Originally Published 2009. Anomaly: Journal of Research Into the Paranormal. Vol. 43, pp. 24-36. This article will attempt to explore the potential contribution of anthropology to the study of the paranormal. I will be paying particular attention to the experiences of two anthropologists, E.E. Evans-Pritchard (1902-1973) and Edith Turner, who both recorded “paranormal” experiences while conducting fieldwork. I will consider the differences in approach these two anthropologists utilised when documenting their “anomalous experience”. I will explore the anthropological approach to data retrieval and interpretation, as well as more general philosophical standpoints, in order to asses the potential benefits such methodologies might have on the investigation of the paranormal. This article will conclude by demonstrating the importance of complete immersion and engagement with the paranormal if it is to be understood. Approaching the Paranormal… The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term “paranormal” as: “Designating supposed psychical events and phenomena such as clairvoyance or telekinesis whose operation is outside the scope of the known laws of nature orof normal scientific understanding; of or relating to such phenomena” The realm of the paranormal is, perhaps, one of the most controversial areas of scientific exploration. There has long been a rivalry between those who would claim that the paranormal is a tangible reality and those who denounce any such claims and beliefs as ill-founded, irrational and false. It is interesting to note the fact that, even after centuries of investigation, the debate is still raging today. Perhaps it is an insoluble puzzle (interestingly the Collins Pocket Dictionary defines paranormal as “beyond scientific explanation”). Indeed, parapsychologist George P. Hansen (2001) has argued that paranormal phenomena are inherently anti-structurual and paradoxical. Their very nature is such, and they cannot be reduced to anything less than ambiguity. But what do I mean when I use the term paranormal? In the context of this article the term will be used to refer to a variety of different phenomena in general “whose operation is outside the scope…of normal scientific understanding”, including; clairvoyance, clairaudience, mediumship, mystical/religious/spiritual experience, UFO abduction, apparitions, near death and out of body experiences telekinesis, telepathy and so on. All of these phenomena are not currently accepted (at least in the majority of instances) as suitable subjects for scientific investigation; they are anomalous. The study of the paranormal, in any sense of the word “study” (whether parapsychological, psychological, anthropological, etc.), poses the researcher with a number of theoretical difficulties. These difficulties are deeply rooted within our scientific tradition (Laughlin jr., 1988, 12), which has built itself upon certain philosophical foundations that provide a rigid structure to the scientific method. This is an important point; the very nature of what we define as “paranormal” is determined by our conception of what science is and is not. The 19th century sociologist Émile Durkheim (1868-1917) pointed out just this fact when discussing the notion of the supernatural in his book The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (2008): “… the idea of the supernatural, as we understand it, is of recent vintage…. In order to call certain phenomena supernatural, one must already have the sense that there is a natural order of things, in other words, that the phenomena of the universe are connected to one another according to certain necessary relationships called laws” (2008, 28) The laws we utilise to distinguish the supernatural, or paranormal, from the natural are derived from our scientific perspective. One of the key philosophical stand-points of modern science is positivism. Positivism, as defined by the French philosopher and founding sociologist Auguste Comte (1798-1857), is an epistemological stand-point that is concerned only with what can be scientifically apprehended, and not with issues of metaphysics or speculation: “In…the positive state, the mind has given over the vain search after absolute notions, the origin and destination of the universe, and the causes of phenomena, and applies itself to the study of their laws, that is, their invariable relations of succession and resemblance. Reasoning and observation, duly combined, are the means of this knowledge” (Comte, 1853 [1976], 19) It is from this “positive state” that science has been exploring the physical world for well over 150 years; a process that has led to an increasingly materialistic perspective: material objects are, after all, readily apprehendable by our physical senses and as such are perfect for the application of science in order to be understood. Positivism is concerned with this aspect of reality and not with metaphysical speculation as to more subtle facets of existence (although modern quantum physics is increasingly concerned with less and less tangible aspects of reality). This stand-point assumes that the world can be adequately comprehended using traditional western notions of