Religion

ISSN: 0048-721X (Print) 1096-1151 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rrel20

Esoteric currents as discursive complexes

Kennet Granholm

To cite this article: Kennet Granholm (2013) Esoteric currents as discursive complexes,
Religion, 43:1, 46-69, DOI: 10.1080/0048721X.2013.742741
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2013.742741

Published online: 18 Dec 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 771

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rrel20
Religion
Vol. 43, No. 1, January 2013, 46–69

Esoteric currents as discursive complexes

Kennet Granholm*

Department of Ethnology, History of Religions and Gender Studies, Stockholm University,

SE-10691

ABSTRACT While the use of the term discourse is not uncommon in the study of
religion, putting it into practical application in discourse-analytical approaches
is. Similarly, while the esoteric is starting to be acknowledged as a legitimate
field of inquiry, perspectives and approaches derived from the study of esoteri-
cism have thus far not had a big impact on the study of religion in a broader
sense. In this article I will present a discourse-analytical approach to so-called
esoteric currents, demonstrating how discourse analysis can be employed in
the study of religion and the esoteric, as well as how it can be used to make
the study of esotericism more relevant for religious studies in general.
KEY WORDS social constructionism; discourse; esotericism; the Left-Hand
Path; neopaganism; New Age

Introduction
While discourse analysis is common in the social sciences, the method has thus far
not been used extensively in the study of religion. The word ‘discourse’ is quite
common, but it is most often used in vague and unspecified ways with the
actual meaning remaining veiled. Furthermore, when the term is used in more
informed ways, the approach is often abstract, with a focus on impersonal ‘struc-
tures’ and ‘systems’. More practical and empirically grounded approaches are
needed. However, before this can be achieved, some groundwork needs to be
done. Thus, this article does not exemplify a discourse analysis in a strict sense,
but rather it presents an interpretational framework, focused on so-called esoteric
currents, which can be used by others in a more focused analytical capacity.
The field of Western esotericism has gained acceptance and influence in recent
years, but still remains somewhat on the margins of religious studies in a
broader sense. Thus, a secondary aim with this article, beside the primary one of
demonstrating the usefulness of discourse-analytical approaches for the study of
the esoteric, is to try to elucidate why bridging the gap that still exists would be
beneficial, and how this might be done.
In this article I will first provide a brief account of the social-constructionist epis-
temology lying at the core of the theory and method of discourse analysis, as well
as discuss some similarities and differences in a number of different analytical
approaches. Next, I will venture on a general discussion of the concept of the

*Email: kennet.granholm@rel.su.se

ISSN 0048-721X print/ISSN 1096-1151 online/13/010046–24 © 2013 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2013.742741
 Religion 47

esoteric, not providing a detailed account of the many different perspectives and
approaches in the field of Western esotericism, but instead give an overview
focused on the potential benefits of the concept for religious studies more
broadly. I will then discuss the theoretical and methodological foundations of
my discourse-analytical take on esoteric currents, exemplifying the approach in a
cursory examination of a few specific currents as well as looking at the cross-
pollination of different currents. I will also discuss the influence of broader societal
discourses on some esoteric currents, and in this I hope to demonstrate both how
scholars of esotericism could benefit from incorporating sociological perspectives,
and how the study of esotericism can be of more general interest for religious
studies.

Social constructionism, discourse and discourse analysis

The notion of discourse, and the method of discourse analysis, builds on social con-
structionist epistemology (Jørgensen and Phillips 2000: 11),1 which is in turn based
on four basic premises: that our understandings of the world are necessarily
informed by preconceived notions which need to be deconstructed; that knowledge
is always culturally and historically specific; that knowledge is produced in human
interaction and communication; and that knowledge informs social interaction,
and vice versa (Burr 1995: 2–5; cf. Gergen 1999: 47–50). This epistemological
stance thus emphasises the role of human communication and interaction as the
means through which social reality is constructed (Gergen 1999: 59–60). There
are a great number of potential explanations of any phenomena, each of which
could have similar value as long as consensus of this value exists, and that these
explanations are more often than not bound in power relations. For example, by
attributing specific qualities to a person based on skin colour or gender we partici-
pate in making those descriptions a reality for the person in question. Societal insti-
tutions and relationships are dependent on the words we use to describe and define
them, and are thus subject to constant retransformation and reproduction. This
means that knowledge and social action are intimately linked, and that communi-
cation is itself a form of concrete action (Burr 1995: 5). Considering this, it is not odd
that many studies informed by social-constructionist epistemology have an explicit
political dimension (see e.g., Gergen 1999: 49).
‘Discourse’ has become something of a staple term in the social sciences, which
has resulted in it being used in many different and sometimes contradicting ways,
and unfortunately often without any clarification as to the specific meaning implied
in each specific context (see Mills 1997: 1; Potter and Wetherell 1987: 6–7). Thus, in
using the term the first task should be to clarify its meaning. Many authors simply
refer to their use being ‘Foucauldian’, something which is unsatisfactory due to
Michel Foucault himself using the term in at least three distinct ways: as ‘all utter-
ances of texts which have meaning and which have some effects in the real world’;
as ‘groups of utterances which seem to be regulated in some way and which seem
to have a coherence and a force to them in common’; and a focus not on utterances
but ‘the rules and structures which produce particular utterances and texts’ (Mills
1997: 7). One can also discern a difference in meaning in more general uses where

1
For a more detailed discussion on social constructionism, see Moberg 2013.
48 K. Granholm

the reference is commonly to grand-scale social systems, and discourse analysis

where perspectives of ‘language in use’ and ‘language in context’ are more
common (Fairclough 1995: 125–128; Potter 1996: 15; Potter and Wetherell 1987:
7). Discourse-analytical approaches also deal with ‘how texts selectively draw
upon orders of discourse – the particular configurations of conventionalized practices
(genres, discourses, narratives, etc.) which are available to text producers and
interpreters in particular social circumstances’ (Fairclough 1999: 184). In the
context of this article discourse can be defined as ‘a fixed way of talking about
and understanding the world (or a section of it)’ (Jørgensen and Phillips 2000: 7,
my translation), or ‘a set of meanings, metaphors, representations, images,
stories, statements and so on that in some way together produce a particular
version of events’ (Burr 1995: 48).
There are several different traditions of discourse analysis, e.g., conversation
analysis, discursive psychology, the ethnography of communication, interactional
sociolinguistics, narrative analysis and critical discourse analysis (Coupland and
Jaworski 1999: 19–35). While there are considerable differences in practical appli-
cation, most approaches contain very similar basic premises: language use con-
structs social reality; there are several competing systems of meaning; acts of
meaning-making are bound to the context they appear in; actors are attached to
systems of meaning; and language use has consequences (see Coupland and
Jaworski 1999: 12–13; Jørgensen and Phillips 2000: 11–12). Important to note is
that discursive construction not only occurs in written and spoken language, but
in all communicative acts (see Burr 1995: 50–51; Fairclough 1992: 3–5; 1995: 54).
Nor does discourse simply refer to the use of language as such, but rather to
‘language use relative to social, political and cultural formations’ (Coupland and
Jaworski 1999: 3).
As my approach is most informed by the works of discursive psychologists
(e.g., Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell) and critical discourse analysts
(e.g., Norman Fairclough), in practice containing elements from both ‘schools’, I
will elaborate some more on these approaches,2 and on their similarities and differ-
ences. Discursive psychology was developed within social psychology in critique
of the dominant statistical and experimental methods and the preoccupation
with ‘behaviour’, ‘attitude’, and ‘cognition’ (Coupland and Jaworski 1999: 22, 25;
Jørgensen and Phillips 2000: 97–103). This critical perspective on the examination
of ‘internal mental processes’, which cannot really be accessed directly, lies at the
foundation of my own work. This connects to a difference between discursive psy-
chology and critical discourse analysis, namely the perspective on the constitutive-
ness of discourse. As do many discursive psychologists, I maintain that discourse is
‘not partially constitutive, but thoroughly constitutive’ (Potter and Wetherell 1992:
62), and that ‘there is no possibility of agency or reality outside of the discursive
practices that give those terms the intelligibility that they have’ (Butler 2006:
202). While the quote from Judith Butler might be taken as a denial of materiality,
it simply means that ‘phenomena only gain meaning through discourse’ (Jørgensen and
Phillips 2000: 104. Cf. Potter and Wetherell 1992: 65). In short, while the ‘prediscur-
sive’ might exist, we can only access it through discourse. Conversely, critical dis-
course analysts normally regard discourse as simply one form of social action

2
On Norman Fairclough, see Taira 2013 and Wijsen 2013.
 Religion 49

which both affects and is affected by other forms (Jørgensen and Phillips 2000:
67–68).
Secondly, while most forms of discourse analysis, including discursive psychol-
ogy, are critical by default in that they question taken-for-granted positions, critical
discourse analysis includes an explicit focus on the construction and maintenance
of ideology and power relations (Coupland and Jaworski 1999: 35). The term ‘hege-
monic discourse’, i.e., a discourse which operates as ‘self-evident fact’ effectively
overshadowing competing alternatives, is central to critical-discourse analytical
approaches. A task for the critical discourse analyst is then to expose the con-
structed nature of seemingly self-evident truths, and thus break hegemony. It
should be noted, however, that discursive psychology is in no way devoid of criti-
cal aspects, with Potter and Wetherell (1992: 61–62) noting that ‘discourse and ideo-
logical practice are inseparable from other social practices.’
The two approaches also differ in their general fields of interest. Critical dis-
course analysts often focus on grand-scale, socially transformative discursive prac-
tices (Jørgensen and Phillips 2000: 27), whereas discourse psychologists more often
examine ‘specific cases of language use in concrete social interaction’ (Jørgensen
and Phillips 2000: 13). For example, the former may look at general media dis-
courses hegemonically positioning Islam as ‘a religion not suitable for Western
societies’, where the latter will look at how the same discourses operate in the inter-
action of and rhetorical negotiation by participants in a particular televised debate.

