Gurdjieff and the Fourth Way: Giving Voice to Further Alterity in the Study Ofwestern Esotericism Davidpecotic
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Gurdjieff and the Fourth Way: Giving Voice to Further Alterity in the Study ofWestern Esotericism DavidPecotic Introduction The last half of the twentieth century saw the gradual but steady burgeoning of work on the various permutations of what Francis Yates, as the most famous exemplar of this development, called 'the Hermetic tradition' or what others have almost as influentially classed with the set of 'alternative religions' of the West, under the general rubric of the humanities, Le., scholarship governed by rules of ratiocination, or dependence upon data that can be shared, evidence that can be evaluated, and judgments that can be assessed by others.! This drift away from starkly apologetic and polemic treatments ofsuch religious traditions has lead to an appreciation of their contributions to the making of modemity.2 Recently this trajectory has culminated in a new generation G. Lease, 'What are the Humanities and Why do they Matter? The Case of Religion and the Public Life', Bulletin ofthe Council ofSocieties for the Study ofReligion, 1998, Vol. 27, No. 4, p. 93. 2 A comprehensive examination ofthe history behind this development lies outside the scope ofthis exploratory study. However, I feel that it would be useful for the reader unfamiliar with the field to briefly and in a limited fashion identify studies that have been part of this revaluation. Francis Yates has already been mentioned; her argument for the pivotal role of 'the Hennetic tradition' in the birth of modern science was first presented in Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, Chicago, 1964. The so-called 'Yates thesis' has been tentatively accepted in a historically revised and weak form by contemporary historians of science; cl H.F. Cohen~ The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry~ Chicago~ 1994, pp. 169-183. Other germinal figures focusing on the 'magic' complex and early modem studies include W. Schumaker, The Occult Sciences in the Renaissance; A Study of Intellectual Patterns, Berkeley, 1972; K. Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic. Studies in Popular Belief in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century England, London, 1973; and most recently S. J. Tambiah, Magic, science, religion, and the scope of rationality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990. C. Mclntosh, Eliphas Lev; and the French Occult Revival, London, 1972 and The Rosicrucians. The History and Mythology of an Occult Order, Wellingborough, 1987; J. Webb, The Occult Underground, La Salle, 1974 and The Occult Establishment, Glasgow, Gurdjieffand the Fourth Way of scholars who regard their sum as an object of study in its own right, an epistemic shift reminiscent of the emergence of a scholarly study of religion in the nineteenth century and with which these scholars have self-consciously aligned themselves. 1 This realization among a number of scholars has seen an increased tendency toward wider consultation about and institutionalization of 'western esotericism,' seen to be both a newly emergent subdiscipline and an integral research programme.2 Such an alliance, while strategic, is far from straightforward. In identifying with religious studies, the study of western esotericism recapitulates and becomes caught up in the very same debates through which religion became the object of Western scholarly research. The identity ofother fields does not depend (solely) on the study ofreligion; ipso facto, the broadly scientific study of western esotericism, like the ancestral 'science of religion' before it, will also become, to borrow from Clifford Geertz, 'a conflicted discipline, perpetually in search of ways to escape its condition, perpetually failing to find them'.3 The 1976, have contributed to the historiography of post-Enlightenment developments, with varying degrees ofpolemic, particularly virulent in Webb's case. For more on the ways in which religion became the object of scientific research in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries see A. L. Molendijk and P. Pels, Religion in the Making: The Emergence ofthe Sciences ofReligion, Leiden, 1998. I will look at the problematic question of 'disciplinarity' in religion studies and consequently western esotericism later in this paper. 2 In summary, there are now two academic chairs devoted to western esotericism: the 'History ofesoteric and mystical currents in modem and contemporary Europe' since 1979 in the fifth section of the Ecole Practique des Hautes Etudes in Paris; and, since 1999, the 'History of Hennetic Philosophy and Related Currents' at the University of Amsterdam. In addition, the latter has established the world's first complete (sub)department within the auspices of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies. Initiatives devoted more to sub-categories of the field have been organised by international academic organizations, such as the American Academy of Religion (AAR). On the other hand, esotericism as a total field has been included by the International Association for the History of Religions (lAHR) since its seventeenth Congress in 1995. For a more comprehensive history, see A. Faivre and K.