reason, entirely based upon what can be directly observed, often referred to as empiricism. Empiricism places great significance on that which can be directly apprehended utilizing our physical senses. Anomalous experiences bring the assumption that positivistic laws adequately account for all experiential observations into question, particularly when such observations are made by individuals trained in the application of a scientific perspective. Indeed, many researchers, both in the laboratory and in the field, have encountered such anomalies, and have reported them regardless of academic biases against them. This highlights the issue of the scientific paradigm, a concept proposed by the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) in his groundbreaking book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1973). Kuhn argued that science progresses in “revolutions”, whereby one scientific tradition establishes itself as dominant only later to be succeeded by a new mode of understanding the world; revolutions based upon new discoveries and methods of investigation. Kuhn defined a scientific paradigm as: “…an accepted example of actual scientific practice – examples include law, theory, application, and instrumentation together – [that] provide models from which spring coherent traditions of scientific research” (1973, 10) These “coherent traditions” develop and establish themselves as orthodox within the scientific community; research and investigation into the universe proceeds from the accepted perspective. Kuhn suggested that these traditions reject observations that fail to fit within their conception of the world until, eventually, evidence demands a reconsideration. Up until the point of reconsideration, relationships between the two opposing factions can be sour to say the least, with the dominant view condemning that of the upstart as unfounded, ridiculous or impossible. This is the sentiment felt by many scientific investigators of the paranormal; they feel that they are being rejected and ignored because their explanations for certain experimentally replicable phenomena (Beischel, 2008), do not fit within the dominant scientific world-view. Anomalous experiences imply, therefore, either that the laws we have established to explain the phenomena of the world around us are incomplete, or that there is no intrinsic reality to those claims made by experiencers of anomalistic phenomena. There is, however, reason to treat claims to paranormal experience seriously. The 19th century psychologist and philosopher William James (1842–1910) made this abundantly clear in his classic work The Varieties of Religious Experience (2004). In this book James analyses phenomenological reports from numerous individuals claiming to have been privy to mystical, religious or supernatural experiences, and in so doing highlights the compelling similarities between such accounts. Other researchers of different phenomena have also found this to be the case. The Harvard psychiartist John E. Mack (1929–2004), for instance, was compelled to take the claims of alleged UFO abductees seriously because of the impressive interpersonal commonalities in reports of these experiences (Mack, 1994). If we can accept, then, that there is something tangible to the numerous claims of paranormal experience we must investigate them fully in as many ways as possible. What can anthropology tell us? Anthropology, as a discipline, is concerned with the study of human culture and behaviour utilising the scientific method, it is wholly a product of the western scientific endeavour (Barnard, 2000, 1-2). Consequently, anthropology has long had to tackle with the concept of the supernatural, as a great amount of human culture and behaviour is constructed around such notions. Early anthropologists, such as Sir E.B. Tylor (1832-1917), argued that notions of supernatural realms and spiritual beings have their origins in dreams and the sensations associated with them. Tylor considered that our awareness of other realms derives from falsely believing that the experiences we encounter during sleep, and various trance states represent a distinct reality: “When the sleeper awakens from a dream, he believes he has really somehow been away, or that other people have come to him” (Tylor, 1930, 88) This argument is somewhat reductive, and ignores the reports of those who have undergone paranormal, or anomalistic, experiences. Very often an experiencer will specifically state that the experience they have undergone was "more real" than a dream. According to the old evolutionist schemes in anthropology, supernatural beliefs and conceptions were held to be primitive hangovers from a bygone age. Sir James Frazer (1854-1941), in his voluminous exploration of human mythology, The Golden Bough (1993), suggested that human evolutionary development proceeded through 3 stages: the magical, the religious and the scientific. According to this framework anthropology considered belief in paranormal phenomena, and a supernatural world, to be primitive conceptions destined to be superseded by a scientific outlook, inevitably culminating in extinction. To some extent this view continues to dominate