1980 05 00 Sociological Review - Vol 28 No 2 - Ashworth

Magazine Overview

This document is an article titled "FLYING SAUCERS, SPOON-BENDING AND ATLANTIS: A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF NEW MYTHOLOGIES" by C. E. Ashworth, published in Sociological Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, 1980. The article explores the phenomenon of 'popular science' literature and its role as a source of alternative cosmologies.

The Rise of Popular Science

The author begins by observing the significant presence of 'popular science' sections in bookshops and the consistent appearance of such works on best-seller lists. This popularity is further evidenced by frequent 'sensational' articles in mass-circulation newspapers and the proliferation of popular science journals like U.F.O., Prediction, Alpha, and Omni. Ashworth distinguishes 'popular science' from 'science-which-is-popular,' the latter being a mere popularization of established scientific views (e.g., Bronowski, Calder, Attenborough). 'Popular science,' in contrast, originates from the general populace and often presents a view of the cosmos at odds with established science. The author notes that this 'popularism' is more about its 'alternative' character than its statistical popularity, though it is indeed popular in the latter sense as well.

Defining 'Popular Science'

Ashworth aims to define and delimit the field of 'popular science' through a structural analysis of its literature. He presents a selection of best-selling book titles that publishers and booksellers group under this heading, noting that the authors of these books frequently refer to each other, suggesting a distinct phenomenon and a 'social current' in the Durkheimian sense. Examples include works by Lyall Watson, John Mitchell, Guy Lyon Playfair, Charles Berlitz, Francis Hitching, John Brennan, Erich von Daniken, and Geoffrey Asche.

Common Themes and Topics

The common feature of these books is a concern with recurrent topics that are only of marginal interest to orthodox science. Ashworth provides a list of such topics from the index of Francis Hitching's 'World Atlas of Mysteries,' including Alchemy, Animal Navigation, King Arthur, Astro-Archaeology, Atlantis, The Bermuda Triangle, Cosmic Catastrophes, Cro-Magnon Cave Art, The Deluge, Druids, Easter Island Statues, E.S.P., Evolution, Geomancy, Glastonbury, The Ice Age, The Indo-Europeans, Jesus Christ, Labyrinths, Loch Ness Monsters, The Earth's Electro-Magnetic Field, Megalithic Tombs, Mythology, Ancient Navigators, Astral Flight, The Phoenicians, Para-Psychology, The Pyramids, Stonehenge, Transcendental Meditation, U.F.O.s, Water Divining, and Witchcraft. Ashworth clarifies that this is not exclusively about the occult or paranormal, nor is it about the 'frontiers of scientific research.' While occult topics are present, so are topics like evolution, quantum mechanics, and high energy physics. He emphasizes that 'the Bermuda Triangle,' for instance, is considered a non-topic by conventional science.

The Anomalous Nature of Popular Science Topics

Ashworth argues that these topics are not united by a concern with the paranormal, supernatural, or advanced research. Instead, he posits that the unifying factor is their 'anomalous' nature – they are unassimilable into the paradigms of conventional thought, both religious and scientific. He uses the Turin Shroud and Stonehenge as key examples. The Turin Shroud, with its inexplicable image, presents difficulties for both religious (miracles, faith) and scientific (photographic negatives, radiation burns) explanations when linked to its historical context. Similarly, Stonehenge's advanced astronomical calculations for its era are anomalous to conventional archaeology and anthropology. The author concludes that popular science is fundamentally about anomalies and that these anomalies pertain to the conventional wisdom of both religion and science.

The 'Dialectic' of Popular Science

Popular science writers, Ashworth explains, dismiss both religious and scientific explanations for these anomalies. They create a 'dialectic' where the anomaly itself becomes the starting point for speculation. For the Turin Shroud, the thesis is a supernatural event (Resurrection), leading to doubts about why it wasn't apparent earlier. The antithesis is that it's a forgery, leading to doubts about how a medieval painter could create such a realistic image. Popular science writers find the Shroud anomalous because religion is uncomfortable with photographic evidence, and science struggles to connect modern phenomena with ancient events. This anomalous character is what draws the curiosity of popular scientists and unites the diverse topics they cover.