-C. Voss, 'Western Esotericism and the Science of Religion', Numen, 1995, Vo!. 42, No. 1, pp. 48-77; W. Hanegraaff, 'Introduction,' in A. Faivre and W. Hanegraaff, Western Esotericism and the Science ofReligion, Peeters, Leuven, 1998 (Hanegraaff, 1998a); and Afdeling Theologie en Religiestudies, History ofHermetic Philosophy and Related Currents: Report 1999-2000, Amsterdam, 2001. 3 C. Geertz, 'Culture War', The New York Review ofBooks, 1995, Vol. 14, No. 19, p. 4. 87 Esotericism andthe Control ofKnowledge purpose of this exploratory study, then, is to explore the categories of western esotericism rather as sites of contestation by questioning aspects of the disciplinary consensus arrived at thus far and to give voice to muted discourses within the field. The constitution of imagination as the central element of esoteric discourse has become foundational to this consensus. Of the esotericist voices which speak otherwise, that of the little-studied Russian-born esotericists G.I Gurdjieff and P.D. Ouspensky will be presented here. Terms Of Reference And A Cursory Examination Of The State Of Research The author assumes on behalf of the interested generalist only a fleeting acquaintance with all but the most exotic, topical and tenuous elements of contemporary esotericism, such as the New Age and Wicca, for example. l Even those aware of the consolidating developments in the study of western esotericism may be unfamiliar with P.D. Ouspensky (1878-1947), his significant contribution to a constellation of esoteric doctrines and practices known collectively as the 'Fourth Way', and his relationship to another important though little-studied esotericist, G. I. Gurdjieff (1886?-1949).2 Given this situation and the still marginalised space of esotericism in the academy as a whole, what will be attempted here is a brief preliminary heuristic orientation to the terms that will be used and to those elements ofresearch in this field useful to this study. The 'Fourth Way' If the study of western esotericism can still be regarded as embryonic, comprehensive academic treatments of the 'Fourth Way' are even more See W. Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought, Leiden, 1996 and B. Ankarloo and S. Clark (eds.), Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: The Twentieth Century, Philadelphia, 1999, respectively. 2 So little studied is Gurdjieff that even his date of birth has not been established to any satisfaction, hence the question mark; 1886 was adduced by Gurdjieffs most recent biographer, who also discusses the alternative dates of birth. See J. Moore, GurdjiefJ: The Anatomy ola Myth, London, 1991, pp. 339-340. 88 Gurdjiejfand the Fourth Way nascent, and it would be fair to say that most studies still fall into either the apologetic or the polemic. Again, historiography is also just beginning. Unfortunately, given the limitations of this study, this is not the place to make an assessment or anything but the briefest ofhistorical accounts.! Rather, from the literature I will distil a brief preliminary heuristic definition that others can attempt to falsify. Any reader who wishes to engage with the extant literature should consult W.J. Driscoll, Gurdjieff: An Annotated Bibliography, New York, 1985, but should bear in mind its apologetic cast (of a distinctively 'heresiological' nature), produced as it was under the auspices of The Gurdjieff Foundation, which was established to preserve (or, as others in the Fourth Way would argue, embalm; for example, see the 'unorthodox Gurdjeffean', J.G. Bennett, Witness: The Story ofa Search, London, 1962, p. 233) the teachings of Gurdjieff from vulgariZJition and 'deflection' from their 'original' intent. Verifiable information about Gurdjieffs dates only from his arrival in Moscow in 1911; he was in Russia and Georgia until 1920, emigrating to western Europe via Istanbul. In 1922 Gurdjieff and his followers moved to Fontainebleau, south ofParis, where he established the Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man and which operated into the late 1930s. He visited the United States in 1924, were he also found followers, and again in 1930. For the decade 1924 to 1934 Gurdjieffdedicated himself to writing books to communicate his ideas. From the early 1930s until his death in 1949 Gurdjieff lived in Paris, with occasional trips to America. The scarcity of reliable information about him and the Fourth Way in general is evidence of