Morgan wrote: "In fact this process of switching subjective/objective is
essential to magic (as I know it)."

It is also essential to ethnography, which is why I argue that ethnography is in fact a form of magic.

Who says there's no magic in the academy? ;-)

BB,
SM

Sabina Magliocco
Professor and Chair
Department of Anthropology
California State University - Northridge
18111 Nordhoff St.
Northridge, CA  91330-8244
________________________________________
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Morgan Leigh [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 10:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Theater and Magic(k)

Greetings,

>An author who is a practitioner can choose which glasses to wear, and
when: s/he may choose to fully immerse her/himself in a magical
experience while >it is happening, then switch glasses and write about
it from a more impartial point of view for an academic audience.

Absolutely. In fact this process of switching subjective/objective is
essential to magic (as I know it). There's little use in having a ritual
experience if one can't integrate it into one's life, and life contains
objective and subjective. This is one reason magical diaries are so
important.

Regards,

Morgan Leigh
PhD Candidate
School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics
University of Queensland
religionbazaar.blogspot.com

Sabina Magliocco wrote:
> In fact this happens all the time in academia: for example, the majority of scholars in Jewish Studies are themselves Jewish, and no one questions their objectivity when they write about their subject matter.  What's important is not whether the author belongs to a group or not, it's whether the author can take a viewpoint that can be impartial towards the group -- that can fairly illustrate both strengths and shortcomings without simply taking a position of advocacy.
>
> I think what we need to keep in mind is the following: first, "subjectivity" and "objectivity" are relative, not absolute positions.  And secondly, these are not essences; they are  points of view.  Think of them as glasses that we can put on, chaging our perspective on what we are examining.  An author who is a practitioner can choose which glasses to wear, and when: s/he may choose to fully immerse her/himself in a magical experience while it is happening, then switch glasses and write about it from a more impartial point of view for an academic audience.  S/he can even alternate stances within a single academic work -- see, for example, the work of Karen McCarthy Brown on a Vodou priestess in Brooklyn (_Mama Lola_), or Paul Stoller on sorcery in West Africa, or Kirin Narayan on Hindu storytellers, or my own work on modern Pagan Witches in the US.
>
> Of course, in Anthropology these days, taking a position of advocacy is in some circles de rigeur; see, for instance, the most recent work of Charles Briggs and Nancy Scheper-Hughes.
>
> Sabina
>
> Sabina Magliocco
> Professor and Chair
> Department of Anthropology
> California State University - Northridge
> 18111 Nordhoff St.
> Northridge, CA  91330-8244
> ________________________________________
> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven . [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 9:53 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Theater and Magic(k)
>
> It would really depend on what type of Christian was writing about what type of Christianity. e.g. If a Protestant writes about Catholicism then they would not be a practicing member, same goes for a Branch Davidian writing about the People's Temple. "Christianity" is a sweeping term that accommodates too much to be meaningful in this regard.
>
> I think what Shaz is saying that when an academic writes a book they are expected to be completely objective. Adding the academic credentials of an author or publisher to a book gives it a measure of authority. The danger is that this authority will be usurped to give subjective work credence. If a practitioner writes a book then this raises the question of conflicting interests and thus undermines the perception of impartiality. As long as they are open about where they are coming from and remain objective then I don't think there is a problem with a member of a given tradition writing scholarly work about their belief system. After all, non-practitioners can be just as biased (most notably in the case of works about Satanism).
>
> Steven Gil
> School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics
> University of Queensland, Australia
> hellhoundshowl.blogspot.com
>
>> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:23:09 +1100
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Theater and Magic(k)
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Greetings Shaz,
>>
>>> If a book is printed by someone who presents himself (or herself) as a
>>> scholar, say a university press publishes it, I expect it to be written
>>> with scientific objectivity, at least as much as the person(s) can
>>> muster. That does not mean I expect the writer(s) to completely
>>> disconnect themselves from the material. The study would not be
>>> complete without a subjective look. But I would not expect the
>>> writer(s) to be practising members of the subject of the book.
>> So all academic books on Christianity written by Christians should not
>> be published by academic publishers?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Morgan Leigh
>> PhD Candidate
>> School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics
>> University of Queensland
>> religionbazaar.blogspot.com
>>
>> Shaz Dair wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> It has been well established in the academic community for many years
>>> that science is not the big answer to it all (i.e. Huston Smith - The
>>> Forgotten Truth .1977)
>>>
>>> As with all things the result desired is relative. If one works for a
