Magic and the Postsecular: Disenchantment and Participatory Consciousness

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While this is a promising paper, much more work has to be done to tighten its theoretical focus and narrative structure. Since I am an anthropologist, my assumption is that the journal assigned me this manuscript to comment on parts where anthropological thinking and literature is made use of.

Starting with the abstract. Here, no effort is made to elucidate the papers main argument and concepts. We are told by the author (from now on “A”) that “the relationship between post-secularism, magic and disenchantment is nuanced and complex” and that “There is substantial evidence for the persistence of magic in modernity.” This is a very basic argument which any scholar of religion, no matter their disciplinary background, would be aware of. I don’t think it should constitute the main point of the article.

We are then told by A that in the “postsecular world and magic is intertwined with (often embodied) spiritual practices.” Once again, a very basic statement which requires much more elucidation. What are these “spiritual practices”? In which cultural context do they take place? The main concept of “participatory consiciousness” is promising, but is nowhere to be found in the abstract, or even in the operning 2/3 of the manuscript. If participatory consiousness and performances are indeed the main concepts of the manuscript then they must be mentioned in the abstract and the introduction, and then used as the guiding conceptual force of the entire manuscript. Right now, little work is done to further refine these ideas in relation to A’s argument.

We are finally told in the abstract that “Ethnographic work on Neopaganism is deployed to illustrate my arguments.” This is downwright false. A has not conducted any ethnographic research among neo-pagans. I of course well aware that A intended to say something akin to “ethnographic examples,” but, once again, this must be made clear. In fact, I am very skeptical of the suggestion that the manuscript’s claims are, at any point, ethnographically substantiated. What the reader is instead presented with are sporadic mentions to the writings of ethnographers who did work among neopagans, without any specificity regarding the social and cultural context of these ethnographic examples.

If A wishes for this paper to use neopaganism as an ethnographic reflection of the manuscripts main argument then much more work is required in terms of literature review. There are numerous other scholars other than Luhrmann, who has not written on neopaganism since the early 90s. Right now, the reader is presented with a loose accumulation of references whose cultural and conceptual links are not elucidated to the slightest. For example, I do not know what the relation is between post-secularism, magic, wonder, surprise, embodiment, participatory consciousness and performance is. These are all very grand ideas (see for example Marilyn Strather and Michael Scott on wonder) and either one of them could single-handedly act as the main concept for an article manuscript.

We finally arrive to the main concept of participatory consciousness two pages before the end of the manuscript. This idea could act as the main theoretical device, but it must be introduced much much earlier and fleshed out thereafter. Durkheim’s notion of collective effervescence must be cited as well as how it shaped anthropological as well as modern perceptions of participation: see for example Mazzarella’s “The Mana of Mass Society.” Another useful point of reference for A’s interest in magical performance and modernity is G. Jones’ “Magic’s Reason.”

An another note, A’s treatment and understanding of the term “magic” seems to be purely cognitive, ignoring any historical and social dynamics of power between magical practices, colonialism, Christianity and modernity.

Overall, while I see merit in this manuscript, and while A’s writing and argumentative skills are evident, this piece as whole lacks conceptual focus and substantiation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In many respects, this article reads like a literature review, of a kind that one would anticipate in a (fairly decent) undergraduate or master's degree level essay. It basically constitutes a fairly wide-ranging discussion of academic literature on the topics of postsecularism and magic, which it then seeks to weave into an argument "that magic has as much to do with affective and sensory experience as with the notion of belief". No original research, drawing on fieldwork, is presented to bolster this thesis.

Although the author has clearly read fairly widely, I have strong concerns about how comprehensive their reading has been, especially with regard to more recent literature. As recent scholarship on "magic" has demonstrated (and I am thinking here of scholars like Wouter Hanegraaff and Bernd-Christian Otto), the term is a loose one that has meant very different things in different contexts; but this fact does not seem to be reflected in the article, which instead interrogates all forms of modern "magic" under the psychological framework of "magical thinking". Similarly, really important work on the concept of disenchantment from the likes of Egil Asprem is also omitted, which again raises serious concerns about the manner in which the essay engages with this topic.

The text itself contains various errors of spelling and punctuation. On page 2, one paragraph starts with the word "magic" but only has a closing (and not an opening) quote mark. Later on that page we find "paradigm shifts- the Scientific Revolution and the Protestant Reformation resulted", which is clearly missing crucial punctuation. There are also spelling errors; on page 4, " esoterocism" should be "esotericism", for instance. Various other errors of this nature can be found throughout the text.

The clumping together of endnote numbers 2 to 5 just looks messy and very idiosyncratic. That really should be changed. 

