Atlantic University's Scholar in Residence

Carlos S. Alvarado, Ph.D., Atlantic University

The current issue of the Italian journal Luce e Ombra, entitled “Ernesto Bozzano a 150 Anni dalla Nascita” (Ernesto Bozzano at 150 Years from Birth), commemorates the 150th birth anniversary of Italian writer and psychical researcher Ernesto Bozzano (1862-1943). Bozzano, who I have discussed in several papers and in blogs (http://carlossalvarado.edublogs.org/2012/08/14/books-from-the-past-ii-ernesto-bozzanos-musica-trascendentale/; http://www.parapsych.org/blogs/carlos/entry/35/2012/2/new_article_about_ernesto_bozzano.aspx) was known for his strong defence of survival interpretations of psychic phenomena and for his writings presenting many cases from the spiritualist and psychical research literatures.

According to Luca Gasperini’s (2012) article about Bozzano published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration: “Ernesto Bozzano . . . was probably the most important Italian representative of psychical and spiritualistic studies before the 1940s, as well as one of the few to emerge on the international scene . . . He was at the center of an intense network of correspondence with Italian, European, and American intellectuals, receiving an average of 200 letters a month, and was furthermore one of the few Italian scholars to have been named an honorary member of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR), the American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR), and the Institut Metapsychique International . . . ”

The issue opens with an unsigned editorial actually written by Cecilia Magnanensi, a member of the journal’s editorial board who I had the pleasure of meeting some years back when I visited Bologna. She states: “At one hundred and fifty years from birth, taking place exactly on January 9 1862 at Genoa, we need to remember Ernesto Bozzano, not only because we have inherited his bibliographic heritage, but it is also a figure to be rediscovered. The new generation, either of scholars or of persons interested in paranormal phenomena, do not know well his role in the history of psychical research and much less his work.” At the end of the editorial there is a useful chronology of selected events in Bozzano’s life ranging from his birth to his death prepared by historian of Italian psychical research Massimo Biondi.

The titles of the twelve papers appearing in the issue are:

*Studiare Ernesto Bozzano: Suggerimenti per Futuri Studi Storici [Studying Ernesto Bozzano] by Carlos S. Alvarado

*L’Importanza di Bozzano nella Storia della Parapsicologia [The Importance of Bozzano in the History of Parapsychology] by Giovanni Iannuzzo

*Nota su Bozzano Lettore di Spencer [Note on Bozzano as Reader of Spencer] by Luca Gasperini

*Dal Materialismo allo Spiritualismo [From Materialism to Spiritualism] by Giuseppe Vatinno

*Bibliografia Aggiornata su Ernesto Bozzano [An Up to Date Bibliography about Ernesto Bozzano] by Luca Gasperini

*Poltergeist e Infestazione: I Criteri Fondamentali di Bozzano [Poltergeists and Hauntings: Bozzano's Fundamental criteria] by Giulio Caratelli

*Oggetti con Anima: L’Enigma della Psicometria [Objects with Soul: The Enigma of Psychometry] by Silvio Ravaldini

*La Monografia La Crisi della Morte di Ernesto Bozzano [The Monograph The Crisis of Death by Ernesto Bozzano] by Luca Gasperini

*Le “Esperienze di Bilocazione” e le OBE di Oggi [The "Experience of Bilocation" and Today's OBE] by Paola Giovetti

*Le Visioni dei Morenti [Visions of the Dying] by Cecilia Magnanesi

*Visione Panoramica: Breve Storia di una Breve Ricerca [Panoramic Vision: A Brief History of a Brief Research] by Fulvia Cariglia

*Dei Fenomeni di Psicocinesi in Relazione a Eventi di Morte [The Phenomena of Psychokinesis in Relation to Death Events] by Massimo Biondi]

While all papers touch on Bozzano, a few of them are not studies about him but are discussions of issues in which Bozzano is mentioned (papers by Cariglia, Giovetti, Magnanensi). The rest are general (Alvarado and Iannuzzo) or discussions of specific issues and phenomena (Biondi, Caratelli, Gasperini [two papers], Ravaldini, and Vatinno).

Studying Bozzano is not easy for we have to deal with what Gasperini has referred to in this issue as his “large bulk of publications.” I would recommend readers new to Bozzano, and to psychical research in general, to start reading the editorial and then move to Iannuzzo’s paper about Bozzano and the history of parapsychology because he discusses general aspects of Bozzano’s work and ideas. For example, he says that Bozzano had a fair scientific education but one based on the 1800s “based on the texts of Darwin and Heckel or, in any case, on scientific works of fin de siecle.” He further states that Bozzano had an important drawback, while psychical research continued to change “influenced by the progress in other fields or research and kept always affirming an ‘interdisciplinary’ vision of parapsychology, Bozzano continued to work and study in a completely autonomous way in terms of other scholars and other directions of psychical research.”

