Introduction: Rationalising Magic And Witchcraft
Tanya Luhrmann‘s work stands out for its depth and insight in the study of contemporary religious practices, particularly magic and witchcraft. Her 1989 book, “Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft: Ritual Magic in Contemporary England,” examines how people in modern, rational societies engage deeply with magical practices. Central to her study is the concept of “interpretative drift,” which describes the gradual shift in how individuals perceive and believe in magic, influenced by factors like gradual change, community dynamics, and cognitive processes. This exploration, grounded in Luhrmann’s ethnographic research, also addresses how sceptical, educated individuals reconcile these beliefs with a secular worldview. In discussing Luhrmann’s interpretative drift, I will also delve into various counter-arguments, offering a comprehensive view of the complexities surrounding belief formation in the context of magic and witchcraft.
Hello symposiasts, I’m Dr Angela Puca, religious studies PhD, and this is your online resource for the academic study of magick, esotericism, Paganism, Shamanism, and all things occult.
Tanya Luhrmann and Interpretative Drift
In ‘Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft’, Tanya Luhrmann offers a compelling ethnographic study of modern magical practices in England. Published in 1989, this book delves into the world of individuals who, despite living in a predominantly rational and scientific society, are deeply engaged in the practice of witchcraft and magic. Central to Luhrmann’s exploration is the concept of ‘interpretative drift,’ a theory that explains how people gradually shift their perceptions and beliefs to incorporate magical practices into their lives.
Based on ethnographic research, Luhrmann’s work provides a detailed look at various magical groups, including Wiccans, the followers of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and other esoteric traditions in England. She examines how educated and often sceptical individuals reconcile their involvement in these practices with their secular, rational worldview. This reconciliation, or interpretative drift, is a gradual process influenced by participation in rituals, community dynamics, and cognitive changes.
How can Rational People Embrace Magic and Witchcraft
However, ‘Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft’ has sparked controversy and debate. Some practitioners and scholars have questioned Luhrmann’s interpretations and conclusions about magical belief systems. As an academic who holds different views on the engagement with magic, I find it crucial to present counter-arguments to Luhrmann’s theses. This approach hopefully encourages a more nuanced understanding and invites a broader dialogue about the nature of belief in magical practices.
For practitioners, Luhrmann’s book is an opportunity to reflect on their practices within the broader context of their daily lives and societal norms. For scholars, especially in anthropology and religious studies, it offers a rich case study of how modern individuals navigate complex belief systems.
I invite viewers to engage with Luhrmann’s work and the ethnographic context it provides. Whether you agree with her interpretations or not, I encourage you to share your thoughts and experiences in the comments. Let’s discuss Luhrmann’s theory and its implications for our understanding of magic and witchcraft in contemporary society. Your insights enrich this conversation and deepen our understanding of these enduring and fascinating practices.
Tanya Luhrmann’s concept of interpretative drift provides a possible framework for understanding how individuals, particularly those with a rational, educated background, come to embrace the beliefs and practices of magic and witchcraft. Now, let’s cover all the elements that are part of this concept of interpretative drift.
Luhrmann’s Argument Explained: Incremental Nature
Luhrmann proposes that the adoption of magical beliefs is a gradual process. Consider the process of learning a new language. It’s a gradual journey; you don’t suddenly wake up fluent in French or English. Tanya Luhrmann suggests a similar process for adopting beliefs in magic and witchcraft. It’s not an overnight transformation. As people engage more with rituals and integrate into magical communities, their worldview begins to shift subtly. For example, someone might initially join a witchcraft group out of curiosity. Over time, as they participate in rituals and interact with fellow practitioners, they might start interpreting certain life events as influenced by magic, a perspective they didn’t hold before (Luhrmann, 1989).
Counter-Argument to Incrementalism
Now, to counterargument this point of the interpretative drift by Luhrman, we can find that in contrast with Luhrmann’s gradualism, William James, in “The Varieties of Religious Experience” (1902), highlights the possibility of sudden, transformative religious conversions. Something that I have witnessed myself in my work as an anthropologist in the field. James’s observations suggest that belief changes can occur rapidly, challenging the notion of a solely gradual shift.
Imagine a scene from a film where a character has a sudden, profound revelation. William James, in “The Varieties of Religious Experience” (1902), argues that changes in religious beliefs can happen just like that – quickly and dramatically. James suggests that someone might undergo a sudden, transformative experience that completely shifts their beliefs, even just in a second. For instance, a person might have an unexpected mystical encounter or a moment of intense insight, leading them to instantly believe in supernatural phenomena (James, 1902).
