Thursday, 5 May 2016

New Publication: "Lucifer Over Luxor: Archaeology, Egyptology, and Occultism in Kenneth Anger's Magick Lantern Cycle"

Just a quick note to point any of my readers over in the direction of a new publication of mine – “Lucifer Over Luxor: Archaeology, Egyptology, and Occultism in Kenneth Anger’s Magick Lantern Cycle” – which has just appeared in the academic journal Present Pasts. The article is based on a paper which I presented at the “Monstrous Antiquities: Archaeology and the Uncanny” conference, held at University College London’s Institute of Archaeology back in November 2013. One of the primary reasons why I chose to submit the manuscript to this particular journal was because it’s open access, and thus all of its articles can be read online for free (or downloaded as a PDF – also for free!), which is a massive benefit in a world where most academic publications are locked behind paywalls. The subject matter is of course a little niche for most people, but I hope it will intrigue anyone with an interest in the use of archaeology and heritage in either twentieth-century occultism or in experimental cinema. For those interested in giving it a read, the link to the journal website can be found here, or alternately, I have uploaded a copy to my academia.edu account here. Enjoy!

Friday, 19 February 2016

My Guest Post on Margaret Murray

This is just a quick note to point readers in the direction of  Dr. Kathleen Sheppard’s blog, “Adventures in History and Archaeology”, where I have been kindly invited to provide a guest post on the subject of “Margaret Murray: The Godmother of Wicca”. The post comes off the back of my own researches into Wicca and its thematic intersection with Sheppard’s research into Murray’s life, the latter of which resulted in the first full-length posthumous biography of this fascinating woman, available online. It is a book that I would definitely recommend for anyone interested in Murray’s career in Egyptology and archaeology -- those of you with institutional access or subscriptions can read my full review of it over at Aries: Journal for the Study of Western Esotericism here.

Thursday, 11 February 2016

Feminism and Fortean Times


As I outlined in a previous post, last November I attended Seriously Bewitched, a conference organised by the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP), in order to give a talk on “The New Witches of the West”, a discussion of how the image of the witch came to be reclaimed in the twentieth century by practitioners of both Wicca and Satanism. During the day, I was briefly interviewed by the Reverend Peter Laws, a journalist and Baptist minister who has subsequently written up a piece on the day for the February 2016 issue of Fortean Times (featuring a photograph of yours truly, no less, alongside images of fellow speakers Helen Cornish, Charmaine Sonnex, and Bekie Bird). It came as something of a surprise for me to learn of my appearance in the magazine, but was undoubtedly a pleasant one, particularly as Fortean Times was a favourite read of mine as a child. 

In his review, Laws picked up on an incident which occurred at the conference and which I have mulled over in my head several times over the past few months. It all started in the Q&A session after my talk, when a young woman asked me what I thought about the reclamation of the crone as an image of women’s power within feminist-oriented forms of Wicca. In responding to her, I said that I was more than happy to share my knowledge on the usage of the crone within Wicca, however I stated that I did not want to say whether I thought that the use of the crone image by feminist women was a good thing or not. The reason for that, I explained, was because – as a man – I did not feel that it was my place to say what feminist activists should be doing to advance the feminist cause. 

This comment almost immediately resulted in disquiet among the audience. A number of voices began to call out “why can’t you speak for feminists?”, “what are you saying?” etc. Something that I thought was particularly interesting was that – as far as I could tell – every one of these comments came from a man, despite the fact that the audience was majority female. At least one of those commenting clearly thought that I was anti-feminist, but English was not his first language and it was quite apparent that he simply misunderstood what I was saying; he apologised privately to me afterward, and was clearly a nice fellow. However, I am not sure that all of the other commenters thought that I was being anti-feminist; rather, from the context in which they spoke, I suspect that some of them were shocked by the idea that a man should not speak for feminism. Perhaps they thought that I was symbolically castrating men of their right to freedom of speech? 

Laws' assessment of the situation
However, here I want to return to this issue, because it is something that I do feel fairly strongly about. Feminism focuses on the advancement of women’s rights and status in society in an attempt to secure equality with men; thus it is a movement for the liberation of women. Accordingly I believe that it should be led by women, dominated by women, and have its agenda set by women. Not by men like me. That doesn’t mean that men can have no opinions on this issue and should be prohibited from involvement in feminist issues (indeed, I would hope that feminist women do pay attention to male viewpoints, because it will allow them a more rounded understanding of the male-dominated system from differing perspectives and thus enable them to more effectively counter it). I would of course say the same thing for other liberationist movements; I don’t think that white people should really speak for the black liberation movement, straight people for the gay liberation movement, or wealthy people for the working-class liberation movement. Each marginalised group should set the agenda for its own struggle, even if that struggle is assisted by members of non-marginalised (or at least less-marginalised) sectors of society.  

