Picking up from some of Caroline's points... I would add, speaking as a historian, that a significant part of the interest of studying magic academically is understanding where/how it fit into the broader cultural and intellectual picture of a given place and period, and what that means to us now. The topic has so often been 'othered' out of historical accounts and/or grossly caricatured as a degenerate form of religiosity/science that the point is to examine how a given praxis was organic and important to its time and place.

I think this sometimes offends practitioners who feel that their praxis (or those of their antecedents) is so intrinsically extraordinary as to transcend these historical parameters. They even may be right about that on some level, but it wouldn't be a level that's terribly accessible *or even necessarily of interest* from the point of view of historiography, which, as a discipline, depends on the notion that a given set of conditions in the world gave rise to another set of conditions in the world in a way that's subject to retrospective analysis and discursive argumentation (i.e., 'stuff happened that made other stuff happen, and isn't that terribly interesting').

Psychologists, philosophers, anthropologists, etc. have their own methodologies that largely define their interests, rules of evidence, ways of making arguments, etc. Many of the controversies that flare up regularly on this list seems to arise when non-academic practitioners expect their own rules of evidence and standards of discourse to *predominate* in academic studies. Academic rules and standards may seem arbitrary and even oppressive from a non-academic viewpoint, and sometimes they no doubt are, but they frequently also serve real purposes in defining and enabling broader discussions within each discipline (and between them), and engaging with them is how we make our inquiries into these fascinating and important topics relevant for and comprehensible to other academics in our fields so that the discussion can continue.

- Noah 

On 9/22/2011 5:33 AM, Caroline Tully wrote:

That’s a good explanation Sabina. And, for the non-academics on the list, it needs to be said that there are *different types* of ‘academic approach’ to the study of magic, it’s not just one ‘academic’ approach. Scholars from different disciplines will approach it in different ways. Someone from History may not really need to actually practice magic(k) to be able to write a history of it. An anthropologist on the other hand might want to get closer, as Sabina explained. An archaeologist, or say, a Classicist, might be interested in how ancient peoples practiced or thought about magic, again, they don’t necessarily need to perform magic themselves, but they could very well try, I guess. Then again there is the academic ‘at work’ and at home’. While Sabina explains that “My disciplines have a specific methodology and a code of ethics that preclude our using field materials (e.g. The 3rd Chapter of the Book of the Law, or the Satanic Principles) as guides for our professional investigations; to do so would mean the loss of funding, professional credibility and denial of permission to conduct research from our institutional internal review boards.”  This is a work situation. Things might be different in a ‘home’ situation? Frankly, I don’t really know…Might they? (Not specifically talking about you Sabina).

 

~Caroline.

 

 

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Magliocco, Sabina
Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011 3:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] FW: [JFRR] Fairy Tales: A New History (Bottigheimer, Ruth B.)

 

David et al.,

 

There seems to be an assumption here that scholars and practitioners are so different from one another that there can be no mutual understanding – or at least, that a scholar could never understand a magic-worker.  First, I want to point out (as has been pointed out many times before on this list) that there are many academic scholars of magic who are also practitioners.   Presumably, their magical experiences equip them to understand magical practice both as insiders, from an insider’s perspective, and as scholars, from a more theoretical or analytical perspective.  Many of us are comfortable with that shifting, contextual, dual perspective.  We all participate in different social worlds, and adapt to them relatively easily, so it shouldn’t be difficult to imagine how a person could feel comfortable and be effective in both worlds.

 

In the case of scholars who are not practitioners, you ask whether an act of devotion (let’s broaden it to any spiritual practice, for the sake of argument) can truly be understood by an outsider.  It depends on what one means by “truly understand.”  At one extreme, it’s possible to say that no human being can ever truly comprehend the experience of another, and that therefore no real dialogue about human experience, or between people, is practicable.   But there are enough similarities between and among humans that I don’t actually think this is the case.  With some empathy, imagination and training, I believe human beings can indeed reach some kind of mutual understanding beyond the mere surface.  In my disciplines, which are anthropology and folkloristics, methodological training aims to make the ethnographer the instrument of research, to take her/ him into the cultures of others in order to make them understandable to outsiders.  While this process is by its very nature flawed, if I didn’t believe it were possible on some level, I wouldn’t be doing it.

