What is Esotericism? Cultural Studies Approaches and the Problems of Definition in Religious Studies

Abstract

Th ere is an ongoing debate whether esotericism could be a meaningful subject for Religious Studies. Th e recent history of the academic research into esotericism will be presented and critically discussed, how it has tried to defi ne its subject and how this discussions have reached an impasse. It is proposed that certain theoretical perspectives from cultural studies off er alternative ways in determining a research subject, especially one based on Ernesto Laclau's concept of "empty signifi ers." Th is argument will be followed by a methodological application that translates the theoretical considerations into a concrete and specifi c research design of discursive networks.

Rejected Knowledge Reconsidered: Some Methodological Notes on Esotericism and Marginality

“…The solution to these problems seems to me fairly simple: we must separate the study of rejection processes (a valuable sub-track in research on "esotericism" and its conceptual history) from the vexed question of how to define and operationalize the concept itself for scholarly research. While I will not engage the definition debate here, it suffices to note that a number of different alternatives are on the table, from stipulating new "positive" definitions (including along neo-Faivrean lines), to taking a systematically genealogical approach to esotericism as an "empty signifier" (Bergunder, 2010), or even "fractionating" the concept into more fine-grained analytical concepts that inevitably dissolves "its" status as a separate, semi-autonomous entity, but opens up new vistas of comparison (Asprem, 2016; on the definition debate, see Okropiridze, 2021).…”

Interpretation Reconsidered: The Definitional Progression in the Study of Esotericism as a Case in Point for the Varifocal Theory of Interpretation

“…To rephrase this development with a more formal focus on the subject of esotericism: a thesis of ontological access ("we know esotericism to be x"/"we know esotericism to be constituted by x, y, z") (Faivre, 1994;Hanegraaff, 2012), has been countered by its antithesis of epistemological limitation ("we can only ever know 'esotericism' to be interpreted as x, y, z") (Bergunder, 2010), whereupon both have been sublated in the hierarchical system of the building blocks approach ("whatever the interpretation of the signifier 'esotericism,' we can scale it down to the point where we can know its constituent components and reassemble it from there") (Asprem, 2016).…”

“…Put together, the underlying logic for the principle of bivectoral necessity-i.e., the necessity of onto-epistemological and epistemo-ontological directionalities of interpretation-and the antinomy of interpretation-i.e., the incommensurability of the two fundamental interpretational directionalities-constitute a set of counterintuitive, yet indispensable assumptions. It might, in fact, be possible to explain both principles semiotically by borrowing from and significantly adapting Ernesto Laclau's theory of signification (Laclau, 2005), which was used by Bergunder as the basis for his exclusively epistemo-ontological approach (Bergunder, 2010). In this re-interpretation of Laclau,7 the semiotic logic of equivalence states that signifier and signified share common (i.e., equivalential) ground, since they would otherwise not be understandable as two distinct, yet connected elements in a shared context (e.g., the materiality from which neurotransmitters and experiential narratives of non-material worlds emerge as causally connected entities).…”

Esotericism’s Expanding Horizon: Why This Book Came to Be

“…It should be noted that this is the case despite repeated attempts to introduce a global perspective to the field (esp. Bergunder, 2010;cf. Strube, 2016).…”