The Seybert Report Rhetoric, Rationale, and the Problem of

Psi Research

Visit the link below to download the full version of this book:

https://medipdf.com/product/the-seybert-report-rhetoric-rationale-and-the-proble
m-of-psi-research/

Click Download Now

 Elizabeth Schleber Lowry

The Seybert Report

Rhetoric, Rationale, and the Problem
of Psi Research
Elizabeth Schleber Lowry
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ, USA

ISBN 978-3-319-61511-0 ISBN 978-3-319-61512-7 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-61512-7

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017944606

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: © Pattern adapted from an Indian cotton print produced in the
19th century

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the blind reviewers on this project for their excel-
lent advice. I also would like to thank my friends and family for their
encouragement and support, and to extend a special thanks to Martin
DeMarzo.

v
 Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Spiritualism and Scholarship 9

3 Inside the Seybert Report 27

4 Familiar Jugglery 43

5 Boundaries and Legacies 59

6 Spirit Eyes 75

7 Other Worlds 91

8 Conclusion 105

Index 109

vii
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Abstract “Introduction” discusses the origins and purpose of the

Seybert Commission and the particular terminologies used to discuss
psychical research. This chapter considers how the Seybert Commission’s
investigation prompted questions about the limitations of the scientific
method that challenged materialist attitudes typical of the nineteenth
century. Such questions continue to be relevant to this day.

Keywords Paranormal · Seybert Commission · Seybert Report

University of Pennsylvania · Rhetoric of science · Nineteenth century

In 1884, a very unusual committee was formed at the University of

Pennsylvania. Comprised of professors from various disciplinary back-
grounds, the Seybert Commission was tasked with investigating the
mysterious phenomena alleged to arise in Spiritualist séances. In other
words, the Seybert Commission was committed to observing and
assessing the claims of people who purported to have psychic abilities.
The Commission was named after a Philadelphia philanthropist, Henry
Seybert, who, in his will, had bequeathed a generous sum of money—
sixty thousand dollars—to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.
Seybert’s letter specified that the money was

© The Author(s) 2017 1

E. Schleber Lowry, The Seybert Report,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-61512-7_1
2 E. Schleber Lowry

to be devoted to the maintenance of a chair in the University of

Pennsylvania that shall be known as the “Adam Seybert Chair of Moral
and Intellectual Philosophy,” upon the condition that the incumbent of
said chair, either individually, or in conjunction with a commission of the
University faculty, shall make a thorough and impartial investigation of all
systems of morals, religion or philosophy which assume to represent the
truth, particularly of Modern Spiritualism. I further empower your Board
to invest the said sum of money in such securities, strictly legal or otherwise,
as may be deemed best, provided that at all times the interest alone shall be
expended for the purpose of maintaining the said Adam Seybert Chair1

Seybert’s letter asks the Commission to “make a thorough and impartial

investigation of all systems of morals, religion or philosophy, which assume
to represent the truth, particularly of Modern Spiritualism” yet Seybert,
having been a staunch Spiritualist, apparently believed that such an inves-
tigation would yield “proof” that phenomena allegedly being produced
in séances were a result of genuine communication with the spirits rather
than sleight of hand. However, the men who formed the Commission
were far less credulous than Henry Seybert, and their investigation into
“Modern Spiritualism”—which eventually concluded that there was no
evidence of spirit communication—came to be fraught with controversy.
First, a number of prominent scientists were incensed by the investi-
gation because they believed that it dignified superstition and ignorance.
Second, the investigation was controversial because it was deemed to reflect
a shoddy use of the scientific method and an unprofessional approach to
the study of psi. This criticism was leveled against the Seybert Commission
both by Spiritualists and non-Spiritualists. Spiritualists were convinced that
if the work done by the Commission had been truly impartial, it would
have found “proof” that séance phenomena were “real.” Non-Spiritualists
felt that, had the Seybert Commission’s investigations been conducted
more professionally, Commissioners would have been more successful at
convincing Spiritualists that the phenomena produced in the séances were
unequivocally fraudulent. The fact that the report failed to persuade either
Spiritualists or non-Spiritualists of the Commission’s efficacy, sparked new
conversations about the limits of the scientific method, especially with
respect to disciplinary boundaries, personal bias, and expertise. The con-
troversy also illuminated ways in which “illegitimate” science can help to
foster the production of “legitimate” science—in this case, the field that
would eventually become experimental psychology. Hence, the Seybert
Commission’s work bore lasting implications for academic discourse.
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

