What’s Alternative about Alternative Rationality in CAS-E’s Definition of ‘Esotericism’?

Abstract

The guiding proposal for the ‘Alternative Rationalities and Esoteric Practices from a Global Perspective’ project (CAS-E) offers both a particular definition of ‘esotericism’ and an approach to the process of definition itself. This commentary first briefly compares this definition and approach to our parallel definitional work. The CAS-E definition begins by taking “contemporary scientific and technological discourse as a global foil.” This leads to a definition based on four criteria: (i) esotericisms aim “to identify and influence present and future life events”; (ii) they “assume special knowledge”; (iii) they emphasis “forms of (ritual) efficacy”; and (iv) they are “alternative rationalities,” that are “contested and precarious” in relation to dominant discourses, especially natural science. We raise critical questions about this fourth definitional criterion, calling for further clarification, and suggesting that it might be usefully framed as a meta-criterion that holds the others together.