International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol.10, 2019 33
countries” outside the US (Praderio, 2017, para.
3). Cutting across traditional boundaries, both
the Jobs and Paltrow examples illustrate the
current fascination with CAM, while also
pointing to a worrying trend of celebrity
influence whereby celebrity’s health decisions
guide the public through their offers of medical
advice or health endorsements (Hoffman et al.,
2017).
Celebrity influence aside, some health services
implicitly validate treatments such as
homeopathy. For example, Health Canada
legitimizes naturopaths as health professionals,
and naturopaths often prescribe homeopathic
remedies (Caulfield &Rachul, 2011). This
blending of some aspects of science while
maintaining a connection with premodern
approaches to healing sets the stage for this
article, in which I present a possible mechanism
for understanding the current fascination with
treatments that are, from an evidence-based
perspective, either ineffective or dangerous.
In a recent IJCS article about a group (Gentle
Wind) based in Maine, Kayla Swanson argues
that quasi-religions allow scholars to focus on
groups that exist at the intersection between
religious and secular. Borrowing from Arthur L.
Greil and Thomas Robbins (1994), quasi-
religions are groups that “either do not see
themselves, or are not seen by others, as
unambiguously religious” (Swanson, 2018, p.
8). In this article, however, I take a different
approach from Swanson while also
acknowledging the importance of considering
the liminal space between the religious and the
secular. I argue that, from a secular perspective,
some forms of CAM are forms of practical
magic, which I define as a set of practices used
to influence or protect the body by calling upon
the assistance of supernatural forces. Although
this definition of practical magic may entertain
any number of contemporary treatments, I add
another element that is relevant to this article.
Instead of occupying a middle position between
the religious and the secular, practical magic is a
blending of the two.
My narrow definition of practical magic borrows
from Adrian Chadwick’s analysis of Iron Age
and Romano-British settlements. Although there
may be little to connect modern and Iron Age
beliefs about magic, Chadwick offers a useful
definition of practical magic as a spectrum of
practices and beliefs reflective of implicit social
structures (Chadwick, 2015, p. 38). More
typically, scholarly discussion of practical magic
focuses on anthropological descriptions of
various people’s pragmatic engagement with
their environment, such as casting a spell for a
safe sea voyage. Consequently, Edvard Hviding
describes practical magic not only as a “false
technical act” but also a “true social act” which
gets at part of the discourse regarding magic’s
role in various cultures. My main focus of
Hviding’s comments here, however, is on how
this false technical act constitutes “bad science”
while also satisfying health consumers’ need for
exceeding natural constraints, or their
ambivalence toward distinguishing between
scientific and medical cures (Hviding 1996,
p. 174).
In addition to conceptualizing homeopathy as a
form of practical magic, it is worth thinking of
CAM as part of what Christopher Partridge has
described as the “occulture,” which refers to a
broad collection of occult and esoteric beliefs
and practices that include human potential
spiritualities, healing, shamanism, alternative
science, and so on (Partridge, 2016). Partridge
argues that, rather than being limited to
subcultural practices (e.g., secret and
underground practices), the esoteric has now
come into the mainstream. In some cases, this
mainstreaming involves seeking out and
achieving a scientific veneer. Significantly,
modern practical magic should be distinguished
from premodern magical practices, which may
have served to provide a cognitive structure
regarding the large domain beyond perception.
By contrast, practical magic sits alongside a
scientific worldview that has increasingly
pushed the mystery back.
This article is organized as follows: In the first
section, I describe homeopathy, highlighting
some current tensions in our analysis of CAM.
In the second section, I describe practical magic
in more detail. In the third section, I analyze
homeopathy’s religious roots. Finally, I apply
the concept of practical magic to homeopathy
and conclude with a discussion of the
countries” outside the US (Praderio, 2017, para.
3). Cutting across traditional boundaries, both
the Jobs and Paltrow examples illustrate the
current fascination with CAM, while also
pointing to a worrying trend of celebrity
influence whereby celebrity’s health decisions
guide the public through their offers of medical
advice or health endorsements (Hoffman et al.,
2017).
Celebrity influence aside, some health services
implicitly validate treatments such as
homeopathy. For example, Health Canada
legitimizes naturopaths as health professionals,
and naturopaths often prescribe homeopathic
remedies (Caulfield &Rachul, 2011). This
blending of some aspects of science while
maintaining a connection with premodern
approaches to healing sets the stage for this
article, in which I present a possible mechanism
for understanding the current fascination with
treatments that are, from an evidence-based
perspective, either ineffective or dangerous.
In a recent IJCS article about a group (Gentle
Wind) based in Maine, Kayla Swanson argues
that quasi-religions allow scholars to focus on
groups that exist at the intersection between
religious and secular. Borrowing from Arthur L.
Greil and Thomas Robbins (1994), quasi-
religions are groups that “either do not see
themselves, or are not seen by others, as
unambiguously religious” (Swanson, 2018, p.
8). In this article, however, I take a different
approach from Swanson while also
acknowledging the importance of considering
the liminal space between the religious and the
secular. I argue that, from a secular perspective,
some forms of CAM are forms of practical
magic, which I define as a set of practices used
to influence or protect the body by calling upon
the assistance of supernatural forces. Although
this definition of practical magic may entertain
any number of contemporary treatments, I add
another element that is relevant to this article.
Instead of occupying a middle position between
the religious and the secular, practical magic is a
blending of the two.
My narrow definition of practical magic borrows
from Adrian Chadwick’s analysis of Iron Age
and Romano-British settlements. Although there
may be little to connect modern and Iron Age
beliefs about magic, Chadwick offers a useful
definition of practical magic as a spectrum of
practices and beliefs reflective of implicit social
structures (Chadwick, 2015, p. 38). More
typically, scholarly discussion of practical magic
focuses on anthropological descriptions of
various people’s pragmatic engagement with
their environment, such as casting a spell for a
safe sea voyage. Consequently, Edvard Hviding
describes practical magic not only as a “false
technical act” but also a “true social act” which
gets at part of the discourse regarding magic’s
role in various cultures. My main focus of
Hviding’s comments here, however, is on how
this false technical act constitutes “bad science”
while also satisfying health consumers’ need for
exceeding natural constraints, or their
ambivalence toward distinguishing between
scientific and medical cures (Hviding 1996,
p. 174).
In addition to conceptualizing homeopathy as a
form of practical magic, it is worth thinking of
CAM as part of what Christopher Partridge has
described as the “occulture,” which refers to a
broad collection of occult and esoteric beliefs
and practices that include human potential
spiritualities, healing, shamanism, alternative
science, and so on (Partridge, 2016). Partridge
argues that, rather than being limited to
subcultural practices (e.g., secret and
underground practices), the esoteric has now
come into the mainstream. In some cases, this
mainstreaming involves seeking out and
achieving a scientific veneer. Significantly,
modern practical magic should be distinguished
from premodern magical practices, which may
have served to provide a cognitive structure
regarding the large domain beyond perception.
By contrast, practical magic sits alongside a
scientific worldview that has increasingly
pushed the mystery back.
This article is organized as follows: In the first
section, I describe homeopathy, highlighting
some current tensions in our analysis of CAM.
In the second section, I describe practical magic
in more detail. In the third section, I analyze
homeopathy’s religious roots. Finally, I apply
the concept of practical magic to homeopathy
and conclude with a discussion of the