The Seybert Commission disbanded after just 3 years, and, in 1887,

publisher J.B. Lippincott released a volume entitled The Preliminary
Report of the Commission Appointed by the University of Pennsylvania
to Investigate Modern Spiritualism in Accordance with the Request of
the Late Henry Seybert. This “preliminary report” was never followed
by any further reports, and the text came to be known simply as “The
Seybert Report.” The report is significant, because it documents the first
officially recognized university-sanctioned psi research program in the
United States. The Seybert Report therefore provides a historical bench-
mark for how “scientific” studies of psi have been addressed by academ-
ics for well over a century.
In his work on the rhetoric of science, Alan Gross writes, “in the pub-
lic understanding of science, rhetoric has two distinct roles: it is both a
theory capable of analyzing public understanding and an activity capable
of creating it.”2 Rhetoric helps us to “create” a public understanding of
science by consensus-building via the production of compelling cultural
narratives. Rhetoric helps us to analyze public understanding by examin-
ing the contexts in which science is constructed—that is, theorizing how
and why some areas of study come to be institutionally sanctioned, while
others do not. With this in mind, I consider how the alleged production
of Spiritualist phenomena was framed as being a scientific practice, and
how the search for empirical evidence of spirit communication was pre-
sented as a scholarly—and therefore professional—undertaking. Further,
I examine the exigency of this rhetorical situation with respect to the
Commission’s target audience—the University of Pennsylvania’s Board
of Trustees.
Seybert Commissioners argue for the importance of continuing to
investigate Spiritualist phenomena, but at times, the collaboratively writ-
ten Seybert Report also appears to undermine its authors’ claims to have
conducted and documented a purely scientific investigation of Spiritualist
practices. Such inconsistencies have raised questions as to what counts as
science and who decides; the separation between disciplinary discourses
within the academy; the possibility of objectivity within the scientific
community; and the boundaries of empirical knowledge. The task of
forming a conclusion as to whether or not psi phenomena were “real”
or “true,” was one that Commissioners themselves eventually admitted
was close to impossible—even while they petitioned the Trustees of the
University of Pennsylvania for funding to continue with their investiga-
tion.
4 E. Schleber Lowry

While the Seybert Report is cited in a majority of scholarly works refer-

encing nineteenth-century Spiritualism, no project has focused exclusively
on the Seybert Report itself. And—to the best of my knowledge—no one
has yet examined reports of psi experimentation from a rhetorical perspec-
tive. My work considers academic discourse with respect to psi from such
approaches as the rhetoric of science (considering how language is used to
build consensus among scientists), Western Esotericism (considering his-
torically marginalized ways of knowing), and scholarship in the history and
philosophy of science: In what ways does cultural context determine which
scientific practices are considered to be legitimate and which are not?

Terminology
Numerous terms have been used to describe experiences and events that
are beyond explanation, for example, “supernatural,” “supernormal,”
“the occult,” and “gnosis,” but the most commonly used, or popular,
term for such phenomena is “paranormal.” The paranormal is defined
by the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena
(ASSAP) as meaning “… ‘beyond the normal’ - phenomena for which
there is no generally accepted scientific explanation.”3 However, the
ASSAP cautions that although, “beyond the normal” is “a good enough
working definition…it soon falls apart when you examine it in any
detail.” The ASSAP’s primary complaint about this term is that it isn’t
specific enough to be useful to a researcher. But there are also other
reasons to limit the use of the word. According to Joseph Laycock and
Daniel Wise: “the label ‘paranormal’ along with similar labels used in
religious studies such as ‘metaphysical religion,’ ‘new religious move-
ments,’ and ‘the occult’ are not neutral but perpetuate social stigma.”4
Much of this terminology is associated with superstition, which in turn
is attributed to a lack of education and intelligence, or to an irrational
disposition. Hence, I have chosen to use the terms “psi” and “anoma-
lous” because of their relative neutrality. As Jeffrey Kripal explains, once
the term “paranormal…took on religious connotations…of a highly het-
erodox or occult nature,” British psychologist Robert Thouless began
using the term “psi” in an effort to quash bias and to promote an aura
of impartiality around the study of anomalous phenomena.5 The term
“anomalous” used in conjunction with the words “phenomena” or
“experience” is also calculatedly neutral—simply referring to phenomena
that cannot be explained by mainstream science.
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

