Our response defended Religiographies and took issue with two claims in Strube’s article, “that ‘scholars of esotericism played a key role [in the translation and dissemination of Evola]’, and that ‘this affected not only political ideologies, but also parts of the academic field of “Western esotericism”, which remains a major obstacle to critical engagement with politics to this day.’”
We argued that in fact only two scholars of esotericism, Hakl and Joscelyn Godwin, both now retired, had played a key role in the translation and dissemination of Evola, and that “while two persons is indeed plural, the phrase ‘scholars of esotericism played a key role’ implies rather more than two persons, and this is not the case.” Neither Strube nor Asprem contested this in their rejoinders, though Asprem did describe our argument as “advanced exegesis of how many persons are required for a plural ending.”
We also argued that this had not had any significant impact on the academic study of Western esotericism, though Traditionalism in general has indeed had a significant impact on other fields. This point was important because Strube had named two scholars of esotericism, Wouter Hanegraaff and Marco Pasi, neither retired, in a way that associated them with the Far Right, and we felt it important to defend them against guilt by association.
In his rejoinder, “Distractions, a Contested Legacy, and Hidden Intentions: A Rejoinder to Sedgwick & Piraino,” Asprem dealt mostly with Hakl, repeating his criticism of the way that Religiographies handled him, and noting that his activities had “contributed to a politicized perception of the field [of esotericism scholarship], especially in the German-speaking world.” Whether one prefers the more forgiving view of Hakl’s activities of Piraino, Pasi, and myself or the harsher view of Strube and Asprem, it may well be true that his activities indeed contributed to a politicized perception of the field in the German-speaking world. This is unfortunate, but perception is not the same as reality.
In the end, I think, the two sides are actually not so far apart. We all agree that Hakl, for example, published with politically engaged publishers like Hohenrain Verlag, which Pasi described in Religiographies as “well known for its right-wing political stance,” while Asprem objects that it is in fact “known… for disseminating extremist content, including antisemitism and Holocaust denial.” There is disagreement about exacctly how to label Hohenrain, then, but not about what it stands for.
Strube’s short note on “On the Vilification of Critics and Quality of Scholarship: A Critical Juncture in the Study of Esotericism and Far-Right Politics” deals primarily with Hanegraaff, who is criticized for having defended Hakl. Strube mentions our objection to a methodology that assigns guilt by association but does not really respond to it, instead contrasting our criticism of his methodology with our defense of Hanegraaff.
Those with access to Aries can read the original articles, the response, and the rejoinders and make up their own minds. In the end it seems to me not so much a critical juncture in the study of esotericism and Far-Right politics as a question of what one thinks of one scholar, Hanegraaff. I continue to see his work as fundamental to the whole field, and his views of Hakl as relatively unimportant. Perhaps we scholars would get further with the study of esotericism and Far-Right politics if we avoided making accusations against each other.
15 comments:
This is like reading a White House press statement.
Not any more.
I feel this is an interesting debate, though it seems to me that the moral focus on politics has eclipsed a more interesting question: the peculiar porosity of religious studies in general (and esotericism in particular) to less-than-disinterested contributions.
There is an uncommon amount of lay interest in academic work produced in those field, and a far higher number of non-professionals contributing to this field than anywhere else in academia (except perhaps psychoanalysis and the fine arts). The religious or political commitments of scholars (whether 'religionists', conservatives, or something else) is I think the flipside of this phenomenon. Both have historical roots, from Eranos via Traditionalism back to the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule. I think it might be fruitful to think of Esotericism studies as inherently straddling academic and lay scholarship, perhaps as a kind of recycling plant transforming 'emic' rejected knowledge into 'etic' sociology.
An interesting point. Thank you.
I agree that this is a relevant point. However, I do not see that the Aries authors are making a 'moral' argument at all. Their focus is specifically on how scholarship may or may not be conducted. I appreciate the clarity that has come from this disagreement in this matter.