To clarify my position, I believe that – in an ideal society – men and women (and those who find themselves outside of that binary paradigm too) should be totally equal, in practice as much as in theory. For that reason I support feminism. However, whether I am a “feminist” or not depends on the definition that one chooses to use. If by “feminist” you mean someone who supports the feminist cause, then yes I am a feminist. However, if by “feminist” you mean someone who is proactively involved in fighting for the feminist cause, then no I am probably not a feminist. I certainly try to ensure that I don’t get in the way of feminist activism and I try to live my life according to feminist principles, but at the end of the day I’m not a member of feminist organisations, I don’t march in feminist rallies, and I don’t take part in other obviously feminist activist activities. At most I engage in a bit of armchair activism, sign a few petitions, recognise and acknowledge my male privilege, ignore the restraints of gendered stereotypes, and try to ensure that I treat everyone equally regardless of their gender identity.

At the same time I would be lying if I said that I don’t raise an eyebrow at some of the more extreme manifestations of the feminist movement, particularly those sectors which appear hostile, aggressive, belittling or condescending to all men, highly prejudiced toward transwomen, or just plain nasty to other women who happen to disagree with them (for instance through the demonization and bullying of pro-life feminists); over the past few years, I have encountered all three of these tendencies. For instance, I am left a little uneasy by the tagline “kill all men” or “kill all white men”, which is currently en vogue among some sectors of the feminist milieu; even if it seems unlikely that many (or even any) of those expressing such a statement seriously endorse such a genocidal course of action, the connotations (and unintended consequences) of such sweeping and hostile statements are cause for concern. Similarly, I’m not fond of the tendency among some activists to dismiss any and all male perspectives regarding feminism or gender issues out of hand, often as “mansplaining” or “male tears”, without at all addressing the substance of said opinions, a textbook case of ad hominem argumentation.* I worry that these extreme manifestations of feminism will ultimately prove counter-productive to the feminist cause by feeding into the preconceived notions held by more conservative sectors of society, by alienating otherwise sympathetic men, and by contributing to the burn out of those feminist activists who disagree with such extreme perspectives (again, things that I have personally seen happen).

Perhaps there is a little hypocrisy here: after all, I am claiming that I don’t think that I or other men should speak for feminism despite the fact that I am expressing criticism of certain manifestations of feminism. For me it’s a difficult situation to reconcile, but I try to summarise it with the thought that as a man, I’m not going to say what is the right way to do feminism, because it isn’t my place to do so; nevertheless, I do fear that there is a wrong (or at least counter-productive) way to do feminism, and while I’m not going to go about publicly challenging those who embrace these latter approaches, I will not hide my misgivings if asked. 

By this point, perhaps some readers might be asking themselves: “well, if he says that he can’t speak for feminism, why is he posting about the subject on his blog to start with? Isn’t this more hypocrisy?” There may be some truth to that thought. Normally, I don’t use Albion Calling as a vehicle for the expression of my own socio-political views, regarding feminism or anything else; it’s usually just a space to talk about academic stuff to do with magic, ritual, and the preternatural. That being said, the fact that the controversy at the ASSAP conference has now been made public through the medium of Fortean Times resulted in me feeling that I really did want to publicly say my piece on this issue, clarifying my perspective in my own words and smoothing over any misunderstandings that have arisen. Hopefully that has been achieved.

* =  This isn’t to say that the concept of “mansplaining” as it was originally conceived doesn’t have value, for I think that it does. I’ve seen various instances where men have acted in an intellectually condescending manner toward women, even when those women are themselves clearly far better educated in the topic being discussed than the condescending man himself (although equally I’ve seen men act in the same manner to other men, women to other women, and indeed women to men, so I don’t think the phenomenon is inherently as explicitly gendered as the term “mansplaining” suggests). That being said, I’ve also seen the term “mansplaining” divorced from its original meaning in order to be used, particularly online, as little more than a catch-all anti-male pejorative to silence any opposition to a particular activist’s opinion; in these instances it can be used to shut down debate without the need to actually present any counter-argument, and given its gendered connotations it thus very much fits within the dubious realms of ad hominem argumentation.

[Some additional points were added to this article in April 2016, after further contemplation on the issue.]

