Another “Intellectual Moron”: Stephanie von Schnurbein and Academic Machwerk
Another “Intellectual Moron”: Stephanie von Schnurbein and Academic Machwerk
By Edred
An “intellectual moron” is someone who is blinded from any rational thought or analysis by ideological preconceptions and prejudices. In times and places where intellectual purity is required—e.g, the Christian Middle Ages, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or present-day American academia—as long as the ideological template is in harmony with the prevailing intellectual orthodoxy, such moronic efforts can pass for brilliance within the narrow confines of the establishment in question.
In a 2003 article in the journal History of Religions, Stefanie von Schnurbein makes a number of inaccurate, outrageous, and sometimes downright silly comments on my work. I take the opportunity to respond to this article, while at the same time pointing out this insidious phenomenon of intellectual stupidity.
The title of Schnurbein’s article is “Shamanism in the Old Norse Tradition: A Theory between Ideological Camps.” Despite the promising and intriguing title, she manages to miss the opportunity to analyze the ideas of these two “camps,” especially as regards the theme of current neo-shamanistic practice. One of the main reason she manages to miss this opportunity is the apparent fact that she had no interest in investigating her subject very deeply.
Schnurbein never wrote me to ask for further information, nor did she ever talk to any of my teachers—one of whom was a professor at the university at which she herself studied. Of my approximately forty published works, she only makes use of one from which to draw her conclusions in this article. Additionally, it must be said that she uses that one source poorly and with a combination of ignorance and prejudice.
In what follows my comments are in square brackets. Here are a few quotes from Schnurbein’s article which bear scrutiny.
“At around the same time [late 1980s], a similar attempt to establish Seid as a shamanic practice emerged in the U.S. neo-Germanic pagan group Ring of Troth. It can be assumed [!] that the founder of the group, Edred Thorsson, aka Stephen Flowers, a key figure in the international movement of Neo-Germanic paganism, gave the impetus after a stay in Europe, in which he also had contact with Yggdrasil.” [I do not think that I gave the impetus to “shamanism” in the Neo-Germanic movement. I supported it, but commented rarely and only superficially on it. Such work that I had done certainly predated the founding of the Ring of Troth, and my contacts in Europe in this particular area were casual at best.]
In a note to the quote above Schnurbein reports that a member of the Swedish group Yggdrasil “assumes that this (re)invention of Seid in the United States developed independently from its predecessors in Sweden.” Schnurbein comments that “this seems unlikely, considering that Flowers, before introducing the shamanic techniques of Seid in the U.S. Ring of Troth was in contact with members of Yggdrasil….” [Well, the Swedish source was indeed correct, and Schnurbein is simply wrong. First, my own experiential work with “shamanism” dates from years before either the founding of the Ring of Troth or my sojourn in Europe. It was derived from Eliade, Harner, and original sources. Second, I did not overtly introduce neo-shamanism into the Ring of Troth; this was done by others, although I certainly had no reason to oppose it. Diana Paxson is the one primarily responsible for making neo-shamanism such a prominent part of the activities in the present-day Ring of Troth.]
In another note Schnurbein alleges that in the book Northern Magic, “[Thorsson] uses the popularity of the shamanism concept in order to market his own, quite völkisch-racist understanding of Northern magic. From the first to the second edition, he changed the title of his Northern Magic from Mysteries of the Norse, Germans, and English to Rune Mysteries and Shamanism, adding, with the words ‘rune’ and ‘shamanism,’ two buzzwords that clearly make the book interesting to a wider audience.” [Schnurbein seems to be a refined wielder of “buzzwords” herself. First, she in no way factually establishes how or why she interprets my approach as “quite völkisch-racist.” She simply knows that in the present-day academy her assertion will be eagerly accepted without question. This knowledge makes the would-be scientist intellectually lazy. Also, what she did not know, but which a little research would have disabused her of, is the fact that I did not change the title—the publisher did. In the text of the book in question, which it seems Schnurbein did not read very carefully, the following passage appears under the discussion of “seith” and it is the only time I even mention the word “shamanism”:
“Seith has many things in common with modern neo-shamanism. The recent upsurge in interest in the shamanism of exotic peoples may be rooted in a remanifestation of similar impulses inherited from our own ancestors. If this is so, it might be helpful to investigate our own ancestral forms of magic—to seek within—before running away seeking for exotic solutions.”
