- Paris, France
- Antikythera mechanism, Ancient Science, Paranormal, Science Studies, Pseudoscience, Flying Saucer, and 12 moreAnthropology, History of Science, Cultural History, History of Philosophy, Conspiracy Theories, Cryptozoology, SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), Astrosociology & Fermi Paradox, Extraterrestrial Intelligence, Sociology of Science, Sociology Of Scientific Knowledge, and History of Science and Technologyedit
- A web page with (almost) all my publications: https://pierrelagrangesociologie.wordpress.com/
The address of my research log on Hypotheses: http://pulp.hypotheses.org/edit
For decades, social scientists have explained the emergence of flying saucers in 1947 as a by-product of the cold war context. They claimed that people were influenced by cold war and "saw" Russian flying disks while the rest of the... more
For decades, social scientists have explained the emergence of flying saucers in 1947 as a by-product of the cold war context. They claimed that people were influenced by cold war and "saw" Russian flying disks while the rest of the population, scared by the context, believed in the reality of these saucers. In this paper, I show that the explanation in terms of cold war influence does not explain the situation. For several reason. First because people in 1947 were not afraid of saucers, they spent their time making jokes about them. Only 1% of the people interrogated for a Gallup poll on the subjects mentioned the Russians as an explanation. This fact can be clearly understood when we compare the flying disks wave of 1947 and the ghost rockets wave on 1946 in Europe. We see that the reactions to the two events were very different. While Europeans took very seriously the existence of ghost rockets on 1946, the American public didn't take seriously the disks in 1947.
We may therefore think that the cold war explanation works for the ghost rockets and not for the disks, but the situation is a little more complex. This cold war explanation should be discussed for a second reason: sociology and social history cannot use explanation in terms of influence because social actors are not sponges that absorb the context: they define it, they discuss it, they chose among the elements from that context that they will take seriously and that they will reject. Social studies of subjects like UFOs as a lot to learn from the tools developed by social students of science. [note: this paper is a corrected version of a paper previously published in 2012 in the firs hardcover edition of the book in which it is included.]
We may therefore think that the cold war explanation works for the ghost rockets and not for the disks, but the situation is a little more complex. This cold war explanation should be discussed for a second reason: sociology and social history cannot use explanation in terms of influence because social actors are not sponges that absorb the context: they define it, they discuss it, they chose among the elements from that context that they will take seriously and that they will reject. Social studies of subjects like UFOs as a lot to learn from the tools developed by social students of science. [note: this paper is a corrected version of a paper previously published in 2012 in the firs hardcover edition of the book in which it is included.]
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This paper describes the history of little green men from its invention as a science fiction stereotype to its traduction as a media cliché for UFOs in the middle of the 1950s with the Kelly-Hopkinsville, Kentucky, flying saucer landing... more
This paper describes the history of little green men from its invention as a science fiction stereotype to its traduction as a media cliché for UFOs in the middle of the 1950s with the Kelly-Hopkinsville, Kentucky, flying saucer landing and "little men" sighting (that were translated into "little green men" by the journalists). It also explores what the history of this stereotype teaches us on the sociology of ufo and of alleged "irrational beliefs".
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This paper serves as an historical and biographical introduction to the annotated translation in French of Gray Barker's book They Knew Too Much about Flying Saucers, first published in 1956. This book is at the origin of the Men in Black... more
This paper serves as an historical and biographical introduction to the annotated translation in French of Gray Barker's book They Knew Too Much about Flying Saucers, first published in 1956. This book is at the origin of the Men in Black story.
Research Interests:
This paper is an historical and biographical introduction to the French annotated edition of John Keel's book The Mothman Prophecies originally published in 1975.
Research Interests:
For decades, social scientists have explained the emergence of flying saucers in 1947 as a by-product of the cold war context. They claimed that people were influenced by cold war and "saw" Russian flying disks while the rest of the... more
For decades, social scientists have explained the emergence of flying saucers in 1947 as a by-product of the cold war context. They claimed that people were influenced by cold war and "saw" Russian flying disks while the rest of the population, scared by the context, believed in the reality of these saucers. In this paper, I show that the explanation in terms of cold war influence does not explain the situation. For several reason. First because people in 1947 were not afraid of saucers, they spent their time making jokes about them. Only 1% of the people interrogated for a Gallup poll on the subjects mentioned the Russians as an explanation. This fact can be clearly understood when we compare the flying disks wave of 1947 and the ghost rockets wave on 1946 in Europe. We see that the reactions to the two events were very different. While Europeans took very seriously the existence of ghost rockets on 1946, the American public didn't take seriously the disks in 1947.