Tuesday, 15 December 2015

New Publication: "An' it Harm None, Do What Ye Will" in Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft 10(2)

Only a few weeks after my first book – Wicca: History, Belief, and Community in Modern Pagan Witchcraft – went on sale, a new publication of mine has just been popped through the letterbox. This time, it’s a research article that has been printed in volume 10, issue 2 of the academic journal Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft, published by the University of Pennsylvania Press. Titled ““An’ it Harm None: Do What Ye Will”: A Historical Analysis of the Wiccan Rede”, the paper represents the first concerted attempt within an academic context to examine the Rede’s development during the 1940s-70s. As I explain in the article’s abstract:

In the 1950s, the English occultist Gerald Gardner (1884–1964) began propagating a magico-religious tradition now known as Gardnerian Witchcraft. At the foreground of a contemporary Pagan new religious movement that soon gained the name of “Wicca,” Gardner came to greatly influence the practices of hundreds of thousands of Wiccans across the Western world. Today, a common element of Wiccan belief is an ethical commandment known as the “Wiccan Rede”, usually articulated in a form akin to “an’ it harm none, do what ye will”, which seeks to guide practitioners in both magical and mundane affairs. But where did this Rede come from, and how did it develop? This research article seeks to answer those questions by undertaking a historical analysis of ethical beliefs within the early Wiccan movement. Examining Gardner's own evolving ethical beliefs with regards to the use of magic, it then examines how his initiate Doreen Valiente came to first proclaim the Rede at a prominent Pagan gathering in October 1964. It then analyzes the influence that the Thelemic Law of Aleister Crowley exerted on the wording of the Rede, before discussing its wider reception within the Wiccan movement and why practitioners of many rival traditions chose to reject it.


This latest issue of the journal does not appear to have been uploaded online to Project MUSE just yet, but keep an eye out here, where I hope that it should be appearing in the next few days!

Sunday, 29 November 2015

Some Thoughts on the ASSAP conference, "Seriously Bewitched"

Yesterday I attended (and spoke at) a one-day public conference titled “Seriously Bewitched”, organised by the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomenon (ASSAP) and held on the premises of Goldsmiths, University of London, an academic institution based in southeast London’s New Cross. As its title suggested, the conference was devoted to the subject of witchcraft, both in its historical and contemporary manifestations. Given ASSAP’s remit, the conference was not strictly academic (although there were many academics present), and instead it aimed to reach a much wider audience including quite a number of people who were personally involved in forms of modern religious Witchcraft. This broad church approach undoubtedly had its benefits in bringing together divergent opinions and perspectives in a spirit of dialogue, although at times it also resulted in some vocal disagreement, particularly from attendees who weren’t particularly familiar with the nature of academic scholarship or the realities of what historically constituted “witchcraft”.

The event kicked off with some opening remarks from Professor Chris French, a psychologist based at Goldsmiths who has a particular interest in the critical study of paranormal phenomenon; for me, it was particularly intriguing to finally meet Professor French in the flesh as I remember him being a talking head on television shows about the paranormal when I was a child. He was followed by Deborah Hyde, his successor as editor of The Skeptic magazine, who used her talk to delve into the Roman Catholic Church’s response to Medieval heresy, discussing how that phenomenon impacted on the later witch trials of the Early Modern period. Sticking with those trials, we then had Christian Jensen Romer, a self-professed evangelical Christian, offer a discussion of the witch trials that took place both in Eastern England at the urging of Matthew Hopkins and those that took place in Salem, Massachusetts. Seeking to turn commonly held notions upon their head, he pointed out that many of those most active in carrying out these persecutions were highly educated men working on a rationalist basis – he even compared them, perhaps a little tongue-in-cheek, to ASSAP members – while also noting that it was Puritan preachers who were among the most vocal critics of the trials.

It was my turn after lunch, as I focused on “The New Witches of the West”, looking at the development of Wicca – in both its British Traditional and later Dianic variants – as well as modern Satanism, before exploring quite why many modern day people choose to identify as “witches” when that term is so loaded with historical baggage. Given that I was feeling a little under-the-weather, I chose to read from a script rather than speak without one, however I got a fair bit of positive feedback nevertheless (although I was somewhat lost for words when one audience member started insisting that a secret cabal of Satanists rule the world…). I was followed by Dr. Helen Cornish of Goldsmiths, who discussed the fascinating case of Joan Wytte, “the Fighting Fairy Woman of Bodmin”, whose alleged physical remains had been displayed at Cecil Williamson’s Museum of Witchcraft in Boscastle, Cornwall for many years. Returning to the subject of modern Pagan Witchcraft, PhD candidate Charmaine Sonnex then discussed some of her ongoing work on how modern British Pagans (into which she includes British Traditional Wiccans, eclectic solitary Wiccans, and Druids) conduct magic spells and how they believe that such spells work.

