INTRODUCTORY LECTURE:
BRIEF DEFINITIONS OF MAGIC & MAGIC AND RELIGION – SOME SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
Magic in Social and Cultural Evolution:
James J. Frazer (1854-1941)
The Sociology of Magic:
Émile Durkheim (1858-1917)
How does Frazer define magic?
Magic is the practice of sympathetic rites based upon two laws he defined:
1.The Law of Similarity/Sympathy: “like produces like … an effect resembles its cause”. Also known as homeopathic magic “the magician acts out a procedure on models of the intended victim, and what he does [the cause] is mysteriously transmitted to the victim [the effect] ” (Hill 9: 90). Or, there are other acts: “he blows smoke high into the air so that rain clouds may appear in the sky.” (de Vries 215)
2.The Law of Contact: things that have been in physical contact then act upon one another even at a distance. Also known as contagious magic “items that have been in contact with the victim, such as … hair or nail clippings, may be magically manipulated to produce harm in the victim.” (Hill 9: 90)
Why does Frazer place magic at the bottom of his evolutionary scale?
1.It is logically simpler
2.It persists as superstition – even in the Western, industrialised world of 19th Century Britain
3.Because Australian Aborigines believe in magic rather than religion. As Middleton notes in his discussion of Frazer’s last point: at the time of his research, Frazer regarded the Aborigines “as the extreme case of an archaic remnant people” (9: 84)
Middleton raises three important points:
1. magic connected with religion
2. magic connected with superstition
3. magic connected with entertainment
Note: The origins of Witchcraft can be found in Persia. This is a theory based on archaeological evidence. Due to migration and trade, magic came into the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian cultures.
A summary of Durkheim’s views:
(a) religious rites were more concerned with the sacred whereas magic was usually directed towards the utilitarian (Hill 9: 91);
(b) while there was a significant body of evidence for worship inspired by personal needs, religion regularly worked towards communal goals whereas magic tended to focus on private ends;
(c) religion was often a public activity whereas magic involved an individual operating in private. (Hill 9: 91).
Modern Sources Referred to:
de Vries, Jan. “Magic and Religion.” In Anthropological Studies of Witchcraft, Magic and Religion. Ed. B. Levack. New York, 1992.
Hill, Donald R. In The Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. M. Eliade. Vol. 9. New York, 1987.
Middleton, John. In The Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. M. Eliade. Vol. 9. New York, 1987.
These notes are from my lecture on the HISTORY of magic. Feel free to have a look. There will be more coming but these views do not entirely represent my views on magic, they are historical points.
