Wetenschap van gene zijde: geschiedenis van de Nederlandse parapsychologie in de twintigste eeuw

Abstract

The attempts from the end of the 19th century onwards to scientifically investigate ‘paranormal phenomena’ have intrigued both cultural historians and historians of science. Internationally, the history of parapsychology has received ample scholarly attention in the last decades. Surprisingly, this has not been the case for the Netherlands, where the history of parapsychology is particularly rich. The history of Dutch parapsychology in the 20th century is closely connected to academic psychology. In this dissertation the question is answered: How can we understand the developments of Dutch parapsychology in the context of developments in academic psychology? The relation between parapsychology and psychology is investigated through the developments in the ‘research practice’ of parapsychology. This research practice consists of the research object (e.g. spirits, telepathy, or PSI), the research methods (e.g. qualitative study of spontaneous phenomena or quantitative tests), the institutional developments (e.g. embeddedness in university), and the relationship with the general public. The changes and developments these aspects went through in the 20th century are discussed in seven chronological key periods. It is argued that we can understand Dutch parapsychology as mirroring or reflecting academic psychology. This occurs on four different levels. First, Dutch parapsychology reflects the developments of academic psychology on a practical-institutional level. Dutch parapsychology was linked to psychology throughout its history, whether studied at universities or by individuals. Second, the developments around the parapsychological research object and research methods are parallel to academic psychology. Were late 19th-century parapsychologists looking for proof of life after death and the existence of an autonomous soul, in the second half of the 20th century they were investigating significant deviations from chance. This ‘methodologization’ of the research object is also reflected in academic psychology: questions regarding the nature of the soul or the psyche have been replaced by behavioral observations or by measuring brain activity. Due to its contested nature, parapsychologists were sometimes more innovative regarding methodological issues than their psychological counterparts. Third, in its relation towards the general public, parapsychology mirrors academic psychology. These disciplines have always had to guard themselves against allegations of ‘superstition’ or providing mere ‘common sense’, respectively. But both disciplines also needed the support of the general public to validate their relevance. Especially to a marginal field like parapsychology, this relationship with the general public was of quintessential importance. Throughout its history, several parapsychologists functioned as very effective popularizers of their discipline. These three levels imply a fourth and final level of reflection. In the histories of both parapsychology and academic psychology, a growing level of ‘disenchantment’ can be discerned. During the twentieth century, ‘meaning’ as an intrinsic concept had become marginalized in the human sciences. Where at the end of the 19th century in both psychology and parapsychology there was ample room for existential questions, in the beginning of the 21st century this had changed profoundly. Parapsychology seems unable to survive without a moral and meaningful dimension. While parapsychology has thus lost its academic ground, academic psychology is a vibrant field. Here, the mirror of parapsychology breaks.