology of knowledge and science (when it focuses on the belief in “pseudo-sciences” such as ufology, psychic research, etc). Sociologists conducting this type of research, with very few exceptions, tend to be either uncommitted about the existence of paranormal phenomena or reject them outright as superstitions.

Although the study of beliefs in the paranormal has its own merit, and it is likely that paranormal phenomena cannot have an objective reality without first having people subjectively believing in them, but let’s be absolutely clear here, parasociology is NOT primarily about studying the belief in the paranormal. Instead, parasociology takes note of the substantial amount of work done in parapsychology. Like parapsychologist Dean Radin has shown in his recent books, paranormal phenomena do exist beyond any reasonable doubt. Thus, we are now beyond the point of trying to prove their existence. It is now time to understand how they work. This constitutes a fundamental distinction with previous sociological works on the paranormal.

If parasociology builds on parapsychology, it is also different from it. Parapsychology, being a sub-discipline of psychology, emphasizes the individual dimension of paranormal experiences. The collective or social dimension remains largely unstudied with a few exceptions. The most notable of these exceptions are parapsychological research projects like Global Consciousness, and those who propose a new understanding of Carl Jung’s concept of collective unconscious. In this last case, the concept of collective unconscious (which has the same origins as Durkheim’s conept of collectiove consciousness) is construed as going beyond supposing that we share, as individuals, “hard wired” archetypes, and accepts that the collective unconscious is much dynamic and actively interacting with the social environment.

Inspired by these researches in parapsychology that highlight the possibility of a social “psi”, parasociology, then, posits as its central hypothesis that paranormal or “psi” phenomena are observable outcomes of one of the social “glues” that make society possible.

Copyright © 2008 Eric Ouellet