Content uploaded by Peter Pels
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter Pels on Nov 27, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
JASO
29/3 (1998):
263-272
REVIEW ARTICLE
RELIGION,
CONSUMERISM,
AND
THE
MODERNITY
OF
THE
NEW
AGE
PETERPELS
PAUL HEELAS, The New Age Movement: The Celebration
of
the
Self
and the Sacraliza-
tion
of
Modernity,
Oxford:
BlackweIl
1996.
ix,
266
pp., Plates, References, lIlustra-
tions, Index. £45.00/£13.99/$44.95/$21.95.
IN
Witchcraft, Oracles
and
Magic, Evans-Pritchard memorably described the way
in
which Azande scepticism and rationality helped to maintain their system
of
be-
lief
in
witchcraft, all empirical contrariness notwithstanding. Many twentieth-
century social scientists have been equally tenacious
in
shoring up their system
of
belief
in
the face
of
contrary evidence, especially when defending the supposed
existence
of
socio-hi!.-torical processes like 'rationalization', 'secularization', 'civi-
lization',
or
'modernization', Such an attitude seems peculiarly world-renouncing
today, at a time when a global broadcaster like CNN asks Uri
Geller-the
former
psychic spoon-bender, later unmasked as a
fraud-to
give an expert commentary
on the multipJe suicide,
in
March 1997,
of
the members
of
the 'Heaven's Gate'
cybersect, who wanted to reach the 'next level' by leaving their earthly 'vehicle'
and returning to their extraterrestrial source, a UFO passing the earth
in
the slip-
stream
of
the Hale-Bopp comet. This CNN expert, despite his scepticism about the
264 Peter Pels
visions
of
'Heaven's Gate', prefaced his comments
by
saying that
'of
course,
UFOs
exist'-showing
that, like Azande,
we
use scepticism to make our beliefs
more convincing. A book like Paul Heelas's
The
New Age Movement, which stud-
ies an important breeding-ground
of
such modem magicalities, must therefore be
warm1y
welcomed, not only because it may provoke critical reflections on the arti-
cles
of
faith
of
social-scientific 'sceptics' (such as rationalization and seculariza-
tion), but also because
it
may give precedence to the study
of
the phenomena that
their beliefs are trying to marginalize or define out
of
existence-especially since
the author's training (he took a doctorate
in
anthropology at Oxford) suggests that
he
wil1
bring the accomplishments
of
anthropological theories
of
religion and
magic to bear on the subject.
The
New Age Movement
is
the first comprehensive and affordable book on
New Age to appear (it has an equally comprehensive but more expensive competi-
tor
in
Wouter Hanegraaffs New Age Religion and Western Culture). Its great
merit
is
the clear and unambiguous way
in
which it opens
up
the field
by
defining
it
in
terms
of
what Heelas calls the lingua franca
of
self-spirituality: 'The great
refrain, running throughout the New Age,
is
that we malfunction because
we
have
been indoctrinated--or, in the New Age sense
of
the term, been
"brainwashed"-
by mainstream society and culture.' This indoctrination obscures and cripples the
power
of
the 'real' Self:
'To
experience the
"Self'
itself
is
to experience "God",
the "Goddess", the "Source", "Christ Consciousness", the "inner child", the "way
of
the heart", or, most simply and, I think, most frequently, "inner spirituality'"
(pp.18-19). The New Age emphasis on self-spirituality
is
rooted
in
late nineteenth-
or early twentieth-century forms
of
modem occultism (such as spiritualism and its
successor, the Theosophical Society).
It
is
an optimistic, 'detraditionalized' faith
that internalizes re1igiosity
in
such a way that persons seek to rely on an 'inner
voice' and reject any outside authority or tradition, especially
in
the form
of
estab-
lished religion. The latter,
in
presupposing a normatively defined public self, de-
values the person and excludes non-believers from its faith and worship, while 'the
New Age shows what "religion" looks like when it
is
organized
in
terms
of
what
is
taken to be the authority
of
the
Self
(p. 221). Although it turns out to be difficult
to draw 'hard and fast boundaries' around the object 'New Age' (p. 117)
in
terms
of
religion or spirituality, Heelas makes
it
clear that,
in
spiritualizing the secular
and transforming older religions like Christianity and Buddhism
in
its image, New
Age
is
the first candidate for the post
of
the religion
of
modernity.
Heelas
is
particularly good at pointing out the wide range
of
what can
faH
un-
der 'New Age': from world-rejecting to world-affirming, from countercultural re-
enchantment to the affirmation
of
mainstream business magic, from anti-modem to
explicitly modernist, New Age finds its way to
everyone-just
as nineteenth-
century occultism was both working-class and aristocratic, both progressive and
conservative. His identification
of
New Age as 'perennialist', that is, as seeking a
hidden and similar core
of
wisdom
in
all religions, rather than defining
an
exclu-
The Modernity
of
the New
Age
265
sivist faith,
is
worth much further investigation. Perhaps his most important con-
tribution
is
the way in which, helped
by
his research on 'cults for capitalism', the
New Age bank BCCI and the role
of
New Age
in
neoliberal 'enterprise culture', he
does away with the idea that New Age
is
tied to the countercultural. At first sight,
says Heelas, New Age implies a break with modernity (pp. 3, 153); but 'the most
controversial point to be made
in
this volume'
is
that New Age
in
fact also exem-
plifies-even
more, sacralizes-Iong-standing cultural trajectories
of
modernity
(pp. 136, 154). This invitation to subject specific cultural aspects
of
modem soci-
ety to
analysis-that
is,
to anthropologize
modernity-is
in itself sufficient to jus-
tifY
paying serious attention to this book.
Yet, while the culture
of
modernity
is
its main
subject-and
the book certainly
offers important insights into
it-Heelas
rarely makes use
of
the arsenal
of
anthro-
pological analysis
in
formulating his views on New Age. Especially
in
the field
of
religion and
magic-where
anthropological theory has been a guide to other social
sciences-this
is
a puzzling omission. He prefers the analytical insights available
from sociology (a sociology that
is
predominantly Durkheimian, does little with
Weberian insights, and leaves out Marx altogether), from religious studies, and
from psychology-all disciplines that have provided core ideologies
of
modernity
and that sometimes tend to stay too close to the modem 'native point
of
view'. I
Likewise, Heelas sometimes seems to reproduce modernist self-conceptions and
the ways in which New Age thinking legitimizes itself. He regularly shies away
from discussing theoretical insights that could be unpleasant to New Age thinking.
He never mentions the frauds and charlatans
of
the New Age, which the emphasis
on fraud and illusion characteristic
of
the anthropological theory
of
magic would
have brought forward; his repetitive assurance that real New Age converts are not
consumerist seems intended to keep at bay Marx's insight that commodity fetish-
ism and consumerism constitute modernity's Alltagsreligion. Finally, he rarely
seems to realize the extent to which the methodology and rhetoric
he
employs
abolish the boundaries between his own analytical stance and the points
of
view
of
the people researched, making him take over the moral sentiments
of
New Age
itself.
In
the remainder
of
this brief essay, I would like to discuss
in
more detail
these three issues: the contributions that the anthropology
of
magic and religion
may make to studying New Age; the extent to which New Age is modem because
it
is
indissolubly linked to its 'spirit
of
consumerism'; and the extent to which the
modernity
of
the New Age
is
based
on
a merger with academic methodology and
rhetoric itself.
At the outset, however, it seems necessary to affirm that it
is
impossible to
demarcate New Age. New Age
is
a discourse (or, as Heelas puts
it,
a 'lingua
I Heelas's references to the anthropological theory
of
religion are restricted to Geertz's
ubiquitous 'model of/for' definition
of
religion (pp. 169, 173-4; cf. Geertz 1966), a refer-
ence to Turner's 'communitas' that, I feel, rather draws it out
of
context (p. 158; cf. Turner
1974), and,
of
course, Durkheim' s notions
of
religion and the sacralization
of
the self.
