De-Mystifying Mysticism: A Critical Realist Perspective on Ambivalences in the Study of Mysticism
Ali Qadir, Tatiana Tiaynen-qadir
Religions December 25, 2024 Peer reviewed DOI: 10.3390/rel16010010 via OpenAlex
Summary
The study of mysticism has faced challenges due to divergent definitions and conceptions of who qualifies as a mystic. A review of key 20th-century literature reveals two main axes: one concerning the essence of mysticism, ranging from reified to relativized views, and another regarding access to mystical knowledge, from elite to inclusive perspectives. This analysis suggests a more nuanced approach to studying mysticism that accommodates these complexities and highlights the central role of experience in understanding the category.
Study at a glance
| Design | literature review |
|---|---|
| Population | scholarly literature on mysticism across various disciplines |
| Key finding | Mysticism can be defined along two axes: essence (reified vs. relativized) and access (elite vs. inclusive), with experience at their intersection. |
Abstract
The study of mysticism has been at an impasse for many years, wavering between naïve realism around a common core hypothesis and critical questioning of the category of mysticism and its imposition. In this article, we review key 20th century developments in the study of mysticism to understand why the term was largely abandoned and unpack the contours of this impasse. Specifically, we probe the literature to ask (i) how has mysticism been defined and (ii) who counts as a mystic? Our primary data are key pieces of scholarly literature on mysticism, including interdisciplinary studies and disciplinary literature from religious studies, history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, and psychology. This review draws on a metatheoretic perspective of critical realism and is not meant to be comprehensive but rather analytical, seeking to identify patterns in scholarship. We find that each question is answered by studies along an axis, wavering between two ideal–typical poles. On the first question, we find scholarship ranging along an axis of essence between extreme poles of a reified vs. relativized substance of mysticism. On the second question, we find studies on an axis of access, varying between a rarified concept of mystical elites and a laified concept of mystical knowledge open to all. Putting studies along these axes yields a definitional space of mysticism that is compatible with critical realism and allows for the general study of mysticism to continue in a more nuanced, post-critique way. We also find that the category of experience lies at the origin or intersection point of both axes, and is a source of many problems in the general study of mysticism.