Introduction
The Association for the Scientific Study of
Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP) was founded in 1981 as the result of
dissatisfaction felt by a few members of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR). This is ancient history and it is not the
present intention to rehearse the issues which created that rupture. Suffice it to say that the two organisations
have existed in parallel for over thirty years, attracting different, though
frequently overlapping, memberships but generally standing aloof from one other. Now that aloofness is dissolving, with each
promoting the other’s activities on social media, and there is more interaction
than has been the case in the past. With
this improvement in relations, the time has come to ask: why not merge to form
a single body?
The first response might be to wonder why they should
merge when they have such strong individual identities and do well on their own. The answer is that they have strengths which
are complementary, rather than antagonistic, so that both sets of members would
gain from unification. Another question
is that if some members were dissatisfied with the SPR in 1981, could the same happen
in the future, leading to yet more friction and possibly a fresh split? The answer to that is that the current SPR is
a long way from its 1981 incarnation, and fully aware of how traumatic such a
rupture is in the life of an organisation.
The following sections attempt to answer some more
of the questions that will naturally occur in a discussion of the merits of
bringing ASSAP and the SPR together. It
is to be hoped that these will generate debate, which may produce further
questions.
What are be the benefits of a merger?
The obvious one is a bigger combined membership,
with economies of scale and greater resources.
A larger size should increase its punch and authority, both within the
field and among the wider public.
The SPR has dedicated premises and a paid full-time
administrator which would improve the ad-hoc administration experienced by
ASSAP members. The volunteers who run
the latter do a tremendous job, but a dedicated office function has to be more
efficient. ASSAP members would have
access to the range of benefits already enjoyed by SPR members. These include four numbers of both the
magazine Paranormal Review and the
peer-reviewed Journal (and occasional
Proceedings); free access to London
lectures, reduced rates to bi-annual study days and the annual conference; a
permanent library, archives of international significance, and free access to
an online library of publications back to 1882.
ASSAP officers could be brought into the SPR Council structure by means
of co-optation.
In terms of research, ASSAP has an energetic and
enthusiastic membership, and this injection of energy would be welcome in the
SPR. ASSAP’s spontaneous case network
would reinforce the existing SPR Spontaneous Cases Committee and its emphasis
on training would be useful in stimulating interest in investigation among SPR
members. A larger combined membership,
and therefore increased income, would enable an expansion of the amount given
to fund research activities.
Education, a core function for both the SPR and
ASSAP, would be improved as well.
Integrating the libraries and archives would provide an enhanced
resource (the new SPR premises, bigger than the previous rented accommodation, providing
the required space for ASSAP’s books), and ASSAP’s records would find a
permanent home. A single set of
periodicals, with a larger circulation than either achieves singly, would
attract a wider range of writers.
There would also be benefits in geographical reach:
the SPR is often seen as London-centric, whereas ASSAP is successful
regionally. With a combined membership
around the country there would be motivation for regional activities, enabling
members outside London to participate in their localities. This is an opportunity to decentralise some
of the SPR’s functions, with more grassroots involvement.
What about differences in scope?
The subject-matter of the two organisations is not
identical, that of ASSAP covering a wider area than that of the SPR. ASSAP members might legitimately complain
that a merger is likely to squeeze out particular interests, such as ufology,
earth mysteries and folklore. This is
not necessarily an impediment, even though such topics in general fall outside
the scope of the SPR. In these days of
easy electronic communication it is straightforward for sub-groups to pursue
their interests. The new SPR website will
make it possible for members to keep in contact with each other easily, so that
even though say ufology is not a significant element of psychical research,
those with such an interest can still interact, while enjoying the benefits of
their SPR membership.
Membership fees
A stumbling block is that ASSAP’s fees have always
been significantly less than the SPR’s. The
standard membership rates are noticeably different, with ASSAP’s being a
quarter of that charged by the SPR. This
reflects the different set-ups of the organisations, ASSAP’s lower volunteer-based
costs compared to the SPR’s permanent paid staff and building expenses. ASSAP members would hopefully consider the broader
range of benefits enough to justify an increase, but perhaps there could be a
transitional arrangement, with incremental rises over several years for existing
ASSAP members to bring the two sets into line.
The SPR membership rates are very reasonable, and ASSAP members would
hopefully see that the increase was justified.
It is most unlikely that there could be any reduction in the SPR rates
to bring them closer to ASSAP’s.
Events
On the other hand, ASSAP members would undoubtedly
baulk at the costs of the SPR conference and study days (as do some SPR
members). With ASSAP’s expertise in
mounting economically priced study days (notably the extremely popular
‘Seriously…’ series), there is no reason why these could not continue,
augmented by the presence of SPR members who had never attended an ASSAP event
before. The status of some of these,
such as conferences on vampires and witchcraft, would be problematic under the
SPR banner but these could be run in collaboration with other organisations,
such as the London Fortean Society; the SPR has participated in joint events with
the Scientific and Medical Network so there is precedent for such an approach.
A concern which has to be acknowledged is that the
desire to organise events might diminish, with those who had previously
volunteered for ASSAP not wanting to make the effort on the grounds that
conferences of all kinds should be arranged at the centre. It is doubtful that the SPR office would be
willing to shoulder the extra administrative load.
What about the name?
The name could be a sticking point for ASSAP members. There is no easy way that the names SPR and
ASSAP could be combined, and there would be overwhelming resistance within the
SPR to altering an internationally-recognised name that has been in existence
since 1882. The most likely outcome is
that the SPR would retain its name, but with ‘incorporating The Association for
the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena’ on its literature – something that
might not appeal to ASSAP members whose first loyalty is to that
organisation. This could be a major obstacle,
but one that might be overcome if ASSAP members were convinced that the advantages
outweighed the loss.
