hello all,
Dr Leo Ruickbie <[log in to unmask]> to all:
>>>>> ...working on a short piece about Frazer's theory
>>>>> of sympathetic magic,
quotes from him could be helpful. I don't think that
there is sufficient critical thought about it. I've
rarely seen more than a handful examine it in detail
and break it down into pros and cons, especially for
academic study in the field of anthropology. however,
since i am not in academia i may be missing it. I'm
only occasionally seeing it here in this email list,
for example, and it should be here.
>>>>> and wondering how it currently holds among
>>>>> anthropologists,
from what i've seen so far he is mostly ignored as
someone whose ideas were not necessarily practical,
but who is rudimentary (except by people who are
practitioners such as Crowley, and magicians who
are anthropologists like Greenwood, who very
helpfully explains some of his problems).
more often analysis i've seen by anthropologists
focus on technics (e.g. from Thorndike) or
sociology/psychology (e.g. Mauss).
>>>>> magicians
intellectuals focussed on ceremonial magic(k),
influenced by Crowley particularly, treat
Frazer as worthwhile to read based on mention
of him in curricula, but he is not given a
great deal of focus otherwise that i see. he
is too scientific for most magicians, who are
more interested in practical dynamics, moral
laws and restraints, etc.
>>>>> and anthropologist-magicians. And it dawned
>>>>> on me that the best people to ask are the
>>>>> ones reading this email right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are your thoughts on the matter?
my thoughts on the matter are as follows.
I suggest that any who have written on the
subject be compared and contrasted in such an
examination of Frazer. so far i am only aware
of Susan Greenwood, and only in part, so i am
content to contribute what i am able to see
and hope that someone with more access to her
work *and* time available (whether Susan herself
or someone who has her text to hand) will be
able to quote her directly where i cannot. later
i will come back to this thread with all her
books in hand and do the subject more justice.
Proto-Science
in "Magic, Witchcraft and the Otherworld", which
Susan Greenwood uses as a platform to examine
magic within a practical mode, she reflects on
the anthropologists of the past in order to
explain how they compare against her values
and methodology. when addressing Frazer she says:
----------------------------------------
"The early anthropologist Edward Tylor saw the
magical arts in civilized European societies as
survivals from a barbarous past (1871). A similar
view was taken by Sir James Frazer, who maintained
that magic was the first stage in the evolution
of the human mind, and that both magic and religion
(which grew from the mistakes of magical thinking)
would eventually be superseded by science (1993{1921})."
Greenwood, 2000, p. 38.
-----------------------
I would like to add that Thorndike was one of the first
i encountered in a scientific treatment of magic as a
recommended source "A History of Magic and Experimental
Science...." (10 volumes, reprinted of late by Kessinger),
and since his texts were so expensive i obtained one slim
volume ("The Place of Magic in the Intellectual History
of Europe") and in combination with quotations used by
others concluded that he was of no use to the active
magician, and that anthropologists (such as Trevor-Roper)
had more valuable data by contrast (one can now see some
previews of these books online, such as googlebooks).
Thorndike seems to be a refined version of the 'magic
as proto-science' thesis.
as an scrutinizing and yet strangely experimental
practicing mage, i find this approach to be the most
conservative and helpful *start*, insofar as it takes
what can be immediately observed of magic and divination
and to what they have led (chemistry from alchemy,
astronomy from astrology for example) and extrapolates
along physical lines to a conclusion.
Connective Fluids or Realms
once this conclusion is supposed, however (consider
in comparison the fallacious conclusions reached by
earlier anthropologists of 'progress' of civilizations
and how the past is superceded by the present -- when
i was collecting used books, Lowie presented this to me
in his "Primitive Societies"), one's parameters are no
longer within the interest of the *practicing* mage, nor
are more interesting theories of influence put forward.
Greenwood continues, helpfully:
----------------------------------------
"Frazer worked on Tylor's view that magic was based on
the association of ideas, and developed the notion of
sympathetic magic -- the belief that everything is
connected in a state of sympathy or antipathy. Tylor
and Frazer were interested in the evolution of ideas
and not in magic or magical practices *per se*;
nevertheless, paradoxically, Frazer's definition
of sympathetic magic can still be taken as a basic
definition today. Frazer argued that 'Things act on
each other at a distance through a secret sympathy,
the impulse being transmitted from one to the other
by means of what we may conceive as a kind of
invisible ether' ...(1993 {1921}:12).
Ibid., 2000, p. 38.
--------------------
accepting Susan's summary as sufficient to
adequately evaluate Frazer, i think that we're
talking about magic in general if we are trying
to obtain 'definitions'. this explanation by, or
interpretation of, Frazer seems inadequate as it does
not differentiate *types* of magic into one or more
categories (perhaps starting with the sympathetic;
more on that below with Laws), instead focussing on
sympathy as some kind of definition.