Moving into the evening session, the Wiccan High Priestess Bekie Bird provided a biographical overview of her own life, discussing key events in her childhood and adolescence that led her onto the Pagan path, and talking about her beliefs pertaining to magic and spirituality. Finally, independent folklorist Mark Norman ended the day with a talk on what he termed “Traditional Witchcraft” – meaning both historical folk magic and those contemporary esotericists who self-designate as “Traditional Witches” – focusing in particular on how “Traditional Witchcraft” has been presented by Gemma Gary of the Cornish-based coven Ros an Bucca. All in all, it was an interesting day that brought together many interesting people and interesting talks, and my thanks must be extended to its organisers. For those interested, the next themed ASSAP conference, “Seriously Enchanted”, will be devoted to fairy lore and will take place at The Academy, Holiday Inn, in Bristol on 12 March 2016.

Thursday, 26 November 2015

An Interview with Dr. Ceri Houlbrook

Today here at Albion Calling we have the archaeologist and folklorist Dr. Ceri Houlbrook with us (if you're not familiar with her work, check out her academia.edu account here). Having completed her PhD on the subject of coin trees at the University of Manchester back in 2014, she is currently involved in a post-doctoral project examining concealed apotropaic devices in the British Isles and the ways in which they have been dealt with by those who have discovered them. We talk about her research, her new co-edited book, and her views on the intersections between folkloristics and archaeology.

Dr Houlbrook at a love-lock bridge in Prague, Czech Republic

[EDW]: Under the supervision of the archaeologist Professor Tim Insoll (who was interviewed here back in August 2014), you completed your PhD at the University of Manchester in 2014 on the topic of “Coining the Coin-Tree: Contextualising a Contemporary British custom”. Subsequently, you have published a number of research articles on the coin tree phenomenon in such peer-reviewed journals as Folklore, Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, and Post-Medieval Archaeology. What was it that led you to coin trees as an object of enquiry? Could you possibly also provide this blog’s readers with a summary of your research on this subject?

[CH]: Since doing my MA in ‘Constructions of the Sacred, the Holy and the Supernatural’ at Manchester, I’ve been interested in British folk customs – particularly how they survive, and sometimes flourish, in contemporary society. The coin-tree is just one such example of this. Although the custom of inserting coins into trees stretches back to the 1800s (maybe even the 1700s), where it was originally associated with healing rituals, it’s really only been over the last two decades that the practice has spread across the British Isles, with coin-trees popping up in all corners of the country. I was interested in asking why the 1990s and 2000s had seen such a rapid increase in the custom, and in finding out what it means to its modern-day participants. My conclusion: it means whatever its participants want it to mean, and I use coin-trees to demonstrate the malleability of folklore and the mutability of meaning. These allow customs, legends, and lore to survive their transitions into different times and places, by enabling them to adapt.

[EDW]: You are currently a Postdoctoral Research Assistant working as part of a Leverhulme-funded project titled “Inner Lives: Emotions, Identity, and the Supernatural, 1300–1900”, which is based at both the University of East Anglia and the University of Hertfordshire. Could you tell us a little bit more about this exciting new project and what your role entails?

[CH]: As you might have guessed from its title, this project, run by Prof. Malcolm Gaskill, Prof. Owen Davies, and Dr Sophie Page, is broad – both chronologically and thematically. To summarise briefly, we’re interested in examining how people historically have dealt with the cross-overs of emotions (fear, hatred, love), selfhood, and aspects of the supernatural. My strand of the project is entitled ‘The Concealed Revealed’, and I’m looking at the sorts of devices and customs people used to protect their homes from preternatural threats, from concealed shoes and mummified cats to timber markings. As well as cataloguing examples of this from across the British Isles, I’m also interested in considering what happens to them after they’re found; once the concealed has been revealed, so to speak. Are they disposed of, re-concealed, or displayed? And what does that tell us about people today and their own relationships with emotions, identity, and the supernatural?

Coin-tree in Ingleton, Yorkshire.
Image copyright Dr. Houlbrook
[EDW]: Like myself, you’ve been in attendance at the Folklore Society’s Newer Researchers conferences over the past two years and have conducted research that has crossed into the two respective fields of archaeology and folkloristics. Where do you tend to view yourself in relation to these two disciplines, and how well do you think that they work together?

