Question: I have been reading a lot about New Age techniques being introduced into the school system to our children. I don’t know much about New Age philosophy, and so I would like to know how I can recognize potentially harmful techniques or procedures.
Answer: A recent research study examining experts’ opinions on the New Age Movement (NAM) concluded that the NAM “is an eclectic collection of psychological and spiritual techniques that are rooted in Eastern mysticism, lack scientific evaluative data, and are promoted zealously by followers of diverse idealized leaders claiming transformative visions,” (Professor Arthur Dole, University of Pennsylvania, Cultic Studies Journal. Vol. 7, No. 1, 1990).
There are four main streams of thought within the NAM: 1) the “transformational training” stream, represented by groups such as est and Lifespring; 2) the intellectual stream, represented by publications such as The Tao of Physics; 3) the lifestyle stream, represented by publications such as Whole Life Monthly, and organizations such as the Green Party; and 4) the occult stream, represented by astrology, palmistry, crystal power, and the like. It is important to keep in mind that within this diversity there is much disagreement. Many intellectual new agers, for example, deride adherents of the occult stream of the new age.
The NAM, then, is too “fuzzy” and disparate to constitute a great conspiracy, as some have claimed. Nor is it a cult, although cults exist within the NAM. The NAM is, in essence, a world view, a paradigm, that has attained a high enough level of popularity to challenge the two world views that have been in competition through most of this century—the Judeo/Christian tradition and the secularscientific tradition.
The NAM, which some link historically to the Gnostic heresies of early Christianity, is similar to the secularscientific tradition in that its “sects” implicitly, if not explicitly, reject a personal god and the notions of sin and redemption. The NAM is similar to traditional religions in that it posits the existence of a supernatural realm, or at least something beyond “atoms and the void.” But it differs from both of these paradigms in that it denigrates reason and implicitly exalts magic. The NAM adherent believes that spiritual knowledge and power can be achieved through the discovery of the proper techniques. These techniques may be silly, as in crystal power. But they may be very sophisticated, as in some forms of yoga.
The NAM’s overlapping the two established paradigms, the fundamental conceptual fuzziness that results from its mystical core, its missionary “pitch” of being the great synthesizer of religions (recall John Lennon’s song “Imagine,” particularly the verses about “imagine no religions”), and the public relations sophistication of its leading adherents (many of whom are wellknown entertainers) make the NAM very seductive. Its concepts have permeated our culture in a quiet, almost invisible way. For example, a Gallup survey of teenagers, several years ago, found that approximately onethird of churchgoing Christian teenagers believed in reincarnation, a fundamental new age belief. Reincarnation is antithetical to Christianity. Yet, onethird of churchgoing Christian teenagers believe in it!
Reasons why New Age notions can insert themselves into our culture include these:
Once a person accepts certain new age concepts, he gradually becomes more willing to accept others, simply because the credibility of the entire network of ideas increases once he has attributed credibility to parts of the network. Thus, acceptance of the mystical core of the NAM, i.e., “we are all god and duality is an illusion,” will tend to make one more receptive to the notion of reincarnation, especially if one begins associating with new agers who believe in reincarnation.
The fundamental assumption of American pluralism is that we must not critically examine our fundamental assumptions. Thus, it is taboo to discuss religion, except in the most innocuous ways. In the name of peaceful coexistence, we perform a lobotomy on the culture’s cerebral cortex! The ensuing “mush of nonthinking agreeableness” emasculates traditional religions, which have a strong core of rationality, and gives free reign to fringe groups, many of which fall within the purview of the new age movement.
Given this background, how can one “recognize potentially harmful techniques or procedures?” Ask the following questions about the “product” under review.
If the answer to these questions tends to be “yes,” step back and take a closer look.
The author is Executive Director of the American Family Foundation (publisher of The Cult Observer) and editor of AFF’s Cultic Studies Journal. This article first appeared in the Savannah Parent (September 1992, page 3), to which we are grateful for permission to reprint it here.