What Is Esotericism? (2/2)
Making a list and checking it thrice
The previous post looked at six influential views of “esotericism.” One of those views had little value as a definition (though inspiring for believers). The others were only partly successful. They drew attention to important characteristics, but they did not capture any essential aspect. If they were attempting to offer the one, true, real definition of “esotericism,” they did not hit the target. But perhaps they were aiming for lexical definitions – a definition of a word as used, not of the thing out there in the world that it supposedly refers to. If so, proposing new definitions in terms of ideas like rejected knowledge and discursive transfers seems to narrow the circle of usage, to scholars talking to scholars.
I take the second, lexical approach to defining complex, abstract terms like religion, tradition, culture and esotericism. There is no such thing as esotericism, sitting out there somewhere, the same across history, cultures and languages, waiting to be finally described accurately. So, there is no way to defend some definition as the only correct one. Esotericism is a category used – by different groups in different ways – to lump together certain sets of beliefs, practices, roles, artifacts etc. It is a word people made up to describe some of the things they do and believe in. So, all we can do is look at how people use it.
If we can agree there is no point in talking about what esotericism really is, what the right definition is, then we can focus on the more manageable and useful task of finding definitions that lead to better understanding. Hanegraaff’s idea of rejected knowledge and von Stuckrad’s of discursive transfers are good at this: they point to important aspects of esotericism. But we go off the rails if we start trying to defend one or the other as the true, definitive definition.
Curated lists of types and characteristics turns out to be a good direction to take. Open-ended lists can define a sort of loose family: some members have more and some less of these characteristics; but all have a bunch of them. The result is not relativism, as if all list or definitions are equally good. Some are better than others, because they better reflect how relevant groups of people actually use the word.
This post defines “esotericism” in this way. It presents a list of 56 characteristics, developed using three methods:
The first post gave a list of twenty characteristics, after looking at six views of esotericism.
The following section of this post lists of groups or traditions labelled “esotericism” or “esoteric traditions.” Additional characteristics emerge from a discussion of marginal cases, examples that perhaps should be cut from that list.
I also add some additional characteristics to the list, based on my studies of these and other esoteric traditions. (Looking at how people use “esotericism” involves tracing what other ideas it links up to. My view counts because I happen to be one of few scholars of religion/s who studies esoteric traditions (in the library and in the field) and also relevant theoretical issues.)
A sample list of esoteric traditions
Here is a short, selective list of things called “esotericism,” ordered roughly chronologically. Hundreds of other traditions, currents and practices could be added, from medieval and early modern variants to small contemporary groups. Depending on how you define esotericism, some of these things do not belong on the list.
Group 1: Astrology, Alchemy, Hermetism, Neopythagoreanism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticisms, Kabbalah, Renaissance Magic, Christian Kabbalah, Christian Theosophy, Astral magic, Angel magic, Paracelsian medicine, Enochian magic, Naturphilosophie, Rosicrucianism, Freemasonry, Mesmerism, Swedenborgianism, Homeopathy, Spiritualism, Kardecism, Theosophy, Anthroposophy, Ritual Magic / Occultism, Thelema, Sigil Magic, Society of the Inner Light, Escuela Magnético-Espiritual de la Comuna Universal, “I AM” Movement, Fraternitas Rosæ Crucis, Umbanda, The Summit Lighthouse, UFO Religions, Traditionalism, The Fourth Way (Gurdjieff, Uspenskii), New Age, Gnosis (Samael Aun Weor), Vale do Amanhecer, Conscientiology, Urban/Techno Shamanism, 3HO (Healthy, Happy, Holy), Dhamanhur Spiritual Project, Chaos Magick.
Group 2: (Western) Sufism, New Thought, Xiantiandao, Caodaism, Ch’ŏndogyo, Mahikari, Russian Cosmism, Wicca, Curanderismo, Scientology.
The first group includes historical currents and techniques that most would agree are esoteric.
The second group includes traditions that raise questions about where we cross the line from esoteric to something else. Working with grey areas is a great way to define complex categories like esotericism. If we can argue that a certain tradition is not really esoteric, then the reason for this exclusion helps define “esoteric.” (Items for our growing list are highlighted in bold and italicized font.)
Beyond “western” – Many scholars have limited themselves explicitly to “Western” (European and Islamic) esotericism. Group 2 contains Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese and Japanese examples, and more could be added from other Asian countries. Scholars have also begun to underline the importance of Afro-diasporic and Latin American traditions. Since the founding Rosicrucian texts in the early 1600s, esoteric traditions are often characterized by positive orientalism and the adoption of elements of Asian religions. (Positive orientalism consist of two views: East and West are radically different from each other; and the East is the source of true spirituality, while the West is a spiritual desert, characterized by the sterility of science and materialism. Negative orientalism affirms the same split, but it inverts the valuation, prioritizing the “scientific” and “progressive” West.)
