Dear all,
as this debate has gathered up speed fairly quickly, I, as one of the
editors, feel somewhat urged to add some thoughts. To be honest, I have
witnessed the discussion with some fascination as apparently -
presumably - no one has read a single page of the book so far (apart
from Robert Segal and Chris Lehrich - thanks for your comments!).
However, some arguments were nevertheless right and important and I
would like to address these.
Regarding the inclusion of non-Western sources, I may say two things on
behalf of the editors. First, when we conceptualized the volume we had a
much larger scope of texts in mind which in the end fell prey to various
sorts of constraints, mostly to the very limited word-count and budget
that was at our disposal (but partly also to horrendous permission fees
charged by some publishers). So, it's funny that these texts have been
mentioned: we had Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddima (ch. 6, section 27), the 52nd
(not 32nd) epistle of the brethren of purity, and even the first
chapters of the Picatrix on the radar. However, when we finally had to
curtail the volume due to the constraints mentioned, we decided to
neglect these texts and focus on Western sources only (but we also
skipped Maimonides on the Jewish side, for example) as these mostly
influenced the Western concept that was then picked up by scholars in
the 19th century. But as the Picatrix's definition of 'sihr' as the most
supreme part of philosophy (which the Picatrix took from the 52nd
epistle of the Brethren of purity almost word for word) influenced
Marsilio Ficino and through him Agrippa of Nettesheim, we still have
precisely this notion in the volume, which apparently originated in
Arabic medieval discourse. So you might be fair with us and at least
acknowledge that we worked on not only perpetuating mainstream Western
polemics, but also included some minor/deviant (i.e. more positive)
positions of the historical debate.
And second, the Arabic texts mentioned would have been historical
sources anyway, and the focus of the reader is on the modern academic
debate. Of course, that's a severe limitation, but that's how it is, and
that's what the Equinox series focusses on (I may add that we also
thought about including ALeister Crowleys definition - but then decided
to make a clear cut between pre-academic and academic sources).
Regarding the scholarly debate, however, I have difficulties in tracing
important theoretical contributions of strictly non-Western authors, if
that's really the issue here. Of course, there's tons of research on
specific texts or historical epochs performed by a vast variety of
scholars (e.g. in Classical, Medieval, Arabic, Judaic or Esotericism
studies, to name only a few). Our main criterion for inclusion, however,
was a significant contribution to the theoretical/definitional debate as
such. And, as far as I can see (but this sight may be limited due to my
own eurocentric position), this confines the field of potential
contributors significantly. But I am happy to learn here. Note that I am
working on the interception of medieval and early modern Arabic, Jewish
and Latin sources for quite a while now so that I am not completely
unfamiliar with some more specialized fields of research. But I am still
waiting for a concise scholarly reflection on the concept of magic
based, for example, on the study of Ahmad Ibn Al-Buni, which would have
contributed new thoughts to the theoretical debate as such (i.e. be
relevant not only to Arabic sources, but also to the overarching
category - if there is one). As we have not come across such a
contribution, we couldn't include it in the volume. But, as I said, we
don't know everything (even much less...) and some works may have
slipped through our minds.
Finally, eurocentrism. As for me, the concept of magic is a genuinely
eurocentric concept. There's not much to do about that and we address
the problem in detail in the volume (also by including erudite
reflections of contemporary scholars such as Chris Lehrich or Randall
Styers). Therefore, I cannot really understand the accusation here. Even
if we had included non-Western sources, would this have solved the
ethnocentrism issue? Would it have solved the riddle of the
magic-science-religion-triangle, for example? Does Ahmad Ibn al-Buni
contribute to precisely understanding the difference between 'sihr',
'din' and 'ilm'? I think not (reading him mashes things up even more -
but that's a side issue). This theoretical problem remains and will
remain. Any scholar can reflect on it with equal right, whatever culture
he is from, and eventually come up with some new ideas. From this
perspective, the volume may be interpreted as an intermediate step in an
ongoing debate (useful to some readers, we hope) and I am happy to see
future volumes that include significant upcoming contributions to the
issue of defining magic not only by Arabic, but also (e.g.) African
(Robin Horton has been living in Africa almost ever since, by the way),
Indian or Chinese scholars.
Best wishes from snowy Erfurt,
Bernd Otto
Am 16.01.2013 17:10, schrieb Noah Gardiner:
> A few examples of Islamic sources--in the category of historical
> sources--Ibn Khaldun's discussion of magic in al-Muqaddimah is quite
> interesting and, I believe, quite distinct from medieval thinking
> about magic on the northern side of the Mediterranean; it was
> translated by Franz Rosenthal many years ago, and is of a good length
> for an anthology like this. There's also the 32nd letter from the
> Epistles of the Brethren of Purity (Ikhwan al-safa'), "On magic," a
> good English translation of which was recently published by the
> Institute for Ismaili Studies. I believe some of al-Qurtubi's
> anti-magical polemics have been translated as well. And of course
> there are mountains of historical material not yet translated.
>
> - Noah
>
>
> On 1/16/2013 4:06 PM, David Green wrote:
>> Robert,
>>
>> I do think that NW has a point and the anthology is limited to
>> Western magic despite its undoubted quality - and it does look great.
>> However, NW has to come up with a list of non-Western names/theories
>> who/which should have been included or his point is a little hollow ...
