MEDIUMSHIP

MANY people would like to know what mediumship is, or by what marks we can discover and recognize it. The briefest answer to such a query is, either that we do not know what the marks are; or that they are phenomena which can be proved to be genuinely supernormal, representing a communication between different minds. But we can hardly dismiss the subject with so summary an account.

Usually in telling what a thing is, we have to give it a place in a known class, with some distinguishing mark that defines it as a special type in that class. There is also a descriptive definition which names the various marks or properties by which the term defined may be known. There are no distinguishing marks of the physical kind to describe mediums, or to mark them off from other people; the only mark is the ability to give supernormal information about the discarnate world, though the term is loosely applied to a person who can give any supernormal manifestation, since spiritualists explain all such phenomena due to the intervention of spirits. Etymologically the term is derived from the Latin word "medium," which denotes the "middle" or the intermediary between two things, the way to reach them, the means of communication. It was hence adopted to denote the agency which intervenes between the physical and the transcendental world. The ordinary analogy is to an electric wire, which is the "medium" of communication in telegraphy, whereby the agent transmits messages from one point to another. But the analogy is not exact, as the processes involve no known resemblances to electrical action. The only means of communicating with the dead has been found to be a living organism capable of connecting the two worlds.

But this definition of mediumship depends wholly upon the phenomena in question and does not enable us to point out any marks or characteristics other than the very facts to be proved; whereas what every one desires to know is what particular characteristic enables the medium to do what is claimed. I do not know of any physical characteristics whatever that might lead us to designate a medium without testing her for supernormal phenomena. One Frenchman thought he had discovered a spot in the eye that indicated mediumship. But I see no evidence of the truth of this discovery and find nothing in my experience to confirm it. So far as I know, the only mental characteristic is hysteria. But the application of the term "hysteria," apart from a consideration of the circumstances, cannot be indiscriminately made. All depends on the definition of hysteria. In the older meaning of the term, which described a nervous and excitable person who could not exercise self-control, hysteria is certainly no mark of mediumship. That type is seldom or never marked by psychic abilities. But in later times the term "hysteria" has come to mean more technically, and at the same time more inclusively, the presence of automatism or subconscious action, in the form of dissociation. The terms "hysteria" and "dissociation" are largely synonymous, or at least denote the same general phenomena. Liability to what is called automatism is in many, if not all, cases a symptom of hysteria.

 Now it is probable that dissociation and automatism characterize all mediums, though there are types that betray no evidence of these conditions, except the production of certain results. There are instances within my own observation in which the subject himself discovered the mediumship or psychic abilities only by the occurrence of supernormal coincidences in his experience, without any apparent alteration of the normal conditions of body or mind. But it is true that automatism is characteristic of all well-developed mediumship that has come within my own observation. This means that automatic writing, automatic visions, or automatic voices occur, and may be regarded as a fundamental characteristic of mediumship. It is true that automatism and dissociation often occur without any traces of the supernormal or of mediumship in its narrower import of communication with the dead. But their presence in developed mediums suggests that the instances which exhibit no supernormal capacities are simply undeveloped cases; that perhaps the automatism and dissociation are absolutely necessary to mediumship, but that the development of them into sources of supernormal knowledge depends on the establishing of rapport with the transcendental world instead of confining it to the physical world. That has been largely my own experience, and only the fact that this experience has not been extensive enough to justify generalization prevents me from stating that as a law. It is a good hypothesis on which to work, and we may ultimately find that the instances of supernormal coincidence which do not superficially betray dissociation nevertheless contain it in a latent form so adjusted to the normal life that its existence is not easily detected.

 At any rate it is fairly certain that cases of dissociation and automatism are worth investigating for the development of mediumship or psychic powers of some kind. This means that we may regard automatism and dissociation as fundamental marks of mediumship, though they do not constitute all that is necessary to achieve the desired result. Rapport with a transcendental world either of other living minds or of discarnate personalities, may be the further characteristic necessary to make the mediumship complete.