[CH]: Although I’m not a huge fan of labels and pigeonholing myself, if people ask I tend to call myself a ‘folklore archaeologist’. This basically means that I use methodologies from both folklore and archaeology to gain insights into ritual practices and popular beliefs, both historical and contemporary. Take concealed shoes for example. We have no (surviving) written evidence describing the practice and therefore no explanation for why people in the 18th and 19th centuries concealed shoes within the walls, roof spaces, and fireplaces of their homes. Cue folklore archaeology: by considering oral lore surrounding shoes and the materiality of the shoes themselves, together with their liminal locations, we can at least come up with some working theories on this enigmatic practice.

[EDW]: Oxbow Books have recently brought out The Materiality of Magic: An Artifactual Investigation into Ritual Practices and Popular Beliefs, an edited volume that you co-produced with Natalie Armitage. In this volume, you also have a chapter titled “The Wishing-Tree of Isle Maree: The Evolution of a Scottish Folkloric Practice”. Could you elaborate for us on how this particular book came about?

[CH]: In 2012, Natalie Armitage and I organised a panel at the Theoretical Archaeology Group (TAG) conference entitled ‘The Materiality of Magic’. We were eager to get both the subject and word of ‘magic’ – seen as something of an academic taboo – back onto the archaeological agenda, and to illustrate how research into ritual practices and popular beliefs benefit from a material culture perspective. We were also eager to demonstrate how prevalent such practices and beliefs are across time and place, and so we invited speakers with a wide range of interest areas, ranging from Bronze Age Europe to modern-day Africa. The session was a great success and in saying that I’m not blowing my own trumpet, but that of the speakers. The fact that the session attracted such a large audience that we needed to move to a larger room is no doubt due to the fantastic papers presented and the interesting debates they sparked. Publishing the session was the logical next step; the themes we discuss and the methodologies we employ are important, so we naturally wanted to reach as large an audience as possible.

[EDW]: Are there any other projects in the pipeline that we should be keeping our eyes out for?

[CH]: My personal interest at the moment is the archaeology and heritage of love-locks. For anyone who doesn’t know what love-locks are, they’re exactly what their names suggest: padlocks employed globally in declarations of love, usually inscribed with a couple’s names and attached to a bridge. I find them fascinating for a number of reasons. Firstly, for what they reveal about the malleability of folk customs; love-rituals boast a very long history but they have to adapt in order to survive, and love-locks are the most recent – and arguably the most widespread – manifestation. Secondly, they’re incredibly useful from an archaeological perspective: studying a contemporary custom can inform how we interpret past practices. And thirdly, they reveal a lot about notions (and the subjectivity) of heritage; some cities (e.g. Paris) see love-locks as a nuisance to be discouraged and disposed of, while others (e.g. Cardiff) embrace them as part of their heritage. I’m currently applying for funding to conduct both broader and more in-depth research into this custom, but for now I’m keeping a blog (lovelockdiaries.wordpress.com) and asking anyone with information on, pictures of, and opinions about love-locks to contact me on ceri.houlbrook@gmail.com.

[EDW]: Thank you very much Ceri, I wish you all the best with the rest of your Concealed Revealed project!

Tuesday, 17 November 2015

Upcoming conference: "Seriously Bewitched" at Goldsmiths, southeast London

Those living in the vicinity of London and who have an interest in the subject of witchcraft may be excited to learn that the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomenon (ASSAP) will be holding a one-day conference – titled “Seriously Bewitched” – on Saturday 29 November 2015. To be held on the premises of Goldsmiths, University of London in New Cross, Southeast London, the event follows on the heels of last year’s sold-out ASSAP conference “Seriously Possessed” and will be devoted to witchcraft in its various manifestations, both historical and contemporary.

I will be speaking at an afternoon session on “The New Witches of the West”, while other speakers include Deborah Hyde (editor-in-chief of The Skeptic magazine), Charmaine Sonnex (PhD candidate at the University of Northampton), Bekie Bird (Wiccan priestess), Mark Norman (folklorist), Christian Jensen Romer (parapsychologist) and Helen Cornish (anthropologist at Goldsmiths) – it’s an eclectic mix, but one which is sure to make for a fascinating day.  Although myself and other academics have been invited to talk, the event is not explicitly an "academic conference" and thus should be easily accessible to anyone who has an interest in this intriguing subject. Most of the tickets have already been bought but I am given to understand that a few can still be purchased here. If it sounds like your thing, come along!