SPIRITISM AND PSYCHISM
We have said previously that although we absolutely deny the theories of spiritism, we do not for all that contest the reality of the phenomena which the spiritists cite in support of their theories. We must now explain this point a little more fully. What we wish to say is that a priori we do not contest the reality of any phenomenon, given that it seems to be a possibility; and we must admit the possibility of all that is not intrinsically absurd, that is, of all that does not imply a contradiction. In other words, we admit in principle all that corresponds to the notion of possibility understood in a sense that is at once metaphysical, logical, and mathematical. Now if it is a question of the realization of such and such a possibility in a particular and definite case, other requirements must naturally be considered: to say that we admit in principle all the possibilities in question is not to say that we accept without further examination all the examples that are reported with more or less serious guarantees. But we do not have to critique all this, which is a matter for the practitioners; from our point of view this is of no importance. Indeed, once a given category of facts is possible, it is without interest for us whether some particular fact in this category is true or false. The only thing that interests us is to know how the facts of this order can be explained, and if we have a satisfactory explanation, all further discussion seems superfluous. We understand quite well that this is not the attitude of the scientist who amasses facts in order to be convinced, and who relies only on the results of his observations to construct a theory; but our point of view is far removed from that. Moreover, we do not think that facts alone can
really serve as the basis of a theory, for facts can almost always be explained by several different theories. We know that the facts in question here are possible, for we can link them to certain principles that we know; and as this explanation has nothing in common with the spiritist theories, we have the right to say that the existence and study of these phenomena is absolutely independent of spiritism. Further, we know that such phenomena do in fact exist; moreover, we have witnesses to this who cannot have been influenced in any way by spiritism, in the one case far pre-dating it and in the other coming from circles where spiritism has never penetrated, countries where the very name is as unknown as is the doctrine. These phenomena, as we have said, are neither new nor peculiar to spiritism. We have therefore no reason to doubt the existence of these phenomena, and on the contrary have every reason to consider them real; but it is understood that it is always a case of their existence being conceived in a general way, and besides, given the end we presently have before us, all other considerations are perfectly useless.
We believe these precautions and reservations necessary because, not to speak of accounts entirely invented by hoaxers as bad jokes or for the sake of their cause, there have been innumerable cases of fraud, as spiritists themselves have been forced to recognize; [1] but this is far from maintaining that all is only trickery. We do not understand why the nay-sayers insist so on the confirmed frauds and believe these to be a solid argument in their favor, and we understand it even less in that, as we have said, every hoax is an imitation of reality. [2] Doubtless such an imitation can only be more or less deformed, but ultimately one can think of simulating only something that exists; it would be doing fraudulent people too much honor to believe them capable of producing something entirely new, for this is something human imagination can never achieve. In addition, in spiritist séances there are frauds of several
categories. The simplest but not the only case is that of the professional medium who, when for whatever reason he cannot produce authentic phenomena, is led out of self-interest to simulate them. This is why every paid medium must be considered suspect and watched closely; even without self-interest, vanity alone may incite a medium to cheat. Most mediums, even the most reputable, have been caught in flagrante delicto. This does not prove that they do not possess very real faculties, but only that these faculties are not always under the control of their will. In such cases the often impulsive spiritists wrongly swing from one extreme to the other, regarding as definitively false any medium who has had such a misadventure, even if only once. Certain fanatical spiritists would have it that their mediums are saints, surrounding them with a veritable cult; but they are sick, which is something else entirely, despite the ridiculous theories of some contemporary psychologists. This abnormal state must always be taken into account, which helps explain another kind of fraud. The medium, like the hysteric, has an irresistible need to lie, even for no reason, as hypnotists also affirm of their subjects; and in such cases responsibility is greatly diminished, if there is even any blame at all. In addition, the medium is eminently prone not only to auto-suggestion but also to receiving suggestions from the circle around him and consequently to acting without knowing what he is doing. It suffices that production of specific phenomena are expected of him in order for him to simulate them automatically. [3] Thus there are frauds who are so only half-consciously, and others who are totally unconscious-where the medium often demonstrates an ability that he is far from possessing in his ordinary state. All this derives from an abnormal psychology, which incidentally has never been studied as it should be. Many people think this a field for research not without interest, including the domain of simulations. We will now leave to one side this question of fraud, but not before expressing regret that the
ordinary conceptions of psychologists, as well as their means of investigation, are so narrow that the things to which we have alluded almost completely escape them, and that even when they want to study these things, they hardly understand anything of what is involved.