We may therefore think that the cold war explanation works for the ghost rockets and not for the disks, but the situation is a little more complex. This cold war explanation should be discussed for a second reason: sociology and social history cannot use explanation in terms of influence because social actors are not sponges that absorb the context: they define it, they discuss it, they chose among the elements from that context that they will take seriously and that they will reject. Social studies of subjects like UFOs as a lot to learn from the tools developed by social students of science.
[note: a corrected version of this paper has been published with the softcover version of this book in 2018. This corrected version is available on this web page.]
We may therefore think that the cold war explanation works for the ghost rockets and not for the disks, but the situation is a little more complex. This cold war explanation should be discussed for a second reason: sociology and social history cannot use explanation in terms of influence because social actors are not sponges that absorb the context: they define it, they discuss it, they chose among the elements from that context that they will take seriously and that they will reject. Social studies of subjects like UFOs as a lot to learn from the tools developed by social students of science.
[note: a corrected version of this paper has been published with the softcover version of this book in 2018. This corrected version is available on this web page.]
Research Interests:
This paper describes the evolution of contemporary occultism, esotericism and the paranormal, in particular during the period that followed the second world war. One of the purpose of this text is to show that these subjects are not only... more
This paper describes the evolution of contemporary occultism, esotericism and the paranormal, in particular during the period that followed the second world war. One of the purpose of this text is to show that these subjects are not only connected to contemporary new religious movement but also to scientific culture and scientific controversies. The study of western esotericism will make progress when its students will be able to study those subjects not only from the point of view of the history and sociology of religion but also from the point of view of history and sociology of science.
Research Interests:
Most sociologists and social historians explain that flying saucers are a popular belief. This paper wants to show that flying saucers are not a popular belief but that they served (in this paper, back in 1947, but of course also during... more
Most sociologists and social historians explain that flying saucers are a popular belief. This paper wants to show that flying saucers are not a popular belief but that they served (in this paper, back in 1947, but of course also during other periods of time) as an opportunity for science spoke persons, journalists and other actors, to construct saucers as a popular belief, which means that they actively constructed the subject as a marginal, psychological, rejected, belief. The category "popular belief" doesn't come out from the blue yonder, it is a collectively constructed category that helps to describe, and also to marginalise, some phenomena.
Research Interests:
This paper describes controversies on the existence of the lost continent of Atlantis described by Plato that occurred in France in the beginning of the twentieth century and that involved Atlantean researchers like Paul Le Cour or Roger... more
This paper describes controversies on the existence of the lost continent of Atlantis described by Plato that occurred in France in the beginning of the twentieth century and that involved Atlantean researchers like Paul Le Cour or Roger Devigne. This paper shows that the point is not to decide whether Atlantean research/beliefs belong to the study of esotericism or science but to describe how the actors of these controversies reconstruct their own definition of what science and esotericism (or occultism) are.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In 1985, I started an investigation to try to reconstruct what really happened to Kenneth Arnold, the very first “flying saucer” witness in 1947 (what he saw, how his story became so famous, etc). Most of the books and articles that... more
In 1985, I started an investigation to try to reconstruct what really happened to Kenneth Arnold, the very first “flying saucer” witness in 1947 (what he saw, how his story became so famous, etc). Most of the books and articles that discussed this story included mistakes, rumors, and contradictions (example: many authors wrote that journalists were waiting for Arnold when he landed at Pendleton, Oregon, after his historical sighting, a detail that I found to be wrong). I searched and collected the original sources and wrote (in 1986) this paper that was discussed at a seminar of the Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation in Paris. An edited version of this paper was published in a book directed by Hilary Evans and John Spencer. In 1987 and 1988, I went to Oregon, Idaho and other places to meet the people who had participated in that historical event. Then I published other papers (in Communications and in Terrain, two French journals in social anthropology, in 1990, both in French). My problem was to understand how flying saucers were "constructed" (I use the word construction as in Bruno Latour's construction of scientific facts).
