 |
 |
Beautifully put by Dave: On 2 July 2010 09:53, kaostar <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > aye, agree with J > > the prime focus of this list (and the JSM when we started it 8 years ago) > was to provide a forum for quality research and ideas, regardless of any > academic affiliation (or lack of it); which was at the time a fairly > challenging stance. This project has been a success, and a few of the wider > group of very talented freelancers have since moved into more formal > academia on the back of their work being given a more public space in the > JSM and elsewhere. > > The *most work in the field is rubbish* meme is > > (a) plainly a generalisation and wrong- I'd throw the names Hutton, > Hanegraff and Versluis into the mix to begin to deny that assertion for a > start - making such a broad assertion is plainly not based on any objective > academic assessment of the field and it has no place on this list, i'd be > tempted to use words mroe like 'breathtaking' about the output of Hutton and > Hanegraff in particular, rather than rubbish > (b) it is very damaging to allow the notion to replicate unchecked, as > that's what memes do; they pass form mouth to mouth without being questioned > in the brain as it's a nice pithy soundbyte that is attractive to repeat in > intelligent company, and > (c) the meme deters scholars from working in a field that already has > numerous professional demerits (such as institutional disapproval, > difficulty in getting generalist jobs with a 'weird' thesis title, mocking > by colleagues etc) > (d) the notion might prevent free dissemination of valuable scholarship if > people are made afraid to publish- if you have article A on magic which > might gain you some ridicule because "all work in that field is rubbish" > then you are more likely to submit article B to a journal, on some other > subject which is safer, like general methodology etc > > We're perhaps in a similar position to where parapsychology was maybe 30 > years ago, a mocked and distrusted fringe, so let's not be our own worst > enemy here, we've still got a long way to go in promoting what we do as the > generally high standard of scholarship that it is, so rather than passing on > maladaptive memes let's try to propogate a more healthy notion of 'most of > the scholarship in the area is damn good, let's all work and co-operate to > keep this standard up and prove our area to be at least as good as the work > done in more mainstream topics' .... > > not so pithy and tongue-friendly a meme, but perhaps less pathological for > our shared future > > Dave E > > > > > *---------- Original Message -----------* > From: Jesper Aagaard Petersen <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 10:30:13 +0200 > Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Academia and Amateurs > > > Well, I missed this one the first time around: > > >Ted Hand <[log in to unmask]> wrote: "And most of the "academic" stuff > that passes peer review is garbage these >days. It's ironic and > disappointing that many of the most serious researchers in these areas > aren't getting any >respect because they're "lowly grad students" or > unpublished." > > Come on, why is that necessary? Sweeping statements are simply not true, > whether about peer reviewed scholarship as monumentally bad or the "true > experts on the margins" struggling to give us "serious" studies. Yes, some > really good amateurs exist, and some really obsessed ones too. Some lazy > academics exist, and some really brilliant ones. But most work that passes > peer review has merit. Definitely, some is garbage, but I guess that > describes pet projects published on lulu.com as well. > > The peer review institution is not foolproof or perfect, and it has a > conservative effect. But at least it is an attempt at gatekeeping quality > control, quite useful when seen in terms of information overflow. > > In the same vein, when Jake writes: > > >"When they are more general this element is much diminished: materials > from different periods are distinguished >rather than harmonised; historical > and cultural distinctions override the practical need for synthesis. This > can >have a distinct numbing effect on well informed non-academics gathering > materials or presenting a case for a >particular approach." > > This difference between focused and general studies might have a lot to > do with the history of religious studies and history of esotericism. 50 > years ago, a lot of phenomenological and psychological synthesis was > presented as scholarship. Nowadays, many generalists stay away from these > integrative projects as they tend to push a religious agenda, ignore > important differences between traditions or cultures and ignore political > and economical implications in and consequences of religious rhetoric. > Perhaps the reason why "focused" groups enjoy comparison and synthesis is > exactly because they are focused - they know one thing and make a lot of > assumptions about other things, facilitating a comparative and interpretive > approach. I for one find that "harmonisation" and "practical needs" belong > outside academic contexts unless carefully circumscribed by therapeutic or > artistic interests; and then it is not history anymore. > > Best, > > Jesper Petersen. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [ > mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] > On Behalf Of Jake Stratton-Kent > > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:01 AM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Academia and Amateurs > > On 30 June 2010 20:26, > > > We're lucky to be living at a time where accessible high quality > > > research in english on these difficult esoteric subjects is beginning > > > to hit the academic shelves in large quantities. It's getting to be a > > > lot easier to point to places where one can actually find information > > > on these topics. I'm hoping that in my humble work as an MA student > > > I've become familiar enough with all these new publications and > > > directions in study that I can point to places to go. > > <snip> > > > Amateur or "uneducated" scholars have often made some of the most > > > important contributions, especially in the recondite places we want to > > > > learn things about. , and as a > > > result we don't get to read or hear about their work. > > > > > > Like Adam McLean, Peterson and Karr are hardworking, make valuable > > > contributions, and the quality of their stuff is generally pretty > > > good. I just wish they published more in the way of formal studies. > > > Karr's bibliographies are fine introductions to the scholarship in > > > English, at least for "beginners" in the subject. (i.e. anybody who > > > doesn't have a PhD in Jewish Studies) They certainly deserve respect > > > and know how to point to legit academic stuff. It would be cool if > > > somebody hired them to do more independent research in their style. > > speaking as an 'amateur' in print, I find academic information very > useful and have done for a long time. This began with my interest in the > Lunar Mansions, which had fallen out of use in contemporary magic but were > examined by the Warburg Institute etc. Much the same remains true of > Greco-Roman influences on the Western tradition, the best - almost only - > places to look are in academia. It is not so terribly difficult to refine > this information into forms usable on a personal level in modern magic, not > as difficult as getting modern occultists to realise its significance and > ring the changes. > > On the other hand, in my experience again, I find academic discussions > online present certain features worth mentioning. When they are focussed - > for example on neo-Platonism - they manage to address contemporary practice > and integrate subsequent developments (say Jungian approaches to the > soul/psyche) and materials from other cultures (say Kriya Yoga). When they > are more general this element is much diminished: materials from different > periods are distinguished rather than harmonised; historical and cultural > distinctions override the practical need for synthesis. This can have a > distinct numbing effect on well informed non-academics gathering materials > or presenting a case for a particular approach. This is particularly > frustrating when the implication is that a forum is 'occult friendly', > whereas a 'focussed' study is not expected to accommodate itself but is > often more accessible. > > Paradoxically, in the case of focussed groups, it is usually enough for > the 'amateur' just to sit back and listen, while the general forums are more > likely to elicit a response without providing the same degree of > satisfaction. > > Jake > > http://www.underworld-apothecary.com/ > *------- End of Original Message -------* >