I'm going to add my voice to Pitch's here, and recommend that we exercise great caution in advocating the inclusion of spiritual materials and techniques in a formal, institutionalized public educational program. The best scenario is the one Pitch describes, in which techniques or material, devoid of ideological content, are included under the wire as part of a curriculum not exclusively devoted to esoterism.
The danger of formalizing and institutionalizing esoterism, at least in publicly funded institutions, is that the argument can and will be made that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. This will have the effect of forcing the "equal representation" of all religious and spiritual ideologies. This might not seem so bad in concept, but think about it: what effect would the open acceptance of fundamentalist Christian precepts have on the teaching of human evolution? Geology? Archeology? Women's studies classes? Gender/ queer studies? Witchcraft? Modern mysticism? The result would be an out-and-out religious and ideological war that, given the imbalances of power/knowledge, would not turn out in favor of esoterism.
The fact is that esoteric subjects are already being taught in public universities; students must search them out, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
I also want to put in a good word for science, since we sometimes see the scientific paradigm as the cause of many of the problems esoterism has being accepted as a field of study in the academy. It isn't science itself that's the problem; I wouldn't want to live in a world without scientific knowledge or the benefits that have accrued from it. The scientific method, when properly applied, provides a useful framework for collecting and analyzing data -- including that of an esoteric nature. Again, it's the misapplication of the scientific paradigm, more properly called "scientism," and its alignment with structures of power and domination that is problematic.
In fact the alignment of any ideology with power/knowledge is problematic. But on the whole I'd rather operate in a system dominated by one of so-called objectivism, than in one dominated by the kinds of discourses that can come to prevail when spiritual and/or esoteric knowledge is combined with power.
If we want universities that openly teach esoterism and include spiritual techniques and practices, we need to think about developing privately-funded schools for that purpose. Although a part of me still shudders at the thought of what could result.
BB,
Sabina
Sabina Magliocco
Professor and Chair
Department of Anthropology
California State University - Northridge
18111 Nordhoff St.
Northridge, CA 91330-8244
"Burning the candle at both ends lights up my life."
-----Original Message-----
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kathryn
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 11:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Esoterism in the Classroom
Very interesting!
And thank you for the clarity of your opinion: "NO! Never!".
Kathryn
----- Original Message -----
From: "kaligrafr" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Esoterism in the Classroom
> Aloha,
>
> On 11/5/2007 at 4:52 PM Kathryn wrote:
>
> >Are spiritual techniques so private that they shouldn't be taught in
> public
> >institutions? I'm truly interested to hear folks' opinions on this
> >question.
>
> As a young teenager, I did in fact learn the fundamental and highly useful
> techniques which underpin a good deal of the world's magico-spiritual
> practices
> in a public institution, junior high school, and from a teacher employed
by
>
> the public school system.
>
> This training took place during and as a part of an entirely different
> overt
> enterprise sponsored by the school district which had to do with young
> adolescents
> learning to manage and use their language skills. And, probably, become a
> little more socially competent.
>
> The instruction that we got in magico-spiritual techniques was thorough,
> sound, and doable. It had little to no ideological content, but was just
> about
> learning how to carry out a range of technical practices.
>
> Let me be honest. At the time, I wasn't interested in magic or
> spirituality.
> I didn't want to be in this language skills class that was overtly aimed
at
>
> making me a better speechifier in front of the school. And I had only the
> slightest clue that anything that we were being taught was odd, exotic,
> or beyond the bounds of school district/community propriety.
>
> Nevertheless, I did do the exercises, learn the techniques, built some
> skills,
> incorporate all this into my growing world view, and was glad when this
> class ended and I moved up a grade.
>
> Some years later, when I began a diligent study of meditation, revolving
> around Zen Buddhism, I discovered, much to my own astonishment, that
> not only did I get what the texts and teachers were talking about, but
also
>
> I had already passed through some of the spiritual experiences involved.
>
> Equally true in the case of Western magico-spiritual traditions.
>
> Because, during that junior high school language skills class, I had
> learned
> magico-spiritual techniques and put them, unwittingly, into practice.
>
> Let me share a few more comments.
>
> It was clear that the teacher understood that some of the instruction was
> pushed the envelope of convention. She did ask us not to blab about it all
> over
> school yard and home. So far as I know, nobody did.
>
> I grasped at the time that I was getting a chance to be slightly
subversive
> of
> the accepted order by learning some of these techniques, but mostly in the
> sense of gaining access to something the school district wanted me not to
> have access to. Not with any grasp of what all that entailed.
>
> The only way that this happened for me is that it happened in a setting
> sanctioned by the school district but involved instruction not really
> acceptable to that school district. The teacher offered an opportunity to
> learn more or less out of sight magico-spiritual techniques that could not
> be openly provided in school.
>
> As I understand now but couldn't be bothered with at the time, one
> of the crucial features of instruction was the teacher's determined focus
> on techniques and equally determined avoidance of any ideological
> context.
>
> This had, I think these days, the effect of making it all a matter
> of technical instruction in skills that could, if necessary, be toted up
> as entirely psycho-physical. On a par with gym exercises or doing tasks
> to learn how to write a book report. Nothing that could ever be described
> as exposing *young souls* to occulture or ideological magico-spiritual
> deviance. No heavens, hells, angels, devils, or magic.
>
> So, having myself learned fundamental magico-spiritual skills in a
> public educational institution, would I ever suggest that such instruction
> become a formal or overt element of the curriculum?
>
> NO! Never!
>
> Look, the context and world view of public educational institutions is
> diametrically opposed to learning worthwhile magico-spiritual techniques
> along just about every axis.
>
> Imagine, just for a moment, the bureaucracy, ideological and
> organizational,
> governing public education.
>
> Musing Uh Oh! Magic In the Classroom! Magic In The Laboratory! Rose,
>
> Pitch
|