The criticisms levelled against Hakl by Asprem and Strube do not overly concern themselves with his texts, but rather with his frequentations and choices of publication venues. Either those decisions are criticized as such (in which case it is indeed a moral failing which is condemned) or they are understood to imply methodological commitments contrary to academic standards (i.e. a 'bracketting' of context to salvage religion as transhistorical experience.)
Both moral and methodological failings would have political dimensions--as do all public pursuits. But only the methodological one seem to me relevant, provided we regard scholarship as fulfilling any public service beyond its political effects. Hakl's method seem to me to sometimes fall short of academic standards. He is hardly alone in this regard, and while conservative politics seem to often correlate with such scholarly vices, this is definitely not always the case (i.e. DeConick). Hanegraaff, if anything, seem to me more likely leaning to share in those problems of method than in any reactionary projects. But that's hardly newsworthy...
"The criticisms levelled against Hakl by Asprem and Strube do not overly concern themselves with his texts... "
The content of these texts is in fact examined in great detail throughout the publication.
I would also argue that the core issue here is poor scholarship, which is precisely the point raised above. Academics are supposed to be concerned with that, especially when dealing with such sensitive topics. Are they not?
Unfortunately, these blog posts and responses appear to focus on diverting attention away from the actual content of the articles in 'Aries'. I find that quite striking and can’t help but question the intentions behind these efforts.
Indeed, Asprem and Strube do show that Hakl's treatment of Evola whitewashed certain important aspects of his past. If there is a lack of attention to texts as opposed to associations, that concerns Pasi and Hanegraaff.
The guys who did an entire journal issue in praise of Hakl?
Pasi edited the special issue and Hanegraaff contributed an article. Try reading it and seeing to what extent it is actually in praise of Hakl?
I have read both journal issues in question and am in fact so appalled by how you manipulate the matter that, against my better judgement, I have spent some time going again through Religiographies.
The overall tendency of the special issue is, to my view, unmistakable: Hans Thomas Hakl is presented not as a controversial scholar who would require careful and critical scrutiny, but rather as a foundational and largely vindicated figure in the academic study of Western esotericism. The tone is consistently reverential. Criticism is acknowledged, yes, but mainly in order to neutralise it. What we see, effectively, is a sustained act of rehabilitation through praise.
The language used about his scholarship is superlative. Hakl’s role in shaping the discipline is emphasised repeatedly. Pasi writes that the meetings in which Hakl was “so actively” involved “functioned therefore as a breeding ground for the emerging field of esotericism” (p. 10). From these meetings, “the idea of a scholarly association for the study of esotericism was conceived, which would eventually lead to the foundation of the European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism (ESSWE) in 2005” (p. 10). Godwin reinforces this narrative: “His example sparked intense discussions among the European members, who in this and subsequent meetings laid the foundations for what would become the ESSWE” (p. 79). In other words, Hakl is woven quite directly into the origin story of the field’s principal scholarly society.
When it concerns ideological questions, the contributors defend him in a rather robust manner. Hanegraaff offers what is perhaps the most programmatic defence. He writes: “Hakl’s insistence on the maxim audiatur et altera pars allowed him to transcend narrow ideological positions and apply the principle of charity to thinkers across the political spectrum from left to right” (p. 60). He characterises his approach as “the hermeneutics of generosity”, and later adds: “Typical for Hakl’s generous hermeneutics, his first concern is always to humanize his protagonists” (p. 65).
The cumulative effect is quite clear. Hakl is “ground-breaking,” “monumental,” “major.” He helped create the conditions for ESSWE. His scholarship has “scholarly merit.” He transcends ideology. He practices generosity. He humanises rather than polarises.
What strikes one is the consistency. Potentially controversial aspects are reframed as methodological virtues. Biographical complications are absorbed into a narrative of intellectual seriousness and institutional contribution. The issue reads less like a critical engagement with a contested figure and more like a collective closing of ranks. It is relentlessly affirmative.
One would already have known much of this from the excellent articles in the Aries issue, as well as from Asprem’s and Strube’s responses. Of course you have read those as well, which makes it, frankly, all the more serious that you choose to misrepresent the matter so clearly.
