From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu Aug 22 2002 - 23:18:24 MDT
Post-Structuralism & Modern
Magic
Ed Richardson: I - A deconstructive look at structuralist theory
Introduction
A post-structuralist stance in modern magic can be best summed
up by referring to a Taoist concept outlined in the Tao Teh King.
The word ˜Tao™ is in itself effectively meaningless as it is not a
linguistic term and can be applied to any ˜way™ or ˜method™,
beyond any imposed limits from language. Therefore the
argument shall be made by quoting the Tao Teh King, substituting
the word path for Lao: ˜The path that can be named is not a true
path™. Structuralism and Post-Structuralism are terms which
belong to social sciences, yet their meanings and implications are
massive. Sociology claims to be the science that considers how
human beings interact, and so operates on many levels and within
other disciplines, including psychology and magic. The difference
between sociologists™ and magicians™ explanations of social
change is that magical attempts tend to come from an uniformed,
˜cosmic™ point of view, and tend also to be over-idealistic.
Occultists tend to make poor armchair sociologists.
To understand Post-Structuralism it is necessary to first look at
Structuralism. This should hint at how Post-Structuralism came
about, and if not it will at least provide a background tbr the more
explicit explanations in the second part of this essay. It will also
provide all the non-occult definitions needed as we proceed.
Afterwards these ideas will be applied to magic, and also a look at
the magical concept of aeonic progression in terms of l~ost-
Modernity. I shall not waste time defining magic as hopefully you
are reading this because you already have a few ideas of your
own.
On Structuralism
Structuralism is the world view that the structures within society
shape our own individual structures and behaviours. Social
structures here include the political, ecological, religious,
economic, magical and a whole host of others, the important point
being that behaviour is structured by these extemal (and
sometimes internal) influences. For example, AB. Hollingshead &
F.C. Redlich (1958) Social Class and Mental Illness showed how
mental illness manifested itself in the urban community of New
Ilaven, U.S.A. They divided the population into five classes
according to wealth, class I being the richest and class 5 being the
poorest. Class I consisted of 3.1% of the population and had 1%
of community psychiatric patients belonging to it. Class 5
consisted of 17.8% of the population and had 36.8% of
community psychiatric patients belonging to it. There were more
eases of psychosis at the poorer end of the scale and more cases of
neurosis in the richer classes. This would suggest that social class
influences mental health.
Structuralism itself can be divided into two major types of theory:
Consensus theory shows structures holding and binding society
and individuals together in a benevolent way, whereas Conflict
theory shows structures of oppression. where structures serve the
interests of particular groups or individuals, often at the expense
of others.
Functionalism is a type of consensus theory within structuralism.
Its major theorists include Emile 1)urkheim (1858-1917) and
Talcott Parsons (1902-79) and though having declined after the
1950s due to the popularity of Neo-Marxist thought, is now
making a revival in the USA. It basically views society as a
system, which is worth more than its total population and is self-
regulating. Institutions appear, expressing the needs of society and
to provide solutions. These institutions are also the forces within
society which give it shape and regulation. Such institutions
include morality, religion and divisions of wealth and labour.
More complex societies have more complex concerns and
therefore, more complex institutions. Institutions and individuals,
and the actions they take, serve functions (hence ˜Functionalism™)
within a society to maintain the status quo, the media being a
typical example, as it helps define and maintain the class system,
which is seen as inevitable and necessary in Functionalist thought.
Another example is religion serving the function of maintaining
moral unity. Even crime has its place, as it shows the acceptable
boundaries of behaviour and may play a part in social change. It
also highlights any dysfunctions within society. In this way society
maintains its own equilibrium, so social change is very gradual,
comparing with Darwin™s notion of evolution. Politically this
approach lends itself to traditional conservatism.
Conflict theory has its origins in the study of oppression and the
works of Karl Marx. Its later developments include the works of
Max Weber. feminism, black power, grey panthers, Neo-Marxism
and Neo-Weberian approaches. Strictly speaking, the ideas of
Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini belong to Conflict theory.
