I think you have hit on something very important here, Caroline.  I
have been very concerned with the anti intellectualism that I am
seeing in the Pagan community in the US. I have some theories on this,
I think partially it is tied into the ways in which discourses of
religiosity, especially those of tradition, are being used to underpin
arguments relating to social legitimacy, but I probably need more
coffee to get into that fully. I also think there is just a general
tendency of some Pagans in the US thinking "the man is keeping them
down" and academia represents another perceived institution of
authority and hegemony.

I think there are certain aspects of academic *style* that Pagans have
been adopting, yet what is actually missing is the critical,
methodological engagement with source materials (whether those are
texts or people!). I don't think Pagans have trouble with academic
style, but the problems with Hutton's work among some Pagans is that
is challenges a particular story of continuity which is important to
some Pagans believing that their religion is legitimate.  The fuzzy
boundaries of history and cultural transmission are simply difficult
for people to reconcile and I don't think we give people the tools to
deal with this well.

There is another event here in the Bay Area, a smaller conference now
in its second year, called Theurgicon.  It is organized by the same
person who runs Pantheacon, and is meant to have a tighter focus on
the magical implications of theurgy.  What is fascinating to me about
this event is that is absolutely apes academic conventions without
involving actual academic inquiry.  People use powerpoints for turgid
deliveries of papers filled with footnotes and sources.  Clearly for
the speakers and audience the form itself suggests some level of
authority.  The thing is, though, that the sources used are frequently
not up to academic standards, and the speakers themselves are quite
critical of academic inquiry. There was a whole funny "us/them"
feeling at this event and an assumption that academics could not
possibly be practitioners. There seems to be a genuine lack of
understanding of, say, subjective or ethnographic methodologies, or
even the ways in which academics understand and discuss their personal
relationship to their own areas of study.

Unfortunately promoting the idea of the public intellectual is a
rather hard sell in the US, but I think that more engagement not just
with academic texts but with methodology and inquiry, would be
helpful. I don't think it would solve the wider cultural problem,
though.

Best,
Amy

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Caroline Tully <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> While what is meant by “academic writing” or “an academic standard of
> research” may be evident to those within universities, is it also evident to
> those outside of them? When academics and non-academics mention “academic
> writing” are they talking about the same thing? Do non-academics know what
> academic writing actually is? Is their view of what it is the same as that
> of someone from a university?
>
>
>
> You know there is a huge backlash in the US Pagan scene against the academic
> study of Paganism right now, and many fallacies about what academia actually
> _is_ are spouted about. One wonders if non-academics are aware of what it
> is. Apparently not, if we can go by what some ‘Big Name Pagans’ who should
> know better were saying at Pantheacon this year, amid the general
> anti-academia and anti-Ronald Hutton feeling at the event. Basically, that
> academics are those who – “yeah, sure, work in universities or whatever, but
> don’t do primary research, are constrained because of lack of funding and
> therefore do not do research properly or extensively, and are reluctant to
> accept evidence that challenges their pet theories anyway.”
>
>
>
> This is what a [shocked] attendee at Pantheacon this year told me he heard.
>
>
>
> So, OK, lack of funding is sometimes/often true, but the rest of it is the
> exact opposite of what academia is all about.
>
>
>
> While academics know what academic research is, do you think the general
> populace does? Certainly not. If they did, do you think writers such as
> Lynne Picknet and Clive Prince would be so popular? That the Holy Blood/Holy
> Grail book(s) and their ilk (by whoever wrote them) would have been such big
> sellers? That the Templars, Freemasonry and Leonardo Da Vinci all wrapped up
> in a big conspiracy theory would be so exciting? That Pagans could prefer
> Ben Whitemore’s ‘Trials of the Moon’ to Ronald Hutton’s ‘Triumph of the
> Moon’? No.
>
>
>
> It is not evident to the non-academic what academic writing entails.
>
>
>
> ~Caroline.