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
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