.jpg)
The issue of origins – Scientology is sometimes classified as esoteric, because its many influences include ideas from Aleister Crowley and his Thelemic (magick) tradition. This is a good example of how having one or very few esoteric elements or influences is not enough to classify a tradition as esoteric. If the presence of a significant degree of esoteric origin or elements is needed for something to count as an example of esotericism, then it makes sense to cut Scientology from the list. Wicca (a central Neo-pagan tradition) is a tougher call. Among other things, it has many ritual elements influenced in part by nineteenth-century magic, especially the foundational contributions of Doreen Valiente. Wicca could go either way. Call it “esoteric” or not as you wish. It helps mark the (arguable, relative, flexible, lexical, not real) boundary.
The centrality of doctrine – Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke crosses Spiritualism off the list (the tradition of séances and talking to spirits of the dead that spread around the world after its popularization in the mid-1800s in the USA): “Spiritualism’s lack of a coherent philosophy other than the implication of life beyond the veil of death tends to disqualify it as a variety of esoteric philosophy.” (Goodrick-Clarke is unfair to Spiritualism, which sometimes has highly developed doctrine, for example in the work of Andrew Jackson Davis.) But if this is a reason why Spiritualism might not make the cut, then it is a helpful step. Esotericisms have complex, coherent belief systems.
Strong relations to science – “UFO religions” is too broad a category. Some UFO religions are esoteric, some not. For example, Heaven’s Gate and the Aetherius Society [separate pdf download here] fit many of the criteria for esoteric traditions on the list below, so we they fit the label. Others, like the Raëlian Movement, have few esoteric elements, in part because they see themselves as scientific, so it should be cut from the list. (Whether a group uses science or pseudo-science is less relevant than its intention to be scientific as opposed to something else.) This underlines another criterion: esoteric traditions often appropriate scientific ideas and terminology for their own ends. This points to another characteristic: esoteric traditions are not too scientific in their beliefs. (This acknowledges the historical fact, explored by Hanegraaff, that science and religion excluded esoteric traditions as they squared off against each other over the past 500 years.) Russian Cosmism is also science-heavy, but with more esoteric elements than the Raëlian Movement. We could include or exclude it. It also helps mark the boundary. (We do not need to define “science” clearly for this criterion to be useful, because we are not trying to distinguish the real referents of “esoteric” and “scientific.” The goal is to flag a series of characteristics that are exemplified by some examples of esotericism – wiggle-room for divergent views is part of the process.)
Strong relations to religion – Western Sufi traditions are definitely esoteric, and Sufism in general is centrally influenced by Neoplatonic emanationist philosophy. The esoteric origin is more central than in the case of Scientology. However, Sunni Sufism’s insistence that it is Islamic (avoiding charges of heresy or shirk) suggests that it is best not to categorize it as a type of esotericism. Esoteric traditions often appropriate religious ideas and terminology for their own ends but they are not too religious in their beliefs. (Again, we do not need to define “religion” clearly for this to be useful.)
Overlap between other traditions and esotericism – Mexican-American Curanderismo is a folk healing tradition that has begun to overlap, among some practitioners and clients, with New Age and Spiritist ideas and practices. So some of its forms are definitely esoteric, but the older, more traditional end should probably not be classified as such (though spirit incorporation is prominent across the whole spectrum). This underlines the fact that the category of “esotericism” overlaps with religious, folk and other traditions.
Characterizing esotericism
Below is the resulting list of criteria. Discussion of how to define things using a list of characteristics has moved on since Ludwig Wittgenstein’s problematic “family resemblance” theory. (That discussion would lead us into recent philosophy of science and holistic semantic theory.) [Since writing this post. I have published an article, co-authored with philosopher Mark Gardiner, that does exactly this.] But a family resemblance definition is still a useful place to start.
This sort of definition has three characteristics:
Any tradition that has many (not necessarily all) of the criteria on this list is a type of esotericism. (How many characteristics does a tradition need to have to qualify? There is no right number, but two points help rule out especially bad choices: with too few criteria, obvious cases of religion will be included; with too many, obvious types of esotericism will be left out.)
There is nothing on the list that a proposed example of esotericism must have. (There are no necessary or sufficient criteria.)
The list is open-ended: criteria can be removed or added. As a result, there is no right or wrong answer to questions about whether to include marginal cases. (For example, that is where different calls can be made on whether Wicca should be included. It also underlines that this list reflects my own study of esotericisms: specialists in a different mix of esoteric traditions would likely add to the list; others might remove some criteria. If I spent more time on the list, I would likely change it myself. All this reflects the reality of ongoing discussions and arguments.)
The list is long because my goal is to give a broad sense of esoteric ideas and practices, to provide some room for exploring connections. (Different goals are served by different lists. As an end of term classroom exercise, I ask students to expand Faivre’s list, adding a couple of additional criteria for four historical periods: Ancient / Medieval; Renaissance / Reformation; Enlightenment / Nineteenth century; Twentieth / Twenty-first century.) The long list below leaves lots of space for discussing marginal cases. For example, how many characteristics do New Thought or Christian Science have?
CRITERIA OF ESOTERICISM
Views of reality
1. hidden Creator
2. emanationism (all of reality flows out from the divine)
3. hierarchical levels of reality
4. correspondence between all things / between levels of reality
5. unity of material and non-material aspects of reality / holism
6. transmutation of aspects of the world
7. living nature
Modes of communication
8. secrecy / hidden-meanings
9. framing messages for specific audiences
10. teachings from higher spiritual entities
11. historical & spiritual transmission
12. ritual transmission of knowledge
13. true initiation
Modes of doctrine
14. complex, coherent belief systems
15. claim to superior wisdom
16. sharp distinction between true and false knowledge
17. positive orientalism / adoption of elements of Asian religions
18. overlaps /concordances with other esoteric traditions
19. overlaps with religious, folk and other traditions
20. appropriation of religious ideas
21. not too religious
22. appropriation of scientific ideas
23. not too scientific
Spiritual goals
24. return to the Creator
25. transmutation /purification / realization of the true human self
26. divinization of the human (changing from human to divine)
27. ascension through higher dimensions of reality
28. group ascension through historical / temporal levels (new age, root races etc.)
29. physical and spiritual healing
Social organization
30. inner circle of disciples
31. levels of secrecy
32. master / initiate relation
33. hierarchy marked by ritual /doctrinal progress
Spiritual techniques
34. complex rituals
35. incorporation of spiritual beings (for learning)
36. focus on individual experience
37. accessing / realizing the true, inner Self / Will
38. correlation between rituals, transmutation, and levels of (outer or inner) reality
39. magical ritual
40. magical thinking (e.g., no coincidences, non-standard causality)
41. divination (foretelling the future, accessing hidden causes / patterns)
42. magical or ritual writing / language / alphabets
43. body-work, asceticism, sexual magic, dance
44. out-of-body work, astral travel, spirit journeys
45. breaking ethical boundaries
46. using negative emotions
47. entheogenics (hallucinogenic drugs as a path to esoteric truths)
Spiritual entities
48. multiplication of supernatural figures (angels, deities, spirits, extraterrestrial teachers, “entities”)
49. higher-level beings that help us ascend
Anthropology
50. complex view of human components: soul(s), Spirit(s), body(ies)
51. hierarchical view of human components
52. imagination as the human quality that allows us to follow truth
Historical trajectory
53. mainstream intellectual traditions into the 1500s
54. rejected over the last few hundred years, as the lines between religion and science sharpened
55. driven by individuals and small groups, some of which come to be seen as transhistorical models / sources
56. increasing overlap / borrowing between esoteric traditions over the past centuries
This approach to defining esotericism does not try to say what it is in fact. (See the discussion of definition in the previous post.) Any proposed real definition of esotericism would need to offer a list of necessary and sufficient characteristics that capture every single type of esotericism, and that include nothing that is not an esoteric tradition. That type of definition is either true or false.
The goal is to offer a pragmatic view based on the way esotericism has been discussed by scholars. This lexical definition is not true or false. It is better or worse at capturing how scholars (including me) talk about the category. It is more or less useful for helping us understand what characterizes esotericism.
I am not suggesting that this is the best possible list or definition. (I don’t think there is one.) It is too long a list to be useful for guiding research or teaching a class on esotericisms. But it is useful as a place to starting trying to understand what the word ‘esotericism’ means if it gives a nuanced sense of esotericism as a loose family of traditions. And, if so, it’s a successful definition.
UPDATE: Mark Gardiner and I have published a new approach to definition (and a new definition of esotericism) in Aries: Journal for the Study of Western Esotericism. this was a long target article, with sixteen responses by scholars of esotericism, and a response to those sixteen commentaries. (It’s all behind a paywall, unfortunately, but you can see the abstracts/summaries.)