Peter Lamont Department of Psychology University of Edinburgh

1. HEA Psychology Network (York, Sep 2009)Unorthodox psychology: an unorthodox way into historical and conceptual issues Peter Lamont Department of Psychology University of Edinburgh

2. Why the history of ‘unorthodox’ Psychology? What do you mean it’s like stand-up comedy’? So what makes Psychology better than the UoL? So what does that mean? But if we all agree, what’s the problem? • we don’t - it only seems that way (for most) • we never have (HOP shows us this) • Psychology is what it is as a result of this • to see what goes on, you need to look beyond the current orthodoxy And, in any case …

3. An example: the emergence of Psychical Research Background: The Fox sisters and the ‘Rochester knockings’ Early phenomena: • ‘raps’ and messages • table-tipping & -turning Early debunking: • how to rap and read minds (NYH, 1852) • how to move tables (Times, 1853) NB scientists seek to convince public

4. An example: the emergence of Psychical Research Background: Daniel Dunglas Home (1833-86) • international fame • the phenomena • debunking attempts by scientists (e.g. Brewster) and press • appeal to conjurors’ knowledge

5. An aside: conjurors’ failure to explain them appealed to as experts claimed & deployed expertise • provided ‘exposés’ • but did not really know Anderson, the first magician-debunker, and a playbill advertising ‘Half an hour with the spirits’

6. An aside: conjurors’ failure to explain them A highly imaginative explanation for spirit raps from John Henry Anderson, The Magic of Spirit-rapping (c.1853)

7. The emergence of scientific enquiry William Crookes FRS conducts experiments with Home • tested regularly observed phenomena • controlled lab conditions • scientific observers • announced discovery of psychic force in scientific journal (QJS, 1871)

8. Its exclusion from scientific orthodoxy The response of orthodox science • to ignore (e.g. Faraday, Huxley, Stokes) • to bar entry to ‘science’ (e.g. RS, BAAS) • to debunk publicly: • Carpenter on Crookes’ experiments • misrepresentation criticised NB boundary-work yet not obviously wrong (e.g. Galton, Darwin) William Crookes FRS

9. The negotiation of the boundaries between Psychology and PR Psychological Society of GB (1875-1879) The Slade controversy, Leipzig 1879 Psychology v PR in the US NB disputes over what counted as Psychology, often conducted in public fora (need to establish authority)

10. HUP is a way into … … issues such as: What is Psychology (as science; v other ‘psychologies’)? How does (what counts as valid) Psychological knowledge come about? • neither disinterested enquiry nor simply right v wrong • wrongness not self-evident (hence disputes) • many criticisms ‘wrong’ (e.g. misrepresentation, by our standards) • proponents partially ‘right’ e.g. contribution to Psychology • validity/authority established via social and discursive means NB how this was done is itself a psychological topic

11. HUP is a way into … undergraduate Psychology project: • method (e.g. DA) • Psy RQ (e.g. how is account made persuasive?) • example (e.g. Lamont, 2007) • Crookes’ construction of his work as ‘science’ • ‘science’ based on accurate observation, no preconceptions • author as exemplary scientist (according to this version) • these experiments as good science (according to this version) i.e. psychological study of historical/conceptual issues NB endless topics in HUP or UP (or HOP or OP) …

12. HUP as CHIP @ Ed Y2: Historical and Conceptual Issues: Y4: History of Unorthodox Psychology MSc in History and Theory of Psychology Peter.Lamont@ed.ac.uk 1. How we see ourselves 2. How we used to see ourselves 3. Why we changed our minds 4. How this has changed us 5. What we might have been 6. What we might be