Navigating Praxis: Pagan Studies vs. Esoteric Studies

[The Pomegranate 15.1-2 (2013) 151-163] ISSN 1528-0268 (print)doi: 10.1558/pome.v15i1-2.151 ISSN 1743-1735 (online)

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2014. Office 415, The Workstation, 15 Paternoster Row, Sheffield S1 2BX.

Navigating Praxis: Pagan Studies vs. Esoteric Studies

Amy Hale1

Department of Liberal StudiesGolden Gate University

536 Mission StreetSan Francisco, California 94105

[email protected]

AbstractPagan Studies and Esoteric Studies, while having somewhat different academic institutionalization patterns and methodological foci, are expe-riencing a greater convergence of subject matter and potential research approaches. This article compares the positions of the two fields with respect to their relationship to lived communities, academic objectivity and scholar activism, taking as a starting point the critiques of Pagan Studies made by scholar Markus Davidsen.

Keywords: esoteric studies; methodology; Pagan studies.

At the 2012 conference for contemporary esoteric scholarship held in Stockholm Sweden, Kocku von Stuckrad, in his keynote lecture “Rejected Theory in the Study of Esotericism,”2 made reference to the review article “What is Wrong with Pagan Studies” by Markus Davidsen,3 ostensibly to highlight methodological shortcomings that should not be reproduced in the field of Esoteric Studies. To sum-marize, Davidsen’s review article is a concentrated critique of the Brill Handbook of Pagan Studies, edited by James Lewis and Murphy Pizza, in which he concludes that Pagan Studies is “is dominated by

1. Amy Hale is an adjunct professor in the Department of Liberal Studies at Golden Gate University in San Francisco.

2. Kocku von Stuckrad, “Rejected Theory in the Study of Esotericism” (Key-note address at the International Conference on Contemporary Esotericism, Stock-holm, Sweden, August 27-29, 2012).

3. Markus Altena Davidsen. “What is Wrong with Pagan Studies?” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 24 (2012): 183–99.

mailto:[email protected]

152 The Pomegranate 15.1-2 (2013)

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2014

the methodological principles of essentialism, exclusivism, loyalism and supernaturalism, and (the text) shows how these principles pro-mote normative constructions of ‘pure’ paganism, insider interpre-tations of the data, and theological speculations about gods, powers, and a special “magical consciousness.”4 Although Davidsen him-self is not a specialist in the field of Esoteric Studies, von Stuckrad, who is a leading scholar in the field of Esoteric Studies, was citing this article in his keynote to specifically illustrate scholarly practices that he believes should be avoided in Esoteric Studies, emphasiz-ing what von Stuckrad perceives as a lack of theoretical engagement with regards to methodology in both fields. von Stuckrad made the point that Pagan Studies in his view did not meet standards of rigor-ous objectivity, and he argued that there’s a difference between the study of Paganism and Pagan Studies.

Von Stuckrad’s address and his perceptions of the weaknesses within Pagan Studies gave me pause for thought: Where is Pagan Studies positioned overall as an academic enterprise, and why would a leading scholar of Esoteric Studies, a field which should be closely allied to Pagan Studies, be making an example of Pagan Studies as a direction for Esoteric Studies scholars not to follow? That moment at that conference gave me comparative insights into the very different historical positioning of the two fields, and the ways in which their perceived relationship with their subject matters impacts their meth-odological sensibilities and directions.

Critiques of Pagan Studies

I would like to focus on three different critiques of Pagan Stud-ies scholarship here that emerge from Davidsen’s essay and which could potentially become cautionary tales for scholars of Esoteri-cism: That Pagan Studies is too activist and involved with identity construction, that it constructs normative studies of contemporary Paganism, and that the preponderance of practitioner scholars in the field indicates an overall “religionist” and non-objective approach.