We are not alone in thinking that the study of these phenomena can be undertaken entirely independently of spiritist theories. This is also the advice of those who are called 'psychists', who are or would generally like to be unprejudiced experimenters (we say 'generally' because here, too, there are distinctions to be made) and who often refrain from formulating any theory. We retain the terms 'psychic' and 'psychic phenomena' because these are the more commonly used and because we have none better at our disposal. But they are not immune to criticism; thus, in all rigor, 'psychic' and 'psychological' should be perfectly synonymous, although this is not the way they are understood. So-called 'psychic' phenomena lie entirely outside the domain of classical psychology, and even if it is supposed that there may be a certain connection with the latter, it is in any case extremely remote. Moreover, the experimenters deceive themselves in our view when they believe they can include all these facts indifferently in what is commonly called 'psycho-physiology'. The truth is that in this domain there are facts of many kinds, and all of them cannot be reduced to a single explanation. But most researchers are not so free of preconceptions as they imagine, and it is 'specialists' who have an involuntary tendency to reduce everything to whatever is the object of their ordinary studies, which is to say that when 'psychists' announce their conclusions, they should only be accepted with reservation. Even their observations may be affected by prejudices; experimental scientists ordinarily have quite particular ideas as to what is possible and what is not, and with the best faith in the world they force the facts to agree with these ideas. On the other hand, those who are most opposed to spiritist ideas may nevertheless be influenced by spiritism, despite themselves and whether they will or no. However that may be, it is certain that the phenomena in question can be the object of an experimental science like all the others, different from them undoubtedly, but of the same order and having neither more nor less importance or
interest. We do not see why some are pleased to call these phenomena 'transcendent' or 'transcendental', which is a bit ridiculous. And this last remark calls for another: the term 'psychism', despite its inconvenience, is in any case preferable to 'metapsychics', invented by Dr Charles Richet and subsequently adopted by Dr Gustav Geley and others. 'Metapsychics', in fact, is obviously patterned after 'metaphysics', but it is not justified by any analogy. [4] Whatever opinion one may have as to the nature and cause of the phenomena in question, they can be regarded as 'psychic' and not 'beyond the psychic'; indeed, some of them fall rather below. Furthermore, the study of any category of phenomena is part of 'physics' in the general sense in which the ancients understood it, that is to say the knowledge of nature, and has no connection with metaphysics, which is 'beyond nature' and thereby beyond all possible experience. There is nothing that parallels metaphysics, [5] and those who know what it really is cannot protest too emphatically against such assimilations. In our times, however, neither scientists nor even philosophers seem to have the least notion of what it is.
We have said that there are many kinds of psychic phenomena, and we will immediately add that the psychic domain seems susceptible of extension to many other phenomena than those of spiritism. Spiritists are very intrusive; they try to exploit a multitude of facts to the advantage of their ideas, facts that are not brought about by their practices and that have no direct or indirect relationship with their theories, since the 'spirits of the dead' cannot possibly intervene. We leave aside 'mystical phenomena' in the proper and theological sense of the expression, for these phenomena entirely elude the competence of ordinary scholars. We may mention here those facts grouped under the term 'telepathy', which are incontestably the
manifestations of actually living beings. [6] The unbelievable claims of the spiritists to annex the most diverse things contribute to creating and maintaining regrettable confusions among the public. We have had many occasions to confirm that there are those who confuse spiritism with magnetism and even with hypnotism; perhaps this would not be so frequent if the spiritists did not meddle with facts that in no way concern them. Among the phenomena produced in spiritist séances are those pointing to magnetism or to hypnotism, in which the medium behaves like an ordinary sleepwalker. Then there is the phenomenon spiritists call 'incarnation' and which is basically only a case of 'second states', improperly called 'multiple personalities', something frequently manifested among the sick and the hypnotized; but the spiritist interpretation is naturally quite different. Suggestion also plays a leading role in all this, for suggestion or thought transmission is obviously linked to hypnotism or to magnetism (we will not dwell on the distinction to be made between these two things, a distinction which is very difficult to determine and which is of no importance here). Once any phenomenon is determined to be part of the domain of hypnotism or magnetism, spiritism has no claim to it. But we see no reason why such phenomena should not be grouped with psychism, the boundaries of which are very poorly defined. Perhaps the point of view of modern experimenters is not incompatible with treating as a single science what might constitute the object of several sciences for those who study these things in a different manner and who know better what is really involved.
