Defining the New Age, its roots and usage as a cultural term, and the practices and beliefs it attempts to describe.
The term New Age describes a set of practices and beliefs; what follows is a brief history of new age, as well as a description of new age practices and beliefs.
The History of New Age
New Age grew out of the treatment revolutions of Emanuel Swedenborg, whose spiritualism became popular in the 1850s. Swedenborg claimed to communicate with spirits, and to travel through the spirit world. However, the language of New Age itself was more fully developed through the Theosophical Society, founded in 1875 by Madame Blavatsky. Much of this was borrowed from Eastern traditions, in particular Hinduism and Buddhism, but also Kabbalah. The Theosophical Society was founded to study spiritual phenomenon. From the techniques of Mesmer, Swedenbourg, G.I. Gurdjieff, and the more experiential teachings of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the New Age developed its practices.
There were a number of factors at play to account for the increasing popularity of New Age. Darwinism, as well as the increasing acceptability of atheism and secularity, saw some in the west turning away from Christianity. With a literacy rate exponentially increasing each year, the sudden distribution of alternative ideas about mind, body, spirit and cosmos through pamphlets and books, enabled a sudden influx of alternatives to the Judeo-Christian paradigm.
More recently, Aleister Crowley and Alice Bailey developed their own theories and practices, influencing subsequent generations of spiritual seekers. Alice Bailey, in fact, coined the term New Age in the sense we tend to use it, in her book Discipleship in the New Age, written in the 1950's. With Aleister Crowley we can credit the term "Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law", a battle-cry for freedom and liberty that wrung through two world wars, the 1960's counter-culture and can still be heard rallied out during Summer Solstice at Stonehenge.
New Age Practices
Sometimes repackaged with gleaming labels and obstreperous titles that even the most hardened semanticist would have difficulty penetrating, and sometimes manifest as sincere and integral expressions of religiosity without a buck or pound sign in sight, the vast majority of the practices and beliefs that make up the New Age are modern, largely Western, re-interpretations of ancient teachings and practices. Chakras, Shamanism, Meditation, Aromatherapy, Energy Healing and Visualisation are all staple parts of New Age belief and praxis whose roots expand into antiquity.
Who is "New Age"? Neo-Gnostics, Neo-Pagans, the practical Occultists, Environmentalists, Reiki practitioners and Urban Shamans, often appear under the New Age umbrella, yet would never refer to themselves as such. "New Age" has become an outsider term, used to group wide and varied practices under one simple heading.
The signs and symbols which make up the New Age are largely public; yet the meaning, interpretation and active understanding of these terms and the knowledge, and the practical experience of the techniques embodied within it, are the territory of the insider who may or may not (probably the latter) refer to themselves as New Age. In our pop culture, "New Age" has become an easy way to define a diverse range of practices and symbols without adequately making sense of their nuances and shared elements.
Encoded with indications of time and change, this term New Age, and its associated concepts -- the age of Aquarius, the Aeon of Horus or the Kali-Yuga -- seem to describe well the fierce and sudden changes incumbent upon our species, our consciousness and our environment. Whatever criticisms remain from a deeper analysis of the New Age 'movement', a fair assessment of its manifestations can reveal a body of doctrine and belief that is an expansive and coherent alternative to dominant paradigms and modern cultural narratives about the mind, the body, the spirit and the wider universe. This requires an open mind and sometimes an open heart. But through thinking for yourself, and questioning all authority, one can arrive at a strong sense that the dominant discourses describing the world are missing vital details that the New Age, and some of its more secret and subtle faces, can provide.
The copyright of the article New Age Definitions in New Age is owned by Tristram Burden. Permission to republish New Age Definitions must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Sep 11, 2006 11:32 AM
Tristram Burden
:
As a term, does New Age effectively describe a group of practices and beliefs of use to insiders, or is it just a marketing tool? What distinguishes New Age from modern esotericism?
Oct 5, 2006 7:28 AM
Judy M Merrill
:
Someone who acknowledges themselves as 'new age' accepts any and all random theories that pass along the path of literature and/or belief. There is no grounding base that says this is too far out or in. It just accepts.