First, Davidsen makes the argument that Pagan Studies is essen-tially an activist-driven enterprise, which affects the ability of schol-ars in the field to objectively report on modern Paganism, and this assessment is not entirely wrong. Pagan Studies, like a number of interdisciplinary fields we might consider “area studies,” such as

4. Ibid., 183.

Hale Navigating Praxis: Pagan Studies vs. Esoteric Studies 153


Africana Studies, Latin American Studies, or other interdisciplinary studies such as Women’s Studies and Queer Studies, arose out of an academic relationship with a community. Pagan Studies is, rightly or wrongly, intimately connected with the changing identity politics of the wider Pagan community and the attempts of the Pagan move-ment to gain legitimacy as a world religion, and that connection frequently impacts issues of methodology, scholarly voice, interpre-tation, and audience. There is no doubt that Pagan Studies is cur-rently navigating its relationship with advocacy and activism, but the question is, is it being done responsibly? In many places world-wide, notably in the United States and the United Kingdom, Pagan-ism is establishing itself within the discourses and frameworks of a religious minority, and Pagan Studies scholars need to be honest about the fact that the developing scholarship is going to reflect and support that. For example, Barbara Jane Davy states in her 2007 Intro-duction to Pagan Studies that “Pagan Studies is the study of Paganism as a distinct religious tradition in the context of world religions.”5 Is the academic field of Pagan Studies being used in this instance to give weight to the legitimacy of Paganism, even though Davy states that this is not necessarily her project?

Are Pagan Studies scholars guilty of representing Paganism too favorably under the influence of latent advocacy? Are scholars unwill-ing to depict actual power relations, factionalism, incoherence and unclear identities because they are trying to serve the wider cause of portraying Paganism as a genuine religion with social standing that has a firm moral base? This is certainly not an issue limited to Pagan Studies, and a comparison with the internal struggles within Islamic Studies can be useful here. In his 2012 essay “The Essence of Essen-tializing: A Critical Discourse on Critical Discourse in the study of Islam” Herbert Berg addresses the challenges that Islamic Studies scholars have in the balancing act of accurately representing the diversity of perspectives and movements within Islam, while also trying to promote positive community relationships where Mus-lims are in a mistrusted and misunderstood minority.6 He notes that scholars have a responsibility to accurately characterize the variety of expressions of Islam within academic conversations, even when

5. Barbara Jane Davy, Introduction to Pagan Studies (Lanham, Md.: AltaMira Press, 2007), 1–3

6. Herbert Berg, “The Essence of Essentializing: A Critical Discourse on ‘Crit-ical Discourse in the Study of Islam’,” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 24 (2012): 1–20.



these expressions may be socially and culturally challenging, but that scholars can also play meaningful public roles involving advo-cacy and interpretation. It is critical for the scholar to remember that these are different populations, and different modes of discourse.

It would be naïve to entirely dismiss the relationship between scholarship and advocacy and to ignore the ways in which schol-arly authority itself confers legitimacy on a subject or population. Yet this does not need to and should not equate to apologetics. Berg deftly cites the multiple contexts in which scholarship on religion needs to be deployed and Pagan Studies scholars would do well to promote the use of multiple scholarly voices. Scholarship has a vital role to play for women, peoples of color, indigenous peoples, and we would hardly deny the measured, careful application of schol-arship to social problems and issues of inclusion. But we need to be very clear about when the cart is driving the horse, and when the desire to produce appropriately applied scholarship may be driven by ideological concerns rather than hard data.

Davidsen also identifies an “essentialist” approach within Pagan Studies scholarship, as he argues that scholars are attempting to not only present but possibly even establish a normative Pagan identity around an idea of “shared Pagan values”7 which Davidsen cites as part of the stated mission of the editors of The Handbook. Marco Pasi in his review of the same volume also cited this tendency, noting that Pagan Studies scholars frequently present Paganism “as wished for” rather than exposing the tensions and difficulties which have characterized not only the historical development of modern Pagan-ism, but also the contemporary cultural and historical contexts in which it is situated.8 To provide one example, Davidsen in his essay cites as a problematic and uncritical example Melissa Harington’s 2007 characterization of “Pagan values” which she states include a “Pagan ethos of reverence for the ancient Gods, including the divine Feminine, participation in a magical world view, stewardship and caring for the Earth, and ‘nature religion.’”9 This general represen-tation is not unusual in academic introductions to Paganism, but it is frequently unclear what data is driving these assertions; inter-view data, participant observation research, analysis of insider texts,

