Print

Print
maybe we need to look at a clarification of the language in use to describe ourselves?

'amateur' scholar is hugely value-laden and carries baggage from the 19th century, of Imperial well-to-do travellers doing a little writing about 'colourful natives' as they flit from social engagement to social engagement while on a world tour, etc- it is also an implied negative judgment of quality; 'amateur' being seen as far less good than 'professional' perhaps? Some of the amateur schoalrship done in the 19th C was pretty poor if not utterly damaging, so let's try to find a better term to put some clear ground between us and them (and then). There is less of a distinction in practitioenr circles, since amateur magicians tend not to last very long : )

'independent scholar' is perhaps a little better, but also still carries some historical hint of the person involved being wealthy enough to be able to do personal research, again harking back to British Imperialist times. I've worn IS on a badge at a few conferences (as most events have this desire to label peole!) and it is is untrue for probably 99.5% of us indys- nowadays it tends to mean 'poor as a church mouse and i do what research i can to fit around the day job, which does not give me financial support directly to attend conferences in my chosen field'

the distinction being made is not of quality, but of institutional affiliation, so perhaps 'unafilliated researcher' might be less provocative a term?

And 'academic' has huge connotations. One can do really good academic work without ever having been linked to a university, it is a state of mind, a stance, a chosen method, not  a matter of geography or who pays your wages. Professional standard work done academically well is what matters, not whether it has a university name linked to it when published or otherwise publicised

and in this field in particular, epsecially at conferences, people are often (too)interested in who's a researcher, who's a practitioner and who's both, so i tend to hand some arcane symbol or other round my neck to save the first few minutes of each conversation

just my 5p worth

Dave E


---------- Original Message -----------
From: Jesper Aagaard Petersen <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:04:30 +0200
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Academia and Amateurs

> Ted,
>  
> I agree, although I think it is an unfair match to compare Dodds with Davis, for example! But yes, we definitely shouldn't denigrate the amateur or make practicing magicians defensive about lacking something they clearly do not need. My point is the other way around: I would like to read about and study magic without defending my lack of practical engagement. And perhaps an advocacy for genre or context dependece: not every intention needs to be met in every study.
>  
> And yes, "mostly useless" is a better term than "garbage", because it reflects the problems with publish or perish-academia that is producing technically sound but somewhat ... superfluous articles by the dozen. Not that any of us ever wrote one of those.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Jesper.
>

>
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted Hand
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 10:49 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Academia and Amateurs
>
>
> I think I spoke too hastily, in an effort to defend the amateur rather than tear down the professional. when I used the word "most." I don't mean to make sweeping, useless statements about all academic work being bad. I actually like much of the academic stuff on magic that I read, especially the recent stuff, and I read a lot of it. It's all I can do to restrain myself from shoving bibliographies down peoples throats, I'm so immersed in and enthusiastic about academic studies of magic and esotericism.
>
> But if you read too much of what's being published in the humanities, especially in a subject like literature, it can be disillusioning. Then there's all the very serious stuff that gets magic absolutely wrong due to rationalist bias, etc. Plenty of bad scholarship looks good, and amateurs should take comfort in that. McLean, Peterson, Karr, even guys like P.L. Wilson or Erik Davis ring more true when discussing magic than say E.R. Dodds, although I wouldn't kick his Proclus commentary out of bed. I don't have any issue with the peer review process or with good work. My point is that given the large amount of mostly useless scholarship being produced -- that follows all the rules, technically has nothing wrong with it, sorta makes a contribution etc. -- we shouldn't automatically denigrate the potential contribution of an amateur. 
>
> while I'm revisiting the subject, I think there's also something to be said about the opportunity often missed when that amateur is well practiced in magic, which can provide insights that are not necessarily going to pass peer review. since they look at historical issues in a certain kind of exacting light, going to the historical for practical purposes and trying to get things magically right, there are many ways that they can teach us to pay attention to the text. making these folks feel defensive about their lack of academic credentials is a mistake, is all I'm saying. not that the peer review has this effect, or that we should write off any published work simply because it's conservatively produced.
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Jesper Aagaard Petersen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>

>
> 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]] 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 -------