Mho .4,-, Approved For Release 2003/09/10 CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620001-2 mAnglo-Saxon" vs. "Latin" Parapsychology: Underlying the Communication Barrier Mario P. Varvoglis Laboratoire de Recherche sup les Interactions Psi Based on interviews of French-speaking researcherso an attempt is made to determine some of the issues which may contribute to communication and collaboration problems in parapsychology. It is argued that these problems reflect broader issues than just language barriers. American parapsychologists are the most "successful" of parapsycho- logists, in terms of organization, recognition, funding, and social standing. Insofar as they are in a leadership position, they are largely responsible for defining the field's subiect matter and methods, as well as qualitative standar-ds @Dr experimentation, journal reports, and PA wembership. The situation has contributed to the creation of hier-archical, rather than peer-like, relationships within the field, ir, which "Anglo-Saxon" parapsychology dominates. This tends to alienate 4oneign researchers who disagree with SOW@ of the priorities or approaches of their American colleagues, and who do not wish to feel inferior to them. It is zuqqestf@-d that, if we truly wish to improve international COVITO-trJcAtion and collsboration, we must come to recognize t@-ie sozin-economic, cultural and philosophical relativity of o- nvin approach, and thus be more open to divergences in stvle 4-,nd pl-JIosoph-Y within the field. 316 Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620001-2 Approved For Release 2003/09110 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620OOi-2 "Anglo-Saxon" vs. "Latin" Parapsychology: Underlying the Communication Barrier Mario P. Varvoglis Laboratoire de Recherche sur les Inter-actions Psi Problem? What problem? In his JP paper "The lanquage barrier- in parapsychology", Alvarado deplores the low level of communication and collaboration in i nternat i ona I @,parapsycho I ogy, citing Americans' limited awareness of research or publications in foreign countries, and foreigners' lack of participation in the PA and in Anglo-Saxon psi journals. He proposes several measures to counteract these trpnds@ including the use of travel grants to encourage broader participation in U.S. conventions, and increased efforts to locate and translate foreign publications. But while focusing largely upon these "forroal" measures, Alvarado also cautions that t more basic cultural and philosophical issues may obstruct quick and easy Solutions. In this context, the opening quotes of his article are quite instructive, as they exemplify the divergence in American vs. European perspectives on the status of inter-national collaboration in the field. J,B.Rhine states that there is "a spirit and vitality in the research that is general and international and in no sense localized" while Tenhaeff darkly observes that "some (English and Americans) seem very chauvinistic and seem to belieme that only the researches done in their country are important". Thus, in contrast to Rhine's cheery assessment, Tenhaeff, voicing the point of view of the continent, refers explicitly to "chauvinism" on the part o4 Anglo-Saxon parapsychologists; he seems to be implying that unfamiliarity with foreign works is based on cultural biases and is, hence, suggestive of darker. dynamics than mere ignorance. My own interactions with a number of Europeans active in contemporary parapsychology suggest that the mood in continental Europe has not changed much in the decades since Tenhae+f's statement. Thus, I think that the "language barrier* is just a facet of the communication problem in parapsychologyj indeed, it may be the least significant one. My feeling is that if we seek to address the problem through formal measures alone,. without dealing with deeper issues, we might end up reinforcing, rather than resolving, alienation at mutual intolerance. 317 Approved For Release 2003/09110: CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620001-2 Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620001-2 So in this presentation I would like to analyze some o+ the conflicts which may underli-e the communication barrier. Toward this end, I compare the situations and mentalities of two groups - American vs. French-speaking - in hope that this will also clari+y issues dividing broader groups in our field ("Anglo-Saxon" VS. "Latin", or uNorthern" VS. "Southern"). I must apologize, in advance, +or the stereotyping and "flattening" of individual di++erences associated with this kind of work. In order to render my communication manageable and relatively clear, I present global trends which inevitably caricaturize reality; I hope to be excused for the multiplicity of exceptions to the trends described. In order to gain some perspective on the French views$ I exchanged with a number of researchers who are specifically -familiar with American parapsychology. These exchanges were informal, two-way discussions, in which I first presented the theme of this symposium, and then asked individuals to present their opinions an two questions: what specific issues, if any, might exist between Amer i can (or Anglo-Saxon) and French (or Latin) parapsychologists, and what factors or dynamics may underlie these issues. In all, I was able to exchange with 9 researchers: Pierre Janin, Remy Chauvin, Jean Dierkens, Michel Ange Amorim, Christine Hardy, Jean-Remi Deleage, Francois Favre, Yvonne Duplessis, and Yves Lignon. Given space limitations, I must offer my own synthesis of what they have said, focusing upon a few qlobal areas which, I believe, contribute most to the communication barrier. Socio-economic constraints upon research After a year or two in Franco, one cannot help but feel that French parapsychology is decades behind its counterpart in the U.S.; indeed, it is not clear if it makes sense to re+er to a "field" o+ parapsycholDgy in this country. Recognition of scientific parapsychology is very limited, and external support practically non-existent. Research efforts, involving a few isolated investigators dispersed over the country, are largely sel+-funded, personal affairs. Little distinction is made between a parapsychologist and psychics, clairvoyants or healers: the term "parapsycholoque" can be used liberally by any "practician" who wants to attract clients, and the media further confuse issues by presenting a parapsychologist on the same level with an astrologer, medium, or dowser. Predictably, scientists in various +ields tend to dismiss as unimaginable the possibility of serious parapsychological research. The situation is so bad, that the French scientific journal of parapsychology is called "Journal de Recherche en Psychotronique" - upsychtronics" being seen as less provocative a term than "parapsychology". 318 Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620001-2 Approved For Release 2003109110 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620001-2 In short, French Parapsychology is confronted with a familiar vicious circle. The field is tainted with negative connotations, due to its lack of internal organization or cohesiveness and its limited means. These negative connotations, in turn, discourage scientists frDTA an open identification with parapsychology, isolate those already active in the field, weaken efforts to organize the field as a distinct discipline, and further remove any chance for funding or respectability. Why is the situation so "backwards" in France, one of the most developed and progressive countries in Europe? A partial answer, I believe, can be found by considering the socio-economic structure of the French scientific scene. The socialists have been in power for less than a decade, but centralisation has a very long tradition in France, and extends beyond social services, utilities, banks, public transport, etc., reaching into the core of the country's intellectual and scientific activity. The national research organisation, the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), has a hold on all branches of science, both within Ahe university and in other centers, and essentially constitutes a means for controlling the nature and funding of the scientific enterprise. Centralised political and socio-economic StrUCtUres have proven to be a handicap for innovative research; they are tradition oriented, discouraging bold advances, initiative and change. For example, the universities and (to a lesser degree) the CNRS operate by a kind of "quota" system, and applying for a position is generally possible only following the retirement of someone from the correspondinq post. Even then, approvals must be collected by a seemingly endless review committee, which of course translates into a preference for known quantities, not for newcomers, and certainly not for "strange" topics like parapsychology. it must be recalled that the "rationalist" movement has a very long tradition in France, and is strongly opposed to anything resembling religious, esoteric or occult claims. This is perhaps why efforts to explicitly establish some research within officially approved centers - e.g., the University have generally met V-4 i t h insurmountable resistance. Remy Chauvin was unable to get an official parapsychology chair established, despite the support of one of the most powerful men in French industry and government. NY own attempt to enter the university and the CNRS through the experimental psychology department was unsuccessful. Christine Hardy has some prospects for discreetly establishing some research, in cooperation with some niversity +acul,ty members; but even@ if successful, this research would have no immediate access to funds, and wou I d have to remain hidden behind some innocuous-looking departmental "front". Yves Lignon, a math instructor., has Succeeded in openly maintaining a small psi laborator@ for. a 070062000 -2 Approved For Release 2003109110 : INA-RDP96-00792ROO Approved For Release 2003/09/10: CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620001-2 number of years, at the University of Toulouse; however, the laboratory's existence has never been officially approved from the top, and the university's president openly denies its legitimacy. The survival