Attempting to be aware of my own discursive thought patterns, and thus my orientation towards certain belief structures, I concluded an analysis was possible of Jeremy Northcote's recent work The Paranormal and the Politics of Truth: A Sociological Account.  Most in academia today will tell you that research into the supernatural is not worth the risk, is irrational, or will end up futile in its results.  For that reason alone, Northcote should be praised for his courage and integrity to pursue such a risky subject matter.  Unless you are a theoretical physicist, you can rarely justify your reasons for believing in or having had experienced a phenomena related to the supernatural.  In this work, Northcote walks us through the changes in practices and behaviors regarding the supernatural from the Medieval and Enlightenment eras to current dialogue and controlled experiments on paranormal experiences and events.  Be it our need for metaphors, the discovery of anomalies in nature, definitions on the imagination and what constitutes as evidence, or one's devout belief in a higher power, this work maintains its stability in taking an impartial approach to a very challenging topic.

Northcote's sociological account of the discourses and limits at play within the supernatural debate can best be described as comprehensive, but manageable.  Anyone can pick up this work and keep track of the argument while Northcote threads together theories and patterns of discursive practices on the supernatural across disciplines.  If there were one way, through field research, to research the discourses at play within this debate, and not ruin your academic or professional career, it would be through sociological spectacles.  The skeptic, the scientist, the believer, and the faithful mind will find this work valuable in its conclusions.  If there were no disagreements on this subject matter, the solutions would be obvious and most likely laid out for all to see by now.  Yet this is not the case; the debate on supernatural phenomena stands revealed, emotionally charged, at the margins of institutional control and, in the end, both scientific and rhetorical.  One of Northcote's main theses includes the suggestion that we recognize that there are credible debates occurring in this field of research on the nature of knowledge, evidence, discourse, truth, opinion, belief, value, and so on.

Through an interdisciplinary approach, Northcote has deconstructed the discursive practices at play within the debate on paranormal topics.  He writes that this debate is "…characterized by intransigency on all sides–factors that would seem to work against reaching any lasting–indeed, even temporary–consensus… Further, such characteristics appeared not to be the result of either hegemonic interests…or ontological differences… Rather, the intransigency seemed to be the result of discursive factors that were tied to demonized notions of the 'Other'."  In other words, from the standpoint of those like Michel Foucault, Bruno Latour, or Jürgen Habermas, there are rules of discourse at work within the language of the arguments for or against the paranormal, as well as at work in the larger social schemes regarding the nature of what is and is not considered truthful.  More importantly, Northcote's analysis demonstrates that those on the margins of controlled discourse today fall within this particular topic.  If you want to discover a place where you can examine a variety of discursive structures, on such concepts as knowledge, evidence, truth, belief, value, morality, God, nature, life, death, and so on, Northcote contends you will find it within the debate on supernatural phenomena.  The Paranormal and the Politics of Truth takes into consideration some of the most respected research on this topic within varying disciplines, but in a way that is highly manageable for any reader.  This method provides us with a range of opinions and beliefs.  The clarity Northcote offers allows the reader to walk away with an extensive overview of various discourses, questions, evidence, and practices and behaviors employed during such debates.  If the faith-based mind suggests that believing in the paranormal is devil's work, the paranormal researcher asks them to prove their argument via evidence.  If the materialist scientist concludes there is naivety and irrational arguments within these types of debates, the parapsychology researcher asks the scientist to first listen closely and allow for an open and consistent dialogue on this subject matter.  What better way to dispel irrational or illogical beliefs than to lay out as many arguments for and against the supernatural as possible?  If the skeptic concludes we cannot know and should not waste our time inquiring about things transcendent, the paranormal researcher asks why then have theology departments in every university around the world?

When at its best, The Paranormal and the Politics of Truth demonstrates how discursive practices and authoritative, often scientific, deductions net the paranormal debate and hold it at bay, outside the limit of what is acceptable and taken "seriously."  Northcote writes, "The paranormal debate is political because it challenges the boundaries between 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' knowledge that lie at the heart of our 'modern' society."  He continues that the issues and discussions found within this discourse, regardless of discipline, background, experiences, abilities, or interests, are at the heart of allowing the "Other" to be heard.  In the end, the paranormal debate should be allotted a "place" in, at least, the academic and political spheres in a more open manner.  There are many dialogues going on regarding this debate all around the world, for example, on the university level, with many parapsychology laboratories in operation today.  From witch hunts in the sixteenth century to current day attitudes and prosecutions on the level of the judicial system, this topic is one that will not be going away anytime soon.  In a highly focused manner, Northcote takes us from the fear of secret societies in the seventeenth century to the societal psychological distress caused by alienating behaviors of those who control the discourse of this debate.  Northcote is quick to remind us, "The arbitrary nature of these boundaries can perhaps be better appreciated when it is realized that many phenomena that are today taken for granted were, in the past, rejected as ludicrous."

Northcote is interested most in explaining the behaviors of those in control of the various levels of this debate.  He is not interested in the content of belief systems and if they hold validity or not.  Be it the deep existential fear of discovering some transcendental unknown truth, one's faith in a transcendent reality, or the posited scientific opinion, discourse analysis on the behaviors and practices of those engaged in this debate revels there are multiple valid dimensions supporting both sides.  It also reveals the need to control the debate based on one's personal value system and the discursive structures already in place for many individuals.  To be certain, the real skeptic or believer might want to consider the little bit of truth appearing in the idea that it is better to be open-minded of the Other than to have a consciousness riddled in pre–established rhetorical and discursive formations.  Northcote concludes, "Overall, I see the situation more in terms of a discursively based clash between established discourses and newly emerging ones…that have thrown the legitimacy of established perspectives into doubt and, in turn, have increased the legitimacy of paranormal ideas."

This work does not critique, but explores the various discursive practices at work within the debate on occult ideas and ends with impacting suggestions.  His concluding chapter is titled "The Possibility of a Positive Dialogue."  From the first laws sanctioning occult practices to current productive debates, such as the Hyman-Honorton debate where much professionally open dialogue did take place, we can have some clarity on the perspective that social–structural changes are occurring within this debate.  "Postmodernism's value as a facilitative mechanism lies in its suggestion that truth and identity may ultimately be contingent…which tends to cast a degree of doubt on cherished views. …I believe we can find a role for reflexivity. [The supernatural debate] is a site where many (though not all) taken-for-granted truths are contested, and, consequently, where each discursive formation that relies on those truths must re-establish its legitimacy in a more forceful and transparent manner than is required in more 'conventional' truth-negotiating arenas."

© 2007 Chris Rawls

Chris Rawls, MA, is in the Ph.D. program in philosophy at Duquesne University

Categories: Philosophical