Consistency and 'Alternative Cosmologies'

Beyond addressing anomalies, popular science creates an overall consistency between its explanations. Writers like Daniken, Charroux, and Kolosimo link Jesus Christ to spacemen and advanced medical techniques for his resurrection. Others, like Graeber, suggest ancient civilizations possessed advanced physics. Megalithic temples are interpreted as 're-birth factories.' These explanations are systematically related, forming a cohesive cosmology. Charles Berlitz, for example, connects Stonehenge, eel migration, Roman pottery, and Basque racial features through the concept of Atlantis. Ashworth describes this approach as thoroughly 'empirical' in that it explains empirical phenomena but is ultimately 'metaphysical' because it goes beyond observable data. These popular scientists construct elaborate and internally consistent cosmologies that offer a totalistic overview of human history and destiny, dwarfing the scale of works by Karl Marx or Oswald Spengler.

The Role of Popular Science in Society

Contemporary society is witnessing a rise in 'alternative cosmologies' offered by popular science, challenging conventional religion and science. Popular science is portrayed as a system where any question can be fed in and an answer will be received, in contrast to the relative 'speechlessness' of religion and science when confronted with these new ideas. The author notes that religion and science often condemn these new approaches as 'barbarian,' 'quackery,' or 'half-baked education.'

Two Mythological Traditions

Ashworth identifies two main mythological viewpoints within popular science literature:

Myth 1: Danikenism

Named after Erich von Daniken, this tradition posits that Earth was visited by technologically advanced spacemen from another star system. These spacemen interbred with humans, creating a superior hybrid species (modern humans), and taught them arts and culture, constructing megalithic structures. The story continues that humans later misunderstood this teaching, viewing the spacemen as 'Gods' and leading to the development of world religions, which are seen as 'cargo cults.' Human history is thus viewed as a movement from science back to religion. The tradition suggests that a select group has maintained the original 'science,' and as the forces of Enlightenment and Science become equal to Barbarism and Religion, the spacemen are returning to help establish a world government led by 'enlightened ones' (adherents of True Science) after a period of social cataclysm.

Myth 2: Atlanticism

This tradition, based on Plato's theories of Atlantis, posits that early humanity lived in a perfect, spiritual society centered on the continent of Atlantis. This society possessed an absolute knowledge of reality, with humans being god-like. Atlantis was destroyed by a great flood, but its remnants formed the basis for later civilizations (China, Sumer, Egypt, Indus Valley, Britain, Meso-America), explaining their similarities. Survivors recreated the civilization, but it was a degeneration from the original. Human history is seen as a process of degeneration, with brief renewals. The 'idea' of Atlantis survives in remote parts of the world and manifests as 'The Esoteric Tradition' or 'secret knowledge.'

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The article's stance is analytical and critical, aiming to understand the structural underpinnings and appeal of popular science. It frames popular science as a significant social and intellectual phenomenon that offers alternative explanations to established paradigms. The recurring themes are the exploration of anomalies, the rejection of orthodox science and religion, and the construction of comprehensive, albeit speculative, cosmologies. The author's approach is sociological, seeking to explain the 'semantic machinery' behind these narratives and their hold on the popular imagination. The article suggests that popular science is not merely a collection of unrelated ideas but a coherent, though often ad hoc, system of beliefs that provides answers and a sense of order in a complex world.

Title: Flying Saucers, Spoon-Bending and Atlantis

Author: C. E. Ashworth

Content: This article delves into the nature of popular science myths, specifically focusing on 'Danikenism' (associated with Erich von Däniken's theories on ancient astronauts and UFOs) and 'Atlanticism' (related to the myth of Atlantis and occult beliefs). It analyzes their origins, underlying philosophies, and their appeal in contemporary society, contrasting them with traditional science and religion.

Danikenism and Atlanticism: Mythological Variants

The author begins by positioning 'Danikenism' as a modern interpretation of ancient myths, akin to how 'Atlanticism' is viewed by its proponents. He notes that while modern Astrology is considered a bastardized version of Atlantean wisdom, the modern world, driven by science and religion, is heading for destruction, with the Esoteric Tradition potentially inheriting the 'debris'.

John Mitchell is identified as a leading proponent of Atlanticism, whose books are as influential among Atlanticists as Däniken's 'Chariot of the Gods' is among flying saucer enthusiasts. Mitchell's disciples include writers like Hitching, Steiger, Brennan, and Otto Muck. Even popular science writer Lyall Watson is seen as an adherent of Atlanticism.

From a structural analysis perspective, the article argues that Danikenism and Atlanticism are not mere variants of a common type but belong to two radically different mythological traditions that trace back to 'Western Civilization' itself.