Mechanisms for reaching an agreement
This article has set out some of the pros and cons
of a merger. Bringing the two together
would not be quick as there are a number of steps before that could happen. In addition to a general debate among both
sets of members there would have to be an initial discussion by the officers within
the two organisations; a formal process of consultation with members; meetings
between the two sets of officers to resolve any contentious issues; then there
would have to be a vote, with a criterion for a yes vote agreed in advance.
Conclusion
This long after the event, most of those interested
in our subject are not bothered about why ASSAP came into being. What they want to see is a thriving
organisation or organisations that can deliver the means necessary for them to
pursue that interest. Many join both
with no sense of conflict, and a number of those who established ASSAP
continued to take part in the SPR’s activities, clearly seeing no contradiction
in belonging to both. There is no
doctrinal reason why the respective memberships should not combine and work
together, and the practical difficulties could surely be overcome with goodwill
on both sides. In delivering their
services the two organisations are capable of existing independently, but their
combination would strengthen the voice for psychical research. If that is our aim, then the case for coming
together to our mutual benefit, and that of the field, is a strong one.
This article is being published jointly on the
authors’ blogs, and publicised on social media, in the hope that it will
generate a constructive exchange of views.
The authors are both members of the two organisations, but are not writing
in any official capacity. They welcome feedback of all types, which should be sent to tom.ruffles[at]yahoo.co.uk,
in order to gauge levels of support for and opposition to the proposal. This has to be a bottom-up process, with all
opinions aired.
Tom
Ruffles and C J Romer
10 October 2015
Update 31 October 2015:
On publication I linked this article to the SPR’s
Facebook page and Twitter feed, while CJ Romer put a link on ASSAP’s Facebook
page and later added the text to his ‘Polterwotsit’ blog. Neither of us received any private
communications, nor did the SPR Facebook page and Twitter links produce any
feedback, suggesting a degree of indifference by those whose primary interest is
the SPR, whether members or not.
However, the link on the ASSAP Facebook page generated a large number of
comments. These were uniformly negative. It seems that there is still a considerable
degree of mistrust by some ASSAP members towards the SPR, and one comment
referred to the rift in the 1980s as ‘an unhealed scar’. Not one person indicated a willingness to even
consider the benefits of a merger.
A major concern in the Facebook debate was the
greater resources and longer history of the SPR, which would cause ASSAP’s
identity to be submerged. Another issue,
as I suspected it would be, is the difference in scope between the two
organisations, particularly the lack of a focus on ufology within the SPR. The fear was that more fortean activities
would be marginalised (though despite it cropping up frequently in the
discussion, I haven’t actually seen much evidence of members pursuing ufology
with any vigour through ASSAP), and the creation of special interest groups
discussing issues online was considered insufficient. In fact, it was felt that the more limited
scope of psychical research was a driver for the creation of ASSAP. There was a feeling that it would make more
sense for the SPR to merge into ASSAP than vice
versa, or for the SPR to first change the ‘P’ in its name from Psychical to
Paranormal, and expand its remit accordingly.
It was suggested that should the SPR and ASSAP combine,
a significant rump would immediately split off to form ASSAP Mark Two; there
could even be an exodus from the SPR, leading to three separate bodies
(unlikely in my view). A proposal was
put forward that some form of networking between the two organisations, along
with others which share a similar outlook, would assist greater collaboration
while allowing each to retain its own identity.
It was generally agreed that greater cooperation is a good thing, though
it was not specified what form that cooperation might take, apart from
participating in each other’s conferences, and the counter-argument is that increased
bureaucracy would lead to a loss of interest, making any gains short-lived.
The myth that membership of the SPR is expensive was
impossible to eradicate, but then some ASSAP members think that £15 is a bit
steep, so it is a matter of perspective.
A strand of the discussion focused on the higher overheads of having a
building and paid staff, which does not occur if the administration is done
from a volunteer’s home office. It could
be that ASSAP members like to think that SPR membership rates are exorbitant
because it reinforces their belief that ASSAP is superior. There was no acknowledgement of the benefits
of SPR membership and its value for money.
A common argument was that ASSAP is in good shape
and has no need of the SPR. I learned that
ASSAP’s funds are healthy, whereas I had assumed that they are parlous. Even so, my main concern has not been the
amount of money it has in the bank but organisational failures caused by a
reliance on volunteers and erratic direction by its officers. These deficiencies are now being rectified
with an injection of energy (not least C J Romer taking on the task of
producing its publications) but there are still problems, and some of those
with the loudest voices on ASSAP’s Facebook page are not involved in the
management structure and merely assume that ASSAP is strongly placed to face
the future. My suggestion that it might
be in long-term decline did not go down well.
Writing the article was a useful exercise, but
ASSAP’s core members are fiercely loyal and the conclusion that has to be drawn
from the debate, which was generally conducted on respectful terms with minimal
snark, is that a merger is unlikely.
There would be net benefits in my opinion, but the obstacles are too
great. The situation could arise at some
point that ASSAP has to wind up, but probably not in the short to medium
term. If it does collapse the SPR will
be able to offer a home to its members, but there would be no ASSAP to merge
with and those subjects that fall outside the SPR’s primary area of interest,
such as UFOs, would have to find a home elsewhere.
Tom Ruffles