Research Interests:
A partir de la celebre scene de Vingt mille lieues sous les mers (Jules Verne, 1869-1871), dans laquelle un calmar geant surgit face a la baie vitree du Nautilus, au moment meme ou les heros sont en train de debattre de son existence, cet... more
A partir de la celebre scene de Vingt mille lieues sous les mers (Jules Verne, 1869-1871), dans laquelle un calmar geant surgit face a la baie vitree du Nautilus, au moment meme ou les heros sont en train de debattre de son existence, cet article propose de s’interroger sur une contradiction du discours sur les images en science. Le roman populaire et la vulgarisation scientifique ne cessent de construire des images de scientifiques qui regardent la realite directement, comme les heros de Jules Verne, images qui illustrent un double discours sur les sciences et sur les cultures populaires : alors que les scientifiques regardent la nature en face parce qu’ils auraient su s’affranchir des « ombres de la caverne », et de l’influence des images precisement, les non-scientifiques prendraient un grand risque a faire de meme car ils sont susceptibles d’etre influences par ces images de roman populaire et d’imaginer toutes sortes de choses qui n’existent pas. Cet article essaie de montrer que ces images gagnent a etre etudiees autrement en n’oubliant pas une partie du temps qu’il s’agit precisement d’images et en construisant une analyse symetrique qui traite les images scientifiques et ces images « populaires » dans les memes termes. Cela permet de sortir de l’opposition entre pensee scientifique et croyance populaire pour decrire comment les images deploient a la fois le savoir scientifique et un discours public sur les sciences.
Research Interests:
Presentation de Bertrand Meheust Bertrand Meheust est docteur en sociologie, auteur d’une these sur l’histoire des debats autour du magnetisme animal (Meheust, 1999), prolongation d’un DEA de philosophie consacre au mesmerisme a... more
Presentation de Bertrand Meheust Bertrand Meheust est docteur en sociologie, auteur d’une these sur l’histoire des debats autour du magnetisme animal (Meheust, 1999), prolongation d’un DEA de philosophie consacre au mesmerisme a l’universite de Dijon en 1981. Il est aussi l’auteur de deux ouvrages qui proposent de rapprocher les experiences suscitees par des observations d’ovnis avec la science-fiction populaire et le folklore fantastique. Bertrand Meheust est l’un des rares chercheurs qui s’...
Research Interests: Philosophy and Socio
Dans ce texte, je propose d’examiner la prétendue différence entre animaux réels et animaux imaginaires mise en place par les anthropologues et les historiens pour distinguer zoologie et ethno-zoologie. Cette distinction est-elle... more
Dans ce texte, je propose d’examiner la prétendue différence entre animaux réels et animaux imaginaires mise en place par les anthropologues et les historiens pour distinguer zoologie et ethno-zoologie. Cette distinction est-elle pertinente pour l’historien et l’anthropologue des savoirs? Ne faudrait-il pas envisager de la dépasser pour se pencher sur la description des façons dont elle a été construite au cours des siècles?
Après avoir rapidement décrit l’usage que les historiens de l’imaginaire font de ces catégories, je décrirai certains travaux qui se sont penchés sur l’histoire des classifications et des méthodes classificatoires (notamment ceux de Keith Thomas) et, en les comparant à d’autres travaux (comme ceux de Jack Goody, d’Elisabeth Eisenstein ou de Natalie Zemon Davis) qui ont porté aussi sur les conséquences des opérations matérielles de classification et de répartition, je proposerai de m’interroger sur la façon dont il convient sans doute de repenser la portée de ces travaux sur l’histoire des classifications en les rapprochant des résultats produits par les science studies. Je proposerai enfin de tester de manière assez radicale cette façon de reconsidérer le partage entre animaux réels et animaux imaginaires en prenant l’exemple des « cryptides », ces créatures classées comme imaginaires pour beaucoup de chercheurs en sciences sociales, mais étudiées par la cryptozoologie. Je prendrai plus particulièrement le cas du fameux yéti et de ses cousins.
Après avoir rapidement décrit l’usage que les historiens de l’imaginaire font de ces catégories, je décrirai certains travaux qui se sont penchés sur l’histoire des classifications et des méthodes classificatoires (notamment ceux de Keith Thomas) et, en les comparant à d’autres travaux (comme ceux de Jack Goody, d’Elisabeth Eisenstein ou de Natalie Zemon Davis) qui ont porté aussi sur les conséquences des opérations matérielles de classification et de répartition, je proposerai de m’interroger sur la façon dont il convient sans doute de repenser la portée de ces travaux sur l’histoire des classifications en les rapprochant des résultats produits par les science studies. Je proposerai enfin de tester de manière assez radicale cette façon de reconsidérer le partage entre animaux réels et animaux imaginaires en prenant l’exemple des « cryptides », ces créatures classées comme imaginaires pour beaucoup de chercheurs en sciences sociales, mais étudiées par la cryptozoologie. Je prendrai plus particulièrement le cas du fameux yéti et de ses cousins.