According to Iannuzzo: “Bozzano considered paranormal phenomena as natural objects to be classified. . . . For Bozzano the reality of a paranormal phenomenon came above all from the number of observations independent of the phenomenon itself. Already the fact of finding a psychic phenomenon in someone independent from another-also in a historical and cultural sense-demonstrated implicitly the existence of such phenomenon.”

While Iannuzzo criticizes Bozzano for uncritical acceptance of cases in his analyses disregarding quality of evidence, he praises him for presenting massive bibliographical overviews of many topics. In Iannuzzo’s view no one else has presented such a synthesis of the psychical research literature, “in practice the most gigantic review ever done.”

Readers will find Gasperini’s short updated bibliography of works about Bozzano useful. He presents two lists of secondary references consisting of studies and comments about Bozzano. I was glad to see that he listed eight of my papers in the first list and 12 in the second one (it is always nice to see that someone is following your work that closely, particularly in this highly specialized literature).

I was pleased, and honored, to have been invited to contribute to the issue. This was particularly the case because I was the only non-Italian author in the issue. In my paper I offered suggestions for the historical study of Bozzano. Regardless of the valuable work of such authors as Gasperini, Iannuzzo, and Ravaldini there is more research to do about personal and intellectual aspects of Bozzano, Bozzano’s studies of specific phenomena and topics, the guiding conceptual principles of his work, his use of rhetoric, his analytic method, and the reception of his work. I wrote: “This will not only increase our knowledge of Bozzano’s work and of Italian psychic studies, but would also contribute to a more complete perspective of the history of psychical research.”

Some of the things I suggested in my paper are discussed in some of the articles. An example is the article of Dr. Massimo Biondi (pictured at the right), with whom I correspond frequently and write papers. He focused on Bozzano’s writings about psychokinetic phenomena around the moment of death). Other authors were Giulio Caratelli (hauntings and poltergeists), Luca Gasperini (mediumistic communications about the experience of death), and Silvio Ravaldini (psychometry).

Other authors have interesting contributions such as Bozzano as a reader of Herbert Spencer (Luca Gasperini). They present general discussions about specific phenomena that are not strictly studies of Bozzano, but that are also valuable because they put Bozzano in context and help us remember the richness of the psychical research literature. These are discussions of out-of-body experiences (Paola Giovetti), deathbed visions (Cecilia Magnanensi), and panoramic visions when close to death (Fulvia Cariglia).

The articles in this issue of Luce e Ombra will help readers learn more about Italian psychical research in general, and about Ernesto Bozzano in particular. Bozzano was described by Giuseppe Vatinno as “an organizer, a naturalist classifier, sort of a Carl Linneus” of a new science. My congratulations to the Director of Luce e Ombra, Silvio Ravaldini, as well as to others who contributed to the crafting of this issue (mainly Cecilia Magnanensi, Massimo Biondi).

 

Some Writings About Ernesto Bozzano (for a bibliography of Bozzano’s writings see http://www.bibliotecabozzanodeboni.it/bibliografie/bibliografia_bozzano.htm)

Alvarado, C.S. (1987). The life and work of an Italian Psychical Researcher: A review of Ernesto Bozzano: La Vita e L’Opera by Giovanni Iannuzzo. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 81, 37-47.

Alvarado, C. S. (2005). Ernesto Bozzano on the phenomena of bilocation. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 23, 207-238. http://atlanticuniv.academia.edu/CarlosSAlvarado/Papers/318846/_2005_._Ernesto_Bozzano_and_the_phenomena_of_bilocation._Journal_of_Near-Death_Studies_23_207-238

Alvarado, C. S. (2007). Remarks on Ernesto Bozzano’s La Psiche Domina la Materia. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 25, 189-195. www.medicine.virginia.edu/…/Alvarado-Bozzano-La-Psiche-Domina-2007-JNDS-Bozzano.pdf

Biondi, M. (1984). Pagine di appunti di Ernesto Bozzano [A page of notes about Ernesto Bozzano]. Luce e Ombra, 84, 156-164.

Bozzano, E. (1924). Autobiographical sketch. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 18, 153-155.

