1

Reference:E.Asprem,“OntheSocialOrganisationofRejectedKnowledge:ReassessingtheSociologyoftheOccult”. In Western

Esotericism and Deviance: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism,

edited by Bernd-Christian Otto and Marco Pasi. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming.

Author’s pre-print, 2018.

OntheSocialOrganisationofRejectedKnowledge:

ReassessingtheSociologyoftheOccult

EgilAsprem

StockholmUniversity

Ifwecometoperceivetheoccultrevivaloftodaynotasanephemeralfad

ofmasssocietybutasanintegralcomponentintheformationofanew

culturalmatrix,morelikelyinternationalthannationalinscope,ifweseeit,

inbrief,asanimportantvehicleintherestructuringofcollective

representationsofsocialreality,wewillsee(withorwithoutthethirdeye)

theAgeofAquariusasamajorsociologicalhappening.

EdwardTiryakian,“TowardstheSociologyofEsotericCulture”(1972),510.

1Introduction:RejectedKnowledge,RejectedTheory

Specialistshaverecentlyshowngreatinterestinhow“esotericism”asa

historiographicalcategoryhasemergedasaby-productofpolemicalencountersin

early-modernEuropeanintellectualhistory.WouterJ.Hanegraaffhasprovideduswith

thestandardstory:1ThebasisofthecategoryconsistsofanythingthatProtestant

polemicistssawas“pagansuperstitions”withintheChristianfold,particularlythose

currentsofphilosophyandtheologyassociatedwithancientwisdomnarrativeslooking

favourablyatZarathustra,Hermes,orPlato.Enlightenmentauthorslargelyadoptedthe

Protestantnarrative,andexpandedittoincludenewemergingsuperstitionsdeemedto

conflictwithrationalthought.Eventually,theseexclusionarypracticesgaverisetoa

wholegenreof“compendiaoffolly”,inwhichearlyChristianheresieswereconflated1Hanegraaff,EsotericismandtheAcademy:RejectedKnowledgeinWesternCulture(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2012).

2

with“magic”,“divination”,and“demonology”,the“occultsciences”,“talismans”,“fairies”

andallmannerofother“relatedsubjects”.2

Thenotionthatesotericismisaformofrejectedknowledgeis,however,notnew.

Ithasrootsinhistoricalandsociologicalscholarshipoftheearly1970sthattriedto

understandtheformsofpopularspiritualitythatspreadwiththecountercultureofthe

post-warera.In1971,theScottishhistorianJamesWebbwrotethat“thedichotomyof

UndergroundandEstablishmentisoneofthemostimportantconceptstohaveemerged

fromrecentsocialchanges”,expressingamazementthat“nohistorianhassofar

extendedtheterminologyoftheself-proclaimedUndergroundbackintimetodiscover

whetherahistoricalcontinuityexists”.3Thenineteenth-centuryoccult,Webbargued,

wascharacterisedpreciselybyanundergroundof“rejectedknowledge”–thatis,by

“knowledgewhichisactivelyrejectedbyanEstablishmentculture,orknowledgewhich

voluntarilyexilesitselffromthecourtsoffavorbecauseofitsrecognizedincompatibility

withtheprevailingwisdom”.4

ParalleltoWebb’shistoricalstudies,sociologistslikeEdwardTiryakian,5

MarcelloTruzzi,6andColinCampbell7alsolinkedtheirunderstandingof“theoccult”,

“esoteric”,or“cultic”tothenotionofaculturallydeviant“underground”ofrejected

knowledge,contrastedwiththe“establishment”and/orthe“mainstream”.Theywere

soonjoinedbysociologistsofscience,whostudiedtheconstructionofrejected

knowledgeinthecontextofscientificdisciplines,8oftenfocusingonesoterictopicssuch

asastrology,9mesmerism,10spiritualism,11parapsychology,12andufology.13

2AlltheseareexamplesfromtheJ.S.Forsyth,Demonologia;orNaturalKnowledgeRevealed;beinganexposéofAncientandModernSuperstitions,Credulity,Fanaticism,Enthusiasm,&Imposture(1827).SeediscussioninHanegraaff,EsotericismandtheAcademy,232-234.3JamesWebb,TheOccultUnderground(London:OpenCourtPublishing,1974[1sted.1971]),2.4Ibid.,191;myemphases.5EdwardTiryakian,“TowardtheSociologyofEsotericCulture.”AmericanJournalofSociology78.3(1972),491-512;Tiryakian,“PreliminaryConsiderations”,inOntheMarginoftheVisible:Sociology,theEsoteric,andtheOccult,1-18,ed.EdwardTiryakian(NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons,1974).6MarcelloTruzzi,“DefinitionandDimensionsoftheOccult:TowardsaSociologicalPerspective”.JournalofPopularCulture(December1971),635-646;MarcelloTruzzi,“TheOccultRevivalasPopularCulture:SomeRandomObservationsontheOldandtheNouveauWitch”,TheSociologicalQuarterly13.1(1972),16-36.7ColinCampbell,“TheCult,theCulticMilieu,andSecularisation.”ASociologicalYearbookofReligioninBritain5(1972),119-136;Campbell,“TheSecretReligionoftheEducatedClasses.”SociologicalAnalysis39.2(1978),146-156.8RoyWallis(ed.),OntheMarginsofScience:TheSocialConstructionofRejectedKnowledge(Keele:UniversityofKeele,1979).9PeterW.G.Wright,“AStudyintheLegitimisationofKnowledge:The‘Success’ofMedicineandthe‘Failure’ofAstrology”,inOntheMarginsofScience:TheSocialConstructionofRejectedKnowledge,ed.RoyWallis(Keele:UniversityofKeele,1979).

3

Historiansofesotericismsometimesacknowledgethatthisliteratureexists,14but

extendeddiscussionsarerareandusuallydismissive.15Indeed,thereceivedviewof

whathascometobeknownasthe“sociologyoftheoccult”holdsthatitisreductionist,

anti-esoteric,andahistorical,dismissingitssubjectmatterasanirrationaland

ultimatelyinsignificantphenomenon.This1970sresearchprogrammedidsufferfrom

obviousflaws,notleastinitsdefinitionsandpoorhistoricalgrounding.Yet,thepurpose

ofthepresentarticleistodemonstratethatthereceivedviewofthesociologyofthe

occultiswrong,andthatwecanstilllearnfromit.Morethansettingtherecordstraight,

mymainobjectiveistoshowthataconstructiverereadingoftheliteraturehasalotto

contributetocurrentdevelopmentsinourfield.Thereisatendencyinourfieldtoleave

centralconceptssuchas“rejectedknowledge”goundertheorised,withtheresultthat

whatseemslikesoundexplanationsandcleardefinitionsarenotsopreciseoncloser

inspection.16Sincethesociologyoftheoccultdealtwithmanyofthesameproblemsas

wearefacingtoday,myapproachistominetheearlierliteratureforusefultheoretical

resourcesandintegratethemwithexistingframeworksandobjectives.

Iwillbeginbyreassessingthesociologyoftheoccultinlightofthecriticismsthat

havetypicallybeenmarshalledagainstit(Section2).Acloserreadingfindsmuchofitto

missthemark,andIwillthereforereplacethereceivedviewwithmyownsummaryof

theliterature’smostsalientaspects.Inthefollowingsection(3)Iwillproceedtomine

theliteraturefortheoreticalresourcesthatareparticularlyusefulforpresent

challenges.Irecognisefoursuchchallenges,concerningthehistoricity,substance,social

significance,andsocialorganisationofrejectedknowledge.Finally,Iconclude(section4)10TerryM.Passinen,“ProfessionalDeviantsandtheHistoryofMedicine:MedicalMesmeristsinVictorianBritain”,inOntheMarginsofScience:TheSocialConstructionofRejectedKnowledge,ed.RoyWallis(Keele:UniversityofKeele,1979).11JonPalfreman,“BetweenScepticismandCredulity:AStudyofVictorianScientificAttitudestoModernSpiritualism”,inOntheMarginsofScience:TheSocialConstructionofRejectedKnowledge,ed.RoyWallis(Keele:UniversityofKeele,1979).12PaulD.Allison,“ExperimentalParapsychologyasaRejectedScience”,inOntheMarginsofScience:TheSocialConstructionofRejectedKnowledge,ed.RoyWallis(Keele:UniversityofKeele,1979).SeealsoJamesMcClenon,DeviantScience:TheCaseofParapsychology(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1984).13JosephA.Blake,“Ufology:TheIntellectualDevelopmentandSocialContextoftheStudyofUnidentifiedFlyingObjects”,inOntheMarginsofScience:TheSocialConstructionofRejectedKnowledge,ed.RoyWallis(Keele:UniversityofKeele,1979).14E.g.,Hanegraaff,EsotericismandtheAcademy,221,354;Hanegraaff,WesternEsotericism:AGuideforthePerplexed(London:Bloomsbury,2013),9.15e.g.Hanegraaff1996:406,422;Hanegraaff1998:40-42;Granholm,“SociologyandtheOccult”,inChristopherPartridge(ed.),TheOccultWorld(MiltonPark&NewYork:Routledge,2015),720-731.16Cf.thecriticisminOlavHammer,“Deconstructing‘WesternEsotericism’:OnWouterHanegraaff’sEsotericismandtheAcademy”,Religion43.2(2013),241-251.

4

withadiscussionofhowtheseresourcesmayhelpusrefineourviewofthesocial

dimensionsofrejectedknowledge.Importantchallengestothesuggestedmodelswillbe

considered,beforeendingonaconstructivenotebysuggestingadiachronic,

sociologicallyinformedhistoricalresearchprojectfocusedontheshiftingtransactional

networksof“underground”milieus.

2TheCaseAgainsttheSociologyoftheOccult:Reductionism,Anti-Esotericism,

andthePreclusionofHistoricity

ThesharpestcaseagainstthesociologyoftheoccultwaspennedbyHanegraffinaseries

ofpublicationsinthe1990s.17Thiscritiquehassincebeenrepeatedbyotherscholars,

thepresentauthorincluded,18usuallywithreferencetoHanegraaffratherthantothe

sociologicalliteratureitself.Thecritiquefocusesontwokeyauthors,EdwardTiryakian

andMarcelloTruzzi,andraisesthreemajorcriticisms:thatthesociologyoftheoccultis

reductionist,drivenbyananti-esotericagenda,andthatitprecludeshistoricalresearch.

Ofthese,Iconsiderthethirdcritiquetobethemostrelevantandalsothemost

damagingiftakentobetrue.Iwillthereforegiveprioritytodemonstratingthatthe

sociologyoftheoccultisnotonlycompatiblewithhistoricalresearch,butinvitesit.

ReductionismandAnti-Esotericism

Inaninfluentialarticlethatintervenedintheoldreligionismdebateofthe

1980s/1990s,Hanegraaffcharacterisedthesociologyoftheoccultas“themost

importantexampleofreductionisminthestudyofesotericism”.19Seeingthat

“reductionism”inthiscontextmeanslittlemorethanawillingnesstoadoptexplanatory

theoriesinordertoaccountforreligiousoresotericphenomenainmaterial,human,or

socialterms,20asopposedtoacceptingthesephenomenaontheirownterms

(religionism)orcedingallsuchexplanatoryambitionforthesakeofstayingas

17Itbeganinthemuch-cited1995article,Hanegraaff,“EmpiricalMethodintheStudyofEsotericism”,MethodandTheoryintheStudyofReligion7.2(1995),99-129;followedupinHanegraaff,“OntheConstructionofEsotericTraditions”,inWesternEsotericismandtheScienceofReligion,eds.WouterJ.HanegraaffandAntoineFaivre(Peeters:Gnostica,1998),11-61.18EgilAspremandKennetGranholm,“Introduction”,inContemporaryEsotericism,eds.AspremandGranholm(Sheffield:EquinoxPublishingLtd.,2013),4-5.19Hanegraaff,“EmpiricalMethod”,119.20SeeRobertSegal,“InDefenseofReductionism”,JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion51.1(1983),97-124.

