NYT, Speaking in Tongues
Jacqueline Schneider: For those who know little about science but love being the expert on everything, The New York Times
This post is archived, some links or media may be broken. Please report any issues to info.crmnyu@gmail.com.
By Jacqueline Schneider
For those who know little about science but love being the expert on everything, The New York Times “Science Section” provides empirical data in bite-sized packages. The palatable narratives usually simplify highly nuanced studies and offer entry into the field’s most recent and exciting developments. Perfect for the latest study that shows wine is bad for you, or how some Peruvian rodent’s nest provides us with carbon dating information. But that every facet of human life can be measured by this data is as insular a form of analysis as applying biblical minutia to prove Harry Potter is the anti-Christ. When science is built around our cultural assumptions rather than the contrary, data is not enough.
Benedict Carey’s November 7 article, “A Neuroscientific Look at Speaking in Tongues,” is based on a complex but preliminary study that has been given more weight than it deserves. Carey takes a look at a recent study on the brain blood-flow of people who speak in tongues. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania took brain images of five women while they spoke in tongues and then while they sang gospel and tracked peaks in blood flow. They found that those who spoke in tongues had peaks in the frontal lobes.
Writes Carey:
The passionate, sometimes rhythmic, language-like patter that pours forth from religious people who “speak in tongues” reflects a state of mental possession, many of them say. Now they have some neuroscience to back them up.
Maybe. But the study was based on a weak test group and lacked the proper controls. Carey neither notes this nor does he gesture toward the larger problem. It is the familiar form: them-versus-us, religion-versus-science. This narrative is so familiar that we forget its undercurrents in studies such as this one.
Donna Morgan, a born again Christian, co-authored the study. This seems an obvious conflict of interest, but is it simply enough that Carey tell us her role, or should he be critical of her positions as both subject and author? Morgan describes her experiences speaking in tongues:
“‘You’re aware of your surroundings,’ she said. ‘You’re not really out of control. But you have no control over what’s happening. You’re just flowing. You’re in a realm of peace and comfort, and it’s a fantastic feeling.’”
Isn’t it possible that different socio-cultural groups will practice speaking in tongues differently from one another? The article includes a photo of a woman from a Pentecostal church in the Congo with a headdress. Her eyes are squeezed shut, arms outstretched and mouth open. Her face is glistening with sweat, and she appears in an emotional state quite the opposite of the state of serenity that Morgan described. But the photo is misleading. The study says that the subjects were actually studied in a lab. The study states: “Each subject described herself as a Christian in a Charismatic or Pentecostal tradition who had practiced glossolalia for more than five years. All were active, stable members of their communities.” The study does not distinguish from which communities they were chosen.
Siri Harrison, a Clinical PhD Candidate at The New School for Social Research, calls the study flawed. Harrison, who administers neuropsychological evaluations, says, “Methodologically, is that they don’t use a normal control group. They used the subjects either speaking in tongues or singing gospel. They don’t have a control for non-religious linguistic activity.”
In fact, the study outlines its limitations:
“Our results were hypothesis driven so comparisons were only tested for the major structures of the frontal, temporal, and parietal lobes, as well as the amygdala, hippocampus, striatum, and thalamus, and thus a correction for multiple comparisons was not performed.”
A range of environmental stimuli can trigger this kind of brain activity. “I imagine that when the lights are low or flashing, the music is on, even in a club scene, you have a similar finding,” says Harrison. “Here the focus is on spirituality, but in an environment when you’re dancing and hyped up, your brain can react the same way.” The difference is that this is attributed to a spiritual experience. Put electrodes on five mud-covered, patchouli-smelling Phish-heads at a show and you might get similar results. The same might be true for five men shouting on the floor of the stock exchange. The point is that many people channel physiological and mental stimuli larger than themselves. But it is with a tentative fascination that the secular media treats faith. So much so, that they will miss obvious points for consideration.
Studies such as these simply reiterate our assumption that “those people” — religious people — have brains that work differently than the brains of secular folk. Carey takes care to add that the scientists aren’t calling these subjects crazy, but the larger assumption is clear. He said, “Contrary to what may be a common perception, studies suggest that people who speak in tongues rarely suffer from mental problems.” That it was a consideration at all seems a peripheral attempt at checking out a suspicion borne of cultural dissimilarity.
There are other cultural dissimilarities that are neglected in the study. Aren’t there significant differences, say, between evangelical Christians in England and Pentecostal churchgoers in the Congo? What does it mean to live in as an evangelical trying to channel God in a war-torn country with widespread hunger and disease? Future studies using a larger sample should follow these avenues of observation. This kind of thorough, more nuanced study may not be as sexy a story as the familiar narrative though, and won’t likely make it to print.
Jacqueline Schneider is a graduate student at New York University’s Department of Journalism.