From: stanley@verga.enet.dec.com (My name is...)
Subject: Re: Book Review 'Persuasions of the Witch's Craft' (longish)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 16:54:05 GMT


In article <1992Aug14.191217.3191@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (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
>  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
> 
>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.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic