The Theories of Magick

Magickal Thinking

The term 'magickal thinking' in anthropology, psychology, and cognitive science refers to nonscientific causal reasoning often involving mistaken associative thinking, such as the perceived ability of the mind to affect the physical world or correlation mistaken for causation. Perceived causal associations between actions or events may derive from symbolic associations such as metaphor, metonym, and apparent synchronicity.

Psychological Theories of Magick

Psychological theories treat magick as a personal phenomenon intended to meet individual needs, as opposed to a social phenomenon serving a collective purpose. The explanatory power of magick should not be underestimated, however. Both in the past and in the modern world magickal belief systems can provide explanations for otherwise difficult or impossible to understand phenomena while providing a spiritual and metaphysical grounding for the individual. Furthermore, magickal beliefs need not represent a form of irrationality, nor should they be viewed as incompatible with modern views of the world.

 

Theories on the Relationship of Magick to Religion

Magick and religion are categories of beliefs and systems of knowledge used within societies. While generally considered distinct categories in western cultures, the interactions, similarities, and differences have been central to the study of magick for many theorists in sociology and anthropology.

Marcel Mauss

In A General Theory of Magic, Marcel Mauss classifies magick as a social phenomenon, akin to religion and science, but yet a distinct category. In practice, magick bears a strong resemblance to religion. Both use similar types of rites, materials, social roles and relationships to accomplish aims and engender belief. They both operate on similar principles, in particular those of consecration and sanctity of objects and places, interaction with supernatural powers mediated by an expert, employment of symbolism, sacrifice, purification and representation in rites, and the importance of tradition and continuation of knowledge. Magick and religion also share a collective character and totality of belief. The rules and powers of each are determined by the community’s ideals and beliefs and so may slowly evolve. Additionally neither supports partial belief. Belief in one aspect of the phenomena necessitates belief in the whole, and each incorporates structural loopholes to accommodate contradictions.

The distinction Mauss draws between religion and magick is both of sentiment and practice. He portrays magick as an element of pre-modern societies and in many respects an antithesis of religion. Magick is secretive and isolated, and rarely performed publicly in order to protect and to preserve occult knowledge. Religion is predictable and prescribed and is usually performed openly in order to impart knowledge to the community. While these two phenomena do share many ritual forms, Mauss concludes that “a magical rite is any rite that does not play a part in organized cults. It is private, secret, mysterious and approaches the limit of prohibited rite.” In practice, magick differs from religion in desired outcome. Religion seeks to satisfy moral and metaphysical ends, while magick is a functional art which often seeks to accomplish tangible results. In this respect magick resembles technology and science. Belief in each is diffuse, universal, and removed from the origin of the practice. Yet, the similarity between these social phenomena is limited, as science is based in experimentation and development, while magick is an “a priori belief.” Mauss concludes that though magickal beliefs and rites are most analogous to religion, magick remains a social phenomenon distinct from religion and science with its own characteristic rules, acts and aims.

Tambiah

According to Tambiah, magick, science, and religion all have their own “quality of rationality,” and have been influenced by politics and ideology. Tambiah also believes that the perceptions of these three ideas have evolved over time as a result of Western thought. The lines of demarcation between these ideas depend upon the perspective of a variety of anthropologists, but Tambiah has his own opinions regarding magick, science, and religion.

According to Tambiah, religion is based on an organized community, and it is supposed to encompass all aspects of life. In religion, man is obligated to an outside power and he is supposed to feel piety towards that power. Religion is effective and attractive because it is generally exclusive and strongly personal. Also, because religion affects all aspects of life, it is convenient in the sense that morality and notions of acceptable behavior are imposed by God and the supernatural. Science, on the other hand, suggests a clear divide between nature and the supernatural, making its role far less all-encompassing than that of religion.

As opposed to religion, Tambiah suggests that mankind has a much more personal control over events. Science, according to Tambiah, is “a system of behavior by which man acquires mastery of the environment.” Whereas in religion nature and the supernatural are connected and essentially interchangeable, in science, nature and the supernatural are clearly separate spheres. Also, science is a developed discipline; a logical argument is created and can be challenged. The base of scientific knowledge can be extended, while religion is more concrete and absolute. Magick, the less accepted of the three disciplines in Western society, is an altogether unique idea.

Tambiah states that, "magic is a strictly ritualistic action that implements forces and objects outside the realm of the gods and the supernatural. These objects and events are said to be intrinsically efficacious, so that the supernatural is unnecessary."  To some, including the Greeks, magick was considered a “proto-science.” Magick has other historical importance as well.

Much of the debate between religion and magick originated during the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church was attacked for its doctrine of transubstantiation because it was considered a type of sacramental magick. Furthermore, the possibility of anything happening outside of God’s purpose was denied. Spells were viewed as ineffective and blasphemous, because religion required belief in "a conscious agent who could be deflected from this purpose by prayer and supplication.” Prayer was the only way to effectively enact positive change. The Protestant Reformation was a significant moment in the history of magickal thought because Protestantism provided the impetus for a systematic understanding of the world. In this systematic framework, there was no room for magick and its practices. Besides the Reformation, the Renaissance was an influential epoch in the history of thought concerning magick and science.

During the Renaissance, magick was less stigmatized even though it was done in secret and therefore considered "occult." Renaissance magick was based on cosmology, and its powers were said to be derived from the stars and the alignment of the planets. Newton himself began his work in mathematics because he wanted to see “whether judicial astrology had any claim to validity.”
The lines of demarcation between science, magick, and religion all have origins dating to times when established thought processes were challenged. The rise of Western thought essentially initiated the differentiation between the three disciplines. Whereas science could be revised and developed through rational thought, magick was seen as less scientific and systematic than science and religion, making it the least respected of the three.

Bronislaw Malinowski

In his essay “Magic, Science and Religion,” Bronislaw Malinowski contends that every person, no matter how primitive, uses both magick and science. To make this distinction he breaks up this category into the “sacred” and the “profane” or "magic/religion" and science. He theorizes that feelings of reverence and awe rely on observation of nature and a dependence on its regularity. This observation and reasoning about nature is a type of science. Magick and science both have definite aims to help “human instincts, needs and pursuits.” Both magick and science develop procedures that must be followed to accomplish specific goals. Magick and science are both based on knowledge; magick is knowledge of the self and of emotion, while science is knowledge of nature.

According to Malinowski, magick and religion are also similar in that they often serve the same function in a society. The difference is that magick is more about the personal power of the individual and religion is about faith in the power of God. Magick is also something that is passed down over generations to a specific group while religion is more broadly available to the community.
To end his essay, Malinowski poses the question, “why magic?” He writes, “Magic supplies primitive man with a number of ready-made rituals, acts and beliefs, with a definite mental and practical technique which serves to bridge over the dangerous gaps in every important pursuit or critical situation.”

Robin Horton

In “African Traditional Thought and Western Science,” Robin Horton compares the magickal and religious thinking of non-modernized cultures with western scientific thought. He argues that both traditional beliefs and western science are applications of “theoretical thinking.” The common form, function, and purpose of these theoretical idioms are therefore structured and explained by eight main characteristics of this type of thought:

1. In all cultures the majority of human experience can be explained by common sense. The purpose then of theory is to explain forces that operate behind and within the commonsense world. Theory should impose order and reason on everyday life by attributing cause to a few select forces.
2. Theories also help place events in a casual context that is greater than common sense alone can provide, because commonsense causation is inherently limited by what we see and experience. Theoretical formulations are therefore used as intermediaries to link natural effects to natural causes.
3. “Common sense and theory have complementary roles in everyday life.” Common sense is more handy and useful for a wide range of everyday circumstances, but occasionally there are circumstances that can only be explained using a wider causal vision, so a jump to theory is made.
4. “Levels of theory vary with context.” There are widely and narrowly encompassing theories, and the individual can usually chose which to use in order to understand and explain a situation as is deemed appropriate.
5. All theory breaks up aspects of commonsense events, abstracts them and then reintegrates them into the common usage and understanding.
6. Theory is usually created by analogy between unexplained and familiar phenomena.
7. When theory is based on analogy between explained and unexplained observations, “generally only a limited aspect of the familiar phenomena is incorporated into the explanatory model”.  It is this process of abstraction that contributes to the ability of theories to transcend commonsense explanation. For example, gods have the quality of spirituality by omission of many common aspects of human life.
8. Once a theoretical model has been established, it is often modified to explain contradictory data so that it may no longer represent the analogy on which is was based.
9. While both traditional beliefs and western science are based on theoretical thought, Horton argues that the differences between these knowledge systems in practice and form are due to their states in open and closed cultures. He classifies scientifically oriented cultures as ‘open’ because they are aware of other modes of thought, while traditional cultures are ‘closed’ because they are unaware of alternatives to the established theories. The varying sources of information in these systems results in differences in form which, Horton asserts, often blinds observers from seeing the similarities between the systems as two applications of theoretical thought.