This leads us to speak a little of the difficulties of psychism; if in this domain researchers do not obtain satisfactory results, it is not only because they are dealing with forces about which they are illinformed, but especially because these forces do not act in the same manner as those which they are in the habit of manipulating, and
because these forces can hardly be subjected to the methods of observation that succeed for the former. Scientists cannot in fact boast of knowing with certainty the real nature of electricity, but this does not inhibit them from studying it from their 'phenomenist' point of view or from using it in practical applications. In the present case then there must be something other than that ignorance to which the experimenters so easily resign themselves. We should be aware that the competence of a 'specialist' is quite limited; outside his own field he cannot claim an authority greater than that of having arrived first; and whatever his competence may be, he has no other advantage than a certain precision of observation, an advantage that only imperfectly compensates for certain professional deformations. This is why the psychic experiments of Crookes, to take one of the best known examples, do not in our view have the exceptional importance many attribute to them. We readily acknowledge Crookes' competence in chemistry and physics, but we see no reason to extend this to an entirely different order. The most serious of scientific titles do not protect experimenters from such a common mischance as simply being mystified by a medium. Perhaps this happened to Crookes, but it surely happened to Dr Richet, and the notorious happenings at the Villa Carmen in Algiers do little to recommend his perspicacity. But there is an extenuating circumstance, for these things are apt to lead astray a physicist or a physiologist, or even a psychologist. And, by an unfortunate effect of specialization, no one is more naive and defenseless than certain scholars once they step outside their area of expertise. We know of no better example than that of the fantastic collection of autographs which the celebrated forger Vrain-Lucas passed off as authentic to the mathematician Michel Charles. No psychist has yet attained a similar degree of extravagant credulity. [7]
It is not only in face of fraud, however, that the experimenters find themselves disarmed for lack of better knowledge of the special
psychology of mediums and other subjects to whom they have recourse. They are exposed to many other dangers. First, as to the manner of conducting experiments so different from those to which they are accustomed, these scholars sometimes find themselves in the greatest embarrassment though they do not want to admit it, perhaps even to themselves. They do not understand that some facts cannot be reproduced at will, and that these facts may be as real as the others. They want to impose arbitrary or impossible conditions, such as requiring the production in full light of phenomena for which darkness may be indispensable. They would surely laugh, and rightly so, at someone ignorant of the physical and chemical sciences who showed such a complete misunderstanding of the applicable laws and yet wanted to observe some phenomena at all costs. And then from a more theoretical point of view these same scientists refuse to recognize the limits of experimentation, demanding of it what it cannot give. Because they are committed exclusively to this approach, they imagine that it is the only source of all possible knowledge; moreover, a specialist is less well placed than anyone to appreciate the limits beyond which his expertise ceases to be valid. Finally and perhaps most serious of all, it is always extremely imprudent to bring into play forces about which one is entirely ignorant; in this regard the most 'scientific' psychists have little advantage over ordinary spiritists. There are things that cannot be touched with impunity in the absence of the doctrinal guidance required to keep one from going astray. We can never repeat this often enough, especially in the present context, where being misled is one of the most common and most calamitous effects of experimenting with these forces. The number of people who lose their reason is only too great. Ordinary science is absolutely incapable of giving the least doctrinal guidance, and one not infrequently sees psychists who, without going so far as to lose their reason, are nevertheless misled most deplorably. We include in this case all those who set out with purely 'scientific' intentions but who in the end are more or less completely and openly converted to spiritism. It is already unfortunate that men who should know how to think admit even the possibility of the spiritist hypothesis; nevertheless, there are researchers (we would say this applies to nearly all of them) who do