academe. Such evolutionary models are, however, highly reductionist, and fail to accord with the ethnographic data. Contrary to the suggestion of this model supernatural and paranormal beliefs have not disappeared, even within what we might call “modern secular society”. The sociologist Peter Berger has written of how elements of supernatural belief are still to be found even within the most “advanced” of modern secular societies: “For whatever reasons, sizeable numbers of the specimen ‘modern man’ have not lost a propensity for awe, for the uncanny, for all those possibilities that are legislated against by the canons of secularized rationality. These subterranean rumblings of supernaturalism can, it seems, coexist with all sorts of upstairs rationalism” (Berger, 1971, 39) This simple fact fundamentally negates the evolutionist perspective that magical, religious and scientific perspectives are exclusive from one another. They are not incompatible. In the 20th century, approaches to anthropological investigation developed rapidly. After the work of Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942), the founding father of British Social Anthropology, anthropological theory placed much greater import on the methodology of participant observation, which can be defined as the process: “…by which fieldworkers attempt to achieve ethnographic understanding through an artful synthesis of ‘insider’, ‘subjective’ participation and ‘outsider’, ‘objective’ observation” (Erickson & Murphy, 2003) Anthropologists are trained observers; like any other scientists they go into the field/laboratory to gather information for analysis with the purpose of forming general theories that might be applied to other societies, or even the human sphere at large. The success of an anthropological theory, from this perspective, might be deduced from it’s applicability to societies other than the anthropologists specific field of investigation. Anthropological fieldwork is usually centred within a community. The anthropologist operates on the ground-level; in the reality of social life. Observations of interactions between individuals and between groups are made, inferences about the way in which culture influences the lifestyle and behaviour of the group are made, kinship, economic, political and religious systems are explored and their relationship to the individual investigated. These are just some of the social elements interesting to anthropologists, indeed there are countless others. The point is, though, that anthropology is specifically concerned with people and how they live their lives. How can this perspective be incorporated into the investigation of the paranormal? Paranormal claims are made by human beings; people who live with their beliefs and experiences within a wider community. Quite simply anthropology can provide us with a means to explore how people live with their beliefs and experiences within a social group, and how they make them meaningful. Anthropology can help us to explore the experience within a wider social and cultural context. In Structural Anthropology Vol.1 (1986), Claude Lévi-Strauss distinguishes between the supernatural as a “thought-of” order, as opposed to a “lived-in” order (like kinship systems and social organization, for example). I feel, however, that the supernatural can also be investigated as a “lived-in” order. As already mentioned earlier the conception of the supernatural/paranormal is dependent upon our perception of the world as consisting of immutable physical laws. To others (and even to many within our own society), the supernatural/paranormal reality is an everyday component of life; it is lived with and experienced as normal. This is particularly true for those who live their lives in the knowledge that they have clairvoyant, clairaudient, mediumistic or other psychic gifts, or amongst families living with poltergeist activity and so on. Subject/Object breaks down… Anthropologists also report anomalous experiences (Evans-Pritchard, 1973, 11; Turner, 1993; McClennon & Nooney, 2002; Richards, 2003), but they do so in different ways. The cases of Evans-Pritchard and Edith Turner will be used as examples of the way in which anthropologists interpret anomalous experiences. Evans-Pritchard’s classic text Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande (1973), contains an account of a late night encounter with discarnate witchcraft: “I have only once seen witchcraft on its path. I had been sitting late in my hut writing notes. About midnight, before retiring, I took a spear and went for my usual nocturnal stroll. I was walking in the garden at the back of my hut…when I noticed a bright lightpassing at the back of my servants’ huts towards the homestead of a man called Tupoi” (1973, 11) On recounting this experience to his informants, Evans-Pritchard was told that what he had seen was an “emanation” from the body of a witch (which is lying in bed), sent out to “remove the psychical part of his victim’s organs” (ibid.). Incidentally, a man living in the direction in which the light was moving was later to be found dead in his hut. Despite receiving the “native” interpretation of what he had witnessed that