The esoteric
The study of the esoteric is a fairly young field, but it has still been marked by
intense theoretical debate. A result of this is that there are a number of different,
and at times conflicting, definitions of and approaches to the esoteric itself. Later
in this article, in the proper contexts, I will discuss some problematic aspects of
specific perspectives, but this is not the time or place to get into a detailed discus-
sion. Instead, I will focus on some general themes in more recent approaches.
While there are exceptions, most current scholarly accounts regard the esoteric
not as a ‘tradition’3 consisting of distinct doctrines and practices and situated in
clearly outlined institutions, but as specific approaches to knowledge that
transgress the borders of the religious and the secular. An example is Kocku von
Stuckrad’s discursive approach, which will be discussed in more detail later.
Another is Wouter Hanegraaff’s ideal–typical conceptualisation of the esoteric as
‘direct experiential knowledge’ which is distinct from both faith and reason,
while at the same time existing interleaved with these two other approaches to
knowledge (Hanegraaff 2008). This examination of ‘in between categories’ is one
of the most promising possibilities offered by the study of the esoteric as it proble-
matises the distinction of the secular and the religious in the first place. That there
indeed is much overlap in these seemingly distinct fields is demonstrated by the

3
One notable exception is Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, who in his introduction to the study of Western
esotericism refers to ‘esoteric traditions’ in the plural, but reveals his position when claiming that the
‘perennial characteristics of the esoteric worldview suggest … that this is an enduring tradition which,
though subject to some degree of social legitimacy and cultural coloration, actually reflects an auton-
omous and essential aspect of the relationship between the mind and the cosmos’ (Goodrick-Clarke
2008: 13, my emphasis). This quote also exposes Goodrick-Clarke’s religionist leanings.
50 K. Granholm

examples of such practices as alchemy and astrology – which were often tied to
fields such as science, medicine and politics as much as to religion – and persons
such as Paracelsus (1493–1541) and Sir Isaac Newton (1643–1727) – who operated
in both ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ domains. (For a discussion of alchemy in particular,
see Hanegraaff 2012: 191–207). Furthermore, as demonstrated by von Stuckrad
(2013) in his discussion of esoteric elements in the life sciences, this overlap is
not limited to pre-Enlightenment times.
Kocku von Stuckrad’s discursive approach is one of the most interesting perspec-
tives on the esoteric to have emerged in the last decade or so. Instead of ‘esoteri-
cism’, von Stuckrad prefers the term ‘the esoteric’. This is due to the esoteric
being an ‘element of cultural processes’ rather than ‘a coherent doctrine or a
clearly identified body of tradition’ (von Stuckrad 2005b: 10; see also von Stuckrad
2010). In contrast to the confined approach of Faivre (1994: 10–15), von Stuckrad’s
approach is flexible, with the esoteric ‘element of discourse’ consisting of ‘claims to
“real” or absolute knowledge and the means of making this knowledge available’
(von Stuckrad 2005b: 10). The ways to access esoteric knowledge vary, although
mediation by ‘higher beings’ and personal experience are commonplace. Esoteric
discourse also operates with the ‘dialectic of the hidden and revealed’, i.e., a rhetoric
centred on the revelation of secret knowledge, rather than the outright existence
of inaccessible or elite knowledge (von Stuckrad 2005b: 10).
In addition to von Stuckrad (2005b: 9), several other influential scholars (e.g.,
Hammer 2004: 445; Hanegraaff 1996: 402; 2004: 489–491) stress the ‘scholarly con-
structed nature’ of esotericism. Going for an approach based on social construction-
ist epistemology thus seems logical. The approach presented by von Stuckrad’s
resolves some problematic issues in earlier approaches to the esoteric. For
example, as a rigid definition is not provided, it is much easier to include phenom-
ena from a broader range of historical periods. This also means that it is easier to
examine historical transformation of the esoteric, the impact of other societal dis-
courses, and transferrals from the esoteric field of discourse to other fields, and
vice versa. The fluidity afforded by constructionist epistemology helps argue for
perspectives of esotericism as a field, while at the same time avoiding presenting
this field in an essentialist manner (i.e., a tradition). A discursive approach also
denies the possibility of distinguishing between ‘real’ and ‘simulacrum-esoteri-
cism’, something which is in itself implied in the Faivrean ‘form of thought’-
approach (see e.g., Bogdan 2007: 20 on the ‘[m]igration of esoteric ideas into
nonesoteric materials’).
The approach is, however, not without its problems. One of these is that von
Stuckrad tends to be rather vague in his use of the term discourse, seldom
stating more than that he uses a ‘Foucauldian approach’ and sees discourse as
‘the totality of certain thought-systems that interact with societal systems in mani-
fold ways’ (von Stuckrad 2008: 221). While he elsewhere has defined discourse as
‘the social organisation of tradition, meaning and matters of knowledge’ (von
Stuckrad 2005a: 85, italics removed), the specific meaning is still elusive. As
noted earlier, Foucault’s use of the term discourse is complicated, and thus describ-
ing an approach to discourse as simply ‘Foucauldian’ is not enough. Secondly, the
very openness of the approach, which makes it such a promising scholarly tool, is
also its worst enemy. A perspective on the esoteric as ‘claims of higher knowledge’
can easily become too broad and in the process lose its analytical usefulness.
 Religion 51

While not an issue of central importance in this context, I also wish to shift the
focus from ‘esoteric discourse’ to the broader field of ‘discourse on the esoteric’.
This entails that we, instead of simply focusing on ‘esotericists’, can examine the
whole field which engages with the esoteric in one way or another. The field
then includes practising esotericists and various spokespersons, but also popular
cultural representations, anti-esoteric polemicists, academic commentators, and
so forth, and all these actors are linked and contribute to the order of discourse
(cf. Asprem and Granholm 2013). This is a benefit afforded by a discursive
approach, and one I feel we should embrace. In this context it is also useful to dis-
tinguish between thematic fields and discourses (see Suoninen 1997: 67–68). The-
matic fields are specific areas of communication containing several distinct, and
often competing, discourses. Discourses, then, are the different viewpoints and
ways of approaching the subject matter of the thematic field. For example, ‘Satan-
ism’ can be considered a thematic field, where various representations of what
Satanism is and does, its social and cultural legitimacy and repercussions – i.e.,
discourses – compete for hegemony. This differs from von Stuckrad’s approach,
where a theme like ‘salvation’ would be termed a discourse, and the different
uses and interpretations of this theme in different traditions a field of discourse
(see von Stuckrad 2003: 269; 2005b: 6–7).

Currents as discursive complexes

The term ‘current’ is a basic concept in the study of Western esotericism. Antoine
Faivre uses it to denote ‘movements, schools, or traditions’, represented by e.g.,
Hermetism, Christian Kabbalah and Paracelcism, and distinguishes it from
‘notions’, which denote ‘spiritual attitudes or practices’ and are represented by
e.g., Hermeticism and Gnosis (Faivre 1998: 3). Matters are further complicated
by certain phenomena, such as alchemy, astrology and magic, being both currents
and notions (Faivre 1998: 6–8). This conceptualisation is problematic. The point
with it seems to be to strictly (and somewhat arbitrarily) delimit what can properly
be studied under the banner of Western esotericism. One finds very little elabor-
ation on how and why the specific currents and notions accepted for inclusion
are chosen. This means that Western esotericism as a field will remain both histori-
cally and conceptually narrow if going by Faivre’s model, and the analytical
potential is thus restricted. Also, the reasons for Faivre’s ardent insistence that
‘we should … not confuse “currents” with “notions”’ (Faivre 1998: 3) seem
unclear. The distinction does not do any significant analytical work and is therefore
of little value.
Considering the problems and limited analytical usefulness of Faivre’s conceptu-
alisation of esoteric currents, I have developed an alternative approach. This
approach is based on social-constructionist epistemology, and is set in the dis-
course-analytical framework discussed above. I propose that esoteric currents,
and this is the meaning in which the term ‘current’ is used from now on in this
article, can be regarded as ‘discursive complexes’, i.e., collections of specific dis-
courses in specific combinations. This latter aspect is essential, as it spells out
that the various individual discourses that constitute a complex – a current – are
interdependent and inform each other. Each individual discourse assumes a
unique form due to its dependence on the other discourses constituting the
complex. It also means that a particular discourse can be a constituting element
52 K. Granholm