 It will probably require a long time accurately to determine the nature and limits of mediumship. There has been, so far, no effort to define it save by the presence of the supernormal. Critics and skeptics, especially in the fields of medicine and psychology, have tried often enough to discredit mediumship by calling it hysteria or dissociation. Hysteria at best is but a descriptive term. It is not in the least explanatory, and does not carry with it any clear implications of the cause. The skeptic wants us to conceive hysteria and dissociation as explanations of phenomena which at least superficially appear to be supernormal. But I am going here to insist that hysteria, dissociation, and automatism are in no respect rivals or contradictories of mediumship. They are conditions of its existence, at least apparently and in most cases. The only legitimate factor of the skeptic's contention is, that if nothing more than automatism is present, we are without evidence of actual mediumship, in so far as mediumship implies the supernormal. We have neither explained the automatism nor succeeded in setting up a conception that displaces genuine mediumship, whose distinguishing mark is facts exhibiting evidence of supernormal knowledge, no matter what the physiological and psychological condition of the subject. The question is, whether there is a connection between the mental phenomena of the hysteric, automatist, insane patient, or other person, and some event foreign to this subject's knowledge. The psychic researcher can admit, if the facts require it, that all supernormal phenomena are accompanied by abnormal mental states in the subject. The crucial question is, first, whether the phenomena are referable to subjective causes or to causes external to the mind affected; and second, whether the external cause, if it exist, is an ordinary physical stimulus or is independent of normal sense­perception. We are insisting only that supernormal phenomena cannot be classified under hysteria, automatism, dissociation, secondary personality, or insanity as phenomena of a purely subjective nature.

 The first question as to the nature of mediumship is not its cause in the sense of its initiation or production, but its occurrence and classification. If certain phenomena bear no evidence of the supernormal, but are accompanied by hysteria, automatism, etc., we may well describe them by these latter terms and admit that their cause is either functional derangement of the mind or some ordinary physical stimulus. But if the phenomena show an undoubted relation to some external event not known to the subject and thus outside the range of normal sense-perception, we can safely refuse to classify them with phenomena that are provably connected with normal causes. We can seek for causes other than physical stimuli, when we have determined whether the facts are included in the normal and abnormal field or are excluded from it. We name them supernormal when they are thus excluded.

 There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of supernormal experience, whether manifested in telepathy, clairvoyance, or communication with the dead. It is certain that there is a vast field of facts not explained by hysteria, automatism, dissociation, secondary personality, or insanity. These facts suffice to indicate some acceptable meaning for mediumship.

 So much for the existence and the nature of mediumship. The explanation of it may await the future. What most people wish to know is some practical criterion for telling when it is present and what to do with it. This is perhaps the most important aspect of the present question.

 From what I have said about its nature and the marks which distinguish it, it is perhaps clear that we have no final assurance of its presence until we actually prove the presence of supernormal phenomena. Prior to that stage of its development we may have to be content with hysteria, automatism, dissociation, and secondary personality, which are limiting ideas, so to speak, or terms indicating that evidence of the supernormal is lacking. No doubt there are many supernormal experiences besides those that are evidential; but, in the present stage of the investigation, we have to be careful about accepting these. The nature of evidence of the supernormal has been fully explained in the chapter on "Problems of Evidence"; it includes both the negative characteristic of excluding fraud, the subconscious, chance coincidence and guessing, and the positive characteristic of a connection with some event not known by the subject. The criterion just defined applies to individual cases of mediumship. It requires that each incident shall at least be explicable by a foreign and transcendental stimulus; the multiplication of these individual test cases will prove the existence of the supernormal. But there are many non­evidential incidents and statements. They may refer to alleged events in a transcendental world, which no living person can verify. The primary test of genuine supernormality cannot apply to them. But if we can make a large number of records of similar statements issuing from real or alleged mediums who were not in communication with each other, their collective unity will have some value. If they all agree as to the nature of the transcendental world, and we can prove that the mediums had never read about the subject and were not familiar with any of the ideas expressed, the consistency of such records would have at least some suggestive value.

