Superpowers at the Salpêtrière: Birth of Psychical Research
On this page
How did science and séances become enemies?
Modern psychology was born from hypnotism and séances, then rejected its supernatural parent.
Paris, 1885. At the Salpêtrière Hospital, Dr. Jean-Martin Charcot conducts dramatic demonstrations with hysterical patients who seem to read minds while hypnotized. These performances, intended to establish psychology as hard science, instead blur the line between medicine and magic. Historian Régine Plas traces how this 'hypnotic context' birthed both modern psychology and parapsychology—twin siblings who grew up to become estranged. Note: This specific institutional history reflects 19th-century French academic politics and may not generalize to the development of psychology in other countries.
Key Findings
- The study reveals that modern psychology and parapsychology were once conjoined twins.
- When the first French psychology society formed in 1885, Nobel laureate Charles Richet actively investigated 'mental suggestion.' However, by the 1900 Paris Congress, Pierre Janet and Georges Dumas founded the French Psychology Society specifically to exclude psychical research.
- Disappointed, Richet pivoted to create parapsychology as a separate discipline, institutionalizing the split between the study of the mind and the study of the 'supernatural' that persists today.
What Is This About?
Plas dug through historical archives from the 1880s to 1900, examining the founding documents of France's first psychology societies and the published proceedings of the 1900 International Congress of Psychology in Paris. She analyzed how early French psychologists talked about strange phenomena—magnetic lucidity, thought-reading, and mental suggestion—and tracked when and why they stopped investigating these mysteries. Instead of testing whether these phenomena were real, she investigated how the scientific community's attitude toward them changed over fifteen years.
Historical archival analysis of documents from the 1885-1900 period, including founding documents of French psychology societies, proceedings from the 1900 International Congress of Psychology, and correspondence of key figures like Charcot and Richet.
The study traces how French psychology emerged from hypnotic research, initially embraced psychical phenomena, then formally excluded such studies by 1900, leading to the institutional separation of psychology and parapsychology.
How Good Is the Evidence?
1885 to 1900: Just 15 years elapsed between the founding of France's first psychology society (which embraced psychical research) and the 1900 Congress that formally expelled it—roughly the same span as the iPhone's existence from 2007 to 2022.
Supporters of parapsychology cite this history as evidence that science prematurely closed the door on legitimate anomalies, driven by professional politics rather than evidence. Skeptics counter that psychology was right to purge itself of untestable claims, establishing itself as a rigorous science while leaving mysticism behind. Both sides agree on the historical fact: the split was institutional and social, not purely scientific—psychology chose respectability over investigating the strange.
Mainstream: Psychology correctly distinguished itself from spiritualism to become a mature science. Moderate: Professionalization naturally led to boundary-setting, but valuable research questions were lost in the process. Frontier: The exclusion was a sociological purge that suppressed genuine anomalies to secure academic funding and status.
Many assume psychology always rejected psychic phenomena as pseudoscience. Actually, the founders of French psychology initially embraced these studies—Nobel Prize winner Charles Richet conducted serious research on thought-reading. The exclusion happened gradually as psychologists sought mainstream scientific respectability, not because the phenomena were disproven.
To confirm this historical thesis, one would need comprehensive archival evidence showing intentional exclusion in founding documents, corroborated by multiple historians. This study provides documentary evidence from the 1900 Congress and Richet's subsequent pivot, meeting criteria for historical scholarship but not for testing whether the phenomena themselves were real.
Finally, after a few years, studies of psychical phenomena were excluded from the field of psychology.
Stance: Mixed
What Does It Mean?
It's like a startup founded by friends who drift apart: one becomes a respectable corporation (psychology) while the other stays in the garage pursuing wild ideas (parapsychology). This study explains why they had their 'corporate divorce' in 1900 Paris.
Scientific fields don't just discover truth—they also police their boundaries. This study shows how definitions of 'real science' are negotiated through institutional power, not just evidence.
Understanding Terms
What This Study Claims
Findings
At the 1900 International Congress of Psychology in Paris, Pierre Janet and Georges Dumas founded the Société Française de Psychologie specifically to exclude psychical research from institutional psychology.
strongMembers of the first French psychology society (founded 1885), including Nobel laureate Charles Richet, actively investigated phenomena such as magnetic lucidity, mental suggestion, and thought-reading.
moderateFrench psychology developed within the 'hypnotic context' established by Charcot's work at the Salpêtrière Hospital, where experiments with hysterical patients were expected to produce supernormal faculties.
moderateInterpretations
Early French psychologists generally explained purportedly paranormal phenomena by attributing them to unconscious or subconscious perceptual mechanisms rather than supernatural causes.
moderateImplications
Following this exclusion, Charles Richet diverted his efforts toward developing parapsychology as a separate scientific discipline distinct from mainstream psychology.
moderateThis summary is for general information about current research. It does not constitute medical advice. The scientific interpretation of these results is debated among researchers. If personally affected, please consult qualified professionals.