of more than one distinct complex, but that it will assume different, though
mutually recognisable and related, forms, functions and rationales. For example,
let us say that we have current X, constituted by the distinct discourses A, B and
C. We also have current Y, constituted by the distinct discourses C, D and
E. Here, both currents have discourse C contained within them, but due to
influence from neighbouring discourses this ‘C’ assumes different shapes in each
current. We can thus identify discourse Cx and discourse Cy.
Important to note is that discourses are, as all human communication, fluid in
nature. Thus, a description of a current is a form of ideal type. It describes the
basic premises of a current, but in actualisation in a specific group or philosophy
it will rarely look exactly like the ideal type. The ‘pure form’ currents described
in the next section are affected by other currents and ‘ancillary discourses’, and
therefore particular expressions of a current assume unique forms. This process
helps explain both the diversity and transformations that occur on the esoteric
field. For example, the neopagan discourse of the primacy of nature can be inter-
preted, produced and reproduced in a great number of different ways in different
historical and social contexts, and by different actors – which means that its
precise implications will vary and may even conflict. Acknowledging this great
diversity is not something which invalidates a discursive approach, quite the
opposite. Human communication and interaction is more often than not unstruc-
tured and confusing, and a discursive approach provides the means to systematise
the chaos. Identifying the ideal–typical discourses that constitute a current
provides a solid framework, from which one can then investigate the whys and
hows in the difference and similarity in specific actualisations of the current.
This discursive approach to esoteric currents is also compatible with historical
ones, not contrary to them as has sometimes been suggested. It is fully conceivable
to trace the occurrences, intermixing and development of both currents and the
individual discourses that constitute them through history. In fact, the discursive
approach proposed here actually facilitates historical investigation by providing
an analytically coherent framework. To again provide an example by way of the
above, rather technical, vocabulary, currents cross-pollinate, and do so more
easily when two discursive complexes have a specific discursive component in
common. For example, currents X and Y discussed above have an increased poten-
tial for cross-pollination due to them both containing discourse C (in the forms of
discourses Cx and Cy). Say that an individual or a group operates primarily within
current X, but draws close to current Y through the appeal of familiarity offered by
discourse C. Over time, elements from current Y are incorporated into this group’s
particular version of current X and slowly grow in influence. At the same time,
specific discourses of current X start to lose their relevance. We then end up with
a new complex of discourses derived from both the preceding currents, but
being unique in its new constellation of discursive interdependency. Let us call
this new discursive complex ‘current Z’, and say that it is constituted by discourses
A, C and E. In various ways, current Z can now cross-pollinate with other currents
creating yet new constellations, introducing increased diversity on the esoteric field
– while still being composed of a scholarly manageable number of building blocks.
Tracing how these transferrals and transformations have occurred is a matter of his-
torical investigation.
In this way, a discursive approach to the esoteric and esoteric currents is both his-
torically sound, and provides tools for systematising the study of transformations
 Religion 53

(and transfers; see von Stuckrad 2013). The approach thus answers to Wouter
Hanegraaff’s (1998: 41) call for sociologically informed approaches to the esoteric
needing to be compatible with historical ones. Of course, the discursive approach
outlined could also be used to examine, discuss and compare strictly typological
similarities and neglect historical relation. Typological similarities are, and this
should go without saying, something different from historical relation, and the
two should not be confused with each other. Still, examining one does not preclude
interest in the other. It is not inconceivable that typologically very similar phenom-
ena develop with no contact to each other, and when this occurs it should be exam-
ined rather than neglected. With the analytical stringency offered by the discursive
approach discussed here we can look at the factors (e.g., historical, social, cultural,
economic, political) at the basis of the formation of two similar but independent
currents, examining how they differ and how they are similar, and how these
differences and similarities shape the currents in specific ways. Furthermore, it is
fully possible that similar currents developed without historical connection meet
at some point and flow into each other, thus forming a single current from two pre-
viously unrelated ones. This is increasingly the case in late, or liquid (see Bauman
2000), modernity characterised by cultural and social fragmentation, transnational
relations, and nearly instant global dissemination of information through compu-
ter-relayed communication (see Granholm 2007; forthcoming a).
Furthermore, it would be a mistake to assume that the historical study of the eso-
teric has always been based on stringent scholarly professionalism. Looking at
earlier research, several problems can be identified. To again exemplify by reference
to Faivre, his approach has increasingly come to be criticised on the grounds of the
definition itself being compromised by its reliance on a fairly limited source
material (von Stuckrad 2005a: 83). Further, as the rationale for the selection of
the material is not made explicit, one easily gets the impression that esotericism
à la Faivre simply represents his personal ‘greatest hits’ in the world of religion
and philosophy. This impression is certainly not dispelled by Faivre, at times,
also having a fairly loose relation to his own rigid definition, including in the
realm of esotericism phenomena that do not conform to his list of ‘necessary charac-
teristics’ which are supposed to be present in order for something to be considered
esoteric, and at other times excluding phenomena that actually fit (see von Stuck-
rad 2005a: 83). Again, little rationale is provided for these choices. The inherent
arbitrariness of the Faivrean approach, in its curious combination with a rather
rigid framework, actually hinders rather than augments historical stringency. The
rigidness of Faivre’s approach makes it less suitable for looking at the esoteric in
periods other than the one which was of primary interest for Faivre, and thus to
trace the transformation of esotericism through history. Simply put, material
from the time and place originally chosen by Faivre will appear ‘more esoteric’,
or at least more properly so, than both earlier and later material. When the defi-
nition itself is based on a sort of circular argument – a phenomenon is esoteric
because it fits the definition, which is due to it being a part of the source material
used in forming the definition in the first place, and which was determined to be
esoteric prior to forming the definition – the approach is problematic. The
discursive approach discussed here provides a different sort of rigidness: analytical
stringency. It can help augment historical analysis and make it more well-
grounded, as it provides solid analytical tools and works with operationalisable
qualities.
54 K. Granholm

A second advantage of the discursive approach to currents is its potential in con-

junctive use with von Stuckrad’s model. As discussed earlier, von Stuckrad’s
description of the esoteric as consisting of claims to higher knowledge and ways
of accessing higher knowledge both benefits and suffers from being unrestrained.
It has the advantage of opening up the field to a greater number of potential
phenomena to investigate, but at the same time the concept of esoteric discourse
can become too inclusive and general to provide sufficient analytical grounding,
and thus its usefulness as an analytical tool can suffer. The perspective of esoteric
currents as discursive complexes provides a way to focus von Stuckrad’s approach.
If the esoteric is, in a general sense, claims to higher knowledge and ways of acces-
sing this knowledge, then the perspective of discursive complexes provides a way
to examine what knowledge is sought and how it is accessed. The term ‘higher
knowledge’ says very little by itself, but by including a more focused perspective
on specific esoteric currents we can in a more effective way gain an insight into
the social workings of the esoteric. Esoteric currents produce particular world-
views, practices, organisational and social structures, and tropes of communication
– all informed by the discourses that constitute the current in question. Discourses
do not, however, equal philosophies and worldviews; rather, they inform the pro-
duction and reproduction, the interpretation and reinterpretation, of philosophies
and worldviews.
A third benefit in the approach is its potential in examining esoteric discourses/
the esoteric in close relation to other social phenomena and societal transform-
ations, and to do so with a unified methodological and theoretical framework. I
am here referring to the impact of so-called ancillary discourses on esoteric cur-
rents. Examples include, but are not limited to, discourses informing the societal
role of religion such as secularist and post-secularist ones (see Granholm 2013); pol-
itical ideologies such as Marxist, democratic, anarchist, totalitarian, and neoliberal
discourses; and more specialised political–social discourses such as feminism,
sexism, racialism and racism, and animal-rights philosophy and Deep Ecology
(see Granholm 2009; Greer 2013). ‘Ancillary’ discourses are discourses which do
not constitute foundational elements of the particular esoteric currents discussed.
In situating esoteric currents into broader societal and cultural contexts, the per-
spective presented here also provides an effective means to integrate the study of
the esoteric into broader discussions of religious and societal change.

The discursive approach to esoteric currents in detail

Having discussed the theoretical grounding and basic premises of a perspective on
esoteric currents as discursive complexes, I will now provide some brief examples
of how this framework can be employed in the study of the esoteric. The examples
discussed are the currents the Left-Hand Path, neopaganism and New Age; inter-
current inference; and a general treatment on the impact of ancillary discourses. In
addition, esoteric currents are, quite naturally, affected and transformed under the
impact of e.g., scholarly, anti-esoteric and popular cultural discussions (see Asprem
and Granholm 2013 for more discussion on this subject). This is where a perspective
of a broader field of ‘discourse on the esoteric’ is beneficial. Due to the limited space
available, and for the sake of clarity, the examples that are brought up are text-
based and identified by unambiguous linguistic markers. However, discourse is
in no way limited to text and does in fact often manifest in non-linguistic
 Religion 55

systems of communication. Similarly, discourse is seldom (only) identified by clear

linguistic markers, but instead by the tracing of sets of ‘meanings, metaphors, rep-
resentations, images, stories, statements and so on that in some way together
produce a particular version of events’ (Burr 1995: 48) in broader extracts of com-
munication. It should also be noted that the space of this article does not allow for a
proper discussion of the rationale for the selection of the discourses that constitute
the discussed currents, and that the presentation may thus seem overly typological.
However, the aim here is not to present ‘definitive’ answers to what comprises
specific currents, but to exemplify how the model presented in this article can be
put to practical use. Thus other scholars, particularly with a more focused approach
on specific currents, might identify different discursive components as the most
central ones. A discourse-analytical approach as presented here is not concerned
with providing ‘more true’ explanations but about what is analytically consistent
and useful, and thus the choice of discursive components comprising a particular
current may differ according to analytical context, perspective and the specific
research questions that need to be answered.

