34 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019
implications of these findings for both
consumers and social scientists.
Homeopathy and the Allure of
Complementary and Alternative
Medicine (CAM)
In the late eighteenth century, homeopathy
emerged from the work of German physician
Christian Friedrich “Samuel” Hahnemann
(1755–1843), who discovered (or invented)
homeopathy as a treatment reliant on stimulation
of the body’s healing power. Hahnemann
viewed his practice as scientific and only
prescribed placebos to “soothe the patient’s
mind and desire for medicine with something
inconspicuous such as a few teaspoons a day of
raspberry juice or sugar of milk” (Jütte, 2014, p.
209). As part of his nonplacebo treatment plan,
Hahnemann prescribed diluted medicines
according to the “law of similar,” or “like cures
like” this means that, to cure an affliction, the
treatment should mimic the symptoms of the
illness. If a patient has hay-fever symptoms, then
a homeopath might prepare a dose of red onion
because both the illness and treatment lead to
tears, a runny nose, and so on (Banerjee,
Costelloe, Mathie, &Howick, 2014). The
homeopath would dilute the onion, and then
increase the potency of the dilution by shaking,
or succussion, to release the spirit-like power of
the medicine.
Although critics of homeopathy emphasize both
its lack of benefit and its potential harms as an
alternative treatment, it is necessary to go further
than simple dismissal of health consumers’
choices, and ask why individuals seek out such
treatments in the first place. Scholars have
shown that magical thinking is at the heart of
many decisions to use alternative therapies
(Beyerstein, 2001 Greasley, 2010 Stevens,
2001). But magical thinking aside, other
motivations to use such products may include a
justified disillusionment with orthodox medicine
or a fear of adverse drug side effects (Ernst,
2002). This literature has made significant
contributions to an understanding of CAM’s use,
but the concept of magic provides additional
insight into beliefs and practices such as
homeopathy that defy easy categorization,
especially in contemporary health care.
Spiritual or religious identities (e.g., religious
affiliation or attendance, beliefs, or practices)
may predict the use of CAM, and increased
spirituality may result from the use of particular
therapies. More telling perhaps is that the choice
to use a particular modality is not as easy or
straightforward as that of choosing a brand of a
multivitamin or some other supplement.
Consumers’ investment in alternative treatments
is suggestive of a more profound attachment that
goes well beyond normal health-seeking
behaviors (Evans et al., 2007 Mao, Palmer,
Healy, Desai, &Amsterdam, 2011).
Complicating matters further, many
contemporary homeopaths both distance
themselves from mainstream medicine and seek
out scientific validation. Regarding the former
position, Hahnemann specifically developed
homeopathy in reaction to his concerns about
existing medical knowledge and practice, which
homeopaths refer to by the pejorative allopathy,
from the Greek meaning “other suffering.” For
Hahnemann and his twenty-first-century
followers, allopathic medicines produced effects
opposite the symptoms of an illness and
involved treatments such as bleeding a person to
reduce fluids, and induced vomiting (Boyle,
2013). Although many homeopaths
acknowledge the benefits of modern medicine,
they nonetheless describe evidence-based
approaches such as clinical trials as allopathy (or
more recently, biomedicine). The use of the term
allopathy may seem innocent, if perhaps archaic,
but it is often used as a pejorative (Levy, 2016).
Despite distancing themselves from mainstream
medicine (allopathy/biomedicine), many
contemporary homeopaths nonetheless seek
scientific and medical legitimacy (Vigano,
Nannei, &Bellavite, 2015). Several journals
publish research regarding homeopathy. One of
the more popular journals is Homeopathy
(formerly the British Homoeopathic Journal),
which is published by Elsevier, one of the
biggest companies in academic publishing.
Although some homeopaths have attempted to
convert homeopathy to rational medical science
through the appropriation of scientific
discourses, they have been unsuccessful in
escaping a “spiritual and metaphysical view of
healing” (Haller, 2009, p. 113). Contemporary

International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol.10, 2019 35
homeopaths, for example, continue to emphasize
a homeopathic consultation’s spiritual benefits
(Brien, Lachance, Prescott, McDermott, &
Lewith, 2010).
Practical Magic
Magic is notoriously difficult to define,
especially in relation to religion. I make no
claims about the relationship between magic and
religion. Instead, I aim merely to discuss magic
as a category (regardless of whether it runs in
parallel to religion or should be subsumed under
the broader category). Of analytical interest to
me here is the notion of practical magic, which I
defined earlier as a set of practices used to
influence or protect the body by calling upon the
assistance of supernatural forces. My focus on
the body does not ignore the more transcendent
experiences associated with broader definitions
of magic but in the case of homeopathy and
other forms of CAM, it is necessary to focus on
the more technological experiences of magic,
especially those that primarily address concrete
concerns, such as bodily health.
Practical magic, as I define it here, has two
major components: (a) an attempt to come to
terms with the world in the absence of a
competent understanding of the natural sciences,
mimicking the struggles of premodern peoples
and (b) the manipulation of laws to produce
desired results, such as homeopathy’s “like
produces like.” In the latter case, the user of
practical magic is likely to engage in a
“scientificized” ritual that resembles an
evidence-based treatment plan by appearance
only. Additionally, it is worth noting that many
people may employ magic as a complement to
established science, or they may not see a
significant difference between magical and
scientific treatments.
Christopher Partridge argued that magic is part
of many peoples’ everyday experiences, even in
the face of scientific progress (Partridge, 2016).
In fact, one may argue that practical magic has
flourished with modern science as practitioners
and consumers inform themselves about clinical
trials and other science-like practices. Partridge
is not alone in noticing a flourishing of magic
and its casual invocations in consumers’ private
lives. For example, Paula Eleta described
magic's invasion of the public sphere toward the
end of the 1990s, and her ideas have since been
taken up in the study of New Age spiritualities
(Eleta, 1997). Partridge’s innovation, however,
was in taking a typically historical subject (the
study of esotericism) and noticing how little
separates, say, Renaissance magic from
contemporary magic (practical magic). The
point I want to highlight here is that we should
not be surprised that an ostensibly medical
system is imbued with all the lore, charms, and
miracles one would normally associate with past
forms of magic.
With the ubiquity of magic in mind, if we look
at homeopathy’s metaphysical character,
disconnected from how it is used as a mere
alternative to scientific medicine, it shares
features with more explicitly esoteric systems
because of its acknowledgment of an “other”
world or realm (Streib &Hood, 2013, p. 144).
For example, both magico-religious homeopathy
and its “scientific” cousin share a belief system
based in vitalism, Swedenborgianism (defined in
the following section), and other remnants of
esoteric thought. Although scientific or
academic homeopathy establishes its scientific
credentials via journals, experiments, and the
rhetoric of scientific authority, consumers do not
appear to be concerned with the distinction
between science and practical magic. The
consumer treats both worlds as real, or at the
very least, useful. In other words, as Eleta
argues, “In the eyes of some individuals, magic
appears to be a particularly ideal solution to their
health problems (relating to both ‘body and
soul’)” (Eleta 1997, p. 58). Many consumers
either fail to distinguish science and technology
from practical magic, or they do not care about
the distinction.
Both science and practical magic are free to be
co-opted, ignored, or combined with other
beliefs and practices. Similarly, many people
borrow or co-opt indigenous and popular
cultures, flattening history and context
(Possamai, 2012). Although homeopathy is not
an indigenous practice, it might be one of many
activities, such as astrology, naturopathy, reiki,
or spiritualism, with which a religious/health
consumer might engage, further illustrating the
diversity of paths open to individuals seeking