There is no platform to promelgate their message, but are not shy to use another group's resources for this purpose.
God bless, J
Oct 16, 2006 10:32 AM
Pink
:
. I've never been quite able to figure it out; but, I remember when its use first came into vogue. . It's one of those code words that are used by the recalcitrant conservatives--who want society to turn back to the past--as labels to throw a blanket of silence over anyone and everyone who won't get into line with them. Liberal and postmodern are two other terms that are employed in the same way.
Oct 16, 2006 2:20 PM
Tristram Burden
:
Works well. There are a variety of terms which fall into this category. Another favourite of mine is 'conspiracy'. As a cultural code-word, it denotes a paranoid theory based on uncredible sources, whereas in proper english uses, it indicates the coming together of minds in order to change a situation, whether political, institutional or what have you. Which includes every activity in the human sphere as we area nd always have been an interdependant species.
'Conspiracy': it's relegation to a term denoting paranoia and unsubstantiated fact results in the very discussion of any 'consipracy' to be something not taken seriously, while the history of the world can easily be interpreted as the history of secret societies. Words like 'alternative', 'insane' and even 'nice' fall into the same category. Short-cuts to an ontological decision which on close inspection reveal nothing about the actual state of existence of a thing.
New Age is another term which blankets anyone labeled such as an uncredible source of existential information, thereby culturally blackballing all they have to say to everyone except the insiders. Another cheap trick from the High Priests of Language Barriers.
Oct 18, 2006 10:17 AM
Tristram Burden
:
Sorry, spiritalk, didn't respond to this message!
To say New Age practitioners accept all and any random beleif they come across is a exageration, but there is a propensity for this style of spiritual practice to encompass many beliefs and materials. To also say it just accepts... I would say the grounding philosophies that birthed the new age were rooted in quite the opposite of blind acceptance, but rather relentless questioning at the accepted truths in consensus culture and society.
To also say there is no platform for 'their' message...
As demonstrated, close analysis of the New Age reveals no 'they' and perhaps even no central message specific to a group or movement, except maybe the inherent plurality of human experience and the consequent need to rely upon personal experience as authority over the accepted dogmas of other individuals. Not to say that different movements within the New Age aren't susceptable to the same schisms, egocentricity and hypocrisy that all religious movements, nay human endeavours, are susceptable to. But the grounding philosophies of New Age are pluralistic, indicating more the acceptance of others beliefs, while not necessarily feeling an automatic need to accomodate them within a personal religiosity.
This brings us back to the original question, whether New Age is a valid description of contemporary spiritualities, one answer being perhaps that it is a valid description for a 'collective' of contemporary spiritualities, but not a valid description for a cohesive and consitent pattern of ideology and practice. Regarding New Age as the latter remains misleading, as it is only descriptive as an umbrella term, encompassing many different spiritualities within the same rubric of authority - ie, personal experience, but sometimes different practices, techniques, different views of history and culture and varying degrees of confidence in varying messages of prophecy! So real cohesion within New Age could be, if you will, a marketability glamour, and only truly evident within its roots. E.g. Theosophy, New Thought or the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.
Oct 19, 2006 11:08 AM
Judy M Merrill
:
I function in what is considered a peripheral religion, philosophy, practice and to say that new age is not focused and/or intent upon disrupting the already organized would be to dismiss my personal experience.
New Age is not organized. There is no religion, philosophy, science, etc. that would actually have followers, as such. Of that I could agree (using Theosophy and New Thought as the base for some of the beliefs in New Age is to understand the position of these actualy groups and organizations).
Along with the open minded approach to every item that appeared for investigation stemming from the Aquarian Age movement to Shirley MacLaine's journey, there is a definite move to remove people from orthodox followings. People are just not joiners in this current wave of 'me generation' thinkers.
Everything is about what can be given to them with absolutely NO regard to giving back. In the past human beings understood the importance of the law of abundance...what we put out we will get back. Also, what we take, we must return.
