The New Age

I remember the first time I heard the clever little saying, “New Age rhymes with sewage.”  I thought, “yeah, that’s so apt, because not only does it allow me to feel superior to others’ beliefs, but it also encapsulates my beliefs about the world in a clever almost-rhyme.”

The New Age movement is an outgrowth of the New Thought movement of the late 19th century.  New Thought taught, among many other things we’ll get to in a moment, that our thoughts created our reality, and that sickness was the result of wrong-thinking.  If you thought negative thoughts, you would manifest negative reality.

This kind of new thought is intimately tied to the philosophies of the Theosophists, and we postmodern occultists owe a debt to this position, as well as that of the newer New Age movement.

If I had to summarize New Age off the top of my head, doing no sort of fieldwork or anything, I suppose I’d put it this way.  New Agers believe a constellation of the following beliefs, more or less:

1.  The world is entering a new historical period, in which people will become in some way more spiritual and less material.

2.  Thoughts create our reality, and you choose — consciously or unconsciously — the reality you wish to live in by thinking certain thoughts.

3.  God is more of an impersonal but benevolent force.

4.  Reincarnation.

5.  Aliens?  Angels?  New evolution of humanity?  Any number or cluster of such things insofar as it appeals to the individual.

For the most part, I have no particular objection to any of this, other than perhaps the lack of critical thinking sometimes evidenced in the last one, which seems to sweep whole shelves of nonsense into the shopping cart indiscriminately.  But really, even that — when you think about it, it’s just saying “Here is a set of metaphors or symbols that explain something to me.”  Seen that way, belief in aliens is no more odd than belief in gods or belief in economic systems.  I don’t have to buy it to respect your right to plop down your quarter.

The only serious beef I have with New Agers is the idea that we choose our own reality to such an extent that we are therefore responsible for bad stuff that happens to us.  Most people, when pressed, will admit that this kind of blaming the victim lacks compassion and back away from it, but others will simply bite the philosophical bullet, saying “they must have done something terrible in a past life.”  I once heard someone suggest that the only reason an acquaintance came down with cancer is that she wasn’t “manifesting love” in her life.

That is some low stuff right there.  It’s a pernicious idea, but not necessarily embodied in the teaching itself.  After all, we often do experience misfortune because we have made choices that led to it.  That doesn’t mean we’re necessarily culpable for that misfortune or somehow deserving of it.  And it can help to endure misfortune to see it as a lesson, but that doesn’t mean that we should lecture people about the lessons they should be learning.

The problem arises when people say such things as “it must be her karma” to mean “thank god it’s not mine!”  That’s fleeing from human compassion into religion, and it’s just as bad as when any other religious person does it.  That tendency to find a reason why it couldn’t happen to you is where the real problem lies.

So New Age might rhyme with lots of stuff, but the snooty superiority of looking down upon it because it doesn’t match my particular standards of critical thinking . . . well, I’m just out of the energy for that sort of thing.  Yes, there can be seriously pernicious philosophical implications to an unsophisticated reading of some of these ideas; that’s true of pretty much everything from Capitalism to Christianity, my own Paganism very much included.  I see no reason to single out the New Age movement, and really, can’t we just find a better rhyme?



5 Responses to “The New Age”

  1. A slightly less blamey but no less callous version of “they must have thought negative things and therefore brought bad things on themselves” is “they must have chosen this”.

    • Fear will always respond inappropriately. Take any disaster, any corner of confusion and there you’ll find someone desperately trying to find reason. Most formal religious institutes have loads to say on natural disasters in countries not populated with their churches – funny that……

  2. The criticism of the New Age is, as you suggest, valid but not unique.

    Members of other streams of religious thought can have equally callous approaches. I was once told that the tsunami hit Southeast Asia because of their evil religious practices (I won’t give the details on the religious affiliation, because this can be found in any religion).

    However, some New Age subscribers do approach their areas of study in uncritical and careless ways:

    – There is a poorly understood and casual mixing of transcendent and immanent religious practices in a willy-nilly, grab-bag approach.
    – There are spurious claims and outright lies mixed with actual experiences. (I’m looking at you, Carlos Castaneda, but not only at you.)
    – There is a general lack of understanding (though there are exceptions) of the long traditions that the practitioners are actually following.

    The reason for members of the occult community to single out possible dangers amid New Age practices is not smug superiority, but because of the historical relationship between the two.

    These are not strangers passing on the street, but (intellectual) relatives. If they believe differently, that’s fine. But if they’re getting suckered, or even put in danger, then there is some obligation there. Were the positions reversed (and sometimes they are!) I am sure they would do the same.

  3. The other problems with terms like ‘New Age’ is that it suggests a homogenous, static group of people (‘them’) who are not as good as ‘us’ – this ignores both the reality and possibility that arises from a multiple and process orientated view of the universe (and people) and is, IMHO, rarely a helpful position for anyone to get stuck in. Great article and a nice counter to rants like this Peter writes a nice polemic but takes things too seriously in my view.

  4. Sorry should have signed off ‘Julian Vayne’ 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: