“How magic survived the disenchantment of the world” Wouter J. Hanegraaff

“How magic survived the disenchantment of the world” Wouter J. Hanegraaff

Abstract: This article argues that the process described by Max Weber as the ‘disenchantment of the world’ iscompatible with the continued vitality of ‘the occult’ in contemporary western culture. Focusing on theexample of ‘hermetic’ magical traditions in western culture before and after the pivotal period of the Enlightenment, the article analyses the relation between continuity and change in the development of thesetraditions from three angles: their theories of magical efficacy, the nature of their practices and the ways inwhich magicians seek to legitimate magic to the wider society as well as to themselves. The discussion demonstrates that the transformation of magic under the impact of modernization and secularization resulted in the paradoxical phenomenon of a ‘disenchanted magic’. The article concludes by proposing a theory that explains why it is actually quite natural for magic to have survived the disenchantment of the world.

It took me a few days to get around to giving this my proper attention, but I really should have done it earlier. As a sociological exploration of how modern magicians think about the magic universe in a way that is consistent with their beliefs in a “scientific” as opposed to a “spiritual” universe, it’s rather on point to my research as to how modern communities of practitioners conceive themselves and their magic. For the researcher of modern magic, it neatly summarizes some of the dominant beliefs I’ve seen in discussing magic, what it is, how it works, and why it’s efficacious.

Beginning with Max Weber’s theory of disenchantment, Hanegraaff argues that the continuing influence of magic after the enlightenment illustrates not a blanket invalidating of Weber’s theory, but that magical theory and dialogue is so fundamentally changed by the theological changes of upper-class Western society known as “the disenchantment of the world” that magic after the enlightenment explains itself and justifies itself completely differently from its Renaissance roots, which were deeply oriented in a religious landscape. By defining “secularisation” as a process which changes how beliefs and rituals are understood to have deeper meaning, he argues for a fundamental post-enlightenment shift in thinking that impacts the worldview and theoretical basis of magic to make it more easily justifiable to modern magicians in a way that is different than the justifications applied to Renaissance magical texts and practices.

Renaissance magi appealed to “natural magic” and the orderly, created universe which was full of deliberate correspondences set down by God for the benefit of humanity. But modern magicians justify magical practice principally by psychologizing their beliefs and lumping the whole of them in as an “unknown science” which is partially pseudo-scientific, partially based on archetypal psychology, and partially related to belief in another kind of unseen reality in which things may be symbolically or fundamentally true in a way that is not literal. From this point of view, “magical techniques are actually psychological techniques intended to develop a mystical consciousness” (366). How this works is not particularly important, rather, what i important for occultists is “only that there is ‘some kind of subtle stuff’ which ‘somehow’ bridges the gap between mind and matter. The presupposition is that magic is ultimately based on the powers of the psyche: ‘it is the mind that works magic’.” (368)

Among the most relevant references for my own research was the very coherent way Hanegraaff articulated  the ‘magical plane’ theory of being the home or origin of magic.

Fundamental to the way occultists rationalize magic is their concept of a separate-but-connected ‘magical plane’ which exists on a different level of reality. On this plane the things of the imagination are believed to be as real as tables and chairs are real in our everyday world. Perhaps the easiest way to explain the magical use of the concept is by the analogy of a computer. The images on the screen may seem very real, but are the direct reflection of an underlying and more fundamental reality ultimately existing of digits and zeros: a parallel reality which remains invisible to the common user. Only the programmer is able to access this level and work with it; any changes he makes on that level are bound to be reflected in the reality on screen. It is not surprising that so many contemporary magicians also turn out to be computer enthusiasts, for magic is believed to work exactly along the same lines. The magician works on a parallel realityor a ‘subtle plane’ where the things of the imagination are real. Just like the computer specialist needs to learn a complex programming language with its own symbols and rules, the magician needs to learn a no less complex language of symbols and equivalences based on elaborate systems of correspondences. By mastering such a symbolic language, it becomes possible for the magician to manipulate the realities on the magical plane; and as a result of such activity things will change on the parallel level of the everyday world. It is hardly possible to overestimate the importance of this concept for understanding how magic is legitimated in a disenchanted world. Processes of secularisation and disenchantment inthe everyday world simply have no bearing on the magical plane, and hence do not have to affect the reality of magic. As observed by Luhrmann, the purpose of the concept of the magical plane ‘lies in keeping unhappy bedfellows apart’ (Luhrmann, 1989,p. 276). The other ‘bedfellow’ is precisely the disenchanted reality of everyday life. The dissipation of mystery in this world is compensated for by a separate magical world of the reified imagination, where the everyday rules of science and rationality do not apply. And Luhrmann correctly recognises that this is a new phenomenon in the history of western hermetic magic… (370)

The rest of Hanegraaff’s article is worth a read to see how he uses sociological theories of religion to explain what potential reasons magic users had to adapt the magical universe to a disenchanted world. Not so much on point for my work, as I’m not particularly interested in what theories might have to say about magical practice, but interesting. While secularisation and disenchantment as theories have limited usefulness in many contexts (especially my contexts), his critiques of those theories allowed him to offer up an interesting interpretation of changes in communities of magical thinkers.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: