The Making of Extraordinary Psychological Phenomena

Abstract

This article considers the extraordinary phenomena that have been central to unorthodox areas of psychological knowledge. It shows how even the agreed facts relating to mesmerism, spiritualism, psychical research, and parapsychology have been framed as evidence both for and against the reality of the phenomena. It argues that these disputes can be seen as a means through which beliefs have been formulated and maintained in the face of potentially challenging evidence. It also shows how these disputes appealed to different forms of expertise, and that both sides appealed to belief in various ways as part of the ongoing dispute about both the facts and expertise. Finally, it shows how, when a formal Psychology of paranormal belief emerged in the twentieth century, it took two different forms, each reflecting one side of the ongoing dispute about the reality of the phenomena.

From catalepsy to psychical research: The itinerary of Timothée Puel (1812–1890).

“…acceptable for science, which meant mainly disregarding the controversial phenomenon of magnetic lucidity (Lamont, 2012). Braid defined hypnosis as a "nervous sleep state" that was easily induced using a shiny object (Braid, 1843).…”

“…In England, in 1841, Braid witnessed a demonstration of the phenomena of animal magnetism by the Franco-Swiss magnetizer Charles Lafontaine (1803–1892). Against the advice of many of his colleagues, he said that there were still things worth preserving in the corpus of magnetism, even if he broadly distanced himself from his predecessors (Lamont, 2012). Thus, he worked to define a new framework to determine what was acceptable for science, which meant mainly disregarding the controversial phenomenon of magnetic lucidity (Lamont, 2012).…”

“…Against the advice of many of his colleagues, he said that there were still things worth preserving in the corpus of magnetism, even if he broadly distanced himself from his predecessors (Lamont, 2012). Thus, he worked to define a new framework to determine what was acceptable for science, which meant mainly disregarding the controversial phenomenon of magnetic lucidity (Lamont, 2012). Braid defined hypnosis as a “nervous sleep state” that was easily induced using a shiny object (Braid, 1843).…”

“…But this "hypnotism at distance" had already been described in the Husson report of 1831, the most comprehensive study of animal magnetism commissioned by the French Academy of Medicine (Méheust, 1999). At the time of his experimental studies, Janet found himself facing a nonelaborated "remainder" of the magnetic paradigm: the topic of "extraordinary psychological phenomena" (Lamont, 2012). While he was strategically building a coherent epistemology for his career path, Janet eventually opted to repress the strangest phenomena encountered in his hypnotic studies, like "lucid" divinations beyond the limits of perception and chance, keeping only what could be interpreted as the product of hysterical accidents (Plas, 2000).…”

A Tale of Two Congresses: The Psychological Study of Psychical, Occult, and Religious Phenomena, 1900–1909

“…In so far as people conceived of psychical, occult, and religious phenomena as “extraordinary,” they asserted paradoxical claims that made them very difficult for psychologists to study. Thus, as Lamont () has argued, those who make such claims typically presume that the phenomena are objectively verifiable and, at the same time, resistant to scientific explanation. These two claims (then and now) limit comparison, balkanize lines of research, and undercut efforts to see how far science can help us understand events, whether objectively verifiable or not, that people view as “extraordinary.”…”