However, Mussolini made up his theories after taking power in
Italy so he could legitimise his position. Hitler combined racism
with misunderstanding of Nietzsche and both dictators were
reactionary enough for their theories to be considered ludicrous by
anyone with a grain of intelligence.
Marxism, like New Age magic, sees social change occurring in a
series of epochs. Each epoch is governed by its economic method,
its mode of production. Our lives are intricately bound to the
mode of production. however, each epoch is characterised by
contradictions which provide the seeds of social change. The
mores in each epoch are governed by social and public relations
which are in the interest of dominant classes who control the
mode of production. Epochs experienced so far include tribal
communism, followed by slavery, then feudalism, and now
capitalism. After revolutionary change, capitalism will be
replaced by socialism which will develop into communism, the
last stage in social change.
Capitalism is of vital interest to Marx and Marxists as by studying
it they can understand how our current epoch may change. As
previously stated, dominant classes control the mode of
production (industry) which they use to maximise their capital.
The proletariat (workers) own only themselves and sell their
labour to capitalists. This is one of the contradictions which must
be resolved, as is the fact that workers receive wages whilst the
capitalists receive surplus value, or profit. Thus the proletariat are
underdogs and are open to all sorts of exploitation they have to
sell their labour or starve.
Marx studied society in much more depth than this, and Marxists,
such as Gramsci, looked at other factors such as ideological
domination by the ruling class. As society is far more complex
now than it was when Marx wrote his theories, and that his most
important prediction has not come to pass, NeoMarxists have
worked to revise his ideas. This key prediction was that the
proletariat would become aware of its plight (which it did) and
form a revolutionary movement (it formed the Labour Party
instead!). After a period of violence a socialist administration
organising common ownership with government regulations
would be set up and after an unspecified period of time a
withering away of the state would occur, leading to communism.
Max Weber wrote as a Marxist but accused Marx of being an
economic determinist, He suggested that inequality was related to
other powerful factors such as the Protestant Work Ethic, brought
about by Puritan Christianity and making capitalism possible. He
also looked at how class domination can take place beyond
economies, locusing on status and party (the way groups organise
themselves to achieve goals, such as clearly discernible ˜staffs™ of
power holders). lie also pointed out how dominant classes look to
legitimate their holding of power. Weber™s aims were not to
totally disagree with Marx (he did not hold idealistic hopes lbr a
revolution) but were more to refine Marx™s theories. However,
Weberian and Neo-Weberian theories have developed based on
Weber in his own right.
There is not space to look at all of Conflict theory, but a brief
word on Feminism shall be included. Feminist theory has some of
its historical origins in Marxist thought and can be approximately
divided into several different schools including Radical, Socialist,
Liberal and Marxist Feminism amongst others. However, all
forms of Feminism concern themselves with one particular
problem, namely patriarchy. The different schools approach the
problem from different angles and suggest different solutions, but
they all aim to relieve the oppression of women by a male-
dominated society. This branch of sociology has directly
influenced the occult, especially Radical Feminism which has
brought about Women™s Mysteries™ and all-female groups.
Conflict theory has become very sophisticated, with many
changes in the different approaches. Ultimately, from Structuralist
Conflict theory came Post-Structuralism, with the help of cool
philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche along the way. However, before
we consider Post-Structuralism we should consider Semiotics (the
study of signs) within Strueturalism, as Post-Structuralism builds
its ideas on this. Before this, though, a brief magical interlude.
A Deconstructive Interlude
So what™s all this Sociology bollocks all about then? Well, so far
it has all been about mainstream society. However society is just a
great big group and a lot of this can be scaled down to smaller
groups, such as magical orders, covens etc. Most magical groups
function in a Structuralist mode.
Structuralist magic can be divided into two types: Consensus and
Conflict. Consensus groups tend to be traditional magical orders,
where there is a hierarchy with everyone knowing their place and
carrying out their function. Nobody complains about being at the
bottom as that would show how ˜unenlightened™ they are.
Persistent trouble-makers end up expelled or running the group so
as not to upset the status quo. Some covens with authoritarian
High Priestesses operate on a consensus basis as are many
˜traditional™ paths where people look to the past for authority.
