Caelum Rainieri wrote:

> More precisely, for the academics who are not practitioners, I'm 
> curious as to why you would pick such a field? Particularly after 
> reading Chris's post wherein he mentions the negative feedback he, and 
> others I presume, get from their colleagues.

As others have said, because it's interesting.  I tend not to care very 
much whether something is "important" or "relevant": if I think it's 
interesting, it's interesting enough for me, you might say.

Furthemore, I find it very interesting and stimulating to think about 
whence these weird problems and reactions arise.  That's vaguely 
masochistic, I suppose, but it's also a kind of reflexivity.

Finally, while I agree with others that these epistemological and 
methodological problems are in no sense unique to magic, I do think they 
manifest in extreme forms in that context.  I find this fascinating.

> For an academic who's also a practitioner, it's understandable. For an 
> academic who's not a practitioner..., why take the risk? Why choose a 
> field that is so loaded with negative connotations and, as a result, 
> may hurt your professional career?

To top it off, I don't think that really good academics, as a rule, 
choose their fields strategically.  You choose your dissertation topic 
that way, sometimes, especially when your committee is hostile or 
controlling, but you choose your field because you like it.  Personally, 
I still get a kick out of wandering into a library and digging through 
books about demonology.  And if mainstream academia thinks that makes me 
a weirdo, then I have one obvious option: publish so powerfully that 
they sit up and take notice.  That takes a while, but it does provide a 
good incentive.  Adversity can be a useful thing.

> Chris, I notice that you also do quite a bit of writing on RPG game 
> theory in which you intersperse actual magical theory and history, is 
> that right? Have you found that to be any kind of buffer for you, or 
> is it just a natural extension of your personal interests? In other 
> words, have you found that writing about arcane magical theory in the 
> context of RPGs is more acceptable among your peers?

Yes, I do write about this stuff.  It's a hobby, and it's very useful to 
me professionally, but not for the reasons you mention. I'll explain, 
because it might be helpful to you or others here.

As a theorist, the #1 problem I face is that nobody really understands 
the majority of the theories they kick around.  Some people just limit 
their usage, some avoid theory entirely, and a few unfortunately just 
try to fake it.  The people who really get it are quite rare.  
Furthermore, I find that relatively few of those who really do get it 
are capable of explaining it well to people who don't.  This becomes a 
self-perpetuating cycle, and it's largely responsible for the 
still-common use of the word "theory" as a pejorative in a number of 
disciplines.  And, as a theorist, I hate this.

So I think that a big part of my job is to explain theory, however 
intricate and difficult, extremely clearly.  That's a lot of work.  So I 
try it out on multiple audiences.  In my courses, I teach people like 
Levi-Strauss, not simply because they're important and brilliant but 
also because it requires me to explain these people clearly.  In writing 
about RPGs and theory, I do the same thing for a quite different 
audience.  I figure that if I can explain to a big classroom of freshmen 
and a vastly disparate group of gaming hobbyists how _bricolage_ works, 
I'm well on the way toward making this crystal-clear to my academic 
readers.  It also gives me practice explaining things in prose.

As to RPGs or whatever as a buffer, well, no.  I think this is probably 
rather worse than studying magic: I mean, Frances Yates studied magic, 
and she was OK, but gaming is obviously geek silliness.  (I hope it's 
clear I don't agree with this.)

All of which comes around to your first question.  Is this the most 
strategic, intelligent way to land a great job in this field?  Hell no.  
That's okay, though, because it's fun.

Chris Lehrich

-- 
Christopher I. Lehrich
Boston University