Francis et al.,
I have been reading Greenwood's book over the last several weeks and I must say I disagree with your assessment. I find it a stimulating and important work. I'm not going to address minor issues here, such as the author's reference to Aubrey Beardsley, which might be obscure to students withouth an annotation. Rather, I want to call attention to what I deem are the book's major contributions.
First, the author provides an overview of anthropological treatments of magic and magical consciousness from the late 19th century to the present in a format accessible to most educated readers, including undergraduates. This is a valuable service in itself. But further, she fully grasps and explicates how Levy-Bruhl''s comments on "the savage mind" and its understanding of the world have been distorted and misrepresented by later anthropologists to reflect evolutionist and exclusivist perspectives. The _way_ she does this is clever and lends itself well to pedagogical adaptation: she imagines and reconstructs a dialogue between Levy-Bruhl and E.E. Evans-Pritchard, another important anthropological voice in the study of magical systems of thought, based on correspondence between the two scholars. This reconstructed exchange, while fictional, is creative and instructive for students, in that it clarifies the positions of both scholars and shows how Levy-Bruhl's theory opens the door for the co-existence of both rational and magical worldviews in ALL human societies. It dismantles the evolutionist, ethnocentric assumptions that have permeated the anthropological study of magic for most of the history of the discipline and opens the door for a more nuanced view based on the non-exclusivity of either a "raitonnalist" or a "magical" worldview.
Greenwood's work deals not with ritual magic or magic as it might be described by a practitioner (and I write here as both an ethnographer and a paractitioner, so don't get your knickers in a knot), but with magical vs. so-called rational understandings of the world -- in other words, with the foundations of belief. It allows us to see how people in a range of human societies, in different historical epochs, ahve simultaneously veiwed the world as animated by spiritual/ magicla forces and run according to "natural" laws of causality. It shows us the contextual nature of belief, and opens the door for a more humanistic and less stigmatizing view of those who, like most of us (like most human beings, truth be told), hold conflicting beliefs, and make use of them in different contexts.
As for issues of objectivity, I beleive, like other respondents, that this has been dealt with ad nauseam not only on this list, but in the field of anthropology itself and particularly in the field of modern Pagan studies and religious studies more broadly. I found the author dealt openly and fairly with her dual perspectives, and used exampels from her field exeprience to illustrate principles she presented. This is the purpose of participant-observation, after all. For more in-depth treatments of some of her informants who also appear in this book, readers might wish to look at her ethnographies which Francis mentioned at the beginning of his review.
This book makes an important contribution to anthropology, religious studies, folkloristics and any field dealing with issues of belief. It is accessible to a wide range of audiences and suitable for use in undergraduate classes; I plan to adopt it for use in my course "The Supernatural in the Modern World" in Fall 2010. More importantly, it provides me with a foundation from which I am building arguments for my ongoing work on magico-religious healing in Italy and North America, and more broadly for the nature of belief and the ways folklorists and anthropologists ahve approached it. While no work is perfect and we can certainly find flaws in any published work, I highly recommend this book.
Sabina Magliocco
Professor and Chair
Department of Anthropology
California State University - Northridge
18111 Nordhoff St.
Northridge, CA 91330-8244
________________________________________
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A. Carlson [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] review of Greenwood (2009) Anthropology of Magic
Francis,
I have not read this book, so I am not responding to comment or counter with my own review or
thoughts on it. However, I find that your shared views of the work are less of a constructive
review and more of a harsh and unforgiving criticism. I do not feel as though your review has at
all furthered my understanding of either the author, her studies, or the publication itself.
Instead I now have a firm understanding of your distaste for the way in which you perceive her
approaching an academic field. I also have the beginnings of an understanding of the high esteem
in which you hold your own approaches and achievements. I do not, however, feel as though I know
of any useful bits about the book you claim to be reviewing.