There are in existence larger organisations that foster this kind of
approach too.
There are a number of problems with Consensus/Structuralist
magic. Firstly, this type of group or individual is often incapable
of moving with the times and dealing with new issues, such as the
Criminal Justice Act (and any magician calling himself a
libertarian yet not concerning himself with this act has SHIT for
brains) and road building. Secondly, they tend to foster inequality
in their power structures, such as degrees of initiation providing
how much weight your ideas carry in a group beyond intelligence
or experience. Thirdly, the many rules and ˜traditions™ restrict
self-expression (and therefore Self-Love). Hierarchy adds further
restrictions and guarantees a largely unintelligent! over-religious
mass instructed by an elite. Finally, such groups tend towards
political apathy due to having no interest in social change or the
future.
Conflict theory lends itself to structuralists who recognise the
problems within Consensus models, both within the occult and the
wider society. Its supporters include magical orders and covens
that claim to represent a radical change. Also included are
individuals following paths who reject the orders and covens as
they disagree with initiation, hierarchy or the rules but still have
similar practices. There are also the political or separatist groups
who want to right the wrongs of the world, such as patriarchy.
Finally there are the umbrella organisations that claim to represent
˜paganism™, ˜magic™ or a ˜tradition™ in terms of ˜rights™ and such
in a conflictual occult world.
There are a number of problems with this type of approach too.
The main problem is the tendency to remove existing structures
(in the ease of radical groups). New structures may be just as
limiting as structures in the Consensus model. Specialist groups
representing the needs of a particular tradition or cause, or
separatists, are often overly idealistic and escapist, further
alienating their participants rather than solving the issues they set
out to tackle. They also tend towards political extremism and
encourage the advance of their own special interests, whilst
ignoring wider, more important issues (like the destruction of
Twyford Down). Overall, Conflict
Structuralists run the risk of becoming their own worst enemy
when attempting reform. It seems that, generally, structures get in
the way of actually doing anything useful.
l3cfore you start to violently disagree, or worriedly try to work out
which category you belong in (which is not the aim of this essay),
there is light at the end of the tunnel. Most-Structuralism and its
mutant bastard child, Post-Modernity, come to the rescue offering
a real alternative and hopefully some of the deconstructive
arguments shown so far hint at more. In Part Two we shall
consider Post-Structuralism in some depth and the final section of
this essay provides a background to this.
Semiotics and language
Semiotics, the study of signs, has its origins in a fusion between
linguistics and anthropology, and particularly in the ideas of
Claude Levi-Strauss and Ferdinand de Saussure, who coined the
term. Levi-Strauss focused on myth and had a notion that it
worked by underlying structures. Similar underlying structures
were to be found in other forms of culture and in wider society,
hence the term structuralism. Myth was a means by which these
structures could be studied, and most were seen to be linguistic.
Through language, each individual is socially constructed. This
idea will be considered again later, in the context of Post-
Structuralist analysis; in which no single agent is responsible for
our social construction, thus giving the Chaoist the power to move
from one construct to another, using belief as a magical weapon to
achieve this.
Returning to Levi-Strauss, he was very much influenced by the
work of Ferdinand de Saussure, a linguist, lie had said that
language is made up of two components: langue (the system or
rules) and parole (the content). Levi-Strauss aimed ultimately to
discover the langue of any given culture through analysis of its
parole. However, he suggested that the langue of myth was
universal (not in the same sense as Jung), as it dealt with cognitive
powers of categorising information in terms of binary opposition,
Hence, whilst in myth anything can happen, the same themes are
reproduced world-wide, and can be translated into different
languages, whilst poetry cannot. He took a functionalist position,
saying that myth served the function of being a tool to deal with
Society™s intellectual problems.
Pierre Bordieu built on these ideas, speaking of ˜habitus™ or
dispositions. Habitus is a product of history, and works on both
individual and collective levels. Individuals do not simply absorb
information passively, but interact with it according to their
habitus. In doing so they create further dispositions, in an ongoing
dynamic fashion, thus constructing reality, and reasonable,
common-sense views and behaviours. The world is a multi-
dimensional space through which individuals can move. However,
differentiation occurs by people constructing ideas of relative
position, such as race, class, gender, etc. In reality, these concepts
are illusory, but we act as if they were real as we construct
properties, including power relations which then define our
behaviour.