7. Davidsen, “What is Wrong,” 187.8. Marco Pasi. review of The Handbook of Contemporary Paganism, edited by

Murphy Pizza and James R. Lewis, Journal of Religion in Europe 3 (2010): 375–92.9. Melissa Harrington, “Paganism and the New Age,” in Handbook of the New

Age, ed. Daren Kemp and James R. Lewis (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 435–52.



or is the writer, in fact, presenting an idealized version of “shared Pagan Values” based primarily on their community participation and insider knowledge?

Even as an anthropologist with many years of writing about con-temporary Paganism in the United States and the United Kingdom, I cannot say with certainty that these values listed by Harrington represent universal core Pagan values today. I can certainly think of many values that groups of Pagans hold that are contrary to or very different from these. The critique of an essentialist thrust in Pagan Studies scholarship is accurate in that the scholarly context for many wider claims of “Pagan values” is not clear. But, I see this less as being solely a problem with “insider scholarship,” as this issue of establishing a normative narrative is part of the identity build-ing project that is frequently found in area studies work, and which can be—although is not always—detrimental to its scholarship by creating an ideological lens through which data is interpreted and also gathered. This normative thrust can be found in other discus-sions about “Pagan values” which seem to be primarily designed to establish and promote modern Paganism as a “moral” religion, most likely in distinction to how Paganism may be popularly perceived within cultures with a Christian majority such as the United States. Again, in Barbara Jane Davy’s chapter on contemporary issues in Introduction to Pagan Studies roundly condemns commercialized and mediated Wiccan spellcasting texts, but it is unclear the degree to which she is presenting data on widespread values concerning this material or whether she is using the academic platform of Pagan Studies to assert a picture of anti materialist “Pagan value,” and also perhaps to demonstrate that Paganism is a serious religion which should not be commercialized or trivialized.10

As in many areas of Religious Studies, the role of the insider or practitioner within Pagan Studies is still hotly debated. Pagan Studies does have a high rate of insider/practitioner scholars, and or scholars for whom participation has radically changed their worldviews and also their sense of self, and this has created a high degree of reflexivity surrounding Pagan Studies methodologies, which are primarily, although by no means exclusively, participant-observation driven. However, contrary to Davidsen’s critique, this does not necessarily support assertions that it is a “religionist” enterprise or that insider scholarship is inherently supporting a

10. Davy, Introduction to Pagan Studies, 194–99.



theological position. Davidsen seems to be proposing a rather polar-ized position—either “insider” or “outsider,” “religionist” or “natu-ralist.” Of course insider does not imply practitioner. Also, I doubt that the practitioner scholar ratio in Pagan studies is more marked than in Esoteric Studies or for that matter any other fields of reli-gious study, but the marginality of Pagan Studies and the lack of perceived credibility of Pagan scholars requires a vigorous embrace of reflexivity, not just as good scholarly practice, but also to appear legitimate within wider academia.

Davidsen’s assertion that belief being taken seriously by a re-searcher implies that the researcher has to share those beliefs is patently incorrect, but even if a researcher does, it does not mean that the resulting scholarship is inherently problematic. The schol-arly enterprise demands a distance in presentation, not atheism or agnosticism, which itself is a religious position, and is not a syn-onym for objectivity. As scholars we have a responsibility to bring a critical eye to bear on our subjects and the categories we create for them, regardless of our relationship with them. Nikki Bado charac-terized this position in her monograph Coming to the Edge of the Circle. Being an insider or practitioner does not suggest that a scholar is an activist, an advocate, or that the scholarship is inaccurate.11 Insiders and outsiders both have blind spots, it the job of the scholar to catch them. As Bado notes, religion and scholarly praxis are both messy. It is the nature of the scholarly enterprise, requiring critical analy-sis, argument, demonstration of bias, and disclosure of the relation-ship of the researcher to the subject, which creates the conditions for highly valid research. All scholarship should demand reflexivity at some level, and the study of religion is most often an interpretive act in any case. Yet scholars are not in the business of validating truth claims, and while the process of scholarly practice assuredly pro-vides insight and revelation regardless of the subject matter, it is not there to promote or deny the ultimate veracity of a worldview.

