Skip to main content

Picturing Aura - Jeremy Stolow ***

This is a weird one with a capital W. It really is about auras - or should that be aurae? (The plural surely isn't 'aura' as the title seems to suggest.) I was highly doubtful when someone mentioned this as a popular science book, but they argued 'Plenty of phenomena have been treated with gravity by the sciences without being deemed real in any kind of empirical sense. For example, today we wouldn’t implement any medicine based on the model of the four humours – but it’s important to reckon with that history as part of the history of biology.'

Okay, so were this about the dodgy history of the concept that people have auras - invisible coloured glows around them that can be seen by sensitive souls and captured on camera, it arguably is about psychology and history of science. But I'm not sure the book really does this. What does it even mean, for example, to photograph an aura? Jeremy Stolow tells us that when he had his aura photographed, 'expert' Guy Coggins 'was reticent to offer details about how exactly his system functioned'. Apparently, it combined a photo from a digital camera with data from a metal plate touched by a hand that allegedly measured galvanic skin response. The end product was a portrait with a fuzzy multi-coloured glow around the sitter.

Stolow makes it clear that what resulted was very much part of the new age view of reality, using the aura image both to provide a 'chakra analysis' and the explaining the meaning of his aura colours 'drawing upon a long-established New Age discursive and visual canon.' Hmm. After a second, more technical-sounding approach giving Stolow training in 'human energy field analysis' it feels like he became somewhat more of a convert while remaining sceptical.

We then get a couple of hundred pages of detailed exploration of the pre-scientific history of auras and related phenomena such as haloes, plus various wild related technical developments, such as Kirilan Photography and the whole eastern-philosophised approach to science that was popular in some US West Coast universities in the 60s and 70s. Stolow appears to treat this all as open-mindedly as possible, reporting in a largely uncritical fashion. There is an appendix headed 'The Aura debunked' which opens 'It seems almost impossible to avoid encountering the verdict on pictures of aura (again that odd non-plural) as pseudoscientific nonsense and the stuff of medical quackery'. 

But note the ambivalence in Stolow's comment. He is not saying this is pseudoscientific nonsense, just that it's almost impossible to avoid encountering this verdict. He seems reluctant to support what he describes as the view of 'mainstream science'. Bear in mind Stolow is not a scientist, he is a professor of communication studies.

In the end, while there are elements of the book comparing this historically to theories that have long been discarded, it doesn't really account for all the modern pseudoscience. Stolow's account is not incredibly readable, heavily laden as it is with the academic language of the humanities. I can't say that it's a book I would recommend, except in the same sense I'd recommend reading Alan Sokal infamous paper Transgressing the Boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Only, this isn't intended as a joke. But for some it will be interesting.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more