Marxists are quick to criticise this position as it ignores the very
real issues of economic inequality and the notion of struggle.
Marxist critical theory is however influenced by Strueturalism and
Gramsci™s ideas of ideology. Roland Barthes, in his book
Mythologies, looks at the French media and advertising, as
creating and legitimating the myth of bourgeois values, lie
illustrates this by deconstructing mythical signs in a dynamic,
demystifying way, showing how myth is related to meaning and
form. A rose becomes a passionitied rose™ carrying the myth of
romantic love. As a Marxist he always emphasises how these
myths, or semiological systems, relate back to bourgeois values,
or avant garde struggles against them.
Post-Structuralism came about as a reaction against Marxist over-
simplification of a more complex power system. It built on this
linguistic tradition but is highly critical of much of it. In part two
of this essay, we shall consider a PostStrueturalist analysis of the
magical world and the effects of Post-Modernity, and how both
can provide rich pickings for the opportunistic sorcerer.
Post-Structuralism & Modern
Magic
Ed Richardson: Part II
In the last part of this essay, structural ideas were compared and
contrasted in an attempt to achieve two aims. Firstly, by providing
an account of Marxism I wanted to frighten any obsessive anti-
Marxists. Secondly, the similarities between sociological and
occult methodologies were shown. This was an attempt to
deconstruct outmoded and unrealistic structuralist models and
also provide a background for considering post structural
sociology/philosophy. Post structuralism is currently part of the
leading edge in social theory. Inevitably, social theory has an
impact on all areas of culture including magick: Freudian
psychology, Marxism, Feminism and Nietzsche being typical
examples. If you are sceptical of the impact of Marxism on the
occult, look at all the groups who think a new age (or aeon, if you
prefer) will happen that™s going to be better than the current one!
Did Marx not say the same thing? In this part of the work, post
structural themes shall be explored as well as similar hut not quite
as useful post-modern ideas. Post-modernism seems to be a bit of
a buzzword in magick at present and some of its glamour shall be
deconstructed. First, the early post-structuralist ideas of Nietzsche
shall be considered, followed by the central ideas of Derrida.
>From here a background for post-modernist ideas will be provided
which will be explained after considering some of the relevant
ideas of Michel Foucault. Throughout, these ideas will be applied
to the magickal/occult scene.
Neitzsche, Knowledge and Power
Structuralism was explained in terms of linguistics in the last part
of this work, and this provides a framework for dealing with some
of Nietzsche™s ideas (which shall become apparent when
examples of the problems he highlights are given from the occult
world). Language, as a structure, is to the structuralist part of the
production of knowledge, and, indeed sets the limits of
knowledge.
However, Nietzsche has a problem with knowledge itself, and as
the first post-structuralist, sets the agenda for an entire movement
in social science. Nietzsche took two characters from Greek
mythology, Apollo and Dionysus, and applied these mythical
characters to ideas about the human mind. Dionysus, as God of
wine and ecstasy, represents the power of nature, emotions and
wild, untamed aspects of our psyche. Apollo represents
civilisation, law and the disciplining of human spontaneity. There
is tension between these powerful forces and this is a
characteristic of human life. We like to think we can provide
theories about our experience and thus understand the world.
However, this is not really possible as we only proicet our
Apollonian desires to discipline and control nature onto the world
around us.
Thus Nietzsche is a sceptic. Knowledge is merely an attempt to
control the unruly ways of nature. The quest for knowledge is the
˜will to power™ which shows how knowledge and power are
inextricably linked. This shall be further developed later in the
section on the ideas of Michel Foucault.
When applied to the occult and magickal scene, the examples are
fairly obvious. Look at all the umbrella organisations that say they
represent paganism. They claim to be offering a service,
protecting pagans from the media, social services, from nasty
black magicians (which surely must be a racist fear if ever there
was one) and so on. However, what they are really doing is telling
a lot of people what to do, what to believe in. One of these
umbrella groups even makes its members sign a creed! And I
thought paganism was an individualistic path with people thinking
for themselves!
