“Superstition.” Historians, folklorists, anthropologists, scholars of religion have long critiqued the term, and taught our students to do so as well. Always unavoidably ascriptive, it functions to divide: true religion from primitive magic, right reason from blind faith, “us” from “other.” Whether deployed by Stoic philosophers against the silly practices of the plebians, by medieval urban Catholics against rural “pagans,” by early modern Protestants against Catholics, by Victorian scholars against colonized and Indigenous peoples, or (across millennia) by men against the beliefs and practices of “old wives” and women more generally, the category of “superstition” is a weapon of domination and marginalization.
“Superstition.” Human rights activists, disability activists, advocates for the elderly or for children languishing in “witch camps” have recently deployed the term to great pragmatic effect. Organizations such as the #Maharashtra Blind Faith Eradication Committee in India and Advocacy for Alleged Witches in Nigeria shame the accusers of alleged witches as “superstitious.” By doing so, they forge alliances with international humanist movements, align themselves with the language of human rights organizations forged in the Enlightenment tradition, and effect policy changes to the benefit of the demonized. In a historical twist, the category of “superstition” can be a weapon of the marginalized against domination, violence, and dehumanization.
Contributions from junior scholars, and from scholars writing from and/or about historically marginalized communities, are especially welcome.
If interested, please send an abstract of about 100-150 words to MRW co-editor Michael Ostling by February 28, 2024, at michael.ostling@asu.edu, or contact us with questions.
Full drafts of those contributions accepted for inclusion in the Discussion Forum will be due June 30, 2024. Anticipated publication in Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft volume 20.1 (Spring 2025).
Discussion Forum pieces tend to be short (2000-4000 words) and conversational. While they may be theoretically sophisticated and grounded in detailed scholarship, they should also be accessible to audiences across a wide range of disciplines and positionalities: historians and sociologists, philosophers and activists, policy actors and ethnographers. Please write accordingly.
Michael Ostling
