overemphasis on magic

[LGoehler at aol.com]

George Thompson wrote:

>but if we are going challenge her (Elizarenkova's -L.G.)
>conception of magic, then we may have to challenge Tambiah's too, since he
>clearly recommends Burke's "theory of rhetoric," which characterizes magic,
>as I have already pointed out, as "primitive rhetoric"

  I think that Tambiah's understanding of magic in the terms of
speech-act-theory is a very fruitful approach. But if one tries this and if
one considers a speech-act as an utterance that presupposes certain social
conventions, as Austin did, then the question of the origin of these social
conventions naturally arises. Searle did not extend the theory in this
direction. Habermas (who is not a member of the Frankfurt School, als Tambiah
p.2 assumes) did something in this way, but the best book that I found on
this topic and that is not mentioned by Tambiah is: Pierre Bourdieu: Ce que
parler veut dire. L' economie des echanges linguistiques. Paris 1982.
Bourdieu writes against the Opposition of magic and rationality (my
translation - sorry in advance for mistakes): *Who, in the way of Max Weber,
opposes magic or charismatic law of a common oath or an ordeal to our law
which is predictable and calculateable, forgets that also this throughout
rationalized law is nothing more than a happy act (I took this formulation
from Austin - L.G.) of social magic.*  
  Tambiah is very careful with critics on views as mentioned by Elizarenkova
and I think such views should not too easily discarded because on a
phenomenological level they still have some justification. The magicans
THOUGHT themselves as using principles that produce results with necessity in
a way that has analogies in modern science. An Anthropologist has to have a
different view about this as well as a philosopher of science should not
share all the illusions of the scientists.
  As for European theories of magic Tambiah seems to have some 'blind spots'
(as we Europeans usually have with regard to American theories) Ernst
Cassirer should necessarily be mentioned in a discussion on magic, also
perhaps Geo Widengren and some others. As for concepts of rationality I would
also have expected e.g. Paul Feyerabend's 'anarchic theory of knowledge'. -
This does not change the fact, that Tambiah (as usually) wrote an excellent
book which contains interesting steps forward in the theories of magic and
rationality. 
  

sincerely,
Lars Goehler