The references are a mess, with some missing publication details, the choice of word capitalisation varying, and the use of pagination and italicisation being erratic. In certain cases, names are written incorrectly; Karl Bell has been transformed into Kim Bell, for instance.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting paper, and the author is clearly well-versed in the history of scholarly views and debates regarding secularism, disenchantment, post-secularism, and more.  However, I find something rather crucial lacking in the discussion, which is actually evident in the section headings.

Section 1: Introduction—Post-secularism

Section 2: Disenchantment

Section 3: Contemporary magical thinking

We see the author first discussing these foundational concepts of post-secularism and disenchantment, BUT then they jump to magical thinking, without first giving a definition of another foundational concept: MAGIC!  Just as you cannot address post-secularism without first explaining secularism, it seems to me that it is pointless to speak of magical thinking or indeed anything “magical” without first providing a definition of magic. This no doubt would require a review of past definitions of magic, followed by the author’s own. I think these would be worthwhile additions.  

Currently, there is only a brief reference made to Weber’s definition, on the second page, which  left me uncertain as to whether this was also the author’s definition, as it seemed to be implied that there might be other ways of defining “magic.” Furthermore, in the discussion of disenchantment, it starts to seem that religion may be the same thing as magic, which causes confusion. It would be good to have an explanation of where magic ends and religion begins, if they are indeed not to be conflated or considered as different names for the same thing. Stanley Tambiah’s work, noted in the bibliography, could be profitably consulted on this matter.

With the author providing an explanation of their own understanding of magic, I think the whole article would hang together much better, as the discussion of various things related to magic would have a grounding that avoids confusion as to which possible meaning of magic the author is referring to. So, I suggest the sections be reorganized, as follows:

Section 1: Introduction—Post-secularism

Section 2: Disenchantment

Section 3: Magic

Section 4: Contemporary magical thinking

==//==

Or, reverse the order of 2 sections and 3:

Section 1: Introduction—Post-secularism

Section 2: Magic

Section 3: Disenchantment

Section 4: Contemporary magical thinking

==//==

Or, focus in on the distinction between magic and religion:

Section 1: Introduction—Post-secularism

Section 2: Magic or Religion?

Section 3: Disenchantment

Section 4: Contemporary magical thinking

==//==

This is my only criticism of the paper. I find it quite interesting and worthwhile, but I would just to see greater conceptual clarity.

Sincerely,

The Reviewer.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

P.1: “While it is widely acknowledged by scholars of religion that magic persists in modernity…the main focus here is to account for its persistence.” This sentence sounds redundant/tautological. 

p.1: “To date much of anthropological theorizing on magic has focused upon its rational aspects, seeing it as a set of beliefs and asking how individuals could hold magical convictions in the face ‘obvious’ empirical failure.” Some references could be useful here.

“Postsecularism argues that while traditional religious institutions may have declined, there are new spiritual forms persist and reflect the complex interplay between secularization and the human need for connection and meaning.” References would also be useful here.

“I specifically address Wicca here.” Perhaps this should be moved to the next section.

This article is much improved to the degree where it merits, with some more work, publication. The progression is much more logical and linear and the conceptual apparatus of the article is explicated from an earlier stage. Some conceptual problems still persist: it is dubious that an emphasis on Wicca explains the persistence of magic in modernity since the given community is arguably esoteric and segmented from mainstream beliefs revolving around magic, spirituality, and so on. The article’s main argument that magic persists in modernity through participatory consiousness is also not that original. Even so, there is merit in reiterating a foundational anthropological point and scholars of religion will find this article of use, as a literature review or as a reminder of an important but often taken-for-granted point.

Author Response

“While it is widely acknowledged by scholars of religion that magic persists in modernity…the main focus here is to account for its persistence.” This sentence sounds redundant/tautological. 

 

Amended

 

: “To date much of anthropological theorizing on magic has focused upon its rational aspects, seeing it as a set of beliefs and asking how individuals could hold magical convictions in the face ‘obvious’ empirical failure.” Some references could be useful here

 

References added

 

Boyer and Lienard 2008; Subbotsky 2014

 

“Postsecularism argues that while traditional religious institutions may have declined, there are new spiritual forms persist and reflect the complex interplay between secularization and the human need for connection and meaning.” References would also be useful her

 

Reference added

 

Dawson 2007

 

“I specifically address Wicca here.” Perhaps this should be moved to the next section.

 

Left as it is

 

: it is dubious that an emphasis on Wicca explains the persistence of magic in modernity since the given community is arguably esoteric and segmented from mainstream beliefs revolving around magic, spirituality, and so on. 

 

I agree. I have not argued this. Wicca is one example of how magic persists in the postsecular and it does not explain the persistence of magic in modernity

 

Thanks for comments

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A few minor changes and additions have been made, but the alterations to the article appear to be comparatively minor. The major structural issues highlighted in the first review have not been addressed. 

Author Response

I have addressed the structural details as discussed round 1.