"Anglo-Saxon" vs. "Latin" Parapsychology: Underlying the Communication Barrier Mario P. Varvoglis Laboratoire de Recherche sur les Interactions Psi Based on interviews of French-speaking researchers, an attempt. is made to determine some of the issues which may Tontribute to communication and collaboration problems in parapsychology. It is argued that these problems reflect hroader 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 ~or exper-imentation, journal reports, and PA membership. The situation has contributed to the creation of hierarchical, rather. than peer-like, relationships within ths field, ir, which "Anqlo-Saxon" parapsychology dominates. 7 1- n d = , - t 7 F~ 1 i -nit e T or-e i qn r esearchers who d i sagree V-1 i th -=Om~7? of ths priorities or approaches a+ their American colleaques, r4r;d who do riot wish to -feel inferior to them. It is s~.-)-:iestc-d that, if vie truly wish to improve international COM.T1.0-JERtion and collaboration, we must come to recognize =7:io-Ecoriomic, ct,,,1tural and philosophical relativity of -n!,, nt-), -Appr-o,:ich, and thi..ts be more open to divergences i r, c- pt-~ i I nscph-y w ii th i n the 4 i e I d 112 3310 e. f -eA OJ ye, Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RIJPY'96-00792ROO0400100005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08111 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400100005-8 "Anglo-Saxonn vs. "Latin- Parapsychology: Under-lying the Communication Barrier Mario P. Varvaglis Laboratoire de Recherche sur les Iriteractions psi Problem? What problem? A ,n t .e In his JP paper "The lariqLkaqe barrier in parapsychologyn, Alvarado deplores the low level of communication and collaboration in international par-aps-ychology, citing Americans' limited awareness of research or publications in foreign count 'ries, and foreigners, lack of participation in the PA and in Anglo-Saxon psi journals. He proposes several measures to counteract these trends, 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 upor, these 4 or ma I measures, Alvarado also cautions that 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 exempli+~, the divergence in American vs. European perspectives an 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 Tenhaef+ darkly observes that "some (English and Americans) seem very chauvinistic and seem to believe that only the researches done in their country are important". Thus, in contrast to Rhine's cheery assessment, Terthae++, voicing the point of view of the continent, refers explicitly to "chauvinism" an the part of Anglo-Saxon parapsychologists; he seems to be implying that unfamiliarity with foreiqn works is based or, cultural biases and is, hence, suggestive of darker dynamics than mere ignorance. My own interactions with a number of Europeans active in contemporary parapsychology sugqest that the mood in continental Europe has not chanqed much in the decades since Tenhae++Is statement. Thus, I think that the "language barrier" is j"st a facet of the communication problem in parapsychology; 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 or mutual intolerance. 317 P96-00792ROO0400100005-8 Approved For Release 2000108111 : CIA-RD Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400100005-8 no in this presentation I would like to analyze some of the conflicts which may underlie the communication barrier. Toward this end, I compare the situations and mentalities of two c1roups - American vs. French-speaking - in hope that this Will also clarify issues dividing broader groups in our field ("Anglo-Saxon" VS. "Latin", or "Northern" vs. " SOU t he r n " ) .I Must apologize, in advance, for the stereotyping and "flattening" of individual differences 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 arlyp might exist between American tor Anglo-Saxon) and French (or Latin) parapsychologists, and vshat 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 global areas which, I believe, contribute most to the communication barrier. Socio-economic constraints upon research After a year or two in France, one cannot help but feel that French parapsychology is decades behind its counter-part in the U.S.; indeed, it is not clear, if it makes sense to refer to a "field" of parapsychology in this country. Recognition of scientific parapsychology is very limited, and external support practically non-existent. Research efforts, ir-1volving a few isolated investigators dispersed over the rountr,/, are larqel%~ sel+-+unded, personal affairs. Little distinction is made between a paraps% ychologist anO psychics, clairvoyants or healers: the term "parapsychologue" 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, Tnedit_tm, or. dowser. Predictably, scientists in various fields 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" - Opsychtronics" being seen as less provocative a term than "parapsychology". 318 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400100005-8 Approved For Release 2000108/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792 in short, French Parapsychology is con+ronted 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 +rom ar, opert 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 (MRS), has a hold an all branches o4 science, both within' the university and in other centers, and essentially constitutes a means for controlling the nature and +unding 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 MRS operate by a kind of "quota" system, and applying for a position is generally possible only following the retirement of someone from the corresponding post. Ever, 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 with 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. MY own attempt to enter the university and the MRS through the experimental psychology department was unsuccessful. Christine Hardy has some prospects for discreetly establishing some research, in cooperation with some "niversity faculty members; but even if successful, this research would have no immediate access to funds, and would have to remain hidden behind some innocuous-looking departmental "front". Yves Lignon, a math instructor., has Succeeded in openly mainta'~iin~4A-ab"6JW42iqO()04'001 DM'r,.8 Approved For Release 2000108/ Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400100005-8 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 paranorroal feat, but cat) 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 "formal", privately funded efforts? 