Then there are all the books on how to do it. OK, so I™ve written
one myself and this is not a criticism of others who have done too.
However, we should be aware that magick is a living process
involving change and that it has a lot of wildness about it. The
danger is in writing too much describing magick as this limits
what magick might be. Suggesting techniques rather than defining
magick is probably more useful than Apollonian trends to dictate
not only how magick works, but to peddle a whole load of
accompanying bullshit ideas about karma restraining your
enchantments and so on. Pour enough shit on something and it
inevitably gets swamped, then drowns. Many of the books around
claim to be helpfully informing us about magick and paganism but
seem more like attempts to control the way we think. Hopefully
the next section of this essay will be of use in dealing with this
problem. By defining opinions as knowledge, authors appear to be
linked to the same power process as that exercised by the
umbrella organisations. More on this later when we have looked
at Foucault.
Derrida and Deconstruction
Jacques Derrida™s ideas are not presented as any theory or
collection of ideas. Instead he demonstrates a methodology for
dealing with theories and assumptions called deconstruction. The
following example of Derrida™s method concerns itself with
Western philosophy. Early structuralism treated language as a
servant of thought in the acquisition of knowledge. However,
Western philosophy in general (in which Derrida includes
structuralism) makes an assumption that language is not properly
disciplined to generate knowledge as it is, but needs to he trained
first. In this way philosophers say that there is a difference
between literary language and philosophical (academic) language.
Derrida attacks this position by demonstrating how philosophical
ideas are often thoroughly literary.
Philosophy has concerned itself with the attempt to master
language. Structuralists then showed how language itself can
provide meaning beyond the subject, which undermines the
philosophical linguistic project. 1-lowever, by theorising on
language, structuralists have also attempted to use language as a
tool in the production of knowledge. l)errida deconstructs this
position by saying that language is capable of producing
knowledge beyond the control of the theorists. Derrida says that
any attempt to put limits on our discourse (this is the next big
word) is a self-defeating exercise and demonstrates this in an
example of the futile efforts of writers who try to distinguish
between the real thing and something else that resembles it but is
somehow lesser. philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau described
masturbation as a substitute or supplement to sex. Derrida shows
how this literary distinction is meaningless. The separation of
sexuality and masturbation breaks down and the relation of
dominance between the two hobbies breaks down until sex can be
seen as a form of masturbation. Thus, where structuralism had
built itself on theories of opposition, Derrida collapses the notion
of opposition.
In the Book of Lies, Aleister Crowley tells us to doubt. Doubt, says
the big C, should be applied everywhere, even to doubt itself. This
idea can be a useful tool for deconstructing occult "knowledge".
Whilst I was completing this part of the essay, C.I.18 came out,
complete with Dave Lee™s article on word viruses. This, I felt, was
a perfect example of deconstructing the occult nonsense of today.
This should be an activity of all magicians, as one of the first
skills that should be learned is discrimination. Discrimination and
doubt should be applied wherever an idea is presented as
knowledge, or whenever a more visible structure is presented.
Structures that fail this test should be discarded as all they do is
restrict the freedom of the will in its own quest towards creativity
and excellence.
This process of deconstructing should also be applied to notions
of the self. If the self becomes one thing and stays at that relative
position, the creativity of the will is stifled. Magick is about
change and this has to filter through to the self as well as the
world outside. Many fixed notions of the self are likely to either
be false, or act as masks for obsession and these hold back the
will. As the world changes, we are in a stronger position if we
change. Traditionalist magickal paths look back and stay in the
past, fixing themselves and their devotees in a static position,
incapable of dealing with modern living with their weird,
reactionary attitudes sapping them of social skills.
Foucault and Discourse
Another deconstructive measure to use with both sociological
information and occult ideas is to view them in terms of
discourse. Discourse is a term now popular in the social sciences,
which although originally used by the structural functionalist
Emile Durkheim, is more originally defined by the French
philosopher Michel Foucault. Foucault took the concept of
discourse, which had previously meant argument, or opinion, and
stretched it to include other ideas.
