Caroline,
This is an essentially unanswerable question. At least as many
definitions, substantive and otherwise, have been proposed for "magic"
as for "religion," if not more. Furthermore, unlike "religion," "magic"
appears to have rough categorical parallels around the world and across
history, whereas "religion"-like categorizations appear quite unusual.
I would strongly advise avoiding the question entirely, or else defining
on bases relative to your particular object of study and refusing
generalization. This of course makes comparison of almost any kind
non-functional, but it lets you out of certain epistemological nightmares.
Probably the most sophisticated comprehensive meditation on the problem
appears in Jonathan Z. Smith's recent book _Relating Religion_, but
already appeared in one of the Meyer/Mirecki volumes, under the title
"Trading Places." Typically, Smith demonstrates the non-viability of
every known approach, then argues that nevertheless one cannot drop the
problem, then proposes no particular solution. He's right, of course,
but rather unhelpful from a constructive point of view: new approaches
are necessary. They will, however, need to work from very large-scale
abstractions. Notions like "intent" and "powerful ritual" and so on are
merely deflections: intent is non-present in text anyway, and "ritual"
is at least as difficult a term as "magic" for different reasons.
If you do decide to sit down and read through the vast literature on the
definitions problem, I recommend working through chronologically. It is
all too easy to seize on some seemingly clever recent formulation and
say, "Yes, that's the cutting edge," but invariably it will turn out
that a previous criticism already undermines this new formulation.
Start with Tylor, then work forward. Refuse all disciplinary narrowing:
if you're going to predetermine on a disciplinary basis, you might as
well stick with what the people you're studying say and leave it at
that. If you are really going to read passably comprehensively, expect
this to take rather more than a year.
Yours,
Chris Lehrich
Caroline Tully wrote:
>Just wondering,
>
>This list is called the "Society for the Academic Study of Magic" and in the
>original notification that I saw about the list's revival it said "a
>valuable and exciting resource for academics and others interested in all
>forms of magical practice from any period of history, any geographic area
>and any disciplinary background." So, I'm wondering what is meant by the
>word "magic"? I know, although I've been digressing into talking about
>Neo-Paganism, which I don't really want to do (I'm more interested in
>ancient magic), what I really mean, or what I intend mean when I use the
>word "magic", is magic as in "getting things done via supernatural methods"
>rather than religion per se. (I know there are arguments for not separating
>magic and religion, but I do think there is a difference, even if it is just
>of intent. I suppose some religions, like Neo-Paganism are actually
>"magic(k)al religions"). I'll freely admit that I'm not quite up on the
>current interpretations of the word "magic" in academia (although I hope to
>be better versed in it by next semester). Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki in
>"Ancient Magic and Ritual Power" (1995) define magic as 'ritual power',
>empowerment through ritual methods. I know they are talking here about
>Ancient Magic. Do we mean different things when we use the word "magic" to
>describe practices from different periods of time and different cultures? Or
>not. Is this one of those words like say, "Witch" is today where there is
>one word for a plethora of differnet types of practitioners?
>
>
>~Caroline.
>
>
--
Christopher I. Lehrich
Boston University
|