The second point illustrated by Luhrmann, as part of the interpretative drift theory, is the “plausibility structures.” Luhrmann identifies that certain social and cognitive frameworks or plausibility structures within magical communities make specific beliefs seem more credible. These structures, constituted by rituals, teachings, and communal experiences, reinforce the worldview of witchcraft and magic, making it more acceptable and real to the practitioners. Imagine you’re watching a group of people who believe in the power of crystals. This belief doesn’t just come out of nowhere; it’s supported by a network of rituals, teachings, and shared experiences – what Luhrmann calls “plausibility structures.” These structures make the idea of crystals having power seem more believable to those involved. For instance, if everyone in a group talks about how crystals have healed them or brought them good luck, and this is reinforced through books, discussions, and rituals, then the idea becomes more plausible and real within that group (Luhrmann, 1989).
Counter-Argument to Plausibility Structures
Now, onto the counter-argument. Stark and Bainbridge, in their work “The Future of Religion” (1985), emphasise the role of individual agency and rational choice in the adoption of beliefs. They argue that individuals might choose beliefs based on personal rationality and perceived benefits, suggesting a more active, individualistic approach to belief adoption than the communal and structural emphasis of Luhrmann.
You can think about a person who carries a crystal because they’ve read about its benefits and think it makes sense. Stark and Bainbridge argue that this kind of individual decision-making plays a big role in people’s beliefs. They suggest that people often pick beliefs based on their own reasoning and what they feel will benefit them rather than just going along with the group. This viewpoint highlights a more personal, individual approach to adopting beliefs instead of the group-influenced structures Luhrmann describes. For example, someone might start using crystals because they’ve researched and concluded that they will help them, not necessarily because their social group believes in them (Stark & Bainbridge, 1985). In fact, it seems to be quite the opposite – people who believe in crystals are attracted to them for personal, individual reasons because they work for them, and then they seek out groups that align with their views.
Cognitive Dissonance and Rationalisation
The third part of Luhmann’s theory is cognitive dissonance and rationalisation.
Luhrmann suggests that practitioners initially experiencing cognitive dissonance due to the conflict between their magical practices and secular beliefs engage in a process of rationalisation. This process helps them to reconcile these conflicting views, leading to a syncretic worldview where magic and rationality coexist.
For example, someone who has always valued science and rationality starts practising magic. At first, they might feel a bit of inner conflict or discomfort – what’s known as cognitive dissonance – because these new magical practices don’t quite fit with their usual, more secular beliefs. Luhrmann suggests that these individuals start to rationalise or make sense of this conflict over time. They might begin to think of magic as a different form of understanding the world that can coexist with science. This way, they blend their old rational views with their new magical practices, creating a mixed worldview where both can exist together (Luhrmann, 1989).
Counter-Argument to Cognitive Dissonance & Rationalisation
On to the counter-argument to that. Leon Festinger‘s “Theory of Cognitive Dissonance” from 1957 indicates that such dissonance might not always lead to a reconciliation of beliefs. Instead, individuals might choose to reject new information that conflicts with their existing beliefs, thereby maintaining their original belief systems (Festinger, 1957).
Now, consider someone who, upon encountering ideas that clash with their existing beliefs, decides to dismiss these new ideas entirely. Leon Festinger’s theory suggests that when people face such cognitive dissonance, they don’t always find a way to reconcile the conflicting beliefs. Instead, they might outright reject the new information, sometimes even pretending that it never happened, and therefore reject the validity of magic to keep their original beliefs intact, like a strictly scientific worldview. So, in this case, rather than blending the two, they stick firmly to their original belief system, maintaining their usual way of understanding the world (Festinger, 1957).
Embodied Knowledge and Practice
The fourth aspect of the interpretive drift is embodied knowledge and practice.
Luhrmann highlights the importance of physical practice and embodiment in adopting new beliefs. Through repeated participation in rituals, these practices become deeply ingrained, profoundly influencing the practitioner’s perception and understanding of reality.
Think about learning to ride a bike. At first, it’s just a concept, but as you physically practice, the experience becomes a part of you. Luhrmann suggests something similar happens when adopting new beliefs, especially in contexts like magic and witchcraft. When people actively participate in rituals – like chanting, meditating, or spell-casting – these aren’t just actions. They start to shape how individuals experience and understand the world. For instance, someone who regularly participates in meditation rituals may begin to genuinely feel a deeper spiritual connection, altering their perception of reality beyond the ritual itself (Luhrmann, 1989).
