Welcome to the not-so-New Age

Time is inexorable, and as time goes by ideas and movements that once were new and bore this flag in their names eventually become mainstream or even boringly "classical" or are eventually forgotten. Prominent examples of this paradox are the Pont Neuf ("New Bridge")in Paris, the oldest standing bridge in the old town, dating from 1570; the Art Nouveau/Jugendstil ("New Art"/"New Style"), an artistic current popular between 1890 and 1910 in Europe; or the economic theory of Neoliberalism, promoted by the American economist Milton Friedman since 1951. However, the case that keeps coming every few years since its initial appearance in the late 1960s is the New Age movement, even if most of its practitioners reject that name and prefer designations such as spiritual.

The reason for its repeated success can be easily delineated: traditional western religions are too strongly regulated and mostly focused on the rewards in the afterlife, providing little solace for the sufferings of everyday life, and pure atheism leaves us alone in the universe, without compass and without a goal, with a strong lead to cynicism edging on nihilism. New Age beliefs provide a sense of belonging without having to defer the promised rewards to a future plane, so it is much more focused on the present, as required by the fast pace of life. It also acknowledges (one could say that it even encourages) the need for spiritual healing, that life is tough and there is never enough support, gratefulness and generosity, so finding a way to achieve those feelings will help improve our lives and those of the ones around us.

 

Photo: kirtlane auf Pixabay

I have to admit that, while I find some of the ideas and practices commendable, the magical jargon commonly used in their discussion throws me off as unnecessarily childish and disconnected from tangible reality. I mentioned a few weeks ago a conversation I had with Ginny, a friend of mine since school days, who has had, among other New-Age activities, her astral chart drawn and interpreted by an astrologist. Yesterday I talked again to her and she mentioned that she is continuing her path of self-discovery by signing up for a level 3 reiki course. I did not know much about reiki other than it was some sort of hands-on healing, but it turns out that level 3 is almost like a master level that typically takes months to be acquired and the would allow her to become a reiki teacher. I am surprised that she has the conviction to dive into those waters for such a long time, but I have no right to right her wrongs, so I just limited myself to showing my skepticism, particularly with respect to the nomenclature.

My starting point has been for a few years now a fervent belief in philosophical materialism: things are what they are and not what we would like them to be, and if something makes us suffer it is ok to admit it, to point it out and even to give up if the obstacle seems bigger than our strengths to overcome it. I also understand that, for the purpose of illustration, metaphors can be helpful sometimes, but it is essential to keep a clear distinction between the image and the reality it represents. That is why I have trouble processing sentences like the one Ginny uttered yesterday:

In a body with high vibration there is no room for dense emotions (low vibration).

Trying to analyze the sentence piecemeal I could interpret that the vibration could refer to the mental state, a combination of mental activity and overall body alert, but only as a metaphor: the body has a number of periodic behaviors (cardiac, respiratory, vigil-sleep) with very different frequencies, so that the is not one vibration that can describe the state of the body.

Assuming that my interpretation of the metaphor is right, I can only agree that, in a state of physical and mental excitement the response of the individuals becomes very volatile making very difficult (particularly if this excitement is extended over a long period of time) to define long-term emotions and reach enduring decisions. And I think that this phenomenon can be reasonably explained in terms of neurophysiology without having to resort to the "universal force of qi".

Another statement that had me befuddled was:

Having positive emotions we can reach our full potential and leave behind our limiting beliefs.

I have ranted numerous times against the so-called "positive psychology", so I will not bore you any longer and focus on the rest of the sentence. Reading the words "full potential" automatically made me think of the pyramid of needs described by the American psychologist Abraham Maslow and the Human Potential Movement. However, while I can accept the different levels of needs, the idea of having a "full potential" that can be reached (or not) depending on your effort or dedication to your self-actualization has to me a neoliberal ring that I profoundly dislike: either you reach your full potential, thereby serving the powers that be (your family, your congregation, your political party, your corporation), or you become a failure, with only yourself to be blamed for it.

Unfortunately, at that point Karen asked me to take a quick drive to the supermarket so I had to stop the conversation with the promise to take it again where we left. I will keep you posted with whatever the outcome is. Have a nice weekend.