Thank you Sabina, particularly for this point, "a skilled instructor can
take a class discussion into the arena of personal spiritual experience."
But why then did you reply just to me personally, and not to the SASM list?
Is this arena in effect taboo . . . i.e., it's understood that we don't
discuss the issue of subjective spiritual experiences in Academia? That
arena can be undertaken in the privacy of a skilled instructor's classroom,
but is not appropriate for public discussion?
Perhaps the issue for Academics in the U.S. to consider is whether or not
there is a functional separation of Church and State in Academia at all.
What seems to happen is that the State actively appropriates the Church
because of political power among religious organizations. So functionally,
U.S. Academia embodies the State Churches. For instance, the Catholic Church
is widespread and wealthy, so Church members can financially fund public
university programs as was done at UCSB. There is supposedly "no demand" for
a program in esotericism. In actuality, there is "no supply" of money or
political support from "minority" Churches. In actuality, the State decides
what Church programs are funded/embodied in Academia and thereby
perpetuated.
My concern is that PRACTICE of something as humanly fundamental as spiritual
technique/experience is by and large taboo in something as important as
public education.
All Best,
Kathryn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sabina Magliocco" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Kathryn" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 11:19 AM
Subject: RE: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Esoterism in the Classroom
Hi Kathryn,
For those of us teaching in state institutions in the United States, where
the separation of church and state is constitutionally mandated, it's tricky
to teach esoterism, magic and spirituality from anything besides an
outsider's perspective. Even relatively non-religious exercises such as
meditation have been protested by students as a form of imposing a religious
belief or praxis. At the same time, that doesn't mean that spirit must be
stripped out of the equation. The whole point of teaching anthropology and
folklore is to help outsiders of any tradition understand what it's like to
be an insider -- to give them a sense (in the full range of the word) of
what a tradition is like. There are wonderful academic texts available
which present spiritual and esoteric material through the use of narrative
insider's voices; these give students a picture of how the practice of
tradition *feels*, as well as why it is practiced and the context in which
it exists. A skilled instructor can take a class discussion into the arena
of personal spiritual experience, allowing students to share their own
experiences and compare them with those in the text and with one another.
Two additional points. One is that there are academic theorists whose
writings push the boundaries between spirit and intellect: I'm thinking here
of David Hufford, whose work posits that some spiritual beliefs arise from
somatic experiences that are common to all humankind; Andrew Newberg and
Eugene D'Aquili, who work on the neurobiological basis for spiritual
experiences; and Edith Turner, whose well-known article on ritual forces us
to consider how it alters our physical perceptions of reality, as well as
our social ones. I have found the use of these in classes on magic,
spirituality and esoterism to be quite helpful.
My second point is that we need to carefully consider whether the teaching
of spiritual techniques in the academy is even appropriate. Unlike music,
for which there exist some relatively objective measures of assessment, the
attainment of spiritual skill has a much more subjective quality. Even
experienced esoterists can differ greatly in their judgment of an
individual's spiritual development. In a university environment that is
increasingly outcomes-based, the introduction of this set of skills would
only cause greater difficulty and confusion.
Best,
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: Monday, November 05, 2007 9:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC]
This thread brings to mind my interest in hearing how professors teaching
about Magic and other esoteric disciplines handle the object/subject
polarity: do you teach esotericism as an objective artifact as if you were
teaching it from outside any worldview your students and you yourself
inhabit; or do you teach it as a subjective experience that your students
and yourself, as living human beings, naturally inhabit?
What do you offer the student who comes to Academia not only for
Intellectual skill, but also for Spiritual skill? Does separation of Church
and State by definition mean separation of Spirit and Intellect in Academia?
My concern is that Music, for instance, is taught by expert musicians and
studied by students learning to perfect their practice of musical
instruments. Even professors teaching Music Theory are themselves practicing
musicians to some degree. Many styles of Music are taught in Academia;
classical, jazz, world music . . . .
Magic and other esoteric disciplines of course can be taught theoretically
as Folklore, Literature, History, Religion. But why is esotericism not also
taught as a practice, where the Academic learns to perfect their practice in
the instrument of choice; Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Magic, Sufism, Christianity,
Buddhism, Alchemy, Zoroastrianism, Astrology . . . ?
Is the "Academic Study of Magic" by definition confined to Intellectual
theory, separate from Spiritual experience?
Kathryn LaFevers Evans
Independent Scholar
----- Original Message -----
From: "jacqueline simpson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Fairies
> Many scholars, right back into the 19th century, have
> tried to work out how far the concept 'fairy' overlaps
> with that of the dead. Problem is, fairies play all
> sorts of different roles in different societies -- and
> so do ghosts, so one can really only discuss the
> relationship piecemeal.
>
> For instance, take the idea of the 'guardian spirit of
> the farm'. In the Orkneys and Shetlands, this entity
> has the name 'hogboon', which is pretty obviously
> derived from the Norse for 'mound-dweller'. This might
> simply refer to fairies as such (in many countries
> they are imagined as living inside hillocks), or more
> interestingly it might specifically refer to the
> spirit of the first settler in that place, living on
> inside his burial mound and keeping a benevolent eye
> on his descendants.
>
> Or again, there are one or two 'house guardians' who
> are quite definitely stated in the local tradition to
> have been ghosts; the Cold Lad of Hinton for one, and
> the German Hinzelmann for another. But by and large
> and on the whole, the house and farm guardians (hobs,
> pixies, cobbolds, tomtes, lutins etc etc) don't look
> or behave like the dead.
>
> Purkiss's analysis of particular tales and beliefs is
> often very revealing, but it would be dangerous to
> extrapolate from that into broad general theories.
>
> As for why a society which already has the concept
> 'ghost' would also go in for 'fairies', this will
> surely depend on what types of function and activity
> the concept 'ghost' does and does not cover. To put it
> crudely, if your 'ghosts' are always benevolent, or
> always too ethereal to interact with the living, then
> you will need some other supernantural being to take
> the blame for life's little nastinesses, from losing
> your way in the woods to having a mentally defective
> baby. If on the other hand your ghosts are always
> sinister and scary, the fairies can take on the role
> of playful little things, treasure guardians, bringers
> of *good* luck, etc. At the end of that path, we get
> the Tooth Fairy and Santa's Little Helpers.
>
> Jacqueline
>
>
>
>
> --- Caroline Tully <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Harry,
> >
> > >>Is she saying that fairies are just a human
> > metaphor for the dead? Or is
> > >>she saying they are the dead in folklore?
> > Harry Roth<<
> >
> > What's the difference? Can you clarify for me?
> > Purkiss is certainly saying
> > that fairies are a human metaphor for the general
> > dead, as well as for
> > things people don't want to know about or admit like
> > neonatal death, women
> > dying in childbed, infanticide, incest, disabled
> > children. This is also
> > explored in "The Good People" by Peter Narvaez (ed)
> > (Kentucky University
> > Press 1991). In Angela Bourke's "The Burning of
> > Bridget Cleary" fairies are
> > also the dead (in Ireland in the late 19th century).
> > So whether that's
> > 'folklore' or 'human metaphors' I'm not quite sure I
> > understand the
> > difference. Is it the difference between beliveing
> > something (from the
> > inside) and analysing that belief, from the outisde?
> >
> > ~Caroline.
> >
> >
> > > Caroline Tully wrote:
> > >
> > >>Dianne Purkiss in "At the Bottom of the Garden: A
> > Dark History of Fairies,
> > >>Hobgoblins and Other Troublesome Things" (New York
> > University Press. 2000)
> > >>would say that fairies *were* the dead. Do you
> > agree with that?
> >
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try
it
> now.
> http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/
|