Research Interests:
Why do social anthropologists prefer to study beliefs that are located far away in time or in space (like medieval ghosts or non-western shamanism) and why do they often ignore beliefs that develop inside our scientific society (like... more
Why do social anthropologists prefer to study beliefs that are located far away in time or in space (like medieval ghosts or non-western shamanism) and why do they often ignore beliefs that develop inside our scientific society (like contemporary astrology or UFOlogy), except to debunk them ? This article shows that the refusal to study our beliefs is closely connected to the refusal (or the incapacity) to study scientific practices, by fear of the relativism stemming from the confusion between “scientific facts” and “mere beliefs”. It also outlines that the some pieces of work that claim to take beliefs seriously mostly have not done so : they have just extended the debunking of beliefs by debunking some specific scientific practices as if they were beliefs. It finally shows that the rare pieces of work that succeed in studying beliefs from a symmetrical point of view often forget to mention the contribution of the science studies that made that symmetrical treatment possible. As a result, the problems that social anthropologists meet when it comes to beliefs are closely connected to the fact that scientific practices remain a sort of blind spot – particularly in France.
French: Pourquoi les études anthropologiques privilégient-elles les croyances lointaines (comme les revenants médiévaux ou le chamanisme amérindien) et ignorent-elles souvent les croyances nées au sein de notre culture scientifique (comme l’astrologie ou l’ufologie), sinon pour les dénoncer ? Cet article montre que le refus d’étudier les croyances proches tient dans un autre refus (ou une incapacité), celui d’étudier les pratiques scientifiques, par crainte de tomber dans le relativisme. Il montre aussi que certains travaux qui ont proposé de prendre des croyances au sérieux l’ont fait au prix d’une critique des sciences responsables de la marginalisation de ces croyances, ce qui revenait à adopter à nouveau un ton critique. Il montre aussi que les travaux qui ont proposé une approche capable d’étudier sciences et croyances dans les mêmes termes ont souvent évité de mettre trop en avant les sciences. La pratique scientifique apparaît donc comme une tâche aveugle, particulièrement pour l’anthropologie française.
French: Pourquoi les études anthropologiques privilégient-elles les croyances lointaines (comme les revenants médiévaux ou le chamanisme amérindien) et ignorent-elles souvent les croyances nées au sein de notre culture scientifique (comme l’astrologie ou l’ufologie), sinon pour les dénoncer ? Cet article montre que le refus d’étudier les croyances proches tient dans un autre refus (ou une incapacité), celui d’étudier les pratiques scientifiques, par crainte de tomber dans le relativisme. Il montre aussi que certains travaux qui ont proposé de prendre des croyances au sérieux l’ont fait au prix d’une critique des sciences responsables de la marginalisation de ces croyances, ce qui revenait à adopter à nouveau un ton critique. Il montre aussi que les travaux qui ont proposé une approche capable d’étudier sciences et croyances dans les mêmes termes ont souvent évité de mettre trop en avant les sciences. La pratique scientifique apparaît donc comme une tâche aveugle, particulièrement pour l’anthropologie française.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This paper describes how UFO researchers translated the story told during the ninth century by Agobard of Lyon on rainmakers (tempestari). The sky ships described by Agobard (or more exactly by the "superstitious" people denounced by... more
This paper describes how UFO researchers translated the story told during the ninth century by Agobard of Lyon on rainmakers (tempestari). The sky ships described by Agobard (or more exactly by the "superstitious" people denounced by Agobard) became UFOs and the rainmakers became UFO abductees.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In 1985, I discovered that, contrary to what was often written, there were no reporters waiting for Kenneth Arnold (the very first witness of a "flying saucer") when he landed at Pendleton airport on 24 June 1947. Instead, it is him who... more
In 1985, I discovered that, contrary to what was often written, there were no reporters waiting for Kenneth Arnold (the very first witness of a "flying saucer") when he landed at Pendleton airport on 24 June 1947. Instead, it is him who decided to go to see the journalists of the local newspaper, The East Oregonian, to try to find out what he had seen the day before. There he met Nolan Skiff and Bill Bequette, two journalists. Nolan Skiff died in 1970 but I learned that Bill Bequette was still very much alive and liging in Tri-Cities, Washington. I wrote him, we exchanged several letters and in July 1988, I traveled to Pendleton, Oregon, and to Tri-Cities to meet Bill Bequette. He told me how, on 25 June 1947, he wrote a small article for the edition of the East Oregonian (an afternoon newspaper) and how he also sent, as a routine task, a despatch on the Associated Press C (local) wire to Portland, Oregon. The following hour, he was deluged by requests for more informations from other newspapers all around the country. He went back to see Kenneth Arnold at his hotel and asked him more questions. The following day, almost every newspaper published an article about what soon became "flying disks" and "flying saucers".
