Annie Goh: Mr. Schetsche, Mr. Bauer, many thanks for taking the time for this interview. Firstly, I have a rather general question about the methods and approaches of the IGPP. How do you and your colleagues deal with phenomena that society at large might describe as »strange« or »weird?«

Michael Schetsche: It must be pointed out to start with that the IGPP research institute is committed to an extremely broad interdisciplinary approach. Scientists in almost a dozen disciplines – from physics to neuropsychology to sociology – have been pursuing research here for over 60 years. Our paradigmatic and theoretical approaches to the issues you have mentioned are accordingly diverse. Exceptional experiences and anomalous phenomena are the primary focus of our research. We describe any human experience that is not easily explicable in traditional scientific terms – phenomena such as prophetic dreams, crisis telepathy, apparitions of the dead, or poltergeist phenomena – as »exceptional experiences.«

Representative surveys have shown that such experiences occur commonly in all modern societies: around half the population in countries such as Germany have had at least one such experience at some point. These experiences are said to be extraordinary also because they occur very seldomly, perhaps only once, in a person’s lifetime – often during an unusual period or situation. People therefore don’t view them as everyday occurrences. From a sociological standpoint we also analyse the incidence of such experiences by how they are interpreted, collectively and individually, and based on their public profile – the way they are dealt with in the media, for example, or in instances of social control. From a psychological perspective, we examine such experiences in lab trials that are designed to establish whether information can be telepathically conveyed, or other such matters. Or we might inquire into the possibly negative psychological impact of exceptional experiences on a person’s everyday life. Our in-house psychological and psychotherapeutic counselling unit would be responsible in the latter case, for it provides support for people who are psychologically fraught by such experiences. The crux of all these approaches, however, is that we take people’s experiences seriously and try to get to the bottom of them by scientific means. This is the core task that the IGPP has taken upon itself, namely to research the field that goes under the name »scientific anomalistics.«

AG: Mr. Bauer, you were Professor Hans Bender’s scientific assistant for many years and took part yourself in some EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomenon) experiments with Friedrich Jürgenson. In the literature and on various websites, at least on the part of certain EVP researchers, Professor Bender’s participation in these experiments over several years is often mentioned as confirmation of the phenomenon’s existence, and his presence is taken to be a kind of scientific legitimisation. In what ways and for what reasons did Professor Bender repeatedly take part in these experiments? What was it about the protagonists and experiments of Friedrich Jürgensen and Konstantin Raudive that interested him?

Eberhard Bauer: Prof. Hans Bender (1907-91) described his personal experience with the tape recordings, which he expressly called »exploratory experiments,« in his article »Zur Analyse außergewöhnlicher Stimmphänomene auf Tonband« (On the Analysis of Extraordinary Voice Phenomena on Magnetic Tape), published in the Zeitschrift für Parapsychologie und Grenzgebiete der Psychologie Vol. 12, 1970, pp. 226-238 (the IGPP’s own journal, of which he was editor at the time). It was to this end that he visited the Swedish painter and film producer Friedrich Jürgenson (1903-87) in Sweden several times in the 1960s and early 1970s. Bender was interested, firstly, in how an individual’s explanation for the recordings might be illustrated, for instance with the aid of the visible speech procedure. In his opinion, many of Jürgenson’s recordings could not be explained by conventional means such as radio fragments, personal delusions, projections, and the like, and Bender therefore discussed the possible paranormal causes, such as psychokinetic effects triggered unconsciously by Jürgenson himself. In Bender’s opinion, the »ghost hypothesis« subscribed to by most of the so-called EVP researchers, among them Konstantin Raudive (1909-1974), couldn’t be proved by current empirical means. Bender would have defended himself against being utilised as a key witness of supposed contact with the afterlife via EVP.2

AG: The so-called »hum phenomenon« (in German: »Brummton«) documented by various media sources usually refers to a low-frequency humming, rumbling, or drone sound, reports of which appear to be widespread across a locality, although it is apparently not heard by everyone and cannot be unambiguously explained. Does the IGPP examine phenomena such as this or archive reports of it, and if so, how?

