Reviewed by Nemo C. Mörck
Jack Hunter is an anthropologist known for his interest in mediumship. As a student he founded Paranthropology (2010-2017), and has edited most journal issues alone. Hunter has also written a number of books. In Manifesting Spirits he returns to the fieldwork he did as an undergraduate, investigating mediumship at the Bristol Spirit Lodge (Hunter, 2009). The book also concerns the relation between parapsychology and anthropology. Hunter started working on this book in 2009 and by 2017 it had evolved into a PhD dissertation. Now we get to experience its final form. The material for the book derives from his previous writings, hence readers familiar with them will know what to expect. Hunter writes about his own research, Spiritualism, famous physical mediums, and also shares accounts from anthropologists.
Hunter does not really make it clear who the intended reader is. However, judging by the extensive reference list (pp. 229-254), the index, and the tone he expects his book to be read by researchers. Hunter has evidently immersed himself in the relevant literature and generously shares and explains the terminology he has picked up during his studies. The result is that laymen may find some sections less engaging. The tone can shift: one moment Hunter arrives “at a deep-blue door on the kerb of a busy main road” (p. 38). The sections concerning the Bristol Spirit Lodge are clear. However, other sections are less engaging and readable. For example:
If we are hoping to develop a non-reductive understanding of the practices of groups like the Bristol Spirit Lodge we will have to go beyond the confines of traditional Western rationalist interpretations of performance. Dominant academic culture makes it so easy to scoff at and dismiss such practices, but as researchers it is important that we try to overcome this limited view. Even if we are never fully able to enter into the ontological domain inhabited by those who regularly interact with spirits, by entertaining dual nature concepts, and incorporating perspectives from alternative ontological contexts, we can ... perhaps move a little closer to that position (p.185, emphasis in original).
However, he also shares excerpts from the interviews he conducted during his fieldwork, describes his own experiences and impressions of the séances he attended, including with the controversial medium Warren Caylor. Hunter quotes de Mille (1979): “... the anthropologist’s assumptions about the paranormal should be made explicit at all stages of work ...” (p. 70). Hunter has co-authored a collection of trance communications and spirit teachings (Di Nucci & Hunter, 2009), and people have referred to him as a “practising spiritualist” online — he writes that this “is not strictly true” (p. 21), but does not elaborate. Hunter’s assumptions remain unclear. However, as he notes, he did not wish to come across as a debunker during his fieldwork nor did he wish to validate mediums. Perhaps he could be more open about what he makes of it all now? That might have encouraged others.
Hunter repeatedly emphasises that he considers mediumship to be a complex phenomenon, unlikely to be fully explained with just one theory, and seems particularly sceptical of explanations with inherent materialist assumptions. In fact, the book “... is an encouragement to think differently about a subject that, from the mainstream materialist perspective, is nonsense” (p. 228). He covers much literature, ranging from the Fox sisters to modern physical mediums like Kai Mügge, but he does not delve into the debates about whether a particular medium was fraudulent or not.
Throughout the book Hunter treats all perspectives with respect and is acutely aware of the trouble with trying to generalise and compare between different cultures. However, he explains how the meaning of terms such as paranormal and supernatural differ just to announce that he will use “these terms interchangeably” (p. 11). Similarly, spirit possession and mediumship are “employed synonymously” (p. 66). This adds unnecessary ambiguity in an otherwise scholarly book. In addition, I do have some quibbles: Mr Splitfoot was not originally part of the story about the Fox sisters (Willey, 2009) and “Leah” — Ann Leah Fox was born in 1813 not in 1831 (Warwood, 2008). More importantly, Hunter never mention the so-called shaking tent ceremony and how it differs from Spiritualist séances.
Hunter, in line with Andrew Lang, wants anthropologists and parapsychologists to learn from each other. The anthropologists get exposed to accounts about physical mediums and the parapsychologists to accounts from anthropologists. The parts about Paul Stoller’s apprenticeship to a sorcerer (Stoller & Olkes, 1989) and about the shaman Quesalid (Lévi-Strauss, 1986), were interesting. Stoller participated in a magic attack, but also once felt that he was being attacked. Quesalid, “... who did not believe in the power of his teachers. He understood their practices to be little more than charlatanry ...” (p. 178) nevertheless came to be regarded as a powerful healer.
Efforts have been made before to improve the relation between anthropology and parapsychology. Hunter covers this well. The efforts were not in vain (Angoff & Barth, 1973; Long, 1974), but from Schroll and Schwartz (2005) I get the impression that the anthropologists gradually lost interest in psychic phenomena. I sense that Hunter wants to reinvigorate it, first with the journal Paranthropology and now with this book. However, perhaps it would be better to expose anthropologists to something less provocative first? Debates about physical mediums and ectoplasm might be too much for them to take in. The parapsychologists are exposed to intriguing field reports that do not align well with their research (e.g., Grindal, 1983). Building a bridge may not be easy. Hunter concludes:
The overarching purpose of this book is to encourage researchers to explore a wide range of possibilities in their investigations, and to nudge anthropology forward into new areas of ontological inquiry, perhaps even towards a metaphysical anthropology. It is my hope that this thesis will encourage future researchers not to feel limited in their conclusions by the theoretical models that currently dominate scholarly discourse. There may well be a lot more going on beyond the veil. Reality doesn’t always play by our rules (p. 228, emphasis in original).
References
Angoff, A., & Barth, D. (Eds.) (1974). Parapsychology and anthropology. Parapsychology Foundation.
de Mille, R. (1979). Explicating anomalistic anthropology with help from Castaneda. Zetetic Scholar, 3-4. 69-70.
Di Nucci, C., & Hunter, J. (2009). Charlie: Trance communications and spirit teachings. Independently published.
Grindal, B. T. (1983). Into the heart of Sisala experience: Witnessing death divination. Journal of Anthropological Research, 39(1), 60-80.
Hunter, J. (2009). Talking with the spirits: An experiential exploration of contemporary trance and physical mediumship. [BA dissertation, University of Bristol].
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1986). Structural anthropology, Volume I. Penguin.
Long, J. K. (Ed.) (1974). Extrasensory ecology: Anthropology and parapsychology. Scarecrow.
Schroll, M. A., & Schwartz, S. A. (2005). Whither psi and anthropology? An incomplete history of SAC’s origins, its relationship with transpersonal psychology and the untold stories of Castaneda’s controversy. Anthropology of Consciousness, 16(1): 6-24.
Stoller, P., & Olkes, C. (1989). In sorcery’s shadow: A memoir of apprenticeship among the Songhay of Niger. University of Chicago Press.
Warwood, L. J. (2008). The Fox Sisters: Riddle of the records. Psypioneer, 4(9), 186-195.
Willey, G. (2009). How old Splitfoot infiltrated Spiritualism. Psypioneer, 5(6). 187-189.