 |
 |
On 05/09/2011 02:34, Anthony H. wrote: excellent, informative citation > To quote Wouter J. Hanegraaff from 'Magic I: Introduction' in the > /Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism/ (pp. 716-9): > > In the post-colonial period Western scholars have become more > sensitive about issues of ethnocentrism and Eurocentric arrogance, > but the logical step of discarding the category of “magic” has not > been taken. Many authors opt for half-way solutions such as > speaking about “magic” while admitting that is a form of > “religion”, but without explaining in what then relies its > specificity. Others use adjectives such as “magico-religious”, but > again without specifying in what respect this category is > different from “religion” pure and simple. A more consistent and > historically more fruitful approach would be to start by > recognizing the religious pluralism that has in fact always > characterized Western culture, and analyze magic as a largely > polemical concept that has been used by various religious interest > groups either to describe their own religious beliefs and > practices or – more frequently – to discredit those of others. If > any etic concept of magic is still considered necessary at all, it > might be used as the common denominator of ‘a discursive field, in > which different Occidentalist definitions of deluded or illusory > beliefs were accompanied by doubts about the extent to which they > were deluded, illusory, backward, or irrational’ (Pels 2003, 16). > > > Anthony H.