Marxism, as discussed in part one of this article, has fixed notions
about the social structures of ideology, social class and so on.
Similarly, feminism has notions about the objective reality of
patriarchy. The Foucaultdian perspective views these structures
not as objective reality, but in terms of discourse. In the same way
sexism and capitalism are discursive phenomena.
The reasons for this shift are as follows. Foucault™s use of
discourse is linked to the idea of context, or, using language as an
example, what makes one statement appear instead of another in a
conversation on any given topic. Discourse helps to understand
what has been said by fitting it onto an historical matrix with
associated conditions of existence. Edward Said is cited in
Michelle Barrett™s The Politics of Truth as saying:
"What enables a doctor to practise medicine or a historian to write
history is not mainly a set of individual gifts, but an ability to
follow rules that are taken for granted as an unconscious a priori
by all professionals."
More than anyone before him Foucault specified rules for those
rules, and even more impressively, he showed how over long
periods of time the rules became epistemological enforcers of
what (as well as how) people thought, lived and spoke."
Here we see the power of discourse itself, and how discourse sets
the agenda for practices. The magician must therefore be aware
that discourse creates occult common sense. This is why the
chaoist is shunned by the new ager. By stepping outside or even
against established creeds, or discourses, we seem to be either
subversive or mad as we revolt against what is perceived as
common sense. In common with the post-structuralist use of the
concept of discourse, chaos magick has redefined the word
˜paradigm™ to include the set paths of Thelema and Wicca,
Satanism and Asatru, Druidry and Shamanism to name but a few.
The word paradigm itself has different meanings depending on
whether it is used in scientific or chaos magick discourse.
Foucault said that discourse is made up of statements that carry a
coherence in content and style, such as economics, biology or
English grammar. If the statements are regularly dispersed they
make up ˜discursive formations™. If irregularly dispersed, the
statements do not form a coherent discourse. Foucault™s concepts
of knowledge, power and truth are linked to his concept of
discourse and these shall be considered below before we look at
post-modernity.
Knowledge/Power
Foucault™s interest in discourse comes from his interest in history.
Where structuralists focus on the human experience being
ultimately based on communication, with structures arising from
the rules of the communication, Foucault said that the historical
context of social life was more important. Without this there
would be a timeless, unchanging order. Foucault aimed to restore
the historical issues at the expense of the system, thus totally
rejecting structuralism. Also, by looking for differences in social
phenomena, rather than the structuralist quest for unity, Foucault
took an ˜anti-humanist™ stance, which attacked the subject by
defining it by its context (see later for more).
In his attack on the notion of the subject, Foucault aimed to find
the historical origins of the notion of the individual In this he
looked at the appearance in history of modern organisational
forms like the prison, the clinic and the asylum. To the
structuralist these were all products of our social and linguistic
structures. To Foucault, the reverse is true, that the language has
its origins in historical context. For example, the clinic made
medical ways of talking possible. Before this modern medicine
was not thinkable.
The Enlightenment project had held that reason was the means to
emancipation of the soul. Foucault demonstrated that reason was
rooted in oppression. Concepts of reason are attached to concepts
of madness. Foucault showed how the insane were first
incarcerated in Europe when it became apparent that lazar houses
were no longer being used to contain lepers with leprosy dying
out. For the first time the insane were no longer cared for by their
communities but were excluded from the sane by incarceration.
Thus reason originates in domination of its opposite, unreason.
Incarceration is in itself a growing trend in society. Foucault
demonstrates how prison came to replace brutalising the body
with discipline being achieved by controlling the mind. Prison is
50 designed that continual surveillance is possible. Foucault
describes surveillance as a metaphor for modern life, although
more important than physical control is control of our thoughts.
