Theosophy, Race, and the Study of Esotericism

Abstract

ALTHOUGH the notion of race was central to Theosophical doctrines, most historians have avoided its thorough investigation. A scrutiny of this neglect can help us understand the many ambiguities and contradictions of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century colonialism and its ramifications for present-day scholarship. Theosophy is an exceptionally instructive case, as it functions like a burning glass for issues of race, knowledge and education, or social reform. In times where an examination of racial theories within the context of colonialism lends itself to ideological divisions, the discipline of religious studies is well equipped to grasp the historical complexities that stand behind charged subjects such as racism, cultural appropriation, and postcolonial concerns. In what follows, I will discuss previous approaches to racial Theosophical ideas and propose a combined perspective from religious studies and global history to address two main issues: first, the outright neglect of the subject of race within the study of Theosophy and esotericism more broadly; and second, current efforts to decenter the study of esotericism from its predominant “Western” focus that obfuscates not only “non-Western” historical actors but also non-white actors within the confines of “the West.” Central to Theosophical doctrines is the concept of “root races” that reflect a grand cosmological scheme manifesting in different evolutionary stages of humanity. In this scheme, the current fifth root race is called the “Aryan” race, which would be succeeded in the future by a sixth, spiritually advanced race (Chajes 2019, 73–84). In light of often-sensationalist claims that Theosophists were among the precursors of National Socialism, some historians of Theosophy have stressed the differences between this race theory and those of authors such as Arthur de Gobineau and later the Nazis. Indeed, the relationship between esotericism and Nazism is complex (Strube 2015), not least because nineteenth-century esoteric movements emerged, to a large extent, within “left-wing” radical reformist movements (Strube 2016, 2017b). Although it is hence important to point out crucial differences between Theosophy and Nazism, this has also resulted in the tendency to isolate Theosophical race doctrines from their historical context and their socio-political ramifications. James Santucci has argued that Theosophical discussions of race were “entirely separate and apart” from contemporary racial ideas, stating that there was an “absence of racist attitudes” among Theosophists (Santucci 2008, 39, 51). Isaac Lubelsky posits a distinction between a “racial discourse” and a “racial policy,” supporting Santucci’s argument that Theosophy had no racial political outcomes (Lubelsky 2013, 335, 353–354). Yet, although Theosophical race theories were conceived as “spiritual” or “cosmic,” they had concrete effects on racial relations between “Western” and “non-Western” actors. This is especially due to the decidedly political role that Theosophy played within the colonial context (Bevir 2000). In India, the notion of Aryan considerably facilitated exchanges with Indian intellectuals while it simultaneously cemented racial hierarchies within the society. To understand this, it would be necessary to take into account the perspectives of Indian and other “non-Western” actors. Scholars such as Gauri Viswanathan, Mark Bevir, and Peter van der Veer have provided crucial insights into the political, social, and explicitly racial and colonial tensions and implications of and within Theosophy. Viswanathan has stressed that, within the Theosophical Society, “relationships of power are never fully suspended, even as the occult appears to banish the distinctions that dissident Anglo-Indians so disdained in the colonial administration” (Viswanathan 2000, 3–4). Leading Theosophists were convinced that British colonization was necessary for the realization of universal brotherhood (van der Veer 2001, 64–65; Viswanathan 1998, 186–90). “Westerners” and Indians might stem from the same “Aryan family,” but that family was by no means free from hierarchies and power relations: it was dominated by the “younger brothers” from the West (van der Veer 2001, 49). Yet, while we can learn much about Annie Besant’s attitude towards colonialism or Alfred Percy Sinnett’s ideas about root races, we encounter Indian Theosophists only by name, in passing, or not at all. Viswanathan, in turn, tends to downplay the agency of Indians by reducing occultism to a mirror image of colonial administration. A similar tendency can be observed in Christopher Partridge’s statement that the details of Theosophical orientalism might be open for debate, but “in the final analysis it was Orientalism and functioned, as all Orientalism does, as a form of colonialism” (Partridge 2013, 327). Unintentionally, these assessments are prone to reproduce binaries between colonizer and colonized that should be complicated b