of this lab would appear to be a pars.normal feat, but can perhaps be explained by Lignon's extensive relations in the media and a tacit threat of a scandal, should anything happen to him. What about less Nformal", privately funded e++orts? Although tax-break measures have been instituted to encourage contributions to non-pro+it organisations, they are still not truly exploited; the French are not as advanced as the Americans in the fine tradition 0+ donations and humanitarian foundations. Thus, research has been largely S914-+Linded, and, invariably, short-term. Christian Moreau, who had been keenly interested in dream telepathy and psi in psychoanalysis, has long since abandoned parapsychology in favor a+ psychiatry. Pierre Janin, the inventor a+ the tychoscope, also left the field to pursue his clinical interests full time. Rene Peach, who conducted a series of successful anpsi studies with Janin's moving-RNG (the t@/choscape), has been progressively forced to abandon the field, and return to his medical practice. Christine Hardy and 1, having established a modest laboratory dedicated to computer-RNG research, are feeling the financial pinch, and are wondering how long we can finance our research. Remy Chauvin has managed to get research done, over the years, but he remains quite isolated, and is now forced to act as his own subject in his experiments, due to his remoteness from major centers. Besides lacking opportunities for conducting research, either within the system or independently of it, French parapsychology also lacks cohesiveness; there is no single organization which well represents the field. The 'Institute Metapsychique International" (IMI), once the well-funded and internationally recognized center of psychical research, is brol/e, and plays practically no role in the field today. GERP, an interdisciplinary ro4lection group which sustained live]--/ interest in parapsychology throughout the seventies, had to +old. Its livelihood was too closely tied to a couple of individuals and thus could not be sustained once they decided to move on. Recently, a new effort toward organizing the +ield has been undertaken by Marc Michel, a co-worker of Yves Lignon. His "Organisation pour la Recherche en Psychotronique" (ORP) is publishing a scientific parapsychological journal, and has organised a research congress and a number o+ work sessions. But while these activities are enhancing inter-researcher cooperation and exchange, they largely depend, once again, upon the good will and work of a single individual; they are not sure to survive shi+ts in his li4e-situation. 320 Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620001-2 Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620001-2 The upper class and all the Rest In general, then, the socio-economic conditions in France render parapsychology a mar9tnal, poorly organized activity, with researchers facing great difficulties conducting research, or even establishing the legitimacy and desirability of such research. This, in turn, means small budgets, limited opportunity for cooperation and exchange with others in the field, and, given the language barrier, little exposure to contemporary Anglo-Saxon parapsychology. By comparison to this situation, the socio-economic conditions for American parapsychologists are quite favorable: the field is well organized, enjoys a growing recoqnition (even by the skeptics), holds reqL@lar national and local conventions, involves research activites both in universities and in independent centers, and has concrete, i 4 sometimes shaky, funding opportunities. Simi lar ly - though to a lesser extent - parapsychologists in northern European Countries generally have better socin-economic "status" than those in Latin countries. 04 course, French researchers welcome the relative success of American parapsychology; it is a Source of hope and encouragement for them, and constitutes a convenient arqu- ment far the legitimacy a+ their own research. At the same time, the higher "social status" a+ American parapsycholo- gists indirectly introduces communication and collaboration problems, insofar as it encourages hierarchical, rather- than peer-like relationships. The dynamic seems reminiscent of that between our field, as a whole, and "establishment science" - only that in the present case it is American parapsychology which is acting as the guardian of scientific purity. Thus the Americans tend to define the field's nature, methods and objectives; inasmuch as they control the PA and the most important journals in the field, they are also in the position a+ enforcing their point a+ view. As a result, the French seem forced to choose between adapting the American style of parapsychology, being ignored, or being labeled "marginal". I've discovered that some French prefer to follow their. instincts rather than to feel like subordinates to American parapsychology. As mentioned, the ORP of the Toulouse group has been attemptinq to promote cooperation and exchange between researchers through a series a+ "work-sessions". One of the first topics discussed in these sessions was the organization a+ a European congress (Euro-Psi), which would Serve as a launching point' for subsequent cooperative research projects. The objective was to eventually establish a trans-European association of psi researchers, which could legitimatize parapsychology after- 1992. 