5

metaphysicallyneutralaspossible(“empiricism”,inHanegraaff’sterms),21the

reductionismchargeisalsotheleastcontroversialofthethree.Thequestionisnot

whetherornot“reductionism”inthisexplanatory,hypothesis-drivensense

characterisesthesociologyoftheoccult(itclearlydoes),butwhetherornotoneaccepts

thisasaprobleminthefirstplace.Thesociologistsdidnot,andneitherdoI.22

Thereductionismchargehas,however,alsobeenconnectedtotheclaimthatthe

sociologists’motivationswereanti-esoteric.23Itisnotjustthatthescholarssoughtto

explaintheoccultinmaterialterms,butthattheirveryobjectiveindoingsowasto

delegitimiseit.ItispossibletocreatethisimpressionbyfocusingsolelyonMarcello

Truzzi,who,besidesbeingasociologistwasalsoafoundingmemberin1976ofthe

Americansceptics’organisation,theCommitteefortheScientificInvestigationsof

ClaimsoftheParanormal(CSICOP).However,leavingitatthatgivesthewrong

impression:infact,TruzziquicklydisaffiliatedfromCSICOPduetowhatheconsidered

itsunscientificanddogmaticapproach,andinsteadfoundedanewjournal,theZetetic

Scholar,in1978.InadirectreactiontoCSICOP,Truzzi’sjournalaimedto“createa

continuingdialoguebetweenproponentsandcriticsofclaimsoftheparanormal”,and

proclaimeditselftobe“interestednotonlyinadjudicationoftheclaimsbutwiththe

sociologyandpsychologyofthedisputesthemselves”–thatis,intheacademicstudyof

how“theoccult”ishandledinsociety,particularlyasatoposofpolemics.24TheZetetic

Scholaris,infact,ofsomeinteresttoscholarsofesotericism;thefirstissuecarried

reviewsofWebb’sOccultUnderground(bythemathematicianandscepticMartin

Gardener)andR.LaurenceMoore’sInSearchofWhiteCrows(byTruzzi),aswellasa

shortreviewbythepioneeringScientologyscholar,RoyWallis,whichcanbeconsidered

partoftheearlyscholarlyrebukesagainsttheanti-cultmovement’s“brainwashing”

claims(inthiscasefocusedonRonaldEnroth,YouthBrainwashingandtheExtremist

Cults).ItwasalsoinaneditorialtothisjournalthatTruzzi,in1987,proposedtheterm

21Hanegraaff,“EmpiricalMethod”,102.22Formyviewsonexplanationinthestudyofreligion,seeEgilAspremandAnnTaves,“ExplanationandtheStudyofReligion”,inMethodToday:BeyondDescriptionandHermeneuticsinReligiousStudiesScholarship,ed.BradStoddard(London:Equinox,2018);TavesandAsprem,Explanation:ACriticalPrimer(London:Equinox,inpreparation).Arecentprogrammaticstatementontheneedforhypothesis-drivenresearchinthestudyofesotericismisavailableinAsprem,“OntheNecessityofComparison:ACallforHypothesis-DrivenResearchonEsotericism”,inWesternEsotericismandtheEast,eds.AnitaStasulaneandBirgitMenzel(Leiden:Brill,inpreparation).SeealsoAsprem,“ExplainingtheEsotericImagination:TowardsaTheoryofKataphaticPractice”,Aries17.1(2017).23E.g.Hanegraaff,“OntheConstruction”,40-42.24Truzzi,“Editorial”,ZeteticScholar1.1(1978),2.

6

“pseudo-skepticism”forthosedebunkerswhomeetallclaimstotheparanormalwith

denialratherthanwithdoubt.25Eveninhisscepticalactivity,then,IreadTruzzias

motivatednotbyananti-esotericagenda,butbyagenuineconcernforaproperly

scientific,empirical,andagnostic(intheoriginalHuxleyansense)attitudetowardall

claimstoknowledge.

Deviance,Historicity,andSocialSignificance

Thecentralcomplaint,however,concernsthefactthattheoristslikeTruzziand

Tiryakianconceivedoftheoccultintermsofintellectualandreligiousdeviance,andthat

thisfocusnotonlybetrayedanunderlyinganti-esotericism(i.e.,thattheoccultisby

necessityinconflictwithsoundopinion),butalsoanahistoricalpointofdeparturethat

canonlyleadtoanachronismsanddistortionsifappliedtohistoricalresearch.Indeed,

asImyselfclaimedin2013:“themainproblemofthesesociologicalconstructsof‘the

occult’[asdeviance]ispreciselytheirneglect,andpreclusion,ofhistoricity”.26

Inowbelievethatthisaffirmationofthereceivedviewwaswrong.Aclose

readingofthesourcesmakesthechargeofanincompatibilitywithhistoricalapproaches

difficulttomaintain.Tobeginwith,“deviance”playsdifferentrolesinthetheoretical

modelsofthekeyauthors.Truzzi,forexample,preferstospeakabout“anomalous”

ratherthan“deviant”claims,andcastsitasamulti-facetedanalyticalconstructfor

lookingathowdifferentknowledgeclaimsrelatetoeachotherandtosocialfactors,and

howsuchrelationshipsshiftovertimeaswellasbetweendifferentsocialgroups.27AsI

willargueinthenextsection,Truzzi’sviewdoesnotprecludehistoricalapproaches,but

ratherinvitesthem:historicisationishowonetracestheconstructionofdeviance.

SomethingsimilarcanbesaidforTiryakian.Whilehetooisconcernedwiththedeviant

statusoftheesoteric,hedoesnotdefinethecategorythatway.Instead,hedefines

“esotericculture”inpositiveterms,andexplainsitsdeviantstatusasasecondarytrait

resultingfromhistoricallycontingentprocessesthathavepushedcertaintypesof

knowledge“underground”.

Infact,theveryagendaofthesociologyoftheoccultasTiryakianconceivedofit

wastostudytherolethatesotericismhasplayedinmajorculturalchangesinWestern

25SeeTruzzi,“Editorial”,ZeteticScholar12&13(1987),3-4.26AspremandGranholm,“Introduction”,5.27SeeTruzzi,“DefinitionandDimensionsoftheOccult”,637

7

history.AsheputitintheintroductiontoOntheMarginsoftheVisible(1974),perhaps

themajorcollectiveachievementthatthisshort-livedresearchtraditionproduced:

Acomprehensiveinvestigationoftheesoterictradition,thatseeminglyarchaicsideofWestern

culture,can,webelieve,shedmuchlightonmajorsourcesofideationalchangeinthestructureof

Westernsociety,changesatthecoreofcollectiverepresentationsofphysicalandsocialreality.28

ThereceivedviewholdsthatsociologistslikeTiryakiansawnothingbuta“futile

reaction”intheyouthmovement’sembraceoftheoccult.29Tothecontrary,Isubmitthat

Tiryakian’stheoryattemptedtointegrate“theoccult”asanactiveelementin

socioculturalchange.“Theoccultrevival”ofthe1960sand1970swascastasasocially

significantphenomenon,capableofshapingpeople’svaluesandpreferences,and

therebytransformingthedominantestablishmentculture.30Moreover,thecurrent

revivalwasonlyoneofanumberofsimilarhistoricalevents.Itisworthquoting

Tiryakianatsomelengthtoseejusthowenthusiastichewasaboutthishistorically

recurringtransformativepotentialoftheesoteric:

Perhapsnowistheperiodwhenweshallwitnessanewculturalparadigmreplacingtheonethat

mayhavespentitscreativeenergy.Andperhapsitistheesoterictraditionthatwillagaincometo

theforeofthevisibleandactasanewbooster.Ifthe“rightpath”oftheesoterictraditionis

followed,itmaybepossibleforthenewculturalparadigmtorealizeasynthesisofscienceand

religion,sincetheesoterictraditionhaschannelstoboth.Withoutit,the“Weberiandilemma”will

becomeevenmoreaccentuated,thedilemmaofthe“ironcage”ofmodern,depersonalized

society:mechanizedpetrificationorblindfollowingoffalseprophets.31

Here,Tiryakiancomesacrossnotasananti-esotericist,butasanotherofthe

counterculturalintellectualswho,startingfromaWeberiancritiqueofmodernity,has

comearoundtoaradicalcallfor“re-enchantment”throughthemergerofscienceand

religion.32WhileIamnotsuggestingthatweshouldnowsortTiryakianwithfigureslike

28Tiryakian,“PreliminaryConsiderations”,2.29Seee.g.Hanegraaff,WesternEsotericism,9.30Forareviewofthesociologicalworkon“theoccultrevival”oftheperiod1968-1972,seeTiryakian,“TowardtheSociologyofEsotericCulture”,492-496.31Tiryakian,“PreliminaryConsiderations”,12.32Cf.EgilAsprem,TheProblemofDisenchantment:ScientificNaturalismandEsotericDiscourse,1900–1939(Leiden:Brill,2014),54-67.Tiryakiancorrespondedwithsomeoftheintellectualiconsofthe1960scounterculture,includingJosephCampbell–ascanbeseenfromhispapersthathavebeenmadepublicby

8

AlanWatts,FritjofCapra,orMorrisBerman,Iwillshowthathistheorydoesimplythe

sociallytransformativepowerofesotericknowledge.

TowardsaMoreNuancedPicture:FiveTenetsoftheSociologyoftheOccult

Theabovediscussionsufficestoshowthatthereceivedviewdoesnotaccurately

portraythesociologyoftheoccult’sresearchprogramme.What,then,wereitsbasic

objectives?Drawingonabroaderliteraturethatincludesarangeofauthorsbeyond

TruzziandTiryakian,suchasAndrewM.Greeley,33MartinMarty,34ClaudeFischler,35

andColinCampbell,36Isuggestthatwecanidentifyfivebroadlysharedtenets:

1) TheEstablishment/Undergrounddistinction.Thedistinctionitselfisasocial

universal(existsinalllargesocieties);“theoccult”,insofarasitrepresents

knowledgerejectedbyestablishmentinstitutions,istodaypartofthesocio-

culturallydeviantunderground.

2) Rejectionofthedeprivationthesis.Occultinvolvementisnotexplainedbylow

socio-economicstatusorlackofeducation:Instead,aconsistentempiricalfinding

ofthesociologyoftheoccultwasthatinvolvementintheoccultisprimarily

associatedwiththeeducatedmiddleclass.Practitionerstypicallyliveincities,

arewhite-collarworkers,and/orcollegestudents.37Akeyobjectiveofthe

programmewastoexplainwhy,andexplorethelong-termconsequencesforthe

developmentofreligionintheWest.

3) Theoccultissociallysignificant.Occultsystemsofbeliefandpracticemaybe

socioculturallydeviant(i.e.belongtoanunderground),buttheyarenevertheless

capableofshapingthevaluesandsocialactionsofthosewhoembracethem.

DukeUniversity.Foranoverview,seehttps://www.libraries.psu.edu/findingaids/6521.htm.Ihavenothadtheopportunitytoconsulttheselettersforthepresentpaper.33AndrewM.Greeley,“ImplicationsfortheSociologyofReligionofOccultBehaviorintheYouthCulture”,YouthandSociety2(1970),131-140.34Marty,Martin.1970.“TheOccultEstablishment”,SocialResearch37:212-23035Fischler,Claude.1974."AstrologyandFrenchSociety."InOntheMarginoftheVisible,ed.Tiryakian.NewYork:JohnWileyandSons.36ColinCampbell,“TheCult,theCulticMilieu,andSecularisation”,ASociologicalYearbookofReligioninBritain5(1972),119-136;Campbell,“TheSecretReligionoftheEducatedClasses”,SociologicalAnalysis39.2(1978),146-156.MyinclusionofCampbellmayappearsurprising;see,however,theargumentinsection3below.37SeeespeciallyDefrance,Fischler,Morin,andPetrossian,Retourdesastrologues:Unenquetediagnostic(Paris:ClubDel’Obs,1971);Fischler,"AstrologyandFrenchSociety",inOntheMarginoftheVisible,ed.Tiryakian(NewYork:JohnWileyandSons,1974);MartinMarty,“TheOccultEstablishment”;seealsoCampbell,“TheSecretReligionoftheEducatedClasses”.

9

Theorisingtheoccult’ssocialeffectswasthereforeakeyobjectiveofthe

sociologyoftheoccult.38

4) Themid-twentieth-century“occultrevival”isnotauniqueevent.Thevisibilityand

impactofideascirculatingintheundergroundtends,fromtimetotimethrough

history,toreappear“fromthemarginsofthevisible”.Theorisingtheseepisodes

wasamajortheoreticalobjective,forginganecessarylinkwithhistory.

5) TheUndergroundplaysacrucialroleinculturalinnovation.Thedominant

explanationfortheobservationinpointfourwasthattheoccult’slong-term

historicalfunctionisasanagentofculturalchangeandrenewal,especiallyin

timesofcrisis/anomie.39

Thesefivepointsconstitutemajorassumptions,heuristics,andhypothesesofthe

sociologyoftheoccult.Inaddition,individualauthorsemphasisearangeofmore

specificquestions,suchastherelationbetweendevianceandcontent,whatdraws

peopletowardtheoccult,whatorganisationalformsarisearoundoccultclaims,how

claimsarelegitimatedvis-à-visEstablishmentsociety,andtheinternal,social

differentiationoftheundergrounditselfandthehierarchiesandprestigesystemsthat

comeintoplay.Weshouldalsonotethevarietyofopiniononhowthesequestionsareto

beanswered.Whenitcomestoorganisationalformsanddistribution,forexample,

TiryakianemphasisedatendencytowardssecrecyandelitismwhereasTruzziand

Marty,whilenotdenyingtheelitist,undergroundbasisoftheoccult,focusedprimarily

onitsmassappealandrapprochementwithpopularculture.Moreover,Truzziand

Martybothsuggestedthatthemassappealoftheoccultcanbeexplainedbytrivial

factors,suchasitsentertainmentvalueoritsperceivedinstrumentalutility,while

Greeley,Staude,andTiryakianallemphasisedadeeperattractionintheoccult’s

oppositionagainst“whatisperceivedas‘Establishment’mentality”,including“the

oppressive‘technocracy’”,socio-economic“alienation”,andthe“depersonalizationof

38SomeofTruzzi’swork(i.e.“TheOccultRevivalasPopularCulture”)isanexceptiontothispoint,ashehasarguedforwhatmightbecalleda“dilutionthesis”:Themassivepopularappealof“theoccult”doesnotrepresentasurgeinseriousconcernwith“occultphenomena”(i.e.,suchthatonewouldfearbeinghauntedbydemons,targetedbywitchcraft,ordoomedbyanomeninthestars)butratherasignofdisenchantmentthroughthetrivializationoftheoccultasinnocententertainment.Ifpeoplesincerelybelievedindemonsandghosts,Truzziargued,theywouldnotactivelyseekthemout.Itshouldbenotedthatthisfocusontrivialisationwastoneddownconsiderablyinhismoresystematictheoreticalarticleon“DefinitionsandDimensions”oftheoccult,firstpublishedin1971.39E.g.Tiryakian,“TowardtheSociologyofEsotericCulture”,510;Campbell,“TheCult,theCulticMilieu,andSecularization”.