Pasi has also noted a problem in the use of the word “we” in Pagan Studies scholarship, where it is frequently used interchange-ably to refer to both the community of scholars and the wider com-munity of Pagans, suggesting that Pagan Studies scholars, readers and the subject population are integrated.12 This is a serious issue

11. Nikki Bado. Coming to the Edge of the Circle: A Wiccan Initiation Ritual (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

12. Pasi, Review, 391.



that needs to be addressed. For an example of this prevalence of this approach, in reviewing the calls for papers for the 2014 Western Regional Conference of the American Academy of Religion, of all the represented sections, Pagan Studies was the only call that used “we” consistently, and framed the call with an assumption that the papers would be from Pagans for delivery to Pagans. The call itself is overtly activist and theological in its language:

What are our voices as contemporary Pagans out in the world at this point in history? In which places do we stand culturally, politically, socially, and religiously? How do we present ourselves? How do we respond to remarks about who we are such as: laughter—Pagans dis-appeared a long time ago; to accusations—you are devil worshippers; to dismissals—you don't have a real religion? Where do we stand against the hegemony of monotheistic religions, whose adherents try to own the conversation on morality and spirituality? What do we need to do to build our voice, not only in the academy, but also in the world?

How do we claim our alignment with the Ancient Mysteries in a way that actually gives us a voice? In America, how do we organize—without losing our plurality—clear the problems affecting employ-ment, child custody, etc.? What do we need/want to do to no longer be marginalized?13

This approach differs from the scholarly objectivity displayed by the other calls, which are constructed such that no particular religious affiliation or identity is assumed. Davidsen also makes the point that some of the pieces in the Handbook are, in fact, theological in nature without clearly being marked as such, citing the contribu-tions of Graham Harvey and Michael York. We clearly see this same tendency in the above mentioned call for papers. It can certainly be argued that theology itself is a valid enterprise, but, again, it is essen-tial that scholars delineate theological discourses from ethnographic ones. One is essentially prescriptive and the other descriptive. Not distinguishing and delimiting these discourses may eventually harm the academic legitimacy and the perception of quality of scholarship within Pagan Studies.

For all the reasons cited above, Pagan Studies scholars have had to be very explicit about their reflexivity and use of subjective meth-odologies. In fact, at times it seems as though there is more writ-ing about the process of doing Pagan Studies than there are actually

13. “Call For Papers AAR West 2014” http://www.aarwr.org/Call%20for%20Papers.php (accessed 28 January, 2014).

http://www.aarwr.org/Call for Papers.php

http://www.aarwr.org/Call for Papers.php



data led studies. The collection Researching Paganisms, edited by Jenny Blain, Douglas Ezzy, and Graham Harvey, includes thought-ful, sophisticated, reflexive frameworks for the study of Paganisms, and any general discussion of Pagan Studies methodologies and frameworks which does not address this volume is lacking.14 It could be argued, however, that Researching Paganisms focuses on reflexive methodologies because scholars of Paganism need exactly this sort of articulation to be understood and also seen as legitimate by other scholars. However, is the reflexivity underpinning sound scholarly practice? Does it give us a richer understanding of the material, or does it reify agendas and identity concerns by clothing them in the application of a scholarly discourse?