266 Peter Pels
franca') developed in the nineteenth century that produces its own social practices
as much as it penetrates into others. The New Age character
of
much present-day
Christianity, and the fact that humanistic psychology has always had a consider-
able 'New Age' component, show that the discourse
of
self-spirituality has no re-
spect for the institutional boundaries by which many social scientists identify their
objects. This explains why Heelas's attempts to draw boundaries around his ob-
ject-despite
the fact that
he
agrees that no 'hard and fast boundaries'
exist-
constantly fail to produce any clarity. New Age is, as the title
of
the book suggests,
a 'movement', yet it is not a 'new religious movement' (p. 9) although participa-
tion
in
New Age can be measured by participation
in
new religious movements (p.
111).2 That one can draw boundaries around New Age is suggested by the state-
ment that one 'steps inside' New Age by conversion (pp. 181ff.), but is contra-
dicted
by
the statement that New Age requires
no
great 'leap
of
faith' and that,
rather than conversion, it
is
effective practices that turn someone into a
'New
Ager' (p. 173). New Age's self-spirituality
is
said to be distinct from the strictly
secular, yet there are also forms
of
magical efficacy that fall in between the spiri-
tual and the secular (p. 168). These forms
of
magical efficacy are closer to the ex-
pressivism and therapeutic experiences
of
practical psychology, from which one
can gradually shift into New Age without a moment
of
'conversion' (p.
197)-just
as there is no sharp break between Freudian psychoanalysis and New Age, al-
though the former has nothing to do with self-spirituality (p. 116).
It
is
also hard to
say how many people are
'in'
New Age because many New Agers despise the
term, because New Age organizations themselves are often those who provide fig-
ures on numbers
of
participants, and because polls give figures for New Agers
in
the
USA
ranging from only 20,000 up to 60 million (p. 112). Commercial indica-
tors
of
New Age membership
(of
the sales
of
books, magazines, crystals, tarot
decks, etc.) are, according to Heelas, more reliable (p. 114), but this seems to con-
tradict his assertion that a consumerist attitude towards New Age items excludes
genuine conversion to it (p. 186
n.
3), for the commercial indicators do not exclude
those who merely seek pleasure (p. 203) or are fascinated by the occult rather than
New Age 'per se' (p. 166).
In
other words, it seems to be as difficult to demarcate
New Age as it is to say who 'belongs' to 'it'.
In
a situation where the object researched has no clearly identifiable social
boundaries (because it is a discourse that does not respect such boundaries), it is
difficult to see the use
of
a concept like 'conversion' (on which Heelas bases his
chapter about the effectiveness
of
New Age 'self-understanding'; pp. 181-200).
Recent anthropological theory shows that our present understanding
of
conversion
is
founded on a Protestant Christian heritage imparted to social-scientific theories
2 Let alone that we can start asking whether Heelas's use
of
'movement' (much like that
of
other scholars
of
religious movements) does not reify
as
an object what should be studied
as
a process. See Fabian 1981.
The
Modernity
o/the
New Age 267
of
religion, theories that tend to reify (systems of) belief and abstract them from
the social practices and power relations that give them meaning (cf. Asad 1993;
Comaroff and Comaroff 1991).
It
is
significant that Heelas's ambivalences about
whether or not to speak
of
'conversion" which pervade his text, only disappear
when he wants to show that New Age training does indeed make a difference to
participants-after the fact (p.
181
ff.). Our understanding
of
conversion is, in-
deed, based on narrative self-descriptions
of
those who have already been con-
verted, after the fact, and
is,
therefore,
c10se
to the 'native point
of
view'
of
the
convert. I think a critique
of
'conversion' would have made Heelas more sensitive
to different and more flexible concepts
of
religious
change-for
instance, the
physical transformation suggested
by
the notion
of
initiation, or the idea
of
Le-
bens/uhrung, propounded in Weber's 'Protestant
Ethic'-that
would have been
less indebted to the 'native point
of
view'
of
New Age practitioners. 'Initiation' in
particular would also have brought him closer to the anthropology
of
magical
transformation (in the case
of
initiation,
of
the body), which Heelas, surprisingly
for
an
anthropologist, completely ignores.
