Beyond Belief

IF 0.3 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Aries-Journal for the Study of Western Esotericism Pub Date : 2020-10-28 DOI:10.1163/15700593-20211002
C. Ferguson
{"title":"Beyond Belief","authors":"C. Ferguson","doi":"10.1163/15700593-20211002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Over the last decade, esotericism studies has witnessed a distinct literary turn, as more and more of the field’s primarily religious studies-based researchers have recognized the value, and indeed, centrality, of imaginative literature to the transmission of occult and new religious ideas. Although welcome, this impetus has sometimes taken an anti-aesthetic shape, reducing the texts it incorporates to little more than empirical evidence of authorial belief or practical occult experience. Accompanying this tendency has been a suspicion of the formalist, post-modern, and/or political forms of interpretation common within contemporary literary studies as being ideologically tainted or even wilfully perverse in their resistance to surface meaning. My article uses a case study of Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Land of Mist (1926), a seemingly straightforward example of an emic novel whose author’s spiritualist belief and conversionist intentions are well known, to demonstrate the limitations of such a biographically reductionist hermeneutic, and to call for a greater diversity of approach within literary esotericism studies.","PeriodicalId":41783,"journal":{"name":"Aries-Journal for the Study of Western Esotericism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aries-Journal for the Study of Western Esotericism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700593-20211002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over the last decade, esotericism studies has witnessed a distinct literary turn, as more and more of the field’s primarily religious studies-based researchers have recognized the value, and indeed, centrality, of imaginative literature to the transmission of occult and new religious ideas. Although welcome, this impetus has sometimes taken an anti-aesthetic shape, reducing the texts it incorporates to little more than empirical evidence of authorial belief or practical occult experience. Accompanying this tendency has been a suspicion of the formalist, post-modern, and/or political forms of interpretation common within contemporary literary studies as being ideologically tainted or even wilfully perverse in their resistance to surface meaning. My article uses a case study of Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Land of Mist (1926), a seemingly straightforward example of an emic novel whose author’s spiritualist belief and conversionist intentions are well known, to demonstrate the limitations of such a biographically reductionist hermeneutic, and to call for a greater diversity of approach within literary esotericism studies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
难以置信
在过去的十年里,神秘主义研究见证了一个明显的文学转向,因为越来越多的该领域主要以宗教研究为基础的研究人员已经认识到想象文学在传播神秘主义和新宗教思想方面的价值,实际上是中心地位。虽然受欢迎,但这种推动力有时会采取反美学的形式,将它所包含的文本减少到仅仅是作者信仰或实际神秘经验的经验证据。伴随这一趋势的是对当代文学研究中常见的形式主义、后现代和/或政治形式的解释的怀疑,因为它们在抵制表面意义方面受到意识形态的污染,甚至故意歪曲。我的文章以亚瑟·柯南·道尔的《迷雾之地》(1926)为例进行了研究,这是一部看似简单的主题小说,其作者的唯心主义信仰和皈依者的意图是众所周知的,以此来证明这种传记化还原论解释学的局限性,并呼吁在文学深奥主义研究中采用更多样化的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Avalonian Bahaism (Re)defining Esotericism Global Tantra: Religion, Science, and Nationalism in Colonial Modernity , by Strube, Julian Esoteric Publishing in the 1920s Initiation into Philosophy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1