10

theindustrialorder”.40Behindtheseclaimslieadifferenceintheoreticalorientations,

withTiryakianrepresentingastructural-functionalistwingthatexplainsthepersistence

andsignificanceoftheesotericundergroundintermsofthefunctionsitperformsfora

culture’sabilitytorenewitself,andTruzzirepresentingamoreconstructionist,

sociologyofknowledge-orientedcamp,interestedinhowknowledgeclaimsare

embeddedinpowerandcompetitionforprestigeandlegitimacy,especiallyonthe

actor’slevel.Bothcamps,asIwillsuggestinthefollowingsection,havesomethingto

offerourtheorisingofrejectedknowledgetoday.

3MiningtheLiterature:AReassessmentofTheoreticalResources

Whenreadconstructively,thesociologyoftheoccultcanhelpadvanceourcurrent

notionofesotericismasrejectedknowledgeonseveralfronts.Specifically,Isuggestit

cancontributetofourareasthathavebeenflaggedasproblemswiththerejected

knowledgethesis:41(I)thehistoricityofrejectedknowledge;(II)thesubstantialfeatures

ofesotericismsoexplained;(III)thesocialsignificanceofrejectedknowledge;and(IV)

thesocialorganisationofrejectedknowledge.Iwilladdressthefirsttwopoints

together,focusingonTruzzi’snotionof“anomalies”.PointIIIwillbeaddressedby

lookingcloseratthetheoreticalunderpinningsofTiryakian’sargumentsinthe

structuralfunctionalistsocialtheoryofTalcottParsons.Finally,pointIVisbestassessed

bylinkingthe“classic”sociologistsoftheoccultwithCampbell’smorefavourably

received“culticmilieu”model.

(I-II)TheHistoricityandSubstantialFeaturesoftheOccult

Truzzi’sfocusonanomalieshasbeenconstruedasprecludinghistoricalresearch,but

thishasonlybeenpossiblebyoverlookingaverycentralaspectofhisapproach:namely

hisinsistencethatlookingatlabellingpracticesisintegraltoresearchingtheoccult.

Fromtheveryoutset,hewrote,researchersmustask“whoislabellingthebeliefsas

occult,wherethelabellingisbeingdone(thesocialcontext),andatwhattimethe

designationismade(thehistoricalperiod)”.42Thesequestionscanbeaskedirrespective

40Tiryakian,“TowardtheSociologyofEsotericCulture”,493–494.41Forthesechallenges,seeespeciallyMarcoPasi,“TheProblemsofRejectedKnowledge:ThoughtsonWouterHanegraaff’sEsotericismandtheAcademy”,Religion43.2(2013),201-212;MichaelStausberg,“Whatisitallabout?SomereflectionsonWouterHanegraaff’sEsotericismandtheAcademy”,Religion43.2(2013),219-230;OlavHammer,“Deconstructing”.42Truzzi,“DefinitionandDimensions”,637,emphasesadded.

11

ofhowtheoccultisdefined.Indeed,thebestwaytoreadTruzzi’sarticleisasthe

outlinesofaresearchprogrammeforhowtostudy“theoccult”ratherthanastatement

of“whatitis”;thatistosay,hisarticleismoreimportantforthequestionsitasksthan

thedefinitionsittentativelyoffers.Infact,Truzzidismissedthepossibilityofcomingup

withasatisfactorydefinition,andinsteadsuggestedfivedimensionsof“theoccult”that

scholarsoughttoquestionandinvestigateempirically.Namely:

1) Thesubstanceofoccultbelief:Whatisallegedtobeknown?

2) Thesourceoftheoccult–andthelabel:Whoclaimstoknowit,andwholabelsit

as“occult”,forwhatreasons?43

3) Theauthorityofoccultclaims:Howdoestheclaimantjustifytheirclaim?

4) Thesourceofoccultknowledge:Where,andunderwhatconditions,dotheylearn

theknowledge–andisthebeliefmaintainedovertime?

5) Thefunctionsofoccultism:whatusedoesoccultknowledgehaveinbelievers’

lives?

WhileIthinkonecannotdoallofthesethingswithoutlettinggoof“theoccult”asan

analyticalconcept,44thisremainsanexcellentlistofproblemareasthatapplyequallyto

thestudyofesotericisminitscurrentincarnation.Today,therejectedknowledgethesis

primarilyasksquestionsoneandtwo:whatsortsofknowledgearebeingrejectedas

“heterodox”,“pagan”,or“irrational”,andwhoisdoingtherejection?Inextensionofthis,

manyscholarshavebeeninterestedinthethirdquestion:howclaimsarelegitimated

andauthorityconstructed.45Thequestionsofwhereandhowpeoplelearnoccult

knowledge,andwhatthisknowledgemaymeantothem,havehowevergonelargely

unexplored,despitethefactthattheyarecrucialtounderstandinghowsocialisation

43Thesetwolevelsatwhichthequestion“who”canbeasked–namely,whoclaimstheoccultknowledge,andwhoclaimstheknowledgeisoccult?–arebothdiscussedinTruzzi’sarticle,butconflatedinhislistofdimensions.44Instead,Iholdthattheappropriateattitudeistoreverse-engineertheconcept.Inthatperspective,themultifacetedconceptof“anomaly”,discussedatsomelengthbelow,mightbeagoodcandidatefora“buildingblock”of“theoccult”asadiscursivephenomenon.SeeAsprem,“Reverse-Engineering‘Esotericism’:HowtoPrepareaComplexCulturalConceptfortheCognitiveScienceofReligion”,Religion46.2(2016).45ThebestexampleofthisapproachisOlavHammer,ClaimingKnowledge:StrategiesofEpistemologyfromTheosophytotheNewAge(Leiden:Brill,2001).

12

workswithinself-identifiedoccultism.46Iwillreturntothisinalatersectiononthe

socialstructureofrejectedknowledge.

TheissuethatmostconcernedTruzziwas,however,therelationshipbetweenthe

rejectedstatusandthesubstantialcontentofrejectedknowledge.Esotericism

researchersarestrugglingwiththesameproblem.Thecurrentansweronofferisthat

intellectualestablishmentsdidnotrejectknowledgearbitrarily,butratherdeployed

specificheresiologicalcriteriaconcerningtheeternityoftheworldandsalvation

withoutdivinegrace.Thishasprovidedsomecoherenceofcontentinthedomainof

esotericrejectedknowledge,convergingaroundanotionof“philosophicalpaganism”.47

Thisapproachisstrictlyhistoricist,inthatitlooksforaparticularhistoricalcausefora

particularhistoricaloutcome.Truzzi’sapproachdiffers,inthatitasksatheoretically

deeperquestion:aretheresocio-cognitiveaspectsthatmakecertainkindsofknowledge

morelikelytobeunderstoodas“occult”overall?

Thisiswheretheanomalouscomesintoplay.48Truzziholdsthatanomalousness

isanecessarybutnotasufficientcriterionforsomethingtobelabelled“occult”,byany

socialactor,andstressesthattheanomalyisarelativeconcept.Truzzimakesthreesets

ofdistinctionsinordertomapoutawholerangeofdifferentconditionsunderwhich

varioussortsofknowledgeclaimscanbeclassifiedasanomalousbysomeobserversbut

notothers:generalvs.theoreticalanomalies;objectanomaliesvs.processanomalies;and

isolatedvs.integratedanomalies.

Thefirstdistinctionisthemostcrucial,becauseitpinpointsthedifferentdegrees

ofculture-specificandspecialistlearningrequired.A“generalanomalyisonewhich

46Themostnotableexceptionstodatearefoundintheresearchonesotericpopularcultureasasocialisingforce.ResearchersofmodernSatanismhavedevelopedthispoint;seeforexampleAsbjørnDyrendal,“DevilishConsumption:PopularCultureinSatanicSocialization”,Numen55(2008),68-98.SeealsoPartridge’sargumentaboutocculture;e.g.Partridge,“OccultureisOrdinary”,inContemporaryEsotericism,eds.AspremandGranholm(London:Routledge,2014).47SeealsoAsprem,TheProblemofDisenchantment,423-424.48CriticismagainstTruzzi’sconceptoftheanomaloushasinmyviewtendednottohitthemark.Forexample,RobertGalbreath(“ExplainingModernOccultism”,inTheOccultinAmerica:NewHistoricalPerspectives,ed.HowardKerrandCharlesL.Crow(Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1983],15)criticisesitasnotbeing“satisfactoryasageneraldefinition”oftheoccultforitsfailureto“specifyboththecriteriaforinclusionintheoccultandthecharacteristicsofitsmodernity”.ThisoverlooksthefactthatTruzziisnotdefiningtheoccultas“anomalies”,butmerelysuggestingthatphenomenaperceivedundercertainspecifiedconditionsas“anomalous”alsotendtobelabelled(bypractitionersaswellasoutsiders)as“occult”inspecifiedsituations.Ironically,Galbreathhimselfprovidesadefinitionstatingthat“occultmattersthuscharacterizedarealsoanomalous(althoughnotallanomaliesareoccult);thatis,theyarewidelyregarded,oftenbycriticsandadherentsalike,asnotfittinginto,andperhapsalsodirectlycriticalof,theprevailinginterpretationsofscience,historicalscholarship,and‘commonsense’”(Galbreath,“Explaining”,19),astatementthatallbutechoesTruzzitenyearsearlier.

13

mostpeoplewithinagivenculturewould,undermostcircumstances,considerastrange

orincredibleevent,e.g.,anobjectvanishingintoorappearingfromnowhere”,whilea

theoreticalanomaly“appearsunusualonlytoonewithspecialknowledgeortraining”.49

Thisdistinctioniscrucial,inthatithighlightsthedifferentdegreestowhichanomalies

relyonsystemsofexpertise.“Generalanomalies”includephenomenathatviolatenear-

universalexpectationsthataregroundedinhumanity’sevolvedperceptualand

cognitiveapparatus;agoodexampleisthenotionof“counterintuitiveness”studiedby

thecognitivescienceofreligion,e.g.solidobjectsthatpassthrougheachother,non-

biologicalobjectsthatmoveontheirownaccord,orpersonsthatareinvisible.Butthe

generaltypealsoincludesphenomenathatbreakwithculturalexpectationsthatareso

widelysharedthattheybecomeunquestionedassumptions.Manyethicalandsocial

codesarelikethis:thus,notwantingtomarry,wantingtomarrysomeoneofthesame

sex,orwantingtochangeone’ssex,haveallbeen“anomalous”socialphenomenain

mostwesternsocietiesuntilquiterecently.50

Whilegeneralanomaliesdonotrequireanyspecialistknowledgetobeperceived

asanomalouswithinagivenculture,theoreticalanomaliescanonlybeperceivedfrom

thevantageofsomeexpertsystem.51Thus,ahealingpracticesuchashomeopathywill

seemanomaloustoamedicaldoctor(itviolatesbasicscientificknowledge),butnot

necessarilytothegeneralpopulation,whichonlyseestwohealthprofessionalswho

bothflashdegrees,usetechnicalterms,andprescribemedicationsthatclaimtoheal.

Conversely,aphysicalphenomenonthatappearsanomaloustothegeneralpublic,say,

theappearanceofasecondsunonthehorizon,maybefascinating,butnotanomalous,

toaphysicistknowledgeableaboutoptics.Followingthislogic,wecanalsoseehow

motivationsforlabellingsomephenomenon“occult”mayalsodifferforvariousgroups:

TheGPmightdismisshomeopathyas“occult”inthederogatorysensewhile

homeopathsandtheirclientsinsistitismerelyan“alternative”medicalpracticethat

deservesmainstreamacceptance.Peopleinthecontemporaryconspiritualityscene

mighttakea“doublesun”observationastrulyanomalousand“therefore”evidenceof

49Truzzi,“DefinitionandDimensions”,638;myitalics.50Inthecognitivescienceofreligion’sterminology,thesewouldbeconsideredcounter-schematicratherthancounter-intuitivephenomena–thatis,violatinglearnedculturalmodelsratherthanbiologicallybasedintuitions.51Thenotionofexpertisehasreceivedmuchattentioninthesociologyofscientificknowledgeoverthepastdecade,aspartoftheso-called“thirdwave”inscienceandtechnologystudies.See,e.g.,HarryCollinsandRobertEvans(eds.),RethinkingExpertise(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2007);Colins,AreWeAllScientificExpertsNow?(Wiley,2014).

