Chris,
Thank you for your book list. I will certainly study them to get a
different perspective.
Guido
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:19:57 -0500, Christopher I. Lehrich
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Guido,
>
>I'd like to say, "Just read my new book," it won't be out probably for a
>year.
>
>My feeling is that "theory and method" is something one has to approach
>by working backwards. You read something that sounds interesting and
>valuable, and then you work backwards to the intellectual origins of the
>approach, and then back until you get to a grounding-point you know
>well. For example, an anthropologist might work backwards until she
>touches ground with E.E. Evans-Pritchard, at which point she figures she
>knows where she is. And one can do the same with any kind of history,
>religious studies, and so on.
>
>So what I can provide is a very short list of starting-points. These
>are things that I think we need to work backwards from. That doesn't
>mean I think any one, or any at all, of them is "right" or "the way to
>go" or whatever; rather, I think these people have opened up important
>and useful directions that will be relevant to the study of magic. And
>in the process of re-orienting the approach to fit the particular object
>of study, we will have to work backwards and rethink and so on.
>
>Some directions (in no particular order):
>
>Marshall Sahlins. See particularly _Apologies to Thucydides_ and _How
>"Natives" Think: About Captain Cook, For Example_
>
>Jonathan Z. Smith. See particularly _Relating Religion_ and _Imagining
>Religion_. The former has several articles directly about magic.
>
>Catherine M. Bell. _Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice_. This requires
>considerable prior knowledge of ritual theory over the last 50 years; if
>you do not have this, her _Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions_ is an
>excellent survey.
>
>Stuart Clark. _Thinking With Demons_. Clark is very much a "straight"
>intellectual historian making serious and principled use of "high" theory.
>
>Michel De Certeau. _The Possession At Loudun_. How to do theory with
>documents. Scintillating.
>
>
>I am also very interested in making use of Derrida and some recent
>German hermeneutics (M. Frank, W. Hamacher, etc.), mostly turned against
>themselves (Derrida would probably hate what I'm doing with him in my
>book), but this is by no means something I think is necessary to the
>study of magic -- just an interesting possibility.
>
>Chris Lehrich
>
>Guido Woudenberg wrote:
>
>>Chris,
>>
>>Could you elaborate more on what kind of progress is made in the
>>methodological theory in history? As I am relatively new to the field, I
>>would like to get to know some different perspectives on the study of
>>western esotericism.
>>Could you recommend some books or articles that cover the method you are
>>refering to?
>>
>>Guido
>>
>>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:23:58 -0500, Christopher I. Lehrich
>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Francisco,
>>>
>>>Can you clarify what you mean by "non-religionist" method?
>>>
>>>I have not yet gotten my hands on this Faivre and Hanegraaff volume, but
>>>I did not find the methodological discussions in Hanegraaff's book on
>>>the New Age to be valuable. The book is a useful survey, of course, but
>>>he pushes for a kind of neo-empiricism that it seems to me ignores most
>>>of the progress made in methodological theory in anthropology, history,
>>>and religious studies since the late 1960s. Hanegraaff seems caught up
>>>in the idea that somehow distinguishing between emic and etic
>>>perspectives will solve everything, which strikes me as weirdly naive.
>>>
>>>Chris Lehrich
>>>
>>>Francisco Silva wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thanks very much.
>>>>
>>>>So, it does have some stuff on method in the study of Esoterism, any
>>>>other good books on "non-religionist" method in the study of
>>>>Esoterism/Occult? Because I can't find anything other than this.
>>>>
>>>>Francisco
>>>>
>>>>
>
>--
>Christopher I. Lehrich
>Boston University
>=========================================================================
|