Occasionally, I use the term “esotericism,” which is closely associ-

ated with the interdisciplinary field of “Western Esotericism.” Western
Esotericism addresses knowledge that has historically been rejected by
scholars, and the term “esotericism” is often used in academia when ref-
erencing epistemologies commonly labeled “fringe knowledge,” or, as
Kocku von Stuckrad puts it, “claims to ‘real’ or absolute knowledge and
the means of making this knowledge available.”6 Like the term “para-
normal,” estotericism tends to suggest spiritual experience, yet it has not
been popularized enough to suffer from egregious overuse. In contrast,
psi is a term with scientific connotations and does not necessarily presup-
pose spirituality.

Chapter Summaries
The following chapter, “Spiritualism and Scholarship” provides back-
ground on the nineteenth-century New Religious Movement of
Spiritualism and argues that the Seybert Report is a significant histori-
cal artifact because—in the United States—it documented the first of a
series of institutionally sanctioned academic investigations into psi, which
have raised questions about how we define and perform science in the
academy as well as how we determine the legitimacy of various branches
of academic research. Chap. 3, “Inside the Seybert Report” exam-
ines Commissioners’ descriptions of séances and their reactions to the
mediums with whom they come into contact. Providing historical con-
text for such encounters, this chapter also considers the perspectives of
the Commission’s research subjects. The collaboratively written Seybert
Report is often inconsistent in tone, revealing conflicting discourses of
belief and doubt that can be recognized not only as attempts to appeal to
polarized audiences (both Spiritualists and skeptics) but also as attempts
to account for the limits of scientific materialism. Chap. 4, “Familiar
Jugglery” discusses Seybert Commission Secretary George Fullerton’s
investigation of a “psychical experiment” performed by German astro-
physicist J.C.F. Zollner. In 1878 Fullerton’s preoccupation with Zollner’s
methodology is significant because it preempts twentieth- and twenty-
first-century scholarship on how a scientist’s personal biases can affect
the perceived outcome of an experiment. Such scholarship is significant
both to psi and to mainstream science because it disrupts prevailing
assumptions of objectivity with respect to the scientific method. Chap.
5, “Boundaries and Legacies” uses the Seybert Report as an example of
6 E. Schleber Lowry

fledgling attempts to test the boundary between science and pseudosci-

ence, the movement of psi research from the parlor to the laboratory, and
the subsequent “scientization” of such research. The nineteenth century
marked a period during which establishment scientists publicly rejected
psi research in order to strengthen cultural narratives about progress and
the primacy of a positivist worldview. This chapter explores the compli-
cated academic legacy of “psychical research” and how it contributed to
the field we now recognize as modern psychology. Chap. 6, “Spirit Eyes”
explores the controversy surrounding Furness’s satirical writing on his
own independent investigation of Philadelphia-area psychics. This chap-
ter draws on rhetorician Kenneth Burke’s theory of the “comic frame”
to offer competing interpretations of Furness’s writing, suggesting that
perhaps Furness’s intention was not to ridicule Spiritualists (and others
who believed in the power of mediumship), but to foster an invitational
mode of communication with them. Chap. 7, “Other Worlds” consid-
ers how scholars discuss human experiences suggesting “alternative” or
“other” ways of knowing that are often considered by academic audiences
to be illegitimate. What stance should scholars take toward their subjects’
claims to have experienced psi phenomena? How are these experiences
to be understood and framed? This chapter draws on various theoretical
models that consider viable ways to develop more productive and inclu-
sive research agendas in the social sciences. Finally, the conclusion revisits
and offers commentary on the central questions emerging in this study:
Why should claims to psi or anomalous experience be studied at all? In
what ways does the Seybert Report mark a turning point in the history of
psi research? From a rhetorical perspective, what does examining the con-
troversy sparked by the Seybert Report accomplish? What can we learn
from otherwise “rejected” knowledge and what has it meant to us in the
development of new disciplinary fields—particularly in the social sciences?

