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.
26 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.
Prof. Sedgwick, your comment still misses what is being criticised, and it repeats the same defensive moves that keep this debate stuck.
You ask “where is the poor scholarship?” and then reduce the issue to “something about the Frankfurt School.” But the critique was never about one sentence. It is about a pattern of method and framing. Political contexts get softened, collaboration infrastructures are renamed into something harmless, and arguments and facts are being distracted from.
You keep asking questions that have already been answered in detail. When people point to concrete facts (for example the celebratory nature of the Religiographies issue, which you claim has escaped you to this point), you don’t really engage the substance, you deflect and ask again. That strikes me as intellectually dishonest.
A central problem with the practice of your friends is euphemising extremist infrastructures. If a venue/publisher is tied to extremist milieus, antisemitic ideology, or Holocaust-denial environments, calling it simply “right-wing” is not neutral description. It changes how readers understand what is at stake. In a debate about far-right networks and strategic legitimation, language is part of the evidence. Blurring it is not balance, it is laundering.
And as an expert on the far right, is any of this new to you? Have the controversies around Hakl really escaped your attention over the past 20 years? The question becomes unavoidable: why do you choose to distract from the problems, instead of addressing them?
Another example of bad practice is context-stripping. When texts are republished as “historical documents” without disclosing the concrete conflict and strategic purpose that made them relevant, the reader is steered away from the key questions: what function did this text have, in what struggle, and for whom? Scholarship needs minimum context, otherwise it is just staging.
On “questionable practices”: saying “the donation was disclosed on page one” is not a full answer. Disclosure is not the same as good editorship. A conflict of interest can be disclosed and still be a conflict. And if a special issue is, in effect, a homage to someone with long-standing ties to extremist publishing pipelines, “we disclosed it” does not explain why the project was constructed as celebration. Peer review doesn’t fix a celebratory architecture. Editorial judgement was the responsibility here, and it was yours.
Saying that Hakl was “not shielded, only defended” is wordplay. The effect is shielding if the defence consistently minimises context and normalises the venues. Then you say you and Piraino “had to defend” the journal and “the field.” This reflex is exactly why the criticism exists. The moment defending reputation becomes more important than hard self-scrutiny, we are not defending scholarship, we are defending a clique. Importantly: you do not speak for “the field.” You speak for a group that attacks younger colleagues for asking difficult questions. This strikes me as academic malpractice.
Finally, the “guilt by association” rhetoric is a dodge. The critique is not about fleeting interactions but about tangible links, repeated collaborations, and concrete infrastructures where ideas are produced and circulated. Precisely the stuff that matters when the object is metapolitics and tactical masking. Far-right milieus are very good at staying just below the line of explicitness while still building pipelines of influence. Hakl has been praised in a far-right publication for achieving this.
What happens here does not look like a defence against unfair claims, but like downplaying, relabelling, and shifting attention from evidence to double-standard etiquette and personal sentiment. The core question is whether you apply the same critical tools to your own editorial choices that you apply to our objects of study. If you cannot do that, you are not doing good scholarship.
I fear that multiple issues are getting confused. When you write of "a pattern of method and framing," are you referring to the defense of Hakl, or to something else? The same with "tangible links, repeated collaborations, and concrete infrastructures where ideas are produced and circulated." I am not defending Hakl, and I am not denying that Pasi and Hanegraaff did defend Hakl. What I am disputing is that there is anything wrong with Pasi and Hanegraaff's scholarship or that there is a wider problem with the field as a whole. I have never claimed to speak for the field as a whole, by the way, and I must reject your suggestion that I "speak for a group that attacks younger colleagues for asking difficult questions." If this group is Pasi and Hanegraaff, I do not speak for them, but I am not aware of either of them ever having attacked younger colleagues for asking difficult questions.
You ask: "As an expert on the far right, is any of this new to you? Have the controversies around Hakl really escaped your attention over the past 20 years?" The answer is that the right is a large topic and no-one is an expert on all of it. The only study of Hakl’s political activities that I know of is Strube's article in Aries. I knew before of vague rumors, but no more. I would welcome more research on Hakl and his milieu, but I am not currently in a position to do it myself.
I want to add something here about Religiographies’ publisher, the Fondazione Giorgio Cini. The Foundation was endowed in 1951 by the shipping magnate Vittorio Cini (1885-1977), a former senator for the Italian Fascist Party from 1934-1943 and organizer of the aborted 1942 Universal Exposition in Rome (“E’42”). Benjamin Martins (2016) argues Cini played a key role in consolidating intellectual support for Fascism: “After World War II it was commonly argued that Mussolini’s closeness with Hitler, the anti-Jewish laws, and the outbreak of war prompted the intellectual classes to abandon the regime. But Cini’s effort to position Italy’s civiltà as a global rival to the West successfully rallied an impressive list of Italy’s leading lights around this pro-regime, pro-imperialist project” (p. 166-7). In 1944, the High Court of Justice would sanction Cini for his “active cooperation with the Fascist government,” though another commission would reverse this ruling in 1946, owing partly to lobbying by his son, Giorgio Cini (Reberschak 1981).
I am not arguing that the Foundation adheres to Cini’s intellectual-fascist orientation of 1934-1943, or that it dictates what the contributors to Religiographies write or think. Yet it seems to me that a Cini publication may have been a counterproductive venue for refuting the perception of entrenched fascist or far-right influence within the study of esotericism. Conversely, it may have been unwise for Cini to put its name to such an apologetic (or “affirmative”) publication on this topic, given such history. As the above comments suggest, my impression is that attempts by the Religiographies camp to put this issue to bed have only increased, rather than decreased, reputational damage to the field.