EB: We do receive inquiries about the hum phenomenon from time to time but it doesn’t play much of a role in our research. One fairly plausible psychoacoustic explanation for it, in my opinion, is the incidence of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions (SOAEs), which are generated within the inner ear and sometimes manifest themselves as tinnitus. Franz G. Frosch (Private Initiative Brummton) suggests this in his article »Hum and Otoacoustics May Arise Out of the Same Mechanism,« which was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 27, 2013, pp. 603-624. Whether this explanation accounts for all facets of the phenomenon is hard for me to say – I’m no expert in this field. The Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) published a study on the effects of infrasound in June 2014 that gives a good overview of the current state of research into this mysterious, unclassifiable phenomenon.4

AG: The topic of this interview, »sonic anomalies,« brings to mind the relatively famous case described in »The Ghost in the Machine,« an article by Vic Tandy published in the Journal of the Society of Psychical Research in April 1998. He describes how employees of a medical equipment manufacturer claimed that the lab in which they worked was haunted. Tandy mentions his initial scepticism, but then reports on his own sense of unease, his cold sweats, and even of an apparition seen whilst working in the lab. He then goes on to explain his discovery of a low-frequency standing wave (infrasound, around 19Hz) produced by an old industrial ventilator and the laboratory architecture, and suggests that the sense of being haunted was likely to be a physiological consequence of this wave. How is a case such as this one perceived in parapsychology? What sort of psychological frameworks do you work with in your field?

EB: Vic Tandy’s hypothesis, which he sought to further underpin in »Something in the Cellar,« his article for the JSPR of July 2000, ranks among the more naturalistic interpretations of so-called hauntings or local apparitions. And references to the fact that environmental factors, possibly of the electromagnetic variety, may play a role in so-called »haunted houses« can be found likewise in specialist literature on parapsychology. That an unusual electromagnetic fluctuation may interact with the neuropsychology and personality of certain »sensitive« persons and lead to subjective »ghostly« experiences is credible enough. Yet one should be wary of overgeneralising such naturalistic interpretations. Many cases of haunting, including some covered by IGPP research, involve massively physical phenomena, such as rapping sounds, moving objects, electrical disturbances, imploding light bulbs, and the like – and they cannot be so easily explained. They are correlated with the presence of certain persons, so-called »focus persons,« and may also be dealt with as a (symbolic and systemic) expression of personal and social crises or conflicts.

AG: Mr. Schetsche, one of your research topics is the emergence and legitimisation of heterodox knowledge. What do you take this term to mean and can you give me some examples of where it may be relevant?

MS: What particularly interests me as a sociologist at the IGPP is the status of heterodox knowledge in modern societies. To explain what I mean by that term, let me first make some distinctions. Every culture has its orthodox knowledge, namely that which it accepts without question – for example, we now believe that the earth is round whereas in earlier times even to suggest that fact was heresy. Such tenets regarding the nature of »reality« tell the members of a society what kind of world they live in, what their place in it should be, and which range of options is available to them (or not) in specific situations. In any culture, this knowledge in its entirety – which sociologists call the order of knowledge – serves as a quasi-normative framework. To violate this order is to invite social sanctions. These range from stigmatisation within one’s social circle (perhaps as »the endlessly mad chattering fool«) to the re-education or permanent social exclusion of »reality rebels« (in German: »Wirklichkeitsrebellen«), for example, in psychiatric wards.