321 -2 0 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620001 Approved For Release 200310911 10 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620001-2 in response to this, i suggested that the basis for European cooperation ir, parapsychology may already exist in the +arm of the EuroPA. I proposed that the French coordinate their e4+orts with the members a+ the EuroPA, and added that, insofar as participation in the EuroPA was restricted to PA members, this would be a good occasion for several French researchers to join the PA. As members of the PA, they could more effectively elicit the cooperation a+ other European parapsychologists, while at the same time establishing a morle prow, i nerit French presence in the internationally recognized organization of scientific parapsychology. I proposed this during two different work sessions, and both times the reactions ranged from cool to hostile. The arguments aqainst my suggestion were at no point clearly phrased or explicated. Rather, from a number of side comments and snide remarks, I gathered that these researchers simply had no desire to join the PA, to adhere to what they perceived as an American (rather than international) organization. Surprisingly, the most negative responses came not from the clinicians or anthropologists, but from those whose work falls most clearly within the Rhinean tradition of experimental parapsychology. this was that I had M.", initial interpretation of all sttkmbled upon a clear cut case a+ territoriality. 1, a foreigner (worse, an American) had invaded the territory of French pa-apsychologists, and, by suggesting that the'y join the PA and EuroPA, was challenging their claim to fame as leaders. in Foropear, parapsychology. I still think this interpretation is partly valid. However, I have since had a rather personal taste of what it's like to be in the shoes of a foreigner seeking to _join the PA. This experience made me realize: that some tacit criteria underlie the explicit PA admission policies, allowing for discrimination against candidates who come from another culture, and have published works outside the officially sanctioned Anglo-Saxon journals. Insofar as admission to the PA is controlled by a committee largely representative a+ American parapsychology, it is easy to see how foreigners can come to the view that the PA is in fact an American, rather than international, organi7ation. It is also quite understandable that they would react aggressively when asked to seek PA membership. Why shot-ild individi-tals who consider themselves prominent in their own country risk a humiliating rejection? Of COUrse, it is possible to defend the need for strict criteria for PA membership, as well as the more general need +or stronq leadership (hence, "hierarchical" relationships) within the field. Given differences in recognition, in numbers, and in -Funding, it could be argued that American parapsycholo@3y is, de facto, the leader in the field. Money trsnslates into improved research conditions, better eq,..kipment, more talent, more extensive exchanges with other IM2 Approved For Release 2003109/10: CIA-RDP 00792ROO0700620001-2 Approved For Release 20,03109110: CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620001-2 scientists, and so forth. Consequently, one could sa@; that, lit,-.e it or not, the Americans have outstripped other y , and have -L Vie researchers i ri competence arid authorit- responsibility of promoting the field as they see fit; in the interest of the field's progresG they must exclude those who don't measure up to the def i ned standards. Needless to say, these kind of arguments are hardly apt to promote communication and collaboration. More importantly, underestimate the cultural relativity involved in our perceptions of "competence" and "progress". The criteria as to what constitutes valid and significant psi research, and, hence, as to who is and who isn't a "good" parapsychologist, are not universally agreed upon. To the extent to which French researchers view the priarities in a way different from the Americans, they are bound to resent the message that. the "American model" is the only one acceptable. But the iSSUes here clearly transcend socio-economic considerations, and touch upon much thornier cultural, psycholoqical and philosophical divergences. Cultural and psychological issues I mentioned earlier that heavy, centralized bu@-eaucracies in France may impede the evolution of scientific inquiry and research. However, complementary to this bureaucracy, French society is characterized by a tremendous individualism. People are in arp informal but per-manerit struggle against the establishment, and will go to great lengths to "beat the s/stem", even when the-Y don't have to. This anti-conformism is also apparent in the intellectual scene; passion and expressiveness pervades the entire culture, and not