>>> university and is commissioned to study or write on a cultural
>>> phenomenon more often than not it can be assumed the desired perspective
>>> for the project is one of objective observer rather than practitioner
>>> and representative of that phenomenon.
>>>
>>> If a book is printed by someone who presents himself (or herself) as a
>>> scholar, say a university press publishes it, I expect it to be written
>>> with scientific objectivity, at least as much as the person(s) can
>>> muster. That does not mean I expect the writer(s) to completely
>>> disconnect themselves from the material. The study would not be
>>> complete without a subjective look. But I would not expect the
>>> writer(s) to be practising members of the subject of the book.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if I see a book written by an author who presents
>>> himself (or herself) as a practitioner of that subject (i.e. Magick) I
>>> will expect the author(s) to be members of that group and I will allow
>>> for possibly the complete lack of objectivity. However, I always find
>>> the attempt to be scientific a sign the author is trying to be
>>> objective, which is a quality I like, IMHO. I would also expect the
>>> work to be published by a different sort, like Weiser or Llewellyn.
>>>
>>> What I have seen most often is writers who will edit an occult work by
>>> someone else and impose their criticisms on it, often revealing their
>>> own bias and origin. One example I like is Meric Casaubon's, A True and
>>> Faithful Relation...
>>>
>>> Personally, I think it is possible to be an aethiest or agnostic and
>>> still practice angel magic. Psychic phenomena is a field that will
>>> allow such perspectives in Magick practice and research.
>>> I try to never forget to step back and examine my motives, conceptions
>>> and actions. It would be dangerous to have false confidence in fields
>>> touching on the deep mind.
>>>
>>> Warm regards,
>>>
>>> Marc Carter
>>> <Label Here>
>>> ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Morgan Leigh <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The Enlightenment myth that science is (a) totally objective and that
>>> (b) it can do every thing, answer every question, fill every void is
>>> well past its
>>> use by date IMHO. Science is not inherently objective. This is because
>>> it is done by humans, who are inherently subjective. How do we put
>>> ourselves outside of our humanity to interpret the data we obtain
>>> scientifically? We can, and should, recognise the importance of seeking
>>> objectivity. But to presume we can attain it every time we undertake a
>>> research endeavour is ludicrous. Not that I am ranting or anything...
>>>
>>> People like Dawkins, who push their view on others on the basis that
>>> it's scientific and that that in of itself makes it inherently superior
>>> to any other
>>> view, drive me crazy... He's a fundamentalist scientismist. He makes
>>> people laugh at the academy. Ok, now I am ranting...
>>>
>>> /me takes a deep breath
>>>
>>> I think we are here to DO subjectivity, but I see that this is
>>> contingent on the existence of objectivity. We need both. To see the
>>> balance we need to understand and cherish subjectivity. Just as we can't
>>> attain perfect objectivity, we can't totally transcend our inherently
>>> subjective nature. The present state of enquiry in academia is out of
>>> balance. The balance is the goal. The middle way.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Morgan Leigh
>>> PhD Candidate
>>> School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics
>>> University of Queensland
>>> religionbazaar.blogspot.com <http://religionbazaar.blogspot.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>> jason winslade wrote:
>>>> Should we really assume that "objectivity" and science are
>>> unassailable
>>>> discourses? That they are the norm from which experiential data
>>>> deviates? This is a whole other can of worms, but attaching
>>> 'scientific'
>>>> to scholarly discourse makes a whole other set of assumptions that are
>>>> just as flawed as subjectivity.
>>>> jlw
>>>>
>>>> --- On *Mon, 12/15/08, Shaz Dair /<[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>/* wrote:
>>>> From: Shaz Dair <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Theater and Magic(k)
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Date: Monday, December 15, 2008, 4:54 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As scholars we have a duty to be objective and scientific.
>>>> As to the limits of scientifically studying personal human
>>>> experience, we can still step back from our current persona and
>>>> connect with other people in an attempt to share honestly our
>>>> experience and knowledge as well as our uncertainties. Cultural
>>>> Anthropology is an excellent field for just this type of immersion
>>>> in the pool of our subject matter and then the time of sitting
>>>> beside the pool drying off.
>>>> As Socrates said, "the unexamined life is not worth living."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Arild <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> performances that incorporated spiritual discourse and
>>> embodied
>>>>> experience, especially at conferences; the SIEF conference
>>>> "Liberating
>>>>> the Ethnological Imagination," in Derry, N. Ireland last
>>> June had
>>>> As a folklorist, I should say that in that case, SIEF has
>>> come a
>>>> long way in
>>>> the last 10 years. During my couple of decades in the
>>> Ethnology
>>>> and Folklore
>>>> Departement at the University of Bergen, this wold've been
>>> far from
>>>> happening. But so much the better!
>>>>
>>>> Arild
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>> --
>
> ________________________________
> Download free emoticons today! Holiday cheer from Messenger.<http://livelife.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=669758>

--