 

Many academicians investigating esoteric matters wind up experimenting with magic themselves.  I think it was the German folklorist Lutz Roerich who in the 1960s experimented with recipes from early modern grimoires to make witches’ flying ointment, and wrote a paper about it.  That was considered an academic investigation.  When I was actively researching the rituals of San Francisco Bay area Wiccans and Pagans, I not only participated in them, I designed and led them.  That was well within the purview of academic research; In fact I wrote about it at length in Witching Culture.

 

Finally, I want to say that what makes academicians scholars is not so much the content of their knowledge as the way they approach a question.  Scholars tend to approach things from a particular point of view that is informed by theoretical conversations about it that have taken place in the scholarship of our particular discipline.   My disciplines have a specific methodology and a code of ethics that preclude our using field materials (e.g. The 3rd Chapter of the Book of the Law, or the Satanic Principles) as guides for our professional investigations; to do so would mean the loss of funding, professional credibility and denial of permission to conduct research from our institutional internal review boards.  At the end of the day, it’s our theoretical and methodological training that make us scholars.  We are experts at scholarship – but not necessarily at the various things which we study.

 

Lay and expert knowledge are thus terms that need to be understood in context.

 

Best,

Sabina

 

Sabina Magliocco, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Anthropology

California State University – Northridge

18111 Nordhoff St.

Northridge, CA  91330-8244

 

[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Mattichak
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] FW: [JFRR] Fairy Tales: A New History (Bottigheimer, Ruth B.)

 

I do at least try to live by the Law of Thelema including the instructions of the Third Chapter and find that this system of ethics is almost always at odds with the western mindset which is very Christian. An academic will be the product of this western mindset and so even comprehending the truths of the Third Chapter may prove impossible. And, if someone was to use the instructions for calling beetles that are in that chapter even as an experiment, perhaps just to see if it works, then is that still an academic investigation? Can an act of devotion be studied from the outside with any hope of genuine comprehension?

Most practicing magicians that I am acquainted with won't even talk about their magick with someone like myself, a fellow magician, so what hope have academic students of magick got of getting a straight answer anyway?

 

Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:35:20 +1000
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] FW: [JFRR] Fairy Tales: A New History (Bottigheimer, Ruth B.)
To: [log in to unmask]

And also, might we consider the possibility that the system of ethics of a magician might be different to that of an academic researcher?

 

Would an academic use, say, the Third Chapter of The Book of the Law as a guide to their behavior? Would someone, like, say Jesper Petersen who studies modern Satanism, approve or live by LaVeyean Satanism’s Nine Satanic Statements? (Sorry Jesper, for dragging you in here).

 

Can magickal practitioners and academics ever see eye to eye? (I know the Church of Satan is very anti-academic scholarship).

 

The Nine Satanic Statements
from The Satanic Bible, ©1969
by Anton Szandor LaVey
1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!  
9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!

 

 

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Mattichak
Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011 11:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] FW: [JFRR] Fairy Tales: A New History (Bottigheimer, Ruth B.)

 

Hi Caroline;

A very interesting question- but when it comes to magic, who is the laity and who are the experts?

I would imagine that of all subjects magick would be the most difficult to study as a purely academic pursuit. The instructional books of magick tend to equip the novice magician with the skills to go about the practice of learning magick and the results are usually subjective. My magick won't be the same as yours and neither magicks will be the same as another person's experience. Without practice an academic may learn a myriad of facts about magick but will never be more than a layman unless they submit to the ordeals of learning through experience. This in no way devalues the knowledge that is accumulated about magick by academic methods, after all most of modern Hermetic styled magick was created by scholars but it was only by the trial and error methods of practicing adepts that a real magickal practice has been established.

A magician makes magick his life. Can the same be said of an academic that studies magick? Do academics live magickal lives or do they close their books at the end of the day and that's the end of it. Anyone that has submitted to the ordeals of learning to do magick will agree that the experience of magick doesn't stop at the end of a working day but consumes all of the time and effort that it takes to become a magician. Do academic students of magick make that kind of commitment to their study? Can anyone become an expert at magick without any practical experiments and if they do experiments does their study remain in the realm of academia?

David G Mattichak