Al Billings wrote:
> I just finished my first paper for this yesterday and I wound up
> discussing and summarizing Faivre's definition with some elaboration
> from Hanegraaff and Henrik Bogdan (who derives his definition from a
> union of their work). Looking at the papers from conferences that I
> have and other materials, everything I've read so far is using
> Faivre's definition as its basis. Is there an alternative being
> proposed by others that I've just missed? I have figured that I would
> get stuck using it (which isn't necessarily a problem) because it
> looked to be the accepted model used.
Stuck, yes, unless there are better options. Here's the question: are
you discussing this definition because you want to develop a better
classificatory approach to something, or because you're covering background?
> My thesis work is going to focus on some aspect of the Golden Dawn
> material. I had a specific thesis question in mind but I've been
> reconsidering it because of issues with source material. I've
> considered focusing on the group ritual aspects or perhaps some of the
> personal ritual aspects of the work individual Golden Dawn magicians
> engaged in but I haven't found a lot of academic work that gives me a
> framework to work within in either space. Bogdan's book on ritual
> initiation is one of the few.
Now obviously I don't know what you're doing in this thesis, but (and
this gets at your later question) why do you need Faivre's system?
Let's think it through. The point, explicitly, of Faivre's 6-part
structure is to define what esotericism "really" is. Does this really
matter for a close study of the Golden Dawn? I mean, suppose from
Faivre's definitions it turns out that the Golden Dawn isn't
esotericism. So what? To my way of thinking, the obvious thing to do
is to analyze and explain the Golden Dawn rituals. If you draw on
theoretical frameworks, the obvious ones (at this distance anyway) would
seem to come from scholarship on ritual.
If you bring up and analyze Faivre's classifications at any length, you
presumably intend to challenge or develop those classifications.
Otherwise why bring it up? In dissertations, of course, it's
traditional to bring out a laundry-list of previous scholarship, and
maybe that's what you have in mind. But if you're not getting mileage
out of the definition, by which I mean neither challenging it nor using
it to open up a comparative approach to the material (that being the
only effect of such a system), you're going to need to cut this when
preparing it for a book.
For all I know, you are in fact leveling a significant challenge to
Faivre. I intend no criticism in either case. But the point is that
the only reason to bring up a theoretical framework is if it gets you
mileage: either it alters your method of analysis or it is to some
degree the object of analysis.
If you care, the opening of chapter 4 of my Agrippa book has a chunk on
Faivre's definition.
Chris Lehrich
--
Christopher I. Lehrich
Boston University
|