There are 7 messages totaling 10843 lines in this issue.

Topics in this special issue:

1. academic career (5)
2. Professionalisation - was academic career (2)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:32:38 +0100
From:    Nicholas Campion <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: academic career

Hi,

The discussion is in danger of wandering off-topic somewhat, but as the
debate between academics and non-academics (both of whom may not may not be
practitioners) surfaces periodically on the list, can I just answer the
criticisms of ivory towered elitism.

Getting a PhD is hard work and requires that one submits one's work for
criticism, which is not always easy. Being an academic requires that this
process is ongoing. It's all about scholarship, education and the exchange
of ideas. Anyone can participate as long as they put in the effort.

Having just looked at Michael Barker's blog it strikes me that his actions
and statements are totally elitist in that he regards himself as superior to
those ordinary mortals who accept their degrees. He is setting himself apart
from and above his fellows.

Almost all the practitioners I know who have decided to explore academic
approaches, whether at undergraduate or postgraduate level, have benefited
enormously from the experience,

Nick

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal
Sent: 23 April 2012 11:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

I'll leave the matter here by quoting my dear friend Michael J. Barker and
his rejection of his Ph.D letter of 2009 (see especially the highlight).
http://michaeljamesbarker.wordpress.com/thesis-outline/

Dear Thesis Examinations Coordinator

Since January 2005 I have been enrolled as a Doctoral candidate at Griffith
University, and in July 2008 I submitted a Thesis manuscript to the
University for external examination. During the course of this period of
study my political beliefs have substantially evolved, and I now consider
myself a radical scholar.

The study I produced, titled "Mediating Social Engineering: Moving Beyond
Elite Manipulation of Democracy," critically examines how elite
power-brokers, especially those assuming the guise of impartial progressive
philanthropists, work to manipulate civil society to promote and sustain
plutocratic political arrangements. In the final stages of this research, I
examined how elite manipulation operates within academia - which led to my
presenting a peer-review paper titled, "Progressive Social
<http://www.swans.com/library/art14/barker09.html> Change in the 'Ivory
Tower'? A Critical Reflection on the Evolution of Activist Orientated
Research in US Universities," at the Australasian Political Science
Association conference that was held last year at the University of
Queensland (July 6-9, 2008). This paper demonstrated how powerful liberal
individuals and their philanthropic foundations have manipulated the
university system to help bolster a capitalist political status quo. I
concluded that:

Sustaining useful autonomous activist research within universities requires
that radical scholars who choose to remain within the system fight to retain
vital connections with one another and with activists working outside of the
university environs. However, in my view, undertaking such scholarship only
lends a fig leaf of respectability to what are at root capitalist
enterprises; consequently a purist and more sustainable solution requires
that radical intellectuals step out of the university world and work to
create alternative, people-powered institutions that can seriously challenge
the status quo.

As my research and learning has imparted this world view within me, I now
find myself in a position where accepting this PhD is not possible. With
this in mind I wish to inform you that I will not be handing in the revised
PhD manuscript, titled "Mediating Social Engineering: Moving Beyond Elite
Manipulation of Democracy." My decision is consistent with the views
expressed above.

I wish to emphasize that the research and analyses that informed this
decision were undertaken in the closing months of my candidature, and even
upon handing in my manuscript I was still unsure as to how I should proceed
with regard to accepting the PhD. Rather than simply resign my candidature
prior to handing in my thesis, I determined that a more powerful political
statement could be made by rejecting the concept of receiving a PhD after it
was accepted by the external examiners. In this way, detractors could not
assert that I was incapable of completing a PhD, only that I had decided not
to accept it. The difference is critical given my view of the political role
that universities fulfill in justifying plutocracy.

Critically, I wish to demonstrate that I am rejecting the formal academic
institution and not the reverse. For this reason, I have waited for the
Chair's final decision, which required only minor changes to the thesis,
before informing Griffith University that I would not be making the
suggested corrections.

Yours sincerely

Michael Barker

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Jon Sharp (LTS) <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

Dear N

I think if you re-read my email you will see that I am not necessarily
claiming that the forms of achievement you mention are not in themselves
valid. I stated that, ' the holding of a PhD is an indicator only of one's
ability to follow a certain approach' (key qualifiers in bold for clarity).

My primary interest is the academic study of magic and of the philosophical
frameworks that might allow for the possible functional effectiveness of
magic as praxis. I am not overly interested in global tertiary education
systems and their relative merits. My reason for posting was to suggest
that a more polite approach to discussions would be welcome.

I'd be happy to discuss issues relating to the academic study of magic with
you, but won't have anything further to say on the function or value of a
PhD

Jon

C J Sharp

Head of Learning & Teaching Services

Room 0.27 - Registry

University of East Anglia

Norwich Research Park

NORWICH NR4 7TJ

[log in to unmask]

Office: 01603 597374

Mob: 07795 666 465

This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient please accept my apologies; please do not disclose, copy
or distribute information in this email or take any action in reliance on
its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please
inform me that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you
for your co-operation.

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 10:12 AM

To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

My own view is that the holding of a PhD is an indicator only of one's
ability to follow a certain approach to knowledge acquisition, analysis and
dissemination.

Can you explain to me how attainment of an 'ijaza from Al-Azhar or Najaf or
conferral of teaching rights by traditional institutions such as ones in
Nepal or elsewhere is not an indicator of a certain approach to knowledge,
acquisition, analysis and dissemination? Is indicators of a certain approach
to knowledge acquisition, analysis and dissemination only valid and
legitimate within the loci of Western secular cultural contexts whereby all
others from elsewhere are not? I am sorry, but the insistence of Segal and
his generally patronizing condescensions are indicative of a highly
culturally hegemonic (and very racist) approach to what is scholarship.

N

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Jon Sharp (LTS) <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

Dear N

I may be out of step with others on this list, but to my mind the purpose of
JISC lists such as this one is to facilitate academic discussion. It would
be possible to mount a carefully reasoned argument against the necessity of
attaining a PhD as a pre-requisite for valid or valuable academic
scholarship. However, insults and unsupported claims about the motivations
or personal qualities of other list members is simply unhelpful and
impolite. Impassioned debate and a rigorous and frank exchange of views is a
good thing and seems wholly appropriate to this list, but sniping personal
attacks just reflect badly on the person posting them.

My own view is that the holding of a PhD is an indicator only of one's
ability to follow a certain approach to knowledge acquisition, analysis and
dissemination. It is not an indicator of intellectual acuity, understanding
or wisdom. That said, academia does not make any such claims as to the
import of the completion of a doctorate and for all that it may lack
doctoral study does develop a number of useful skills. A PhD does not
guarantee the veracity of your claims (and I don't think that academia
suggests that it does), but it does demonstrate that you have some basic
training in the skills associated with scholarship. There are a myriad of
problems with the approach to doctoral study in many Universities and with
some of the ideological assumptions that underpin much of the discourse in
the humanities and social sciences. However, those problems themselves are
best addressed by the deployment of the sort of reasoning and analysis that
PhD study in a reputable institution provides.

Of course, I am in the process of completing my draft thesis and if
unsuccessful I may well decide that doctorates are not so important after
all J

C J Sharp

Head of Learning & Teaching Services

Room 0.27 - Registry

University of East Anglia

Norwich Research Park

NORWICH NR4 7TJ

[log in to unmask]

Office: 01603 597374

Mob: 07795 666 465

This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient please accept my apologies; please do not disclose, copy
or distribute information in this email or take any action in reliance on
its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please
inform me that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you
for your co-operation.

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 9:33 AM

To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

Dear Robert Segal,

Your elitist Ivory Tower, territorial knee-jerk buffoonery proves my point.
Believe in your own hype all you like.

Good day!

N

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A.
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

April 23

Dear N,

Somehow I have never come upon your name in any academic discussion of
either theories of myth or theories of religion.

I doubt that you are in any position to assess my work.    By
professionalism I mean exactly the training that entitles one to evaluate
the work of others in one's field.   Evaluations can still be unfair and
even uninformed, but at least they have behind them the attainment of the
credentials that others recognize.    Maybe you will divulge your own.

May I suggest that you ask around to find out what is meant by not only a
non sequitur but also an ad hominem argument.    You really don't grasp
either.    If someone says of a group, DON'T LISTEN TO THEM, THEY'RE
COMMUNISTS, that is an ad hominem argument, though there are qualifications
that would need to be taken into account to make the argument altogether ad
hominem.    I will spare you those qualifications.

If you were a trained expert in either theories of myth or theories of
religion, I would definitely want to know to what deficiencies in your
publications you are referring.   But you are not.    Your criticisms of me,
which you are most welcome to state publicly, would be on a par with Karen
Armstrong's criticism of translations of the Bible or Homer or the Koran.

You are the one who is arrogant, and you have yet to tell us on what your
presumed authority rests.

Robert Segal (Prof.)

PS WITH WHOEVER should be WITH WHOMEVER

________________________________________
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal
[[log in to unmask]]

Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:24 AM

To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

Dear Professor Segal,

What you call ad hominem (which it wasn't, because I was speaking in
generalities) are points of fact about the politicized industry you belong
to, and they have been commented on by more than just me. But your
condescending and patronizing tone of institutional superiority, with your
credential-thumping, also speaks volumes for itself, wherever or with
whoever you have hob-knobbed with during your career.

But if you want ad hom, I'll give it to you: to me your scholarship is
completely mediocre, at best, and your published writings have never
impressed me very much.

My credentials are intact and I have academic training. But smug, arrogant
people in the Academy who insist on their professional territorialism and
patronize the way you do always get my goat, and so I set them straight.
Think of it as a kosmic balancing mechanism of sorts to remind people like
you that you are not all that and so maybe you should get at the top of your
game!

N

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A.
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
April 23

Dear N.,

I feared that what has already come to pass would do so--not on the part of
Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju, whose gracious reply preceded your second one,
but on your part.

Your ad hominem attacks on me are more silly than insulting.   Your claim
that I have built my career exploiting non-Westerners is fantasy.   Sticking
to what one knows is one criterion of scholarship.   Scholarship and
ignorance are mutually exclusive.

To begin with, what are YOUR credentials?

What do YOU know about the study of myth--the example I cited?    I claimed
that Armstrong knows nothing about the study of myth and does not seem to
recognize that she would need a PhD to be able to justify the pronouncements
tbat she makes.    Are you challenging my assessment of her work?   If so,
do tell us on what grounds.

What do you know about the study of religion, my overlapping field of
expertise?

Of course, one can master things on one's own.   And a PhD is merely
necessary, not sufficient, for scholarship.    There are plenty of PhDs who
are not talented.   But a PhD is what scholarship requires--and not just in
the US or the UK.

I do grant some exceptions.   For example, folklore has traditionally
attracted some persons who are not academics. But try getting a job in
folklore today without a PhD.

Karen Armstrong writes for Western audiences.

I have participated in academic conferences in places like South Korea,
Japan, India, and Israel.   Are at least some of them sufficiently
non-Western for you?    You would find that they strive to emulate the
intellectual standards of the West in many fields, including the arts.
The conference in Jammu, India, at which I was the kick-off speaker,
duplicated the conduct of any Western conference (except that the food and
the conversation were much better).    The result of colonialism?
Whatever the source, the West has long set the standard to which academics
aspire.   Wonder why so many budding academics seek degrees from the US and
the UK and Western Europe?

I trust that you know the annual world rankings of universities.
Universities in China, India, Japan, Singapore, and many other places are
committed to achieving excellence--as measured by "Western" criteria. Have
they been brainwashed--or enlightened?

Your reaction to my innocent claim evinces a view of the West and of the
world as a whole that is decades out of date.

And you still confuse an analogy with a non sequitur.

You are welcome to reply, but I doubt that I will do so in turn.

Robert Segal (Prof.)

________________________________________

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
.UK>] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal
[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]

Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 11:48 PM

To:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask].
UK>
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

Dear Professor Segal,

Your very much culturally located notions of what constitutes scholarship,
and a bona fide scholar, is only accepted as legitimate within the limited
confines of your cultural Anglo-European contextual cloister, that is, the
elitism and professional territorialism of your own Ivory Tower industry in
the West. The rest of the world, fortunately, does operate completely yet by
the stultifying impositions of such uniquely arrogant expressions of
intellectual colonialism as how you have articulated the matter below.

There are institutions in the world - such as those in Qom in Iran or Najaf
in Iraq or in Nepal or in Japan or elsewhere - with very much sophisticated
intellectual traditions of great antiquity that do not grant Western Ph.Ds,
and many of the scholars produced by these very older institutions produce
thinkers and scholars who can write and intellectualize concentric circles
around the creme de la creme of what the Western Ivory Tower has ever
produced. Of course, later on many such figures from non-Western
institutions of learning become topics of study where good people such as
yourself build your Western academic careers writing about them, raising
funds and lobbying assorted foundations for research grants to publish their
papers and writings, etc.

Be that as it may, if you cannot see the vacuous illogicality of your
comparison of a Western Ph.D in the humanities/social sciences to a pilot's
license, then what can one say. But please note that your career or
department is not an aircraft so kindly do not condescend or insult
intelligences of those who know the score.

Good day!

N

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A.
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mai
lto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:
April 22

Dear N. W. Azal,

I don't want to get involved in another long exchange that will simply anger
persons on the list.

I was saying what is obvious: not that one must be a scholar but that to be
a scholar, one must have a PhD.   What you call IVORY TOWER ELITISM, I call
professionalism.   And by the way, the more prestigious the university that
grants one a PhD, the more scholarly one is assumed to be.

Armstrong has not needed a doctorate to sell books, but her books are not
scholarly, and no academic would assign anything she has written to even a
first-year course on myth, on religion, on the Bible, or on Islam.   Whether
she recognizes that her stuff is sub-academic, I don't know.   Maybe she
does, and does not care.   Certainly her many admiring readers do not know
or care about her missing credentials.   There are scores of writers on
myth, not least Joseph Campbell, who have hardly suffered because they are
nonacademics.

