Occult Roots of Religious Studies. On the Influence of Non-Hegemonic Currents on Academia around 1900 ed. by Yves Mühlematter and Helmut Zander

Abstract

Reviewed by: Occult Roots of Religious Studies. On the Influence of Non-Hegemonic Currents on Academia around 1900 ed. by Yves Mühlematter and Helmut Zander Stanislav Panin yves mühlematter and helmut zander, eds. Occult Roots of Religious Studies. On the Influence of Non-Hegemonic Currents on Academia around 1900. Oldenbourg: De Gruyter, 2021. Pp. xii + 283. The volume consists of nine chapters exploring the history of interactions between esotericism and academia. In the introduction the editors outline two main ideas of the volume, first, "that religious studies have little-known and sometimes repressed origins which lie in the field of esotericism" and, second, "that esotericism is an intrinsic part of hegemonic cultures and not a separate, small, 'secret,' or 'occult' field of minority groups" (1). The volume, therefore, argues for a shift from understanding esotericism as a marginal form of spirituality to understanding of it as a central (though often invisible or underappreciated) part of European history. The chapter by Helmut Zander introduces readers to major theories of esotericism. The author contrasts "content-related" and "discourse-related" approaches. While recognizing that both contribute to our understanding of esotericism, Zander also points out their limitations. He maintains that content-related definitions are often too narrow and tied to arbitrary cultural contexts while discourse-related definitions tend to be too open-ended, allow "extremely different and broad definitions," and therefore limit a meaningful communication between scholars (26–27). A possible solution, according to Zander, requires a globally oriented yet historically aware approach. The word [End Page 353] "esotericism" refers to different things in different contexts and, consequently, scholars will always operate with a variety of definitions that only partially overlap (37). At the same time, the existence of these overlaps constitutes a family resemblance between definitions of esotericism that allows thinking about it as the same phenomenon while providing flexibility for empirical research. Marco Frenschkowski's chapter provides an in-depth analysis of interactions between esotericism and early religious studies in Britain, situating both within the cultural context of the Victorian era. Frenschkowski highlights the role of learned societies and argues that, due to the scarcity of relevant university positions, the early research in the field was primarily driven by learned societies rather than universities. These societies were not strictly academic and consisted of enthusiasts motivated by personal interests. In this context, groups clearly related to the history of esotericism, such as the Theosophical Society and the Society for Psychical Research, competed for recognition and status with organizations like the Folklore Society. There also was a fair share of interaction between them. For instance, Andrew Lang served as a president of both the Folklore Society and the Society of Psychical Research, and championed an idea that psychical research could be used in the analysis of folklore (54–56). As Frenschkowski concludes, in Victorian Britain esotericism became a catalyst for the comparative study of religion and ignited interest to folklore, ancient and non-Western religions. As such, it played a pivotal albeit often overlooked role in emergence of religious studies. Stepping a few decades back, Daniel Cyranka discusses the figure of Christian Gottfried Daniel Nees von Esenbeck, a German biologist who served as the president of the Academy of the Natural Sciences Leopoldina between 1818 and 1858 and was interested in animal magnetism and spiritualism. Using Nees von Esenbeck's career as an example, Cyranka shows how attitudes about esotericism shifted during the first half of the nineteenth century. While early in his career Nees' interest in animal magnetism was not considered an issue, by the 1850s it became problematic and had to be concealed (85–86). Cyranka further argues that in the second half of the nineteenth century the comparative study of religion took over the vacuum created by expulsion of these topics from the academia. Despite its connection to esotericism, the necessity to secure academic status led scholars to oppose themselves to religion as "the Other" while controversial subjects such as magic or communication with spirits were attributed to non-Western or non-Modern cultures. [End Page 354] Moving to more specific research fields, Boaz Huss in his chapter deals with the influence of esotericism on the academic study...