Guido,

I'd like to say, "Just read my new book," it won't be out probably for a 
year.

My feeling is that "theory and method" is something one has to approach 
by working backwards.  You read something that sounds interesting and 
valuable, and then you work backwards to the intellectual origins of the 
approach, and then back until you get to a grounding-point you know 
well.  For example, an anthropologist might work backwards until she 
touches ground with E.E. Evans-Pritchard, at which point she figures she 
knows where she is.  And one can do the same with any kind of history, 
religious studies, and so on.

So what I can provide is a very short list of starting-points.  These 
are things that I think we need to work backwards from.  That doesn't 
mean I think any one, or any at all, of them is "right" or "the way to 
go" or whatever; rather, I think these people have opened up important 
and useful directions that will be relevant to the study of magic.  And 
in the process of re-orienting the approach to fit the particular object 
of study, we will have to work backwards and rethink and so on.

Some directions (in no particular order):

Marshall Sahlins.  See particularly _Apologies to Thucydides_ and _How 
"Natives" Think: About Captain Cook, For Example_

Jonathan Z. Smith.  See particularly _Relating Religion_ and _Imagining 
Religion_.  The former has several articles directly about magic.

Catherine M. Bell.  _Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice_.  This requires 
considerable prior knowledge of ritual theory over the last 50 years; if 
you do not have this, her _Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions_ is an 
excellent survey.

Stuart Clark.  _Thinking With Demons_.  Clark is very much a "straight" 
intellectual historian making serious and principled use of "high" theory.

Michel De Certeau.  _The Possession At Loudun_.  How to do theory with 
documents.  Scintillating.


I am also very interested in making use of Derrida and some recent 
German hermeneutics (M. Frank, W. Hamacher, etc.), mostly turned against 
themselves (Derrida would probably hate what I'm doing with him in my 
book), but this is by no means something I think is necessary to the 
study of magic -- just an interesting possibility.

Chris Lehrich

Guido Woudenberg wrote:

>Chris, 
>
>Could you elaborate more on what kind of progress is made in the 
>methodological theory in history? As I am relatively new to the field, I 
>would like to get to know some different perspectives on the study of 
>western esotericism. 
>Could you recommend some books or articles that cover the method you are 
>refering to? 
>
>Guido
>
>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:23:58 -0500, Christopher I. Lehrich 
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Francisco,
>>
>>Can you clarify what you mean by "non-religionist" method?
>>
>>I have not yet gotten my hands on this Faivre and Hanegraaff volume, but
>>I did not find the methodological discussions in Hanegraaff's book on
>>the New Age to be valuable.  The book is a useful survey, of course, but
>>he pushes for a kind of neo-empiricism that it seems to me ignores most
>>of the progress made in methodological theory in anthropology, history,
>>and religious studies since the late 1960s.  Hanegraaff seems caught up
>>in the idea that somehow distinguishing between emic and etic
>>perspectives will solve everything, which strikes me as weirdly naive.
>>
>>Chris Lehrich
>>
>>Francisco Silva wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Thanks very much.
>>>
>>>So, it does have some stuff on method in the study of Esoterism, any
>>>other good books on "non-religionist" method in the study of
>>>Esoterism/Occult? Because I can't find anything other than this.
>>>
>>>Francisco
>>>      
>>>

-- 
Christopher I. Lehrich
Boston University