not see why one should not admit it, and who even while rejecting it a priori, fear a lack of that impartiality to which they are beholden. Of course they do not believe the spiritist hypothesis, but neither do they completely reject it, holding themselves back in an attitude of pure and simple doubt, removed as far from negation as from affirmation. Unfortunately, the chances are great that those who begin their psychic studies with these dispositions will not remain there and will slide imperceptibly toward the spiritist side rather than toward the opposite. Their frame of mind has at least one point in common with the spiritists: they think 'phenomenologically'. We do not use this word in the sense given it in philosophical theories of this name, but to designate the superstition of phenomena that is fundamental to the 'scientistic' spirit. Then there is the influence of the spiritist milieu with which the psychist necessarily finds himself in at least indirect contact, even if only through the intermediary of the mediums with whom he will work. This ambience is a frightful source of collective and mutual suggestion. The experimenter incontestably influences the medium, and if the medium has the least preconceived idea, however vague, the results are already falsified. But without the psychist being aware of it he can in his turn be subject to suggestion from the medium; and this would still be negligible but for the fact that there are also all the influences which the medium himself brings along, of which the least that can be said is that they are eminently unhealthy. In these conditions the psychist is at the mercy of anything that occurs, and what occurs is usually something quite sentimental. To Lombroso, Eusapia Paladino caused the phantom of his mother to appear; Sir Oliver Lodge received communications from his son killed during the war. Nothing more is necessary to make 'conversions'. These cases are perhaps more frequent than one thinks; there are certainly thinkers who, for fear of a discrepancy with their past, do not dare admit their 'evolution' and frankly call themselves spiritists, or show too much sympathy toward spiritism. There are even those who do not want it known that they are engaged in psychic studies, as if that would discredit them in eyes of their colleagues and the public, who are too prone to assimilate these things to spiritism. Thus Mme Curie and Monsieur d'Arsonval for a long time hid the fact that they engaged
in this kind of experimentation. In this connection it is interesting to cite the following lines from an article carried a long time ago by the Revue Scientifique on the above-mentioned book of Dr Gibier:
Dr Gibier earnestly called for the formation of a society to study this new branch of psychological physiology and seemed to believe that he was the only one among us, if not the first among competent researchers, to interest himself in this question. Let Dr Gibier be reassured and satisfied: a certain number of very competent seekers, those who have begun at the beginning and who have already brought some order into the hotchpotch of the supernatural [sic], occupy themselves with this question and continue their work . . . without apprising the public. [8]
Such an attitude is truly astonishing on the part of men usually so fond of publicity, who ceaselessly proclaim that everything that concerns them can and should be broadcast as widely as possible. Let us add that the director of the Revue Scientifique at that time was Dr Richet, and he at least, if not others, has not always practiced this prudent reserve.
But there is more to say: without rallying to spiritism, certain psychists have singular affinities with neo-spiritualism in general or with one or another of its schools. Theosophists in particular boast of having drawn many into their ranks, and some time ago one of their journals assured the reader
that not all the savants who concern themselves with spiritism and who are cited as recognized figures have been led to believe in spiritism (apart from one or two), that nearly all have given an interpretation akin to that of the Theosophists, and that the most celebrated among them are members of the Theosophical Society. [9]
It is certain that the spiritists too easily claim as their own all who have dabbled in these studies and who are not their avowed adversaries. But for their part the Theosophists have perhaps been a little too ready to claim certain individuals as members when such was in
no way definite. They would do well to remember the example of Myers and several other members of the Society for Psychical Research based in London, and also the case of Dr Richet, who only passed through their organization. He was not the last in France to echo the denunciations of the trumpery of Madame Blavatsky made by the Society for Psychical Research. [10] Whatever the case, the sentence we have just cited perhaps contained an allusion to Flammarion, who nevertheless was always nearer to spiritism than to any other idea; it certainly contained a reference to William Crookes, who had in fact joined the Theosophical Society in 1883 and was even a member of the Council of the London Lodge. As for Dr Richet, his role in the pacifist movement shows that he had always had something in common with neo-spiritualists, whose humanitarian tendencies are asserted with no less passion. For those acquainted with these movements, coincidences such as this are a much clearer and characteristic sign than one might suppose. In the same order of ideas, we have already alluded to the anti-Catholic tendencies of certain psychists, such as Dr Gibier. We could even speak more generally of anti-religious tendencies, at least so long as 'lay religion' is not in question, 'lay religion' being a term framed by Charles Fauvety, one of the first apostles of spiritism in France. The following lines sufficiently illustrate his declamations:
We have faith in Science and we firmly believe that it will rid humanity forever of the parasitism of every kind of Brahmin [the author means priests], and that religion, or rather morality become scientific, will one day be represented by a special section in future academies of science. [11]