Since no one has mentioned this background so far, I felt compelled to note it here.
https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/vittorio-cini_(Dizionario-Biografico)/
This exchange does not seem to be getting anywhere. I am going to leave this last comment unanswered and close the discussion.
Since I am mentioned, among other things, as having remained silent on the recent debates about the Religiographies and Aries special issues, I would like to make a comment. The fact that I haven’t responded so far, doesn’t mean that I won’t. However, it certainly won’t be here. I think there is a matter of principle regarding the quality of the discussion taking place here that should be addressed, particularly as it appears to be indicative of a broader pattern. The person(s) writing anonymously here seem to be very passionate about good scholarly practices, accountability and transparency, but then they think it acceptable to participate in these debates without disclosing their identity, as if that were optional. It is remarkable how some of those who take a high moral ground and are so keen on accusing others of all sorts of moral and political sins, do so while hiding in the dark and speaking as impersonal oracles. Even before we start looking into arguments, is this an acceptable basis for a healthy discussion? I don’t think so. Who are you really? What are your interests in this exchange of views? It is clear from what you write that you are no outsider(s) to our scholarly community, but speak with an insider’s knowledge. Do you have personal issues or relationships with the people involved? Do you have any conflicts of interest? You denounce what you perceive as our conflicts, yet you find it appropriate to hide yours, or at least deny the readers the right to know whether you have any. And you also seem to ignore the problem of unequal power relations in a debate between those who take responsibility and accountability for what they say, and those who don’t, such as yourself. Maybe you want to think a bit more about how anonymity can be combined with positionality and self-reflexivity, not to mention transparency. I honestly don’t think there is a way to engage in an open, democratic debate on these issues with people who don’t participate as an equal.
PS: fake identities are not a valid alternative, I’m afraid.
I admire Mark Sedgwick’s patience in responding to these aggressive critiques, but have to agree that this exchange is going nowhere. Marco Pasi is perfectly right: in an open society, those who claim to value serious discussion about controversial issues should not be hiding like cowards behind a cloak of anonymity.
Professor Pasi,
You present anonymity as if it were merely a refusal of accountability. This, however, presupposes a level playing field that does not in fact exist. The issue is precisely that the field has long been shaped by a closed network of scholars who are personally connected and who tend to support and defend one another. In such a context, calls for full transparency cannot be separated from the asymmetries of power that determine who can speak safely, and under what conditions. Not everyone has the privilege of belonging to these networks, of sharing institutional, political, “esoteric,” or personal ties, or of benefiting from the forms of informal protection such connections can provide. Not everyone is a best man at an important colleague’s wedding, only to be rewarded later with professional opportunities. Many students, researchers, early-career academics, and simply less well-positioned scholars lack this kind of protection that you and few others enjoy.
For them, speaking openly under their own name is not a neutral act, but one that may entail tangible professional risks. From this perspective, anonymity is not a matter of “hiding in the dark,” but often a condition that makes participation possible at all. To dismiss it outright is to overlook the uneven distribution of risk within the field, a point that is particularly relevant given the context from which this discussion arises. The asymmetry you identify does not lie between those who sign their contributions and those who do not, but between those who can do so without consequences and those who cannot.
You also raise the question of conflicts of interest. It is not clear where such a conflict would lie in commenting on the work of highly visible and influential scholars in the field of Western esotericism. Also, the publications under discussion are not anonymous. The special issue edited by Professor Strube consists of signed contributions that are open to critique and response. The present discussion is simply an exchange of views on a blog concerning ideas that are already in the public domain; as such, it does not in itself require personal disclosure in order to be legitimate. Nobody has nothing to earn from engaging here, if something commentators may have a lot to lose.
Furthermore, the claim that anonymity necessarily undermines the quality of discussion diverts, once more, attention from the arguments themselves. Claims can be assessed on their merits irrespective of whether a name is attached. In a small and closely interconnected field, anonymity can in fact allow arguments to be considered without the immediate filtering effects of reputation, affiliation, or hierarchy.
It is also worth noting that this discussion is taking place on a blog that, to the credit of its moderator has allowed a range of positions to be expressed without censorship, even where these challenge his own views. This suggests that a substantive exchange focused on arguments remains possible even in the absence of full disclosure of identity. Given the record of exclusion and, at times, intimidation within the field—often associated with those in positions of influence—it is hardly surprising that less protected scholars may hesitate to expose themselves publicly. Concerns about unequal power relations cut both ways.
Marco Pasi, as president of the EASR, it’s surprising that you frame yourself as the subordinate in this situation. You occupy a powerful position, and your tone is one of aggression and hostility, much like Hanegraaff’s response, who is the leading figure in ESSWE. This is extremely threatening and authoritarian. Who would feel safe disclosing their identity to someone who acts like this? Not everybody holds a professorship like other participants in this debate.
What should matter are facts and arguments, for example:
- You [xxx redacted xxx]
- You [xxx redacted xxx]
- You edited and published in the 2023 Religiographies issue, which has problems that should be clear enough by now.
- You can hardly claim these were only occasional mishaps, nor can you claim ignorance of the ideological issues, since you were involved. Even if we granted that claim for the sake of argument, you must be aware of them now and should act accordingly.
- You have never offered an upfront apology for any of that. Instead, you respond with ad hominem attacks and rage.
[xxx redacted xxx]
[Parts of this post have been redacted by Mark Sedgwick]
I earlier said that I was going to close the discussion, but then allowed a comment by Marco Pasi, so I now have to reluctantly allow responses to that comment, one of them partly redacted. I say "reluctantly" because the discussion has moved a long way from the original issue and hs become very personal and aggressive. Having done this, I am now really, really closing the discussion.
[Not published]
Thank you for your comment, but I regret that this thread is now closed.
Post a Comment