The Left-Hand Path

As a term, the Left-Hand Path can be traced back to 19th-century Western reinter-
pretations of Indian religious sources, particularly perceptions of Tantra. While
‘Tantric schools’ are more diverse, the idea that Tantra could easily be divided
into the main traditions as Vamamarga/Vamacara (‘left way’) and Dakshinamarga/Dak-
shinacara (‘right way’) resonated with the already established division into black
and white magic (Granholm 2011b: 502). The idea of a benevolent ‘Great White
Brotherhood’ was a common feature in 19th-century occultism, as was the notion
that it had a counterpart in malevolent and self-centred ‘Black Adepts’ or ‘Brothers
of the Left’ (see e.g., Godwin 1994: 197). The British occultist and magician Aleister
Crowley (1875–1947), while not using the term to describe himself, is one of the
most significant sources of inspiration for later Left-Hand Path magicians. His
vocabulary, approaches to magical practice, and his uncompromising attitude in
general have all functioned as models to emulate. From the early 1970s onwards,
a positive re-evaluation of the term can be found in the works of British magician
and author, and former student and personal secretary of Crowley (Kaczynski
2002: 440–441), Kenneth Grant (1924–2011). While Grant maintained a small
group since the early 1950s, his influence is primarily through his three ‘Typhonian
trilogies’ (see Bogdan 2003). The American stream of the Left-Hand Path can be
regarded to have started with Anton Szandor LaVey (Howard Stanton Levey,
1930–1997), the ‘father of modern Satanism’, the founder of the Church of Satan
(1966), and author of books such as The Satanic Bible (1969) and The Satanic
Rituals (1972). LaVey was the first to employ the term Left-Hand Path as a self-
designate, while Grant was more ambiguous in this regard.
The Left-Hand Path current is distinguished by three central discourses: the ideol-
ogy of individualism, the goal of self-deification and an antinomian stance. None of
these is by itself unique to the Left-Hand Path and can be found in other esoteric
expression as well, but in their specific combination and reliance on each other
they form a distinct discursive complex: a current. In the ideology of individualism
the individual practitioner of magic and his/her own personal spiritual development
is emphasised. The individual assumes the absolute centre of his/her own existential
56 K. Granholm

universe. This is the primary concern even for people operating in groups, and
organisations are typically likened to schools where the individual magician can
acquire the tools necessary for his/her magical progress. The individual is positioned
in opposition to the collective, and this often results in a form of elitism which posits
the magician as elect. While it could be argued that esoteric discourse throughout
history has contained a strongly individualistic ethos, the Left-Hand Path is distinct
in that it raises individualism to the level of explicit ideology. I will provide a few
examples from the material of the Sweden-originated Left-Hand Path magic order
Dragon Rouge. (For more information on the order see Granholm 2012).
In our course on magic we therefore have many types of magic. It is then up to the
individual to find that which works for him/her. (Dragon Rouge 1996/1: 2 – my
translation)
What is stated here is that it is up to the individual magician to determine the
specific course of his/her magical development. The order does not enforce a par-
ticular approach:
magic does not provide any answers to the question of the meaning of life. This is
because the answer is individual. (Dragon Rouge 1996/1: 3 – my translation)
This quote follows the theme of the first one, but extends the scope of individual
determination. In addition to these brief examples, Dragon Rouge material is
ripe with the running theme of individualism, with the words ‘individual’ and
‘individualism’ among the ones most frequently used.
In the goal of self-deification the aim of the practitioner is to become a creator – or a
god – through initiatory processes. The exact nature and implications of this self-
deification is interpreted in various ways by different individuals (as groups
rarely define it in a singular fashion), but the tropes and rhetorical devices used
are very similar – namely focusing on particularly individual-focused self-deification.
I will again provide a few examples from Dragon Rouge material.
There is no heaven, no Nirvana, no union with God. One is oneself and becomes
the god. The goal is to find and be able to carry out one’s true will. (Dragon Rouge
1996/1: 6 – my translation)
The magical power is the power of the own spirit, the power over oneself. (Dragon
Rouge 1996/1: 3 – my translation)
These quotes demonstrate the essential goal of Dragon Rouge magical practice. It is
explicitly stated that the aim is to become a god, at the same time as all other salvific
paths are dismissed. Furthermore, the true realm of magical power is one’s self, a
theme clarified in the following quote:
The suggestive power of magic is enticing to many people, not least of all young-
sters. It seems appealing to make life easier through secret rituals. … If one seeks
magic to flee into a fake world of rituals and all sorts of hocus pocus due to being
too weak to deal with the real world, one should definitively avoid the worlds of
magic. … By learning the foundations of magic the student learns to wake up the
power and direct his/her will, thus being able to cause any changes and realize all
dreams. (Dragon Rouge 1996/1: 2 – my translation)
A result of the Left-Hand Path focus on self-deification is that more mundane uses
of magic, such as ‘love spells’ and the seeking of fortune, are dismissed as less
important. Perhaps the most distinguishing feature of the Left-Hand Path is its
 Religion 57

inherent antinomianism. Collective religious and cultural norms, as well as personal

taboos, are questioned, defied and transgressed in the pursuit of individualised
ethics and spiritual evolution. Most often this takes place on a rhetorical level,
but rule- and taboo-breaking in rituals, ceremonies and magical workings are not
uncommon. The aim is to abandon culturally given, and thus unreflected, sets of
ethics and adopt personal, individualised and reflected ones. The idea is that this
will grant the magician a level of freedom and separation in his individuation
and self-deification. Part of this antinomian discourse and rhetoric is that any par-
ticular Left-Hand Path exists in an antithetical relation to what it perceives to be the
‘Right-Hand Path’. This includes religious, and often also political, ideological and
other groups which are ‘mainstream’ and confer to established norms, as well as
many forms of ‘alternative’ spirituality which are regarded as being essentially
collective in character, and/or conformist in ideology and practice. A particular
Left-Hand Path thus defines itself in opposition to this ‘Right-Hand Path’, and
becomes what this ‘mainstream’ spirituality is not. Part of Left-Hand Path antino-
mianism is the use and positive appraisal of certain symbols and images deemed
to represent ‘evil’ in Western culture. These include the figure of Satan (and
other ‘evil’ gods or demons), the colour black, the inverted pentagram and so
forth. The adoption of these symbols is in itself part of the antinomianism of
Left-Hand Path philosophies. This is apparent in the choice of primary symbols
in many Left-Hand Path groups. For example, the Church of Satan has as its
main symbol an ‘inverse’ pentagram adorned with a goat’s head and Hebrew
letters spelling out the word Leviathan – all transgressive symbols by themselves,
and more so in combination (see Granholm forthcoming b). Dragon Rouge, on the
other hand, has the red dragon as its main symbol, which, while being more
ambiguous than the Church of Satan’s ‘Baphomet-sigil’, can still have sinister
connotations (see Granholm forthcoming c).
Finally, I will briefly demonstrate how the three discourses of the Left-Hand Path
current are interwoven, again by an example derived from Dragon Rouge material.
The individual dives down into the darkest regions of himself and existence in
order to there mythically find the treasure of power guarded by the dragon.
The treasure is the dragon-force, kundalini, and the black diamond, which rep-
resents the perfection of the individual. The magician steps down into the under-
world in order to magically die and recreate himself as a god. The magician goes
from being a creation to becoming a creator. This happens through occult knowl-
edge, which are the fruits of knowledge that the serpent gives to the humans in
Genesis 3:5 in order for their eyes to open and so that they shall become as
God. (Dragon Rouge 1996/1: 4 – my translation)
This quote expresses that it is the task of the individual to explore the regions of him/
herself, with the aim of perfection of the individual and for him/her to recreate him/
herself. This individual-focused exploration is for personal perfection, and the
recreation is of the magician as a god, in a process where he/she goes from being a cre-
ation to becoming a creator. The antinomian discourse is demonstrated by terminol-
ogy such as the darkest regions, stepping down into the underworld, a requirement to
magically die, and the quote from the Bible in which the ‘serpent in the Garden of
Eden’ is mentioned. In the quote the three discourses are weaved together to
portray a picture of the individual magician, working individually in order to
reach apotheosis, doing so by way of transgressive acts.
58 K. Granholm

Neopaganism
Neopaganism is an esoteric current which displays much diversity. It is also a
current which has multiple ‘points of origin’, where historical relation often
amounts simply to different expressions being informed by similar societal
trends. Furthermore, the neopagan current demonstrates the strong impact of a
wide variety of ancillary discourses, sometimes to the degree where they have
become interwoven with the current at a most intimate level. This explains how
we can find variants of neopaganism displaying such contrasting and even contra-
dicting mores. This diversity on the neopagan field could be used as an argument
for it not actually comprising a current, and this is certainly an argument used by
both neopagan practitioners and neopagans-cum-scholars who wish to distance
themselves from politically dubious expressions of heathenism. However, two
basic discourses seem to be in common for all expressions of neopaganism: the
primacy of nature and a desire to revive (mostly, though not exclusively, European)
pre-Christian religion, tradition and values. (For scholarly depictions stressing
these components, see e.g., Hardman 1995: ix; Pearson 2005: 828; Pike 2005:
6470). The former asserts the pivotal role of nature as the realm of the divine, posit-
ing it as having a significance and value in itself without recourse to its role as a
‘resource for human use’ and informs the sorts of relationships one has with it.
The latter expresses a longing for an imagined ‘more authentic’ religiosity and
‘way of life’ in a long-ago-time. As with all currents, the deep mutual dependency
of these discourses is of central importance. Varying emphasis is given to the two
discourses in different groups and ‘sub-currents’. For example, Asatrú – as a ‘sub-
current’ focused on the Old Norse/Germanic Æsir cast of gods – primacy is placed
on the revival of pre-Christian tradition. Conversely, in most forms of Wicca – par-
ticularly since the idea of Wicca representing ‘the Old Religion’ has been subjected
to internal critique (Harvey 1997: 52; Hutton 1999a: 65) – the focus is predominantly
on nature-orientedness. However, when going for a more deep-level analysis it
becomes clear that both discourses are at play in both Asatrú and Wicca. The
two discourses come together in their interpretations of contemporary society
and hegemonic Christianity. Without (much) variance, Christianity – as well as
the ‘post-pre-modern society’ it is seen to represent – is regarded as much less
nature-oriented and ‘organic’ than ‘that which came before’. Thus, Wicca –
although largely having abandoned the notion of representing an authentic
pre-Christian religion, still involves notions of representing a basic ethos of
‘pre-modernity’. In the same way, Asatrú may be focused on the revival-aspect,
but operates with a notion of the pre-Christian being characterised by an alterna-
tive, more organic relation to the natural world.
As indicated above, neopaganism is a current within which one can identify
more or less clear ‘sub-currents’. The existence of clearly distinguishable variants
does not, however, invalidate the notion of neopaganism as a single current. This
is also demonstrated by the common feature of ‘pagan unitarianism’, with
groups such as the British Pagan Federation and the Finnish Pakanaverkko func-
tioning as networks for a multitude of neopagans of different persuasions. Interest-
ingly, some expressions of both self-described and externally labelled Satanism can
in fact be part of this neopagan complex. Some unified neopagan networks, such as
the previously mentioned Pakanaverkko, include ‘Satanism’ (although rarely
‘Devil worship’) as one of their categories of neopagan religion. This is supported
 Religion 59

in a discursive framework, and is something I have previously discussed in relation

to early 1990s Norwegian Black Metal (see Granholm 2011a). My argument was
that ‘heathen’ (as reliance on Old Norse mythology was common) is actually a
more suitable label than ‘Satanic’ in this context, as it in a more satisfactory way
identifies the core ethos of this early stage of Black Metal. A detailed look at the
lyrics of bands such as Burzum, Darkthrone and Emperor reveals a common
theme of longing for a long-lost pre-Christian past, which was more organic and
‘natural’. Even the figure of Satan can thus be employed in a neopagan framework,
expressing a desire for the pre-modern and pre-Christian rather than outright
reverence for the biblical figure itself. This is also an example of the common occur-
rence of currents flowing into each other, with many Satanist groups being domi-
nated by the Left-Hand Path discourses discussed above, but displaying a strong
affinity for, or even reliance on, neopagan discourses.
I will demonstrate the two basic discourses of the neopagan current, as well as
their interdependency, by quoting a section of a self-professed Wiccan webpage.
Enter Nature’s Inner Circle to explore the Old Ways and ancient spiritual teach-
ings of the Essenes (early Christians), Wiccans, Druids and other Pagan paths.
Discover how our ancestors connected with the Divine through lives that were
closely bound to nature and the earth. Learn how herbs and natural remedies
were used to improve the quality of life, and how this ancient wisdom can be
applied in your own life today. (The Inner Circle)
The webpage is named Nature’s Inner Circle, and a life closely bound to nature and the
earth, where the use of natural remedies were used to improve the quality of life, is pre-
sented as an ideal. Higher knowledge, and improved quality of life, can be accessed
by reliance upon the Old Ways and ancient spiritual teachings of a number of pre-
Christian (and interestingly early unconventional Christian), pre-modern religions.
The goal is to apply this ancient wisdom in your own life today.

New Age
The concept of the New Age, whether it be termed ‘New Age movement’ (e.g.,
Heelas 1996), ‘New Age religion’ (e.g., Hanegraaff 1996) or simply ‘New Age’
(Kemp and Lewis 2007), is riddled with problems. Firstly, New Age has proven
to be particularly difficult to define, and few scholars seem to be in agreement as
to what the New Age actually is. This difficulty is evident in George
D. Chryssides’ article in the Handbook of New Age, which although going by the
title ‘Defining the New Age’ provides no real definition. Instead, the author
approaches the issue first from the perspective of what New Age is not (e.g., a reli-
gion, a new religious movement or a cluster of new religious movements), secondly
from the perspective of what New Age rejects (Christianity), and then finally goes
to describe New Age as a ‘counter-cultural Zeitgeist’ (Chryssides 2007: 19–22).
Often attempts to delineate New Age take the approach of introducing lists of Witt-
gensteinian ‘family resemblances’, where particular manifestations of New Age
may display some, but rarely all, traits on the list. Different manifestations are
then related in the same way as ‘two members of the family may bear almost no
resemblance to each other, although they both resemble a third member’ (Eileen
Barker, quoted in Lewis 1992: 6). These kinds of definitions based on family resem-
blance are extremely inclusive, often introducing lists of such broadness that
60 K. Granholm

essentially anything could be labelled New Age. For example, in the work of Paul
Heelas (1996) and George D. Chryssides (1999: 315) such diverse phenomena as
alternative therapies (e.g., Reiki and Zone-therapy), borrowed and reinterpreted
religious practices of indigenous peoples (particularly shamanic practices), divina-
tory techniques (e.g., astrology, tarot reading and I Ching), channelling, beliefs and
practices pertaining to UFOs and parapsychology, business training (e.g., Erhard
Seminars Training), alternative science and spiritual approaches to various fields
of life, such as diets (e.g., macrobiotic), education, art (‘New Age’ music and the
novels of James Redfield) and home furnishing (e.g., Feng Shui), are identified as
some of the possible ingredients of New Age spiritualities. There seems to be no
scholarly consensus as to what exactly New Age is, and there is little substance
to all the various conceptualisations that are presented. There exist only external
attributes and no scholar has been able to show in a satisfactory manner how
these attributes are related (or even that they are related).
Another problem, closely related to the above one – and very likely a result of it,
is the fact that many scholars refrain from discussing what the New Age is and
simply let it remain implicit. In short, ‘New Agers’ are often described as ‘those
people who frequent New Age shops’, which is, of course, a ‘definition’ based
on circular arguments: a shop is ‘New Age’ because it has a clientele which is
‘New Age’, and this clientele is ‘New Age’ because it visits a ‘New Age’ shop.
This is clearly not a satisfactory resolution to problems of definition. A good (or
rather, bad) example is Miquel Farias and Pehr Granqvist’s article on the
psychology of New Agers. The authors arrive at the conclusion that individuals
adhering to the New Age are psychologically characterised by left temporal lobe
dysfunction, individualist rather than collectivist goals, schizotypical and sugges-
tible personalities, inclination towards magical thinking, dissociative mental
states, elevated subjective suffering, ‘bursts’ of feelings and creativity, as well as
having backgrounds of parental insensitivity to their needs as children and/or
experiences of traumatic loss and/or abuse (Farias and Granqvist 2007: 144). The
whole study is made unusable by the authors’ complete inability to define who
and what it is they are studying.
It could, however, be claimed that there did exist a New Age movement, and a
discursive approach provides the means to delineate it. Drawing on older dis-
courses, this movement came into existence in the 1970s, gained impressive popu-
larity in the 1980s, and was past its heyday in the mid 1990s when scholars started
to investigate it. (For a variation of this view see Melton 2007: 77). In essence, the
New Age movement was what Hanegraaff describes as ‘New Age sensu stricto’
(Hanegraaff 1996: 98–103). This movement played an important role in the mass-
popularisation of esoteric discourse, and it is this mass-popularised general esoteric
discourse – rather than a specific current – that scholars examine under the label
New Age.
In a discourse-analytical approach we have to examine the source material and
look for defining discourses. The most central and significant of the New Age dis-
courses is without a doubt the narrative of the imminence of a revolutionary shift in
consciousness, on a personal, societal or even planetary level – the coming of a
‘New Age’. If this idea is not present, it is – or at least should be – nonsensical to
describe a group or a spokesperson as part of ‘the New Age movement’. The sec-
ondary discourses concern the human potential for extraordinary, even supernatural,
feats, and New Thought-discourses on the human mind producing reality. Together
 Religion 61

these discourses flesh out a world where a new glorious, spiritually enlightened
age of humanity is on the verge of emerging, where both the world and individual
humans reach new levels of being, and this new world is ushered by human realis-
ation that we ourselves create our phenomenal world. Certain individuals are also
‘prophets’ of this new age, being in possession of knowledge and powers which
will help the rest of humanity reach the new stage. In addition, the New Age
current includes an overall ‘holistic’ discourse. Not only is body and spirit regarded
as united (albeit often with ‘the mind creating the material’), but a general conver-
gence of disparate fields such as science and religion, different religious traditions
etc., is posited. While this might appear as an overly strict, and possibly ‘moder-
nist’, interpretation of ‘New Age’, it brings with it an analytical clarity and consist-
ency which has been missing. As discussed above, the description here is not
intended as the ‘final word’ on what ‘New Age’ is.
I will exemplify the key New Age discourses by examples from possibly the most
influential text in the milieu, and the one which brought the ‘movement’ into the
mainstream: Marilyn Ferguson’s The Aquarian Conspiracy (1980).
For the first time in history, humankind has come upon the control panel of
change – an understanding of how transformation occurs. We are living in the
change of change, the time in which we can intentionally align ourselves with
nature for rapid remaking of ourselves and our collapsing institutions. (Ferguson
1980: 29)
The quote clearly posits that a new age is dawning, one which will have immense
consequences for all of humanity. This notion is also combined with the holistic
convergence discourse, as evident in the quote below:
we are in the midst of a knowledge revolution that shows signs of breakthrough:
that researchers in the human sciences are moving independently in converging
lines toward common targets; that they are discarding traditional models of the
cosmos and ourselves … for the first time an American renaissance is taking
place in all the disciplines, breaking the boundaries between them, transforming
them at their farthest reaches—where they all converge. (Ferguson 1980: 12)
Not only is a new age dawning and disparate fields converging; this is the result of
the power of the mind itself:
Believing in a world of fixity, we will fight change; knowing a world of fluidity, we
will cooperate with change. (Ferguson 1980: 146)
Furthermore, the power of the human mind, evident in the transformations and
convergence, demonstrates the inherent human potential for the extraordinary:
If we try to live as closed systems, we are doomed to regress. If we enlarge our
awareness, admit new information, and take advantage of the brain’s brilliant
capacity to integrate and reconcile, we can leap forward. (Ferguson 1980: 169)