However, complex cultures always give rise to so-called heterodox knowledge too. This is knowledge that generally offers a different (i.e. non-orthodox) description or explanation not of reality in its entirety yet certainly of significant aspects of it. Conspiracy theories regarding political events – those circulated in the wake of 9/11, for example – are a prime example of such heterodoxy. Alternative forms of knowledge of particular interest to us at the IGPP concern heterodox healing therapies (such as so-called spiritual healing), the interpretation of exceptional celestial phenomena such as extraterrestial visitors (e.g. UFOs), and potential explanations of unusual physical phenomena, such as crop circles and the so-called hum phenomenon. What is important in this respect is to maintain a certain flexibility: neither the relation of orthodox to heterodox knowledge of reality nor its cultural relevance can be written in stone for all eternity.

Conflicting interpretations of reality have always competed for credibility and anything once held to be true may prove in the course of history to be unfounded; and, equally, anything initially held to be heterodox knowledge may eventually become a tenet of society. This may happen as part of a scientific revolution or owing to a general shift in popular convictions. Not least for this reason, the task of the sociology of knowledge is to handle differing views of the world in a neutral manner: we don’t judge the conflicting versions of reality put forward. Rather, we ask, in reference to both historical and contemporary epochs: What is culturally condoned? Which readings of the world are controversial? And what are the consequences for human coexistence?

AG: Historically, one normally speaks of the era of scientific revolution as a period in which mystical or magical thinking was eradicated from mainstream societal discourses. Yet to this day we are confronted with experiences and phenomena that appear to call into question the dominant scientific models of the world. Therefore, insofar as both supporters and critics of a given debate use scientific models to underline their own position, the scientific worldview plays a particular role in our cultural understanding of reality. How can research in the social sciences remain neutral regarding these questions of scientific knowledge?

MS: Your question addresses several different issues in the history of science, issues that must initially be kept apart for the purpose of analysis, even though they may be found at the end of the day to be significantly interlinked. Firstly, there is that which sociologists since Max Weber have called the »disenchantment of the world.« This is used to describe a trend evident since the Renaissance, namely towards a specific type of rationalised thought in so-called modern societies. In fact, we call the latter »modern« precisely on account of this specific type of rationality. The current hegemony of rational thought leads us to easily infer that pre-modern societies were highly irrational. That is not the case, however. We are talking here about a specific type of rationality that is determined as strongly by the »spirit of Protestantism« (as Weber called it) and a modern logic of economic exploitation (of capitalism) as by the primacy of scientific thought.

It is however true to say that in the course of the so-called Enlightenment many knowledge types that did not conform to the scientific models of their day were demonised as »superstition,« wholly independently of whether or not they had actually proved their worth in everyday situations over many generations. Just remember the effective means and methods used by herbal healers and midwives! The process of »enlightenment« is hence always a process of repression too, since the latest of scientific findings tend to displace traditional practical knowledge of human experience. In current cultural debates – and this brings us to the second part of your question regarding what may or may not be held to be »real« – science really is of primary importance. Our current knowledge order is shaped by science, which is to say, we leave it to science to decide what we as a society, as a culture, should hold to be »real« – and what not.

Other social sub-systems, such as mass media or educational institutions, generally accept without question the judgments passed down to us by science on the real or unreal status of various phenomena. This is also the reason why in modern »validity wars« (i.e. in disputes as to the validity of certain types or strands of knowledge), almost all participants resort to scientific models and a »scientified« conceptual framework in order to justify their respective views of reality. And it is also the reason why terms such as »superstition« or »pseudo-science« are used in cultural discourse as a means to dispute the legitimacy of opposing parties. Therefore the fact that scientific knowledge lays no claim to »eternal validity« but is subject rather to constant development is often overlooked, and constant development might even possibly be its defining characteristic. That which was excluded from scientific discourse as preposterous yesterday may well be a hotly debated controversy among experts today and a universally accepted fact by tomorrow.

AG: Mr. Schetsche, one of your research areas is called »rituals of boundary crossing.« What sort of rituals do you mean? Are these collective as well as individual rituals?