We need not dwell on such nonsense, which is unfortunately not inoffensive, but there would be grist here for an interesting study on the mentality of men who are always invoking 'science' but drag it into matters completely outside its domain. This is yet another of the forms of intellectual disequilibrium among our contemporaries, forms which are perhaps more closely related than one might believe. Is there not a 'scientistic mysticism', even a 'materialist mysticism'; and does this not offer as much evidence of the deviation of the religious sentiment as do the 'neo-spiritualist' aberrations? [12]
All that has been said of researchers can also be said of those philosophers who likewise occupy themselves with psychism; they are much less numerous but they do nevertheless exist. We have had occasion before [13] to mention the case of William James, who toward the end of his life manifested very pronounced tendencies toward spiritism. This should be stressed, for some have thought us rather coarse in characterizing this philosopher as a spiritist and especially as an 'unconscious satanist'. On this subject we will alert our possible contradictors, of whatever camp, that we hold in reserve many things still coarser, and their coarseness does not prevent their being rigorously true. Moreover, if they knew what we think of the great majority of modern philosophers, the admirers of 'great men' would no doubt be shocked. As to 'unconscious satanism', this will be explained later; but as for the spiritism of William James, it should be pointed out that this belonged only to his final period (we would say, rather, 'final outcome'), for the ideas of this philosopher varied prodigiously. It is a well established fact that William James vowed to do everything in his power to communicate with his friends and other experimenters after death. This promise, made 'in the interest of science', proves that he admitted the possibility of the spiritist hypothesis, [14] something serious for a philosopher (or it would be if
philosophy were what it should be); and we have reasons to believe that he had gone still further in this direction. It goes without saying that a multitude of American mediums recorded 'messages' signed by him. This story calls to mind that of another no less illustrious American, the inventor Edison, who recently claimed to have discovered a way of communicating with the dead. [15] We do not know what became of this, for a pall of silence has been thrown over the matter; but we have always been quite indifferent as to such results. This episode is instructive in showing yet again that the most incontestably learned men, those whom one might believe to be the most 'positivist', are not immune from the spiritist contagion. But let us return to the philosophers: we have mentioned both Henri Bergson and William James; as to the latter, it is enough to reproduce lines we have already cited, for they are quite significant: 'it would be something, it would be a great thing, to be able to establish on the experiential level the probability of survival, say, for time x. [16] This statement is disquieting at the very least and proves that its author, already so near 'neo-spiritualist' ideas, has truly entered on a dangerous path, which we regret particularly, for those who, having placed confidence in him, risk being drawn after him. In guarding against the worst absurdities, philosophy is hardly worth more than science since it is even incapable of making it understood or merely felt (we do not say of proving, for that would be too much to ask of it), however confusedly, that the spiritist hypothesis is a pure and simple impossibility.
Even leaving aside those suspect of having an interest in spiritism, we could give many other examples indicating that those psychists having 'neo-spiritualist' sympathies appear to be in the greatest number. In France it is especially occultism in the sense understood
in the last chapter that has greatly influenced most psychists. The theories of Dr Grasset (who is nevertheless a Catholic) have some affinity with those of the occultists. Those of Dr Durand de Gros, of Dr Dupouy, of Dr Baraduc, and of Colonel de Rochas, are closer still. We cite only a few names almost at random; to supply supporting texts would not be difficult but we must restrict ourselves to these few, as we would otherwise be led too far from our subject. But we ask whether all this is explained sufficiently by the fact that psychism is a little known and poorly-defined field, or, given that there are so many concordant cases, whether it is not rather the inevitable result of rash investigations undertaken in a field more dangerous than any other, and by men who ignore even the most elementary precautions necessary to approach these things with some safety. In conclusion we will add only this: by rights, psychism is quite independent, not only of spiritism but also of every kind of 'neo-spiritualism'. And if it wanted to be purely experimental, it could in all rigor be independent of any theory whatsoever. In fact, usually psychists are at the same time more or less conscious and more or less avowed 'neo-spiritualists'. This state of affairs is all the more regrettable because in the nature of things it casts a bad light on these studies in the eyes of intelligent and serious men, a discredit that will have the effect of leaving the field entirely to charlatans and the unbalanced.