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
How should we rewrite the history of the nineteenth century if we take seriously the stories told to us by authors like Jules Verne of H.G. Wells? What would have happened if Captain Nemo's Nautilus had really existed or if Martians had... more
How should we rewrite the history of the nineteenth century if we take seriously the stories told to us by authors like Jules Verne of H.G. Wells? What would have happened if Captain Nemo's Nautilus had really existed or if Martians had really invaded Earth? This paper tries to push Steampunk culture beyond its limits by suggesting that it may invite us to rewrite history and explore the plurality of worlds it helps construct.
Research Interests:
This paper recalls the discovery of the Flores "hobbit" and the fact that this discovery gives new legitimacy to the (often) rejected knowledge of cryptozoology. But it suggests that we should go beyond that point. We should not only... more
This paper recalls the discovery of the Flores "hobbit" and the fact that this discovery gives new legitimacy to the (often) rejected knowledge of cryptozoology. But it suggests that we should go beyond that point. We should not only discuss if we must accept the scientific existence of Yeti and other "wild men", but that we should take seriously the creatures "constructed" (NOT socially constructed) by other, non Western, cultures, i.e. that we should take seriously their ways of constructing reality. There is a plurality of world not only in the outside cosmos, but also among our different worlds here on Earth.
Research Interests:
This paper recalls the discussion launched in my paper published in Libération in 2001 (there is no Fermi Paradox because, if ET are here, there is no reason why we should see them) and brings the discussion further by discussing the... more
This paper recalls the discussion launched in my paper published in Libération in 2001 (there is no Fermi Paradox because, if ET are here, there is no reason why we should see them) and brings the discussion further by discussing the question of "cultural" difference between civilizations, and therefore between aliens and us.
Research Interests:
This paper suggests that there is no "Fermi Paradox". The Fermi Paradox explains that if extraterrestrials exist elsewhere, they should be here. But we do not see them. Therefore, either we are alone of we should understand why we do not... more
This paper suggests that there is no "Fermi Paradox". The Fermi Paradox explains that if extraterrestrials exist elsewhere, they should be here. But we do not see them. Therefore, either we are alone of we should understand why we do not see them. Many solutions have been proposed: the Zoo hypothesis etc. But the very question is: why should we see aliens even if they are here? History of science shows that scientific facts require expensive methods and instruments to be seen and that it may take years, and even centuries, to admit the existence of certain facts.
Research Interests:
La pasion por las teorias del complot surgio en los anos 50 en Estados Unidos, en plena fiebre anticomunista y en medio del temor difuso a una destruccion atomica del mundo; y se focalizo en torno al tema de los extraterrestres, de los... more
La pasion por las teorias del complot surgio en los anos 50 en Estados Unidos, en plena fiebre anticomunista y en medio del temor difuso a una destruccion atomica del mundo; y se focalizo en torno al tema de los extraterrestres, de los "platillos volantes" y de los ovnis (objetos voladores no identificados). Todo un imaginario politico se mezclo entonces con la atmosfera habitual de la ciencia ficcion. Hoy renace en un contexto diferente. En las librerias se suceden las imitaciones de la novela "conspiracionista" El Codigo Da Vinci, y en la Red siguen proliferando las especulaciones "secretistas" sobre toda clase de temas: atentados del 11 de septiembre de 2001, asesinato de Michael Jackson, epidemia de gripe A... ?Por que? ?En nombre de que nuevos terrores dominantes?