14

theoccultknowledgethattheplanetNibiruisonacollisioncoursewithEarth–whereas

scientistswilldismissitsoccultnaturebyexplainingthephenomenonasnothingbutan

atmosphericillusion.52

Truzzifurthersubdividesanomaliesintoobjectsvs.processes,andisolatedvs.

integratedanomalies.Theobject-processdistinctionisbetween“somethingorevent

whichissomehowadeviationfromtheusualorderofthings”–suchasabominable

snowmen,UFOs,oralevitatingfakir–and“quiteordinarythingsinsomeextraordinary

conjunction”,typicallyinvolving“theinferenceofsomestrangecausalities”.53Examples

ofthelattermightincludenotionsofastrologicalinfluence,synchronicities,or

conspiracytheoriesinwhichalargechainofmundaneeventsareseenaspointingto

someunusualagency.Finally,theisolated-integrateddistinctionconcernswhethera

claimaboutananomalousprocessorobjectoccursinisolationorinconjunctionwith

otheranomalyclaims.Onthesociallevel,thisletsusdistinguishbetweenpeoplewho

areinterestedonlyinsomespecificanomaly–say,UFOs–andthosewhoinhabita

worldviewofanomalies,whereUFOsareintegratedwithabeliefinextraterrestrial

beingswhowatchoverourplanetandcanbecontactedbytelepathiclinksor

channellingtechniques.

Truzzi’sdistinctionsareundertheorised,butcanbedevelopedandupdatedby

drawingonrecentworkinthesociologyofknowledge(particularlythesociologyof

expertise)ontheonehand,andthecognitivescienceofreligionontheother.54Evenin

theiroriginalform,Truzzi’squestionspointinfruitfuldirectionsbecausetheyletus

hypothesiseaboutpatternsofdistributionofculturalelementsbearingspecifictraits,

includingtheirlikelihoodofbeingdeemed“occult”inthefirstplace.Forexample,while

alloftheanomalytypescanbedocumentedempiricallywithintheself-proclaimed

“occult”,Truzziobservesthat“anintegratedsetofanomalousprocesseswhichare

contrarytogeneralexperiencesaremostunequivocallycalledoccult,”whereasbeliefin52E.g.RachelO’Donoghue,“PLANETX‘PROOF’Shockas‘alienplanetNibirucaughtonfilm’”,DailyStar,February2(2017),url:https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/584672/nibiru-planet-x-proof-second-sun-earth-collision-date-2017-video-evidence-manila-bay(accessed21-01-2018).Onesotericismandconspirituality,seeAspremandDyrendal,“ConspiritualityReconsidered:HowSurprisingandHowNewistheConfluenceofSpiritualityandConspiracyTheory?”,JournalofContemporaryReligion30.3(2015).53Truzzi,“DefinitionandDimensions”,637;emphasesadded54Itwouldseemappropriatetodothisinthecontextofanepidemiologyofrepresentations;e.g.DanSperber,ExplainingCulture:ANaturalisticApproach(Oxford:BlackwellPublishing,1996).See,forexample,EgilAsprem,“HowSchrödinger’sCatBecameaZombie:OntheEpidemiologyofScience-BasedRepresentationsinPopularandReligiousContexts”,Method&TheoryintheStudyofReligion28.2(2016);cf.alsoAsprem,“Reverse-Engineering’Esotericism’”.

15

“theoreticallyisolatedanomalousobjectsisleastlikelytobethuslabeledbymost

occultists”.55Today,themovementchannellingmessagesfromAshtarCommandcould

exemplifytheformer,whilethebizarreobservationsof“Tabby’sStar”(formallyknown

asKIC8462852),whichpromptednormallysoberastrophysiciststotalkofan“alien

megastructure”in2015,isanexampleofthelatter.56TheadvantageofTruzzi’s

methodologicalapparatusisthatitletsusgeneratefairlyspecifichypothesis,suchas

this,whichcanbetestedempirically.

Truzzi’stermsalsoshedlightontherejectedknowledgethesisinesotericism

research.Ifwegrantthestoryofhowtherejectionprocessgotunderwayfromthebasis

oftwospecificheresiologicalcriteria,whatwearedealingwithistheattemptof

knowledgespecialists(theologians)tolookfortheoreticallyisolatedanomalies.What

hashappenedlater,however,isthattheseanomalieshavebeenintegratedwithother

ones,someofageneralnatureandothersofatheoreticalone,tocreatefirstthenotion

ofachainofconnectedheresies,andlaterasapoolof“suppressed”knowledgefrom

whichoccultistscandrawinspiration.Truzzi’sdistinctionsanddimensionsmakeit

possibletoreconstructthispiecemealconstructionofrejectedknowledgeinmore

preciseterms,withaviewtothesocialsituatednessofthosewhomaketheconnections.

(III)TheSocialSignificanceofRejectedKnowledge:TheStructural-Functionalist

Foundationsof(Some)SociologyoftheOccult

Avarietyofpartiallyconflictingtheoreticalassumptionscoexistinthesociologyofthe

occult.BesidesTruzzi’seclecticapproach,tingedbysocialconstructionismandcognitive

psychology,themostdominanttrendhasbeenaformofstructuralfunctionalism.While

theformerlooksathowtheoccultiscreatedinthesocialnegotiationofknowledge

claims,thelatterseekstoexplainitas(partof)apersistentfeatureofsocietythat,

moreover,contributessomethingtosociety’sproperfunctioning.Thislineofthinkingis

heavilyinfluencedbyTalcottParsons,andismostclearlyvisibleinthewritingsof

55Truzzi,“DefinitionandDimensions”,639;emphasesadded.56Solvingpuzzlesaroundthislattertypeofanomaliesiscrucialtothenormalfunctioningofscience.Atthetimeofwriting,thebestexplanationforthestar’scurious,long-termdimmingpatternsisconsideredtobeabitmoreprosaic:anorbitingcloudofdust.Seee.g.MikeWall,“NewObservationsDeepenMysteryof‘AlienMegastructure’Star”,ScientificAmericanOctober5(2017),url:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-observations-deepen-mystery-of-ldquo-alien-megastructure-rdquo-star/(accessedFeb2,2018).

16

Tiryakian,whowasoneofParsons’graduatestudents.57AsfarasIamaware,this

theoreticalheritagehasnotpreviouslybeencommentedon,yetitisacentral

underpinningofargumentsthattheoccultisasociallysignificantphenomenon.

FocusingonTiryakian,weshouldfirstnotethathispreferredtermisnot“the

occult”,butrather“esotericculture”.Theuseof“culture”is,asweshallsoonsee,

significant.Weshouldalsonotethathedoesnotdefineesotericculturenegativelyin

termsofdeviance,butsubstantially,intermsofbeliefs,practices,andsocial

organisation.Thebeliefdimensioncovers“secretknowledgeoftherealityofthings,of

hiddentruths”,whilethepracticedimensionconcerns“intentionalpractices,techniques,

orprocedures”thatdrawuponthesepostulated“hiddenandconcealedforcesinnature

orthecosmos”.58Thesocialdimension,finally,focusesonsecrecy,initiations,andthe

limitedtransmissionof“esotericknowledge”.

Tiryakianhasrightlybeencriticisedforthissubstantialdefinition,whichisso

narrowthatfewhistoricalexamplesfit.Itisalsoproblematicthatitremainsconnected

toastructural-functionaldefinition,bywhichesotericcultureisopposedtoexoteric

culture.Inwhatfollows,Iwillignorethequestionofsubstanceandfocusonlyonhow

Tiryakianhandlesthefunctionalrelationships.Hisdefinitionofexotericcultureis

arguablymoreimportanttousinthisrespectthanhisdefinitionofesotericculture:itis

“[t]heculturalparadigmwhichismanifestinpublicinstitutions,asetofcognitiveand

evaluativeorientationspublicallyrecognizedandlegitimatedinthenetworkofsocial

institutions”.59Thedeviantstatusofesotericcultureatpresentisentirelycontingenton

thehistoricalprocessesbywhichthesepublicinstitutionshavemarginalisedit.Rather

thanawatertightseparation,wemustimagineaconstantflowofideasbetweenthe

esotericandtheexoteric.Indeed,asTiryakianexplicitlystates,esotericideashave

shapedtheexoterictoaconsiderabledegree,creatingparadoxicaltensionsbetweenthe

twocultureswhenviewedhistorically:

muchofwhatismodern,eventheideologyofmodernizationatitssource,hasoriginatedin

esotericculture;paradoxically,thevalueorientationofWesternexotericsociety,embodiedin

57Truzzi,bycontrast,explicitlydismissedthequestionoftheoccult’soverallsocialfunctionasmeaningless,preciselybecauseoftherelativenatureofwhatpassesas“occult”.Insteadhesuggestedlookingatthestrategicandsituatedfunctionsitmightserveforindividuals.SeeTruzzi,“DefinitionandDimensions”,643.58Tiryakian,“TowardtheSociologyofEsotericCulture”,498.59Ibid.

17

rationalism,thescientificethos,andindustrialism,hasforcedesotericcultureintotheroleofa

marginalorundergroundmovement.Thatis,modernWesterncivilization(datingbacktothe

RenaissanceandReformation)hasincreasinglygiventoesotericculturethemantleofa

counterculture,whileatthesametimecooptingmanyofitsvaluesandproducts.60

Tiryakian’sconceptionisstronglyinspiredbyFrancesYates’masternarrativeofa

“hermetictradition”attherootsofmodernity,ascarefulattentiontohisfootnotes

reveals.61Tiryakian’sstoryisthatofahistoricalcurrentwhichhasbeendeeply

influentialonmodernculture,butretrospectivelygiven“themantleofacounterculture”

bytheestablishmentinstitutionsithelpedshape.

KeytoTiryakian’sunderstandingisthatesotericculturepossessesapowerto

transformsocietyeveninperiodswhenitisconsidereddeviant.Tounderstandthis,we

mustappreciatethecentralroleofParsons’structuralfunctionalisminhisargument.

TheinfluenceismostexplicitinthatTiryakianborrowsadefinitionof“culture”asan

“integralcomponentofsystemsofsocialaction”fromParsons.Moretacitly,hedrawson

Parsons’modelofsocietyasdividedintofourfunctionalsubsystems,eachsolvingsome

existentialproblemforthesocialsystemasawhole.Thefoursubsystemsareoften

abbreviated“AGIL”,standingforthefourfunctionalproblemswithwhichtheyare

concerned:

A:“Adaptation”toanenvironment;representedchieflybytheeconomy,understood

asconcernedwithextractionandallocationofresources.

G:“Goal-attainment”;settingprioritiesandcoordinatingactionstoachievegoals;

identifiedprimarilywiththepoliticalrealm.

I:“Integration”;concernedwiththecooperationandharmoniouscohabitation

betweengroups;associatedprimarilywiththelegalsystem.

L:“Latency”or“latentpattern-maintenance”;concernedwithmaintainingshared

valuesandmotivationsforactions,andprimarilyassociatedwithcultural,

educational,andreligiousinstitutions.62

60Ibid.,50261Ibid.,507,509-51062ForParsons(oftenconvoluted)theorisingaboutsocialaction,seee.g.Parsons,TheSocialSystem(NewYork:Macmillan,1951);andParsonsandNeilSmelser,EconomyandSociety(NewYork:FreePress,1956).Foranaccessibleoverview,seeRobertJ.Holton,“TalcottParsons:ConservativeApologistorIrreplaceableIcon?”,inGeorgeRitzerandBarrySmart(eds.),HandbookofSocialTheory(London:SAGE,2009)

18

Theideaisthatasocietymustsolveproblemsrelatedtoallthesefourareasinorderto

surviveandthrive.Itmustproducesustenanceandenergyinasustainablemanner(A),

beabletoallocatetheseresourcesinaneffectiveandbeneficialway(G),whichrequires

cooperationandtrustbetweenindividualsandgroups(I)andacommonunderstanding

ofthevaluesthatunderpinpriorities,decision-making,andsocialactions(L).