Di Porto, B. (no year). Ernesto Bozzano. In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (Vol. 13, pp. 578-580). Rome: Treccani.http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ernesto-bozzano_(Dizionario-Biografico)/

Gasperini, L. (2009-2010). Ernesto Bozzano: Tra Spiritismo Scientifico e la Ricerca Psichica [Ernesto Bozzano" Between Scientific Spiritism and Psychical Research]. Laurea thesis, University of Bologna.

Gasperini, L. (2010). L’annosa disputa Bozzano-Morselli [The age-old dispute Bozzano-Morselli]. Luce e Ombra, 110, 290-306.

Gasperini, L. (2011). Ernesto Bozzano, i “popoli primitivi” ed Ernesto de Martino (Ernesto Bozzani, “primitive people,” and Ernesto de Martino]. Luce e Ombra, 111, 17-25.

Gasperini, L. (2011). Criptestesia o ipotesi spiritica? Ch. Richet ed E. Bozzano a confronto [Cryptesthesia or spiritistic hypothesis? The confrontation of Ch. Richet and E. Bozzano]. Luce e Ombra, 111, 113-126.

Gasperini, L. (2012). Ernesto Bozzano: An Italian spiritualist and psychical researcher. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 25, 755-773.

Iannuzzo, G. (1983). Ernesto Bozzano: La Vita e l’Opera [Ernesto Bozzano: Life and Work]. Verona: Luce e Ombra.

Ravaldini, S. (1993). Ernesto Bozzano e la Ricerca Psichica: Vita e Opere di un Pioniere della Parapsicologia [Ernesto Bozzano: Life and Work of a Pioneer of Parapsychology]. Rome: Mediterranee. (For a review see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n4_v59/ai_18445604/)

6 Comments »
Filed under: Biography, History, Recent Publications

Carlos S. Alvarado, Ph.D., Atlantic University

My last published article is “Distortions of the Past,” which just appeared in the Journal of Scientific Exploration (2012, 26, 611-633). This was an invited address I presented at the 2011 Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, held in Brazil in 2011. The address, in turn, was part of an award I received at the convention held in Paris in 2010 (http://www.parapsych.org/articles/29/29/2010_outstanding_contribution.aspx).

History of science is written by different types of scholars, mainly practitioners and professional historians (although there are others). As I wrote in the paper: “By practitioners I mean those individuals who are active members of the discipline in question, be they teachers, researchers, or something else, while professional historians are those who have been formally trained in history.” In the paper I focus on the first group. I discuss a variety of problems that may distort parapsychologist’s writings about the history of their field.

A main source of distortion is the neglect of particular groups. A common issue, particularly among Anglo-American parapsychologists, is the writing of history focusing only on the contributions of English-speaking workers. “Not knowing what has been published in other languages reduces our knowledge of the history of parapsychology, and produces incomplete, if not provincial, views of history. It also condemns us to follow particularly American, British, or other perspectives of the past, forgetting that, while there are international commonalities, there are also differences coming from different cultures, and that those collective differences, together with the similarities, are what form our history.” The same may be said about historical accounts focusing solely on the work of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR), or that tend to ignore other groups (e.g., women).

Even the emphasis on SPR developments may be criticized in terms of its focus on the work of particular individuals, men such as Frederic W.H. Myers and Edmund Gurney. There are many other figures important to SPR history who are neglected by modern parapsychologists. A case in point is William Stainton Moses, generally remembered as a medium. But Moses “was also an early SPR vice-president and an active member who participated in such tasks as the collection of cases for the Society . . . His writings show that he was also a serious student of psychic phenomena with a considerable knowledge of the literature on the subject . . . as does his editorship of the spiritualist journal Light for several years.” Moses’ knowledge of spiritualist literature is evident in publications about direct writing (Moses, 1878) and materializations (Moses, 1884)

Another problem is when parapsychologists discuss the past as a function of the present. This includes “the practice of presenting past developments basically as they relate to present needs, concerns, and ideas, and not on their own terms, as well as the interpretation of the past from the perspective of the present.” Sometimes such a perspective leads writers to use the past to justify the present, to defend particular research programs. But one must not forget to be fair to the past. Our past can be heavily distorted when we write about it while ignoring ideas that were popular in previous times but are not so today. For example, the past literature has much about ideas of biophysical forces to account for physical phenomena (Alvarado, 2006), but such ideas are rarely discussed by current writers when they focus on past developments.

A similar issue is the concept of evidentiality. Many current parapsychologists do not consider in their writings phenomena that are thought of today as weak evidentially, such as materialization phenomena. When writings about the past get defined by present beliefs and concerns we may end up presenting artificial views of the past, views distorted by what we believe today, views that obscure what was believed on at the time (the situation can be complex of course and there is no such thing as “pure” historical perspective).

