I did the primary research and the first draft but it was worked into the format and the model developed by the other authors. Jim Houran shopped it around to publications. But it took well over a year just to submit. Of course, it is hard to get published which is one of many reasons today's "ghost hunters" never do it. The scholarship for ghost investigations today is almost entirely absent - promotion is almost exclusive done through popular media which is no scholarship at all.
Nice paper! I liked the use of multi-disciplinary papers, covering psychology, economic forces and sociology using Durkheim as a bridge, and having SIT at the heart of things. The more I read, the more SIT seems to be the underpinning model or our collective behaviours. Few bits and bob I pulled out:
“These facets might even collectively capitalize on humankind’s potential biological basis or genetic predisposition for anomalous experience”
I’d argue we (humans) are disposed to social interpretation (i.e. the ascribing of human characteristics) of material experiences and this is reinforced by belief systems which in turn are reinforced by biological imperatives in cahoots with our requirement to be part of the (a, any) group.
…which is further supported by…
“ (i) brands have personalities or human-like characteristics that distinguish them from each other, with these personalities being important to consumers; and that (ii) consumers become “engaged” with brands, meaning that they feel special emotional or symbolic connections with them.”
In simplistic terms, in the same way a group of people might cease speaking when you come into the room, making one feel unwelcome, a buildings ‘stony’ silence might create the same feelings of perceived hostility...
Davies (2007) presented a social history of ghosts that uniquely expands upon traditional ghosts, and the plethora of general history texts on the subject and incorporates the ongoing modern history of haunts. His work, constructed in a thematic rather than chronological manner, tackles the experience of, explanation for and representation of ghosts, without reference to existence.
Which (underlined) I just liked.
“Braudy (2016) adopted a more pop culture-oriented perspective on hauntology that explored why science and reason oriented cultural forces could not effectively limit its influence.”
This seems to be a key point to me, we are wired to want to believe in supernatural (or at least anthropomorphological ascription) forces, see above, and additionally we are wired to fit in with a group belief in such.
It’s a double whammy opposing rational thought; that it is literally our
second nature, and its tendency to place one outside the group.
Two comfortable reasons to believe and two reasons it’s personally uncomfortable to not believe.
“Thus, within the overarching VAPUS model, “participatory” represents the inherent tendency of ghost narratives to form groups and organizations via Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and the inevitable conflict that results from group formation.”
Might well explain why ‘believers’ in one phenomena are often virulent in their condemnation of ‘believers’ in some other or even similar phenomena, something which
prima facie seems counter intuitive.
SIT seems to be the driving factor (but isn’t it always?).
“Relatedly, polls often conflate interest and belief. Paranormal themes and images are readily available in the media and potentially prime respondents toward positive responses (Nisbet, 2006). Consequently, it is difficult to determine whether numbers represent belief or curiosity.”
Nicely encapsulates the divide between the ‘interested and open minded’ and ‘believers’ who are closed to the notion their phenomena is possibly not what they wish it to be.
Reinforced by SIT and the tendency of group to resort to collective beliefs (dogma), group-think and ultimately that differing values ultimately represent a threat to a group’s social identify and hence group members' self-identities.
Stories of families terrorized by ghosts resemble Hollywood scripts.
This might be what fills the gap between
@EnolaGaia 's "perception" and "conception", the latter primed from contexts supplied by ‘Hollywood’ as an example. So one’s perception is affected by one’s conception which in turn is fuelled by media portrayals, fictional or otherwise. It’s a priming of one’s top-down processing.
As we have argued elsewhere (Laythe & Owen, 2013; Laythe et al., 2017), quantifying “objective” haunt phenomena is extremely challenging without adequate environmental controls. Thus, the focus within parapsychology to document anomalous phenomena empirically, or skeptics’ attempts to disprove the same does not necessarily change the sociocultural narrative that individuals, groups, and sub-cultures maintain about the interpretation of ghostly phenomena.
Probably why even ‘professional’ ghost hunters (i) tend avoid the empirical frameworks which could potentially undermine their own belief in the required narrative or self-identity, or (ii) more cynically, the ghost hunter is a kind of ‘charismatic individual’, who manipulates the narrative (and so manipulates the group's social identity) for personal power, kudos or financial gain or some combination of all three.
I’d suggest it’s hard to differentiate between (i) and (ii) but would hypothesise that Social Dominance Orientation might be a differentiator; to take advantage of, or to control others for personal gain, requires a strong belief that one is better than ‘them’.
I enjoyed that, nice read. I’ll look at the second part anon, but would perhaps add that ‘why’, in our current times, there seems to be a greater desire to be in such groups is an equally interesting question and I’d hypothesise that ‘uncertainty’ is at the bottom of it. This is where you tell me I need to read the second part.