MS: The term »rituals of boundary crossing« is not the name of a specific research project (or at least not any I know of) but rather a general handle for a category of processes that play or have played an important role in almost all societies known to us. The rituals I am talking about are always shaped collectively or, to be more precise, culturally. All complex cultures trace a multitude of boundaries in everyday life: boundaries between the profane and the sacred, between morality and immorality, between life and death, between childhood and adulthood, between members of their own group and those of foreign groups, and so forth.

Anthropologically speaking, such boundaries are constitutive of society. Without them, everyday life would be bewilderingly incalculable and, more importantly, could not be managed in any practical way. One must consider that cultural boundaries not only divide but also connect: a boundary is always an interface between whatever lies to each side of it, also figuratively. And most boundaries must, in certain situations, necessarily be crossed – when a child becomes an adult, for example, or when someone dies, or when a group accepts some hitherto foreign »other.« In all cultures known to us, such boundary crossings are considered risky: precisely because they are not everyday occurrences, they may usher in the unexpected. And the negative consequences of a botched boundary crossing may be extremely grave. Thus many cultures are familiar with the notion both of wandering spirits and of revenants (French for »those who return«). In the case of the latter, people say that, something must have gone wrong during the crossing from the realm of the living to that of the dead; and thus revenants stuck for all eternity at a boundary are a menace to the cultural order and perhaps also to the health or even life of members of society.

It is in order to prevent such a sorry fate that highly specific rituals are established for instances of boundary crossing. We find these in tribal cultures as well as in modern Western societies. Just think about how carefully planned our modern funeral services are and about all that has to be done after a person dies. The same is true of the other boundary crossings I just mentioned. Research which explores rituals of boundary crossing – both empirically and theoretically – generally seeks to identify the social rules governing them as well as the broader cultural conditions under which they came into being. It also pursues the matter of what happens when this or that boundary crossing goes wrong... Or when a boundary appears to have become so fully permeable as to no longer fulfil its original purpose.

AG: Mr. Bauer, you are the director of the »Information and Counselling Services« department at the IGPP in addition to your other activities. Could you tell me in general terms what the department offers? For example, I’m thinking now of the CD Okkulte Stimmen (Occult Voices)7 – do people who have had experiences of xenoglossy (the ability to speak a language one has not previously learned) or glossolalia (speaking in tongues) seek help there? And what advice would they be given?

EB: Since Prof. Hans Bender founded the IGPP in 1950, the institute has offered a public information and counselling service that caters to the entire spectrum of parapsychology, fringe sciences, and anomalistic phenomena, all summarised under the neutral term »Exceptional Experiences« (ExE). The Institute provides information and material about the distribution and phenomenology of psychic experiences along with expert knowledge regarding state-of-the-art interdisciplinary research related to the border areas of psychology and anomalous phenomena. A special IGPP counselling programme, »mental hygiene,« is designed to meet the individual needs of persons who have difficulty coping with »occult,« »supernatural,« or paranormal experiences that may cause them and/or others emotional distress.

Such experiences are part of the diversity of human life and are known to have occurred in all cultures and epochs. The varieties of ExEs reported by IGPP clients can be grouped into six major categories:

1 – »Extrasensory perception« (ESP) describes any experience people have of obtaining information by means other than their usual sensory channels: information about objective events unknown to them (»clairvoyance«) or about the thoughts and feelings of other persons (»telepathy«). It also implies knowledge of unpredictable future events (»precognition,« »prophetic dreams«).

2 – »Poltergeist phenomena« (RSPK) encompass physical anomalies that reportedly include the disappearance or appearance of objects or their movement without apparent cause, as well as acoustic phenomena (e.g. steps, rapping noises) and visual impressions (appearance of lights or shapes, etc.).

3 – »Presence phenomena« describes a diffuse range of invisible, entity-like presences (beings, forces, atmospheres, etc.). People often report having sensed such a presence while awakening from sleep as well as attendant phenomena such as an inability to move their body (sleep paralysis) and, frequently, sensations of pressure and touch (»incubi,« »nightmares«).