In
fact, theories
of
magic would seem to be more appropriate for the analysis
of
New Age than notions like 'conversion' and 'religion'. After all, anthropolo-
gists from Frazer and Mauss onwards have argued that magic is, compared to the
publicity
of
religion, a private and secret activity, and much more experimenta1,
variable, and experiential than the public system
of
beliefs, dogma, and ritual sug-
gested by the concept
of
'religion'. But although Heelas repeatedly affirms the
magicalities
of
the New Age, he never brings such theory to bear on his
subject-
in
fact, he rarely discusses the fact that New Age perennialism, which seeks a hid-
den core
of
wisdom
in
every religion, directly derives from the attitudes propa-
gated by the 'occultism'
of
the Theosophical Society, which itself drew on the
'theosophical enlightenment'
of
a world heritage
of
magical and esoteric knowl-
edge (cf. Godwin 1994). But
if
it seems that the anthropology
of
magic would
have been useful to Heelas (as it was useful to Tanya Luhrmann in her study
of
a
sub-section
of
the New Age, namely pagan magic),3 it would also have confronted
him with the issue
of
deception and illusion, inherited
by
anthropological theoriz-
ing about the occult from the Protestant denunciation
of
'papish knavery' or folk
healing. Nowhere
in
the book does Heelas address this core feature
of
talk about
New Age. The fact that there are few New Age practitioners who do not somehow
have to deal intellectually and practically with
an
environment
of
sceptical disbe-
lief and accusations
of
fraud and charlatanry, seems to have no place
in
Heelas's
conception
of
it.
Another point at which Heelas tends to side with New Age practitioners' self-
conceptions
is
in
his heavy emphasis on the 'detraditionalization' by which they
3 Cf. Luhrmann 1994. Although Heelas refers to her work, he does not deal with its
in-
sights.
268 Peter Pels
are characterized, an issue that
is
related to his equally
ambiguous-and,
I would
add, impossible-attempts to distinguish true New Age from consumerism. Heelas
commendably moves away from naive modernization theory's insistence on ra-
tionalization and secularization as features
of
modernity by arguing that modernity
is
corrosive and detraditionalizing, and that it therefore makes people 'conversion-
prone' (p. 143). His statement that detraditionalization
is
a 'necessary condition'
of
the appeal
of
New Age is fully correct and a core feature
of
his definition
of
what
New Age discourse at the empirical level
is
all about. But elsewhere, Heelas has
argued that detraditionalization involves a shift
of
authority from 'without' to
'within' and has recorded his surprise that this view was not shared
by
other social
scientists, betraying the fact that he
in
fact believed detraditionalization was not
just a modernist ideology, but an accurate analysis
of
modernization processes as
well.4 Although a paper by Nikolas Rose convincingly demolishing the detradi-
tionalization thesis has appeared
in
a book co-edited by Heelas (cf. Rose
1996)-
and although his book recognizes, somewhat belatedly, that the New Age corpus
is
itself a tradition (p.