just the arts. Of course, wher, it comes to science, much is necessar i 1 y bui It upon the modest and persistent work of technicians and specialists. And, as everywhere else in the world, most scientists are conservative in nature and suspicious of upstarts. Yet, the French pride themselves above all as creators, not as technicians or specialists; the image of the free thinker is f ar more of an inspiration that) that of the systemat i c scientist. This is particularly true now, as the "New Age" Vogue has pulled a number, of scierstists +rom their conven- t i oria I tasks and thrust them i n t. o Ku h ri i an shifts and currents, Apart from the centrality of individualism and creativity in French culture, also of relevance is the trait of ethno- centricism. Like in other mediterranean countries, nationalistic pride is pronounced; the F.rench do not take kindly to the idea that they may be playing second fiddle to someone else. Of course, their self-image as independent and superior- was challenged by the eriorMOLIS eCDriDT6iC power and 323 Approved For Release 2003109/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620OOi-2 Approved For Release 2003109/10: CIA-RDP96-007,92ROO0700620001-2 Political influence of the U.S. in post-war Europe. But sln-nq with other. European civilizations, the French have increasinq-l'.1 sought to distance themselves f rom Complete IDYS]ty to t@@e U.S., and reaffirm their distinct identity. This tendency has been reinforced by the anti-conformist and anti-authoritariar, sentiments described above, since the U.S. has often been perceived as an over-dominating economic and Pif I itary force. what does all this have to do with communication and cooperation problems in parapsychology? I think that a nUmber of our problems within the field may have little to do with parapsychology per se, and be strictly related to such cultural issues. The traits of our culture rub off on all of us, and, inevitably, affect the kinds of relation- s@-,irs, we sustain with those from other cultures. Fo- eyample, the individualist and anti-con+ormist traits of the French imply a desire to remain free, distinct, and unclassifiable - and, hence, a resistance toward invitations to join groups and organizations. Such cultural traits may have been one of the main reasons why the French have had difficulty organizing parapsychology in their opin country, Coupled with the slightly paranoid sentiments vis-a-vis American chauvinism (or imperialism), these traits probably induce considerable psychological blocks vis-a-vis organiza- tiOnS Such as the PA. But additionally, individualist and anti-conformis-t feelings could also lead to resistance toward TAF?thOdS, rules and standards "imported" from American parapsycholocy?, - especially when these seem out of sync with Latin values and traits. American parapsychologists spend much energy organizing the fiold, defining its subject matter and standardizing methods and reporting styles. A good chunk of their- time me-/ also be spent on formal budget proposals, annual reports, or. public-relations activities (including, respording to irresponsible critics). All these activities MOVe the field toward planned and systematic, rather than spontaneous or improvisational research programmes. It is a trend which is entirely justified, inasmuch as the goal is to render Parapsychology more "professional", and thus more apt to he welcomed by the scientific establishment. But it is a trend which has its price, as well; in other cultures, r-@researcher,s may see- little reason to orient themselves in the sarne direction. The contingencies and constraints are not the same for those who viork in isolation, without budget proposals, annual reports, or Csicops axing the doors down. There ma-Y therefore be little concern with standardization, replicabilitv, or other marks of professionalism. The 4eelinq might be that, when it comes to psi'research, the top pricrity is to creatively explore new directions - even at the nisl@ of committing errors or wandering down some b I i nd paths. 324 Approved For Release 2003109110: CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620001-2 Approved For Release 20OW09110 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620001-2 0+ course, to the extent to which American parapsychology is #1calling the shots", the French (or Latin) parapsychologist is bound to be penalized for not following; inevitably, this leads to a widening of the communication gap. An example here is provided by Remy Chativin, who several years bacV submitted an article to the JP, reporting apparent PK effects upon water congelation. Given the centrality a+ water to living organisms, Chauvin considered this Ek potentially important finding, worthy of replication and further investigation. Howevero it seems that the JP did not appreciate the "manual" measurement techniques used, and wondered why computer-controlled data collection and data processing had not been adopted instead. To Chauvin, who had spent many months devising his apparatus and collecting results, this demand for computer-control seemed excessive and irrelevant; not everybody