Tiryakianassociatesesotericculturepreciselywith“thelatencysubsystemof

Westernsociety”:Inhisview,esotericcultureisalargelyhiddenandalternative

“culturalparadigmwhichprovidesleverageagainsttheinstitutionalizedparadigm[i.e.,

against“exotericculture”],hencefunction[ing]asaseatofinspirationfornewsystems

ofsocialaction”.63Inplainerterms,thecoexistenceoftheesotericundergroundwiththe

exotericestablishmentmeansthatthelatter’sdiscontentscanalwaysturntotheformer

forinspirationandrevitalisation.Itisnotjustthattheestablishmentpushescertain

ideasandpractiseunderground;theestablishmentisitselfconstantlyunderpressure

fromaseethingesotericculturethatposesalatentchallengetothenorms,values,and

institutionscurrentlyenforced.“Alternative”waysoflife,communes,spiritualpractices,

andalltherest,provideaconstantreminderthatsolutionsotherthantheestablished

onesarepossible.Inthissense,theesotericbecomesa“seed-bedculturalsourceof

changeandwide-ranginginnovationsinart,politics,andevenscience.”64

IdonotwishtosuggestareturntoParsoniansocialtheory–northatTiryakian’s

modelisagoodfitwithhistoricaldata.Ihavemerelysoughttodemonstratethat,by

overlookingthiscentraltheoreticalcontext,thereceivedviewofthesociologyofthe

occulthasmissedsomethingimportant:thatthese“reductionist”scholarsweretryingto

answerquestionsaboutesotericism’sroleinhistoryandsocietythatcurrent

scholarshipisbarelyasking.Mostnotablythisconcernsthelong-termrelationship

betweenrejectedknowledgeandtheestablishmentsthatdotherejection.While

Tiryakiandidseethe“occultrevival”thatunfoldedaroundhimasaresurfacingof

“rejectedknowledge”,hetriedtoexplainitasanexampleofarecurrenttypeof

historicalevent.Itwasnotmerelyan“irrational”reactioncausedbysocialanxieties,but

symptomaticofasocialsystemintheprocessofrenewingitselfbydrinkingfromits

undergroundculturalreservoirs.Evenifwerejectthegrandfunctionalistexplanation

(asIthinkweshould),wemustappreciatewhatTiryakianandcolleaguesarereally

63Tiryakian,“TowardtheSociologyofEsotericCulture”,502.Emphasesadded.64Ibid.,508.

19

saying:thattheabilitytostorerejectedknowledgeinanesotericunderground,thatis,to

haveasocialmilieuwhichactsasasocietalmemoryforthatwhichhasbeenstigmatised

andpushedout,isafeaturethatimprovesasociety’sabilitytoavoidculturalstagnation,

torenewitself,andtodevelopbetter-functioningvaluesandmotivationsinresponseto

rapidlychangingeconomic,political,orjuridicalcircumstances.65Putplainly:occultism

isgoodforasociety’slong-termhealth.

(IV)TheSocialOrganisationofRejectedKnowledge:TheCulticMilieu

Thisleadsustoafinalundertheorisedelementoftherejectedknowledgethesis:

Thesimplefactthat“rejectedknowledge”mustcontinuetobecommunicated,shared,

andenactedinvariouswaysinordernottobecomesimplyforgottenknowledge.Some

formofsocialorganisationmustemerge,whichallowspeopletolearnaboutthe

rejectedknowledge,attachsignificancetoit,andactonit.

AusefulmodelisprovidedbyColinCampbell’sinfluentialnotionofthe“cultic

milieu”.66Infact,wecanseetheculticmilieuconcept–whichscholarsofesotericism

havebeenmuchmoreeagertoaccept67–asconterminouswiththesociologyofthe

occult.Notably,Campbell’smodelsummarises,synthesises,anddevelopsallofthefive

sharedtenetslistedinsection2above:theunderground/establishmentdynamic,the

rejectionofthedeprivationmodel,thesocialsignificanceoftheoccult,itshistorical

aspect,anditsfunctionalroleinculturalrenewal.Theculticmilieuis“theoccult

underground”byanothername.

Likeothersociologistsoftheoccult,Campbellhypothesisesthattheculticmilieu

is“amajoragencyofcultural‘innovation’”,thatit“functionsasa‘negativereference

group’forspokesmenofculturalorthodoxy”,thatitflourishesinrelationto“the

disintegrationofdominantindigenousculture”,andthatitisa“sourceofrenewalfor

ailingorthodoxbeliefsystems”.68InwhatcanbeseenasadevelopmentofTiryakian’s

functionalistargument,Campbellfindsthattheculticmilieu“functionsasa‘genepool’

65Thatconditionsfortheseothersubsystems(economy,governance,law)wererapidlychanginginpost-warAmericaiswithoutdoubt;oneonlyneedstothinkaboutthepost-wareconomicboom,thebabyboom,thecivilrightsmovementanditsassociatedsocialunresttoseehowsuddenlyandhowseriouslytheoldlatencysubsystemwasfallingapart.66SeeCampbell,“TheCult,theCulticMilieu,andSecularization”.67SeeforexampleHanegraaff,NewAgeReligionandWesternCulture(Leiden:Brill,1996),14-8;Hammer,ClaimingKnowledge,27-9;Partridge,“OccultureIsOrdinary”;Granholm,“SociologyandtheOccult”,720-21.68Campbell,“TheCult,theCulticMilieu,andSecularization”,129-30.

20

forsociety”asawhole,“enhancingsociety’spotentialforculturaladaptation”.69In

additiontothesesharedpoints,healsohypothesisesthattheculticmilieufacilitates

“theaccommodationof‘alien’culturalitemsintoahostculture”,andthat“theamountof

‘alien’culturecontact”isafactorinthemilieu’sabilitytoflourish.70Thislatterpoint

makesthepredictionthatesotericistsarelikelytobeearlyadoptersofforeignreligions

–apredictionwhichrecenthistoricalscholarshiponesotericism’sglobalentanglements

isstartingtobackupwithsolidevidence.

TheeleganceofCampbell’sclassicarticleliesinhowitderivesanumberofsharp

hypothesesfromthecorefeatureof“societaldeviance”.Theculticmilieuis“thecultural

undergroundofsociety”,andcanbedefinedas“thesumofunorthodoxanddeviant

belief-systemstogetherwiththeirpractices,institutionsandpersonnel”.71Boththe

scopeofsubstantialcontentandthesociallyunifyingfactorsofthemilieuarederived

fromitsdeviantstatus.Astocontents,themilieuis“boundedbyareligion-scienceaxis

andaninstrumental-expressiveaxis,takingforgrantedthepriorcriterionofsocietal

deviancy”.72“Deviantscience”mixeswith“deviantreligion”,withtheformerbecoming

moreprominentasscientificestablishmentsarereplacingreligiousonesasthemain

purveyorsofproperknowledge.Besidesitsoppositionalcharactervis-à-vissociety’s

incumbentauthorities,however,littlemorecanbesaidaboutthenatureofthiscontent.

Morecanbesaidaboutthemilieu’ssocialstructure.Theculticmilieuisnot

simplyanunstructuredwastebasket,butratheranetworkofindividuals,small-scale

organisations,andpublishersthroughwhichrejectedknowledgeissharedand

developed.Again,itisdeviancethatexplainsthecohesivenessofthemilieu:it

“constitutesaunitybyvirtueofacommonconsciousnessofdeviantstatus”.73An

attitudeof“mutualsympathyandsupport”74betweenotherwisedisparatecultural

systemsarisefromtheneedtolegitimiseoneselfagainstthesameperceived

“orthodoxies”.Thus,fromshareddeviance(orattheveryleastasharedself-perception69Ibid.Imeanthisfiguratively:Thereisnocross-referencesbetweenthetwoarticles,whichwerepublishedinparallelin1972.70Campbell,“TheCult,theCulticMilieu,andSecularization”,129-30.71Ibid.,122.72Ibid.,124.Campbelldoesnotspellouttheexactmeaningoftheexpressive/instrumentaldivide,butweshouldnotethatthisisanothercentralfeatureofParsonssociology.ForParsons,itwasmostnotably(andcontroversially)usedtoexplaingenderrolesinfunctionaltermswithinfamilyunits:femalesaremoresuitablefor“affective”labour,whilementendtotakeon“instrumental”workoutsidethehome.Inawidersense,the“expressive”includesculturalsymbols(thelatencydimension)thatmotivateandlegitimisesocialaction.73Campbell,“TheCult,theCulticMilieu,andSecularization”,134.74Ibid.,122.

21

ofbeingdeviant)arisesasharedsetofsocioculturalgoals,whichhaveledtothe

creationofanoverlappingcommunicationstructureofmagazines,journals,zines,

publishers,lectures,andworkshops,inwhichknowledgeissharedandpositionedin

varyingdegreesofoppositionagainst“mainstream”or“establishment”attitudes.This

structure,inturn,producespressurestosyncretisationbetweendeviantideasand

practices,asindividualsarepresentedwithabroadrangeofculturalelementswhile

movingthroughthenetwork.Withnocentralauthoritythatpolicesdoctrinesacrossthe

milieu,experimentationandinnovationisencouraged.

Thesethreeunifyingfactors–consciouslyshareddeviancy,shared

communicationstructures,andatendencytosyncretism–hangtogetherandare

portrayedbyCampbellasatypeofspontaneousself-organisationthatnaturallyformsin

responsetotheconstructionofdeviance.Moreover,thissortofdevianceisitselfaby-

productofcentralisedauthorityinthedomainofknowledge(i.e.,educational,

professional,theologicalorganisations).Thus,wheneverasocietyproducesauthorised

expertsystems,somethingakintotheculticmilieuwillalwaystendtoestablishitselfin

theirshadow.Thisisacentralpredictionoftheculticmilieumodel.

Developinghismodelfromthestudyofthe1960scounterculture,Campbelladds

afourthunifyingfactor–an“ideologyofseekership”75–whichrequiresamore

roundaboutexplanation.Duetoa“historicalaccident”,thedeviantculticmilieuin“the

majorityofwesternsocieties”hascometoincludeatypeofreligiousorganisation

conformingtowhatErnstTroeltschtermed“mysticalreligion”:areligiosityfocused

“solelyontheindividual’srelationshipwiththedivine”,emphasising“first-hand

experience”,andtending,forthatreason,to“neglectthehistorical,ecclesiasticaland

ritualconcernsofreligion”.76Inplainerterms,thismeansanemphasisonindividual,

subjectiveexperienceasthesourceofauthenticityinreligiousmatters,anda

concomitantlackofstable,large-scaleinstitutionsthatrequiresubmissiontoexternal

authorities.Itisimportanttonoticethatthistraitisnotauniversalfeatureofthe

undergroundasCampbellconceivesofit,butahistoricallyspecificby-productofthe

Westernculticmilieu:Sincedirectindividualaccesstothedivinehasbeenassociated

withheresythroughoutmostofWesternchurchhistory,theculticmilieuoftheWest

hascometobecharacterisedbyanethosofindividualseekership,andaquestfor

75Ibid.,123.76Ibid.,120,124-125.

22

personalexperiencemarginalisedwithinthechurchhierarchies.Itfollowsfrom

Campbell’smodelthatsocietieswherethisindividualisticspiritualityhasnotbeen

rejectedbyestablishmentreligion,itsundergroundmayalsoshowabiggerappetitefor

authorityandcollectivismthanhasarguablybeenthecasewiththeWesterncultic

milieu.77

InternalDifferentiation:CredibilityMobilityandDevianceMaintenance

Theculticmilieuoffersageneralmodelforhowrejectedknowledgetendstobe

organisedinsociety.Sinceit(1)incorporatesmanyofthekeyelementsofthesociology

oftheoccult,and(2)hasitselfbeenfairlywell-integratedintothestudyofesotericism

sincethe1990s,78agoodstrategyforconstructivelyreassessingandincorporating

resourcesfromthesociologyoftheoccultistodosothroughthelensofCampbell’s

framework.Inthisspirit,IwillnowshowhowanaspectofTruzzi’smodel,namelyhis

notionof“credibilitymobility”and“occulthierarchies”,canbeadjustedand

incorporatedtogiveabetteraccountoftheinternaldifferentiationoftheculticmilieu.

DoingsoalsocorrectsoneofthemostglaringproblemswithCampbell’smodel,namely

itstooconfidentemphasisonthemilieu’sattitudeof“mutualsympathyandsupport”.

Themilieuisnothomogenous,butCampbell’smodelalonedoesnotprovidethetools

forunderstandinghowinternaldivisionsareproduced.