Notes
1. Henry Seybert’s letter of May 18th, 1886 to the Philadelphia North
American was reprinted in Almon Benson Richmond’s What I Saw at
Cassadaga Lake: A Review of the Seybert Commissioners’ Report (Boston:
Colby & Rich, 1888), 7.
2. Alan G. Gross “The Roles of Rhetoric in the Public Understanding of
Science” Public Understanding of Science 3 (1994): 3.
 1 INTRODUCTION 7

3. ASSAP “What Exactly is the Paranormal.” http://www.assap.ac.uk/news-

ite/htmlfiles.
4. Joseph Laycock and Daniel Wise. “Review Essay. ‘Our Secret in Plain
Sight’: Recent Scholarly Approaches to Paranormal Belief” Religious
Studies Review, Vol 40. No. 2. (June 2014): 71.
5. Jeffrey Kripal “Review Essays. The Rise of the Imaginal: Psychical
Research on the Horizon of Theory (Again).” Religious Studies Review.
Vol. 33. No.3. (July 2007): 190.
6. Stuckrad, Kocku Von. Western Esotericism: A Brief History of Secret
Knowledge, (Sheffield: Equinox Publishing, 2005), 10.
 CHAPTER 2

Spiritualism and Scholarship

Abstract “Spiritualism and Scholarship” provides background on the

nineteenth-century New Religious Movement of Spiritualism and argues
that the Seybert Report is a significant historical artifact because—in
the United States—it documented the first of a series of institutionally
sanctioned academic investigations into psi, which have raised questions
about how we define and perform science in the academy, as well as how
we determine the legitimacy of various branches of academic research.

Keywords Psi · Spiritualism · Western Esotericism · Natural science

Psychical research · Anomalous phenomena

The “Scientific” Religion

In the mid-nineteenth century, a new religious movement arose in
Upstate New York. This movement, known as Spiritualism, began in
1848 when two teenage girls named Kate and Maggie Fox claimed to
be communicating with the spirit of a peddler who had—many years ear-
lier—been murdered in their modest Hydesville home. When the ped-
dler’s bones were found in the basement of the house, Kate and Maggie
quickly gained a reputation for having psychic abilities.1 The girls had
apparently devised an intricate system of “raps” with which to interact
with their ghostly friend. Neighbors flocked to the house to hear the
raps and to make the ghost’s acquaintance, and eventually Kate and

© The Author(s) 2017 9

E. Schleber Lowry, The Seybert Report,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-61512-7_2
10 E. Schleber Lowry

Maggie—together with their older sister Leah—began to provide pub-

lic demonstrations of their skills. The Fox sisters’ demonstrations were
followed by those of other people claiming to have similar abilities, and
eventually Spiritualism—which had originated simply with the belief
that one could communicate with spirits of the deceased—came to be
described by its practitioners as a religion.2
If Spiritualism was a religion, the séance was a key ritual component
of Spiritualist practice. Attendees at a Victorian-era séance would have
found themselves in a darkened room—most likely a parlor in someone’s
home. The attendees (who typically numbered anywhere from 3 to 12),
would be seated around a table in such a manner as to balance male and
female energies. They might have been asked to put their hands on the
table with their fingers touching, or they might have joined hands. The
medium, who was usually a woman, might lead séance attendees in sing-
ing a hymn or saying a prayer to “assist conditions” for the summon-
ing of a spirit-control. Eventually, if the attendees were lucky, they would
get what they came for: the medium would ostensibly be controlled by a
spirit who would direct her to impart personal messages to various peo-
ple in the room.
Mediums claimed to convey messages from the spirit world in a
variety of ways. Some simply spoke in what attendees believed was the
actual voice of a deceased being, while others used slates to write mes-
sages patiently dictated by the spirits. Still, others conveyed messages
through a laborious system of raps and knocks much like that origi-
nally used by the Fox sisters in 1848. In time, as mediumship grew
more widespread, audiences began to demand more empirical evidence
of a spirit world. In response to this, a number of mediums began to
produce what they referred to as “full-form materialization”—that is, a
tangible spirit form that could appear at the séance and make physical
contact with the attendees. These “full-form materializations” obviously
aroused suspicion, and some scholars have argued that they contributed
to Spiritualism’s eventual downfall because they caused Spiritualism to
take on the trappings of popular entertainment. Most significantly, per-
haps, the séance served a therapeutic function for those who had lost
loved ones. Under the cover of darkness, the bereaved could cry and
share their feelings of vulnerability and pain. Scholars such as Brett
Carroll, Cathy Gutierrez, Molly McGarry, and Marlene Tromp have
argued that, particularly in the second half of the nineteenth century, the
séance was appealing in that it offered attendees a small informal spiritual