I don't catch the non sequitur (the correct spelling) in my statement.   I
may be wrong, but I am not thereby illogical.

Robert
________________________________________

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
.UK><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@
JISCMAIL.AC.UK>>] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal
[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:wahidazal66@GMAI
L.COM<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>]

Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 10:15 PM

To:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask].
UK><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@J
ISCMAIL.AC.UK>>

Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

Writers without academic credentials are dismissed as popularizers or worse.
Not to have a PhD is akin to wanting to become a pilot without a license.

And that is the most poignant expression of Ivory Tower elitism, if there
ever was, with an non sequitor of an example for the ages to boot!

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Segal, Professor Robert A.
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mai
lto:[log in to unmask]>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]

<mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>> wrote:

April 22

Dear Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju,

If I may offer two cents (or pence):   if you wish to enter the academic
world, you need a PhD.    Writers without academic credentials are dismissed
as popularizers or worse.    Not to have a PhD is akin to wanting to become
a pilot without a license.

Karen Armstrong is the proverbial exception that proves the rule.
Undeniably, she makes a healthy living from her books.   But she is a joke.
She has never done any research in any of the areas in which she has
published--with, I suppose, the exception of her autobiography, which I
wouldn't read even if I were immortal.   She has no conception of
scholarship.    She thinks that she can write on the Bible without knowledge
of Hebrew or Greek.   She has written, I believe, on Islam--without, I bet,
even being to able to identify the Arabic alphabet.   She lists fewer
sources in her bibliographies than first-year students at accredited
universities would be expected to list in their essays.

My own field is theories of myth, and I reviewed her SHORT HISTORY OF MYTH
for the Jungian journal, itself far from academic, SPRING.   I ended my
review by calling her book the worst book on myth that I have ever read.
She knows nothing about the topic.

I know nothing about you and would not have uttered a peep had you know
cited Armstrong as an example of what you might be seeking.   Obviously, you
are free to ignore all that I have said.

There are academics who write for nonacademic audiences.    My own MYTH
appears in Oxford's VERY SHORT INTRODUCTION series, which operates out of
the trade division and which is marketed to lay persons.   But the authors
of its own 200 or so volumes are experts in their fields.

With best wishes,

Robert (Segal)

Sixth Century Chair in Religious Studies
University of Aberdeen

________________________________________

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
.UK><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@
JISCMAIL.AC.UK>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:ACADEMIC-
[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailt
o:[log in to unmask]>>>] On Behalf Of OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU
[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mai
lto:[log in to unmask]>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]

<mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>]

Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 9:19 PM

To:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask].
UK><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@J
ISCMAIL.AC.UK>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:ACADEMIC-S
[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto
:[log in to unmask]>>>

Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Looking for a publisher for translation
of al-Buni's Great Sun of Gnoses

Thanks, Peter.

I'm developing a strategy to explore the possibility of earning a living
from scholarly writing which uses the full academic framework, one way of
describing the cultural identity that marks an academic work.

A writer who seems to have done this is Karen Armstrong but her career
benefits from a peculiar confluence of factors- the sensationalism of her
move from cloister to public life in her search for religious meaning, as
described in her autobiographical Through the Narrow Gate and The Spiral
Stair, her autobiographies giving graphic form to her religious and
philosophical struggles in the context of her life's vicissitudes, bringing
the metaphysical issues she engages with closer to the reader, her presence
on TV, a list of books that study religious history in terms of her
conception of religious meaning, a teaching appointment and newspaper
writing.

How helpful would it be to adapt a related approach- making the subject of
one's writing accessible to the reader in terms of its touching an intimate
nerve in the depths of efforts at understanding that shape human life?

How helpful would it be to adapt online media for developing and stimulating
a market for scholarly writing?

I have been struck by the interest shown by readers in various general
interest online groups and on Facebook in some of my more ambitious essays.
I have even got input from these sources on one or two of those essays that
I have integrated into the draft of the essay. Someone once asked whether
there was a book where a particular essay I posted on Facebook can be found.

In enticing a reader to part with their money, various factors are at play.
Scholarly books are among the best on any subject. Publication by a
scholarly focused publishing house is often an imprimatur of high quality,
at times the highest quality. Some of the best books on the Hindu and
Buddhist phenomenon of Tantra , some of these books demonstrating par
excellence the erotic dimension of Tantra that Western enthusiasts seem to
have found so fascinating, are in scholarly works, perhaps more so than in
trade publications. The only translation known to me of Abhinavagupta's
famous erotic mysticism in Chapter 29 of his Tantraloka is the
book<http://www.scribd.com/doc/54134989/John-R-Dupuche-Abhinavagupta-The-Kul
a-Ritual> that came out of John Dupuche's PhD.

Perhaps one could offer a smorgasbord of works, meticulous, rich in ideas,
imaginative appeal and communicative strategies, from the dialogue to the
essay, rigorously argued and yet possibly anchored in what can be seen as
universally intimate to the self. Advertise widely using online and possibly
offline outlets. Cultivate a presence on various social networks that whets
people appetites for one's work. Give workshops and introduce and or sell
one's books at such gatherings, among other strategies.

I had once thought I would use self publishing but it does not motivate me
any more, because it seems too narrowly focused for me. I prefer the
professionalism and strong book list of an academic publisher and the scope
of a trade publisher.

thanks

oluwatoyin vincent adepoju

The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.

The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:21:30 +0100
From: OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: academic career

"Getting a PhD is hard work and requires that one submits one’s work for
criticism, which is not always easy. Being an academic requires that this
process is ongoing. It’s all about scholarship, education and the exchange
of ideas. Anyone can participate as long as they put in the effort."****
Nicholas Campion

The submission of one's work for criticism can be very valuable, even
priceless.

As to Barker's stand, I would say "wow!" . I dont expect I would do that
but I admire it.

Thanks Prof. Segal for your position on Campbell in relation to Armstrong.
I will compare your Campbell book, your myth book for Oxford, your
Armstrong review and the works of Campbell and Armstrong with those views
in mind. Such a comparison will help in developing a critical
understanding of various approaches to scholarship.

In studying magic and perhaps practising it while studying it, one may
observe what could be described as subversions of older academic
hegemonies of choice of subject and method of study. In that context, the
scholarly study of magic might enable a rethinking of academic orthodoxy.

thanks

oluwatoyin vincent adepoju

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Nicholas Campion <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi,****

** **

The discussion is in danger of wandering off-topic somewhat, but as the

debate between academics and non-academics (both of whom may not may not be

practitioners) surfaces periodically on the list, can I just answer the

criticisms of ivory towered elitism. ****

** **

Getting a PhD is hard work and requires that one submits one’s work for

criticism, which is not always easy. Being an academic requires that this

process is ongoing. It’s all about scholarship, education and the exchange

of ideas. Anyone can participate as long as they put in the effort.****

** **

Having just looked at Michael Barker’s blog it strikes me that his actions

and statements are totally elitist in that he regards himself as superior

to those ordinary mortals who accept their degrees. He is setting himself

apart from and above his fellows.****

** **

Almost all the practitioners I know who have decided to explore academic

approaches, whether at undergraduate or postgraduate level, have benefited

enormously from the experience,****

** **

Nick****

** **

*From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:

[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *N.W. Azal

*Sent:* 23 April 2012 11:04

*To:* [log in to unmask]

*Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career****

** **

I'll leave the matter here by quoting my dear friend Michael J. Barker and

his rejection of his Ph.D letter of 2009 (see especially the highlight).

http://michaeljamesbarker.wordpress.com/thesis-outline/****

Dear Thesis Examinations Coordinator****

Since January 2005 I have been enrolled as a Doctoral candidate at

Griffith University, and in July 2008 I submitted a Thesis manuscript to

the University for external examination. During the course of this period

of study my political beliefs have substantially evolved, and I now

consider myself a radical scholar.****

The study I produced, titled “Mediating Social Engineering: Moving Beyond

Elite Manipulation of Democracy,” critically examines how elite

power-brokers, especially those assuming the guise of impartial progressive

philanthropists, work to manipulate civil society to promote and sustain

plutocratic political arrangements. In the final stages of this research, I

examined how elite manipulation operates within academia – which led to my

presenting a peer-review paper titled, “Progressive Social Change in the

‘Ivory Tower’? A Critical Reflection on the Evolution of Activist

Orientated Research in US Universities<http://www.swans.com/library/art14/barker09.html>,”

at the Australasian Political Science Association conference that was held

last year at the University of Queensland (July 6-9, 2008). This paper

demonstrated how powerful liberal individuals and their philanthropic

foundations have manipulated the university system to help bolster a

capitalist political status quo. I concluded that:****

Sustaining useful autonomous activist research within universities

requires that radical scholars who choose to remain within the system fight

to retain vital connections with one another and with activists working

outside of the university environs. However, in my view, undertaking such

scholarship only lends a fig leaf of respectability to what are at root

capitalist enterprises; *consequently a purist and more sustainable

solution requires that radical intellectuals step out of the university

world and work to create alternative, people-powered institutions that can

seriously challenge the status quo.*****

As my research and learning has imparted this world view within me, I now

find myself in a position where accepting this PhD is not possible. With

this in mind I wish to inform you that I will not be handing in the revised

PhD manuscript, titled “Mediating Social Engineering: Moving Beyond Elite

Manipulation of Democracy.” My decision is consistent with the views

expressed above.****

I wish to emphasize that the research and analyses that informed this

decision were undertaken in the closing months of my candidature, and even

upon handing in my manuscript I was still unsure as to how I should proceed

with regard to accepting the PhD. Rather than simply resign my candidature

prior to handing in my thesis, I determined that a more powerful political

statement could be made by rejecting the concept of receiving a PhD after

it was accepted by the external examiners. In this way, detractors could

not assert that I was incapable of completing a PhD, only that I had

decided not to accept it. The difference is critical given my view of the

political role that universities fulfill in justifying plutocracy.****

Critically, I wish to demonstrate that *I *am rejecting the formal

academic institution and not the reverse. For this reason, I have waited

for the Chair’s final decision, which required only minor changes to the

thesis, before informing Griffith University that I would not be making the

suggested corrections.****

Yours sincerely****

Michael Barker****

** **

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Jon Sharp (LTS) <[log in to unmask]>

wrote:****

Dear N****

I think if you re-read my email you will see that I am not necessarily

claiming that the forms of achievement you mention are not in themselves

valid. I stated that, ’ the holding of a PhD is an indicator *only* of

one’s ability to follow a *certain* approach’ (key qualifiers in bold for

clarity).****

****

My primary interest is the academic study of magic and of the

philosophical frameworks that might allow for the possible functional

effectiveness of magic as praxis. I am not overly interested in global

tertiary education systems and their relative merits. My reason for

posting was to suggest that a more polite approach to discussions would be

welcome.****

****

I’d be happy to discuss issues relating to the academic study of magic

with you, but won’t have anything further to say on the function or value

of a PhD****

Jon****

****

C J Sharp****

Head of Learning & Teaching Services ****

Room 0.27 - Registry****

University of East Anglia****

Norwich Research Park****

NORWICH NR4 7TJ****

[log in to unmask] ****

Office: 01603 597374****

Mob: 07795 666 465****

This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the

intended recipient please accept my apologies; please do not disclose, copy

or distribute information in this email or take any action in reliance on

its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please

inform me that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you

for your co-operation.****

****

*From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:

[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *N.W. Azal

*Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2012 10:12 AM****

*To:* [log in to unmask]

*Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career****

****

*My own view is that the holding of a PhD is an indicator only of one’s

ability to follow a certain approach to knowledge acquisition, analysis and

dissemination. *

Can you explain to me how attainment of an 'ijaza from Al-Azhar or Najaf

or conferral of teaching rights by traditional institutions such as ones in

Nepal or elsewhere is not an indicator of a certain approach to knowledge,

acquisition, analysis and dissemination? Is indicators of a certain

approach to knowledge acquisition, analysis and dissemination only valid

and legitimate within the loci of Western secular cultural contexts whereby

all others from elsewhere are not? I am sorry, but the insistence of Segal

and his generally patronizing condescensions are indicative of a highly

culturally hegemonic (and very racist) approach to what is scholarship.

N****

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Jon Sharp (LTS) <[log in to unmask]>

wrote:****

Dear N****

I may be out of step with others on this list, but to my mind the purpose

of JISC lists such as this one is to facilitate academic discussion. It

would be possible to mount a carefully reasoned argument against the

necessity of attaining a PhD as a pre-requisite for valid or valuable

academic scholarship. However, insults and unsupported claims about the

motivations or personal qualities of other list members is simply unhelpful

and impolite. Impassioned debate and a rigorous and frank exchange of views

is a good thing and seems wholly appropriate to this list, but sniping

personal attacks just reflect badly on the person posting them.****

****

My own view is that the holding of a PhD is an indicator only of one’s

ability to follow a certain approach to knowledge acquisition, analysis and

dissemination. It is not an indicator of intellectual acuity, understanding

or wisdom. That said, academia does not make any such claims as to the

import of the completion of a doctorate and for all that it may lack

doctoral study does develop a number of useful skills. A PhD does not

guarantee the veracity of your claims (and I don’t think that academia

suggests that it does), but it does demonstrate that you have some basic

training in the skills associated with scholarship. There are a myriad of

problems with the approach to doctoral study in many Universities and with

some of the ideological assumptions that underpin much of the discourse in

the humanities and social sciences. However, those problems themselves are

best addressed by the deployment of the sort of reasoning and analysis that

PhD study in a reputable institution provides. ****

****

Of course, I am in the process of completing my draft thesis and if

unsuccessful I may well decide that doctorates are not so important after

all J****

****

C J Sharp****

Head of Learning & Teaching Services ****

Room 0.27 - Registry****

University of East Anglia****

Norwich Research Park****

NORWICH NR4 7TJ****

[log in to unmask] ****

Office: 01603 597374****

Mob: 07795 666 465****

This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the

intended recipient please accept my apologies; please do not disclose, copy

or distribute information in this email or take any action in reliance on

its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please

inform me that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you

for your co-operation.****

****

*From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:

[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *N.W. Azal

*Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2012 9:33 AM****

*To:* [log in to unmask]

*Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career****

****

Dear Robert Segal,

Your elitist Ivory Tower, territorial knee-jerk buffoonery proves my

point. Believe in your own hype all you like.