Counter-Argument to Embodied Knowledge and Practice
To counter-argue that, we can apply Festinger’s theory here. One could argue that despite engaging in embodied practices, individuals might still resist integrating beliefs that conflict with their pre-existing worldview, thus maintaining their original belief systems (Festinger, 1957).
Now, imagine someone who joins these rituals but has a strong, pre-existing belief in a more scientific or in a different religion’s view of the world. According to Festinger’s theory, even if this person physically participates in the rituals, they might not let these experiences change their beliefs. They could go through the motions of the rituals without altering their fundamental understanding of reality. In other words, just because they’re engaging in these practices doesn’t mean they’ll automatically adopt the beliefs that go with them. Despite their involvement in the rituals, they might continue to see the world through their original, more scientific lens (Festinger, 1957).
Community and Belonging
The fifth element of the interpretative drift is community and belonging. Luhrmann emphasises the significant role of community in the process of interpretative drift. Being part of a group that shares and reinforces magical beliefs provides a supportive environment that helps validate and normalise these beliefs.
Picture joining a book club where everyone is enthusiastic about mystery novels. Soon, you might find yourself more interested in and convinced about the genre’s appeal. Luhrmann argues that a similar phenomenon occurs with magical beliefs. Being part of a community, like a coven or a group of practitioners, where everyone shares and reinforces beliefs in magic creates a supportive environment. This group setting helps make these magical beliefs seem more normal and valid. For example, if you’re in a group where everyone regularly discusses their experiences with spellcasting, you might start to see spellcasting as a more credible and effective practice (Luhrmann, 1989).
Counter-Argument to Community and Belonging
To counter-argue, we can look at Robert Wuthnow, in “Religion and Individualism” (1993), who observes a trend towards individualism in modern spirituality. This suggests a shift from communal influence to personal experience in spiritual practices, proposing a different dynamic from the communal reinforcement highlighted by Luhrmann (Wuthnow, 1993).
Now, think about someone who prefers to read and explore mystery novels on their own, forming their opinions independently. Robert Wuthnow points out that in modern spirituality, there’s a growing trend towards such individualism. This perspective suggests that people are increasingly finding spiritual meaning through personal experiences rather than through communal activities. So, instead of a group influencing an individual’s beliefs, it’s more about personal exploration and individual experiences shaping one’s spiritual practices. For instance, someone might develop a belief in magic through personal reading and experimentation rather than through participation in a group setting and might seek out groups to reflect those individual beliefs instead of the other way around (Wuthnow, 1993).
In weaving together Luhrmann’s arguments and the counter-arguments, it becomes clear that the journey towards adopting new belief systems, particularly in the context of witchcraft and magic, is multifaceted. While Luhrmann’s interpretative drift offers a framework emphasising gradual change, communal influence, and cognitive reconciliation, the counter-arguments introduce the possibilities of sudden belief changes, the significance of individual agency, and the resilience of pre-existing belief systems. This rich academic dialogue underscores the complexity of belief formation, reflecting the diverse and dynamic ways in which individuals navigate and construct their spiritual and magical worlds.
This is it for today’s video. If you watched until this point, leave me a pen emoji or a pencil.
Now my dear Symposiasts, this project of delivering free academic knowledge based on peer- reviewed academic scholarship can only exist thanks to your support. So if you have the means and want to support this project and offer it to everybody, please consider supporting my work with a one-off PayPal donation by joining memberships my Inner Symposium on Patreon, checking out my services on drangelapuca.com and you will find all the links in the description box in the bio, in the cards and everywhere.
I really appreciate any kind of help that you can give and also, don’t forget to sign up for my Newsletter. If you liked this video, don’t forget to SMASH the like button – subscribe to the channel,
if you haven’t already – activate the notification Bell, so that you will always be notified when I upload a new video. Share this video around and let me know what you think in the comments.
Thank you all so much for being here and stay tuned for all the academic fun.
Bye for now.
📚 REFERENCES 📚
Festinger, L., 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press. https://amzn.to/3H7LQYI
James, W., 1902. The Varieties of Religious Experience. Longmans, Green, and Co. https://amzn.to/3RPchr6
Luhrmann, T.M., 1989. Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft: Ritual Magic in Contemporary England. Harvard University Press. https://amzn.to/3RK70Rr
Stark, R. and Bainbridge, W.S., 1985. The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult Formation. University of California Press. https://amzn.to/3tF9ade
Wuthnow, R., 1998. After Heaven: Spirituality in America Since the 1950s. University of California Press. https://amzn.to/3NPJ2TI
Wuthnow, R., 1988. The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith Since World War II. Princeton University Press. https://amzn.to/41Kibyi