Editing Magic (supernatural) (section)

=====Ethnocentrism=====
The magic-religion-science triangle developed in European society based on evolutionary ideas i.e. that magic evolved into religion, which in turn evolved into science.{{sfn|Hanegraaff|2012|p=165}} However using a Western analytical tool when discussing non-Western cultures, or pre-modern forms of Western society, raises problems as it may impose alien Western categories on them.{{sfnm|1a1=Otto|1a2=Stausberg|1y=2013|1p=6}} While magic remains an [[Emic and etic|emic]] (insider) term in the history of Western societies, it remains an [[Emic and etic|etic]] (outsider) term when applied to non-Western societies and even within specific Western societies. For this reason, academics like Michael D. Bailey suggest abandoning the term altogether as an academic category.{{sfn|Bailey|2018|p=27}} During the twentieth century, many scholars focusing on Asian and African societies rejected the term magic, as well as related concepts like [[witchcraft]], in favour of the more precise terms and concepts that existed within these specific societies like [[Juju]].{{sfn|Bailey|2018|p=19}} A similar approach has been taken by many scholars studying pre-modern societies in Europe, such as [[Classical antiquity]], who find the modern concept of magic inappropriate and favour more specific terms originating within the framework of the ancient cultures which they are studying.{{sfnm|1a1=Hutton|1y=2003|1p=104|2a1=Bailey|2y=2018|2p=20}} Alternately, this term implies that all categories of magic are ethnocentric and that such Western preconceptions are an unavoidable component of scholarly research.{{sfn|Otto|Stausberg|2013|p=6}} This century has seen a trend towards emic ethnographic studies by scholar practitioners that explicitly explore the emic/etic divide.{{sfn|Blain|Ezzy|Harvey|2004|p=125}}

Many scholars have argued that the use of the term as an analytical tool within academic scholarship should be rejected altogether.{{sfnm|1a1=Hutton|1y=2003|1p=103|2a1=Styers|2y=2004|2p=7|3a1=Otto|3a2=Stausberg|3y=2013|3p=1|4a1=Bailey|4y=2018|4p=3}}  The scholar of religion [[Jonathan Z. Smith]] for example argued that it had no utility as an [[etic]] term that scholars should use.{{sfn|Hanegraaff|2012|p=166}} The historian of religion [[Wouter Hanegraaff]] agreed, on the grounds that its use is founded in conceptions of Western superiority and has "...served as a 'scientific' justification for converting non-European peoples from benighted superstitions..." stating that "the term magic is an important object ''of'' historical research, but not intended ''for'' doing research."{{sfn|Hanegraaff|2012|pp=167–168}}

Bailey noted that, as of the early 21st century, few scholars sought grand definitions of magic but instead focused with "careful attention to particular contexts", examining what a term like magic meant to a given society; this approach, he noted, "call[ed] into question the legitimacy of magic as a universal category".{{sfn|Bailey|2006|p=5}} The scholars of religion Berndt-Christian Otto and [[Michael Stausberg]] suggested that it would be perfectly possible for scholars to talk about [[amulet]]s, [[curse]]s, healing procedures, and other cultural practices often regarded as magical in Western culture without any recourse to the concept of magic itself.{{sfn|Otto|Stausberg|2013|p=11}} The idea that magic should be rejected as an analytic term developed in anthropology, before moving into [[Classical studies]] and [[Biblical studies]] in the 1980s.{{sfn|Hutton|2003|p=100}} Since the 1990s, the term's usage among scholars of religion has declined.{{sfn|Hanegraaff|2012|p=166}}