Good day!

N****

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A. <

[log in to unmask]> wrote:****

April 23

Dear N,

Somehow I have never come upon your name in any academic discussion of

either theories of myth or theories of religion.

I doubt that you are in any position to assess my work. By

professionalism I mean exactly the training that entitles one to evaluate

the work of others in one's field. Evaluations can still be unfair and

even uninformed, but at least they have behind them the attainment of the

credentials that others recognize. Maybe you will divulge your own.

May I suggest that you ask around to find out what is meant by not only a

non sequitur but also an ad hominem argument. You really don't grasp

either. If someone says of a group, DON'T LISTEN TO THEM, THEY'RE

COMMUNISTS, that is an ad hominem argument, though there are qualifications

that would need to be taken into account to make the argument altogether ad

hominem. I will spare you those qualifications.

If you were a trained expert in either theories of myth or theories of

religion, I would definitely want to know to what deficiencies in your

publications you are referring. But you are not. Your criticisms of

me, which you are most welcome to state publicly, would be on a par with

Karen Armstrong's criticism of translations of the Bible or Homer or the

Koran.

You are the one who is arrogant, and you have yet to tell us on what your

presumed authority rests.

Robert Segal (Prof.)

PS WITH WHOEVER should be WITH WHOMEVER****

________________________________________

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [

[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal [

[log in to unmask]]****

Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:24 AM****

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

Dear Professor Segal,****

What you call ad hominem (which it wasn't, because I was speaking in

generalities) are points of fact about the politicized industry you belong

to, and they have been commented on by more than just me. But your

condescending and patronizing tone of institutional superiority, with your

credential-thumping, also speaks volumes for itself, wherever or with

whoever you have hob-knobbed with during your career.

But if you want ad hom, I'll give it to you: to me your scholarship is

completely mediocre, at best, and your published writings have never

impressed me very much.

My credentials are intact and I have academic training. But smug, arrogant

people in the Academy who insist on their professional territorialism and

patronize the way you do always get my goat, and so I set them straight.

Think of it as a kosmic balancing mechanism of sorts to remind people like

you that you are not all that and so maybe you should get at the top of

your game!

N****

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A. <

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

April 23

Dear N.,

I feared that what has already come to pass would do so--not on the part

of Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju, whose gracious reply preceded your second

one, but on your part.

Your ad hominem attacks on me are more silly than insulting. Your claim

that I have built my career exploiting non-Westerners is fantasy.

Sticking to what one knows is one criterion of scholarship. Scholarship

and ignorance are mutually exclusive.

To begin with, what are YOUR credentials?

What do YOU know about the study of myth--the example I cited? I

claimed that Armstrong knows nothing about the study of myth and does not

seem to recognize that she would need a PhD to be able to justify the

pronouncements tbat she makes. Are you challenging my assessment of her

work? If so, do tell us on what grounds.

What do you know about the study of religion, my overlapping field of

expertise?

Of course, one can master things on one's own. And a PhD is merely

necessary, not sufficient, for scholarship. There are plenty of PhDs who

are not talented. But a PhD is what scholarship requires--and not just in

the US or the UK.

I do grant some exceptions. For example, folklore has traditionally

attracted some persons who are not academics. But try getting a job in

folklore today without a PhD.

Karen Armstrong writes for Western audiences.

I have participated in academic conferences in places like South Korea,

Japan, India, and Israel. Are at least some of them sufficiently

non-Western for you? You would find that they strive to emulate the

intellectual standards of the West in many fields, including the arts.

The conference in Jammu, India, at which I was the kick-off speaker,

duplicated the conduct of any Western conference (except that the food and

the conversation were much better). The result of colonialism?

Whatever the source, the West has long set the standard to which academics

aspire. Wonder why so many budding academics seek degrees from the US and

the UK and Western Europe?

I trust that you know the annual world rankings of universities.

Universities in China, India, Japan, Singapore, and many other places are

committed to achieving excellence--as measured by "Western" criteria. Have

they been brainwashed--or enlightened?

Your reaction to my innocent claim evinces a view of the West and of the

world as a whole that is decades out of date.

And you still confuse an analogy with a non sequitur.

You are welcome to reply, but I doubt that I will do so in turn.

Robert Segal (Prof.)

________________________________________****

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]****

Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 11:48 PM****

To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career****

Dear Professor Segal,

Your very much culturally located notions of what constitutes

scholarship, and a bona fide scholar, is only accepted as legitimate within

the limited confines of your cultural Anglo-European contextual cloister,

that is, the elitism and professional territorialism of your own Ivory

Tower industry in the West. The rest of the world, fortunately, does

operate completely yet by the stultifying impositions of such uniquely

arrogant expressions of intellectual colonialism as how you have

articulated the matter below.

There are institutions in the world - such as those in Qom in Iran or

Najaf in Iraq or in Nepal or in Japan or elsewhere - with very much

sophisticated intellectual traditions of great antiquity that do not grant

Western Ph.Ds, and many of the scholars produced by these very older

institutions produce thinkers and scholars who can write and

intellectualize concentric circles around the creme de la creme of what the

Western Ivory Tower has ever produced. Of course, later on many such

figures from non-Western institutions of learning become topics of study

where good people such as yourself build your Western academic careers

writing about them, raising funds and lobbying assorted foundations for

research grants to publish their papers and writings, etc.

Be that as it may, if you cannot see the vacuous illogicality of your

comparison of a Western Ph.D in the humanities/social sciences to a pilot's

license, then what can one say. But please note that your career or

department is not an aircraft so kindly do not condescend or insult

intelligences of those who know the score.

Good day!

N****

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A. <

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]

<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:

April 22****

Dear N. W. Azal,

I don't want to get involved in another long exchange that will simply

anger persons on the list.

I was saying what is obvious: not that one must be a scholar but that to

be a scholar, one must have a PhD. What you call IVORY TOWER ELITISM, I

call professionalism. And by the way, the more prestigious the university

that grants one a PhD, the more scholarly one is assumed to be.

Armstrong has not needed a doctorate to sell books, but her books are not

scholarly, and no academic would assign anything she has written to even a

first-year course on myth, on religion, on the Bible, or on Islam.

Whether she recognizes that her stuff is sub-academic, I don't know.

Maybe she does, and does not care. Certainly her many admiring readers do

not know or care about her missing credentials. There are scores of

writers on myth, not least Joseph Campbell, who have hardly suffered

because they are nonacademics.

I don't catch the non sequitur (the correct spelling) in my statement. I

may be wrong, but I am not thereby illogical.

Robert

________________________________________****

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>>] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>]****

Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 10:15 PM****

To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>>****

Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

Writers without academic credentials are dismissed as popularizers or

worse. Not to have a PhD is akin to wanting to become a pilot without a

license.

And that is the most poignant expression of Ivory Tower elitism, if there

ever was, with an non sequitor of an example for the ages to boot!****

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Segal, Professor Robert A. <

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]

<mailto:[log in to unmask]>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>>

wrote:

April 22

Dear Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju,

If I may offer two cents (or pence): if you wish to enter the academic

world, you need a PhD. Writers without academic credentials are

dismissed as popularizers or worse. Not to have a PhD is akin to wanting

to become a pilot without a license.

Karen Armstrong is the proverbial exception that proves the rule.

Undeniably, she makes a healthy living from her books. But she is a

joke. She has never done any research in any of the areas in which she

has published--with, I suppose, the exception of her autobiography, which I

wouldn't read even if I were immortal. She has no conception of

scholarship. She thinks that she can write on the Bible without

knowledge of Hebrew or Greek. She has written, I believe, on

Islam--without, I bet, even being to able to identify the Arabic alphabet.

She lists fewer sources in her bibliographies than first-year students at

accredited universities would be expected to list in their essays.

My own field is theories of myth, and I reviewed her SHORT HISTORY OF MYTH

for the Jungian journal, itself far from academic, SPRING. I ended my

review by calling her book the worst book on myth that I have ever read.

She knows nothing about the topic.

I know nothing about you and would not have uttered a peep had you know

cited Armstrong as an example of what you might be seeking. Obviously,

you are free to ignore all that I have said.

There are academics who write for nonacademic audiences. My own MYTH

appears in Oxford's VERY SHORT INTRODUCTION series, which operates out of

the trade division and which is marketed to lay persons. But the authors

of its own 200 or so volumes are experts in their fields.

With best wishes,

Robert (Segal)

Sixth Century Chair in Religious Studies

University of Aberdeen

________________________________________****

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>>>] On Behalf Of OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]

<mailto:[log in to unmask]>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]

]****

Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 9:19 PM****

To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>>>****

Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Looking for a publisher for

translation of al-Buni's Great Sun of Gnoses

Thanks, Peter.

I'm developing a strategy to explore the possibility of earning a living

from scholarly writing which uses the full academic framework, one way of

describing the cultural identity that marks an academic work.

A writer who seems to have done this is Karen Armstrong but her career

benefits from a peculiar confluence of factors- the sensationalism of her

move from cloister to public life in her search for religious meaning, as

described in her autobiographical Through the Narrow Gate and The Spiral

Stair, her autobiographies giving graphic form to her religious and

philosophical struggles in the context of her life's vicissitudes,

bringing the metaphysical issues she engages with closer to the reader,

her presence on TV, a list of books that study religious history in terms

of her conception of religious meaning, a teaching appointment and

newspaper writing.

How helpful would it be to adapt a related approach- making the subject of

one's writing accessible to the reader in terms of its touching an intimate

nerve in the depths of efforts at understanding that shape human life?

How helpful would it be to adapt online media for developing and

stimulating a market for scholarly writing?

I have been struck by the interest shown by readers in various general

interest online groups and on Facebook in some of my more ambitious essays.

I have even got input from these sources on one or two of those essays

that I have integrated into the draft of the essay. Someone once asked

whether there was a book where a particular essay I posted on Facebook can

be found.

In enticing a reader to part with their money, various factors are at

play. Scholarly books are among the best on any subject. Publication by a

scholarly focused publishing house is often an imprimatur of high quality,

at times the highest quality. Some of the best books on the Hindu and

Buddhist phenomenon of Tantra , some of these books demonstrating par

excellence the erotic dimension of Tantra that Western enthusiasts seem to

have found so fascinating, are in scholarly works, perhaps more so than in

trade publications. The only translation known to me of Abhinavagupta's

famous erotic mysticism in Chapter 29 of his Tantraloka is the book<

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54134989/John-R-Dupuche-Abhinavagupta-The-Kula-Ritual>

that came out of John Dupuche's PhD.

Perhaps one could offer a smorgasbord of works, meticulous, rich in ideas,

imaginative appeal and communicative strategies, from the dialogue to the

essay, rigorously argued and yet possibly anchored in what can be seen as

universally intimate to the self. Advertise widely using online and

possibly offline outlets. Cultivate a presence on various social networks

that whets people appetites for one's work. Give workshops and introduce

and or sell one's books at such gatherings, among other strategies.

I had once thought I would use self publishing but it does not motivate me

any more, because it seems too narrowly focused for me. I prefer the

professionalism and strong book list of an academic publisher and the scope

of a trade publisher.

thanks

oluwatoyin vincent adepoju

The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No

SC013683.

The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No

SC013683.****

****

** **

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:21:05 +0300
From: Dr Dave Evans <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Professionalisation - was academic career

it's a good hare : )

i'm not researching anything at present due to work in a different field,
but am *interested* in the recent UK (and i presume elsewhere) rise in
'officialised' pagan roles, such as pagan prison chaplains

Dave E

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Peter Edge <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

This debate did get me thinking a little about professionalization and

magic. One thing we are seeing in the UK is that some heterodox practices,

particularly concerning healing and wellness, are structuring themselves as

professions, with regulations on entry, seeking legal restraint on practice

outside of the profession (which is something that doesn’t apply to

university scholar status in the UK at least), and seeing a role for

regulation of their members particularly in relation to meeting standards

of practice with regard to clients. In the UK, the Spiritual Workers

Association looks interested in going this route for a very wide range of

practices, some of which I think would fall under at least some definitions

of magic (I apologise in advance for setting **that** hare running).****

** **

Anyone looking at professionalization in relation to particular magical

communities of practice?****

** **

Peter.****

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:22:25 +0200
From: "N.W. Azal" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: academic career

*the scholarly study of magic might enable a rethinking of academic
orthodoxy.*

Ditto! To my mind, the contemporary academic study of magic has yet to
answer its own central question as to its disciplinary locus and
orientation. Is it merely a branch in the study of the geneology or history
of ideas? Is it a sub-discipline in the history of science or cultural
anthropology, etc? Following this, how is the phenomenology of magic to be
understood in-itself as well cross-culturally and intra-culturally? None of
these questions have been adequately addressed yet, although this book, in
my mind, has gone a very long way in addressing such concerns:
http://www.amazon.com/Singing-Plants-Mestizo-Shamanism-Amazon/dp/0826347290.
To date, there is no adequate contemporary theory of magic or methodology
to explain it globally, and the Western Academic study of Esotericism as
represented by the folks in Holland is really just a sub-discipline of
history.