I have taken the time to write this because I am genuinely shocked by your position in this discussion, having previously valued your scholarship as a student. This is more than disappointing, it is troubling, especially given the subjects on which you continue to speak with authority.
OK, you are right. The issue is indeed affirmative rather than critical, to use your terms. Which makes the authors of the articles in question guilty of what? Being friends with someone who later turned out to have a more problematic past than anyone realized? In all other respects they are still fine scholars and decent people.
Guilty of poor scholarship and of shielding a dubious figure, since Hakl is not someone who “later” turned out to have a problematic past, as you claim. But even if we accept that premise, which is false, the appropriate response should have been to acknowledge and commend the work of Asprem and Strube (and the other contributions that take a similar position, systematically overlooked). Instead, what followed was a corporative defense of questionable practices, which led to the Religiographies special issue. No one issued an apology or admitted of having wrongly celebrated someone who “later” proved problematic. Hanegraaff doubled down on his blog, while Pasi and Otto remained silent. Most strikingly, you and Piraino, who are not even mentioned in the Aries special issue, chose to counterattack Strube. This is particularly astonishing, since neither Sedgwick nor Piraino had previously been subjected to comparable scrutiny and, judging from the comments on this blog, you clearly enjoy a more positive reputation and wider acclaim.
The Hakl affair appears to be a case in which personal connections have been placed before moral responsibility and academic standards. You keep reducing this issue to a moral debate, questioning whether Hanegraaff and Pasi are “decent people,” or whether Strube and Asprem have shown “professional courtesy,” but this is not the point. It should not be a matter of friends closing ranks; it is, rather, a matter of scholarly and political integrity, intellectual accountability, transparency, and the consistent application of academic standards.
Unfortunately, with the recent Aries response, you seem to confirm precisely the same structural issues in the field of Western esotericism that Strube et alia highlighted in their volume.
First, thank you for taking the time to engage in this discussion. But I do not agree. You say that Pasi and Hanegraaff are "guilty of poor scholarship and of shielding a dubious figure." Defending Hakl, certainly, though not exactly "shielding" him. But where is the poor scholarship? That is the heart of the question. All that anyone has come up with, I think, is something Hanegraaff wrote about the Frankfurter School, which perhaps not everyone agrees with, but that is far from poor scholarship.
You also refer to "questionable practices, which led to the Religiographies special issue." What are these? Hakl donated his library to the Cini, and the Religiographies special issue noted this on the first page, providing the context for that special issue. What is questionable about this? It is fully transparent. You also say that you find it "astonishing" that Piraino and I, "who are not even mentioned in the Aries special issue, chose to counterattack Strube." We were indeed not mentioned by name, but Religiographies was, and as the responsible editors of Religiographies we felt we needed to defend that journal, as I feel it necessary now to defend it against a charge of "questionable practices." We also felt it was necessary to defend the field as a whole, and further to defend Pasi and Hanegraaff, lest someone might mistakenly think they were guilty of poor scholarship, which they are not.
What strikes me in this debate is that the issue is still being framed as if the only alternatives were “guilt by association” or intellectual freedom. That framing avoids the real question, which is methodological and ethical responsibility. When scholars publish on figures embedded in politically charged and historically extremist milieus, contextualization is not optional. If ideas circulated within specific ideological networks, then those networks are part of the object of study, not an external inconvenience to be minimized.
The concern is not that controversial figures are studied. Of course they should be. The concern is whether they are studied with sufficient analytical distance. When a volume adopts a tone that appears closer to affirmation than critical interrogation, particularly in cases already subject to serious scholarly critique, it raises legitimate questions about standards. Engagement with prior criticism is part of scholarly rigor. Avoiding or reframing it does not make it disappear.
Nor is “neutrality” a sufficient defense. Presenting politically entangled actors without explicitly mapping the ideological and historical stakes of their networks can function as normalization, even if unintentionally.
If the field wishes to maintain credibility, then methodological clarity, contextual rigor, and genuine critical distance are not optional. They are baseline and therefore the Religiographies issue is the one demonstrating poor scholarship practice not the Strube and Asprem, and no amount of endowments should cloud poor scholarship practices.
Post a Comment