night, in his write-up Evans-Pritchard says: “I never discovered its real origin, which was possibly a handful of grass lit by someone on his way to defecate, but the coincidence of the direction along which the light moved and the subsequent death accorded well with Zande ideas” (ibid.) This is one approach to anomalous experiences: to admit that an experience has occurred, but to suggest that it’s true cause is most probably explainable in conventional terms and consequently does not accord with the “indigenous” understanding of the event. It is perhaps a product of the positivist ideal; to make observations but not to speculate on the nature of what is being experienced. Edith Turner (1993) has referred to the response of modern science’s dominant paradigm to the paranormal as that of “positivists’ denial” (9). In a discussion of her experiences during the ihamba healing ceremony amongst the Ndembu, Edith Turner breaks down the barrier of “positivists denial” when talking of the “grey energy” she saw extracted from the back of a suffering patient. She is clearly calling for a new means of approaching this intriguing subject that does not break down “indigenous” beliefs into categories entirely removed from their own understanding of what they have, and continually, experienced: “Again and again anthropologists witness spirit rituals, and again and again some indigenous exegete tries to explain that spirits are present… And the anthropologist proceeds to interpret them differently… We anthropologists need training to see what the Natives see” (1993, 11). Turner’s solution to the problem is the investigation of supernatural beliefs from an interior perspective; that is through deep participant observation. To my mind this form of deep participant observation calls for an almost metaphysical approach to understanding a culture (an essentially un-positivistic standpoint). “Turner is calling for a return to holism among anthropologists. However, this holism goes beyond a simple return to the holism of anthropology's earlier days of somewhat distanced reporting of the Other. It is one that seeks an experiential union with the Other and not only a respect for the spirituality of the Other but also an acceptance of it” (Salamone, 2001, 155) Through abandoning the strictures of positivism anthropologists can discover the inherent logic in the “supernatural beliefs” of the group or society under study. If the anthropologist is allowed to encounter the “supernatural experience” directly they are able to actually see how an experience can call for a different interpretation of reality. Faced with the facts of experience an anthropologist, like any human being, will drawconclusions and make inferences. Through this process a greater insight into the conclusions and inferences of the group under study can also be gained; it is actually possible to get at the first cause of a set of beliefs. Just pursuing this simple avenue can lead the anthropologist into a much deeper understanding of not only the individual, but of his/her beliefs and experiences as well. The anthropologist Zeljko Jokic, in his paper on the initiation of Yanomamo shamans (2008), gained a great insight into the cognitive life-world of the people he was studying. Through participating fully in the initiation ceremony himself, including the ingestion of the psychoactive snuff Yopo (containing DMT), Jokic was able to experience culturally significant states of awareness that he could not have encountered in any other way: “I treat my own experiences not only as subjective, isolated events of my own intentionality of consciousness but as an intersubjective dialogic product arising within the interpersonal field of social relations. Shamanism for me is a point of intersubjective entry into the Yanomami lifeworld, and the resulting experiences are the window that provides my own subjective insights into that world” (Jokic, 2008, 36) If we apply this mode of inquiry to the supernatural the insights could be vitally significant to the way in which we approach the scientific study of the paranormal, we could approach paranormal phenomena from an “as if” perspective and learn from within. It is interesting to note the similarity between this approach to exploring these phenomena and the philosophical writings of both mystics and scientists. In this example, quoted by Lawrence LeShan in his book The Medium, the Mystic and the Physicist (1974), Rehit Mehta expresses a mystical viewpoint which pre-empts Turner’s call for subjective participation in spirit phenomena: “There are indeed fundamentally two categories of knowledge – Knowledge by Ideation and Knowledge by Being. All scientific knowledge, whether physical or super-physical, belongs to the first category. Such knowledge is based on the duality of the observer and the observed. In spiritual perception, however, there is Knowledge by Being – it arises in that state where the duality of the observer and the observed has vanished. This is the very core of direct or what is otherwise called the Mystical experience” (Rehit Mehta, as cited by LeShan, 1974, 54) What Edith Turner is advocating is an approach that utilizes “Knowledge of Being”, an