The purpose of a review, especially a review that is assumed to be academic in nature (given the
context in which I am reading it), should be to offer an objective overview of a body of work with
subjective inclusions to demonstrate the critic's views, arguments and justifications. I do not
feel that you have accomplished this. I have read film reviews that more appropriately handle a
piece, in the free local papers that pile up at my coffee-house-of-choice. (See? That right there
was an example of a subjective response, which I am not pretending was academic or objectively
constructive.)
In summary, I feel that you should consider revisions to your piece if it is intended to be a
helpful academic review. It is okay not to like something, especially when you can so clearly
demonstrate why you feel that way. But a book review should seem a little less personal (i.e. step
off the soapbox long enough to say something useful) and more focused on detailing what the text
has to offer (or fails to offer) to an audience who maybe aren't familiar with it. Also, you've
convinced me to buy a copy of the book. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Andrew Carlson
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:38:56 +0000
Francis Cameron <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dave
>
> I do not agree. I have written many reviews in my time (including a very
> short notice of The Nature of Magic which I did for a Pagan publication and
> which I enlarged on in direct contact with relevant groups of friends and
> colleagues). The review you object to could have been far longer. I chose to
> keep it brief and to concentrate on the matters I considered to be of prime
> importance. Rather than to include a general synopsis (which I have often
> done with other publications) I have focussed on the overall picture as I,
> in all honesty, found it. Do read my words again. My paragraph one
> is there to introduce the author to readers who do not know her. My
> paragraph two complements my reading of the book and leads on to paragraphs
> three four and five. Following on from that I chose one example from her
> text to illustrate how she presents her work and how I, as a reviewer, react
> to that presentation. I could have given more examples.I refrained.
>
> On 29 January 2010 19:46, David Green <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Francis,
>>
>> I don't really know what to make of this. I cannot see how Susan's remarks
>> on this list is any basis upon which to begin to critique her latest book.
>> The reviewed book is more a general introductoy text in the area and I think
>> that her two earlier ethnographies are extremely insightful. What you have
>> written is not a review of her book but a highlighting of what you feel are
>> a few inconsistencies in her thought and I cannot see what they are doing
>> here passed off as a book review. Am puzzled.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> *Dr Dave Green*
>> **
>> *Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of the West of England, Bristol,
>> UK*
>> **
>> *Society for the Academic Study of Magic (SASM):*
>> **
>> * **http://www.sasm.co.uk* <http://www.sasm.co.uk/>
>> **
>> *You do this, you do that
>> You argue left, you argue right
>> You come down, you go up
>> This person says no, you say yes
>> Back and forth
>> You are happy
>> You are really happy*
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic [
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Francis Cameron [
>> [log in to unmask]]
>> *Sent:* 29 January 2010 18:49
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] review of Greenwood (2009) Anthropology
>> of Magic
>>
>> **
>>
>> *Susan GREENWOOD The Anthropology of Magic (2009), reviewed*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Susan Greenwood is Senior Visiting Research Fellow at the University of
>> Sussex. She has to her credit two previous ethnographies : *Magic,
>> Witchcraft and the Otherworld* (2000) and *The Nature of Magic* (2005).
>>
>>
>>
>> In a message posted to Google Mail [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] on 25 January
>> 2010, she states : ‘I have been writing about magic from a subjective
>> anthropological approach for over twenty years.’ and on the following day
>> she continues : ‘I have tried to communicate between what has seemed like
>> two different worlds – the world of science-orientated anthropology and the
>> world of magic.’ Perhaps this is one of the things that disturb me about the
>> present book. As a qualified ethnologist I do not know what is meant by ‘a
>> *subjective* anthropological approach’. In the last resort an
>> anthropologist’s presentation must be critically *objective*. Anything
>> less just will not do.
>>
>>
>>
>> My greatest problem in striving towards a balanced assessment of
>> Greenwood’s text lies with the way in which she uses the English language.
>> After weeks of endeavour I still fail to comprehend the statement she makes
>> on the very first page of her introduction where she proposes magic as ‘an
>> aspect of human consciousness’. As an experienced Wiccan, and therefore an
>> insider, I think I know what she is getting at. As a thoughtful scholar, in
>> my rôle as an outsider, I still do not know what is meant by ‘an aspect of
>> human consciousness’. The fact of the matter is – from both an insider and
>> an outsider point-of-view – I find the statement fallacious. Magic is not
>> ‘an aspect’ of anything. Magic is a process, a skill which can be exercised.