That said, what Michael Barker did in 2009 is indicative of the kind of
courageous and rock-solid integrity that very rarely steps out of the halls
of the highly politicized environment of the contemporary Western Ivory
Tower. To accuse him of elitism is quite ironic given what he says, when he
states: "...*consequently a purist and more sustainable solution requires
that radical intellectuals step out of the university world and work to
create alternative, people-powered institutions that can seriously
challenge the status quo...g**iven my view of the political role that
universities fulfill in justifying plutocracy*."

N

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:21 PM, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

"Getting a PhD is hard work and requires that one submits one’s work for

criticism, which is not always easy. Being an academic requires that this

process is ongoing. It’s all about scholarship, education and the exchange

of ideas. Anyone can participate as long as they put in the effort."****

Nicholas Campion

The submission of one's work for criticism can be very valuable, even

priceless.

As to Barker's stand, I would say "wow!" . I dont expect I would do that

but I admire it.

Thanks Prof. Segal for your position on Campbell in relation to Armstrong.

I will compare your Campbell book, your myth book for Oxford, your

Armstrong review and the works of Campbell and Armstrong with those views

in mind. Such a comparison will help in developing a critical

understanding of various approaches to scholarship.

In studying magic and perhaps practising it while studying it, one may

observe what could be described as subversions of older academic

hegemonies of choice of subject and method of study. In that context, the

scholarly study of magic might enable a rethinking of academic orthodoxy.

thanks

oluwatoyin vincent adepoju

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Nicholas Campion <

[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi,****

** **

The discussion is in danger of wandering off-topic somewhat, but as the

debate between academics and non-academics (both of whom may not may not be

practitioners) surfaces periodically on the list, can I just answer the

criticisms of ivory towered elitism. ****

** **

Getting a PhD is hard work and requires that one submits one’s work for

criticism, which is not always easy. Being an academic requires that this

process is ongoing. It’s all about scholarship, education and the exchange

of ideas. Anyone can participate as long as they put in the effort.****

** **

Having just looked at Michael Barker’s blog it strikes me that his

actions and statements are totally elitist in that he regards himself as

superior to those ordinary mortals who accept their degrees. He is setting

himself apart from and above his fellows.****

** **

Almost all the practitioners I know who have decided to explore academic

approaches, whether at undergraduate or postgraduate level, have benefited

enormously from the experience,****

** **

Nick****

** **

*From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:

[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *N.W. Azal

*Sent:* 23 April 2012 11:04

*To:* [log in to unmask]

*Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career****

** **

I'll leave the matter here by quoting my dear friend Michael J. Barker

and his rejection of his Ph.D letter of 2009 (see especially the

highlight). http://michaeljamesbarker.wordpress.com/thesis-outline/****

Dear Thesis Examinations Coordinator****

Since January 2005 I have been enrolled as a Doctoral candidate at

Griffith University, and in July 2008 I submitted a Thesis manuscript to

the University for external examination. During the course of this period

of study my political beliefs have substantially evolved, and I now

consider myself a radical scholar.****

The study I produced, titled “Mediating Social Engineering: Moving Beyond

Elite Manipulation of Democracy,” critically examines how elite

power-brokers, especially those assuming the guise of impartial progressive

philanthropists, work to manipulate civil society to promote and sustain

plutocratic political arrangements. In the final stages of this research, I

examined how elite manipulation operates within academia – which led to my

presenting a peer-review paper titled, “Progressive Social Change in the

‘Ivory Tower’? A Critical Reflection on the Evolution of Activist

Orientated Research in US Universities<http://www.swans.com/library/art14/barker09.html>,”

at the Australasian Political Science Association conference that was held

last year at the University of Queensland (July 6-9, 2008). This paper

demonstrated how powerful liberal individuals and their philanthropic

foundations have manipulated the university system to help bolster a

capitalist political status quo. I concluded that:****

Sustaining useful autonomous activist research within universities

requires that radical scholars who choose to remain within the system fight

to retain vital connections with one another and with activists working

outside of the university environs. However, in my view, undertaking such

scholarship only lends a fig leaf of respectability to what are at root

capitalist enterprises; *consequently a purist and more sustainable

solution requires that radical intellectuals step out of the university

world and work to create alternative, people-powered institutions that can

seriously challenge the status quo.*****

As my research and learning has imparted this world view within me, I now

find myself in a position where accepting this PhD is not possible. With

this in mind I wish to inform you that I will not be handing in the revised

PhD manuscript, titled “Mediating Social Engineering: Moving Beyond Elite

Manipulation of Democracy.” My decision is consistent with the views

expressed above.****

I wish to emphasize that the research and analyses that informed this

decision were undertaken in the closing months of my candidature, and even

upon handing in my manuscript I was still unsure as to how I should proceed

with regard to accepting the PhD. Rather than simply resign my candidature

prior to handing in my thesis, I determined that a more powerful political

statement could be made by rejecting the concept of receiving a PhD after

it was accepted by the external examiners. In this way, detractors could

not assert that I was incapable of completing a PhD, only that I had

decided not to accept it. The difference is critical given my view of the

political role that universities fulfill in justifying plutocracy.****

Critically, I wish to demonstrate that *I *am rejecting the formal

academic institution and not the reverse. For this reason, I have waited

for the Chair’s final decision, which required only minor changes to the

thesis, before informing Griffith University that I would not be making the

suggested corrections.****

Yours sincerely****

Michael Barker****

** **

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Jon Sharp (LTS) <[log in to unmask]>

wrote:****

Dear N****

I think if you re-read my email you will see that I am not necessarily

claiming that the forms of achievement you mention are not in themselves

valid. I stated that, ’ the holding of a PhD is an indicator *only* of

one’s ability to follow a *certain* approach’ (key qualifiers in bold

for clarity).****

****

My primary interest is the academic study of magic and of the

philosophical frameworks that might allow for the possible functional

effectiveness of magic as praxis. I am not overly interested in global

tertiary education systems and their relative merits. My reason for

posting was to suggest that a more polite approach to discussions would be

welcome.****

****

I’d be happy to discuss issues relating to the academic study of magic

with you, but won’t have anything further to say on the function or value

of a PhD****

Jon****

****

C J Sharp****

Head of Learning & Teaching Services ****

Room 0.27 - Registry****

University of East Anglia****

Norwich Research Park****

NORWICH NR4 7TJ****

[log in to unmask] ****

Office: 01603 597374****

Mob: 07795 666 465****

This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the

intended recipient please accept my apologies; please do not disclose, copy

or distribute information in this email or take any action in reliance on

its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please

inform me that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you

for your co-operation.****

****

*From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:

[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *N.W. Azal

*Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2012 10:12 AM****

*To:* [log in to unmask]

*Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career****

****

*My own view is that the holding of a PhD is an indicator only of one’s

ability to follow a certain approach to knowledge acquisition, analysis and

dissemination. *

Can you explain to me how attainment of an 'ijaza from Al-Azhar or Najaf

or conferral of teaching rights by traditional institutions such as ones in

Nepal or elsewhere is not an indicator of a certain approach to knowledge,

acquisition, analysis and dissemination? Is indicators of a certain

approach to knowledge acquisition, analysis and dissemination only valid

and legitimate within the loci of Western secular cultural contexts whereby

all others from elsewhere are not? I am sorry, but the insistence of Segal

and his generally patronizing condescensions are indicative of a highly

culturally hegemonic (and very racist) approach to what is scholarship.

N****

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Jon Sharp (LTS) <[log in to unmask]>

wrote:****

Dear N****

I may be out of step with others on this list, but to my mind the purpose

of JISC lists such as this one is to facilitate academic discussion. It

would be possible to mount a carefully reasoned argument against the

necessity of attaining a PhD as a pre-requisite for valid or valuable

academic scholarship. However, insults and unsupported claims about the

motivations or personal qualities of other list members is simply unhelpful

and impolite. Impassioned debate and a rigorous and frank exchange of views

is a good thing and seems wholly appropriate to this list, but sniping

personal attacks just reflect badly on the person posting them.****

****

My own view is that the holding of a PhD is an indicator only of one’s

ability to follow a certain approach to knowledge acquisition, analysis and

dissemination. It is not an indicator of intellectual acuity, understanding

or wisdom. That said, academia does not make any such claims as to the

import of the completion of a doctorate and for all that it may lack

doctoral study does develop a number of useful skills. A PhD does not

guarantee the veracity of your claims (and I don’t think that academia

suggests that it does), but it does demonstrate that you have some basic

training in the skills associated with scholarship. There are a myriad of

problems with the approach to doctoral study in many Universities and with

some of the ideological assumptions that underpin much of the discourse in

the humanities and social sciences. However, those problems themselves are

best addressed by the deployment of the sort of reasoning and analysis that

PhD study in a reputable institution provides. ****

****

Of course, I am in the process of completing my draft thesis and if

unsuccessful I may well decide that doctorates are not so important after

all J****

****

C J Sharp****

Head of Learning & Teaching Services ****

Room 0.27 - Registry****

University of East Anglia****

Norwich Research Park****

NORWICH NR4 7TJ****

[log in to unmask] ****

Office: 01603 597374****

Mob: 07795 666 465****

This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the

intended recipient please accept my apologies; please do not disclose, copy

or distribute information in this email or take any action in reliance on

its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please

inform me that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you

for your co-operation.****

****

*From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:

[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *N.W. Azal

*Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2012 9:33 AM****

*To:* [log in to unmask]

*Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career****

****

Dear Robert Segal,

Your elitist Ivory Tower, territorial knee-jerk buffoonery proves my

point. Believe in your own hype all you like.

Good day!

N****

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A. <

[log in to unmask]> wrote:****

April 23

Dear N,

Somehow I have never come upon your name in any academic discussion of

either theories of myth or theories of religion.

I doubt that you are in any position to assess my work. By

professionalism I mean exactly the training that entitles one to evaluate

the work of others in one's field. Evaluations can still be unfair and

even uninformed, but at least they have behind them the attainment of the

credentials that others recognize. Maybe you will divulge your own.

May I suggest that you ask around to find out what is meant by not only a

non sequitur but also an ad hominem argument. You really don't grasp

either. If someone says of a group, DON'T LISTEN TO THEM, THEY'RE

COMMUNISTS, that is an ad hominem argument, though there are qualifications

that would need to be taken into account to make the argument altogether ad

hominem. I will spare you those qualifications.

If you were a trained expert in either theories of myth or theories of

religion, I would definitely want to know to what deficiencies in your

publications you are referring. But you are not. Your criticisms of

me, which you are most welcome to state publicly, would be on a par with

Karen Armstrong's criticism of translations of the Bible or Homer or the

Koran.

You are the one who is arrogant, and you have yet to tell us on what your

presumed authority rests.

Robert Segal (Prof.)

PS WITH WHOEVER should be WITH WHOMEVER****

________________________________________

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [

[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal [

[log in to unmask]]****

Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:24 AM****

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

Dear Professor Segal,****

What you call ad hominem (which it wasn't, because I was speaking in

generalities) are points of fact about the politicized industry you belong

to, and they have been commented on by more than just me. But your

condescending and patronizing tone of institutional superiority, with your

credential-thumping, also speaks volumes for itself, wherever or with

whoever you have hob-knobbed with during your career.

But if you want ad hom, I'll give it to you: to me your scholarship is

completely mediocre, at best, and your published writings have never

impressed me very much.

My credentials are intact and I have academic training. But smug,

arrogant people in the Academy who insist on their professional

territorialism and patronize the way you do always get my goat, and so I

set them straight. Think of it as a kosmic balancing mechanism of sorts to

remind people like you that you are not all that and so maybe you should

get at the top of your game!

N****

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A. <

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

April 23

Dear N.,

I feared that what has already come to pass would do so--not on the part

of Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju, whose gracious reply preceded your second

one, but on your part.

Your ad hominem attacks on me are more silly than insulting. Your claim

that I have built my career exploiting non-Westerners is fantasy.

Sticking to what one knows is one criterion of scholarship. Scholarship

and ignorance are mutually exclusive.

To begin with, what are YOUR credentials?

What do YOU know about the study of myth--the example I cited? I

claimed that Armstrong knows nothing about the study of myth and does not

seem to recognize that she would need a PhD to be able to justify the

pronouncements tbat she makes. Are you challenging my assessment of her

work? If so, do tell us on what grounds.

What do you know about the study of religion, my overlapping field of

expertise?

Of course, one can master things on one's own. And a PhD is merely

necessary, not sufficient, for scholarship. There are plenty of PhDs who

are not talented. But a PhD is what scholarship requires--and not just in

the US or the UK.

I do grant some exceptions. For example, folklore has traditionally

attracted some persons who are not academics. But try getting a job in

folklore today without a PhD.

Karen Armstrong writes for Western audiences.

I have participated in academic conferences in places like South Korea,

Japan, India, and Israel. Are at least some of them sufficiently

non-Western for you? You would find that they strive to emulate the

intellectual standards of the West in many fields, including the arts.

The conference in Jammu, India, at which I was the kick-off speaker,

duplicated the conduct of any Western conference (except that the food and

the conversation were much better). The result of colonialism?

Whatever the source, the West has long set the standard to which academics

aspire. Wonder why so many budding academics seek degrees from the US and

the UK and Western Europe?

I trust that you know the annual world rankings of universities.

Universities in China, India, Japan, Singapore, and many other places are

committed to achieving excellence--as measured by "Western" criteria. Have

they been brainwashed--or enlightened?

Your reaction to my innocent claim evinces a view of the West and of the

world as a whole that is decades out of date.

And you still confuse an analogy with a non sequitur.

You are welcome to reply, but I doubt that I will do so in turn.

Robert Segal (Prof.)