Twocrucialobservationsmustbemade:Claimsofdeviancearenotonlyabout

definingtheboundarybetweenanestablishmentandanunderground,andtheyarenot

onlydeployedfromthetopdown.Sincetheoccult/culticmilieucontainsnumerous

actorsthatcompeteforvariousresources(e.g.culturallegitimacy,reputation,

membership,financialresources),asignificantamountof“boundary-work”takesplace

withinthemilieu.79Acentralpartofhowthisisdoneiswhatwemightcalldeviance

77Sincenoattemptshavesofarbeenmadetooperationaliseandtestthecross-culturalandcross-historicalambitionsofCampbell’sconcept,muchtheoreticalandempiricalworkremainstobedoneinthisarea.WecanalsonotethatCampbellmayhavestressedindividualisticseekershipstrongerthantheWesternhistoricalrecordwarrants;see,forexample,theimportanceoftheculticmilieuforthespreadofsocialistideas,ecocentriccommunes,orforthatmatterfascistauthoritarianism.78MostsignificantlyinHanegraaff,NewAgeReligion,andOlavHammer,ClaimingKnowledge.Fewerattemptshavebeenmadetotheorisethelinksbetweenesotericismandtheculticmilieu.Fortwoattempts,seeChristopherPartridge,“OccultureIsOrdinary”,113-133;EgilAspremandAsbjørnDyrendal,“CloseCompanions?EsotericismandConspiracyTheories”,inAsbjørnDyrendal,DavidRobertson,andEgilAsprem(eds.),HandbookofConspiracyTheoryandContemporaryReligion(LeidenandBoston:Brill,forthcoming).79Onboundary-work,seeThomasGieryn,“Boundary-WorkandtheDemarcationofSciencefromNon-Science:StrainsandInterestsinProfessionalIdeologiesofScientists”,AmericanSociologicalReview48

23

maintenance.Truzzihadonepieceofthispicturerightwhenheobservedthat“occult

hierarchies”tendtoformasaresultofthedifferentlegitimisingstrategiesthat

spokespersonswithinthemilieutake.Thegeneralrule,hesuggested,isthatwhena

currentseekstogainlegitimacyinthebroaderculture,forexampletocompeteonequal

termswithmainstreammedicineorbecomealegitimatescientificdiscipline,it“(1)

tendstodissociateitselffromotheroccultisms,and(2)developnon-occultterminology

tominimizeitsoccultappearance”.80

Anexcellentexampleofthisprocessisparapsychology,whichprogressively

distanceditselffromspiritualismandearlierversionsofpsychicalresearchasit

managedtocreateafootholdwithinEstablishmentinstitutions.81Thissocialprocess

createsapeckingorder,inwhichgroupsthatareclosertomainstreamacceptancenot

onlyseektheaffirmationofthosethathavemoreacceptancethanthemselves,butalso

derogatorilydismissanddistancethemselvesfromgroupsthatenjoylessacceptance

(Fig.1).Forexample,Truzziobservesthat

hypnosisjournals(nowthathypnosishasestablisheditselfinpsychology)avoidpublicationof

articlesrelatinghypnosistoextrasensoryperceptionandleavesucharticlestothe

parapsychologyjournals.Thelatterseemtowelcomesucharticle[sic],thusrelatingtheirless

legitimizedanomalies(ESPvariables)tonewlyacceptedhypnosis.Atthesametime,the

parapsychologyjournalsapparentlyignorepublicationofexperimentsbyproponentsof

astrology,aformof‘occultism’lesslegitimizedamongscientiststhantheirown.Inturn,astrology

journalsseemtowelcomereferencetoESPfindingsbutgenerallyignoreless‘established’

occultisms’claims.Thisisbynomeansastablearrangement,however,sincesomeformsof

occultismhavecomeintoandoutoffashionandhaveevidencedakindofcredibilitymobility.82

Asthefinalsentencemakesclear,thepointisnottofindintrinsicdifferencesbetween

typesof“occultbelief”,butrathertofocusonthesociologicalmechanismsbywhich

differentiationandhierarchiesemergethroughthediscursivepracticesofactorsboth

withinandoutsideoftheoccultmilieu.

(1983),781-795;cf.Asprem,“Dis/UnityofKnowledge:ModelsfortheStudyofModernEsotericismandScience.”Numen61.5-6(2015),557-559.80Truzzi,”DefinitionandDimensions”,639.81SeeAsprem,“ANiceArrangementofHeterodoxies:WilliamMcDougallandtheProfessionalizationofPsychicalResearch”,JournaloftheHistoryoftheBehavioralSciences46.2(2010).82Truzzi,“DefinitionandDimensions”,639-640;emphasisadded.

24

Fig.1:Truzzi’smodelofcredibilitymobilityresultinginan“occulthierarchy”.Credibilityflowsin

onedirection(topdown),buttheboundariesoflegitimatesciencearemoveable.

Truzzi’smodelis,however,toosimpleinthatitconsiderscredibilitymobilityasa

one-directionalprocess:mobilityismoving“up”and“out”.Thinkingintermsofthe

culticmilieu,weshouldhoweverexpectapeckingorderthatgoesintheopposite

directiontoemergeaswell.Thisisbecausedeviancyisnotalwaysseenasaliability:To

thecontrary,deviancefromthemainstreamandconflictwithexternalorthodoxiesform

alargepartofthesocialidentityofagentsintheculticmilieuwhoadheretoa“common

consciousnessofdeviantstatus”.83Whenmarginalityiselectedratherthanimposed,

deviancebecomesanasset.Thisenablesasocialdynamicwheretheoutwardmobility,

characterisedbyaccommodationtoestablishmentsandarejectionofother

“occultisms”,iscounterweightedbyaninwardmobility,characterisedbyaffirming

deviantstatusandintensifyingtheoppositionalrhetoricagainstestablishmentout-

groups(Fig.2).Duetothisdynamic,agroupintheculticmilieuthataccommodatesto

theestablishmentorthemainstream(i.e.hassuccessoutsidethemilieuitself)will

83Campbell,“TheCult,theCulticMilieu,andSecularization”,134.

25

typicallybeportrayedasacorruptedsell-outbypuristcounterculturaleliteswho

continuetoconsolidateidentitywithinthemilieu.

Fig.2:Deviancemaintenanceasatwo-wayprocess,vis-à-vismultipleauthoriseddiscourses.

4.ConcludingDiscussion:TowardsaSocialHistoryofRejectedKnowledge

Howmightthesepointshelprefinethecurrentnotionofesotericismasrejected

knowledge?InthisfinalsectionIwillstartfromtheassumptionthatthehistorical

processesdescribedbyHanegraaffinstalledapeculiarlogictothedevelopmentof

esotericism,which,althoughithasprecursorsandanaloguesinearlierperiods,84isnew

withthemodernperiod.Thetheoreticalresourcesdiscussedabovecanhelpus

understanditsculturalandsociallogicinmoredetailedways.Theypointthewaytoa

socialhistoryofrejectedknowledge,inwhichcategoriessuchasclass,education,

gender,andrace,andprocessessuchasspecialisationandprofessionalisationbecome

84Iamthinkingforexampleoftheproductionof“heresy”inearlierperiods,andespeciallythedocumentableeffectsthattheindexhadontheactivityofprotestantprintersduringthereformation.“Forbidden”booksbecamepricedcommodities,especiallyforprotestantaudienceswhosawinthemasourceofrebellion.Onthis,seeLeenSpruit,“CensorshipandCanon:ANoteonSomeMedievalWorksandAuthors”,inHowtheWestWasWon:OntheProblemsofCanonandLiteraryImagination,withaSpecialEmphasisontheMiddleAges,FestschriftM.B(urcht)Pranger,eds.W.Otten,A.Vanderjagt,andH.deVries(Leiden:Brill,2010),177.

26

crucialtotheanalysis.85Whilemuchworkremainstobedonetocraftsucha

perspective,Isuggestthattheproximitythatthesociologyoftheocculthastorecent

developmentsinthehistoricalstudyofesotericismmakesthisagoodstartingpointfor

takingthefirststeps.

Underground/EstablishmentDynamicsRevisited

Weshouldbeginbyrecognisingthatthereisnoapriorireasonwhyrejectedknowledge

shouldbeembracedandsharedsociallybygroupssuchasthenineteenthcentury

occultists.Infact,probablythevastmajorityofrejectedknowledgeeventuallyendsup

asforgottenknowledge.Asociologicalanswertowhyitsometimestakesonnewlifecan

befoundintheunderground/establishmentdynamic,whichwehavejustdiscussedin

theshapeofCampbell’sculticmilieumodel,andwhichcanbeseensimplyasaby-

productofknowledgespecialisation.Here,however,itmaybeusefultoattempta

generaldefinitionofwhatan“underground”is,inpurelysocialterms.Forthese

purposes,Iwilldefinetheundergroundasawebofsocialtransactionsthattakeplace

outsidethecontrolofthoseinstitutionsinagivensociety(its“establishment”)thathave

thepowertoimposenegativesanctions(e.g.legal,economic,social).Thismakesclearthat

theundergroundisanalyticallydistinctfromanyofthecontentsthatmaycirculateinit.

Examplesofundergroundnetworksincludeblackmarkets,criminalnetworks,

oppositionalpoliticalgroups(e.g.revolutionarygroups,terroristcells,outlawed

politicalparties),subversiveartisticmilieus,deviantreligiousmovements,orarenasfor

stigmatisedleisureactivities(e.g.“drugs”,prostitution,gambling),sexualities,

literaturesorotherformsofoutlawedexpression.Foranumberofverydifferent

reasons,thesenetworksprefertoconducttransactionsoutsidethereachofasociety’s

authoritativeinstitutions.Duetotheshareddesiretoavoidsuchattention,socialspaces

tendtobecreatedwheredifferentundergroundnetworksflowintooneanother.86

Deviancecreatessocialaffinities;theundergroundissimplyatermforthesocial

relationsthatresultfromsuchaffinities.

Whathappenedwithesotericrejectedknowledge,then,wasthatitgotpickedup

bypre-existingundergroundnetworks,wasunavoidablyblendedwithotherelements85IamenvisioninganapproachalongthelinessuggestedbyPeterBurke.See,e.g.,PeterBurke,ASocialHistoryofKnowledge:FromGutenbergtoDiderot(Cambridge:PolityPress,2000);Burke,ASocialHistoryofKnowledgeII:FromtheEncyclopédietoWikipedia(Cambridge.PolityPress,2012).86This,ofcourse,isnotsomuchalawasatendency;towhatdegreedifferentundergroundnetworksinagivensocietyinfactinteractwitheachotherwillalwaysremainanopenempiricalquestion.

27

thatcirculatedinthosenetworks(recallCampbell’spointaboutpressurestoward

syncretisation),andsettoplayadiversenumberoffunctionsrelativetothestrategic

goalsofindividualsinthenetworks.Thisstoryfindssupportinrecentstudiesonthe

historicaloriginsofmodernoccultisminFrance.87The“revival”ofesotericrejected

knowledgeanditsdisseminationintheearlynineteenthcenturytookplaceaboveallin

radicalsocialistnetworks,withtheirassociatedjournalsandpublicationoutlets.As

JulianStrubewrites,acrucialfiguresuchasEliphasLéviabsorbedmostofhis

knowledgeaboutmagicandtheoccultfromtheutopiansocialistpress.Therefore,

[h]isreceptionofearly-modernormedievalsourceswasremarkablysuperficialand

selective.Forthisreason,itcanhardlybesaidthatearly-modernormedievalsources

formedthe“frameofreference”forhismagicaltheory.Itwasexactlytheotherway

around,ifheshowedanyactualknowledgeofsuchwritings.88

Thisisnotjustaboutrevisingourviewoftheexactlinesoftransmission.Italsoexplains

wherekeycharacteristicsofmodernoccultismcamefrom:namely,fromtheradical

viewsonreligion,science,andpoliticsalreadycirculatinginutopiansocialistnetworks.

Thisholdsforthenotionoftheunificationofscienceandreligion,thecallforspiritually

enlightenedrule,and,notleast,theambiguousanticlericalismofmuchoccultthought.

Thesepre-existingnetworkswereabsorbingdeviantpoliticalideas,fringescience,and

tenetsdeemedhereticalbythechurch,andputtingthemintheserviceoftheirownends

–whichinthisperiodwereoftenpoliticalasmuchasspiritual.Oncethesesyntheseshad

beenconcoctedandcontinuedtospreadtoundergroundmilieusinothercountries

(shapedbydifferentpoliticalandculturalrealities),anumberofoccultistmovements

emergedwithseparateandoftencompetingemphases.

TheQuestionofMobility:WhenOccultismReachestheSeatsofPower

Anobviouscriticismagainstthisunderground-focusedmodelmustnowbeaddressed.

Doesitnotoverlookthefactthatmanyofthepeoplewhogotinvolvedwithoccultism

throughoutthenineteenthcenturywere,infact,“respectable”membersof“high

87SeeJulianStrube,Sozialismus,KatholizismusundOkkultismusimFrankreichdes19.Jahrhunderts:DieGenealogiederSchriftenvonEliphasLévi(Berlin:DeGruyter,2016);Strube,“SocialistReligionandtheEmergenceofOccultism:AGenealogicalApproachtoSocialismandSecularizationin19th-CenturyFrance”,Religion46.3(2016),359-388.88Strube,“SocialistReligion”,376.

28

society”?Doesn’titconflictwiththenear-establishmentstatusthatcertainsegmentsof

occultismenjoyedatthecentury’send?Spiritualistséanceswerebroughttothecourts

ofEuropeandtotheWhiteHouseinWashington;leadingscientistsstudiedoccult

phenomenainsearchofhiddennaturalforces;andkeytheosophistsandhermeticritual

magicianshailedfrombourgeoisandaristocraticbackgrounds.Inlightofthesefacts,

doesthemodelnotpresentatoosimplistic,orevenflatlyfalse,pictureofafieldthatis

heterogeneousandcomplex,bothinitssubstantialanditssocialdimensions?Theseare

importantcriticisms,buttheyareanticipatedbythesociologyoftheoccult.