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr Dave Green
>>
>> Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of the West of England,
>> Bristol, UK
>>
>> Society for the Academic Study of Magic (SASM):
>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC
>>
>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=653230719
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Segal, Professor
>> Robert A. [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 16 January 2013 14:05
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Defining magic
>>
>> Jan. 16
>>
>> Dear Dave,
>>
>> What counts is whether the points of view amassed in the book are
>> sufficiently wide-ranging. It doesn't matter who offers them, which
>> is an ad hominem argument.
>>
>> The book is not mine, and I myself would likely have chosen other
>> selections. But the anthology is wonderfully varied, and much more
>> so than any other I have come upon.
>>
>> The whole point of the book is that the topic of magic has been
>> controversial, and often because proffered definitions have proved
>> ethnocentric. Why not give credit to the editors, who are top-notch
>> scholars, for what they have done?
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Robert
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Green
>> [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:54 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Defining magic
>>
>> OK, let's just avert yet another flame war here and take a breather
>> ... The anthology looks superb and I have ordered it. The point -
>> though I think that it could have been expressed with a little more
>> tact - made by N.W. is important. These are definitions which are
>> seen to exclude non-Western magics. Western scholars have to be more
>> alert to this, and need to flag this exclusive nature or be accused
>> of orientialism ... Without anger or ire - or I will delete people -
>> I think it would be useful if N.W. could respond to Robert's question
>> - though this is not about gumption - what should have been included
>> to make the collection inclusive to the non-Western world?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> Dr Dave Green
>>
>> Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of the West of England,
>> Bristol, UK
>>
>> Society for the Academic Study of Magic (SASM):
>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC
>>
>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=653230719
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal
>> [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 16 January 2013 13:47
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Defining magic
>>
>> The Western academic knowledge industries engage in skimming over the
>> knowledge production of entire civilizations, literally making them
>> into none persons, wherein the validity of knowledge only produced by
>> white Europeans is held to be real knowledge (everything else mere
>> curiosities), and I am the one denigrating? Perhaps such denigration
>> is warranted in order to allow for some real introspection by those
>> same Western scholars who in their representation of human knowledge
>> productions still act and behave as if Europe and Europe alone is
>> the axis mundi. Doing favors or not, such is the truth of the matter.
>> Sorry if us perceived non-European subjects protest over the voices
>> of our perceived European imperial masters for not including us in
>> the human knowledge enterprise!
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Nicholas Campion
>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> N.W.Azal, while you do your case no favours in indulging in abuse of
>> western scholars – it is not Otto and Stausberg’s fault that they
>> operate in a particular lineage - I thank you for posting this link.
>> As a child of western scholarship myself, I despair at the
>> parochialism which afflicts much – bit not all – of it. Personally I
>> will look forward to reading Otto and Stausberg’s contribution.
>>
>> Your link would have spoken volumes, posted by itself, without the
>> need to denigrate others.
>>
>> I have, by the way, forwarded it to my students at the University of
>> Wales and my Facebook page.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>> On Behalf Of N.W. Azal
>>
>> Sent: 16 January 2013 12:42
>> To:
>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Defining magic
>>
>> Yet another Anglo-European academic text perpetuating an exclusively
>> hegemonic Eurocentric narrative about magic. The colonialist is alive
>> and well in the knowledge industries of the Western Ivory Tower.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:58 AM, David Green
>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>> Bernd,
>>
>> This looks great. Thanks for posting.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> Dr Dave Green
>>
>> Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of the West of England,
>> Bristol, UK
>>
>> Society for the Academic Study of Magic (SASM):
>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC
>>
>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=653230719
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
>> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>> On Behalf Of Bernd-Christian Otto
>> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>> Sent: 15 January 2013 12:56
>> To:
>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Defining magic
>>
>> Hello everyone!
>>
>> I would like to announce the publication of a volume which might be
>> of interest to some readers of this list, namely Michael Stausberg’s
>> and my Defining Magic: A Reader. It was just recently published in
>> the series "Critical Categories in the Study of Religion" at Equinox
>> Publishing/Acumen. Those of you who teach courses on magic might find
>> the genre of a reader particularly useful as it includes a range of
>> important definitions and theories all in one place. Apart from the
>> usual suspects, i.e. excerpts of classical authors (Tylor, Frazer,
>> Mauss/Hubert, Durkheim, van der Leeuw, Malinowski, Evans-Pritchard,
>> Horton, Tambiah, Leach), we also included a section covering
>> pre-academic sources (from Plato to Blavatsky) and a section with
>> original texts by five contemporary authors (Greenwood, Lehrich,
>> Sørensen, Stratton, Styers). Have a look at the TOC:
>> http://www.acumenpublishing.co.uk/display.asp?K=e2012121911335322&sf1=subj_code&st1=RS&sort=sort_date/d&ds=Reference&m=18&dc=50.
>>
>> All texts are seperately introduced for student readers. There is
>> also an introduction devoted to sorting out the definition riddle,
>> and sectional introductions which aim at embedding the selected
>> sources in the wider discourse of the respective time.
>>
>> But now enough of advertising! Best wishes from
>> Bernd-Christian Otto & Michael Stausberg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No
>> SC013683.
>>
>
--
Dr. Bernd-Christian Otto
Institut für Religionswissenschaft
Universität Erfurt
Nordhäuserstr. 63
99089 Erfurt
Tel. +49 361 7374144
|