is equally able to utilize computers, and the latter are by no means necessary for good research. He ended up publishing the article in the J-OPR. In my interviews owith Chauvin and some other. Fr-ench researchers, I had the impression that there is a growing rebelliousness vis-a-vis the American criteria for good psi research, or acceptable reporting styles; there is a desire to find approaches involving complementary values and priorities. These feelings were of interest to me, because they reminded me of similar feelings vs h i c h under, I i e a movement called "Latin management". As described to me by a well-known business consultant, it is an attempt to gear French managerial styles away from the dominant Anglo-Saxon or American models, and to cultivate st-/Ies which are more consistent with mediterranean values and traditions. I thus wonder whether some of the communication issues it) parapsychology are part of a larger development - the emergence of a "Latin science", emphasi7inq individualit-y expressiveness, personal implication, and human interaction, rather than standardization, detachment, objectivity, and formal means for regulating exchanges. A paradigm conflict? Since the writings of Kuhn, vie have become increasingly sensitized to the central role a+ tacit motives, beliefs and conceptual frameworks in scientific research. Such tacit factors define the questions we consider meaningful or- significant, the tools and procedures vie utilize to address them, and the responses we ar e likely to find. When frameworks with different ontological or epistemological premises collide, then the minimum we can expect is a lack of commun i cat ion and collaboration between t Vie qr oups Involved. One of the most obvious obstacles to collaboratiot, ir, parapsychology is the metaphysical PfUlit" L*r, Approved For Release 200AJ?10: CIA-RDP96-0079 ddW- interactionist-dualism and monism. Many, if not most American parapsychologists are tacitly or explicitly committed to dualism. Even recent theories, inspired by quantum physics, retain a distinction between the observing consciousness and matter. By contrast, the French, who have been struggling to rid themselves of their cartesian heritage, are generally hostile toward dualistic concepts, and much more prone toward monistic worldviews - whether materialistic or idealistic in nature. Thus, in seeking to eyplain psi phenomena, they are more likely than Americans to use concepts often found in the East or in Russian parapsychology (like "bio-fields" or "bioplasma") and to explore the possibility of detecting "psi-energies". Inevitably, of course, the differing worldviews lead to clashes, To many Europeans and Russians, dualism seems reactionar@,i, like a left-over from the days of spiritualism. Or, the other hand, to most American parapsychologists, concepts like "psi energies", and the work associated with these concepts, seem rather "marginal". But the two views do not have eqttal opportunities of expression; while research consistent with the dualistic viewpoint receives much coverage, some feel that the Americans are prone to ignore work which is more consistent with a monistic view. Yvonne Duplessis, for example, complains that her work on dermo- optic perception did not receive the attention it deserved, even though it is conspicuously relevant to a substantial amount of psi research (i.e., clairvoyance tasks with sealed envelopes). When Carroll Nash sought to explore protocols analogous to her. own, he concluded that his results pointed to something other than psi phenomena; the results were "too good" to be based upon psi. Perhaps this is true. But to those who assume that psi is a subtle physical energy, r-Ekther. thart a "pure" mental phenomenon, this attitude seems incomprehensible. It translates to abandoning a promising rese,arch lead, in favor of pre-established assumptions about the nature of psi; and it also implies the perpetuation of parapsychology's isolation from "normal" science. Another issue which may. act as a divisive force in the field is the very ancient and persistent confrontation between two epistemologial frameworks: empiricism and rationalism. The empi-@icist. approximates truth by accumulating more and more data, @-elyinq upon these to diminish the "interference" of erroneous ideas and conceptions; his preoccupation with methodological purity and replication reflects this search +or- "hard facts". By contrast, the rationalist seeks to approximate truth by constructing increasingly compelling theoretical structures. His focus is upon formal systems or semantics, and he is preaccuppied far more with the coherence of thought than its correspondence with data. Irl the U.S., parapsychology is clearly rooted in the riM irliCipt Ar,al it red Ap@roved I or e ease 9/1 . Approved For Release 20031091io -. CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620001-2 largely by behaviorism, and thus, indirectly, by positivism - both extreme expressions of the empiricist tradition. And parapsychology in the U.S. continues to be modeled largely after experimental psychology, emphasizing systematic data