Frazer could be conceived as intruding some
metaphysics or a physics hypothesis (conceptual)
that pertains to 'ether' here, consonant with
theories of space or subtle fluids which once
held the attention of scientists. these days,
like the mages of old, even modern scientists
need not suppose that this kind of 'transmission'
exists for the purpose of *understanding some
kind of lasting impression between distant
objects*, since it is already being supposed,
at least theoretically, by physicists. the
items in question may be supposed to *be linked*,
by magical connection or previous engagements,
and through this linkage effects may be leveraged.
the scientist nonparticipant will want to find
what may be observed of that which links them,
and, like Frazer, may set to hypothesizing or
evaluating some 'ether' by which the secret
sympathies are transmitted. this may be what
Susan has done in conceiving of 'the otherworld'
as her platform of method. she continues and
concludes the paragraph:
----------------------------------------
"This is the underlying theme behind
communicating with the otherworld in
the diversity of contemporary magical
practices."
Ibid., 2000, p. 38.
--------------------
these intrusions (of ether and otherworld)
are not adequate to address *conventional
folk magic*'s employment of materia magica
in pursuit of spellcrafted ends. neither
is a 19th century "broadcast/transmission"
model applicable to the centuries of its
practice, nor is a reductionist analysis
of particles and physical connective fluid
or medium of any assistance to what is a
part of conventional occult styles which
establish such connections in practice.
Susan's hypothesis is at least launching
off of theoretics of some portion of
practicing mages, especially in a modern
light. its intrusion is not necessary in
a universal sense (see below for more on
Laws), but obtains gravity where it is
already a facet of the conceptions of
practice, such as within Witchcraft
religion or Neopaganism.
Principles or Laws of Magical Practice
Isaac Bonewits obtained a degree in Magic (B.A.)
from UC Berkeley, and it seems to me that he
has given one of the better analyses of magical
principles both outside and inside of gaming
and may be used for practical purposes as well
as for understanding magic as an anthropologist,
since in essence they are *extensions off of
Frazer and his followers*.
in "Real Magic" (extended into his role-playing
supplement, as many theories on magic have been,
humorously enough, when they didn't go the opposite
direction), he made a more helpful start on the
construction of something actually universal in
scope, since he examined anthropological literature
and had exposure to a wide variety of magical styles,
both old (at least in report) and modern.
he attempted to explain and describe such 'Laws of
Magic' (principles, like laws of nature), within
which Frazer's sympathy may be found in the Laws
of 'Association' and its sublaws of 'Similarity'
and 'Contagion'. this first quote is from his
online excerpts of the role-playing supplement.
-----------------------------------------------------
"The Law of Association
"Essence: if any two or more patterns have elements
in common, the patterns interact through those
common elements, and control of one pattern
facilitates control over the other(s), depending
(among other factors) upon the number, type and
duration of common elements involved.
"Remarks: This is probably one of the most important
of the magical Laws and is directly connected to
most of the others.
"Keywords: Commonality controls.".
Authentic Thaumaturgy
Isaac Bonewits
http://www.neopagan.net/AT_Laws.html
=============================================
in "Real Magic" Bonewits explained that 'Similarity'
and 'Contagion' are sublaws of the Law of Association,
and even mentions Frazer in his explanation!:
------------------------------------------------------
"Now the Law of Association is rarely used in its pure
form, except for selecting the window dressing and
props for casting a spell. Instead, two major sublaws
hog the limelight. In fact, these two were the first
to be 'discovered' by modern anthropology
[AUTHOR'S NOTE: Or so the anthropologists
say. Actually, it was Sir James Frazer
in 1890 who was the first to isolate
these laws; but anthropologists refuse
to allow him into their company.]
and were
thought to underly the whole of 'primitive' magic.
Actually, the use of the term 'primitive' should be
avoided since many many so-called savage cultures
are just as complex as our own.
"These two sublaws are the *Law of Sympathy* and
the *Law of Contagion*. The first is the basis of
'sympathetic magic' and basically says that effects
resemble causes. If you want to make a broom fly,
you have to put bird feathers on it, wave it around,
chirp over it, and so forth. Remember, any object,
idea, or person which reminds you of, or is
connected (that's *associated*) with a particular
phenomenon or entity, partakes of that entity's
power and can be used as if it were the entity
itself. Thus the feathers, chirping, and other
props are connected with the idea of flying and
can be used to produce the power of the phenomenon
'flight.' So the key phrase for the Law of
Similarity would be: "Lookalikes *are* alike!"