The converge of currents

Currents rarely exist in their ‘pure forms’, and are more commonly affected and
modified by other currents. One of the clearest examples of this is the Rune-Gild,
a rune magical group founded in Texas in 1980, which – as noted elsewhere
(Granholm 2010) – exhibits and almost equal mix of three distinct discursive com-
plexes. One of these currents is the neopagan one, in its heathen variant. The Gild
62 K. Granholm

demonstrates reliance on neopagan discourse in its stated goal to ‘revive’ ancient

pre-Christian religion in the form of Old Norse/Germanic heathenism, and in its
critique of the restrictiveness of Christianity. Although discussions of nature are
not prominent, they are present.
The second current actuated in the Rune-Gild is Radical Traditionalism. This is a
fairly recent development of Traditionalism, a current originating with René
Guénon (1886–1951) and books by him such as La crise du monde moderne (The
Crisis of the Modern World, 1927). Radical Traditionalism adopts the older Tradition-
alist discourse of anti-modernism and anti-Westernness, but adds anti-democratic
discourses (due to democracy and modernity being intimately linked in the rhetoric
of Radical Traditionalists) and a focus on European pre-Christian, pre-modern
‘traditions’. Whereas most earlier Traditionalists looked to ‘non-Western’ sources
for inspiration, such as Orthodox Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, Radical
Traditionalists instead turn to heathenism. (For more discussion of Traditionalism,
see Sedgwick 2004; for discussion of Radical Traditionalism see Granholm 2010:
101–102; Senholt 2013). The Gild demonstrates its reliance on Radical Traditionalist
discourses in the significance placed on the ‘authenticity of tradition’, and the cri-
tique of Western modernity. There is discussion on small-scale ‘local communities’
and tribal societal order, while democracy is criticised for promoting majority
rule ‘no matter how ignorant [the majority] is’ (Thorsson 2007: 60). In reviving
Old Germanic ‘tradition’ care must be taken in ‘reawakening it in its true and orig-
inal form’ (Thorsson 2001: 7–8), in order to ‘re-establish the unified and coherent
aspects of the ancient Gild’ (Thorsson 2007: 13) in the present day, and relying
on ‘the internal authenticity and prestige of the lore’ (Thorsson 2007: 35).
Finally, the Gild is also indebted to the Left-Hand Path current in focusing pre-
dominately and explicitly on the individual and his/her own spiritual progress.
Òdhinn (Odin), the primary deity for Gild members, is not a god to worship but
rather functions as a model for personal development, and through following
this example the practitioner can him/herself become as a god (Kataja 2005:
20–21, 38). Antinomian elements are present in the ‘Odian’ (a term used by Gild
members to distinguish themselves from Odinists who worship the god Odin)
being ‘truly beyond good and evil’, in going ‘his own way’, and finding his self
‘in the twilight between darkness and light’ (Thorsson 2003: xv).
Another example of a group which shows clear ‘currental convergence’ is the
previously mentioned Dragon Rouge. As already discussed, the order can firmly
be placed within the Left-Hand Path current. However, the order also demonstrates
a strong reliance on neopagan discourses. Old Scandinavian religion is a recurring
theme in the order’s material, with ‘Odinic Runosphy’ forming one of the four
pillars of the order’s philosophical system (Dragon Rouge 2010). Still, Dragon
Rouge is not explicitly involved in the ‘revival of Old Norse religion’, although
the ‘Draconian current’ it sees itself as being part of is regarded as a primordial tra-
dition. It is the primacy of nature which is the main neopagan discourse impacting
Dragon Rouge. Monotheism and materialism are criticised for promoting a world-
view where ‘[m]an can do what he likes with animals and nature’, and where the
human being becomes a ‘soulless organism being compared to cars or computers’
(Dragon Rouge 2011). Instead, nature is regarded as having a value in itself, and as
being the main realm of magic and creativity. The discourse has had a strong
impact on the everyday lives of many of the order’s members, who have
 Religion 63

adopted vegetarian diets, ecological lifestyles and an interest in animal-rights

philosophy (Granholm 2009).
Dragon Rouge is also influenced by notions of the feminine divine, central to
many feminist forms of neopaganism, as will be discussed in more detail further
on. The discourse is, however, transformed under the impact of the Left-Hand
Path discourses, particularly antinomianism. The Dragon Rouge focus on the fem-
inine divine is predominantly, almost exclusively, on her ‘dark’ and dangerous
aspects, and the ‘sanitization’ of her in neopagan and ‘New Age’ circles is strongly
criticised. The feminine is seen to ‘represent the gate to the dimensions of magic’,
and ‘[s]he is Mother Earth and through her womb life is born and dies. … She is
the underworld and the mother of all life’ (Dragon Rouge 2001/3: 3).

The impact of ancillary discourses

As discussed earlier, esoteric currents are, besides being subject to inference from
other currents, influenced by ancillary discourses, i.e., broader societal discourses
which are not bound in specific esoteric currents. I will here provide a few brief
examples of this.
First off, I would like to discuss two ancillary discourses which have asserted a
strong influence on neopaganism, but in very different ways: racialism and femin-
ism. The impact of racialism goes back all the way to the birth of neopaganism in
German Romanticism. In many ways representing a backlash to Enlightenment
ideals, Romantics responded to the former’s universalist notions by valuing the
particular. Christianity, vilified already in the Enlightenment, came to represent
the universalism so despised, and alternatives were sought in the ‘more authentic
and organic’ old Germanic traditions. In this same complex of ideas, notions of an
essence uniting all people of a particular culture were developed. This Völksgeist –
‘folk spirit’ – was felt to be endangered due to dilution represented by foreign
people. The racialist, and increasingly racist, discourses were a feature of, among
other groups, the early 20th-century societies inspired by the Rune mysticism of
Guido von List (1848–1919) (see Goodrick-Clarke 2004: 50–51; Gregorius 2009:
57–58).
Modern heathenism was developed from the 1970s onwards, and does not rep-
resent a direct line of legacy from the early German Romantic neopaganism (see
Granholm 2011a). Still, racialist discourses have impacted this modern heathenism
from the very start. There is great diversity in the responses to racialism: Some
heathens see the integration of people of other than Germanic and Scandinavian
heritage as problematic, whereas others regard ‘Germanicism’ as a spiritual charac-
teristic which can be present in people of any cultural heritage. The most radical
groups (such as Svensk Hednisk Front – The Swedish Heathen Front, see Gregorius
2009: 115–117) are outright racist and use neopaganism as little more than a source
of philosophical legitimacy, whereas others attempt to dismiss racialism altogether.
(For more discussion on the subject see Aspem 2008). Racialism is, however, such a
permeating theme (in the technical sense discussed earlier) in the heathen milieu
that all actors must take a stand on it. Whether the response is to wholeheartedly
embrace it, reinterpret it, or fully dismiss it, engaging in the debate means that
all heathen actors are involved in the discursive field of racialism. Examining the
negotiations in this regard would entail a discourse-psychological approach.
64 K. Granholm

The impact of feminism on neopaganism is more recent, naturally due to the later
societal impact of feminism in general (even though Mary Wollstonecraft’s proto-
feminist A Vindication for the Rights of Women was published already in 1792).
Wicca, when created by Gerald Gardner in the 1950s, was certainly not a ‘feminist
religion’. Rather, the inclusion of the feminine divine as a central aspect made the
later cross-pollination with feminism easy and logical. Explicitly feminist variants
of neopaganism were developed from the late 1960s, with the formation of
W.I.T.C.H. (Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell) in 1968, Zsuzsanna
Budapest’s (1940–) Dianic Wicca – representing the first women-only groups, and
Goddess Worship – where the Horned God of Gardnerian Wicca is discarded and
all attention given to the Goddess (Hutton 1999a: 60–65; 1999b: 340–368). One of
the best-known examples is the US author Starhawk (Miriam Simos, 1951–),
famous particularly for her book The Spiral Dance (1979), and her Reclaiming Collec-
tive. One of the primary tasks of the Reclaiming groups is to create a space for
women who feel subjugated by patriarchal religion and society. Although not being
unique in this regard, Starhawk’s historiography builds on the idea of an original
matriarchy which was violently overthrown by patriarchy. The Reclaiming groups,
and Starhawk in her books, attempt to revive this original order. Just as racialism
within Germanic neopaganism, the projection of matriarchy is a part of a feminist
discourse much discussed in the field of Wicca and Goddess Worship.
Secularism and post-secularism are two contrasted discursive constructs that
impact society in major ways. The former can be regarded as post-Enlightenment
discourses that posit religion and religiosity as ‘a thing of the past’, as something
the enlightened modern man no longer has (or should have) need for. Secularist
discourses influenced sociology and the study of religion from the very start, and
its influence can be clearly discerned in secularisation theory even today (see
e.g., Bruce 2002; Dobbelaere 2008. For a discussion see Granholm 2013). The
impact of secularism was (and continues to be) immense, but can most clearly be
seen in the ‘meta-current’ occultism.4 ‘Religion’ in secularism commonly amounts
to Christianity in its conventional and institutional forms (and sometimes other
monotheistic doctrines such as Islam and Judaism), and consequently foreign reli-
gious expressions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, European pre-Christian tra-
ditions, and non-European tribal religion, elicited deep fascination more often
than outright loathing. Consequently, groups such as the Theosophical Society
(formed in New York in 1875) adopted a polemical attitude towards Christianity
while approaching Indian religion. As secularism projected a scientific worldview
to replace a religious one, another strategy for esotericists was to present their phil-
osophies and teachings as ‘scientific’ (see Hammer 2001: 201–330). This is demon-
strated in the evolutionary approach to spiritual progress found in e.g., Theosophy,
the replacement of organic notions of correspondences with mechanistic causality-
based models, and psychologised interpretations of spiritual worlds and higher
beings (Hanegraaff 1996: 462–513).