Our thoughts cannot be physically restrained so are under
surveillance from doctors, social workers, teachers, the police and
so on. In his colossal work The history of Sexuality Foucault looks
at the changing attitudes about sexuality. He points out how we
think of Victorians repressing sex, even avoiding any talk about it
whereas in these more enlightened times sex is no taboo and we
are free to talk about it as we will. However, Foucault interprets
this talk as a sign that we are under surveillance. In this society we
are COMPELLED to talk about sex as civilisation DEMANDS it.
Power has thus created a vast discourse on sexuality giving
thorough access to our thoughts on the subject, making us
amenable to regulation.
These examples show how knowledge and power are closely
linked. In fact Foucault referred to ˜pouvoir/savoir™ or
˜knowledge/power™ joining the words together to show their
inextricable links. Knowledge gives way to power which
generates further knowledge through the process of surveillance
and new discourses. In this way discourse also generates practise.
Power has been mentioned here, but Foucault™s notion of power is
quite different to the Marxist notion of power. Foucault sees
power not set in one centre, with one group dominating another,
but operating more autonomously. We all exercise power, often in
the most unwitting of circumstances. For example, social workers,
who may have the most altruistic motives to help and liberate, are
given the power to look into other people™s lives and then
supervise them. Power thus works in a capillary fashion rather
than being directed from a centre.
Much of what has been said here amplifies what has already been
said on knowledge and power in the magickal scene under
Nietzsche. However, the dimension of surveillance and the
unwitting use of power can also be applied. Here surveillance is
used in taik about magick defining what is to be considered
normal practice. In the same way some Pagan umbrella groups
define paganism and work out who the nasty South London
subversives are (who might even be into chaos.. .aaaaaaggghhhhh!
!!!!) so they can warn people off. The local contacts who "help"
new comers will often unwittingly feed them the accepted belief.
Before I get myself in further trouble, let™s look at post-modernity.
Post-Modernity
Post-modernity and post-modernism are two terms that have
become quite fashionable amongst chaos magicians at present.
They have often been used to mean the same thing whereas there
is actually a difference. Post-modernism is a cultural movement
that manifests itself mainly amongst artists and ˜luvvies™ whereas
post-modernity is a process of social, political, cultural and
economic fragmentation. Post-modernism is thus an aspect of
cultural post-modernity.
First, the economic issues of post-modernity shall be considered.
Capitalism has moved to a late stage which is marked by its
becoming increasingly chaotic. Booms and slumps aside,
capitalism once was reasonably organised and now is
disorganised. This is associated with the move from the Fordist
model in the West to a post-Fordist mode. The Fordist economics
(named after Henry Ford, who was the first to manufacture
massed-produced cars) worked from the late nineteenth century
until around the early nineteen sixties and represented not only a
peak for organised capitalism but also a peak for the
enlightenment project that looked towards both efficiency and
emancipation of the soul (more on that later). Industry was
characterised by massed production and low wages battling
against powerful trade unions (the battles between Henry Ford and
trade unions are almost legendary). Manufacturing was the first
source of income to the West and government economic policy
was able to make a difference to the successes and failures of
industry.
In the post-Fordist model the West has switched to a service
industry base and Westerners are operating in multinationals for
massed production. The multinationals move around relocating
where production is at its cheapest, especially in terms of wages.
Third World nations in the far Fast are therefore major producers
of products once produced in the West. This has been helped by
the acceleration of new technological advances, especially in
telecommunications and computing. This allowed Nick Leeson to
wipe out Barings International, which was based in the City of
London from an office in Singapore. At the same time
government economic policy is virtually useless as multinationals
simply relocate if they don™t like the situation. Many
multinationals have larger economies than small nations.
Counterfeit industries using both technology and non-interference
by governments mean that a large proportion of what we buy is
not what we think and often lacks the quality expected. In short
the economy has become disorganised and globalised, shrinking
the world and saturating us in advertising discourses and
consumerism. The market is fragmented with anything for sale,
but no guarantee that you get what you pay for.
Cultural post-modernity has come about partly as a result of
economic post-modernity and the manufacturing of a multitude of
styles. At the same time it has been influenced by the end of the
Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was a period of history
characterised by its search for truths. Its aims were to emancipate
the soul through finding truth and a grand narrative that would
explain everything. Science, politics and philosophy were driven
by this process from the Reformation onwards. In the nineteenth
century, Darwin offered an alternative view of our origins to that
offered by the bible. More importantly (a lot of people ignored
Darwin) radical philosophers like Marx and Nietzsche offered
different accounts of reality itself and showed different histories.
