NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/14390

Text File | 1992-08-15 | 10.5 KB | 187 lines

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14390 alt.magick:3829 alt.pagan:7859
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.magick,alt.pagan
Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!engage.pko.dec.com!verga.enet.dec.com!stanley
From: [e-mail] (My name is...)
Subject: Re: Book Review 'Persuasions of the Witch's Craft' (longish)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News Daemon)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 16:54:05 GMT
Lines: 175


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert McGrath) writes...
>The review attached below appeared in a slightly different and
>shorter form in _Skeptical Inquirer_, Spring 1992.  I have received
>"vibrations" that indicate that this is the correct moment to post
>this.  (Also, my boss isn't back from Europe yet, so things are
>a bit slack around here this Friday PM. :-))

You trying to convert us now, Robert?  Alt.alien.visitors getting too slow?

>
>--
>  Robert E. McGrath
>  Urbana Illinois
>  [e-mail]
>
>Review of "Persuasions of the Witch's Craft:  Ritual Magic in Contemporary
>England."
>By T. M. Luhrmann.
>Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1989.
>382 pp.   Paper  $12.95  (Cloth $25.00).
>
>Reviewed by Robert E. McGrath
>
>     This book is an ethnography of a sub-culture of contemporary
>England -- magicians.   Following the traditional anthropological method of
>participant observation, the author joined several groups practicing "real"
>ritual magic in England in the 1980s.  The observations collected over some
>fourteen months led to a doctoral dissertation for the Department of Social
>Anthropology at the University of Cambridge, and to this book.   The result is
>a thoughtful, questioning, skeptical, and unusually well-informed
>examination of one contemporary group of believers in the "irrational".
>
>     The main theme is "Why do people find magic persuasive?" (p. 8)
>Luhrmann does not "believe" in magic, and argues that most of the magicians
>studied did not "believe" in magic at first.  But through time the magicians
>became convinced of the effectiveness and validity of magic.  This is all the
>more remarkable because:
>
>     Magicians are ordinary, well-educated, usually middle-class people.
>     They are not psychotically deluded, and they are not driven to
>     practise by socioeconomic desperation.  By some process, when they
>     get involved with magic -- whatever the reasons that sparked their
>     interest -- they learn to find it eminently sensible. (p. 7)
>
>What are these ordinary folks doing, and how did they come to believe
>in it?
>
>     The magical beliefs in question are themselves difficult to rationally
>define.   The groups studied can be characterized as following various flavors
>of "neo-paganism" or "witchcraft".   The common thread among the disparate
>individuals and groups is the actual practice and belief in ritual magic.  For
>this reason, Luhrmann refers to them collectively as "magicians" (specifically
>not meaning "conjurers" like James Randi and Uri Geller).
>
>     The magicians practice a wide variety of rituals using an extremely
>eclectic set of ideas and symbols.  However, all share the core concepts:
>
>     that mind affects matter, and that in special circumstances, like ritual,
>     the trained imagination can alter the physical world. (p. 7)
>     Besides ritual, the magicians also share a core technology:  meditation,
>     training in visualization, the development and skilled manipulation of
>     complex symbol systems.   Magicians also seem to share similar experiences
>     with and feelings toward the practice of ritual magic.
>
>     One of Luhrmann's important findings is the actual effectiveness of
>the magical technology.  As part of the investigation, the author studied the
>correspondence courses and participated in other forms of training
>commonly given to recruits for these groups.   Luhrmann describes the
>exercises in meditation, guided visualization, "path working" (a structured
>exercise in visualization, often done in groups), training in various occult
>symbologies and in how to "perceive" relations between symbols and
>between events and symbols.
>
>     Through the use of the magician-s training practices the author was
>not only able to learn a lot of jargon and theory, but was actually able to
>experience some very real psychological effects.  Luhrmann describes
>experiencing some rather unusual subjective states, such as very real visual
>hallucinations.  The author also developed a facility in vivid, controlled
>visual imagery, for seeing "connections" between events, and an increase in
>highly symbol laden dreams.  These kinds of subjective experiences are
>widely reported and are often considered mystical or spiritual experiences
>by the person.   Naturally,  when these subjective experiences occur,
>magicians tend to take them as evidence of the "reality" and power of magic.
>It is interesting to read, though, of the deliberate use of these apparently
>effective techniques for increasing the frequency and intensity of such
>experiences.
>