collection and methodological purity and showing restraint in modelization and theorizing. Similarly, the trend toward atheoretical terminology, (e.g., references to "anomalies", rather than psi) reflects the data-orientation a+ American parapsychology. By contrast, French parapsychologists, while certainly empiricists, are nevertheless operating within a culture with a long rationalist tradition. Positivism has never been warmly received in France, and it is unlikely that a purely behavioristic approach to psi phenomena could ever really take roots there. Not surprisingly, the concept of an atheoretical *anomaly" is nearly intolerable; it seems preferable to start out with some theoretical framework from the'outset, and view the facts as part of a meaningful grid. The intellectual climate is such as to encourage ambitious theories, and innovative conceptua3 efforts; it is less important that these be based on many facts, than that they be internally coherent and corlsistent with the i r. OW n premises. This' divergence in epistemological outlooks between Americans and French could help clarify - though by no means resolve - some disagreements regarding methods and research priorities. American parapsychologists' preoccupation with polished experimental protocols and near-perfect controls are consistent with the empiricist goal of seeking out "pure" data - facts which are so elementary and certain that they cannot be said to be distorted by subjective opinion or error. It is assumed that only such hard data can persuade the skeptics of the reality of psi. On the other hand, in the rationalist tradition, there can be no such thing as elementary data, independent of premises and frameworks. Data are not ends in themselves, but only means intended to ascertain or clarify an existing theory or model. An "anomaly", even if well-demanstrated, is uninteresting if not embedded in a conceptual context which lends it meaning. From this point of view, methodological sophistication, assuring data purity, though laudable in terms of public relations (i.e., skeptics), is not the most important priority. At this point, those influenced by rationalist perspectives feel that there is no need for more experimental "hard data"; what is needed is the integration of all available clues in search of an understanding of the Ature of psi. The climate in the U.S. is stich as to encourage specializa- tion, well-controlled laboratory research, and a good yield 0+ "solidN data - even if the effects observed are near the 1-2 327 9110 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO070062000 Approved For Release 200310 d For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700620001-2 vanishing point. The climate in France, on the oth4r hand, is likely to reinforce theoretical, phenomenological or field work, and a courting after risky "macro" effects - through stAdies with gifted subjects, clinical case studies, anthropological and ethological investigations, and so on. There is little doubt that the experimental approach is more likely to gain us favors with hard-headed scienti-fic audiences, and an entry into establishment science; the earlier mentioned successes of American parapsychologists attest to this. However, the more adventurous approaches have their own appeal. It may be these which, in some wild chase over the landscape, will unveil the trueJorms behind the walls of data, and satisfy our thirst for meaning. Conclusion We are all drawn to the ideas of communication and collaboration. Communication implies enrichment, expansion of knowledge, broadening of vision; collaboration suggests of shared creativity, and promises levels of the warmth Pchi-evement beyond the reach of isolated individuals. In our field, especially, plaqued as it is by chronic funding problems and endless battles for recognition, communication and collaboration are necessities, not just luxuries. But r1either. communication nor collaboration "just happen", automatically; they must be actively pursued and reinforced. This is especially true when geographical, linguistic, political, Cultural, or philosophical factors obscure and obstruct sharing and i-riter-change. at this point, that di++e I thinV it is clear, rences in parapsychology aare inevitable and that, at this stage in the development a+ the field, vie cannot specify priorities, objectives and methods which are universally preferable over other ones. Our criteria for "good science" reflect specific assumptions and values, which in turn may be culturally bound, or the result of a particular historical tradition. Conseque-@tly, in reflecting upon how better to communicate, it is iroportant. we appreciate the relativity of our own perspecti.le, --and develope a tolerance for, and respect of, dj4_Fererices. Once vie accept that all approaches probably have sorns strengths, and some weaknesses, we may begin to exchan-ge more freely and make room for collaboration. After All, to wor@. together, we don't really need to speak the sarne la.r.;uage; we just need to understand what the other- is S -:1. r1g, Approved For Release 2003/09/10: CIA-RDP96- 328 00792ROO0700620001-2