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 of donations and humanitarian foundations. Thus, research has been largely Self-+Linded, and, invariably, short-term. Christian Moreau, who had been keenly interested in dream telepathy and psi in ps-/choanalysis, has long since abandoned parapsychology in favor of psychiatry. Pierre Janin, the inventor of the tychoscope, also le4t the field to pursue his clinical interests full time. Rene Peoch, who conducted a series of successful anpsi studies with Janin's moving-RNG (the tvchoscope), has been progressively forced to abandon the field, and return to his medical practice. Christine Hard~4 and 1, having established a modest laboratory dedicated to computer.-RNG research, are feeling the financial pinch, and are wondering how long vie can finance our research. Remy Chauvin has martaged to get research done, over the years, but he remains quite isolated, and is now forced to act as his own subject in4iis experiments, due to his remoteness from major centers. Besides lacking opportunities +or 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 pla-ys practically no role it, the field today. GERP, at-, interdisciplinary reflection group which sustained livel-y interest in parapsychology throughout the seventies, had to fold. Its livelihood was too closely tied to a couple of individuals and thLIS could not be sustained once they decided to Tnove on. Recent],.,, a new effort toward orqanizinq the field has been undertaken by Marc Michel, a co-worker of Yves Lignon. His "Orqanisatior, pour la Recherche en Psychotronique" (ORP) is publishing a scientific parapsychological journal, and has organised a research congress and a number Of 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 shifts in his life-situation. 320 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400100005-8 Approved For Release 2000108111 : CIA-RDp96-oo792ROO0400100005-8 The upper class and all the Rest In general, then, the socio-economic conditions in France render parapsychology a marginal, poorly organized activity, with researchers facing great difficulties conducting research, or even establishinq the legitimacy and desirability of such r,esearch. This, ir, turn, means smal I 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 growinq recognition (even by the skeptics), holds regular national and local conventions, involves research activites both in universities and in independent centers, and has concrete, if sometimes shaky, funding opportunities. Similarly - though to a lesser extent - parapsychologists in northern European countries generally h av e better s o c i o - e c o n om i c "status" than those in Latin countries. 04 course, French researchev-s welcome the relative success of American parapsychology; it is a source of hope and encouragement for them, and constitutes a convenient arqu- ment for the legitimacy a+ their own research. At the sarne time, the higher "social status" of American parapsycholo- gists indirectly introduces communication and cotlaboration 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 of enforcing their point of 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 li~,Ie 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 of "work-sessions". One of the first topics discussed it) these sessions was the organization of a European congress (Euro-Psi), which wou I d 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 0005-8 Approved For Release 2000108111 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO040010 Approved For Release 2000108111 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400100005-8 In response to this, I suggested that the basis for European cooperation in Parapsychology may already exist in the form of the EuroPA. I proposed that the French coordinate their e4forts with the members of 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 of other European parapsychologists, while at the same time establishing a more prominent 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 against 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 Rhineart tradition of experimental parapsychology. My initial interpretation of all this was that I had st-ombled upon a clear cut case of territoriality. 1, a foreilner (wors6, an American) had invaded the territory of French pa-aps/chologists, and, bysuggesting that they join the PA and EviroPA, was challenging their claim to fame as leaders in European parapsychology. I still think this interpretatior 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 of American parapsychology, it is easy to see hot.) foreigners can come to the view that the PA is in fact an American, rather than international, organization. It is also quite understandable that they would react aggressively when asked to seek PA membership. Wh-1 should individuals who consider themselves prominent in their owr 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 strong leadership (hence, "hierarchical" relationships) VOthin 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 tr.Anslates into improved research conditions, better eql.