approach which analyses experiential claims from an experiential perspective. It is clear, then, that in order to understand these phenomena and their cultural interpretations (which is the goal of ethnographic investigation) it is necessary to approach them on their own level – what LeShan (1974) calls the “Clairvoyant Reality” (34) (the term clairvoyant means “clear seeing”), indeed it stands to reason that we should have to explore from within; just as the anthropologist must leave his/her home and enter another community. You cannot investigate without engaging with the object of investigation. It is interesting how this immersive approach to the investigation of anomalous experiences is, in essence, one and the same as the process required to be undertaken for the experience to be experienced at all. It is an initiation into another mode of interpreting existence. In many respects it is the equivalent of a shamanic initiation in itself. This approach is marvelously enlightening, particularly with regard to understanding experiences and their cultural interpretations. When conducting fieldwork for my dissertation (Hunter, 2009), at a home-circle dedicated to the development of trance and physical mediumship (Di Nucci, 2009), I opted to take the immersive approach to participant observation recommended by Edith Turner, and as a consequence had some anomalous experiences of my own. I won’t go into detail about these experiences now, but the point is that simply having such experiences gave me a much more complete understanding of the beliefs and practices of the group I was investigating. This degree of “hands on” approach enables the anthropologist to analyze directly the same experiential data around which belief and practice systems have developed; you can see for yourself how logically practices and beliefs relate to experiences, while without that insight they would seem illogical and entirely irrational. Experience… An anthropological approach to the paranormal would be a phenomenological one; an immersive form of experiential anthropology. The term phenomenology refers to the study of the experience of the objects of experience, without the necessity to ascertain whether the object being experienced is real or not. From this perspective all experiential phenomena are placed on the same plateau; they are all as valid as each other, whether the experience is of a table or an angel. From this perspective the anthropologist can enter into his/her fieldwork without automatically assuming that the beliefs and practices of the people he/she is studying are based on falsities. It breeds a necessary relativism; no view is absolute or immutable and all experiences are valid. The anthropologist can now study from a human perspective without attempting to maintain an illusory sense of objectivity. The human perspective is necessary when trying to understand paranormal beliefs and practices; we need to engage with them naturally and unashamedly to appreciate the subtle depths in which they are rooted. An important concept to understand when considering supernatural beliefs and practices is what the folklorist David Hufford (1982) has termed the “experiential source hypothesis”. This hypothesis holds that religious/supernatural/paranormal beliefs do not have their basis entirely in cultural notions (as the cultural source hypothesis would suggest), but that rather they are rooted in phenomenological experiences, which, at the very least, are real to the experiencer. The experiential source hypothesis does not definitively state whether the experiences reported are grounded in what might be termed a “supernatural reality”, but neither does it suggest that all experiences are the product of hallucination, illness or mal-observation. What the experiential source hypothesis suggests to us, then, is that we must take experiential claims seriously. Moves have been made over the course of the last 25 years to take anthropology into a new paradigm of thought with regard to issues of the paranormal, or what is now referred to as “psi” (Schroll & Schwartz, 2005). The Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness (SAC) was officially recognized by the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in 1989, and since then has provided an avenue for anthropologists to explore the issue of consciousness, and related phenomena, in the field. Much of the SACs work is concerned with: “… states of consciousness (both "normal" and "altered"), possession, trance, and dissociative states; religion; ethnographic studies of shamanistic, mediumistic, mystical, and related traditions; indigenous healing practices; linguistic, philosophical, social, and symbolic studies of consciousness phenomena; and anomalous phenomena, including the roles these play in traditional and modern cultural practices” (www.sacaaa.org) Anthropology is beginning to take these issues seriously. No longer is it necessary to be bound by what Edith Turner called “positivists’ denial”. The anthropological method lends itself particularly well to the study of such matters; it is an immersive methodology – it is experiential. This is perhaps one of the most significant lessons we