Without an organization of thought to go to for definition and/or explanations a lot of random ideas tend to enter society under the title of New Age. And a lot of truly organized and evolving organizations (some of which referenced in your historical matter) have had to deal with this fall out of misinformation and/or misdirection.
God bless, J
Oct 23, 2006 12:54 PM
Tristram Burden
:
Regarding general selfishness and vagueness of some practitioner's experienced within a segment of society people term New Age, I think it's possible here to begin talking about legitimate and non-legitimate spiritualities. Legitimacy being the succes of a particular practice, or practiotioner, at actually achieving the desired refiniement of consciousness, behaviour and intimate knowing of self which most spiritualities, in distinction to religions, purport to do. Within many of the 'borrowed' practices and theories, these are core attainments, for example Buddhism, contributing towards empowerment of the self, gnosis, enlightentment or whatever other words are used to describe its particular 'axe'. Very often, jealousy, selfishness and egotism negate success in achieving expansion of consiousness, and the wisdom innately 'advertised' if you will, by certain spiritualities relative to the New Age. In the absence of these positive effects, a total ground zero of the self being another desirous outcome, it is possible to say that the particular practitioner is just not having much success with their spirituality, perhaps?
Or that their spiritualiy is lacking a certain depth to be effective?
Oct 23, 2006 1:19 PM
Tristram Burden
:
Something else I forgot to respond to within the message, about the me generation and the not paying back. This is almost a cutural trend, evident in a white-washing of contact with the ancestors, relegating them at best to either an item of archeaological curiosity, or as a re-inforcement of self-importance in the now. There certainly seems to be a lack of veneration, respect and acknowledgement of gifts (as well as the curses) of those that came before us, and a reluctance to take responsibility for what they did. This is perhaps the primary weakness in taking beliefs from here and there, pan-globally, without having nurturing and indiginous roots within one's own 'clan' that can be carried forward along with it. But as for organisation and authority, I feel this is something relatively new on such a wide scale as held by Islam, certain streams of Christianity and perhaps Theravada Buddishm. Not even two thousand years old, in most cases. Belief and spirtuality have usually depended upon the authority of experience, religion however, has usually been dependent upon the authority of the Priest. In an age where few were literate, and where few had the luxury or leisure (or money or breeding?!?!?) to learn the secrets of priestcraft, this is understandable. But as we are now in an age where many more are literate, information is widely diseminated about a great many different things, the authority has returned to the self, and people have a right to choice, and have a right to question. The primary problem with Orthodoxy in the modern era, and perhaps noticeable with people over the last hundred or so years, is its instant flavour of being retrogressive, while experiencing so many different changes within modern culture, a spirituality perhaps needs to look as far forward as the mind is want-to in the face of the uncertainty of the times. It is perhaps also true that this very uncertainty is turning people back onto fundamentalism - either way, as things shake, so inevitably will people superficially appear more polarised, and movements seem very categorised between the orthodox and the heterodox, the personal and the communal, and the Priest led and the Guru manifest. As times change, messages which may have been spoken for millenia, will need to change their medium, but I remain convinced that in the moern era, personal experience and sound judgement and independent thought are the only real trustable authorities available.
Oct 24, 2006 7:41 AM
Judy M Merrill
:
While thinking for oneself is the most valid of growth potentials, we might consider the grounding in spirituality that thought has attained. Just to be kind to one another seems to be a lost art.
In a 'me' generation, only self gratification is key and selfishness has never had the potential for growth.
God bless, J
Nov 2, 2006 12:10 PM
Richard Kent Matthews
:
Selfishness is the natural way of things. It is only out of selfishness that anything can grow. Selfishness is a direct result of the survival instinct. Each individual is the Center of the Universe, as it were, and everything else spokes out from the individual center. In order to grow spiritually, one must elect to do so; even that is a selfish process: what's in it for me? Why should I make the effort? Is considering others in my own best interest? If I see that it is, if I am made to understand that serving the community is ultimately beneficial, I am more apt to go in that direction. But if I do not believe that, I will remain in-turned, greedy, and useless to the culture. But first and foremost, I am selfish. It is a grand quality, not something to be eliminated. It is the ground of all altruism.