Twopointsmustberaised.Firstofall,wemustbecarefulnottoconfusethe

underground/establishmentdistinctionwithdistinctionsofclass.The

establishment/undergrounddistinctionconcernstheasymmetricpowerrelations

betweenvariousinstitutionsandsocialactivitiesinagivensociety,assumingnothing

aboutthesocioeconomicstatusoftheindividualsthattakepartinthem.Aswehave

seen,thesociologyoftheocculttreatedtheclassaspectoftheoccultrevivalasan

empiricalquestion,andfoundthatitwaslargelyamiddleclassphenomenon.Thepoint

hereisthataristocrats,politicians,bureaucrats,policeofficers,medicaldoctors,

universityprofessorsoranyotherindividualwhooccupiesaday-timepositionwithin

establishmentinstitutionsmayverywellparticipateinundergroundnetworks–

whetherfortradinginun-taxedorforbiddengoodsandservicesontheblackmarket,

blowingoffsteamatillegalnightclubs,orseekingouttheservicesofculturallydeviant

spiritualormedicalproviders.Inthissense,theestablishmentisinterpenetratedbythe

underground.

Secondly,wemustdistinguishtheestablishmentfromthemainstream.Ideasor

practicesthatareofficiallydismissedbyestablishmentsandpushedundergroundmay

stillremainvastlypopularandevendemographicallydominant.Infact,anyadequate

theoryofmainstreamingmustacknowledgetheuniqueappealprovidedbyanauraof

deviance,e.g.asaformofconspicuousconsumptionsignalling“coolness”and

subculturalcapital.89Inthissense,then,undergroundstatusdoesnotnecessitateelitism

–althoughthemainstreamingofanundergroundproductwilltypicallysparkattempts

atamplifyingdevianceamongsubculturalelites.

89Seee.g.ThomasFrank,TheConquestofCool:BusinessCulture,Counterculture,andtheRiseofHipConsumerism(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1997).

29

Thenotionofdeviancemaintenanceisusefulhere,andthehistoryof

parapsychologymayagainserveasanexample.Therespectabilityofearlypsychical

researchwasensuredbytheconsiderableclassprivilegeswieldedbythefoundersand

membersoftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch.Later,itsprofessionalisationinto

parapsychologywaseffectedbyindividualswhoalreadypossessedlegitimatePhD

degreesanduniversitypositions.90Thisisastraight-forwardcaseofTruzziancredibility

mobility,whichismadepossiblebecauseprivilegedestablishmentagentstakean

interestindeviantknowledge.Whilethestatuscreatedthiswayeventuallycrumbled,

theprocesshashadlastingeffectsonthemainstreamadoptionofparapsychological

beliefs:theynowoccupythe“sweetspot”ofbeingassociatedbothwithargumentsfrom

authoritythroughhigh-classfigureswhoatsomepointhavespokenfavourablyofthem,

andwiththe“coolness”thatstemsfromemphasisingoppositionwith“dogmatic,

materialist”science.91Thistypeofdeviancemaintenanceiscentraltowhatwemight

call“theGalileogambit”:thenowcommonphenomenonofclaimingthatone’sown

beliefsmustbetruebecausetheyarerejectedbytheestablishment,anargumentusually

madethroughanimplicitorexplicitcomparisonwith“nobleheretics”likeGalileo.

Theseconceptshelpusaccountfortheconcretewaysinwhich“occult”contents

canbecomepartofthemainstreamandevenshapeestablishmentdiscourses.

Credibilitymobilitydescribeshowthiscanhappenwhenasocietyisina“steadystate”,

resultingsimplyfromthecompetitionforsocialandculturalcapital.92Itis,however,

worthrecallingthatseveralofthetheoristswhocommentontheunderground’s

potentialforshapingsocietalnormspointtohistoricalperiodscharacterisedbythe

declineofinstitutionalisedmeaningsystemsasthecontextinwhichthispotentialis

typicallyactualised.Theinterpenetrationoftheestablishmentbytheunderground

makessenseofthispoint.Ithighlightsthatsuchanexertiondoesnothavetobeseenas

“revolutionary”–theundergroundoverthrowingestablishedinstitutions,asWebb

portrayeditinhisOccultEstablishment–butrather“reformatory”:alternativeideas,

values,andpractices,whetherpolitical,religious,economic,orotherwise,arealready

availabletopeopleinplacesofpowerduetoasocialproximitywiththeunderground

networksinwhichtheycirculate.Finally,thisdiscussionshowsthatwedonotneed

90Onthis,seeespeciallyAsprem,“ANiceArrangementofHeterodoxies”.91SeeAsprem,“PsychicEnchantmentsoftheEducatedClasses:TheParanormalandtheAmbiguitiesofDisenchantment”,inContemporaryEsotericism,eds.AspremandGranholm(Sheffield:Equinox,2013).92Seealso,Asprem,“Dis/UnityofKnowledge”,554-556.

30

Tiryakian’stheoryof“esotericculture’s”societalfunctionasawhole:giventhata

sufficientvariationofculturalformsispreservedbytheunderground/establishment

dynamic,itsufficestolookatthemotivationsofindividualswhocompeteforsocialand

culturalresources.

NetworksofTransmissioninHistoricalPerspective:AProspectiveResearchProgram

Iwillendbypointingtoacentralaspectofsocialtheoriesoftheoccult/culticmilieuthat

notonlydeservesmoreattention,butofferssomethingconcreteforhistorians:its

communicationstructures.Iftheunderground/establishmentdivideisapermanent

featureofbig,specialisedsocieties,andiftheparticulardynamicsoftheunderground

thatarerelatedtoculticinnovationdependonthespecificwaysinwhichinformationis

shared,thenweshouldexpectthatchangesinmediainfrastructures–thatis,changesin

mediatisation–areacrucialvariablewhenhistoricisingtheculticmilieu.93Thisseemsa

particularlyaptwayforhistorianstousesociologicalinsightstosharpentheirresearch

questionsregardingtheadoptionandspreadofrejectedknowledge.Mediatechnologies

mattertothispicture,becauseweshouldexpectmajorshiftsinboththeextentandthe

socialorganisationofundergroundnetworksdependingontheirabilitytoreplicate,

share,andcompareinformationacrossgeographicalspaceandsocialdemographics.

Thus,wecouldderiveasetofhypothesesaboutdiachronicchanges,particularlyof

suddenhistoricalruptures,byrelatingthemtonewformsofmediatisationborneby

innovationsininformationtechnologies.Forthesakeofillustration,considerthe

following(incomplete)listoffivemajortransitions:

• Theinventionofwritingandliteracy(Antiquity).Literacymadeitpossibleto

stabilisedoctrinalsystemsandtransferknowledgeacrossdistancesand

generations,butitalsoprovidedthefirstpossibilityofrecording,copying,and

sharingknowledgeoutsideofinstitutionalcontrol.94Forexample,theGreek

magicalpapyrigiveinsightintoaproto-culticmilieuevidencingahighdegreeof

93Onmediatisationandreligion,seeespeciallythedebatesparkedbyStigHjarvard,“TheMediatizationofReligion:ATheoryoftheMediaasAgentsofReligiousChange”,NorthernLights:Film&MediaStudiesYearbook6.1(2008),9-26.Formediatisationandesotericism,seee.g.IngvildS.Gilhus,“Mediatisation”,inEgilAsprem(ed.),DictionaryofContemporaryEsotericism(LeidenandBoston:Brill,inpreparation).94Forasystematicattemptatforegroundingthemediumofthecodexinaccountingforreligiousauthorityanddoctrinaldevelopments,seeGuyStroumsa,TheScripturalUniverseofAncientChristianity(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,2016).

31

syncretisationandindividualexperimentationwithreligiousframeworksand

ritualrepertoires.

• Theemergenceoftheprintingpress(1400s).Whileanumberoftechnological

changestookplaceaftertheinventionofwriting(e.g.,developmentofalphabets,

materialsandmediumssuchasparchment,papyrus,paper,thecodex),the

inventionoftheprintingpressintroducedatrulyrevolutionarychangeinthe

disseminationofknowledge.Asiswellknown,thistechnologydidnotonlyallow

fortheprintingofestablishmenttexts,butinfactfuelleddissentingand

oppositionalmovements,mostnotablyduringtheEuropeanreformation.The

appearanceofdurableprintedbooksandpamphletsalsooccasionedthe

establishmentoftheIndexlibrorumprohibitorumbytheVatican,whichwasitself

firstprintedin1559.Interestingly,theindexsoonbecamealistofparticularly

attractivebooksthatshapedundergroundreadinghabits,especiallyamong

protestants.95

• Theindustrialisationofprintinganduniversalisationofeducation(1800s).

Industrialisationprovidedcheapandmass-producedpaperandprinting

technology,whichmadepossibletheemergenceofjournals,newspapers,and

cheapbookscateringtobroadaudiences.Togetherwiththeexplosivegrowthin

literacyratesintheindustrialisingnations,thislaidthefoundationforyet

anothergreatshiftinthedisseminationofundergroundknowledge.Subversive

groupscouldputouttheirownpapersandjournals(liketheFrenchsocialists

whoproducedEliphasLévi),eventuallygivingrisetoentire“counter-public

spheres”andalternative“periodicalcommunities”,96ofwhichthelate-century

occultistpresswasanintrinsicpart.97

• Photocopying(1950s).Theemergenceofphotocopyingtechnology(“xeroxing”)

madeitpossibleto“hack”existingpublicationsandcreatecheap,DYI

publicationsand“fanzines”.Thistechnologyledtoawholenewgenrewithits

ownsocialnetworks–the“zinescene”–oftenconnectedwithoppositionaland

evenactivelysuppressedpoliticsandheterodoxspirituality.ChristianGreerand

95SeeSpruit,“CensorshipandCanon”,177.96LucyDelap,“TheFreewoman,PeriodicalCommunities,andtheFeministReadingPublic”,PrincetonUniversityLibraryChronicle61.2(Winter2000),233–76.97MarkMorrisson,“ThePeriodicalCultureoftheOccultRevival:EsotericWisdom,ModernityandCounter-PublicSpheres”,JournalofModernLiterature31.2(2007),1-23.

32

ColinDugganhavearguedthatthezinescene,embracedbyanarchistsandpunks,

alsogaverisetothepostmodernesotericcurrentof“chaosmagick”,bothinthe

practiceofcopying,cutting,andmodifyingexistinginformation,andincreating

new,self-consciouslyundergroundanddeliberatelyoppositionalchannelsof

communication.98

• Theinternetandtheworldwideweb(1990s).Thebroad-scaleemergenceofthe

internetandtheworldwidewebinthe1990shas,onceagain,revolutionisedthe

wayspeoplecreateandshareinformationinsuchafundamentalandrapidly

shiftingwaythatwearestillwrestlingwithitsramifications.Intheearlydays,

theinternetembodiedtheunderground–manyofitspioneerswereassociated

withpreexistingcountercultures,whilethewebitselfexistedoutsidethereachof

policinginstitutions.Asthishasstartedtochangeoverthepastdecade,most

undergroundtransactionshavemovedtothedarkweb,fromthedistributionof

illegalsubstancesandotherblack-marketserviceindustriestothe

communicationnetworksofsubversivegroups.Fortheculticmilieu,internet-

basedtechnologiessuchaschatprotocols,emaillists,websites,forums,blogs,

andsocialmediaappshaveexpandedthescopeoftransnationalcontact,

massivelyincreasedthespeedoftransmissionacrossthenetwork,andprovided

betteraccesstoesotericliterature.

Whetherweareconsideringmagicalnetworksinantiquity,radicalprotestantsofthe

earlymodernperiod,occultistsofthelatenineteenthcentury,1980spunkesoterrorists,

orvirtualwitchesofthe2010s,thequestionsthatasociologicallyinformedhistorian

shouldaskincludethefollowing:Howdoindividualsencounter,interactwith,and

spreadknowledgewithothers?Whereisthedesiredknowledgelocated,whatarethe

technologicalmeansbywhichitisdisseminated,whoownsthosetechnologicalmeans,

andwhohasaccesstothem?Whatisthecontentoftheknowledgethatisspread?Are

thereanynegativesanctionsinplaceforthesetypesofknowledge,iftheyweretobe

detected?Ifyes,whatarethey,whoenforcesthem,andwhy?Ifno,istheknowledgestill

considered“deviant”insomeway,andifso,bywhom?Dothosewhoseekoutthe

98J.ChristianGreerandColinDuggan,“AnatomyofaPaperTiger:ChaosMagickZinesasEsotericPractice”,paperdeliveredtotheAssociationfortheStudyofEsotericism,ColgateUniversity,Hamilton,NY,July23,2014;Duggan,“ChaosMagick”.InChristopherPartridge(ed.),TheOccultWorld(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2015),405-411.

33

knowledgeviewitasdeviant,andisthatagoodorabadthing?Howisknowledge

legitimisedandauthorisedwithinthenetwork?Whatfunctionsdoestheknowledge

haveforthosewhoseekanddevelopit?

