What is the “hard evidence” that graphology works? What can we say that no Anglo-American psychologist could successfully attack?

Very simply, it is that where graphology has been very well established and practiced, in large part, by well-trained, thoroughly professional practitioners, it flourishes.

Those who would denigrate graphology have not seen fit to look beyond their own borders to take note of this phenomenon. If they had, they would have seen that in conservative France and Switzerland , graphological analysis is widely used by enterprises in recruitment.

Well-known companies such as Credit Suisse, Union de Banques Suisse, Swissair, Pfizer and many leading Swiss municipal governments regularly use graphology in personnel assessment.

It is said that use of graphology in personnel selection is virtually routine in France . In Switzerland , a recent study found that nearly 70% of the country's enterprises used graphology in the process of personnel selection.

And in Italy , the level of graphology was deemed high enough in 1996 that the Italian government authorized universities there to offer a diploma course in graphology, provided that certain academic conditions were satisfied. Already two universities, Lumsa and Urbino, offer such courses of study. Even in Spain , there is one university already where one may pursue a three-year course leading to a diploma (by the Faculty of Legal Medicine of the University of Valencia ).

Why is it, then, that graphology is held in such low esteem in most other countries? Might it just have something to do with the level of training and the relative lack of professionalism of its practitioners? It just might have. All one has to do is to look at the level of competence of most practitioners in the U.S. and what there is in the U.S. in the way of professional training. Most so-called graphologists in the U.S. obtained their training with I.G.A.S., the stroke-trait school. Few of them have had much training in psychology. There exist in the U.S. no schools with classes and a graded curriculum where one may get training to be a graphologist. All that is available is a handful of correspondence courses.

Doesn't this say to you that it is essential to draw a distinction between “graphology” and “graphologists.” When graphology is attacked, most of us don't stop to realize that in reality it is graphologists who are being attacked. And if those “graphologists” are not operating at the levels at which truly professional graphologists operate in France , Switzerland , Italy or Israel , the entire profession suffers. Thus, when “graphology” is attacked, before we rise to the bait and offer defenses, it seems advisable first to take a look at the state of graphology in the countries where its detractors live.

The solution? For like-minded professionals in all countries to unite and develop a program to raise the level of professional training in all countries where graphology is disparaged. This is a daunting task but one which responsible leaders in the profession must eventually address if the profession is to be able to withstand criticism.

Tempting as it is to look down at those who presume to practice the profession with inadequate training and thus contribute to its low esteem, we might give some consideration to how we could help our unenlightened brethren start to raise their standards. Maybe they need more carrots and less sticks.

Aside from this approach, we may take some comfort from the fact that certain leading psychologists have openly endorsed graphology as a reliable tool for helping reveal the secrets of human personality. For example, in the United States, the late Gordon W. Allport, a giant in the field of personality, co-authored a seminal work back in 1932 ( Studies in Expressive Movement ) in which he found clear correlation between gait, facial expression, gestures and handwriting. In footnote #7 to that work, reference is made to studies conducted by Dr. Rudolf Arnheim in Germany in the 20s which came to similar conclusions. Dr. Arnheim later emigrated to the United States where he was known for his important work in the psychology of perception. As a matter of fact, it was Dr. Arnheim who introduced our Executive Committee member Evelyne Bissone-Jeufroy to graphology in the early 70s and who gave lectures on graphology at the New School in New York in the 60s which were attended by the writer.

Well-known Swiss psychologists who supported graphology are Dr. Hans Kunz who was a professor of psychology for more than 15 years at Basel University , publishing several books in phenomenological psychology and Dr. Detlev von Islar, for many years a professor at Zurich University .

In Germany , Dr. Oskar Lockowandt, who died earlier this year, was for many years professor of psychology and graphology at Bielefeld University . He was very highly respected, received a standing ovation after his speech this past June at Lindau. He will be sorely missed.

Some have suggested that if more graphologists devoted the time necessary to acquire a sound background in psychology, we would have more success gaining the confidence of psychologists. Among our attendees who have done extensive work in psychology are Dr. Angelika Burns, Lois Vaisman, Dafna Yalon, Deborah Harrel, Maresi di Monchy, Amparo Botella and Dr. Ruedi Knüsel to mention only a few. There are many more.

Also to be addressed as part of this panel discussion will be dealing with our detractors. Advisory Board member Olivia Graham has been devoting hundreds of hours analyzing the Beyerstein book, The Write Stuff, and will be giving us an interim report on her findings to date.

Among the panelists on the first part of this program will be veteran European graphologists who will tell us of their experiences.

Theodore Barnett

Reflections on the State of Graphology

When I accepted the responsibility of being your Executive Director nearly three years ago, I set for myself the task of trying to get a sense of where we were as a profession in the main countries where graphology is practiced to some extent: France , Switzerland , The Netherlands, Belgium , Italy , Spain , Germany , Great Britain , the United States , Canada and Israel .

I have now paid many visits to those countries and attended some 15 national or international conferences. I have had the occasion to interview a large number of practitioners and even have sat in their offices while they did analyses.

My work is far from over. To discharge my responsibility to the members of this Colloquium, I have to do far more. But I have made a start.

Some observations:

One of the problems in this field is that once one gains a little knowledge, one starts to feel godlike from the effect one's pronouncements have on clients. This contributes to the striking lack of collegiality amongst graphologists in the U.S. for example. When I was going around in 1996 and 1997 interviewing mostly American graphologists I asked them if they had to be away on holiday and felt the need to refer their best clients to another graphologist for analyses, whom would they recommend? Usually I was met with silence. When I pressed for an answer, if I were lucky, they'd finally mention one name. My own teacher, Dan Anthony, never even mentioned the name of Felix Klein who had been teaching graphologists for years in the same city ( New York ) and who was well-known and revered.

In most countries, the relationship between the various groups and “schools” is discouragingly poor. Their leaders usually are concerned about their own positions, are slow to see any good in what the others do, are typically disinclined to accord respect to others in the field and take little effective initiative to do anything about the problems which afflict us.

In Europe , I was surprised to find out that there had been so little “on the ground” contact between graphologists in various countries. Exceptions are French-trained graphologists in countries like England , Spain and Italy , who are closely connected to the French Société.

When I asked why this was so, the usual answer was “the language barrier.”

Most conferences provide far too little opportunity for attendees to get acquainted. There is little or no opportunity to work together in small groups.

Often there is hardly any time for questions (the French Congrès, 1997, is a good example of this). Usually the speakers read their presentations with resulting minimal interaction with the audience.

Conferences are mainly opportunities for members to make presentations; rarely ever are there opportunities to talk together about problems facing our profession and see what could be done to improve matters.

I don't see any easy solution to our problems. Even for the few who are genuinely concerned about the state of affairs of graphology, hardly any have the time or resources to try to do anything about it; they are too busy trying to earn a living or keep up with their other interests or obligations.

Despite all that, I am not discouraged. In my travels, I have met enough professionals who do care and do want to make a difference that I believe that we can soon start to take initiatives which will end up benefiting the profession. That will take a lot of teamwork but we in the Colloquium have already seen much evidence of what unselfish teamwork can do. If we can build on this, if we recognize that if we unite, we have a good chance of getting things done, if our colleagues are individuals whom we enjoy having as associates, we just might succeed.

In two years, we have managed to make progress. By consulting with one another, by scheduling meetings where we can talk face to face, by selecting goals which have a chance of being attained, I think we can achieve some good results. It's worth a try, isn't it? The alternative is too dismal to contemplate.

Theodore Barnett