4
The term ‘meta-current’ refers to the notion that while occultism could, depending on definition, be
identified as a current of its own, with distinctive discursive components that distinguish it from
other forms of esotericism in its historical context, it can in turn be divided into a number of more or
less distinct discursive complexes, e.g., Spiritualism, Theosophy and Ceremonial Magic (to only name
a few). Thus, it might be analytically more useful to regard it as a ‘meta-current’, or collective category
of a number of related but distinct currents, rather than a current of its own.
 Religion 65

The post-secular,5 then, can be described as discourses that are critical towards,
though ultimately dependent on the awareness of the earlier hegemonic status of,
secularism. Thus post-secular discourses, which, similarly to secularist discourses,
are advanced by academics as well as the general population, endeavour to
‘re-enchant’ the experiential world which is seen to have been ‘disenchanted’ by
secularism. In short, post-secularism accords a more positive societal role for the
religious, at least potentially. Furthermore, post-secularism involves new perspec-
tives on what religion is and does, which in itself helps make the esoteric more
respectable, and in the process making it more popular and permeating than it
has ever been before (see Partridge 2004/2005; 2013. For discussion on the post-
secular and the esoteric see Granholm 2008; 2013).

Conclusion
In this article I have discussed some basic tenets of discourse-analytical theory and
method as well as its grounding in social-constructionist epistemology, and then
demonstrated and exemplified a practical application of this framework in a dis-
cussion of esoteric currents as discursive complexes. I have also briefly discussed
the basic premises of some recent approaches to the study of the esoteric, with a
focus on Kocku von Stuckrad’s discursive approach, all the while trying to show
glimpses of how both the study of the esoteric and broader religious studies
could benefit from closer cooperation.
In regard to the study of the esoteric, this article has – while not making it fully
explicit before now – dealt with how sociological perspectives can be integrated
into historical research, and vice versa. Rather than being incompatible, both can
greatly benefit from each other. The analytical stringency of discourse-analytical
approaches can provide a way to focus historical studies, while sociological
studies could often do with an enhanced historical awareness.
I have also discussed how my approach, as presented here, can be combined
with Kocku von Stuckrad’s discursive understanding of the esoteric, and thus
ground his more general approach in practical applicability. There is, however, a
potential problem here which I have thus far not mentioned. Von Stuckrad’s
model and mine operate with a different understanding of the concept of discourse.
Von Stuckrad works with a broader, more grand-scale model – regarding discourse
as the ‘the totality of certain thought-systems that interact with societal systems in
manifold ways’ (von Stuckrad 2008: 221) – whereas my approach operates at the

5
It should be noted that my use of the term post-secular differs somewhat from the one established by
Jürgen Habermas. For Habermas, a society being post-secular refers to ‘a change in consciousness’ in
relation to religion within it, which is mainly due to the role religion plays in global conflicts which
‘undermines the secularistic belief in the foreseeable disappearance of religion and robs the secular under-
standing of the world of any triumphal zest’, the growing influence of religion in national public spheres
where religious actors continue to influence public opinion and participate in public debate, and the
‘pluralism of ways of life’ introduced by increasing immigration from non-European localities (Habermas
2008: 20). A post-secular society is essentially a secularised one, but with an awareness that it ‘has to
“adjust itself to the continued existence of religious communities in an increasingly secularized environ-
ment”’ (Habermas 2008: 19). Thus, the post-secular does not really deal with religion ‘returned to a pos-
ition of renewed public prominence’, but more with ‘a revision of a previously over-confidently
secularist outlook’ (Harrington 2007: 547), and theorising the post-secular thus deals with ‘the limits
of the secularization thesis’ (Beaumont 2010: 6).
66 K. Granholm

‘text’ and actor-level, where discourse is understood as ‘a set of meanings, meta-

phors, representations, images, stories, statements and so on that in some way
together produce a particular version of events’ (Burr 1995: 48). However, this is
only a problem if the two understandings are confused with each other. The
basic epistemological foundation is the same in the two approaches, and as they
operate at different analytical levels6 – with von Stuckrad’s model providing a
more general ‘birds-eye view’, and mine a practical ‘on the ground’ perspective –
the approaches enhance each other rather than clash.
Finally, I want to end by saying that there are, of course, many different ways of
labelling and categorising groups and philosophies, each with their own particular
advantages and disadvantages. The approach I have presented in this article,
focused on the concepts of the esoteric and discourse, is not the only conceivable
one. My approach does, however, offer a systematic method to conceptualise an
amorphous field and tie together a multitude of phenomena in ways that perspec-
tives from e.g., pagan studies and the study of new religions does not. At the same
time it offers a way to bring sociological perspectives to the historical study of
esotericism, which, while having ways of conceptualising the amorphous field,
has had difficulties in demonstrating the broader relevance of its perspectives.

Kennet Granholm is Assistant Professor in the History of Religions at Stockholm

University and Docent in Comparative Religion at Åbo Akademi University. He is
the author of Embracing the Dark: The Magic Order of Dragon Rouge – Its Practice in
Dark Magic and Meaning Making (2005) and co-editor (with Egil Asprem) of Contem-
porary Esotericism (2013). His main areas of research concern contemporary esoteri-
cism and new religiosity, with a particular focus on popular culture and religious
and societal change.

References
Aspem, Egil. 2008. Heathens up North: Politics, Polemics and Contemporary Norse Paganism in
Norway. The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies 10/1: 41–69. DOI 10.1558/
pome.v10i1.41
Asprem, Egil, Kennet Granholm. 2013. Constructing Esotericisms: Sociological, Historical, and Critical
Approaches to the Invention of Tradition. In Contemporary Esotericism, eds. Egil Asprem and
Kennet Granholm. London: Equinox, 25–48.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beaumont, Justin. 2010. Transcending the Particular in Postsecular Cities. In Exploring the Postsecular: The
Religious, the Political, and the Urban, eds. Arie Molendijk, Justin Beaumont and Christoph Jedan.
Leiden: Brill, 3–17.
Bogdan, Henrik. 2003. Kenneth Grant: A Bibliography – From 1948. Göteborg: Academia Esoterica Press.
Bogdan, Henrik. 2007. Western Esotericism and Rituals of Initiation. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Bruce, Steve. 2002. God is Dead: Secularization in the West. Oxford: Blackwell.
Burr, Vivien. 1995. An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge.
Butler, Judith. 2006 [1990]. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
Chryssides, George D. 1999. Exploring New Religions. London: Cassell.
Chryssides, George D. 2007. Defining the New Age. In Handbook of New Age, eds. Daren Kemp and James
R. Lewis. Leiden: Brill, 5–24.
Coupland, Nikolas, Adam Jaworski. 1999. Introduction: Perspectives on Discourse Analysis. In The
Discourse Reader, eds. Nikolas Coupland and Adam Jaworski. London: Routledge, 1–44.

6
For discussion of different-level discourse-analytical approaches, see Moberg 2013.
 Religion 67

Dobbelaere, Karel. 2008. The Meaning and Scope of Secularization. In The Oxford Handbook of the
Sociology of Religion. ed. PeterB. Clarke. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 599–615.
Dragon Rouge. 1996. Magikurs 1 [First Correspondence Course in Magic], six parts. Stockholm: Dragon
Rouge (unpublished material).
Dragon Rouge. 2001. Magikurs 2 [Second Correspondence Course in Magic], six parts. Stockholm:
Dragon Rouge (unpublished material).
Dragon Rouge. 2010. General Information. http://www.dragonrouge.net/english/general.htm (accessed
30 June 2010).
Dragon Rouge. 2011. Contra 3 M. http//www.dragonrouge.net/English/Contra_3_M.pdf (accessed 11
March 2011).
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Oxford: Polity Press.
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Media Discourse. London: Longman.
Fairclough, Norman. 1999. Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis within Discourse Analysis. In The
Discourse Reader, eds. Nikolas Coupland and Adam Jaworski. London: Routledge, 183–211.
Faivre, Antoine. 1994. Access to Western Esotericism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Faivre, Antoine. 1998. Questions of Terminology Proper to the Study of Esoteric Currents in Modern and
Contemporary Europe. In Western Esotericism and the Science of Religion, eds. Antoine Faivre and
Wouter J. Hanegraaff. Leuven: Peeters, 1–10.
Farias, Miguel, Pehr Granqvist. 2007. The Psychology of New Age. In Handbook of New Age, eds. Daren
Kemp and James R. Lewis. Leiden: Brill, 123–150.
Ferguson, Marilyn. 1980. The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal and Social Transformation in the 1980s. Los
Angeles, CA: J.P. Tarcher.
Gergen, Kenneth J. 1999. An Invitation to Social Construction. London: Sage.
Godwin, Joscelyn. 1994. The Theosophical Enlightenment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. 2004. The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Impact on Nazi
Ideology. New York: New York University Press.
Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. 2008. The Western Esoteric Traditions: A Historical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Granholm, Kennet. 2007. ‘The Prince of Darkness on the Move’: Transnationality and Translocality in Left-
Hand Path Magic. Torino: CESNUR. http://www.cesnur.org/2007/bord_granholm.htm.
Granholm, Kennet. 2008. Post-Secular Esotericism? Some Reflections on the Transformation of Esoteri-
cism. In Western Esotericism. ed. Tore Ahlbäck. Åbo: Donner Institute for Research in Religious
and Cultural History, 50–67.
Granholm, Kennet. 2009. Left-Hand Path Magic and Animal Rights. Nova Religio 12/4: 28–49. DOI
10.1525/nr.2009.12.4.28
Granholm, Kennet. 2010. Rune-Gild. International Journal for the Study of New Religions 1/1: 95–115. DOI
10.1558/ijsnr.v1i1.95
Granholm, Kennet. 2011a. ‘Sons of Northern Darkness’: Heathen Influences in Black Metal and Neofolk
Music. Numen 58/4: 514–544. DOI 10.1163/156852711X577069
Granholm, Kennet. 2011b. The Serpent Rises in the West: Positive Orientalism and Reinterpretation of
Tantra in the Western Left-Hand Path. In Transformations and Transfers of Tantra in Asia and
Beyond, ed. István Keul. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 495–519.
Granholm, Kennet. 2012. Dragon Rouge: Left-Hand Path Magic with a Neopagan Flavour. Aries 12/1:
131–156. DOI 10.1163/147783512X614858
Granholm, Kennet. 2013. The Secular, the Post-Secular, and the Esoteric in the Public Sphere. In Contem-
porary Esotericism, eds. Egil Asprem and Kennet Granholm. London: Equinox, 309–329.
Granholm, Kennet. Forthcoming a. Locating the West: Problematizing the Western in Western Esoteri-
cism and Occultism. In Occultism in Global Perspective, eds. Henrik Bogdan and Gordan Djurdjevic.
London: Equinox.
Granholm, Kennet. Forthcoming b. The Sigil of Baphomet. In Similitudes of the Sublime: Esotericism and
Magic in Images, eds. Egil Asprem and Joyce Pijnenburg. Seattle: Ouruboros Press.
Granholm, Kennet. Forthcoming c. The Dragon Symbol of Dragon Rouge. In Similitudes of the Sublime:
Esotericism and Magic in Images, eds. Egil Asprem and Joyce Pijnenburg. Seattle: Ouruboros Press.
Greer, Christian. 2013. Deep Ecology and the Study of Western Esotericism. In Contemporary Esotericism,
eds. Egil Asprem and Kennet Granholm. London: Equinox, 287–308.
Gregorius, Fredrik. 2009. Modern Asatro: Att skapa etnisk och kulturell identitet. Lund: Lunds universitet.
Habermas, Jürgen. 2008. Notes on Post-Secular Society. New Perspectives Quarterly 25/4: 17–29. DOI
10.1111/j.1540-5842.2008.01017.x
68 K. Granholm

