A Reflection on the 'Sociology of Mysticism'

If we accept the statement of Abraham Maslow and William James that the core of every religion and every spirituality is mysticism and mystical experience, the question arises: how is this mystical experience attained? A question that many psychologists and neuroscientists have sought to answer, each attempting to provide responses to this question. Sociology, however, has unfortunately not reflected much on this matter; its encounter with mysticism has been under the rubric of the sociology of religion and as one form of the prevalent spiritualities in the world, or some have merely examined it as a form of knowledge under the sociology of knowledge. Nevertheless, the point worthy of reflection for the sociological study of mysticism is: what dimensions must this phenomenon possess in order for it to be fundamentally considered a social matter? This is a question that is also raised today regarding the study of spirituality in the sociology of religion.

A Reflection on the 'Sociology of Mysticism'

Written by: Ehsan Hamidizadeh[1]

If we accept the statement of Abraham Maslow and William James that the core of every religion and every spirituality is mysticism and mystical experience, the question arises: how is this mystical experience attained? A question that many psychologists and neuroscientists have sought to answer, each attempting to provide responses to this question. Sociology, however, has unfortunately not reflected much on this matter; its encounter with mysticism has been under the rubric of the sociology of religion and as one form of the prevalent spiritualities in the world, or some have merely examined it as a form of knowledge under the sociology of knowledge. Nevertheless, the point worthy of reflection for the sociological study of mysticism is: what dimensions must this phenomenon possess in order for it to be fundamentally considered a social matter? This is a question that is also raised today regarding the study of spirituality in the sociology of religion.

In all definitions offered of mysticism, the common point is its reliance on personal and intuitive experience and the effort to transcend the level of empirical perceptions to understand existence, connect with the sacred, or discover truth, which sometimes necessitates a kind of esoteric practical life. Now, according to the definitions of mysticism that exist, and even our own personal experience and understanding of this phenomenon, recognizing it as a social phenomenon becomes difficult and challenging. Perhaps because personal experience, and in the view of psychologists like William James, personality type has always played a central role in the inclination toward mysticism. Such a view of mysticism brings to mind the notion that mysticism and the inclination toward it is an entirely personal matter toward which individuals are drawn based on their own desire and will. Sociology does not accept such a view of mysticism, because individuals who even have a personal inclination toward mysticism are considered as separate individuals and not as social actors. Another challenge in examining mysticism with a sociological approach is considering it as a form of knowledge or a way of life. In either case, if mysticism does not become a social construct, it will not be sociologically examinable.

Another challenge in the sociological study of mysticism is its self-referentiality compared to other modes of encountering the sacred. In the sense that even in the mystical interpretations of an institutional religion, compared to other interpretations of the same religion, the mystical interpretation, because it relies on direct, presential receptions, its criterion of correctness or incorrectness is the individual or the spiritual guide; therefore, the possibility of generalizing many receptions and instructions to others does not exist. This characteristic of mysticism also overlaps with spirituality in its new sense, and sociologists, for this reason, study mysticism as one of the types of emerging spiritualities.

Apart from the challenges that exist in studying mysticism with a sociological approach, if at least three issues or three questions can be answered in the study of mysticism, then one can confidently speak of a subfield of study called the "sociology of mysticism."

1—Can mysticism become a social practice (exercise)? 2—How can mysticism be traced in social interactions? 3—What is the role of the social context in attaining mystical experiences? These three questions, in fact, also provide three contexts for the study of mysticism in sociology. In this space, I will try to briefly express the importance of addressing these three issues and, as far as possible, defend the creation of a sociological approach to the study of mysticism.

Regarding the first issue, if mysticism cannot demonstrate that it has the potential to become a social practice, the sociology of mysticism cannot distinguish its boundaries from conventional mystical studies, which are usually conducted with a theological approach. Marx first introduced the concept of social practice and presented it as the practical dimension of human life, a legacy that reached Weber in a different form, where he presented it in the production of meaningful action. This means that mysticism must be able to produce a construct within the social system or engage with existing social structures such as power. In fact, mysticism must be able to transcend a symbolic and cognitive framework and at least create a kind of collective experience, emotion, and corporeality. It seems that in Iran, mysticism has been able to achieve this, and this social practice has played a role, in a way, with the emergence of Sufism in our historical periods.

The study of social practice and social interaction are necessary and integral to one another; because if we seek to study mysticism in social interactions, we free ourselves from the study of the individual as an individual, and it becomes possible to study how individuals relate to one another, their involvement in various networks, and the manner of their confrontation with various authoritative sources. And if mysticism has not become a social practice at this stage, its study in social interactions and social networks will still not be possible. Here again, the importance of Sufism becomes clear; that is, if we consider Sufism as the social practice of mysticism, at least in Iranian society, the study of the social interactions that Sufism has created, their intra-network relationships, and their confrontation with various forms of authority will be easily possible.

Finally, even if we do not wish to reduce mysticism to Sufism, and consider it merely as a personal matter based on individual experience, all mystical experiences occur within a specific social context, and every individual undergoes a certain process of socialization. In religious societies, individuals learn the process of religious socialization or encountering the sacred. In other words, even if, as psychologists say, we consider mystics to be individuals with certain personality types, the different social context in which each mystic grew up and experienced the process of socialization has been influential in their mystical experiences and their encounter with the sacred. And this difference can be observed in their mystical conduct.

Based on these explanations, if mysticism is to be studied with a sociological approach, and its emergence as a social practice and interaction is important to us, it might be better to shift the term from mysticism to Sufism, because the social and objective dimensions of Sufism are more distinct, and it can even be proven that Sufism is the social construct of a part of mysticism as a form of knowledge. Otherwise, we must reduce mysticism to mystical experience and examine and study it within the specific and influential social context. Therefore, using the term "sociology of mysticism" creates epistemological problems for us, due to its epistemological and individual-centered dimension, whereas "sociology of Sufism" or "sociology of mystical experience" would not have such problems. Of course, this is a very brief and personal reflection on the matter, and there are certainly more precise approaches in this field.

[1] - Sociologist and researcher in the sociology of religion