207)-he
tends to maintain the New Age 'native point
of
view'
of
a distinction between 'other-directed forms
of
life' (p. 157) and detraditional-
ized selves. This often leads
to
a confusion
of
the concepts
of
'tradition', 'author-
ity', and the 'past' at the analytical level (see especially pp. 214-15). The notion
of
'tradition' that New Agers oppose reproduces some core features
of
modernist
'folk theory', particularly in the way in which it defines 'traditional' authority
in
terms
of
religion and magic. Max Weber did that as well, but at least he discussed
different forms
of
authority (legal-rational and charismatic) standing next to the
traditional. Edward Shils argued (1981:
21-3)
that the conception
of
'tradition' as
being religiously and magically constituted was an ideology derived from the
Enlightenment, and that for social analysis, one should recognize that reason, sci-
ence, and bureaucracy are transmitted by tradition as
welLs
In his tendency to use 'detraditionalization' as social theory rather than as a
modernist fantasy, Heelas suggests that the detraditionalized self
of
New Age
is
an
empirical fact rather than a construction
of
New Age
rhetoric-thus
again repro-
ducing that rhetoric itself. But as Rose argues (1996), the subject
is
constituted by
an 'infolding'
of
external forms
of
authority. One
of
these external forms
of
au-
thority is a discourse that tells persons to seek authority in themselves, but
it
usu-
ally stands opposed to other forms
of
authority-by
no means all
'traditional'-
4 Heelas cites Paul Piccone anq Anthony Giddens as fellow-believers
in
'detraditionaliza·
tion' (in Heelas et
al.
1996:
2)~
but it would have been more appropriate to associate his
ideas with Norbert Elias's ideology
of
'civilization', based also on a presumed historical
movement from Fremdzwang ('control
by
others') to Selbstzwang ('self-control') (1982:
313).
5 Heelas cites Shils extensively where the latter affirms how an ideology
of
the self count-
ers 'tradition' (p. 160), but he does not acknowledge that Shils's analysis implies a com-
plete devaluation
of
the detraditionalization thesis for sociological theory.
The
Modernity
of
the New
Age
269
that suggest that the unified self is a desirable illusion rather than an empirical fact.
Colin Campbell has argued that the middle-class personality, caught between its
desires towards personal perfection and the attempt to satisfy those desires by con-
sumption, is characteristically multiple. Like Heelas (pp. 42, 217), Campbell iden-
tifies the New Age rhetoric
of
self-spirituality as being rooted
in
the Romantic
critique
of
the Enlightenment, but he goes much further by arguing that it
is
there-
fore intimately linked to, rather than opposed by, consumerism.
In
his brilliant re-
vision
of
Weber's classic, Campbell suggests that the development
of
a 'romantic
ethic' was responsible for the emergence
of
the spirit
of
consumerism, in which
the day-dreams
of
the bourgeois personality, its feelings
of
incompleteness and
personal lack
of
fulfillment, were satisfied time and time again by consumption.
The relevance
of
Campbell's notion
of
the bourgeois double personality for New
Age is perfectly captured by Kate, one
of
the main characters
ofCyra
McFadden's
The Serial:
To think she herself
had
grown
up
programmed like that, just taking it
for
granted that 'success' meant a house
in
the
suburbs, two cars and
an
FHA
mortgage. True, she
had
a house
in
the suburbs, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera,
but she would
have
been the first to insist that none
of
this stuff really meant
anything. What did matter
was
being true to yourself, getting centered, and
realizing,
as
another friend had
so
eloquently put it recently
when
she and
Kate were rapping about self-realization, that 'life
was
part
of
existence'.
(McFadden
1976:
107;
cf.
Campbelll987)
Like Kate but unlike Campbell, Heelas does not seem to realize that New Age's
desire for 'getting centered'
in
the self leads, in the vast majority
of
cases, to a
radical splitting and decentering
of
the personality between the authorities-that-be
(whether those
of
the labour market, shopping mall, or state bureaucracy) and the
authority
of
the self that is desired. This splitting
of
the personality between day-
dream and despised reality is, according to Campbell, the essential ingredient
of
fashion, the spirit that keeps consumerism moving. Therefore, contrary to what
Heelas and many other New Agers want to suggest, New Age does not stand op-
posed to consumerism; rather,
it
seems to lie at the very heart
of
the cultural com-
plex that keeps consumerism moving.
To be sure, it is difficult to acquire a sufficiently distanced and critical view
of
modernity and its spiritualities when many
of
the analytical devices that one can
use have long been part
of
the construction
of
spirituaJities
of
modernity as well.
Anthropology itself was compJicit in this. The Theosophical Society would not
have emerged without the theory
of
an Aryan race propounded by orientalists and
ethnologists; Yeats and AE would not have joined the Order
of
the Golden Dawn,
and Gerald Gardner would not have invented modern witchcraft, or wicca, without
the inspiration
of
The
Golden Bough; while Carlos Castaneda's fictional Don Juan
would not have been as convincing had Castaneda not emulated the model
of
pro-
270 Peter Pels
fessional ethnography and received a Ph.D in anthropology from UCLA. Psychol-
ogy was even more involved in the history
of
New Age. Almost all founding fa-
thers
of
psychology (Wundt, James, Freud, Janet, Charcot) were experimenting
with the phenomena
of
mesmerism, extra-sensory perception, and telepathy before
a more disenchanted behaviourism became the academic norm (cf. Hacking 1988,
1995). As Heelas himself notes, psychology and psychotherapy were crucial in the
emergence
of
a New Age phenomenon like the Human Potential Movement. Mod-
em
magic in general has, from Blavastky and Crowley onwards, been thoroughly
psychologized (cf. Hanegraaff 1996: 433).
Heelas recognizes that anthropology and psychology are involved in the con-
struction
of
New Age and that, even
if
New Agers often see academic inquiry as
harmful to experiential wisdom, they write in ways that are difficult to distinguish
from the academic (p. 10). But he does not analyze these ways
of
writing them-
selves. Had he done so, he might have noted that these ways
of
writing include
modifications
of
the genre
of
the confession (for Foucault, the foremost technol-
ogy
of
the self
of
modem society), such as those used in the anthropological field-
work report, the sessions
of
psychotherapy and the narratives
of
conversion
charted by the polls and questionnaires that Heelas uses as sources
of
data.6 In try-
ing to explain why New Age 'makes a difference' to people, he not only falls back
on the questionable concept
of
conversion, accounts
of
which are elicited by ques-
tionnaires after the fact, but also provides explanations in terms
of
either what
New Agers would say themselves ('Self-spirituality is true'
[po
187]; 'The East is
right' and it works
[po
197]) or a psychological language ('harmful ego-games',
'role-playing routines', 'physiological arousal' through powerful experience; pp.
188, 191) that, I feel, does not break with the language
of
New Agers' own ac-
counts-something
an analysis
of
scientistic discourse and narrative conventions
might have achieved. The only argument from psychology that would have been a
critique
of
New Age
practices-that
New Age sometimes involves 'brainwash-
ing'-is
countered by the argument that, on the contrary, New Age training makes
participants 'more rebellious or anti-authoritarian' (p.
196}-an
argument that
dismisses a central element
of
the discourse on New Age in the same way as the
omission
of
the discussion about fraud and charlatanism.7 Most important, per-
haps, for his attempt to outline how New Age relates to modernity is the fact that
he never really discusses the tradition
of
scientism that is so characteristic
of
New
Age discourse, and that
is
particularly prominent in the way in which notions
of
personal experiment and experience--inherited from a Baconian view
of
science
6
The
correspondences
between
confession,
conversion
and
ethnography
are
discussed
in
Stewart
1994.
7 Heelas's
only
sociological explanation of
why
New
Age
makes
a difference
is
the
role
of
'socialization'
(p.
192),
but
to
this,
rather underspecified explanation
one
may
object that
New
Age
tendencies
towards
sacralizing
the
individual
will
(in
the
wake
of
Aleister
Crow-
ley's reinvention
of
'magick')
amount,
if
anything,
to
a desocialization.
The Modernity
of
the
New
Age
271
as
domestic experiment that lost force
in
the course
of
the nineteenth century and
was
displaced on to occult practices like Spiritualism and Theosophy (cf. Shapin
1988; Pels 1995)-pervade the ways
in
which New Agers construct the authority
of
their opinions and selves.
