Moritz Deecke

This article provides the first step of a threefold argument on why an integrative model for theorizing ecstasy is necessary and how this could be accomplished. This article sets out with some preliminary epistemological remarks on normativity and religious experience as a legitimate object of inquiry that have to be made in order to prepare the larger argument. Afterwards I.M. Lewis’s sociological theory of ecstasy will be outlined and its numerous advantages pointed out. The strength of the theory lies mainly in explaining ecstasy in highly hierarchical societies and in those cases where it occurs in connection with material gain. It fails however to be applicable in situations when the subjects do not achieve or aim at achieving improvement of their material or societal statuses, but quite contrarily (and gladly) give up possessions and positions. The same applies for social structures where a high degree of equality has been achieved and ecstasy or ecstatic spiritpossession does not have to function as a releasing remedy for social tensions. These cases of ecstasy can better be explained by theories that could be called “psychological”, or even “psychotheological”, that will be discussed in the next paper.

In this article a number of approaches toward ecstasy or ecstatic spirit possession are explored that take a decisively non-sociological approach to the subject. They stress the importance of acknowledging ecstasy and related phenomena not as by-products of social struggle but as actual experiences that are events with meaning and importance in the biographies of those who experience them. Some of these are psychological theories (exemplified by Abraham Maslow), some are theological (Teresa of Ávila), and some stand in between (Martin Buber). These psycho-theological theories contribute to understanding ecstasy and have to be taken into account. Emphasised at the end of the article is the need to reconcile these views with the seemingly contradictory theories of ecstasy such as that of Lewis.

The article emphasises the necessity of an integral approach for theorising ecstasy and makes a suggestion for how this could be achieved. Although at first it seemed that the compelling sociological theory of ecstasy by I.M. Lewis and the psychological theories by proponents such as Abraham Maslow, Martin Buber or Theresa of Avila contradicted each other and could not both be true at the same time, it now turns out that these two sets of theories have different scopes of application that hardly overlap. They are thus not conflicting, but incommensurable and useful in different contexts. A very elegant and simple model for demonstrating this is the quadrant model by the integral theorist Ken Wilber, as it makes the diverging applicability compellingly visual. Adapting it for the academic study of ecstasy, it can thus be understood that, while sociological theories apply mostly to the occurrence of ecstasy in hierarchical societies among individuals who identify strongly with their group bespeaking their socio-material desires, psychological theories are best employed with individuals who do not strongly identify with group norms and whose ecstatic states cannot be connected with upward social mobility or means to acquire material gain.