>     A second key finding is that, for these magicians, belief follows action
>rather than producing action.  Magicians begin to study and participate in
>magic for many reasons, usually not because they believe it "works".  As
>they become more involved, they begin to develop facility with the jargon
>and symbol sets, and the practice becomes important to them.  Eventually,
>many become convinced that magic is "real" and "really works".  Luhrmann
>calls this "interpretive drift," and relates it to the process by which people
>become a specialist in any field:
>
>     Modern magicians are interesting because they are a flamboyant
>     example of a very common process:  that when people get involved in
>     an activity they develop ways of interpreting which make that
>     activity meaningful even though it may seem foolish to the
>     uninvolved. (p. 7)
>
>It is, Luhrmann says, "what happens as an undergraduate turns into a
>lawyer." (p. 7)
>
>     The reasons for this shift to belief are not clear.  The experience
>of one or more unusual, subjective, "mystical," events can be very convincing.
>The practice of ritual magic may also have some very real therapeutic or
>psychological value to some participants.  And one should not forget the
>sheer fascination of manipulating complex symbol systems, and the feeling
>of control which that may give.  That, after all, is one of the fun things
>about becoming a scientist!   For whatever reasons, as the practice of ritual
>becomes important to the magician, the "belief" grows.
>
>     When questioned by a skeptical outsider, the convinced magician may
>deploy many arguments in defense of the belief.   In the section entitled
>"Justifying to the sceptics", Luhrmann describes these arguments:
>
>     There seem to be four primary rationalizations of magical claims
>     themselves, four different ways of intellectualizing the idea that
>     rituals produce results.  I call these approaches realist, two worlds,
>     relativist, and metaphorical.  The realist position says that the
>     magician-s claims are of the same status as those of ╘science-;  the two
>     worlds position says that they are true, but cannot be evaluated by
>     rational means; the relativist position says that it is impossible even to
>     ask questions about their ╘objective- status; and the metaphorical
>     position asserts that the claims themselves are objectively false but
>     valid as myth.  (pp. 283-284)
>
>These arguments are probably familiar to readers of Skeptical Inquirer, but
>Luhrmann's careful dissection of them might be useful reading for skeptics.
>
>     An important point to note, however, is that these arguments are
>more in the nature of rationalizations than real reasons for the activity.
>Luhrmann says that, although magicians practice magic for many and varied
>reasons,  they believe in magic because they practice it.  This idea is put in
>perspective in a scholarly discussion of the nature of belief, commitment,
>and irrationality.   Some of the argument here is probably accessible only to
>a professional social theorist, which I am not.
>
>     Besides the admittedly academic content, this book contains a wealth
>of detail about contemporary magical practice in England.  Among other
>information, Luhrmann gives the reader descriptions of rituals and their
>"meaning", a "Who's who" of magicians in the London area, a description of
>some aspects of the social organization of magicians and a bibliography of
>"what witches read".   Most importantly, I think, this book provides a shining
>example of rational inquiry:  a well-informed, skeptical, and yet gently
>sympathetic examination of a very human behavior.  Despite the unrelenting
>critical evaluation, you will not find a harsh word about the magicians in
>this entire book.
>
>     Skeptics might note the reality and power of the technology used by
>magicians.  There appear to be real and powerful psychological forces at play
>that are little understood and little studied.  If, as Luhrmann suggests, the
>frequency and intensity of these interesting (and compelling) subjective
>experiences can be increased by training, this claim deserves serious
>psychological investigation.
>
>     If Luhrmann is correct in the description of "interpretive drift", and
>that belief follows practice, then it is clear that rational argument is not
>likely to sway the believer in this type of irrationality.  If the real
>rationale for magical practice is the practice itself, no amount of argument,
>no demolition of the rationalizations offered will change the practitioner's
>personal commitment to magic.  This, perhaps, explains some of the
>frustration a skeptic may feel when attempting to debunk some kinds of
>deeply held, but not clearly justified, beliefs.
>
>     If, indeed, belief follows practice there is a lesson for teachers of
>scientific and critical thinking:  get people to do it, and to enjoy doing it,
>and they will come to value and believe in it.  Watching science on television
>or reading about it in a magazine will never convince as well as actually doing
>science and having fun doing it.  Critical thinking cannot be a spectator
>sport, everyone has to play it themselves.   Make skepticism fun and cool,
>and it will flourish.