>> And while it may be true that this skill is exercised in a state of
>> alternative consciousness, that does not mean that the skill and the
>> consciousness are one and the same.
>>
>>
>>
>> The practice of anthropology offers a full opportunity for participation in
>> both ethnography and ethnology : the telling of the story and the writing of
>> the explanation. The former invokes the Arts. The latter demands the rigour
>> of the Sciences.
>>
>>
>>
>> When the subject under investigation takes place in the alternative reality
>> of magical states, ethnography needs must face two ways. First it deserves
>> expression in the lexicon and idiom of the insider. Second it requires
>> translation into the lexicon and idiom of the outsider. The reader must be
>> informed when words are used in a specialised sense, and when actions or
>> apparatus are likely to be unfamiliar to the outsider. Sometimes this
>> process will overlap with other explanations and interpretations expected of
>> an ethnology.
>>
>>
>>
>> Consider, for example, how this applies to the first three pages of
>> Greenwood’s chapter 7, ‘Magic in everyday life’.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here the insider ethnography comes close to the insider technique of
>> visualisation : the description of a real or imagined scene in such a way
>> that the reader/listener may, as it were, step into the landscape and
>> experience the actuality of the surroundings even while the writer/speaker
>> has them in mind. In such a context it can be important to instance Aubrey
>> Beardsley’s frequenting of a particular church in Brighton.
>>
>>
>>
>> For an outsider ethnography such an aside is an irrelevant diversion,
>> particularly when accompanied by Beardsley’s dates and status as an English
>> art nouveau illustrator, author and caricaturist. The information of
>> outsider importance is that during a street festival in Brighton on a rainy
>> day in July, the anthropologist and her informant Jo were prepared to embark
>> on tarot readings in public. At this point, and for the benefit of the
>> outsider, it would have been helpful to describe a tarot pack, to say how it
>> is used and what it is used for. What message did these two women sitting at
>> a table spread with two tarot packs intend to convey to passers-by? Given
>> the particular time place and context of the action, was it in any sense
>> exceptional? or was it not in the least unusual? It is not sufficient to
>> write of tarot readings as ‘a gateway into magical consciousness’ (whatever
>> that means) and it is quite unacceptable to refer to Luhrmann’s *
>> Persuasions* (1989) for the origins of the tarot when there are, for
>> example, Decker & Dummett on the *Occult Tarot *(2002) for the academics
>> and Eden Gray’s *Complete Guide* (1970) for general readers.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do regret that here and elsewhere in the text I become uncomfortably
>> aware of a lack of a sufficiently deep critical penetration of the matters
>> under consideration and, since Greenwood is both her informant and her
>> observer, I would be happier if she included the writings of current
>> practitioners – such as Starhawk, Paddy Slade, and Vivianne Crowley – along
>> with those essays from the shelves of the anthropology section where even
>> Marcel Mauss *A General Theory of Magic *(from the French original of
>> 1904) still has a surprising amount of relevance to the present day.
>>
>>
>>
>> In short, and reluctantly, I come to the conclusion that Greenwood’s title
>> claims too much. Her essay is too slim to justify claim to *The
>> Anthropology*, or even *An Anthropology*. As for *Magic*, it is sadly
>> deficient. The focus rests on a limited account of contemporary shamanism.
>> There are whole fields of current magical practice which are not included.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *© francis cameron, oxford, 27 january 2010*
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Francis Cameron, MA, Dip.Ethnology (Oxon)
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> This incoming email to UWE has been independently scanned for viruses by
>> McAfee anti-virus software and none were detected
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> This email was independently scanned for viruses by McAfee anti-virus
>> software and none were found
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>Francis
_____________________________
"Let love and truth be thy breath." -- Eric D. Love
|