Comparison with Esoteric Studies

How are these points of concern relevant to the development of Eso-teric Studies, which would seem not to demonstrate them? Pagan Studies and Esoteric Studies are certainly related fields with much potential overlap and growing convergence, and as Esoteric Studies moves more toward the study of contemporary esotericism, embrac-ing topics that require ethnographic approaches, understanding the position of this related field is certainly of relevance. Although the history of these fields is quite different, I would argue that perhaps von Stuckrad’s cautionary tale does indicate a growing awareness of some of the common concerns and themes shared by these fields, especially expressed by repeated concerns about scholar practitio-ners and “religionist” approaches. It is worth noting that Esoteric Studies has had a history of institutional presence in Europe that it has not had in the United States or the United Kingdom, (despite the departmental presence at the University of Exeter) and which Pagan Studies does not have at all anywhere, which may shape the ways in which the academic discourses of these fields have devel-oped. Furthermore until rather recently, Esoteric Studies as a field has generally used historiographic, not ethnographic approaches, and has been more strongly aligned with religious studies. By con-trast, Pagan Studies scholars frequently come from a more diverse disciplinary background, and embrace more sociological and ethno-graphic approaches. So while Davidsen’s critique may have seemed

14. Jenny Blain, Douglas Ezzy, and Graham Harvey, eds., Researching Paganisms (Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press 2004).



like a useful caution for von Stuckrad to have issued, Esoteric Stud-ies does, in fact, struggle with some similar areas of concern, such as “religionist” approaches, and bias, but in my view the answer is not for the scholar to adopt further distance, but instead to embrace responsible reflexivity when appropriate.

While Esoteric Studies as a discipline does deal with living com-munities of practice, unlike in Pagan Studies, there is no open dis-course of advocacy underpinning the field. Scholars working with occult or esoteric practitioners are generally not concerned with trying to portray practitioners as a group of moral actors trying to gain social and cultural legitimacy, although there are some excep-tions to this. There is also no overarching concern for acting on behalf of a religious minority, promoting civil rights, or commu-nicating shared values, although there is a bit of an overwhelming concern with identifying shared characteristics of esotericism for the purposes of delineating or defining the field, which may be partially a result of having such well-defined institutional centers of study.

Certainly in Continental Europe, Esoteric Studies scholars are tasked with a particular type of objectivity, empiricism, and neu-trality in their methodologies, most of which are derived from his-torical, not ethnographic methodologies. To that end subjective and reflexive methodologies are not significantly encouraged in Eso-teric Studies on the whole, although Wouter Hannegraaf has pro-vided some particularly nice subjective accounts of his journeys as an academic of Western Esotericism.15 Historiographic distance has not been as pronounced in Esoteric Studies as it has emerged in the United States and the United Kingdom , where scholars such as Arthur Versluis and to some degree Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke have taken more personally engaged approaches in their historical research. Nevertheless, since Esoteric Studies has predominantly concentrated on historical analysis, dealing with the direct engage-ment of communities of practice and practitioner individuals has not been as much of a topic of methodological focus.

Yet the scholar practitioner issue within Esoteric Studies is still a matter of methodological concern, and this is because that field, too, has a concern with a misuse of theological discourses, which has been so very well and thoroughly covered by Wouter Hanegraaf in his critiques of the “religionist” approach to Esoteric Studies. Hanegraaf

15. Wouter J. Hanegraaf, “The Power of Ideas: Esotericism, Historicism, and the Limits of Discourse,” Religion 43, no. 2 (2013): 252–73.



states, “Clearly the religionist approach to the Study of Western eso-tericism is itself a religious project.” I fully agree that Esoteric Stud-ies as a field is not the place to assert worldviews or to validate truth claims, and not only is there is a history of this sort of scholarship in the field, but students are coming to the field hoping to learn about practice or to explore ideas of personal gnosis or enlightenment. Probably for this reason, Hanegraaf in his chapter in Teaching Mys-ticism titled “Teaching Experiential Dimensions of Western Esoteri-cism” suggests that the practitioner leaves that aspect of self outside the classroom.16 But not only am I’m not sure that is at all possible, I believe that approach creates another set of problems, and a poten-tial lack of transparency.