-tipmerit, rpore talent, more extensive exchanges with other 322 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400100005-8 Approved For Release 2000108111 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400 sCient ists, and so 4or-th. Consequentl-, one could that, lithe it or not, the Americans researchers in have outstripped other competence and authority, and have t h e responsibility of promotinc) the field as 'they see fit; the interest of 'the field's prowesa uey must i n '*lhn don't measure up to the defined standards, _,de those Needless to say, these kind of ar-qurjjer-jt~s are hardly apt to promote communication and collaboration. More i mpco- tar., t I y, 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 universal 1y aqreed upon. To the extent to w h i c h French researchers view the priorities in a way di++erent from the Americans, they are bound to resent the message that ths "American model" is the only one acceptable. But the issues here clearly transcend socio-economic considerations, and touch upon much thornier cultural, psy,:Vrological and philosophical divergences. Cultural and psychological issues I mentioned earlier that heavy, central ized bui-eauct acies in France may impede the evolution of scientific inquire/ and research, However, complementar-Y to this bureal.,Cracy, French society is character i zed by a tremendous i rid i vi dual i srii, People are in an in4ormal but permanent struggle against the establishment, and will go to great lengths to "beat the system", even when they 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, whey, it comes to science, much is nec essar i 1 y bu i It upor, t he modest and persistent work of technicians and specialists. And, as everywhere else in the wor- I d, most scientists are conservative in nature and suspicious of upstarts. Yet, the French pride t hemse I ves above all as creators, not as technicians or specialists; the image of the free thinker is far rcsore o + an inspiration t h a r) that of t 1-1 e S.,/ S t em a t i c Scientist. This is particularly true now, as the "New Age I jo~:4ue has pulled a number of scientists from their conven- tional tasks and thrust them i nto Kuhr, i ar, zhifts and currents, Apart from the centrality of individualism and creativity ir, French culture, also of relevance is the trait of ethno- centricism. L i ke i n ot Vier med i t er r. anean countr 1 es, nationalistic pride is pronounced; the Frc--nch do not take kindl,.,/ to the idea that they may be playing second 4iddle to Someone else. Of course, their. self-image as independent and SUperior was challenged by the enormous economic power. arid : -1-aA-RDP96-oo792ROO0400100005-8 Approved For Release 2000108111 V1 Approved For Release 2000108111 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400100005-8 ~~o it in4 11_1,et)ce of the U. S. in post-war Europe. Bu t a 1 onr.4 vi i t hother European civilizations, the French have Iricr-easingl,./ souqht to distance themselves from complete to the U.S., and reaffirm their distinct identity. This tendency has been reinforced by the anti-conformist and anti-atithoritariar, sentiments described above, since the U.S. hac; often been perceived as an over-dominating economic .~.nd T,)~litary force. What does all this have to do with communication and cooperation problems in parapsychology? I think that a nt-Mber of our. problems within the field may have little to do %,.ith parapsycholog,/ per se, and be strictly related to si-ich ck.tIttiral issues. The traits o+ our culture rub off on all of us, and, inevitably, affect the kinds of relation- shirs we st.istain with those from other cultures. Fo- example, the individualist and anti-conformist traits of the French imply a desire to remain free, distinct, and urclassifiable - 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 own 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 SLICh as 'the PA. But additionally, individualist and anti-conforrf,~ist feelings could also lead to resistance, toward rf,,ethods, rules and standards "imported" from American paraps-,,/chology - especially wher, these seem out of sync with latin values and traits. American parapsychologists spend much energy organizing the f if:, l'i ,defining its subj ect matter. and standardizing rs-spirch Tnethnds and reporting styles. A good chunk of their- time ma-/ also be spent on formal budget proposals, annual reports, or. pvblic--relations activities (including, respording to irresponsible critics). All these activities mcve the field toward planned and systematic, rather than npontaneous or improvisational research programmes. It is a teend which is entirely justified, inasmuch as the goal is to render ,p.;rapsychology more "professional", and thus more P t -) -~ F tc t - welcomed by the scientific establishment. But it a trend which has its price, as well; in other cultures, r-esearchers may see little reason to orient themselves in the same direction. The contingencies and constraints are rint the same for those who work in isolation, without budget proposals, annual reports, or Csicops axing the doors down. There ma:.,., therefore be little concern with standardization, replicability, or other marks of professionalism. The 4epliriq might be that, when it comes to psi research, the top priori+N/ is to creatively explore new directions - even :Rt the nist, of committing errors or wandering down some blind paths. 324 Approved For Release 2000108111 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400100005-8 05-8 Approved For Release 2000108111 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO04001 000 Off course, to the e,,,tent to Which American parapsyci-iolog.,/ is calling the shots,,, the French (or Latin) parapsychoiogist is bound to be penalized for not icillowing; inevitably, this leads to a widening of the communication gap. An example here is provided by Remy Chauvin, who several years bacV submitted an article to the JP, reporting apparent PK effects upon water congelation. Given the central i ty of water to living organ i sms, Chauv i n considered this a potentially important finding, warthy of replication and further investigation. However, 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 arid 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. necessar-.,/ for good research. He ended up publishing the article in the JSPR. I n my i ri t erv i evis w i t Vi Chauv i r, and some o t h e r F r e n c h 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 roe, because they reminded me of similar feelings which underlie 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 irl parapsychology are part of a larger development - the emergence of a "Latin science", emphasizing individuality expressiveness, personal implication, and human interaction, rather than standardization, detachment, objectivity, arid formal means for regulating exchanges. A paradigm