________________________________________****

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]****

Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 11:48 PM****

To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career****

Dear Professor Segal,

Your very much culturally located notions of what constitutes

scholarship, and a bona fide scholar, is only accepted as legitimate within

the limited confines of your cultural Anglo-European contextual cloister,

that is, the elitism and professional territorialism of your own Ivory

Tower industry in the West. The rest of the world, fortunately, does

operate completely yet by the stultifying impositions of such uniquely

arrogant expressions of intellectual colonialism as how you have

articulated the matter below.

There are institutions in the world - such as those in Qom in Iran or

Najaf in Iraq or in Nepal or in Japan or elsewhere - with very much

sophisticated intellectual traditions of great antiquity that do not grant

Western Ph.Ds, and many of the scholars produced by these very older

institutions produce thinkers and scholars who can write and

intellectualize concentric circles around the creme de la creme of what the

Western Ivory Tower has ever produced. Of course, later on many such

figures from non-Western institutions of learning become topics of study

where good people such as yourself build your Western academic careers

writing about them, raising funds and lobbying assorted foundations for

research grants to publish their papers and writings, etc.

Be that as it may, if you cannot see the vacuous illogicality of your

comparison of a Western Ph.D in the humanities/social sciences to a pilot's

license, then what can one say. But please note that your career or

department is not an aircraft so kindly do not condescend or insult

intelligences of those who know the score.

Good day!

N****

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A. <

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]

<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:

April 22****

Dear N. W. Azal,

I don't want to get involved in another long exchange that will simply

anger persons on the list.

I was saying what is obvious: not that one must be a scholar but that to

be a scholar, one must have a PhD. What you call IVORY TOWER ELITISM, I

call professionalism. And by the way, the more prestigious the university

that grants one a PhD, the more scholarly one is assumed to be.

Armstrong has not needed a doctorate to sell books, but her books are not

scholarly, and no academic would assign anything she has written to even a

first-year course on myth, on religion, on the Bible, or on Islam.

Whether she recognizes that her stuff is sub-academic, I don't know.

Maybe she does, and does not care. Certainly her many admiring readers do

not know or care about her missing credentials. There are scores of

writers on myth, not least Joseph Campbell, who have hardly suffered

because they are nonacademics.

I don't catch the non sequitur (the correct spelling) in my statement.

I may be wrong, but I am not thereby illogical.

Robert

________________________________________****

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>>] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>]****

Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 10:15 PM****

To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>>****

Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

Writers without academic credentials are dismissed as popularizers or

worse. Not to have a PhD is akin to wanting to become a pilot without a

license.

And that is the most poignant expression of Ivory Tower elitism, if there

ever was, with an non sequitor of an example for the ages to boot!****

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Segal, Professor Robert A. <

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]

<mailto:[log in to unmask]>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>>

wrote:

April 22

Dear Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju,

If I may offer two cents (or pence): if you wish to enter the academic

world, you need a PhD. Writers without academic credentials are

dismissed as popularizers or worse. Not to have a PhD is akin to wanting

to become a pilot without a license.

Karen Armstrong is the proverbial exception that proves the rule.

Undeniably, she makes a healthy living from her books. But she is a

joke. She has never done any research in any of the areas in which she

has published--with, I suppose, the exception of her autobiography, which I

wouldn't read even if I were immortal. She has no conception of

scholarship. She thinks that she can write on the Bible without

knowledge of Hebrew or Greek. She has written, I believe, on

Islam--without, I bet, even being to able to identify the Arabic alphabet.

She lists fewer sources in her bibliographies than first-year students at

accredited universities would be expected to list in their essays.

My own field is theories of myth, and I reviewed her SHORT HISTORY OF

MYTH for the Jungian journal, itself far from academic, SPRING. I ended

my review by calling her book the worst book on myth that I have ever read.

She knows nothing about the topic.

I know nothing about you and would not have uttered a peep had you know

cited Armstrong as an example of what you might be seeking. Obviously,

you are free to ignore all that I have said.

There are academics who write for nonacademic audiences. My own MYTH

appears in Oxford's VERY SHORT INTRODUCTION series, which operates out of

the trade division and which is marketed to lay persons. But the authors

of its own 200 or so volumes are experts in their fields.

With best wishes,

Robert (Segal)

Sixth Century Chair in Religious Studies

University of Aberdeen

________________________________________****

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>>>] On Behalf Of OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]

<mailto:[log in to unmask]>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]

]****

Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 9:19 PM****

To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>>>****

Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Looking for a publisher for

translation of al-Buni's Great Sun of Gnoses

Thanks, Peter.

I'm developing a strategy to explore the possibility of earning a living

from scholarly writing which uses the full academic framework, one way of

describing the cultural identity that marks an academic work.

A writer who seems to have done this is Karen Armstrong but her career

benefits from a peculiar confluence of factors- the sensationalism of her

move from cloister to public life in her search for religious meaning, as

described in her autobiographical Through the Narrow Gate and The Spiral

Stair, her autobiographies giving graphic form to her religious and

philosophical struggles in the context of her life's vicissitudes,

bringing the metaphysical issues she engages with closer to the reader,

her presence on TV, a list of books that study religious history in terms

of her conception of religious meaning, a teaching appointment and

newspaper writing.

How helpful would it be to adapt a related approach- making the subject

of one's writing accessible to the reader in terms of its touching an

intimate nerve in the depths of efforts at understanding that shape human

life?

How helpful would it be to adapt online media for developing and

stimulating a market for scholarly writing?

I have been struck by the interest shown by readers in various general

interest online groups and on Facebook in some of my more ambitious essays.

I have even got input from these sources on one or two of those essays

that I have integrated into the draft of the essay. Someone once asked

whether there was a book where a particular essay I posted on Facebook can

be found.

In enticing a reader to part with their money, various factors are at

play. Scholarly books are among the best on any subject. Publication by a

scholarly focused publishing house is often an imprimatur of high quality,

at times the highest quality. Some of the best books on the Hindu and

Buddhist phenomenon of Tantra , some of these books demonstrating par

excellence the erotic dimension of Tantra that Western enthusiasts seem to

have found so fascinating, are in scholarly works, perhaps more so than in

trade publications. The only translation known to me of Abhinavagupta's

famous erotic mysticism in Chapter 29 of his Tantraloka is the book<

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54134989/John-R-Dupuche-Abhinavagupta-The-Kula-Ritual>

that came out of John Dupuche's PhD.

Perhaps one could offer a smorgasbord of works, meticulous, rich in

ideas, imaginative appeal and communicative strategies, from the dialogue

to the essay, rigorously argued and yet possibly anchored in what can be

seen as universally intimate to the self. Advertise widely using online and

possibly offline outlets. Cultivate a presence on various social networks

that whets people appetites for one's work. Give workshops and introduce

and or sell one's books at such gatherings, among other strategies.

I had once thought I would use self publishing but it does not motivate

me any more, because it seems too narrowly focused for me. I prefer the

professionalism and strong book list of an academic publisher and the scope

of a trade publisher.

thanks

oluwatoyin vincent adepoju

The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No

SC013683.

The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No

SC013683.****

****

** **

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:46:05 +0100
From:    David Green <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Professionalisation - was academic career

Firstly, apologies for being comatose on this list and my general lack of moderation, communication, etc - work has not been great (the tenth circle of Hell) and pre-occupying and so I've not been posting the usual job links, news, etc since the turn of the year - or doing a very good job at welcoming new members to the list, of which now there are over 500! So please do introduce yourselves if you have not already done so and join in. I owe many of you e-mails which I hope to remedy in the coming few days (apologies).

Secondly, whilst I value the discussion about 'professionalisation' the discussion has lapsed, at times, into very unprofessional waters. So when posting please take care to choose words more ... 'professionally'. This could be a very fruitful discussion if handled with a little more courtesy.

I think that we can all attest to qualification creep in every field of academia over recent years. Where once a masters sufficed to gain academic employment this is rarely the case now, even in the most lowly of research posts. It is an employers' market and this also pushes up minimum qualifications (if not standards). I agree with Robert that the PhD process is akin to an apprenticeship and induction to academia as it does open up many to feedback and critical thinking missing at Master's level. Yet in our field there is an important dissonance: As a discipline still trying to gain a foothold in academic respectability then PhDs are important to give research into magic that academic cachet it deserves. However, although I have a PhD in an academic related field, I know that there are people out there who know much much more on the topic than I do and, although many do, some of these have no formal academic qualifications.

It is incredibly important in our field, as an emergent form of enquiry, to certainly have academic standards - the PhD still being the gold standard, whatever we think about this and the snobbery which surrounds this - but also being inclusive about the people and knowledges we engage with. Exclusivity will confound our work in the academy as surely as a lack of academic respectability will.

Best Wishes,

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 Dr Dave Evans [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 23 April 2012 13:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Professionalisation - was academic career

it's a good hare : )

i'm not researching anything at present due to work in a different field, but am *interested* in the recent UK (and i presume elsewhere) rise in 'officialised' pagan roles, such as pagan prison chaplains

Dave E

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Peter Edge <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
This debate did get me thinking a little about professionalization and magic. One thing we are seeing in the UK is that some heterodox practices, particularly concerning healing and wellness, are structuring themselves as professions, with regulations on entry, seeking legal restraint on practice outside of the profession (which is something that doesn’t apply to university scholar status in the UK at least), and seeing a role for regulation of their members particularly in relation to meeting standards of practice with regard to clients. In the UK, the Spiritual Workers Association looks interested in going this route for a very wide range of practices, some of which I think would fall under at least some definitions of magic (I apologise in advance for setting *that* hare running).

Anyone looking at professionalization in relation to particular magical communities of practice?

Peter.

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:55:40 +0200
From:    Jesper Petersen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: academic career

Hello all,

To answer the question of disciplinarity, to my mind it is exactly the
*lack* of disciplinary orientation that is, a cross-disciplinary focus on
a field which is inspiring. Coming from History of Religion, this has
proven useful for the study of religion and so by extension also the study
of esotericism. Your use of merely and just imply some sort of
hierarchy, and while I would like to see more contemporary studies (and so
participate in the project group of ESSWE which does just that) I respect
the historical and Western orientation of the folks in Holland because
they acknowledge that their approach is one of several.

That said, the academic study of magic is that academic. There are limits
to how you do things, some of which are implicit in the PhD discussion. So
to answer your earlier question about Nepal, no, I dont think a Nepalese
authority in itself has any legitimacy in an academic setting, just as my
PhD has absolutely no value in an occult lodge, for example. As Jon pointed
out, a key word was *certain* approach and academia is a certain approach
with its own rules, positions, and problems. To me a PhD is equivalent to
every other degree a shorthand for particular qualifications in certain
contexts gained by some sort of hard work and examination (nothing racist
about that). While I think Prof. Segals position is a little too
uncompromising, I agree with him on the principles involved and would
support these over Barkers pretentious dismissal of the system any day. And
while on the topic: dismissing any scholar working from the inside as
supporting the capitalist system *is* elitist. So is telling everybody that
youre radical and they are not.

All the best,

Jesper.

Jesper Aagaard Petersen, PhD

Associate Professor, Programme for Teacher Education

Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)

Låven, Dragvoll allé 40

N-7491 Trondheim

Norway

Phone: +47 73598312

Mobile: +47 47398511

Email: [log in to unmask]

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal
Sent: 23. april 2012 14:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

the scholarly study of magic might enable a rethinking of academic
orthodoxy.

Ditto! To my mind, the contemporary academic study of magic has yet to
answer its own central question as to its disciplinary locus and
orientation. Is it merely a branch in the study of the geneology or history
of ideas? Is it a sub-discipline in the history of science or cultural
anthropology, etc? Following this, how is the phenomenology of magic to be
understood in-itself as well cross-culturally and intra-culturally? None of
these questions have been adequately addressed yet, although this book, in
my mind, has gone a very long way in addressing such concerns:
http://www.amazon.com/Singing-Plants-Mestizo-Shamanism-Amazon/dp/0826347290.
To date, there is no adequate contemporary theory of magic or methodology to
explain it globally, and the Western Academic study of Esotericism as
represented by the folks in Holland is really just a sub-discipline of
history.

That said, what Michael Barker did in 2009 is indicative of the kind of
courageous and rock-solid integrity that very rarely steps out of the halls
of the highly politicized environment of the contemporary Western Ivory
Tower. To accuse him of elitism is quite ironic given what he says, when he
states: "...consequently a purist and more sustainable solution requires
that radical intellectuals step out of the university world and work to
create alternative, people-powered institutions that can seriously challenge
the status quo...given my view of the political role that universities
fulfill in justifying plutocracy."

N

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:21 PM, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

"Getting a PhD is hard work and requires that one submits ones work for
criticism, which is not always easy. Being an academic requires that this
process is ongoing. Its all about scholarship, education and the exchange
of ideas. Anyone can participate as long as they put in the effort."

Nicholas Campion

The submission of one's work for criticism can be very valuable, even
priceless.

As to Barker's stand, I would say "wow!" . I dont expect I would do that but
I admire it.

Thanks Prof. Segal for your position on Campbell in relation to Armstrong. I
will compare your Campbell book, your myth book for Oxford, your Armstrong
review and the works of Campbell and Armstrong with those views in mind.
Such a comparison will help in developing a critical understanding of
various approaches to scholarship.

In studying magic and perhaps practising it while studying it, one may
observe what could be described as subversions of older academic
hegemonies of choice of subject and method of study. In that context, the
scholarly study of magic might enable a rethinking of academic orthodoxy.

thanks

oluwatoyin vincent adepoju

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Nicholas Campion
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi,

The discussion is in danger of wandering off-topic somewhat, but as the
debate between academics and non-academics (both of whom may not may not be
practitioners) surfaces periodically on the list, can I just answer the
criticisms of ivory towered elitism.

Getting a PhD is hard work and requires that one submits ones work for
criticism, which is not always easy. Being an academic requires that this
process is ongoing. Its all about scholarship, education and the exchange
of ideas. Anyone can participate as long as they put in the effort.