Thesequestionsare,infact,updatedversionsofTruzzi’sfive“dimensionsofthe

occult”.Whenwedisentanglethequestionsfromtheterm“occult”andformulatethem

genericallyashavingtodowithnetworksofcommunication,therelationshipsbetween

individualsandinstitutions,thediscursiveaspectsoflabelling,anddynamicsrelatedto

thesearchfor,andmaintenanceof,socialidentity,theycanbeveryusefulforhistorians

ofesotericism.Indeed,ifhistoriansweretoanswerthesequestionsforeachofthefive

historicalcasestudiesmentionedabove(fromlateantiquemagicianstovirtualwitches),

fillingtheminwithgreatdetailabouttheindividualsinvolved,theiridiosyncraticgoals

andpassions,theircirclesoffriendsandacquaintances,andshowhowtextsand

practicesofvariouskindsemerge,spread,andmutate,wewouldnotonlyhaveamuch

moredetailedandcomplexpictureofhow“esoteric”rejectedknowledgeisconstructed

butalsobeinabetterpositiontoanswerwhyitcontinuestospreadandgrowwithsuch

vitality.

Bibliography Allison,PaulD.“ExperimentalParapsychologyasaRejectedScience”.InOntheMargins

ofScience:TheSocialConstructionofRejectedKnowledge.EditedbyRoyWallis.Keele:UniversityofKeele,1979.

Asprem,Egil,andAnnTaves.“ExplanationandtheStudyofReligion”,inMethodToday:BeyondDescriptionandHermeneuticsinReligiousStudiesScholarship.EditedbyBradStoddard.London:Equinox,inpress.

Asprem,Egil,andAsbjørnDyrendal,“CloseCompanions?EsotericismandConspiracyTheories”.InAsbjørnDyrendal,DavidRobertson,andEgilAsprem(eds.),HandbookofConspiracyTheoryandContemporaryReligion.LeidenandBoston:Brill,forthcoming.

Asprem,Egil,andAsbjørnDyrendal.“ConspiritualityReconsidered:HowSurprisingandHowNewistheConfluenceofSpiritualityandConspiracyTheory?”,JournalofContemporaryReligion30.3(2015),367-382.

Asprem,Egil,andKennetGranholm.“Introduction”.InContemporaryEsotericism,1-24.EditedbyAspremandGranholm.Sheffield:EquinoxPublishingLtd.,2013.

Asprem,Egil.“ANiceArrangementofHeterodoxies:WilliamMcDougallandtheProfessionalizationofPsychicalResearch”.JournaloftheHistoryoftheBehavioralSciences46.2(2010),123-143.

Asprem,Egil.“Dis/UnityofKnowledge:Modelsforthestudyofmodernesotericismandscience”.Numen61.5-6(2015),538-567.

34

Asprem,Egil.“ExplainingtheEsotericImagination:TowardsaTheoryofKataphaticPractice”.Aries17.1(2017),17-50.

Asprem,Egil.“HowSchrödinger’sCatBecameaZombie:OntheEpidemiologyofScience-BasedRepresentationsinPopularandReligiousContexts”.Method&TheoryintheStudyofReligion28.2(2016),113-140.

Asprem,Egil.“OntheNecessityofComparison:ACallforHypothesis-DrivenResearchonEsotericism”.InWesternEsotericismandtheEast.EditedbyAnitaStasulaneandBirgitMenzel.Leiden:Brill,inpreparation.

Asprem,Egil.“PsychicEnchantmentsoftheEducatedClasses:TheParanormalandtheAmbiguitiesofDisenchantment”.InContemporaryEsotericism,330-350.EditedbyEgilAspremandKennetGranholm.Sheffield:Equinox,2013.

Asprem,Egil.“Reverse-Engineering‘Esotericism’:HowtoPrepareaComplexCulturalConceptfortheCognitiveScienceofReligion”.Religion46.2(2016),158-185.

Asprem,Egil.TheProblemofDisenchantment:ScientificNaturalismandEsotericDiscourse,1900–1939.Leiden:Brill,2014.

Blake,JosephA.“Ufology:TheIntellectualDevelopmentandSocialContextoftheStudyofUnidentifiedFlyingObjects”.InOntheMarginsofScience:TheSocialConstructionofRejectedKnowledge.EditedbyRoyWallis.Keele:UniversityofKeele,1979.

Burke,Peter.ASocialHistoryofKnowledgeII:FromtheEncyclopédietoWikipedia.Cambridge.PolityPress,2012.

Burke,Peter.ASocialHistoryofKnowledge:FromGutenbergtoDiderot.Cambridge:PolityPress,2000.

Campbell,Colin.“TheCult,theCulticMilieu,andSecularisation”.ASociologicalYearbookofReligioninBritain5(1972),119-136;

Campbell,Colin.“TheSecretReligionoftheEducatedClasses”.SociologicalAnalysis39.2(1978),146-156.

Colins,Harry.AreWeAllScientificExpertsNow?Hoboken,NJ:Wiley,2014.Collins,HarryandRobetEvans(eds.).RethinkingExpertise.Chicago:Universityof

ChicagoPress,2007.Defrance,Fischler,Morin,andPetrossian.Retourdesastrologues:Unenquetediagnostic.

Paris:ClubDel’Obs,1971.Delap,Lucy.“TheFreewoman,PeriodicalCommunities,andtheFeministReading

Public”.PrincetonUniversityLibraryChronicle61.2(Winter2000),233–76.Duggan,Colin.“ChaosMagick”.InTheOccultWorld,405-411.EditedbyChristopher

Partridge.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2015.Dyrendal,Asbjørn.“DevilishConsumption:PopularCultureinSatanicSocialization”.

Numen55(2008),68-98.Fischler,"AstrologyandFrenchSociety".InOntheMarginoftheVisible.Editedby

EdwardTiryakian.NewYork:JohnWileyandSons,1974.Forsyth,J.S.Demonologia;orNaturalKnowledgeRevealed;beinganexposéofAncient

andModernSuperstitions,Credulity,Fanaticism,Enthusiasm,&Imposture[etc.].London:JohnBumpus,23,Skinner-Street,1827.

Frank,Thomas.TheConquestofCool:BusinessCulture,Counterculture,andtheRiseofHipConsumerism.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1997.

Galbreath,Robert.“ExplainingModernOccultism.”InTheOccultinAmerica:NewHistoricalPerspectives.EditedbyHowardKerrandCharlesL.Crow.Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1983.

35

Gieryn,Thomas.“Boundary-WorkandtheDemarcationofSciencefromNon-Science:StrainsandInterestsinProfessionalIdeologiesofScientists”.AmericanSociologicalReview48(1983),781-795.

Gilhus,IngvildS.“Mediatisation”.InDictionaryofContemporaryEsotericism.EditedbyEgilAsprem.LeidenandBoston:Brill,inpreparation.

Granholm,Kennet.“SociologyandtheOccult”.InTheOccultWorld,720-731.EditedbyChristopherPartridge.MiltonPark&NewYork:Routledge,2015.

Greer,J.Christian,andColinDuggan.“AnatomyofaPaperTiger:ChaosMagickZinesasEsotericPractice”.PaperdeliveredtotheAssociationfortheStudyofEsotericism,ColgateUniversity,Hamilton,NY,July23,2014.

Hammer,Olav.ClaimingKnowledge:StrategiesofEpistemologyfromTheosophytotheNewAge.Leiden:Brill,2001.

Hammer,Olav.“Deconstructing‘WesternEsotericism’:OnWouterHanegraaff’sEsotericismandtheAcademy”.Religion43.2(2013),241-251.

Hanegraaff,WouterJ.“EmpiricalMethodintheStudyofEsotericism”.MethodandTheoryintheStudyofReligion7.2(1995),99-129.

Hanegraaff,WouterJ.“OntheConstructionofEsotericTraditions”.InWesternEsotericismandtheScienceofReligion,11-61.EditedbyWouterJ.HanegraaffandAntoineFaivre.Peeters:Gnostica,1998.

Hanegraaff,WouterJ.EsotericismandtheAcademy:RejectedKnowledgeinWesternCulture.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2012.

Hanegraaff,WouterJ.NewAgeReligionandWesternCulture.Leiden:Brill,1996.Hjarvard,Stig.“TheMediatizationofReligion:ATheoryoftheMediaasAgentsof

ReligiousChange”.NorthernLights:Film&MediaStudiesYearbook6.1(2008),9-26.

Holton,RobertJ.“TalcottParsons:ConservativeApologistorIrreplaceableIcon?”InHandbookofSocialTheory.EditedebyGeorgeRitzerandBarrySmart.London:SAGE,2009.

Marty,Martin.1970.“TheOccultEstablishment”.SocialResearch37:212-230.McClenon,James.DeviantScience:TheCaseofParapsychology.Philadelphia:University

ofPennsylvaniaPress,1984.Morrisson,Mark.“ThePeriodicalCultureoftheOccultRevival:EsotericWisdom,

ModernityandCounter-PublicSpheres”.JournalofModernLiterature31.2(2007),1-23.

O’Donoghue,Rachel.“PLANETX‘PROOF’Shockas‘alienplanetNibirucaughtonfilm’”.DailyStar,February2(2017).Url:https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/584672/nibiru-planet-x-proof-second-sun-earth-collision-date-2017-video-evidence-manila-bay(accessed21-01-2018).

Palfreman,Jon.“BetweenScepticismandCredulity:AStudyofVictorianScientificAttitudestoModernSpiritualism”.InOntheMarginsofScience:TheSocialConstructionofRejectedKnowledge.EditedbyRoyWallis.Keele:UniversityofKeele,1979.

Parsons,Talcott,andNeilSmelser.EconomyandSociety.NewYork:FreePress,1956.Parsons,Talcott.TheSocialSystem.NewYork:Macmillan,1951.Partridge,Christopher.“OccultureIsOrdinary”.InContemporaryEsotericism,113-133.

EditedbyEgilAspremandKennetGranholm.London:Routledge,2014.Pasi,Marco.“TheProblemsofRejectedKnowledge:ThoughtsonWouterHanegraaff’s

EsotericismandtheAcademy”.Religion43.2(2013),201-212.

36

Passinen,TerryM.“ProfessionalDeviantsandtheHistoryofMedicine:MedicalMesmeristsinVictorianBritain”.InOntheMarginsofScience:TheSocialConstructionofRejectedKnowledge.EditedbyRoyWallis.Keele:UniversityofKeele,1979.

Sperber,Dan.ExplainingCulture:ANaturalisticApproach.Oxford:BlackwellPublishing,1996.

Spruit,Leen.“CensorshipandCanon:ANoteonSomeMedievalWorksandAuthors”.InHowtheWestWasWon:OntheProblemsofCanonandLiteraryImagination,withaSpecialEmphasisontheMiddleAges,FestschriftM.B(urcht)Pranger,175-94.EditedbyW.Otten,A.Vanderjagt,andH.deVries.Leiden:Brill,2010.

Stausberg,Michael.“Whatisitallabout?SomereflectionsonWouterHanegraaff’sEsotericismandtheAcademy”.Religion43.2(2013),219-230.

Stroumsa,Guy.TheScripturalUniverseofAncientChristianity.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,2016.

Strube,Julian.“SocialistReligionandtheEmergenceofOccultism:AGenealogicalApproachtoSocialismandSecularizationin19th-CenturyFrance”.Religion46.3(2016),359-388.

Strube,Julian.Sozialismus,KatholizismusundOkkultismusimFrankreichdes19.Jahrhunderts:DieGenealogiederSchriftenvonEliphasLévi.Berlin:DeGruyter,2016.

Taves,Ann,andEgilAsprem.Explanation:ACriticalPrimer.London:Equinox,inpreparation.

Tiryakian,“PreliminaryConsiderations”.InOntheMarginoftheVisible:Sociology,theEsoteric,andtheOccult,PPPP.EditedbyEdwardTiryakian.NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons.

Truzzi,Marcello.“DefinitionandDimensionsoftheOccult:TowardsaSociologicalPerspective”.JournalofPopularCulture(December1971),635-646.

Truzzi,Marcello.“Editorial”,ZeteticScholar1.1(1978),2,34.Truzzi,Marcello.“Editorial”,ZeteticScholar12&13(1987),3-4.Truzzi,Marcello.“TheOccultRevivalasPopularCulture:SomeRandomObservationson

theOldandtheNouveauWitch”,TheSociologicalQuarterly13.1(1972),16-36.Wall,Mike.“NewObservationsDeepenMysteryof‘AlienMegastructure’Star”.Scientific

AmericanOctober5(2017).Url:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-observations-deepen-mystery-of-ldquo-alien-megastructure-rdquo-star/(accessedFeb2,2018).

Wallis,Roy(ed.).OntheMarginsofScience:TheSocialConstructionofRejectedKnowledge.Keele:UniversityofKeele,1979.

Webb,James.TheOccultUnderground.London:OpenCourtPublishing,1974.Wright,PeterW.G.“AStudyintheLegitimisationofKnowledge:The‘Success’of

Medicineandthe‘Failure’ofAstrology”.InOntheMarginsofScience:TheSocialConstructionofRejectedKnowledge.EditedbyRoyWallis.Keele:UniversityofKeele,1979.