With more than one history the ideas about grand narratives
became shaky. With feminist accounts and post-colonial accounts
from black historians, the whole notion of history is threatened.
History becomes a relative argument (witches take note) and
grand narratives collapse.
With the collapse of grand narratives and a fragmented market the
individual develops a schizoid, jumbled up view of reality that is
open to change (sounds pretty cool, eb?), and designer cults (like
magick!) start to replace organised religion. At the same time
organised religion becomes increasingly paranoid and
fundamentalists learn to use guns and bombs.
The arts and popular culture lose their separation, with fine art no
longer owned by the elite, but appearing on ˜I™-shirts. This fits in
with waves of nostalgia with revivals in fashion being fashionable
themselves. Teenagers rush out to spend their pocket money on
the sort of flares I was FORCED to wear as a seventies kid by my
parents. Temporal distortion accompanies this mixing of styles
with cities having architecture from a number of different periods,
again much of it counterfeit. Television has entered all homes and
provides a blend of advertising/propaganda and programmes
spanning the styles and different times (including the future), all
in a couple of hours viewing.
Effectively culture has become based on surface over depth. This
is reflected in the political world as political parties converge in
their ways to end up almost resembling each other. With a
fragmented and global market, governments carry far less
influence and this is characterised by the growth in pressure
groups. The pressure groups replace the political parties as the
agents of political change by their ability to ˜think global, act
local™, focusing on specific issues within wider spectra of interest.
With the fragmentation of the self these projects are also more
likely to be supported as they do not need to be attached to party
political movements. Thus a Conservative can go on a Gay Pride
march and a Labour supporter support the death penalty.
Magick stands to benefit from many of the effects of post-
modernity. Firstly, the mixing of and times makes it easier to
explore other paradigms to those we are more accustomed. The
influence of television has provided plenty of images that we can
attach ourselves to. (Thanks to Star Trek I learned to visualise
firing bolts of energy around!) As post-modernity implies a
depthlessness we are free to drop ideas or paradigms that are of no
more use to us.
This is all useful in the process of deconstructing the self as
discussed a little earlier. We should be free to explore different
styles and different selves. By fragmenting the self and being
selves instead we are open to change and are therefore more
adaptable. There are limits to the use of post-modern analysis
based on its depthless conclusions. There is no room for self-love
in a universe of only surfaces. Similarly, the will also looks
pathetic and pointless if it is only an issue of style. If the will and
the originating self in the process of self-love are seen in terms of
truth and subjectivity, post-structural explanation makes ample
room for them.
Truth and Subjectivity
Much of post-modern theory has its foundation in post-
structuralism, and on the whole the two theoretical ,perspectives
can work together. However, there is an important difference
between post-structural and post-modern emphasis on truth and
subjectivity. Foucaultdian concepts of truth are based on concepts
of discourse. Subjectivity is in itself defined by discourse.
Foucault said that the individual is situated at the intersection of
discourses. This idea shares with post-modernity the idea that the
self is fragmented and open to a variety of different combinations
and dispositions. However, this is where similarities end as whilst
post-modernity neatly cops out of dealing with the concept of
truth by saying that it does not exist, post-structuralism looks at
truth and subjectivity in the same way. In other words truth is
defined by discourse. As discourse generates action as shown
above, there is a link between action and truth. Truth is effectively
defined by what you are doing and/or discourse connected to what
you are doing.
To magicians this should be obvious. Truth is the statement of
intent. If nothing is true, there can be no statement of intent. We
can agree that truth is not out there somewhere in the astral
realms, it is not in any dogma or creed; but it is there in the intent,
and this should be the only important structure in any ritual work
or group. Any other structures are only important if they support
this one truth. Effectively, the intent of the group, whether for one
ritual or for longer, more permanent arrangements, is the mission
statement for the entire show.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:54 MDT