conflict? c Since the writings of Kuhn, we have beLoriie i ric t eas i rv; I Y sensitized to the central role of tacit motives, beliefs and Conceptual frameworks i ri, scientific research. Ouch Lac i t factors define the questions we consider meaningful or- significant, the tools and procedures we utilize to address them, and the responses we are likely to f i rid. When frameworks with different ontological D r e p i s t em o 1 oq i c a I Premises collide, then the minimum we can expect is a lack Of commun i cat i on and col I aborat i on between the Z4 r Ou Ps involved. One of the most obvious obstacles t, o co I I aborat i ot, i r, Parapsychology is the metaphysical split" be tween 325 96-00792R000400100005-8 Approved For Release 2000108111 : CIA-RDP Approved For Release 2000108111 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400100005-8 interactionist-dualism and mon i sm. many, i 4 not most American parapsychologists are tacitly or explicitly committed to dual ism. 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 une concepts often -Found in the East or in Russian parapsychology (like "bio-fields" or "bioplasmam) and to explore the possibilitv of detecting "psi-energies". Inevitably, of course, the differing worldviews lead to clashes. To many Europeans and Russians, dua I i sm seems reactionary, like a le+t-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 equal 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, rather. than a "pure" mental phenomenon, this attitude seems incomprehensible. It translates to abandoning a promising research lead, in favor of pre-established assumptions about the nature of psi; and it also implies the perpetuation of parapsychology's isolation from "nor-mall' science. Another issue which may act as a divisive force in the field is the very ancient and persistent confrontation between two epistemclogial frameworks: empiricism and rationalism. The empiricist approximates truth by accumulating more and more data, relying upon these to diminish the "inter+erence" of erroneous ideas and conceptions; his preoccupation with methodological purity and replication reflects this search +or- "hard facts". By contrast, the rationalist seeks to approyi,nate truth by constructing increasingly compelling theoretical structures. His focus is upon formal systems or semantics, and he is preoccuppied far more with the coheri7,nce of thought then its correspondence with data. In the U.S., parapsychology is clearly rooted in the empiricist tradition. Rhinean methods have been inspired 326 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400100005-8 Approved For Release 2000108111 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400100005-8 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 athearetical terminology, (e.g., references to flanomalies", rather than psi) reflects the data-orientation of 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 Itanomaly" 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 conceptual efforts; it is less important that these be based on many facts, than that they be internall-I C- - t-le r e t) Z-, r C n s i s t e ri t V) i t I the i k. DWY) pr em i ses. This divergence in ep i stemo I og i cal outlooks between Americans and French could help clarify - though by no means resolve - some disagreements regarding methods and r-esearct, priorities. American parapsychologists' preoccupation with polished experimental protocols and near-per+ect controls are consistent with the empiricist goal of seeking out "puren 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 car, 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 tianomaly", even i+ well-demonstrated, is i-kninteresting 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 riot 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 nature of psi. The climate in the U.S. is si,tch as to encourage specializa tion, well-controlled laboratory research, and a good yield 0+ 'solidu data - even if the effects observed are near the 327 Approved For Release 2000/08111 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400100005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0400100005-8 vanishing point. The climate in France, on the other hand, is likel,./ to reinforce theoretical, phenomenological or, field work, and a courting after risky NmacrD" effects - through studies 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 scientific 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 true forms 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 o+ knowledge, broadening of vision; collaboration suggests the warmth of shared creativity, and promises levels of PChiSVeTnent beyond the reach of isolated individuals. In our field, especially, plagued as it is by chronic funding pr. ob I ems and e nd I ess bi---~t t I es + o r r ec o,3ri i t i on, c ommu n i c at i on and collaboration are necessities, not just luxuries. But neither communication nor collaboration "just happen", a.l..ktornatically; they must be actively pursued and reinforced. This is especially true when geographical, linguistic, political, cultural, or philosophical factors obscure and obstruct sharing and interchange. I think it is clear, at this point, that differences in parapsychology are inevitable and that, at this stage in the development of the field, we cannot specify priorities, objectives and methods which are universally preferable over other ones. Our criteria for "good science" reflect specific assttmptions and values, which in turn may be culturally hound, or the result Of a Par'tiCUlar hiStOriCal tradition. Consequeritly, ir, reflecting upon how better to communicate, it is important vie appreciate the relativity of our own perspecti%le, and develope a tolerance for, and respect of, differences. Once we accept that all approaches probably ha%le some strengths, and some weaknesses, we may begin to exchanqe Taore freely and make room for collaboration. After All, to wort-: together, we don't really need to speak the sarne language; we just need to understand what the other is S 3 n. Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-146~96-00792RO00400100005-8