Policing Epistemic Deviance: Albert von Schrenck-Notzing and Albert Moll¹

Abstract

Shortly after the death of Albert von Schrenck-Notzing (1862-1929, the doyen of early twentieth century German para psychology, his former colleague in hypnotism and sexology Albert Moll (1862-1939) published a treatise on the psychology and pathology of parapsychologists, with Schrenck-Notzing serving as a prototype of a scientist suffering from an 'occult complex'. Moll's analysis concluded that parapsychologists vouching for the reality of supernormal phenomena, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, telekinesis and materialisations, suffered from a morbid will to believe, which paralysed their critical faculties and made them cover obvious mediumistic fraud. Using Moll's treatment of Schrenck-Notzing as an historical case study of boundary disputes in science and medicine, this essay traces the career of Schrenck-Notzing as a researcher in hypnotism, sexology and parapsychology; discusses the relationship between Moll and Schrenck-Notzing; and problematises the pathologisation and defamation strategies of deviant epistemologies by authors such as Moll.

Normalizing the Supernormal: The Formation of the “Gesellschaft Für Psychologische Forschung” (“Society for Psychological Research”), c. 1886–1890

“…The Berlin section became increasingly dominated by Albert Moll, who used the society as a forum for his ruthless war against proponents of both psychical research and alternative and lay medicine (Kurzweg, ; Sommer, ). When Schrenck published his controversial first study on the phenomena of materializations shortly before the outbreak of World War II (Schrenck‐Notzing, ), both Moll and Dessoir positioned themselves—in the name of “science,” “rationality’, “civilization,” as well as “true religion”—as vocal public opponents.…”

“…When Schrenck published his controversial first study on the phenomena of materializations shortly before the outbreak of World War II (Schrenck‐Notzing, ), both Moll and Dessoir positioned themselves—in the name of “science,” “rationality’, “civilization,” as well as “true religion”—as vocal public opponents. Despite support from scholars of the caliber of Charles Richet, who had won the Nobel Prize in physiology for his work in anaphylaxis in 1913, the biologist Hans Driesch and Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler, Schrenck and other German psychical researchers were easy prey to polarizing defamations and deadly ridicule in the press, which self‐styled guardians of science such as Moll, the Potsdam court district director Albert Hellwig, and Max Dessoir had learnt to utilize (Wolffram, ; Sommer, ) . It seemed, in fact, that not much had changed since Resau.…”

“…On Schrenck's pioneering work in hypnotism and sexology, see Ellenberger (), Gauld (), and Sulloway (). Regarding the controversies around his studies of physical mediumship, see, for example, Wolffram () and Sommer ().…”

“…Moll was at the forefront of German physicians struggling to establish hypnotism as a legitimate field of medicine by demonstrating its therapeutic effects, on the one hand, and by aggressively cleansing it from its “mystical” connotations, on the other hand (Kurzweg, ; Sommer, ).…”

“…In 1904, he would organize another public performance involving “hypnotic art,” which earned him the wrath of Albert Moll: the performances of the French “dream dancer” Magdeleine G. (Schrenck‐Notzing, ). On the resulting conflict with Moll, see Wolffram () and Sommer ().…”