Theories of Magic

Definitions of Relevant Terminology
The foremost perspectives on magic in anthropology are functionalist, symbolist and intellectualist. These three perspectives are used to describe how magic works in a society. The functionalist perspective, usually associated with Bronislaw Malinowski, maintains that all aspects of society are meaningful and interrelated.[1] In the functionalist perspective, magic performs a latent function in the society. The symbolist perspective researches the subtle meaning in rituals and myths that define a society,[2] and deals with questions of theodicy, such as "why bad things happen to good people." Finally the intellectualist perspective, associated with Edward Burnett Tylor and Sir James Frazer, regards magic as logical, but based on a flawed understanding of the world: in other words, as “bad science.”


Magical Thinking
Main article: Magical Thinking
Magical thinking in anthropology, psychology, and cognitive science is nonscientific causal reasoning that often includes such ideas as associative thinking, the ability of the mind to affect the physical world (see the philosophical problem of mental causation), and correlation mistaken for causation. Symbolic expression may be brought into play, as well as the use of metaphor, metonym, and synchronicity. Practitioners of magic are often portrayed as irrational, but some theorists maintain that the magician’s goals are not necessarily physical, and that magical practices are, in some cases, genuinely efficacious.


Psychological Theories of Magic
Main article: Psychological Theories of Magic
Psychological theories treat magic as a personal phenomenon intended to meet individual needs, as opposed to a social phenomenon serving a collective purpose. Theories range from magic as neurosis to magic as bad science to magic as anxiety relief.


Theories of Magic, Science, and Religion
Magic, science 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 magic for many of the great theorists in sociology and anthropology, including Frazer, Mauss, Tambiah and Malinowski. From the intellectualist and functionalist perspectives magic is often considered most analogous to science and technology. From the symbolist perspective, it is most similar to religion.


Marcel Mauss: Magic and Religion
In A General Theory of Magic,[3] Marcel Mauss classifies magic as a social phenomenon, akin to religion and science, but yet a distinct category. In practice magic 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 sacredness 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. Magic 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 that Mauss draws between religion and magic is both of sentiment and practice. He portrays magic as an element of pre-modern societies, and in many respects an antithesis of religion. Magic is secretive and isolated, and rarely performed publicly in order to protect and to preserve occult knowledge. Religion is predictable and proscribed 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.”[4] In practice, magic differs from religion in desired outcome. Religion seeks to satisfy moral and metaphysical ends, while magic is a functional art which often seeks to accomplish tangible results. In this respect magic 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 on experimentation and development, while magic is an “a priori belief.”[5] Mauss concludes that though magical beliefs and rites are most analogous to religion, magic remains a social phenomenon distinct from religion and science with its own characteristic rules, acts and aims.


Tambiah: Different Anthropological Approaches to Science, Magic and Religion
According to Tambiah, magic, science, and religion all have their own “quality of rationality,” and have been influenced by politics and ideology.[6] 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 magic, science, and religion. According to Tambiah, religion is based around an organized community (a church), 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.”[7] 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. Magic, 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, magic was considered a “proto-science.” Magic has other historical importance as well.

Much of the debate between religion and magic originated during the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church was attacked for its doctrine of transubstantiation because it was considered a type of sacramental magic. Furthermore, the possibility of anything happening outside of God’s purpose was denied. Spells[8] were viewed as ineffective and blasphemous because religion ultimately “assumed the direction of the world by a conscious agent who could be deflected from this purpose by prayer and supplication.”[9] Prayer was the only way to effectively enact positive change. The Protestant Reformation was a significant moment in the history of magical thought because Protestantism provided the impetus for a systematic understanding of the world. In this systematic framework, there was no room for magic and its practices. Besides the Reformation, the Renaissance was an influential epoch in the history of thought concerning magic and science.

During the Renaissance, magic was less stigmatized even though it was performed in secret and therefore considered "occult." Renaissance magic 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.”[10]

The lines of demarcation between science, magic, 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, magic was seen as less scientific and systematic than science and religion, making it the least respected of the three.


Bronislaw Malinowski: Magic, Science and Religion
In his essay “Magic, Science and Religion,” Bronislaw Malinowski contends that every person, no matter how primitive, uses both magic and science. To illustrate these distinctions, he categorizes actions as either “sacred” or “profane,”[11] or as "magic/religion," or science. He theorizes that feelings of reverence and awe rely upon observations of nature, and are dependent upon its regularity. This observation and reasoning about nature is a type of science. Magic and science both have definite aims to help “human instincts, needs and pursuits.”[12] Both magic and science develop procedures that must be followed in order to accomplish specific goals. Magic and science are both based on knowledge; magic is knowledge of the self and of emotion, while science is knowledge of nature.

According to Malinowski, magic and religion are also similar in that they often serve the same function in a society. The difference is that magic is more about the personal power of the individual, and religion is about faith in the power of God. Magic is also something that is passed down over generations within specific groups, 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.”[13]


Robin Horton: Open vs. Closed Systems
In African Traditional Thought and Western Science,[14] Robin Horton compares the magical 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.

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.[15]
2.) Theories also help place events in a causal 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.[16]
3.) “Common sense and theory have complementary roles in everyday life.”[17] 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.”[18] 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 common usage and understanding.[19]
6.) Theory is usually created by analogy between unexplained and familiar phenomena.[20]
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”.[21] 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.[22]

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.[23] 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 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.


Common Features of Magical Practice

[edit] Magical Language
The performance of magic almost always involves the use of language (in Western civilization, mainly Latin). Whether spoken out loud or unspoken, words are frequently used to access or to guide magical power. In "The Magical Power of Words" (1968) S. J. Tambiah argues that the connection between language and magic is due to a belief in the inherent ability of words to influence the universe. Bronsilaw Malinowski, in Coral Gardens and their Magic (1935), suggests that this belief is an extension of man’s basic use of language to describe his surroundings, in which “the knowledge of the right words, appropriate phrases and the more highly developed forms of speech, gives man a power over and above his own limited field of personal action.”[24] Magical speech is therefore a ritual act, and it is of equal or even greater importance to the performance of magic than non-verbal acts.[25] Yet not all speech is considered magical. Only certain words and phrases or words spoken within a specific context are considered to have magical power.[26] Magical language, according to C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards’ (1923) categories of speech, is distinct from scientific language because it is emotive and it converts words into symbols for emotions; whereas in scientific language words are tied to specific meanings and refer to an objective external reality.[27] Magical language is therefore particularly adept at constructing metaphors that establish symbols and link magical rituals to the world.[28]

Malinowski argues that “the language of magic is sacred, set and used for an entirely different purpose to that of ordinary life.”[29] The two forms of language are differentiated through word choice, grammar, style, or by the use of specific phrases or forms: prayers, spells, songs, blessings, or chants, for example. Sacred modes of language often employ archaic words and forms in an attempt to invoke the purity or “truth” of a religious or a cultural ‘golden age.’ The use of Hebrew in Judaism is an example.[30] Another potential source of the power of words is their secrecy and exclusivity. Much sacred language is differentiated enough from common language that it is incomprehensible to the majority of the population, and it can only be used and interpreted by specialized practitioners, (magicians, priests, shamans, even mullahs.).[31][32] In this respect, Tambiah argues that magical languages violate the primary function of language, which is communication.[33] Yet adherents of magic are still able to use and to value the magical function of words by believing in the inherent power of the words themselves, and in the meaning that they must provide for those who do understand them. This leads Tambiah to conclude that “the remarkable disjunction between sacred and profane language which exists as a general fact is not necessarily linked to the need to embody sacred words in an exclusive language.”[30]


Witchcraft
Main article: Witchcraft
Often linked to magical beliefs and practices, witchcraft is a means for people to magically affect the world around them through various spells, rituals or even desires. The ability to perform witchcraft is sometimes viewed as a biological trait, and it is sometimes said to be an acquired skill. In comparison, sorcery is generally seen as the manipulation of magic. The intent behind witchcraft has been the object of much debate. Historically, witchcraft has been cited as the source of tragedy or misfortune in communities. Occasionally, as in the case of the Salem witch trials,[34] social or economic strain can manifest in witchcraft accusations, suggesting that it is sometimes the alleged witch who is actually innocent. Many witches, moreover, claim to practice white magic, which is a positive and ethical form of the craft. Witchcraft (Wicca) is a religion which is based upon nature and the universe. Wiccans believe in the Horned God and the Goddess (male and female deities). Wicca is a peaceful and kind form of magical practice, which is not intended to inflict harm upon others.


Magicians
Main article: Magician (paranormal)
A magician is any practitioner of magic; therefore a magician may be a specialist or a common practitioner, even if he or she does not consider himself a magician.[35] All that is required is the possession of esoteric knowledge, traits, or expertise that are culturally acknowledged to harbor magical powers.

Magical knowledge is usually passed down from one magician to another through family or apprenticeships, though in some cultures it may also be purchased.[36] The information transferred usually consists of instructions in how to perform a variety of rituals, how to manipulate magical objects, or how to appeal to gods or to other supernatural forces. Magical knowledge is often well guarded, as it is a valuable commodity to which each magician believes that he has a proprietary right.[37]

Yet the possession of magical knowledge alone may be insufficient to grant magical power; often a person must also possess certain magical objects, traits or life experiences in order to be a magician. Among the Azande, for example, in order to question an oracle, a man must have both the physical oracle (poison, or a washboard, for example) and knowledge of the words and the rites which are needed to make the object function.[36]

A variety of personal traits may be credited to magical power, though frequently they are associated with an unusual birth into the world.[38] For example, in 16th century Friuli, babies born with the caul were believed to be good witches, benandanti, who would engage evil witches in nighttime battles over the bounty of the next year’s crops.[39]

Certain post-birth experiences are also believed to convey magical power. For example a person’s survival of a near-death illness may be taken as evidence of their power as a healer. In Bali, a medium’s survival is proof of her association with a patron deity, and therefore her ability to communicate with other gods and spirits.[40] Initiations are perhaps the most commonly used ceremonies to establish and to differentiate magicians from common people. In these rites the magician’s relationship to the supernatural and his entry into a closed professional class is established, often through rituals that simulate death and rebirth into a new life.[41]

Given the exclusivity of the criteria needed to become a magician, much magic is performed by specialists.[42] Laypeople will likely have some simple magical rituals for everyday living, but in situations of particular importance, especially when health or major life events are concerned, a specialist magician will often be consulted.[43] The powers of both specialist and common magicians are determined by culturally accepted standards of the sources and the breadth of magic. A magician may not simply invent or claim new magic; the magician is only as powerful as his peers believe him to be.[44] In different cultures, various types of magicians may be differentiated based on their abilities, their sources of power, and on moral considerations, including divisions into different categories like sorcerer, witch, healer and others.


Rituals
Magical rituals are the precisely defined actions (including speech) used to work magic. Bronislaw Malinowski describes ritual language as possessing a high “coefficient of weirdness,” by which he means that the language used in ritual is archaic and out of the ordinary, which helps foster the proper mindset to believe in the ritual.[45] S. J. Tambiah notes, however, that even if the power of the ritual is said to reside in the words, “the words only become effective if uttered in a very special context of other action.”[46] These other actions typically consist of gestures, possibly performed with special objects at a particular place or time. Object, location, and performer may require purification beforehand. This caveat draws a parallel to the felicity conditions that J. L. Austin requires of performative utterances.[47] By “performativity,” Austin means that the ritual act itself achieves the stated goal. For example, a wedding ceremony can be understood as a ritual, and only by properly performing the ritual does the marriage occur. Émile Durkheim stresses the importance of rituals as a tool to achieve “collective effervescence,” which serves to help unify society. Psychologists, on the other hand, describe rituals in comparison to obsessive-compulsive actions, noting that attentional focus falls on the lower level representation of simple gestures.[48] This results in goal demotion, as the ritual places more emphasis on performing the ritual "just right," than on the connection between the ritual and the goal.


Magical Symbols
Magic often utilizes symbols that are thought to be intrinsically efficacious. Anthropologists, such as Sir James Frazer (1854-1938), have characterized the implementation of symbols into two primary categories: the “principle of similarity,” and the “principle of contagion.” Frazer further categorized these principles as falling under “sympathetic magic,” and “contagious magic.” Frazer asserted that these concepts were “general or generic laws of thought, which were misapplied in magic.”[49]

The Principle of Similarity

The principle of similarity, also known as the “association of ideas,” which falls under the category of “sympathetic magic,” is the thought that if a certain result follows a certain action, then that action must be responsible for the result. Therefore, if one is to perform this action again, the same result can again be expected. One classic example of this mode of thought is that of the rooster and the sunrise. When a rooster crows, it is a response to the rising of the sun. Thinking in terms of sympathetic magic, however, one might interpret this sequence of events differently. The law of similarity would suggest that since the sunrise follows the crowing of the rooster, the rooster must have caused the sun to rise.[50] Causality is erroneously inferred. Therefore, a practitioner might believe that if he is able to cause the rooster to crow, that he might be able to control the timing of the sunrise.

The Principle of Contagion

Another primary type of magical thinking includes the principle of contagion. This principle suggests that once two objects come into contact with each other, they will continue to affect each other even after the contact between them has been broken. One example that Tambiah gives is related to adoption. Among some American Indians, for example, when a child is adopted his or her adoptive mother will pull the child through some of her clothes, symbolically representing the birth process and thereby associating the child with herself.[51] Therefore, the child emotionally becomes hers even though their relationship is not biological. As Claude Lévi-Strauss would put it: the birth “would consist, therefore, in making explicit a situation originally existing on the emotional level and in rendering acceptable to the mind pains which the body refuses to tolerate…the woman believes in the myth and belongs to a society which believes in it.”[52]

Symbols, for many cultures that utilize magic, are seen as a type of technology. Natives might use symbols and symbolic actions to bring about change and improvements, much like Western cultures might use advanced irrigation techniques to promote soil fertility and crop growth. Michael Brown discusses the use of nantag stones among the Aguaruna as being similar to this type of “technology.”[53] These stones are brought into contact with stem cuttings of plants like manioc before they are planted in an effort to promote growth. Nantag are powerful, tangible symbols of fertility, so they are brought into contact with crops in order to transmit their fertility to the plants.

Others argue that ritualistic actions are merely therapeutic. Tambiah cites the example of a native hitting the ground with a stick. While some may interpret this action as symbolic (i.e. the man is trying to make the ground yield crops through force), others would simply see a man unleashing his frustration at poor crop returns. Ultimately, whether or not an action is symbolic depends upon the context of the situation as well as the ontology of the culture. Many symbolic actions are derived from mythology and unique associations, whereas other ritualistic actions are just simple expressions of emotion and are not intended to enact any type of change.