Having just looked at Michael Barkers blog it strikes me that his actions
and statements are totally elitist in that he regards himself as superior to
those ordinary mortals who accept their degrees. He is setting himself apart
from and above his fellows.

Almost all the practitioners I know who have decided to explore academic
approaches, whether at undergraduate or postgraduate level, have benefited
enormously from the experience,

Nick

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal
Sent: 23 April 2012 11:04

To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

I'll leave the matter here by quoting my dear friend Michael J. Barker and
his rejection of his Ph.D letter of 2009 (see especially the highlight).
http://michaeljamesbarker.wordpress.com/thesis-outline/

Dear Thesis Examinations Coordinator

Since January 2005 I have been enrolled as a Doctoral candidate at Griffith
University, and in July 2008 I submitted a Thesis manuscript to the
University for external examination. During the course of this period of
study my political beliefs have substantially evolved, and I now consider
myself a radical scholar.

The study I produced, titled Mediating Social Engineering: Moving Beyond
Elite Manipulation of Democracy, critically examines how elite
power-brokers, especially those assuming the guise of impartial progressive
philanthropists, work to manipulate civil society to promote and sustain
plutocratic political arrangements. In the final stages of this research, I
examined how elite manipulation operates within academia which led to my
presenting a peer-review paper titled, Progressive Social Change in the
<http://www.swans.com/library/art14/barker09.html> Ivory Tower? A Critical
Reflection on the Evolution of Activist Orientated Research in US
Universities, at the Australasian Political Science Association conference
that was held last year at the University of Queensland (July 6-9, 2008).
This paper demonstrated how powerful liberal individuals and their
philanthropic foundations have manipulated the university system to help
bolster a capitalist political status quo. I concluded that:

Sustaining useful autonomous activist research within universities requires
that radical scholars who choose to remain within the system fight to retain
vital connections with one another and with activists working outside of the
university environs. However, in my view, undertaking such scholarship only
lends a fig leaf of respectability to what are at root capitalist
enterprises; consequently a purist and more sustainable solution requires
that radical intellectuals step out of the university world and work to
create alternative, people-powered institutions that can seriously challenge
the status quo.

As my research and learning has imparted this world view within me, I now
find myself in a position where accepting this PhD is not possible. With
this in mind I wish to inform you that I will not be handing in the revised
PhD manuscript, titled Mediating Social Engineering: Moving Beyond Elite
Manipulation of Democracy. My decision is consistent with the views
expressed above.

I wish to emphasize that the research and analyses that informed this
decision were undertaken in the closing months of my candidature, and even
upon handing in my manuscript I was still unsure as to how I should proceed
with regard to accepting the PhD. Rather than simply resign my candidature
prior to handing in my thesis, I determined that a more powerful political
statement could be made by rejecting the concept of receiving a PhD after it
was accepted by the external examiners. In this way, detractors could not
assert that I was incapable of completing a PhD, only that I had decided not
to accept it. The difference is critical given my view of the political role
that universities fulfill in justifying plutocracy.

Critically, I wish to demonstrate that I am rejecting the formal academic
institution and not the reverse. For this reason, I have waited for the
Chairs final decision, which required only minor changes to the thesis,
before informing Griffith University that I would not be making the
suggested corrections.

Yours sincerely

Michael Barker

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Jon Sharp (LTS) <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

Dear N

I think if you re-read my email you will see that I am not necessarily
claiming that the forms of achievement you mention are not in themselves
valid. I stated that, the holding of a PhD is an indicator only of ones
ability to follow a certain approach (key qualifiers in bold for clarity).

My primary interest is the academic study of magic and of the philosophical
frameworks that might allow for the possible functional effectiveness of
magic as praxis. I am not overly interested in global tertiary education
systems and their relative merits. My reason for posting was to suggest
that a more polite approach to discussions would be welcome.

Id be happy to discuss issues relating to the academic study of magic with
you, but wont have anything further to say on the function or value of a
PhD

Jon

C J Sharp

Head of Learning & Teaching Services

Room 0.27 - Registry

University of East Anglia

Norwich Research Park

NORWICH NR4 7TJ

[log in to unmask]

Office: 01603 597374

Mob: 07795 666 465

This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient please accept my apologies; please do not disclose, copy
or distribute information in this email or take any action in reliance on
its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please
inform me that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you
for your co-operation.

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 10:12 AM

To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

My own view is that the holding of a PhD is an indicator only of ones
ability to follow a certain approach to knowledge acquisition, analysis and
dissemination.

Can you explain to me how attainment of an 'ijaza from Al-Azhar or Najaf or
conferral of teaching rights by traditional institutions such as ones in
Nepal or elsewhere is not an indicator of a certain approach to knowledge,
acquisition, analysis and dissemination? Is indicators of a certain approach
to knowledge acquisition, analysis and dissemination only valid and
legitimate within the loci of Western secular cultural contexts whereby all
others from elsewhere are not? I am sorry, but the insistence of Segal and
his generally patronizing condescensions are indicative of a highly
culturally hegemonic (and very racist) approach to what is scholarship.

N

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Jon Sharp (LTS) <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

Dear N

I may be out of step with others on this list, but to my mind the purpose of
JISC lists such as this one is to facilitate academic discussion. It would
be possible to mount a carefully reasoned argument against the necessity of
attaining a PhD as a pre-requisite for valid or valuable academic
scholarship. However, insults and unsupported claims about the motivations
or personal qualities of other list members is simply unhelpful and
impolite. Impassioned debate and a rigorous and frank exchange of views is a
good thing and seems wholly appropriate to this list, but sniping personal
attacks just reflect badly on the person posting them.

My own view is that the holding of a PhD is an indicator only of ones
ability to follow a certain approach to knowledge acquisition, analysis and
dissemination. It is not an indicator of intellectual acuity, understanding
or wisdom. That said, academia does not make any such claims as to the
import of the completion of a doctorate and for all that it may lack
doctoral study does develop a number of useful skills. A PhD does not
guarantee the veracity of your claims (and I dont think that academia
suggests that it does), but it does demonstrate that you have some basic
training in the skills associated with scholarship. There are a myriad of
problems with the approach to doctoral study in many Universities and with
some of the ideological assumptions that underpin much of the discourse in
the humanities and social sciences. However, those problems themselves are
best addressed by the deployment of the sort of reasoning and analysis that
PhD study in a reputable institution provides.

Of course, I am in the process of completing my draft thesis and if
unsuccessful I may well decide that doctorates are not so important after
all J

C J Sharp

Head of Learning & Teaching Services

Room 0.27 - Registry

University of East Anglia

Norwich Research Park

NORWICH NR4 7TJ

[log in to unmask]

Office: 01603 597374

Mob: 07795 666 465

This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient please accept my apologies; please do not disclose, copy
or distribute information in this email or take any action in reliance on
its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please
inform me that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you
for your co-operation.

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 9:33 AM

To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

Dear Robert Segal,

Your elitist Ivory Tower, territorial knee-jerk buffoonery proves my point.
Believe in your own hype all you like.

Good day!

N

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A.
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

April 23

Dear N,

Somehow I have never come upon your name in any academic discussion of
either theories of myth or theories of religion.

I doubt that you are in any position to assess my work.    By
professionalism I mean exactly the training that entitles one to evaluate
the work of others in one's field.   Evaluations can still be unfair and
even uninformed, but at least they have behind them the attainment of the
credentials that others recognize.    Maybe you will divulge your own.

May I suggest that you ask around to find out what is meant by not only a
non sequitur but also an ad hominem argument.    You really don't grasp
either.    If someone says of a group, DON'T LISTEN TO THEM, THEY'RE
COMMUNISTS, that is an ad hominem argument, though there are qualifications
that would need to be taken into account to make the argument altogether ad
hominem.    I will spare you those qualifications.

If you were a trained expert in either theories of myth or theories of
religion, I would definitely want to know to what deficiencies in your
publications you are referring.   But you are not.    Your criticisms of me,
which you are most welcome to state publicly, would be on a par with Karen
Armstrong's criticism of translations of the Bible or Homer or the Koran.

You are the one who is arrogant, and you have yet to tell us on what your
presumed authority rests.

Robert Segal (Prof.)

PS WITH WHOEVER should be WITH WHOMEVER

________________________________________
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal
[[log in to unmask]]

Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:24 AM

To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

Dear Professor Segal,

What you call ad hominem (which it wasn't, because I was speaking in
generalities) are points of fact about the politicized industry you belong
to, and they have been commented on by more than just me. But your
condescending and patronizing tone of institutional superiority, with your
credential-thumping, also speaks volumes for itself, wherever or with
whoever you have hob-knobbed with during your career.

But if you want ad hom, I'll give it to you: to me your scholarship is
completely mediocre, at best, and your published writings have never
impressed me very much.

My credentials are intact and I have academic training. But smug, arrogant
people in the Academy who insist on their professional territorialism and
patronize the way you do always get my goat, and so I set them straight.
Think of it as a kosmic balancing mechanism of sorts to remind people like
you that you are not all that and so maybe you should get at the top of your
game!

N

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A.
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
April 23

Dear N.,

I feared that what has already come to pass would do so--not on the part of
Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju, whose gracious reply preceded your second one,
but on your part.

Your ad hominem attacks on me are more silly than insulting.   Your claim
that I have built my career exploiting non-Westerners is fantasy.   Sticking
to what one knows is one criterion of scholarship.   Scholarship and
ignorance are mutually exclusive.

To begin with, what are YOUR credentials?

What do YOU know about the study of myth--the example I cited?    I claimed
that Armstrong knows nothing about the study of myth and does not seem to
recognize that she would need a PhD to be able to justify the pronouncements
tbat she makes.    Are you challenging my assessment of her work?   If so,
do tell us on what grounds.

What do you know about the study of religion, my overlapping field of
expertise?

Of course, one can master things on one's own.   And a PhD is merely
necessary, not sufficient, for scholarship.    There are plenty of PhDs who
are not talented.   But a PhD is what scholarship requires--and not just in
the US or the UK.

I do grant some exceptions.   For example, folklore has traditionally
attracted some persons who are not academics. But try getting a job in
folklore today without a PhD.

Karen Armstrong writes for Western audiences.

I have participated in academic conferences in places like South Korea,
Japan, India, and Israel.   Are at least some of them sufficiently
non-Western for you?    You would find that they strive to emulate the
intellectual standards of the West in many fields, including the arts.
The conference in Jammu, India, at which I was the kick-off speaker,
duplicated the conduct of any Western conference (except that the food and
the conversation were much better).    The result of colonialism?
Whatever the source, the West has long set the standard to which academics
aspire.   Wonder why so many budding academics seek degrees from the US and
the UK and Western Europe?

I trust that you know the annual world rankings of universities.
Universities in China, India, Japan, Singapore, and many other places are
committed to achieving excellence--as measured by "Western" criteria. Have
they been brainwashed--or enlightened?

Your reaction to my innocent claim evinces a view of the West and of the
world as a whole that is decades out of date.

And you still confuse an analogy with a non sequitur.

You are welcome to reply, but I doubt that I will do so in turn.

Robert Segal (Prof.)

________________________________________

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
.UK>] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal
[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]

Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 11:48 PM

To:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask].
UK>
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

Dear Professor Segal,

Your very much culturally located notions of what constitutes scholarship,
and a bona fide scholar, is only accepted as legitimate within the limited
confines of your cultural Anglo-European contextual cloister, that is, the
elitism and professional territorialism of your own Ivory Tower industry in
the West. The rest of the world, fortunately, does operate completely yet by
the stultifying impositions of such uniquely arrogant expressions of
intellectual colonialism as how you have articulated the matter below.

There are institutions in the world - such as those in Qom in Iran or Najaf
in Iraq or in Nepal or in Japan or elsewhere - with very much sophisticated
intellectual traditions of great antiquity that do not grant Western Ph.Ds,
and many of the scholars produced by these very older institutions produce
thinkers and scholars who can write and intellectualize concentric circles
around the creme de la creme of what the Western Ivory Tower has ever
produced. Of course, later on many such figures from non-Western
institutions of learning become topics of study where good people such as
yourself build your Western academic careers writing about them, raising
funds and lobbying assorted foundations for research grants to publish their
papers and writings, etc.

Be that as it may, if you cannot see the vacuous illogicality of your
comparison of a Western Ph.D in the humanities/social sciences to a pilot's
license, then what can one say. But please note that your career or
department is not an aircraft so kindly do not condescend or insult
intelligences of those who know the score.

Good day!

N

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A.
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mai
lto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:
April 22

Dear N. W. Azal,

I don't want to get involved in another long exchange that will simply anger
persons on the list.

I was saying what is obvious: not that one must be a scholar but that to be
a scholar, one must have a PhD.   What you call IVORY TOWER ELITISM, I call
professionalism.   And by the way, the more prestigious the university that
grants one a PhD, the more scholarly one is assumed to be.

Armstrong has not needed a doctorate to sell books, but her books are not
scholarly, and no academic would assign anything she has written to even a
first-year course on myth, on religion, on the Bible, or on Islam.   Whether
she recognizes that her stuff is sub-academic, I don't know.   Maybe she
does, and does not care.   Certainly her many admiring readers do not know
or care about her missing credentials.   There are scores of writers on
myth, not least Joseph Campbell, who have hardly suffered because they are
nonacademics.

I don't catch the non sequitur (the correct spelling) in my statement.   I
may be wrong, but I am not thereby illogical.

Robert
________________________________________

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
.UK><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@
JISCMAIL.AC.UK>>] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal
[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:wahidazal66@GMAI
L.COM<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>]

Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 10:15 PM

To:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask].
UK><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@J
ISCMAIL.AC.UK>>

Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

Writers without academic credentials are dismissed as popularizers or worse.
Not to have a PhD is akin to wanting to become a pilot without a license.