4 – »External influences« mostly manifest themselves through somatic symptoms and the hearing of inner voices, which afflicted persons often connect with strange forces, black magic, or spells.

5 – »Mediumship« encompasses exceptional experiences occurring in the context of occult techniques such as moving glasses, table tilting, pendulum use, or »channelling,« with »messages« often interpreted as coming from ghosts or departed persons.

6 – »Meaningful or fateful coincidences« are occurrences or events subjectively perceived as being connected to or determined by some extraordinary factor (e.g. the frequency of accidents or mishaps, the special role played by a certain number in a person’s biography, etc.).

Exceptional experiences mostly occur spontaneously, i.e. they are unexpected and without apparent cause. They can also be self-induced by techniques such as automatic writing or meditation practices. In addition, people report externally induced ExEs after having contacted healers, psychics, and clairvoyants, or taking up an offer (of treatment, hypnosis, etc.) from the esoteric scene.

Many people can deal with such experiences in a positive way and integrate ExEs into their daily lives without any problem. Under certain circumstances, however, ExEs may induce emotional distress and anxieties, and some afflicted persons find it difficult to cope with them in an adequate way. Also, in standard psychosocial care institutions, afflicted persons often search in vain for explanations and practical help. The goal of our counselling work is to improve support by making the latter more easily available.

AG: Mr. Schetsche, you have developed the concept of »cryptodoxy.« How does it relate to orthodox and heterodox knowledge? Does empirical research always have to take place on the discursive level? What about non-verbal, non-discursive practices?

MS: According to my theory of cryptodoxy,8 modern knowledge orders comprise not only unquestioningly accepted knowledge types (i.e. orthodoxy) and discursively controversial knowledge types (i.e. heterodoxy) but also further knowledge types, namely cryptodoxy. Such cryptodox (i.e. hidden) knowledge types are not part of the universally acknowledged knowledge order but constitute the »shadow areas of knowledge« where all that cannot be addressed in broader society and that remains unspoken is stored. Normally, knowledge from and of these shadow areas is not disseminated in the broader society. One topical example is the issue of physical and sexual abuse in institutions of education and welfare (such as boarding schools, care homes, or orphanages). Until a few years ago, only the perpetrators, survivors, and a handful of eyewitnesses knew of the widespread and persistent abuse practised in such institutions, and all of them were condemned – for a variety of reasons – to silence on the matter. But as we now know, this knowledge was held, not only by a single individual but collectively, by a whole community: entire generations of schoolchildren in the relevant institutions knew what was going on. They exchanged their knowledge secretly by dropping hints or making ambiguous remarks, but still, many years passed before word was leaked beyond the walls. Only when more survivors broke their silence and spoke publicly about all they had suffered as children did this congealed grey area of knowledge begin to break up and spread. The first hesitant public debates took place, and their repercussions shook the political realm to the core.

Yet it is not only at the interface of sexuality and violence that cryptodox knowledge can be found. Magic notions, potions, and practices in small cultural enclaves that have managed, sometimes over many centuries, to preserve certain pre-modern traditions from the grip of »scientified enlightenment« are other categories in which this knowledge type is frequently encountered. These cultures do not hide their knowledge because they are ashamed of it but rather because they know only too well that the hegemonic social strata and likewise the mass media will never accept (or even acknowledge) their models of reality and their practices. In order to avoid social stigmatisation, they keep quiet about their knowledge and pass it on only in secret. It must be noted, however, that these purely personal forms of preserving traditional knowledge (which mostly eschew the use of technical recording or storage devices) may prove inadequate to the task – and specific knowledge and the practical skills and crafts that go along with it may thus be lost forever in the passage of time, before they can be scientifically documented. I am currently working on rescuing the remnants of traditional popular knowledge of magic in the German-speaking countries from the brink of oblivion, and safeguarding them for future generations in an Archive of Popular Magic. Whether my venture will succeed depends on the as-of-yet unresolved matter of further funding...

The interview was conducted via email in December 2014.