Closely related to the above-mentioned topics: “We could also learn much from historians of science and medicine who study concepts believed today to be erroneous. This is important not only to get a more complete account of past developments, but to understand the work and assumptions of past workers. Examples of this include studies of cosmology . . . , of the humors of Hippocratic and Galenic medicine . . . , and other concepts such as the ether. . .”

Another issue is one found in many textbooks, the depiction of the past as one of progression and positive development. Some of these accounts unfortunately want to show such a positive view of the field that they do not include negative events such as important examples of rejection.

An interesting study of this topic is Bertrand Meheust’s (1999) discussion of the rejection of the paranormal from mesmerism in France. He has argued that many of the representatives of the nineteenth-century hypnosis movement in the 1878-1895 period adopted a variety of strategies to eliminate from the newer movement of hypnotism phenomena such as the healing action of a magnetic agent and clairvoyance. This was accomplished by denying the existence of the phenomena and by reinterpreting the observed effects via physiological and psychological arguments. Meheust argues that the “magnetic menace was appropriated, filtered, recalibrated, metabolized . . . by institutional medicine.”

Then there is the topic of critics. “The work of critics is also neglected in historical accounts authored by many parapsychologists (for an exception, see Zingrone, 2010) . . . But . . . we need to keep in mind that the history of the discipline is not formed solely by those who have produced positive evidence for the existence of psi. Instead it is formed from the interplay of a variety of factors and forces, among them the writings and arguments of critics. A history that explores only the achievements of those defending the existence of psychic phenomena is only half of a discipline. To understand the development of parapsychology research, we also need to study the writings of critics because they were part of the intellectual milieu in which concepts and methods developed.”

In addition, we need to remember that sometimes we cannot simply classify figures from the past as either critics or skeptics or as proponents and believers. Such classifications depend on issues such as particular phenomena and theories, or particular mediums or psychics. Many individuals can play and have played both roles.

“In criticizing the writings of parapsychologists about the past of their discipline, we must remember that their goals are different from those of the trained historian. Theirs is not an attempt to do formal history or to document the above-mentioned wider aspects of the field. Their approach in writing about the past exists because it fulfills disciplinary needs and interests. But still, and regardless of their right to pursue their own agenda, we need to be aware that the end result also produces distorted views of the past of the discipline.”

The paper, unfortunately, has too many complaints. “But my main purpose has not been to vent. Instead I want to caution fellow parapsychologists about selected problems limiting our views of the history of the field. These issues are not only related to parapsychology, but also to the way other professionals discuss the past of their disciplines, as seen in some of the histories of science written by scientists . . . However . . . no overview of past developments is free of problems, and this applies as well to the work of professional historians. The enterprise is always a subjective one involving selection of sources and events, not to mention interpretations of those materials . . . something which determines our views of the past.”

Perhaps a “discussion of the strategies and practices that distort our views of the past will help parapsychologists to obtain a better understanding of the dynamics of their field, including a view of the range of factors involved and of the subjective nature of writing about the past. Such range is a constant reminder that the meaning and construction of the past is anything but simple.”

References

Alvarado, C. S. (2006). Human radiations: Concepts of force in mesmerism, spiritualism and psychical research. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 70, 138-162.

Meheust, B. (1999). Somnambulisme et Mediumnite (1784-1930): Volume 1: Le Defi du Magnetisme Animal. Le Plessis-Robinson: Institut Synthelabo pour de Progres de la Connaissance.

Moses, W. S. [under the pseudonym M. A. Oxon] (1878). Psychography: A Treatise on One of the Objective Forms of Psychic or Spiritual Phenomena. London: W. H. Harrison.

Moses, W. S. [under the pseudonym M. A. Oxon] (1884). Phases of materialization: A chapter of research in the objective phenomena of spiritualism. Light, 4, 9-10, 19-20, 31-32, 41-42, 51-52, 61-62, 71-72, 81-82, 91-92, 101-102, 111, 121-122, 131-132, 141-142, 151-152, 161-162, 289-290, 299-300, 309-310, 319-320, 329-330.

Zingrone, N. L. (2010). From Text to Self: The Interplay of Criticism and Response in the History of Parapsychology. Saarbrucken, Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing.

A PDF reprint of this paper is available from the author: carlos.alvarado@atlanticuniv.edu

2 Comments »
Filed under: History, Recent Publications