Hammer, Olav. 2001. Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age. Leiden:
Brill.
Hammer, Olav. 2004. Esotericism in New Religious Movements. In The Oxford Handbook of New Religious
Movements, ed. James R. Lewis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 445–465.
Hanegraaff, Wouter J. 1996. New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular
Thought. Leiden: Brill.
Hanegraaff, Wouter J. 1998. On the Construction of ‘Esoteric Traditions’. In Western Esotericism and the
Science of Religion, eds. Antoine Faivre and Wouter J. Hanegraaff. Leuven: Peeters, 11–61.
Hanegraaff, Wouter J. 2004. The Study of Western Esotericism: New Approaches to Christian and
Secular Culture. In New Approaches to the Study of Religion. Volume 1: Regional, Critical and Historical
Approaches, eds. Peter Antes, Armin W. Geertz and Randi R. Warne. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
489–519.
Hanegraaff, Wouter J. 2008. Reason, Faith, and Gnosis: Potentials and Problematics of a Typological Con-
struct. In Clashes of Knowledge: Orthodoxies and Heterodoxies in Science and Religion, eds. Peter Meus-
burger, Michael Welker and Edgar Wunder. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media,
133–144.
Hanegraaff, Wouter J. 2012. Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hardman, Charlotte. 1995. Introduction. In Paganism Today: Wiccans, Druids, the Goddess and Ancient
Earth Traditions for the Twenty-First Century, eds. Charlotte Hardman and Graham Harvey.
London: Thorsons, ix–xix.
Harrington, Austin. 2007. Habermas and the ‘Post-Secular Society’. European Journal of Social Theory 10/4:
543–560. DOI 10.1177/1368431007084370
Harvey, Graham. 1997. Listening People, Speaking Earth: Contemporary Paganism. London: Hurst &
Company.
Heelas, Paul. 1996. The New Age Movement: The Celebration of the Self and the Sacralization of Modernity.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Hutton, Ronald. 1999a. Modern Pagan Witchcraft. In The Athlone History of Witchcraft and Magic in
Europe. Volume 6: The Twentieth Century, eds. Bengt Ankarloo and Stuart Clark. London: The
Athlone Press, 1–79.
Hutton, Ronald. 1999b. The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jørgensen, Marianne Winther, Louise Phillips. 2000. Diskursanalys som teori och metod. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Kaczynski, Richard. 2002. Perdurabo: The Life of Aleister Crowley. Tempe, NM: New Falcon Publications.
Kataja, Ensio. 2005. Riimujen Viisaus. Helsinki: Athanaton.
Kemp, Daren, James R. Lewis, eds. 2007. Handbook of New Age. Leiden: Brill.
LaVey, Anton S. 1969. Satanic Bible. New York: Avon Books.
LaVey, Anton S. 1972. Satanic Rituals. New York: Avon Books.
Lewis, James R. 1992. Approaches to the Study of the New Age Movement. In Perspectives on the New
Age, eds. James R. Lewis and J. Gordon Melton. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press,
1–12.
Melton, J.Gordon. 2007. Beyond Millennialism: The New Age Transformed. In Handbook of New Age, eds.
Daren Kemp and James R. Lewis. Leiden: Brill, 77–97.
Mills, Sara. 1997. Discourse. London: Routledge.
Moberg, Marcus. 2013. First-, Second-, and Third-Level Discourse Analytic Approaches in the Study of
Religion: Moving from Meta-Theoretical Reflection to Implementation in Practice. Religion 43/1:
5–26.
Pakanaverkko. http://www.pakanaverkko.fi/uskonnoista/satanismi
Partridge, Christopher. 2004/2005. The Re-Enchantment of the West: Alternative Spiritualities, Sacralization,
Popular Culture, and Occulture. 2 vols. London: T & T Clark International.
Partridge, Christopher. 2013. Occulture is Ordinary. In Contemporary Esotericism, eds. Egil Asprem and
Kennet Granholm. London: Equinox, 113–133.
Pearson, Joanne E. 2005. Neopaganism. In Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, ed. Wouter
J. Hanegraaff, with Antoine Faivre, Jean-Pierre Brach and Roelof van den Broek. Leiden: Brill,
828–906.
Pike, Sarah M. 2005. Neopaganism. In Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd edition, ed. Lindsay Jones. Detroit,
MI: Macmillan, 6470–6474.
 Religion 69

Potter, Jonathan. 1996. Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric, and Social Construction. London: Sage.
Potter, Jonathan, Margaret Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Beha-
viours. London: Sage.
Potter, Jonathan, Margaret Wetherell. 1992. Mapping the Language of Racism: Discourse and the Legitimation
of Exploitation. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Sedgwick, Mark. 2004. Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the
Twentieth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Senholt, Jacob C. 2013. Radical Politics and Political Esotericism: The Adaptation of Esoteric Discourse
within the Radical Right. In Contemporary Esotericism, eds. Egil Asprem and Kennet Granholm.
London: Equinox, 244–264.
Starhawk. 1979. The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Religion of the Goddess. San Francisco: Harper
and Row.
von Stuckrad, Kocku. 2003. Discursive Study of Religion: From States of the Mind to Communication
and Action. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 15/3: 255–271. DOI 10.1163/157006803322393387
von Stuckrad, Kocku. 2005a. Western Esotericism: Towards an Integrative Model of Interpretation.
Religion 35/2: 78–97. DOI 10.1016/j.religion.2005.07.002
von Stuckrad, Kocku. 2005b. Western Esotericism: A Brief History of Secret Knowledge. London: Equinox.
von Stuckrad, Kocku. 2008. Esoteric Discourse and the European History of Religion: In Search of A New
Interpretational Framework. In Western Esotericism, ed. Tore Ahlbäck. Åbo: Donner Institute for
Research in Religious and Cultural History, 217–236.
von Stuckrad, Kocku. 2010. Locations of Knowledge in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Esoteric Discourse
and Western Identities. Leiden: Brill.
von Stuckrad, Kocku. 2013. Discursive Transfers and Reconfigurations: Tracing the Religious and Eso-
teric in Secular Culture. In Contemporary Esotericism, eds. Egil Asprem and Kennet Granholm.
London: Equinox, 226–243.
Suoninen, Eero. 1997. Miten tutkia moniäänistä ihmistä? Diskurssianalyyttisen tutkimusotteen kehittelyä.
Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto.
Taira, Teemu. 2013. Making Space for a Discursive Study in Religious Studies. Religion 43/1: 27–46.
The Inner Circle. http://www.wicca.com/kardia/index.html
Thorsson, Edred (Stephen E. Flowers). 2001. Blue Rûna: Edred’s Shorter Works Vol. III (1988–1994).
Smithville, TX: Rûna-Raven Press.
Thorsson, Edred (Stephen E. Flowers). 2003. The Nine Doors of Midgard: A Curriculum of Rune-Work. Third
Revised and Expanded Edition. Smithville, TX: Rûna-Raven Press.
Thorsson, Edred (Stephen E. Flowers). 2007. History of the Rune-Gild. Volume III: The Reawakening of the
Gild 1980–2005. Smithville, TX: Rûna-Raven Press.
Wijsen, Frans. 2013. ‘There are radical Muslims and normal Muslims’: An analysis of the discourse on
Islamic extremism. Religion 43/1: 71–89.