And that is the most poignant expression of Ivory Tower elitism, if there
ever was, with an non sequitor of an example for the ages to boot!

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Segal, Professor Robert A.
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mai
lto:[log in to unmask]>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]

<mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>> wrote:

<mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>]

Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 9:19 PM

To:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask].
UK><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@J
ISCMAIL.AC.UK>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:ACADEMIC-S
[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto
:[log in to unmask]>>>

Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Looking for a publisher for translation
of al-Buni's Great Sun of Gnoses

Thanks, Peter.

I'm developing a strategy to explore the possibility of earning a living
from scholarly writing which uses the full academic framework, one way of
describing the cultural identity that marks an academic work.

A writer who seems to have done this is Karen Armstrong but her career
benefits from a peculiar confluence of factors- the sensationalism of her
move from cloister to public life in her search for religious meaning, as
described in her autobiographical Through the Narrow Gate and The Spiral
Stair, her autobiographies giving graphic form to her religious and
philosophical struggles in the context of her life's vicissitudes, bringing
the metaphysical issues she engages with closer to the reader, her presence
on TV, a list of books that study religious history in terms of her
conception of religious meaning, a teaching appointment and newspaper
writing.

How helpful would it be to adapt a related approach- making the subject of
one's writing accessible to the reader in terms of its touching an intimate
nerve in the depths of efforts at understanding that shape human life?

How helpful would it be to adapt online media for developing and stimulating
a market for scholarly writing?

I have been struck by the interest shown by readers in various general
interest online groups and on Facebook in some of my more ambitious essays.
I have even got input from these sources on one or two of those essays that
I have integrated into the draft of the essay. Someone once asked whether
there was a book where a particular essay I posted on Facebook can be found.

In enticing a reader to part with their money, various factors are at play.
Scholarly books are among the best on any subject. Publication by a
scholarly focused publishing house is often an imprimatur of high quality,
at times the highest quality. Some of the best books on the Hindu and
Buddhist phenomenon of Tantra , some of these books demonstrating par
excellence the erotic dimension of Tantra that Western enthusiasts seem to
have found so fascinating, are in scholarly works, perhaps more so than in
trade publications. The only translation known to me of Abhinavagupta's
famous erotic mysticism in Chapter 29 of his Tantraloka is the
book<http://www.scribd.com/doc/54134989/John-R-Dupuche-Abhinavagupta-The-Kul
a-Ritual> that came out of John Dupuche's PhD.

Perhaps one could offer a smorgasbord of works, meticulous, rich in ideas,
imaginative appeal and communicative strategies, from the dialogue to the
essay, rigorously argued and yet possibly anchored in what can be seen as
universally intimate to the self. Advertise widely using online and possibly
offline outlets. Cultivate a presence on various social networks that whets
people appetites for one's work. Give workshops and introduce and or sell
one's books at such gatherings, among other strategies.

I had once thought I would use self publishing but it does not motivate me
any more, because it seems too narrowly focused for me. I prefer the
professionalism and strong book list of an academic publisher and the scope
of a trade publisher.

thanks

oluwatoyin vincent adepoju

The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.

The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:12:08 +0300
From:    Dr Dave Evans <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: academic career

absolutely, re Jesper's comments

Barker's statement is on one level akin to school playground remarks of
"oh, we don't do that anymore, so we are now far more cool than you are" ;
he is using precisely the academic system to bolster his own stance, on the
lines of "i could have had a PhD but chose not to", so he is tied to the
system, and both needs and approves of it, since without the system his
principled stand has nothing to hang itself on

"I coulda been a contender..."    in short

and choosing not to write and submit his minor corrections is, in a
roundabout way, saying "i have my PhD for sure if i make some tiny
corrections, so i am good enough, therefore I am really a PhD in any case".

Being granted a funded PhD place and choosing not to even embark upon it
for the same reasons Barker gives would have been much more of a principled
stance, but would have got far less publicity, IMO

Dave E (who, for very different reasons, often wishes he never did a phd)

'

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Jesper Petersen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hello all,****

** **

To answer the question of disciplinarity, to my mind it is exactly the **

lack** of disciplinary orientation – that is, a cross-disciplinary focus

on a field – which is inspiring. Coming from History of Religion, this has

proven useful for the study of religion and so by extension also the study

of esotericism. Your use of “merely” and “just” imply some sort of

hierarchy, and while I would like to see more contemporary studies (and so

participate in the project group of ESSWE which does just that) I respect

the historical and Western orientation of the “folks in Holland” because

they acknowledge that their approach is one of several.****

** **

That said, the academic study of magic is that – academic. There are

limits to how you do things, some of which are implicit in the PhD

discussion. So to answer your earlier question about Nepal, no, I don’t

think a Nepalese authority in itself has any legitimacy in an academic

setting, just as my PhD has absolutely no value in an occult lodge, for

example. As Jon pointed out, a key word was **certain** approach – and

academia is a certain approach with its own rules, positions, and problems.

To me a PhD is equivalent to every other degree – a shorthand for

particular qualifications in certain contexts gained by some sort of hard

work and examination (nothing racist about that). While I think Prof.

Segal’s position is a little too uncompromising, I agree with him on the

principles involved and would support these over Barker’s pretentious

dismissal of the system any day. And while on the topic: dismissing any

scholar working from the inside as supporting the capitalist system **is**

elitist. So is telling everybody that you’re radical and they are not.****

** **

All the best,****

** **

Jesper.****

** **

Jesper Aagaard Petersen, PhD****

Associate Professor, Programme for Teacher Education****

Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) ****

Låven, Dragvoll allé 40****

N-7491 Trondheim****

Norway****

Phone: +47 73598312****

Mobile: +47 47398511****

Email: [log in to unmask]****

** **

*From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:

[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *N.W. Azal

*Sent:* 23. april 2012 14:22

*To:* [log in to unmask]

*Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career****

** **

*the scholarly study of magic might enable a rethinking of academic

orthodoxy.*****

** **

Ditto! To my mind, the contemporary academic study of magic has yet to

answer its own central question as to its disciplinary locus and

orientation. Is it merely a branch in the study of the geneology or history

of ideas? Is it a sub-discipline in the history of science or cultural

anthropology, etc? Following this, how is the phenomenology of magic to be

understood in-itself as well cross-culturally and intra-culturally? None of

these questions have been adequately addressed yet, although this book, in

my mind, has gone a very long way in addressing such concerns:

http://www.amazon.com/Singing-Plants-Mestizo-Shamanism-Amazon/dp/0826347290.

To date, there is no adequate contemporary theory of magic or methodology

to explain it globally, and the Western Academic study of Esotericism as

represented by the folks in Holland is really just a sub-discipline of

history.

That said, what Michael Barker did in 2009 is indicative of the kind of

courageous and rock-solid integrity that very rarely steps out of the halls

of the highly politicized environment of the contemporary Western Ivory

Tower. To accuse him of elitism is quite ironic given what he says, when he

states: "...*consequently a purist and more sustainable solution requires

that radical intellectuals step out of the university world and work to

create alternative, people-powered institutions that can seriously

challenge the status quo...given my view of the political role that

universities fulfill in justifying plutocracy*."

N****

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:21 PM, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <[log in to unmask]>

wrote:****

"Getting a PhD is hard work and requires that one submits one’s work for

criticism, which is not always easy. Being an academic requires that this

process is ongoing. It’s all about scholarship, education and the exchange

of ideas. Anyone can participate as long as they put in the effort."****

Nicholas Campion****

** **

The submission of one's work for criticism can be very valuable, even

priceless.****

** **

As to Barker's stand, I would say "wow!" . I dont expect I would do that

but I admire it.****

** **

Thanks Prof. Segal for your position on Campbell in relation to Armstrong.

I will compare your Campbell book, your myth book for Oxford, your

Armstrong review and the works of Campbell and Armstrong with those views

in mind. Such a comparison will help in developing a critical

understanding of various approaches to scholarship.****

** **

In studying magic and perhaps practising it while studying it, one may

observe what could be described as subversions of older academic

hegemonies of choice of subject and method of study. In that context, the

scholarly study of magic might enable a rethinking of academic orthodoxy.*

***

** **

thanks****

** **

oluwatoyin vincent adepoju****

** **

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Nicholas Campion <

[log in to unmask]> wrote:****

Hi,****

****

The discussion is in danger of wandering off-topic somewhat, but as the

debate between academics and non-academics (both of whom may not may not be

practitioners) surfaces periodically on the list, can I just answer the

criticisms of ivory towered elitism. ****

****

Getting a PhD is hard work and requires that one submits one’s work for

criticism, which is not always easy. Being an academic requires that this

process is ongoing. It’s all about scholarship, education and the exchange

of ideas. Anyone can participate as long as they put in the effort.****

****

Having just looked at Michael Barker’s blog it strikes me that his actions

and statements are totally elitist in that he regards himself as superior

to those ordinary mortals who accept their degrees. He is setting himself

apart from and above his fellows.****

****

Almost all the practitioners I know who have decided to explore academic

approaches, whether at undergraduate or postgraduate level, have benefited

enormously from the experience,****

****

Nick****

****

*From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:

[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *N.W. Azal

*Sent:* 23 April 2012 11:04****

*To:* [log in to unmask]

*Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career****

****

I'll leave the matter here by quoting my dear friend Michael J. Barker and

his rejection of his Ph.D letter of 2009 (see especially the highlight).

http://michaeljamesbarker.wordpress.com/thesis-outline/****

Dear Thesis Examinations Coordinator****

Since January 2005 I have been enrolled as a Doctoral candidate at

Griffith University, and in July 2008 I submitted a Thesis manuscript to

the University for external examination. During the course of this period

of study my political beliefs have substantially evolved, and I now

consider myself a radical scholar.****

The study I produced, titled “Mediating Social Engineering: Moving Beyond

Elite Manipulation of Democracy,” critically examines how elite

power-brokers, especially those assuming the guise of impartial progressive

philanthropists, work to manipulate civil society to promote and sustain

plutocratic political arrangements. In the final stages of this research, I

examined how elite manipulation operates within academia – which led to my

presenting a peer-review paper titled, “Progressive Social Change in the

‘Ivory Tower’? A Critical Reflection on the Evolution of Activist

Orientated Research in US Universities<http://www.swans.com/library/art14/barker09.html>,”

at the Australasian Political Science Association conference that was held

last year at the University of Queensland (July 6-9, 2008). This paper

demonstrated how powerful liberal individuals and their philanthropic

foundations have manipulated the university system to help bolster a

capitalist political status quo. I concluded that:****

Sustaining useful autonomous activist research within universities

requires that radical scholars who choose to remain within the system fight

to retain vital connections with one another and with activists working

outside of the university environs. However, in my view, undertaking such

scholarship only lends a fig leaf of respectability to what are at root

capitalist enterprises; *consequently a purist and more sustainable

solution requires that radical intellectuals step out of the university

world and work to create alternative, people-powered institutions that can

seriously challenge the status quo.*****

As my research and learning has imparted this world view within me, I now

find myself in a position where accepting this PhD is not possible. With

this in mind I wish to inform you that I will not be handing in the revised

PhD manuscript, titled “Mediating Social Engineering: Moving Beyond Elite

Manipulation of Democracy.” My decision is consistent with the views

expressed above.****

I wish to emphasize that the research and analyses that informed this

decision were undertaken in the closing months of my candidature, and even

upon handing in my manuscript I was still unsure as to how I should proceed

with regard to accepting the PhD. Rather than simply resign my candidature

prior to handing in my thesis, I determined that a more powerful political

statement could be made by rejecting the concept of receiving a PhD after

it was accepted by the external examiners. In this way, detractors could

not assert that I was incapable of completing a PhD, only that I had

decided not to accept it. The difference is critical given my view of the

political role that universities fulfill in justifying plutocracy.****

Critically, I wish to demonstrate that *I *am rejecting the formal

academic institution and not the reverse. For this reason, I have waited

for the Chair’s final decision, which required only minor changes to the

thesis, before informing Griffith University that I would not be making the

suggested corrections.****

Yours sincerely****

Michael Barker****

****

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Jon Sharp (LTS) <[log in to unmask]>

wrote:****

Dear N****

I think if you re-read my email you will see that I am not necessarily

claiming that the forms of achievement you mention are not in themselves

valid. I stated that, ’ the holding of a PhD is an indicator *only* of

one’s ability to follow a *certain* approach’ (key qualifiers in bold for

clarity).****

****

My primary interest is the academic study of magic and of the

philosophical frameworks that might allow for the possible functional

effectiveness of magic as praxis. I am not overly interested in global

tertiary education systems and their relative merits. My reason for

posting was to suggest that a more polite approach to discussions would be

welcome.****

****

I’d be happy to discuss issues relating to the academic study of magic

with you, but won’t have anything further to say on the function or value

of a PhD****

Jon****

****

C J Sharp****

Head of Learning & Teaching Services ****

Room 0.27 - Registry****

University of East Anglia****

Norwich Research Park****

NORWICH NR4 7TJ****

[log in to unmask] ****

Office: 01603 597374****

Mob: 07795 666 465****

This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the

intended recipient please accept my apologies; please do not disclose, copy

or distribute information in this email or take any action in reliance on

its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please

inform me that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you

for your co-operation.****

****

*From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:

[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *N.W. Azal

*Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2012 10:12 AM****

*To:* [log in to unmask]

*Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career****

****

*My own view is that the holding of a PhD is an indicator only of one’s

ability to follow a certain approach to knowledge acquisition, analysis and

dissemination. *

Can you explain to me how attainment of an 'ijaza from Al-Azhar or Najaf

or conferral of teaching rights by traditional institutions such as ones in

Nepal or elsewhere is not an indicator of a certain approach to knowledge,

acquisition, analysis and dissemination? Is indicators of a certain

approach to knowledge acquisition, analysis and dissemination only valid

and legitimate within the loci of Western secular cultural contexts whereby

all others from elsewhere are not? I am sorry, but the insistence of Segal

and his generally patronizing condescensions are indicative of a highly

culturally hegemonic (and very racist) approach to what is scholarship.

