Neo-gnosticism and egregor: a critical study

Abstract

The paper explores the idea of “egregore” in A. Breton and D. Fortune’s, P. Mabille’s, and L. Karsavin’s books and practices. It interprets perceptions of these scholars in the context of critical theory and discusses how the critical study of the egregore can enhance understanding of the idealization, personalization, and acknowledgment of symbolic organizations. The paper differentiates between religious (occult) and non-religious (ideological) symbolic organizations, with non-religious neo-Gnosticism addressing different types of “knowledge-power” and the related symbols we use to understand the world and explain our actions.  This article offers an opportunity to critically examine both historical and contemporary theories of leadership and acknowledgment, as well as interpret some literary works at the intersection of philosophy, psychoanalysis, and literature. Mabille and Karsavin, two geographically, culturally, and philosophically distant thinkers of the inter-war period, wrote about a concentrated, supra-individual personality fundamentally different from Nietzsche’s idea of the Übermensch. Mabille used the Hermetic term “égrégore” to refer to this type of personality, defining it as a group of people or their imaginary, common “energetic” thought distinct from the individuals who comprise it. Mabille discusses this idea in his 1938 book “Egrégores, ou la vie des civilizations” (“Egregores or the Life of Civilisations”). A shared vision and a profound emotional upheaval are prerequisites for the emergence of such a personality. The paper’s author views Egregor as a human group representing economy, politics, culture, religion, and capital (Das Kapital). Capital is accumulated through circulation, then depleted and exchanged for other forms of influence or consumption. Wealth is created when people use or enjoy objects, ideas, art, and status. Sometimes old objects, ideas, and images lose popularity and people reject them. This means that capital has to be constantly renewed, and its creators must feel the demand for symbolic meanings, cosmic oscillation. P. Bourdieu, who has written extensively about symbolic or cultural capital, was not interested in Gnosticism, neo-Gnosticism, or the egregore theory. He believed capital is accumulated by identifiable persons or institutions, not by their vision, ideal double, or “astral” twin. In cases where the person is not a symbol of a broad movement but is merely a writer, composer, or scientist, there is no essential difference between the ideal image and the real person. However, the difference is huge when discussing religious or ideological groups that begin to influence others, like Luther, Calvin, Huss, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao did.