can learn regarding the paranormal: the necessity of engagement. Conclusion The key issue, to my mind, is that there are experiences out there in the world, which we would term “paranormal”, waiting to be encountered by anyone willing to do so. Regardless of the ontological nature of the experience, it is a valid facet of the human condition – an aspect of our existence every bit as complex and beautiful as any other. As William James said with regard to altered states of consciousness: “No account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded" (James, 2004, 335). Why should we, as researchers, close ourselves off to such experiences? I feel that it would do the endeavour for knowledge and understanding well to realize that there are countless different ways of being in the universe; numerous epistemological standpoints, all equally successful. The American linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941) summed this notion up perfectly in his book Language, Thought & Reality (1956): “Just as it is possible to have any number of geometries other than the Euclidean which give an equally perfect account of space configurations, so it is possible to have descriptions of the universe, all equally valid, that do not contain our familiar contrasts of time and space” (Whorf, 1956, 58) Furthermore, anthropology can enlighten us through cross cultural comparisons, and the theoretical approaches derived from this mode of investigation can allow us to gain fruitful insights. We can learn about general trends in the paranormal beliefs of human beings across the world and how they are incorporated into everyday life. Cross cultural comparison can provide us with insights into the workings not only of distant “exotic” belief structures, but also into our own culture. This is particularly pertinent for what we term the “paranormal” or “supernatural”: we are not the only ones who recognize its existence, and our framework is not the only one used to describe, understand and live with it. References Barnard, A. 2000. History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beischel, J. 2008. Talking With the Dead: Laboratory Investigation of Mediumship.Shift: At the Frontiers of Consciousness. No. 17, pp. 20-24. Berger, P.L. 1971. A Rumour of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural. London: Penguin Books Ltd. Comte, A. 1853. The Positive Philosophy. In K. Thompson & J. Tunstall (eds.) 1976. Sociological Perspectives: Selected Readings. London: Penguin Books Ltd. Di Nucci, C. 2009. Spirits in a Teacup. Great Britain: lulu.com Durkheim, E. 2008. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Erickson, P.A. & Murphy, L.D. 2003. A History of Anthropological Theory. Broadview Press Ltd. Evans-Pritchard, E.E. 1976. Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic among the Azande. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frazer, J. 1993. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. London: Wordsworth Editions Limited. Hansen, G.P. 2001. The Trickster and the Paranormal. United States: Xlibris ltd. Hufford, D.J. 1982. The Terror That Comes in the Night: An Experience-Centred Study of Supernatural Assault Traditions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hunter, J. 2009. Talking With the Spirits: An Experiential Exploration of Contemporary Trance & Physical Mediumship. Unpublished. James, W. 2004. The Varieties of Religious Experience. New York: Barnes & Noble Books. Kuhn, T.S. 1973. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Laughlin jr., C.D. 1988. Transpersonal Anthropology: Some Methodological Issues. Western Canadian Anthropology, No. 5, pp. 29-60. LeShan, L. 1974. The Medium, the Mystic and the Physicist: Toward a General Theory of the Paranormal. Great Britain: Turnstone Press Ltd. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1986. Structural Anthropology Vol. 1. London: Penguin Books Ltd. Mack, J.E. 1994. Abduction: Human Encounters with Aliens. London: Simon & Schuster Ltd. McClennon, J. & Nooney, J. 2002. Anomalous Experiences Reported by Field Anthropologists: Evaluating Theories Regarding Religion. Anthropology of Consciousness, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 46-60. Richards, C. 2003. Problems Reporting Anomalous Observations in Anthropology. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 5–18. Salamone, F.A. 2001. The Tangibility of the Intangible: Beyond Empiricism. Anthropology & Humanism, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 150-157. Schroll, M.A. & Schwartz, S. 2005. Whither Psi and Anthropology? An Incomplete History of SACs Origins, its Relationship with Transpersonal Psychology and the Untold Stories of Castaneda’s Controversy. Anthropology of Consciousness, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 6-24. Turner, E. 1993. The Reality of Spirits: A Tabooed or Permitted Field of Study? Journal for the Anthropology of Consciousness, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 9-12. Tylor, E.B. 1930. Anthropology: An Introduction to the Study of Man and Civilization. London: C.A. Watts and Co. Ltd. Whorf, B.L. 1956. Language, Thought & Reality. Massachusetts: MIT Press. 19 Comments |