Clearly I do not identify seith with shamanism. They are not alike enough to be equated scientifically. Therefore it could be said that her whole inclusion of this work in her discussion was rather suspect to begin with, as this is about the only mention of the word “shamanism” in the entire book.
This fact does not deter the determined Schnurbein, however. She goes on to say: “Flowers/Thorsson takes this figure of thought much further, linking Norse shamanism directly to the genetic heritage of the Germanics, or the ‘Aryans,’ and as a consequence suggesting that Norse shamanism should be practiced as an expression of an ‘ancestral path.’” [On page 160 of the first edition of the book in question I come right out and say that it was perhaps true that the Vanic traditions of magic (not identified in the text as “shamanism”) were inherited from the pre-Indo-European population in Europe. This is hardly an unqualified promotion of the idea that “Norse shamanism is linked directly to the genetic heritage of the Germanics.” I only mention the word “Aryan” as something which had become a romantic term for Indo-European, I do not myself use the word (without quotation marks) to describe the Indo-Europeans as a whole, nor do I ever equate the terms “Germanic” and “Aryan” as Schnurbein tries to imply. Aryans are specific to the Indian subcontinent.]
In the section of the article called “Effects of neo-shamanism on scholarship,” Schnurbein says: “It already begins at the very start of ‘Norse’ shamanism. The above-mentioned Thorsson, for example, is not only a prominent neopagan, propagandist of neoshamanism, and occultist but, under the name Stephen Flowers, also a Scandinavianist and Indo-Europeanist. He studied in Texas with Polomé and also used his stay in Europe to study in Göttingen with Klaus Duwel. Flowers is additionally an author in the above-mentioned extreme right-wing journal Mankind Quarterly and, by contrast, the author of the article on magic in the encyclopedia Medieval Scandinavia edited by Phillip Pulsiano.”
As regards Schnurbein’s ostensible aim in this article to analyze the “two ideological camps” surrounding this question, after taking a good deal of time to try to discredit past scholars (e.g., Eliade, Höfler, Polomé) because they were not “politically correct” by the standards of the present-day academic orthodoxy, she finally concludes concerning the contemporary situation that: “[The] countercultural proponents of the shamanic theory can surely be seen as more of less part of the left-alternative spectrum, whereas the opponents that argue in terms of the Indo-Germanics seem to belong more in the political camp of the ‘New Right.’ Nevertheless, the multiple historical and contemporary lines of reception result in partially unconscious or unintended links between these two political camps, which at first seem so disparate.” [Here Schnurbein has “discovered” the long-discussed and openly debated contrast between the “universalist” and “traditionalist” (or “folkish”) approaches to Asatru. First and foremost, I don’t think that the two approaches primarily see their disagreements in terms of “politics.” That is a projection on the part of the observer here. I, for one, accept the “universalists” as co-religionists and see a place for them in the overall spectrum of Asatru. I do not see them as “heretics.”]
In closing, I must conclude that Schnurbein is both a fanatic and an intellectual moron. Her preconceived ideology is all-consuming, and it—not the facts or evidence—determines what her “thoughts” on any given subject will be. Fanatics like Schnurbein never have, nor will they ever, understand the rapidly disappearing art of honest discussion and heartfelt disagreement argued passionately and reasonably and with good cheer. She seems satisfied with the Inquisitional/McCarthyesque art of ad hominem attacks delivered safely from behind a wall of doctrinal purity. Oddly, these proponents of “political correctness” habitually practice the very thing they claim to be fighting, while those they attack are, more often than not, simply practicing the art of scholarship for its own sake, without overt regard to “politics.”