In
conclusion, one might note that Heelas's book contrasts sharply with that
of
the most widely read ethnography
of
New Age
by
an
anthropologist, Tanya Luhr-
mann's Persuasions
of
the Witch's Craft (1994). While Luhrmann clearly took her
cue
from
the modernist scepticism that also characterized Evans-Pritchard's analy-
sis
of
Azande witchcraft, and thus epitomized the extremes
of
the anthropological
'stranger's perspective' towards culture, Heelas's book can almost count
as
an
'auto-ethnography'
of
New
Age-be
it a
very
good one. This suggests that another
swing
of
the pendulum
is
needed. Although our understanding
of
New Age can
certainly build on Luhrmann and Heelas, new insights must come
from
someone
who
is
both
an
unbeliever
in
New Age
and
an
unbeliever
in
the standard legitima-
tions
of
modernity. The merit
of
Heelas's book
is
that
is
shows that New Agers are
often believers
in
both.
REFERENCES
ASAD,
T
ALAL
1993.
Genealogies
of
Religion,
Baltimore:
Johns
Hopkins
University
Press.
CAMPBELL,
COUN
1987.
The
Romantic Ethic and the Spirit
of
Consumerism,
Oxford
and
London:
Blackwell.
COMAROFF,
JEAN,
and
JOHN
COMAROFF
1991.
On Revelation and Revolution,
Vol.
1,
Chicago:
Chicago
University
Press.
EUAS,
NORBERT
1982.
Ober den Prozess der Zivilisation,
Vol.
2,
Frankfurt:
Suhrkamp.
FABIAN,
JOHANNES
1981.
'Six
Theses
Regarding
the
Anthropology
of
African
Reli-
gious
Movements', Religion,
Vol.
XI,
pp.
109-26.
GEERTZ,
CUFFORD
1966.
'Religion
as
a
Cultural
System',
in
Michael
Banton
(ed.),
Anthropological Approaches to the Study
of
Religion,
London:
Tavistock.
GODWIN,
JOCELYN
1994.
The
Theosophical Enlightenment,
New
York:
SUNY.
HACKING,
IAN
1988.
'Telepathy:
Origins
of
Randomization
in
Experimental
Design',
/sis,
Vol.
LXXIX,
pp.
427-51.
...
1995.
Rewriting the Soul: Multiple Personality and the Sciences
of
Memory,
Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press.
HANEGRAAFF,
WOUTER
1996.
New
Age Religion and Western Culture,
Leiden:
Brill.
HEELAS,
P.,
S.
LASH,
and
P.
MORRIS
1996.
'Introduction: Detraditionalization
and
its
Rivals',
in
P.
Heelas,
S.
Lash,
and
P.
Morris
(eds.), Detraditionalization,
Oxford:
Blackwell.
LUHRMANN,
TANYA
1994.
Persuasions
of
the Witch's Craft,
London:
Picador.
272 Peter Pets
MCFADDEN,
CYRA
1976.
The
Serial: A
Year
in the Life
of
Marin County, New York:
New American Library.
PELS,
PETER
1995. 'Spiritual Facts and Super-Visions: The "Conversion"
of
Alfred
Russel Wallace', Etnofoor, Vol. VIII,
no.
2,
pp.
69-91.
ROSE,
NIKOLAS
1996. 'Authority and the Genealogy
of
Subjectivity',
in
P.
Heelas,
S.
Lash, and
P.
Morris (eds.), Detraditionalization, Oxford: Blackwell.
SHAPIN,
STEVEN
1988. 'The House
of
Experiment
in
Seventeenth-Century England',
/sis,
Vol.
LXXIX,
p.
373-404.
SHILS,
EDWARD
1981. Tradition, London and Boston: Faber and Faber.
STEWART,
SUSAN
1994. 'Psalmanazar's Others',
in
Susan Stewart, Crimes
of
Writing:
Problems in the Containment
of
Representation, Durham,
NC:
Duke University
Press.
TURNER,
VICTOR
1974.
The
Ritual Process, Harmondsworth: Penguin.