What good are psychedelic humanities?

Psychedelic research has been largely shaped by biomedical science, but it raises questions beyond what labs and clinics can answer. The emerging field of psychedelic humanities examines the historical assumptions, philosophical gaps, and political dimensions of different approaches to psychedelics. Scholars can either evaluate these alternatives normatively or instead increase complexity by opening new perspectives, leaving readers to reduce that complexity in novel ways. This allows practitioners to use or abuse such scholarship for their own ends. The article describes the institutionalization of this work at The New School's Psychedelic Humanities Lab.

Study at a glance

Abstract

The revival of psychedelic research has been dominated by the biomedical sciences. Yet it raises questions that cannot be answered by laboratory experiments and clinical trials alone. Among these are questions pertaining to the conceptual and practical frameworks that render experimental and clinical findings meaningful. Psychedelic humanities clarify the historical presuppositions, philosophical blind spots, and political stakes of different approaches to psychedelics. In this emergent field, many scholars evaluate such alternatives epistemologically, ethically, or politically. However, they could just as well refrain from offering normative orientation and instead increase the complexity of the observed phenomena by opening other possible perspectives, leaving it to their readers to reduce the resulting complexity in novel ways. This enables clinical psychiatrists, laboratory scientists, and other practitioners to use (or abuse) psychedelic humanities scholarship for their own purposes. The article concludes with a note on the institutionalization of such collaboration at The New School's Psychedelic Humanities Lab.