The G-Word

An old article I found from 2006 which I made reference to in an earlier blog post:
............................

Do you believe in ghosts? Now wait a moment before you answer that question. Take a moment to consider carefully your response, as it seems in this more spiritually aware era this once simplest of questions has now become a loaded debate on semantics.

As someone who regularly enjoys the challenge thrown down by the ‘paranormal’ and being one to sit on that sceptical fence observing both sides of a debate, I am often privileged enough to meet many people who either believe, disbelieve or share my sceptical viewpoint. However, when I deliberately ask this question in it’s most basic of forms, I am often astounded by the amount of contemplation that goes into the delivery of an often overly complex answer.
What ever happened to a simple yes or no? Have we perhaps gone beyond the point where a ghost is simply the spectral appearance of a person who has passed over or the ominous misty representation of a human form?
Indeed, the ubiquitous response seems to be, when asked this simple question; ‘it depends on what you mean by ghost’ or more disappointing still; ‘I don’t like the word ghost’.
I have even attended talks by self proclaimed experts in the field of paranormal investigation whose response to any question relating to the word ghost is to look at his colleagues with a knowing wink and a nod as if to say ‘looks like we have another one’ before adopting a condescending tone and replying in the most monosyllabic infant school teacher style.

Pick up a dictionary, look up the word ghost and it would seem quite simple, we are talking about a disembodied human spirit. But ask a spiritualist or a believer and you may be subjected to definitions, distinctions and designations. Often, I am left none the wiser after I have asked the question than before.
Perhaps I am old fashioned in my view that there is a degree of affectedness involved when it comes to ghosts. I sometimes feel that I have perhaps incurred the frustration of my interviewees or discussion partner when I ask them if they believe in ghosts. They roll their eyes and tell me they have been asked this many times before and that I should perhaps clarify what I mean by the word ‘ghosts’. I get the impression the word ‘ghost’ is no longer fashionable.
In fairness, when you hit the Net for information on ghosts, there are no shortage of lists defining a variety of apparitions and manifestations. You can almost abandon the word ghost in favour of slightly more spiritually in-vogue options. Psychic entities, elementals, astral echoes, non-sentient apparitions, light anomalies, wraiths, resident spirits, sentient and non-sentient astral beings. Some of these terms have been in circulation for decades, often coined by some of the worlds most famous and respected psychical researchers, whereas others appear to have materialised more recently, perhaps occasionally owing their existence as much to the Internet. The alternatives to ‘ghost’ are so plentiful it is no wonder that there is confusion over a simple question.

I wonder if perhaps the word ghost has served its purpose as a generic term and no longer has much relevance given the degree of savvy displayed by the paranormally enthusiastic masses. Worse still, as I remember those exasperated expressions on the faces of those whom I have interviewed, has it become a naughty word? A spiritual reference taboo? Should I now refer to it as the ‘G-Word’?
No one ghost hunts anymore. Instead they paranormal investigate and why not? After all, our interest in the paranormal will inevitably evolve and so it should. But it can feel as though ghost enthusiasts have grown up into scientists, parapsychologists and inducted amateurs and today’s novice is being gradually squeezed out of serious paranormal debate as though they don’t belong in the new, more advanced, spiritual arena. The G-Word represents something lost in the melee to achieve a new height of legitimacy for the subject. It is a word that has been abandoned even as a generic expression in favour of terms more becoming of the 21^st Century.
Whilst I worry that this is perhaps alienating the next generation of Harry Prices, Maurice Grosses, Ciaran O’Keeffes and even Yvette Fieldings, yesterdays ghost enthusiasts who have earned their stripes in paranormal lore, I cannot say that the categorizing of ghostly phenomena is without its merits.
The Enfield poltergeist in the late 1970s, for example, is hardly comparable to classic hauntings such as the ‘non-sentient apparitions’ of the Roman soldiers at Chester and York or the airborne ‘sentient spirits’ allegedly of flight deck crewmembers from the 1972 Eastern Airlines flight 401 disaster. Three very unique and separate apparent cases that are famously different. But, for all their differences, are they not still ghosts?
Sure, the poltergeist is often said to be person related, more of a telekinetic manifestation rather than the return of a deceased individual and they are still credited by some to be the most common form of demon but they certainly have been considered to be spirits in more than one documented case. Given this ambiguity surely there is room for the poltergeist underneath the ghost umbrella.

The eagerness for ghosts to be categorized, whilst commendable when coupled with serious and unbiased study on the subject, may be eroding the appeal of ghosts and the paranormal. The G-Word is the pull for many who begin their study of the supernatural, the hook that reels them in, hence my dismay at the instant cheapening of the term when I see those rolling eyes and endure the frustrated sighs.
In a nutshell, is the draw of the paranormal at risk by the refusal by some of those in the know to cater for those who are less so?

The word ghost is at risk of being lost and whilst this may not seem like much, perhaps with the loss of the word goes the innocence that has appealed to ghost enthusiasts for countless generations. Ghosts have been fun to talk about in the flickering glow of a fireplace or beneath the howl of the wind on a winters night and they have fascinated people old and young for so long. The potential damage of an elitist attitude and over reliance on specifics is that the ‘magic’ will be lost.
By now you may have realised that the debate is much greater than just one word. To speak to some spiritual aficionado there is all too often some sort of test that follows the asking about the G-Word. It can feel as though one has to pass a knowledge trial before you can be allowed into ‘the club’. If you fail you can expect a series of grunts and sighs and deliberately vague answers designed to end the conversation as soon as possible though there is still some hope you will find someone who would thoroughly enjoy the opportunity to exult their knowledge upon a rookie in the field.

But if I were to be so bold as to answer my own curiosity I would have to say of course the word ghost still has its place and it certainly shouldn’t be treated as an overly simplified term used only by the annoyingly unacquainted. It is still a strong term with more implications than specifics such as sentient entities, stone tape recordings or elementals. Its appeal is more basic and exciting and more widespread and we should savour the word before delving into the types of ghost and the specifics of an increasingly academic field. We should find that balance between in-depth study and enjoying the subject in its simplest form the way we did when we were kids.
Finally, simply out of a concept of preservation and for the benefit of those at the beginning of their supernatural journey, be it sceptical or with conviction, we, myself as a sceptic included, are duty bound to preserve the right to ask the question… do you believe in ghosts?