 |
 |
Hi Melissa,
I thought Luhrman’s “Interpretive Drift” was the term sue used
to describe how – having adopted a magical mindset through studying magic –magicians
came to see “results” from their magical working, when there – arguably – weren’t
any (in Luhrman’s opinion)? Like how a magickal ritual may be intended to achieve
a particular concrete result and after it was done the practitioner would
interpret _anything_ any apparent after effect, as part of that achieving
of the desired result and, even if the ritual didn’t work, that result – or
lack of result – would also be “reasoned magically”. And that “interpretive
drift” was the way one, when learning magic, drifted into seeing their
activities within a magical worldview. But then again, perhaps I need to read
the book again.
~Caroline.
From: Society for The Academic Study of
Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Melissa
Harrington
Sent: Thursday, 13 October 2011 11:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Tanya Luhrmann
I
heard that she received similar criticisms from the next group she
studied, a bit of internet searching should come up with some links. I haven't
heard this one re initiatory materials though, more as Mogg says below,
particularly as Lurhmann was not talking about wiccan rites as much as she was
talking about a quite wide spread magical milieu.
Luhrmann
was quite clear she was under pressure to write as a non native. I have a
friend/aquaintance who is doing his undergrad degree at Cambridge just now and
struggling w Luhrmann,whom they apparently teach as good methodology, whilst
most on this list would probably prefer Susan Greenwood's or Jone
Salomonsens' "methods of compassion". Greenwood studied the same
population as Luhrmann just after her and came to a very different
thesis, but had to rewrite it to get it passed at Goldsmiths, whereas Lurhmann
appears to have gone from strength to strength in academia, and has never
popped her head back into magical circles. I have introduced my
friend to some of the leading scholars of Paganism who
refute Lurhmann and they have given him further references, but at
the end of the day he has to pass his exams in Cambridge.
I wrote a bit about Luhrmann and the response to her
work in my chapter in the book Researching Paganisms.
The general and rather unanimous critique of Luhrmann’s
work is best summed up by Graham Harvey who describes her theory of
interpretive drift as being ‘less about the experience of magicians or Pagans
and more about assertions of academic “objectivity”’ (Harvey 1999:239). Ewing
(can't remember her first name, possibly Katie) discussed anthropological
atheism and used Luhrmann as an example of its failings, Ewing says Luhrmann
did not question her own rationality and produced a theory ‘embedded within
the atheistic hegemonic discourse in which anthropology participates’; and that
she insulted the people she worked with; ‘her denial is to make her claims of
respect for the people she worked with sound somewhat hollow’ (Ewing
1994:573). Perhaps some of the anthropologists on here might comment?
For
me the problem is the wierd mix of academic knowledge borne of a Cambridge PhD
and a low level understanding of magic, possibly brought about by keeping a
critical brain while trying to engage in wonder as a beginer in both fields.
Lurhmann came up with Interpretative Drift, which simply means you get into a
group's language, mores and mindset as you get more into the group, this works
for any group, it is not magico specific. All other scholars have found the
opposite, Margot Adler said Pagans do not convert but come home, Grahan
Harvey echoed this with Harvey
G (1999) “Coming Home and Coming out Pagan (but not converting)” in Lamb C and
Bryant M D (1999) Religious Conversion, contemporary practices and
controversies. London:Cassell. This was the topic of my undergrad thesis,
fully borne out with BSc psych statistics, and my Phd went further and found a
conversion process in Paganism of which this coming home is a crucial part, and
really is the diametric opposite of Interpretative Drift.
I
think the bottom line is that many of us want to go to Hogwarts, and find ways
to almost do so, so three years on a PhD in a Wiccan coven funded while getting
a good qualification is hard to resist, but it does have a down side, in this
case the down side was that Luhrmann never really "got" Wicca in a
way she would have done if she had been working at any other job while joing
the magickal community, and for the people who associated with Lurhmann
and felt betrayed, and the continued assumption Luhrmanns study tells you
much about magic/magicians at all
regards
Melissa.
----- Original Message -----