N****

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Jon Sharp (LTS) <[log in to unmask]>

wrote:****

Dear N****

I may be out of step with others on this list, but to my mind the purpose

of JISC lists such as this one is to facilitate academic discussion. It

would be possible to mount a carefully reasoned argument against the

necessity of attaining a PhD as a pre-requisite for valid or valuable

academic scholarship. However, insults and unsupported claims about the

motivations or personal qualities of other list members is simply unhelpful

and impolite. Impassioned debate and a rigorous and frank exchange of views

is a good thing and seems wholly appropriate to this list, but sniping

personal attacks just reflect badly on the person posting them.****

****

My own view is that the holding of a PhD is an indicator only of one’s

ability to follow a certain approach to knowledge acquisition, analysis and

dissemination. It is not an indicator of intellectual acuity, understanding

or wisdom. That said, academia does not make any such claims as to the

import of the completion of a doctorate and for all that it may lack

doctoral study does develop a number of useful skills. A PhD does not

guarantee the veracity of your claims (and I don’t think that academia

suggests that it does), but it does demonstrate that you have some basic

training in the skills associated with scholarship. There are a myriad of

problems with the approach to doctoral study in many Universities and with

some of the ideological assumptions that underpin much of the discourse in

the humanities and social sciences. However, those problems themselves are

best addressed by the deployment of the sort of reasoning and analysis that

PhD study in a reputable institution provides. ****

****

Of course, I am in the process of completing my draft thesis and if

unsuccessful I may well decide that doctorates are not so important after

all J****

****

C J Sharp****

Head of Learning & Teaching Services ****

Room 0.27 - Registry****

University of East Anglia****

Norwich Research Park****

NORWICH NR4 7TJ****

[log in to unmask] ****

Office: 01603 597374****

Mob: 07795 666 465****

This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the

intended recipient please accept my apologies; please do not disclose, copy

or distribute information in this email or take any action in reliance on

its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please

inform me that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you

for your co-operation.****

****

*From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:

[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *N.W. Azal

*Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2012 9:33 AM****

*To:* [log in to unmask]

*Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career****

****

Dear Robert Segal,

Your elitist Ivory Tower, territorial knee-jerk buffoonery proves my

point. Believe in your own hype all you like.

Good day!

N****

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A. <

[log in to unmask]> wrote:****

April 23

Dear N,

Somehow I have never come upon your name in any academic discussion of

either theories of myth or theories of religion.

I doubt that you are in any position to assess my work. By

professionalism I mean exactly the training that entitles one to evaluate

the work of others in one's field. Evaluations can still be unfair and

even uninformed, but at least they have behind them the attainment of the

credentials that others recognize. Maybe you will divulge your own.

May I suggest that you ask around to find out what is meant by not only a

non sequitur but also an ad hominem argument. You really don't grasp

either. If someone says of a group, DON'T LISTEN TO THEM, THEY'RE

COMMUNISTS, that is an ad hominem argument, though there are qualifications

that would need to be taken into account to make the argument altogether ad

hominem. I will spare you those qualifications.

If you were a trained expert in either theories of myth or theories of

religion, I would definitely want to know to what deficiencies in your

publications you are referring. But you are not. Your criticisms of

me, which you are most welcome to state publicly, would be on a par with

Karen Armstrong's criticism of translations of the Bible or Homer or the

Koran.

You are the one who is arrogant, and you have yet to tell us on what your

presumed authority rests.

Robert Segal (Prof.)

PS WITH WHOEVER should be WITH WHOMEVER****

________________________________________

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [

[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal [

[log in to unmask]]****

Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:24 AM****

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

Dear Professor Segal,****

What you call ad hominem (which it wasn't, because I was speaking in

generalities) are points of fact about the politicized industry you belong

to, and they have been commented on by more than just me. But your

condescending and patronizing tone of institutional superiority, with your

credential-thumping, also speaks volumes for itself, wherever or with

whoever you have hob-knobbed with during your career.

But if you want ad hom, I'll give it to you: to me your scholarship is

completely mediocre, at best, and your published writings have never

impressed me very much.

My credentials are intact and I have academic training. But smug, arrogant

people in the Academy who insist on their professional territorialism and

patronize the way you do always get my goat, and so I set them straight.

Think of it as a kosmic balancing mechanism of sorts to remind people like

you that you are not all that and so maybe you should get at the top of

your game!

N****

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A. <

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

April 23

Dear N.,

I feared that what has already come to pass would do so--not on the part

of Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju, whose gracious reply preceded your second

one, but on your part.

Your ad hominem attacks on me are more silly than insulting. Your claim

that I have built my career exploiting non-Westerners is fantasy.

Sticking to what one knows is one criterion of scholarship. Scholarship

and ignorance are mutually exclusive.

To begin with, what are YOUR credentials?

What do YOU know about the study of myth--the example I cited? I

claimed that Armstrong knows nothing about the study of myth and does not

seem to recognize that she would need a PhD to be able to justify the

pronouncements tbat she makes. Are you challenging my assessment of her

work? If so, do tell us on what grounds.

What do you know about the study of religion, my overlapping field of

expertise?

Of course, one can master things on one's own. And a PhD is merely

necessary, not sufficient, for scholarship. There are plenty of PhDs who

are not talented. But a PhD is what scholarship requires--and not just in

the US or the UK.

I do grant some exceptions. For example, folklore has traditionally

attracted some persons who are not academics. But try getting a job in

folklore today without a PhD.

Karen Armstrong writes for Western audiences.

I have participated in academic conferences in places like South Korea,

Japan, India, and Israel. Are at least some of them sufficiently

non-Western for you? You would find that they strive to emulate the

intellectual standards of the West in many fields, including the arts.

The conference in Jammu, India, at which I was the kick-off speaker,

duplicated the conduct of any Western conference (except that the food and

the conversation were much better). The result of colonialism?

Whatever the source, the West has long set the standard to which academics

aspire. Wonder why so many budding academics seek degrees from the US and

the UK and Western Europe?

I trust that you know the annual world rankings of universities.

Universities in China, India, Japan, Singapore, and many other places are

committed to achieving excellence--as measured by "Western" criteria. Have

they been brainwashed--or enlightened?

Your reaction to my innocent claim evinces a view of the West and of the

world as a whole that is decades out of date.

And you still confuse an analogy with a non sequitur.

You are welcome to reply, but I doubt that I will do so in turn.

Robert Segal (Prof.)

________________________________________****

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]****

Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 11:48 PM****

To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career****

Dear Professor Segal,

Your very much culturally located notions of what constitutes

scholarship, and a bona fide scholar, is only accepted as legitimate within

the limited confines of your cultural Anglo-European contextual cloister,

that is, the elitism and professional territorialism of your own Ivory

Tower industry in the West. The rest of the world, fortunately, does

operate completely yet by the stultifying impositions of such uniquely

arrogant expressions of intellectual colonialism as how you have

articulated the matter below.

There are institutions in the world - such as those in Qom in Iran or

Najaf in Iraq or in Nepal or in Japan or elsewhere - with very much

sophisticated intellectual traditions of great antiquity that do not grant

Western Ph.Ds, and many of the scholars produced by these very older

institutions produce thinkers and scholars who can write and

intellectualize concentric circles around the creme de la creme of what the

Western Ivory Tower has ever produced. Of course, later on many such

figures from non-Western institutions of learning become topics of study

where good people such as yourself build your Western academic careers

writing about them, raising funds and lobbying assorted foundations for

research grants to publish their papers and writings, etc.

Be that as it may, if you cannot see the vacuous illogicality of your

comparison of a Western Ph.D in the humanities/social sciences to a pilot's

license, then what can one say. But please note that your career or

department is not an aircraft so kindly do not condescend or insult

intelligences of those who know the score.

Good day!

N****

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A. <

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]

<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:

April 22****

Dear N. W. Azal,

I don't want to get involved in another long exchange that will simply

anger persons on the list.

I was saying what is obvious: not that one must be a scholar but that to

be a scholar, one must have a PhD. What you call IVORY TOWER ELITISM, I

call professionalism. And by the way, the more prestigious the university

that grants one a PhD, the more scholarly one is assumed to be.

Armstrong has not needed a doctorate to sell books, but her books are not

scholarly, and no academic would assign anything she has written to even a

first-year course on myth, on religion, on the Bible, or on Islam.

Whether she recognizes that her stuff is sub-academic, I don't know.

Maybe she does, and does not care. Certainly her many admiring readers do

not know or care about her missing credentials. There are scores of

writers on myth, not least Joseph Campbell, who have hardly suffered

because they are nonacademics.

I don't catch the non sequitur (the correct spelling) in my statement. I

may be wrong, but I am not thereby illogical.

Robert

________________________________________****

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>>] On Behalf Of N.W. Azal [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>]****

Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 10:15 PM****

To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>>****

Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] academic career

Writers without academic credentials are dismissed as popularizers or

worse. Not to have a PhD is akin to wanting to become a pilot without a

license.

And that is the most poignant expression of Ivory Tower elitism, if there

ever was, with an non sequitor of an example for the ages to boot!****

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Segal, Professor Robert A. <

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]

<mailto:[log in to unmask]>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>>

wrote:

April 22

Dear Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju,

If I may offer two cents (or pence): if you wish to enter the academic

world, you need a PhD. Writers without academic credentials are

dismissed as popularizers or worse. Not to have a PhD is akin to wanting

to become a pilot without a license.

Karen Armstrong is the proverbial exception that proves the rule.

Undeniably, she makes a healthy living from her books. But she is a

joke. She has never done any research in any of the areas in which she

has published--with, I suppose, the exception of her autobiography, which I

wouldn't read even if I were immortal. She has no conception of

scholarship. She thinks that she can write on the Bible without

knowledge of Hebrew or Greek. She has written, I believe, on

Islam--without, I bet, even being to able to identify the Arabic alphabet.

She lists fewer sources in her bibliographies than first-year students at

accredited universities would be expected to list in their essays.

My own field is theories of myth, and I reviewed her SHORT HISTORY OF MYTH

for the Jungian journal, itself far from academic, SPRING. I ended my

review by calling her book the worst book on myth that I have ever read.

She knows nothing about the topic.

I know nothing about you and would not have uttered a peep had you know

cited Armstrong as an example of what you might be seeking. Obviously,

you are free to ignore all that I have said.

There are academics who write for nonacademic audiences. My own MYTH

appears in Oxford's VERY SHORT INTRODUCTION series, which operates out of

the trade division and which is marketed to lay persons. But the authors

of its own 200 or so volumes are experts in their fields.

With best wishes,

Robert (Segal)

Sixth Century Chair in Religious Studies

University of Aberdeen

________________________________________****

From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>>>] On Behalf Of OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU [

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]

<mailto:[log in to unmask]>><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]

]****

Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 9:19 PM****

To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]><mailto:

[log in to unmask]<mailto:

[log in to unmask]>>>****

Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Looking for a publisher for

translation of al-Buni's Great Sun of Gnoses

Thanks, Peter.

I'm developing a strategy to explore the possibility of earning a living

from scholarly writing which uses the full academic framework, one way of

describing the cultural identity that marks an academic work.

A writer who seems to have done this is Karen Armstrong but her career

benefits from a peculiar confluence of factors- the sensationalism of her

move from cloister to public life in her search for religious meaning, as

described in her autobiographical Through the Narrow Gate and The Spiral

Stair, her autobiographies giving graphic form to her religious and

philosophical struggles in the context of her life's vicissitudes,

bringing the metaphysical issues she engages with closer to the reader,

her presence on TV, a list of books that study religious history in terms

of her conception of religious meaning, a teaching appointment and

newspaper writing.

How helpful would it be to adapt a related approach- making the subject of

one's writing accessible to the reader in terms of its touching an intimate

nerve in the depths of efforts at understanding that shape human life?

How helpful would it be to adapt online media for developing and

stimulating a market for scholarly writing?

I have been struck by the interest shown by readers in various general

interest online groups and on Facebook in some of my more ambitious essays.

I have even got input from these sources on one or two of those essays

that I have integrated into the draft of the essay. Someone once asked

whether there was a book where a particular essay I posted on Facebook can

be found.

In enticing a reader to part with their money, various factors are at

play. Scholarly books are among the best on any subject. Publication by a

scholarly focused publishing house is often an imprimatur of high quality,

at times the highest quality. Some of the best books on the Hindu and

Buddhist phenomenon of Tantra , some of these books demonstrating par

excellence the erotic dimension of Tantra that Western enthusiasts seem to

have found so fascinating, are in scholarly works, perhaps more so than in

trade publications. The only translation known to me of Abhinavagupta's

famous erotic mysticism in Chapter 29 of his Tantraloka is the book<

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54134989/John-R-Dupuche-Abhinavagupta-The-Kula-Ritual>

that came out of John Dupuche's PhD.

Perhaps one could offer a smorgasbord of works, meticulous, rich in ideas,

imaginative appeal and communicative strategies, from the dialogue to the

essay, rigorously argued and yet possibly anchored in what can be seen as

universally intimate to the self. Advertise widely using online and

possibly offline outlets. Cultivate a presence on various social networks

that whets people appetites for one's work. Give workshops and introduce

and or sell one's books at such gatherings, among other strategies.

I had once thought I would use self publishing but it does not motivate me

any more, because it seems too narrowly focused for me. I prefer the

professionalism and strong book list of an academic publisher and the scope

of a trade publisher.

thanks

oluwatoyin vincent adepoju

The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No

SC013683.

The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No

SC013683.****

****

** **

------------------------------

End of ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Digest - 23 Apr 2012 - Special issue (#2012-84)
***************************************************************************