Rites and condition of the performer
- On the Web:
- Ancient Origins - In Medieval England, Magic Was A Service Industry (Mar. 21, 2025)
Because magic is based on performance, ritual and the magician’s knowledge and ability play a significant role in its efficacy. The performance of magic also presumes an audience, either the spiritual forces addressed, the patient-client, or the community. Both the magician and the rite itself are concerned with the observance of taboos and the purification of the participants. Magicians, like priests presiding over religious rituals, observe restrictions of diet or sexual activity to demarcate the rite from ordinary and profane activities and to invest it with sanctity. Modern magicians’ success with entertaining audiences is dependant primarily on their performance skills in manipulating material objects to create an illusion.
Functions
Foremost among the many roles magic plays are its “instrumental” and “expressive” functions. Based in the attempt to influence nature or human behaviour, magic’s instrumental function is measured by its efficacy in achieving the desired result. Anthropologists identify three main types of instrumental magic: the productive, the protective, and the destructive. Productive magic is employed to solicit a successful outcome from human labour or nature, such as bountiful hunt or harvest or good weather. Protective magic aims to defend an individual or community from the vagaries of nature and the evil of others. The use of amulets to ward off contagious diseases or the recitation of charms before a journey are examples of this protective function. Lastly, destructive magic, or sorcery, is intended to harm others, often is motivated by envy, and is socially disruptive. Consequently, the use of countermagic against sorcery may relieve some social tension within a community.
Magic’s expressive function results from the symbolic and social meanings attached to its practices, though its performers may not necessarily be aware of this function. Magic can provide a sense of group identity through shared rituals that give power or strength to members. At the same time, it can isolate the magician as a special person within or on the margins of society. Magic can also serve as a creative outlet or form of entertainment. It is, therefore, inseparable from the total system of thought, belief, and practice in a given society.
Definitional issues: magic, religion, and science
The term magic cannot be defined in isolation because of its broad parameters, important role in many societies, and interactions with related phenomena. Magic is a generic label used by outsiders (theoretically, objective observers) to describe specific practices in societies in which this word or its conceptual equivalent may not even exist. As a result, diverse phenomena are lumped together on the assumption that they operate in the same way. This artificial construct of magic also exists only in relation to what it is not—primarily, religion and science as alternate modes of rationality. Such definitions of magic privilege cultures with a strong scientific orientation and stigmatize those that practice magic instead of religion. Consequently, defining magic and identifying magicians requires an understanding of the cultural contexts in which these labels are used.
Although magic has an ambiguous relationship with Western religion and science, it is rooted in the main institutional, social, and intellectual traditions in Western history. Moreover, modern attempts to arrive at a universal definition of magic reflect a Western bias. In particular, 18th- and 19th-century views on cultural and historical evolution set magic apart from religion and science. In a model developed by the British anthropologist Sir James Frazer (1854–1941), magic is characterized as an early stage in human development, superseded first by religion and then by science. The debate over the relationship between magic, religion, and science that dominated much of the discussion about magic throughout the 20th century is evident in the fieldwork of anthropologists, the theories of sociologists of religion, and critiques by postmodernists. Consequently, research in comparative religions, history, and anthropology in the second half of the 20th century moved away from the evolutionary model toward more context-sensitive interpretations, while other studies developed new models for cross-cultural comparison. Nonetheless, the magic-religion-science model retains considerable interpretive power, and the dichotomies used to distinguish magic from religion or science are pervasive in popular discourse.
Magic and religion
Magic continues to be widely perceived as an archaic worldview, a form of superstition lacking the intrinsic spiritual value of religion or the rational logic of science. Religion, according to seminal anthropologist Sir Edward Burnett Tylor (1832–1917), involves a direct, personal relationship between humans and spiritual forces; in religion’s highest form, that relationship is with a personal, conscious omnipotent spiritual being. Magic, on the other hand, is characterized as external, impersonal, and mechanical, involving technical acts of power. Magic seeks to manipulate spiritual powers, while religious prayer supplicates spiritual forces, a distinction explored by Bronisław Malinowski (1884–1942) in his work on the Trobriand Islanders. Moreover, according to Émile Durkheim (1858–1917), religion is communal because its adherents, bound together by shared belief, form a church. Magic, on the other hand, involves no permanent ties between believers and only temporary ties between individuals and the magicians who perform services for them. The fieldwork of A.R. Radcliffe-Brown (1881–1955) among the Andaman Islanders, however, has made clear that magic, too, may have a communal dimension.
Magic and science
Although magic is similar in some respects to science and technology, it approaches efficacy (the ability to produce a desired material outcome) differently. Magic, like religion, is concerned with invisible, nonempirical forces; yet, like science, it also makes claims to efficacy. Unlike science, which measures outcomes through empirical and experimental means, magic invokes a symbolic cause-effect relationship. Moreover, like religion and unlike science, magic has an expressive function in addition to its instrumental function. Magical rainmaking strategies, for example, may or may not be efficacious, but they serve the expressive purpose of reinforcing the social importance of rain and farming to a community.
Subcategories of magic
The view of magic as pre-religious or nonscientific has contributed both to subtle distinctions between magic and other practices and to the recognition of subcategories of magic. Notably, anthropologists distinguish magic from witchcraft, defining the former as the manipulation of an external power by mechanical or behavioral means to affect others and the latter as an inherent personal quality that allows the witch to achieve the same ends. However, the line between the two is not always clear, and in some parts of the world an individual may operate in both ways. Similarly, the distinction between "black" magic and "white" magic is obscure since both practices often use the same means and are performed by the same person. Scholars also distinguish between magic and divination, whose purpose is not to influence events but to predict or understand them. Nevertheless, the mystical power of diviners may be thought to be the same as that behind magic. Ultimately, despite these distinctions and the variety of unique roles that practitioners play in their own societies, most end up classified under the universal term magician. Often even religious figures such as priests, shamans, and prophets are identified as magicians because many of their activities include acts defined as "magical" by modern scholars.
In the end, distinctions between magic and religion or science are harder to make in practice than in theory; scholars therefore use labels such as magico-religious to describe activities or persons who cross this artificial dividing line. Similarly, the boundary between magic and science is permeable, since the modern scientific method (observation and experimentation) evolved from forms of scientific magic such as alchemy and astrology. Thus, the evolutionary model, which draws sharp distinctions between magic, religion, and science, cannot account for the essential similarity between various phenomena. Moreover, dichotomies that define magic in relation to other phenomena are reductionist, often ignoring the meaningful structures and beliefs that inform these practices in their native context.
Conceptual history
The claim that magic is found in all human societies rests on a definition that is rooted in Western cultural assumptions, and both these assumptions and the use of the term magic have undergone change over time and place. Consequently, to understand beliefs and practices in other societies that appear similar to European magic, it is necessary to apply the context-sensitive and comparative methods that become increasingly important in the study of anthropology, history, and religion.