Danikenism's Roots

Danikenism is described as a mythological variant rooted in prophetic Judaism and millenarian Christianity, as well as in the mechanistic materialism of Greek writers like Democritus and Lucretius. It is characterized as a 'rewrite' of the Book of Genesis, the Book of Revelations, and Lucretius' 'On the Nature of the Universe'. It presents a narrative that starts with Man and Spaceman (or Man and God), proceeds through a 'Fall' into superstition, and culminates in a cataclysmic showdown and a 'Second Coming'. Mechanistic science, in this view, explains reality in empirical terms and relegates Platonism to the status of illusion. This combination of the Judaic with the Hellenic is seen as typical of Western thought, making Danikenism conventional at a deeper level despite its novel content.

Atlanticism's Roots

In contrast, Atlanticism is presented as entirely outside the Judaic/Christian and mechanistic materialist traditions. It is a rewrite of Plato's theory of Atlantis and, more significantly, his Theory of Ideas. Atlanticism posits that history is an expression of a Trinitarian Idea (the Good, Intelligence, World Soul), representing Perfection and Harmony. The empirical world is seen as a progressively imperfect copy of this ideal. Atlantis, as the perfect society incarnate, exists at the beginning of history. Atlanticism's roots are traced to the Humanism of the Greeks and Romans, which is seen as profoundly anti-Christian because it elevates Man to the status of God, enabling Absolute Knowledge without divine or Church authority. It is also anti-science if science is defined as mechanistic materialism, as it views everything as a 'reflection' or 'manifestation' of a hidden, ideal, or psychic reality, eschewing materialism and empiricism.

Critiques of Sociological Models

The article then examines how sociological theories, such as structural-functionalism and Marxism, might analyze popular science. It notes that these theories often view 'thought' as a 'response' to needs, whether economic or otherwise. However, the author contends that these approaches are 'tilting at windmills' because they fail to recognize that both Danikenism and Atlanticism are composed of ancient cosmologies (Judaeo-Christianity and Greek Platonism) that are not new. The article suggests that there is no fundamental difference between Danikenism and Marxism in their 'rupturalistic' and 'materialistic' interpretations of history. Similarly, Atlanticism is compared to the views of mystics like William Blake. The author criticizes structural-functionalism and Marxism for focusing too narrowly on industrial or capitalistic societies and for abandoning the comparative method, thus hindering a deeper analysis of the emergence of these ideas.

Lévi-Strauss and the Human Mind

As an alternative to structural-functionalism and Marxism, the article turns to the 'rationalistic' tradition, specifically the structuralist theories of Claude Lévi-Strauss. Lévi-Strauss posits that the human mind is constituted of universal a priori categories organized into 'binary oppositions' (e.g., Substance/Form, Finite/Infinite). These categories form rule-governed structures. The human mind, according to this theory, will not tolerate contradictions and tends towards their reconciliation. This process is seen as a biological immanence, operating mechanically.

The Disintegration of Science and Religion

If Lévi-Strauss's theory holds, then myths like Danikenism and Atlanticism can replace conventional science and religion when they successfully resolve contradictions that the latter are increasingly unable to address. The article argues that both conventional science and religion are disintegrating as 'myths' because they fail to meet this fundamental requirement of the human mind.

The Failure of Religion

Until the late 19th century, Christianity provided a unified cosmology of meaning and value with a detailed analysis of natural and human history. 'Values' (like love and self-sacrifice) and 'facts' were united, with history validating ethics and ethics making sense of history. However, post-Darwinian Christianity has separated ethics from fact, making ethics 'subjective' and disconnected from scientific or historical evidence. Conventional religion now fails to reconcile facts and values.

The Failure of Science

Similarly, science, prior to its empiricist takeover, provided a viable myth by combining an ontologically realist overview of the cosmos with a grounding in empirical facts. Newtonian physics, Darwinian biology, and utilitarian sociology defined reality and provided a basis for ethics focused on progress. However, 20th-century science lost contact with absolute reality and the ethics derived from it. Reality became 'unknowable', and ethics shifted to the domain of religion. Conventional science now posits its beliefs (mechanistic materialism, evolution) as 'useful' rather than dogmatic, making them matters of subjective choice and relativism.

The Rise of Popular Science

Both religion and science now fail to meet the criteria of a successful myth because they cannot reconcile the contradictions that the human mind experiences. Religion is all ethics but no facts, while science is all facts but no ethics. Popular science myths, such as Danikenism and Atlanticism, are presented as succeeding where religion and science fail. They offer articulate and compulsive overviews of the cosmos and humanity's place within it, providing answers to questions of ultimate meaning and ethics. The ethics of popular science are claimed to flow naturally from their analyses of human history, grounding ethics in fact and giving facts an ethical dimension. Therefore, the rise of popular science in the contemporary world is seen as an expected consequence of the failure of traditional frameworks to meet the mind's demand for consistent, reconciled values and facts.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this article are the nature of myth, the philosophical underpinnings of popular beliefs (UFOs, Atlantis), the historical evolution and perceived failures of traditional science and religion, and the psychological need for coherent worldviews. The author adopts a critical and analytical stance, deconstructing popular science narratives and comparing them to philosophical and anthropological theories. The editorial stance appears to be that while traditional frameworks are failing, popular science myths are filling a void by offering comprehensive, albeit potentially flawed, explanations that satisfy the human mind's demand for meaning and consistency.

This document consists of pages 373-376 from a publication titled "Flying Saucers, Spoon-Bending and Atlantis." The content is an academic article by C. E. Ashworth, affiliated with the University of Leicester, which was first received on April 25, 1979, and finally accepted on August 24, 1979. The article delves into the intersection of mythology, contemporary beliefs, and historical paradigms.

The Revival of Ancient Paradigms in the Space Age

The central thesis of the article is that a latent Judaeo-Christian paradigm has adopted the themes of the space age, complete with its technological concerns, while a latent Platonism has revived the imagery of Atlantis. Ashworth finds it mysterious why these ancient frameworks have adopted such contemporary content, questioning why Judaeo-Christianity doesn't simply focus on Biblical research like the Jehovah's Witnesses, or why Platonism doesn't revive classical figures like Homer or Virgil, as Schliemann attempted with Troy.

The author posits that myths are living entities, constantly transforming and reformulating. Their credibility depends on their compatibility with the intellect and their ability to absorb contemporary experiences. From this perspective, both flying saucers and Atlantis become comprehensible as modern myths. Flying saucers, for instance, correspond to the salient contemporary experience of space flight and the possibility of life on other planets, subjects on which traditional Christian imagery is silent. While acknowledging that figures like von Daniken interpret the Bible to fit these themes, Ashworth maintains that the Bible and the Church do not inherently prophesy such developments.

He argues that a successful myth must ground itself in widely experienced phenomena, such as the technological revolution of the 20th century. Similarly, Atlantis resonates because it represents a capital of a world-wide civilization predating the last Ice-Age, thus connecting to all of mankind, unlike more localized historical 'lost paradises' like ancient Greece or Rome.

The Role of Popular Science and Contemporary Cosmologies

The article summarizes its argument by highlighting an intellectual movement termed 'popular science,' which is gaining traction at the expense of conventional religion and science. This movement addresses 'anomalous' issues, drawing upon two ancient cosmologies: Judaeo-Christianity and Platonism. These have re-emerged in modern forms as 'Danikenism' and 'Atlanticism,' respectively.

The contemporary success of these movements is attributed to two factors: formal and contentual. Firstly, conventional religion and science are perceived as failing to resolve certain contradictions they once easily addressed, leading to dissonance for modern consciousness. Secondly, 'popular science' appears to resolve these same contradictions, offering men viable myths. The content of these new myths is shaped by contemporary experiences, particularly TECHNOLOGY and HUMANITY, which form the core 'mythemes' of Danikenism and Atlanticism.

The Structure of Contemporary Mythology

A diagram illustrates the structure of contemporary mythology, showing a 'CONFLICT' between Materialism (represented by Orthodox Science) and Idealism (represented by Orthodox Christianity). This conflict leads to unresolved contradictions. On the other hand, Danikenism and Atlanticism are presented as resolving these contradictions, with Danikenism aligned with Judaeo-Christianity and Atlanticism with Platonism. The diagram suggests a flow from 'CONFLICT' to 'Resolved Contradictions' via Danikenism and Atlanticism.

References

The article includes extensive footnotes and references, citing numerous authors and works related to Atlantis, ancient mysteries, ufology, and mythology. Notable references include works by L. Watson, Francis Hitching, R. K. Wilcox, E. Hadingham, E. Mackie, R. Charroux, P. Kolosimo, C. Berlitz, A. and S. Landsberg, W. Raymond Drake, Plato, John Mitchell, B. Steiger, J. H. Brennan, O. Muck, Lucretius, I. Donnelly, and C. Lévi-Strauss.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes revolve around the evolution of myths, the influence of contemporary experience on belief systems, and the resurgence of ancient cosmologies in modern contexts. The article examines how phenomena like flying saucers and the legend of Atlantis are integrated into new mythologies that challenge or supplement conventional religious and scientific explanations. The editorial stance appears to be analytical and academic, exploring these phenomena as cultural and intellectual developments rather than asserting their factual validity. The author's approach is to explain the appeal and structure of these modern myths by linking them to historical paradigms and current societal experiences.