Conjurers as Scholars

Is the study and performance of magic considered a scholarly pursuit? Has the necessary foundation to make conjuring a scholarly pursuit been built? Is it being built? Or is the study of magic just a past time... floating in the air without visible means of support?

If magic is a scholarly pursuit, then how is it properly taught and tested? By lessons in sleight of hand? By laboratories in practical psychology? Through marketing and business management classes? Drama? Theater? Writing? How about the history of magic? How about history of concept development? How on earth does one learn that? Who actually knows it? Who documents it? Where is this information stored?

Magicians comprise a secret society...a community covert. And because of that, such scholarly foundation as does exist, to properly classify it as a scholarly pursuit, must also be a secret to most. Those that work every minute of every day to make conjuring a scholarly endeavor are outnumbered by those indifferent to the effort, those who don't follow the same credo, and those who remain ignorant of the effort. Alas, there are no certified universities or colleges that offer a degree in any of the facets of conjuring, and those classes taught aren't structured to satisfy the requirements of society's scholastic certification process, much less to provide nation-wide university level accreditation.

When the scholarly inventor/developer states that the actions of publishing unauthorized material were unethical because the original method had yet to be published...does he so state because of he perceives the injustice as a tort? Probably not... there isn't enough legislative protection in place in our society to protect the work and its creator, and pursuing the injustice in this manner has often proved to be an object lesson in futility. Instead, it’s possible that the injustice is one of a disservice done to the community by the screaming absence of any scholarly approach to the improper and untimely publication of IP.

Questions left unanswered:
What is the material's history? How was the material's development influenced? Where is the developmental time-line? Where are the inventor's own personal comments, experiences, and feelings that he had while inventing and developing the concept? And most importantly, what name did he choose for the material? Scholars of all fields including magic consider these to be deeply important questions and follow the precedent of making sure to answer these questions and address these issues in-depth in their own publications.

So what in the world happened? I offer this hypothesis. There are non-scholarly publishers that are not aware of, or blatantly ignore the interests of scholarship. The premature publishers "jump the gun", and forget or ignore any kind of scholarly approach to conjuring except teaching their customers a rudimentary competence in base procedure and mechanics of material. Ethics grew legs and ran right out the door, fleeing the predatory hunger of commerce. That's what happened. And no amount of back-peddling or hurrying to publish the work playing "catch-up" will undo the actions of the non-scholars. Sadly, the damage has already been done. The bell cannot be "un-rung."

As long as there are more non-scholars than scholars in this field of study, and ethics keep being placed on the back burners, and no scholarly respect is given to magic, its inventors and their inventions...as long as magicians refuse or cannot treat their occupation respectfully and professionally... as a scholarly endeavor as well as an art and entertainment form...as long as this is happening...magic will never be taken seriously by anyone other than magicians. It will be just considered a hobby, a past time...and the paradigms of today will perpetuate well into the 21st. century.

Is a serious scholarly approach to magic worth our effort? Or is it easier to say, "All that matters is what the audience thinks." Ask yourself instead, "Do we want magic to be taken seriously?"

A big thanks to Jonathan Townsend for his valuable input on this subject. Without him it would not have been possible. Thanks Jon!