Book Reviews / ARIES () –
Jesper Aagaard Petersen (ed.), Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology, Ashgate: Farnham—Burlington . xii + pp. ISBN: - ---.
After a plethora of monographs and anthologies about the so-called Satanism Scare, research on actual Satanism has finally gotten off the ground. Contem- porary Religious Satanism is the first larger collection of articles on the topic in English, and several more are presently on their way. Discussing definitions in his introduction, Jesper Aa. Petersen proposes to supplant a theological focus on Satanic beliefs with a discursive approach focus- ing on self-designation as a Satanist (a “speech-act”). Expanding on Colin Campbell’s notion of a “cultic milieu”, Petersen then isolates a “Satanic milieu” within it, which contains rationalist, esoteric and reactive sub-groups. He further identifies a dual process of dis-embedding and re-embedding, where “Satan” has become a floating signifier put to use in discursive battles. Most of this has subsequently been developed considerably in Petersen’s highly recom- mendable doctoral dissertation (defended in September ). In chapter one, Graham Harvey analyzes the Satanism of the Church of Satan (CoS) and the Temple of Set (ToS) as forms of self-spirituality (Paul Heelas’ characterization of the New Age movement), the shared basic project being to break free from socialization and return to our authentic nature. Based on a survey he conducted among UK ToS members in , Harvey observes that ‘Satanists like to project a sinister façade, but are actually very little different to their neighbors’ (p. ). This is probably quite true in many cases but is not—it is worth stressing—a general rule: Harvey bases his conclusions on a questionnaire with merely eleven respondents. It is for example hardly correct when it comes to the extremist group Order of the Nine Angles, which is also discussed briefly here. Incidentally, as research by Jacob Senholt has shown, this group does not, as Harvey claims, consist of a single individual (even though its founder is fond of using pseudonyms) and “Anton Long” is not the same person as “Christos Beest”. James R. Lewis’ ‘Infernal Legitimacy’ looks at the status of The Satanic Bible as a form of quasi-scripture in CoS. Lewis’ claim that LaVey ‘did not attempt to legitimate his new religion with appeals to tradition’ (p. ), and instead relied entirely on his charisma and the authority of science, is some- what over-simplified. As I have demonstrated in a forthcoming book chapter (‘De Facto Satanists and Secret Lineages: Anton LaVey’s Use of Esoteric Tra- dition’, in Granholm and Asprem’s volume Contemporary Esotericism), LaVey did in fact draw upon the appeal of (esoteric) tradition, albeit in an ambigu-
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, DOI: 10.1163/147783512X614894 Book Reviews / ARIES () – ous and tongue-in-cheek manner. This has diminished after LaVey’s death and Lewis’ analysis of how The Satanic Bible has become a tool for legiti- mation, and now itself effectively functions as “tradition” or “scripture”, is solid. Asbjørn Dyrendal devotes his chapter to further developing the concept of Satanism as self-spirituality, by making a detailed comparison between Heelas’ ideal type of the New Age and the Satanism of CoS and ToS. Dyrendal concludes that Satanism, just like New Age teachings, adopts many traits typical of late modernity but differs in that it also celebrates common practices (like stratification) that clash with values (in this case equality) that are typically stressed in mainstream society. The whole chapter is extremely methodical, thorough and clear. It is also very pleasing to see how Dyrendal steers clear of unfounded assumptions, for example concerning the effects that Satanic literature may be thought to have on real, individual Satanists. The following essay by Maxwell Davis, on the routinization of charisma in CoS, adds little to what James R. Lewis has already said about the topic, and relies heavily on extremely biased sources like Michael Aquino and Ole Wolf. The use of Weber as theoretical underpinning, without any real updates tothis classical and much debated model, seems a bit on the lazy side. Kennet Granholm’s chapter presents a tentative etic definition of the Left- Hand Path (LHP), based on emic understandings of the term, which he proposes can encompass groups like Dragon Rouge (DR), ToS and CoS. However, some of the elements in the definition seem to fit very badly with CoS. For example, “spiritual development” is hardly a primary concern among the carnally oriented LaVeyans. The goal of becoming a creator or god could be said to be metaphorically present, but this is not achieved “through initiatory processes”. That the definition is ill suited for CoS is not necessarily a huge problem, though. They themselves do not use the term LHP very frequently, and the common understanding of the term in the wider esoteric milieu refers mainly to groups that fit Granholm’s criteria perfectly. LHP is Granholm’s suggested alternative to labeling groups with the dreaded S-word, but the arguments presented for not considering DR as a Satanist movement are unconvincing. Granholm mentions the use of figures like Satan, Lucifer, Samael and Leviathan yet stresses ‘that the order’s understanding of these beings is very different from the one found in Christian contexts’ (p. ). However, that applies equally to almost all Satanic understandings of such figures. Further, the fact that what Granholm describes as the central and unifying symbol of the group, the Dragon, is consistently identified with Satan is passed over in silence.