 Further than these suggestions, we know little of the conditions for mediumship, and there are at present no facilities for investigating them. The remaining question is how to cultivate the faculty. On this point also we can give very few definite instructions and certainly no dogmatic rules. We as yet know too little to do more than ask for adequate investigation, which will require the careful study of all possible cases that may come to us. This is not possible as yet; the cases have been too few to justify wide and confident generalizations. At one time, from my experience with a dozen instances, I felt secure in saying that there is no danger in the cultivation of mediumship; but, after the discovery of obsession, I felt more cautious in giving assurance that there are no risks. I do not mean to assert or imply that it is generally dangerous, for it seems not to be; often even in the cases which seem most alarming. But we know too little to say that it is either dangerous or not dangerous. I am only certain that in many cases it has not only not been dangerous but has been beneficial, physically and mentally, to the subjects. There are also cases where the reverse is true. Hence it remains to determine the risks in each individual instance.

 The circumstances under which mediumship develops are various. It appears not to be the consequence of weak-mindedness, but may be induced by illness or accident. It is probable that the main condition of its development is passivity of will. This is compatible with any degree of intelligence, even of strong will. If the individual can voluntarily suppress his will, be may develop mediumistic qualities, though they are less likely to occur under these circumstances than in cases of natural passivity. It is probable that the relation of illness and accident to mediumship is due to the effect of such conditions in making the will passive at least until the mediumship has developed; it may then become a fixed feature of the constitution. If it be due to natural passivity of will, the prevention of its harmful forms may be more difficult; but if the passivity is voluntary, the prevention of danger lies largely with the subject.

 The first thing to keep in mind regarding incipient mediumship is that it cannot easily be prevented. One cannot kill it by disregarding it. It betokens the existence of physiological and psychological conditions which the will did not produce; whether the psychic power is a casual product of temperament or the effect of outside agencies, it cannot be created at will. If desired, the condition might develop in time, but it will not come at command. One who finds that it suddenly manifests itself when he becomes interested in the subject may rest assured that it was latent all the while. I have seen many cases in which the subject was wholly unaware of his power until either the ouija board or automatic writing was tried, when the faculty was at once manifest, though perhaps not developed to the point of doing systematic scientific work. On the other hand I have seen it in an incipient stage, with automatic writing quite fluent and easy; and yet years of practice did not improve it. We cannot tell beforehand what will take place in any given instance.

The proper manner of dealing with mediumship when observed is to treat it seriously. If it is not fully developed, treating it as a joke or using it for mere amusement exposes the subject to various kinds of danger. If spiritistic agencies are concerned, treating mediumship as a joke will only attract those on the other side whose temperaments make them look at it in the same way, and the subject will be exposed to the risk of unwelcome obsessions. I do not mean that it need be treated too solemnly, but that its phenomena should be seriously investigated, and not made an occasion for horse-fun. Intelligent spirits will not waste time in producing phenomena with fools.

 High motives and the persistent purpose to make good use of the faculty will protect the subject, at least in most cases, from the dangers of which I spoke. Probably the power can be protected by those on the other side; and, if the medium insists on making a serious use of the ability, he will soon be under the protection of the better type of personality, and unpleasant obsessions will not occur. Unpleasant phenomena may occur even under the best of protection, but they do not last long and are less likely to occur at all.

 In the early stages of development often there will appear wandering personalities, persons who have recently died and are seeking expression or communication through the psychic, or are put there to help in the preliminary development of the medium. The law involved in this occurrence we do not yet know, but it is frequent enough to be reckoned with, and to justify the stopping of such intrusions only when experience shows that their presence is neither normal nor helpful in the development of the psychic.

Those chance comers seldom appear in fully developed psychics and then usually with the express permission of the guides or controls for various purposes. Among them the most frequent is the purpose to help some spirit from an earth-bound condition, or to help some living friend of the wanderer. If the situation is rightly managed, there is apparently no risk in admitting such a person. But one must firmly insist that the reason for his presence be known, and while the correctness of the reason given cannot be proved, if it is clearly possible or not unreasonable, it is advisable to experiment until the effect is proved to be good or bad.

 The only danger, so far as I can see, is that of obsession. This can usually be prevented either by the use of a strong will against any disposition to disturb one's normal life, or by insisting that nothing but serious objects in the work shall be admitted. Weakness of will is dangerous, and the individual must learn to cultivate his own individuality and to insist that this shall not be invaded except for good purposes. The good person does not always prevent the bad spirit from coming nor does the bad person prevent the good spirit from coming. The attitude of will has more to do with the result than anything else. If the subject is intellectually and morally passive, or does not insist on evidence that any special presence is good, then any kind of determined foreign will can take control. The subject should be as critical as the unconvinced sitter. In this way obsessions can be prevented.

 The first thing to demand is that the alleged spirit either prove his own identity or help in proving that of others. The proof of identity will be most satisfactory when the facts are wholly unknown to the medium; indeed it would require an immense number of coordinated facts, if known by the medium, to constitute adequate evidence. The proper thing to do is patiently and tolerantly to insist that incidents be given which the psychic does not know, preferably facts which the sitter also does not know but can verify.

 The greatest patience should be exercised. Often the personalities will leave if roughly addressed. The subconscious of the psychic must be made to feel that the sitter is serious and patient with the difficulties; the cooperation of the subconscious is a necessary condition in securing evidence. If distrust be aroused in the medium, no matter how genuine he may be, good evidence cannot be obtained. The very first condition of success is to keep on good terms with the subconscious, by being serious and by exercising patience and tact. Opinions of the phenomena may be formed afterwards, but unfavorable judgments should not be revealed at the time.

 The real or alleged communicators should have as much time as may be necessary for their expression. The sitter may calmly and firmly insist that he cannot believe until the proper evidence is forthcoming, but he should be a spectator rather than a director of the phenomena, though judgment may be exercised as to the amount of time granted. The appearance of a mischievous personality should be received tolerantly and the nature of the work explained, with the insistence that he conform to that aim. If he does not, the sitter can insist as firmly upon his leaving, and the best way to accomplish this is to stop the work. When the work becomes systematically developed, such invaders either will not appear or can be controlled by the guides.

 No matter what the sitter may think of the phenomena, he should treat them as if they were really spiritistic and keep his opinions to himself when experimenting. The conditions for successful communication with others, living or dead, by supernormal means are very delicate. Everything must be done to encourage favorable states of mind in both medium and communicator. For this reason laymen often get better results than scientific men. At any rate the above method should be tried before any other.

 These are only general suggestions and not at all hard and fast rules. Much depends on the experience and good judgment of the experimenter. There may be further important conditions to be learned, either subordinate or in addition to these. But they will have to be ascertained by investigation in the future. My own experience is not large enough to enable me to dictate to others, or to say that such directions need not be revised. They are tentative rules, whose application should be determined in the individual case by intelligent experience. They at least show the complexity of the situation, which is the first and most important fact to be learned by experimenters. The phenomena appear, superficially, to be very simple, but no greater delusion can be harbored. Superficially the circumstances seem to resemble the conversation of one person with another, with nothing intervening to hinder. This notion, however, is a mistake. Not only may there be two or more personalities between the communicator and the experimenter, but there may be a dozen spirits cooperating. The conditions for obtaining messages are not what they are usually assumed to be. The laws regulating conversation between the living do not apply. All that we perceive is the automatic writing, or the automatic voice, or other phenomenon; we do not see the complex machinery which makes the manifestation possible. Inter-mundane and intra-organic difficulties, perhaps of very large dimensions, may be present. We do not know their extent, but we have abundant reason to believe that they are there, and the intelligent experimenter will reckon with their existence.