It is difficult to assess the degree to which Esoteric Studies as a field in the future may become involved in the politics of minority religions, or the degree to which these scholars may find themselves in positions of advocacy or public service, but I think it is important that Esoteric Studies scholars are very clear about the potential inter-sections between their field of study, with advocacy and policy. Eso-teric Studies scholars certainly already intersect with the realities of marginalized individuals, groups and practices, as well as groups with extreme political views. These realities pose particular meth-odological concerns and in my view entail scholarly responsibilities.

Scholar practitioners need to be trained to handle their involve-ment with esoteric groups in a responsible academic manner, not simply pretend they are complete outsiders if they are not, and there are a number of reasons why. First, non-reflexive studies, especially ethnographically based ones, lack richness and if the researcher does have insider knowledge of a community, this actually increases the ethnographic validity of the study as it may represent a more accu-rate sense of how the community understands itself. Even when tex-tually focused, insiders can present deeper readings of texts and provide useful information about contexts and interpretations. While divulging one’s relationship with any sort of religiosity requires skill, I believe it can be an important part of responsible scholarship espe-cially when it is relevant to the ways in which data is collected, pre-sented and interpreted. Another issue that Esoteric Studies scholars will face is the simple ethical one of responsibility to the community or

16. Wouter J. Hanegraaf, “Teaching Experiential Dimensions of Esotericism,” in Teaching Mysticism, ed. William B. Parsons (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 154–70.



individuals being studied. Insider status can be key to accessing priv-ileged information, and this sort of research is built on relationships and trust. Esoteric Studies scholars working with practicing popu-lations need to protect their consultants and themselves through an honest and open presentation of their relationship with the commu-nity, regardless of whether they are or not practitioners. This protects the researcher as well as the population under study, especially if the researcher is working with extremist groups, groups which may be unsanctioned in certain locations, or people engaged in illegal activi-ties, which can be the case with some contemporary esoteric groups (although they are certainly in the minority).

Overall, we see very little acknowledgment of the involvement of scholars with esoteric practice or even with the data collection of esoteric groups, although there are certainly exceptions, for instance, Kennet Granholm positions himself well and honestly in his work on Dragon Rouge and the Black Metal scene.17 As a result of this lack of reflexivity, there are some instances of scholarship being pro-duced as “objective” which mask underlying bias, and indeed use scholarship as a front for activism. Certainly there are political agen-das that inform some scholars of esotericism, and if scholars do not take a reflexive approach to their subject, it actually becomes very easy for them to shield their own agenda if they have one. This can lead to biased scholarship being used to legitimate political agen-das if the researcher is assumed to be “objectively reporting.” This is probably most clearly seen in the work of scholar activists writ-ing about the relationship between right-wing political movements and esoteric activity.18 In these cases the veneer of objectivity and the illusion of distance can mask the role of scholarly production in legitimizing figures and movements by portraying them in a posi-tive light. Unless one is a specialist in this area, it is hard to come to an accurate conclusion about this research.

Marco Pasi has suggested that the key methodological distinc-tions and different academic positionings between Pagan Studies

17. See Kennet Granholm, “Ritual Black Metal: Popular Music as Occult Medita-tion and Practice,” Correspondences 1, no. 1 (2013): 5–33.

18. See the essay by Jacob Senholt, “Radical Traditionalism and the New Right: An Examination of Political Esotericism in America,” in Esotericism, Religion and Politics, ed. Arthur Versluis, Lee Irwin, and Melinda Phillips (Minneapolis: Asso-ciation for the Study of Esotericsm, 2012). Senholt, one of the primary founders of New Right publishers Arktos Press, offers a very sympathetic view of New Right-affiliated authors.



and Esoteric Studies may actually reflect a divide in the geograph-ical development of the two fields, one having stronger influence from Continental Europe and the other from Anglophone coun-tries.19 Certainly within the United States, demonstration of religi-osity (of a certain type) is generally positively valued, and it can be argued that Pagan Studies in the United States is responding to that, partially as a way of demonstrating legitimacy and also in trying to engage in wider religious culture. In the United Kingdom there is certainly a history of Pagan Studies scholars becoming involved in policy issues. It may well be that the profoundly secular nature of most of Continental Europe is not going to be as supportive of any methodologies or scholars that appear to be promoting or institu-tionally supporting religion in any way. Conversely, despite some growth in Esoteric Studies within the United States, the religious cli-mate will make serious institutionalization a challenge, and individ-ual scholars of the esoteric will most likely still face marginalization. The relationship of the subject matter to American perceptions of appropriate “morality” and religiosity will be a challenge for Eso-teric Studies scholars, but embracing these very discourses is a strat-egy that Pagan Studies is actually using to gain institutional support.