"The Law of Contagion has an undeservedly bad
reputation because of publicity given to 'voodoo'
and 'curses' in non-literate societies. Sure, it
can be used to kill, but it can also be used to
cure. The law states that 'things once in contact
continue to interact after separation.' The
emphasis here is on objects or persons that have
been in *physical contact* with each other. Thus
you might use hair or fingernail clippings to
help cast a curse because the clippings are
associated with (they remind you of) the victim.
Or you might touch a sick child with 'holy water'
in order to cure her of illness. So our key phrase
here is: 'Power is contagious.'
"... The key phrase we will use for the Law of
Association is: 'Commonality controls'."
---------------------------------------------------
"Real Magic: an Introductory Treatise on the Basic
Principles of Yellow Magic", by P.E. Isaac Bonewits
first published in 1971 (1979, 1989, ++).
http://tinyurl.com/googlebooks-real-magic
===================================================
Bonewits has improved on these laws through time,
and the URL above with the role-playing laws are,
in some instances, better than these first attempts.
I think that these should be the basis of rational
descriptions of magical methodologies which are
not trying to evaluate metaphysics or physics
undercurrents, and will use them myself at some
point to construct smething more extensive and
directly related to my on-the-ground studies
of magic, particularly spellcasting.
Daniel Harms <[log in to unmask]> to Mogg:
>>>> Someone else might want to give a fuller picture, but I think that
>>>> Frazer's ideas are generally recognized as part of a broader current
>>>> of analogical thinking in magic. Susan Greenwood's new book should be
>>>> helpful here.
strongly agreed. I will return to this when i have
acquired her other texts. she moves on to evaluate Mauss,
whose work i really love, and Malinowski, Durkheim, etc.
I think there is room for many of the ideas expressed by
these individuals in a modern evaluation of magic from
an anthropological perspective admitting of practice.
Mogg to Daniel Harms:
>>> Really? I thought it would be a case of leave well alone ??
>>> he perpetuated several blind alleys in study of magic
>>> including the eroneous distinction between magic and religion -
>>> ... Magick as some sort of failed or pseudoscience etc etc
quotes?
Daniel Harms <[log in to unmask]> to Mogg:
>> ...I'm just discussing his theories of sympathy. There's quite a
>> bit in Frazer that's questionable beyond them, but they have at
>> least provided useful beginnings for the study of the role of
>> magical analogies.
some on the fringes of academia have run with them, and should
be noticed, i think, for the helpful rudiments they've made.
occultists have occasionally made expositional forays in the
medium of gaming role-play as the games became more realistic.
also, and it should be considered seriously whether they
were attempting to put forward anthropological models.
Dr Leo Ruickbie <[log in to unmask]>:
> ...While Frazer certainly got a few
> things wrong, that's not to say he got everything wrong. His analysis of
> magic as based upon sympathy according to two principles, one of
> similarity and one of contact, was rather efficient.
this was what Bonewits was reflecting in the above, yes.
> The recent work of
> Pronin, Wegner, etc., hasn't really gone beyond that except to couch the
> whole thing in more psychological and sophisticated language -
I'm very sorry to hear that. it's probably a function of not
being sufficiently involved or interested enough to care.
once one accepts the hypotheses of Frazer or Tylor or
especially of Thorndike there's little to inspire it.
> and even
> such esteemed Princeton and Harvard psychologists are still citing
> Frazer.
citing him is fine. he made a good start.
> While we may want to leave well alone, it's not possible if we
> are to engage with all aspects of current theorising about magic.
people outside of academia have been doing this for years,
but as long as academia only pays attention to academia,
and just particular academics at that, it won't stick.
> Susan's work certainly provides an insight into current
> anthroplogical directions,
is that right? it is representative of more than her own work?
I think it's a valuable contribution, but i don't yet
understand how it might apply to folk magic.
> but does it explain magic better than Frazer?
there's more than one way to understand this question. one may
seek to 'understand magic from underneath it' and deconstruct
its metaphysics. this is the usual methodology (this leads in
sociological and psychological directions, typically). the l
other is to 'explain magic' from within the perspective of
someone who is studying it all around the globe, and so far
i have found no better exponents than Bonewits and role-
playing game theoreticians.
> Does anyone?
in academia? that's a very good question. I'll watch for
it and let you know. I've acquired a few texts which seem
promising for it.
> Don't take this as some sort of championing of Frazer,
> it's not, I'm just interested in your thoughts on the
> debate.
my 2 cents. ;) I think that a little less debate
and a little more imagination is called for.
nagasiva yronwode ([log in to unmask]), Director
YIPPIE*! -- http://www.yronwode.org/
-----------------------------------------------------
*Yronwode Institution for the Preservation
and Popularization of Indigenous Ethnomagicology
-----------------------------------------------------
|