What might be a more generally useful conversation to have is an exploration of the various audiences and uses for scholarship in both Pagan Studies and Esoteric Studies, and how different contexts may well require different scholarly voices. Another suggestion would be for scholars in both fields to explicitly explore the nature of applied scholarship, policy and advocacy and also theology. Academics dealing with living populations need to have a good command of these categories and their boundaries.

Overall as scholars, we should advocate responsible reflexivity. As scholars, we are not in the business of making truth claims or legiti-mizing activist agendas, but we should know where the researcher stands and what they are trying to do with their research. If we are in charge of representing and reporting accurately, it means we need to be critical and also be honest. Pagan Studies scholars might con-sider the wider political contexts in which their scholarship is being created and consumed and the effects of those contexts on method-ological and interpretive decisions. Esoteric Studies scholars need to be responsible to the communities they are representing and also to their readership about their data collecting and interpretation.

19. Pasi, Review, 392.



And I would agree with Kocku von Stuckrad that both fields need to engage vigorously with theory and method from a wide variety of academic disciplines. Both fields do suffer from a certain type of marginality due to the perceived eccentricity of our topics, yet many of these concerns, of reflexivity, representation, critical approaches and advocacy resonate with central issues of debate within Reli-gious Studies. That suggests fertile ground indeed.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Marco Pasi for his thoughtful com-ments on an earlier draft of this paper.

BibliographyBado, Nikki. Coming to the Edge of the Circle: A Wiccan Initiation Ritual. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0195166450.001.0001Berg, Herbert. “The Essence of Essentializing: A Critical Discourse on ‘Critical Dis-

course in the Study of Islam’.” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 24 (2012): 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341235

Blain, Jenny, Douglas Ezzy, and Graham Harvey, eds. Researching Paganisms. Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press, 2004.

Davidsen, Markus Altena. “What is Wrong with Pagan Studies?” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 24 (2012): 183–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157006812X 634881

Davy, Barbara Jane. Introduction to Pagan Studies, 1–3. Lanham, Md.: AltaMira Press, 2007.

Granholm, Kennet. “Ritual Black Metal: Popular Music as Occult Meditation and Practice.” Correspondences 1, no. 1 (2013): 5–33.

Hanegraaff, Wouter J. “The Power of Ideas: Esotericism, Historicism, and the Limits of Discourse.” Religion 43, no. 2 (2013): 252–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2013.767607

——. “Teaching Experiential Dimensions of Esotericism.” In Teaching Mysticism edited by William B. Parsons, 154–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751198.001.0001

Harrington, Melissa. “Paganism and the New Age.” In Handbook of the New Age, edited by Daren Kemp and James R. Lewis, 435–52. Leiden: Brill, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004153554.i-484.151

Pasi. Marco. Review of The Handbook of Contemporary Paganism, edited by Murphy Pizza and James R. Lewis. Journal of Religion in Europe 3 (2010): 375–92.

Senholt, Jacob. “Radical Traditionalism and the New Right: An Examination of Political Esotericism in America.” In Esotericism, Religion and Politics, edited by Arthur Versluis, Lee Irwin, and Melinda Phillips, 155–75. Minneapolis: Asso-ciation for the Study of Esotericism, 2012.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0195166450.001.0001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341235

http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157006812X634881

http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157006812X634881

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2013.767607

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2013.767607

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751198.001.0001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004153554.i-484.151

http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004153554.i-484.151

Documents

Navigating Praxis: Pagan Studies vs. Esoteric Studies