Mysticism: A Social Construction?

In "The Power of Definitions" Richard King focuses on the genealogy of mysticism where its definition is formed by the various sociopolitical changes and circumstances in history. Mysticism as King states cannot "be completely divorced from the historical remains of past definitions of the term" (King, 9).

What I find particularly interesting is the idea of mysticism as a social construction, where it's definition "has been constructed in different ways at different times" (King, 9) in history, according to sociopolitical circumstances. Furthermore, the characterization of mysticism reflects the power relations in society throughout history. Defining mysticism in effect defines power, as the way mysticism is characterized reflects the establishment of power and authority as well as the "historical struggle for power and authority" (King, 9).

As a sociology student, I can't help but agree with King's view of mysticism as being socially constructed in the sense that its defintion changes and will continue to change according to the various sociopolitical changes in society.
Equally convincing is the theory of mysticism as a social construct, like any social construction, reveals power relations within society, where "the way one defines 'the mystical' relates to ways of establishing and defining authority" (King, 9).


During the early Christian tradition, mysticism became to be defined as "that phenomenon or aspect of the Christian tradition that was understood to emphasize religious knowledge gained by means of an extraordinary experience or revelation of the divine" (King, 7).
The Church at this time in Western Europe held great political and social authority in society. As the mediator between God (the divine/spiritual) and humans, the church played a very much public role in society. Many of what is now considered concerns of the state were governed by the Church. The Church had power over the legislation and jurisdiction of laws, held its own courts which had jurisdiction over marriage, collected taxes. Simply put, the Church held power over the state as well as the citizens in society.

In the post-Reformation period "Western science established its own distinctiveness - its cultural and political identity" (King, 16). As a result, the growing secular power, not wanting the Church to interfere with the state, split the society into two realms: the mystical and the scientific, the private and public. Thus established the privatization of mysticism. Mysticism came to be located in "the psychological realm of personal experiences" (King, 21) which served to "exclude it from political issues such as social justice" (21).
Mysticism came to be defined as something private, personal, irrational, etc.

Using King's method to view mysticism as a geneaology, it's easy to see how its definition has changed throughout the changing sociopolitical dynamics in society and how its characterization reflects "the historical struggle for power and authority" (King, 9).

I think King is absolutely right when he insists that before one examines contemporary characterization of mysticism, "one first needs to understand something about the history of the term 'mystical' and the sociocultural transformations that have led to its particular connotations and denotations in modern Western culture" (King, 8).

The one major problem is the fact that this 'genealogical' view on the definition of mysticism is within a Western context. King, although writing about Orientialism and Religion, uses Western ideologies (the Christian tradition) to discuss East Asian mysticism. Is King's notion of the social construction of mysticism applicable to East Asian mysticism? How has mysticism been defined in East Asia and is it linked to changing sociopolitical circumstances or power relations in society? Can mysticism be even defined as mysticism in East Asia since the term is clearly a Western invention?

I don't know whether East Asian mysticism is defined by sociopolitical changes, or whether its linked to power relations in the East, or even what mysticism means to East Asia. Therefore, it is hard to view King's 'genealogy' of a socially constructed mysticism as being universally applicable.
I think if King had done a cross-cultural (providing both a Western and East Asian context) study of the genealogy of mysticism, his discussion would have been more fruitful.


King, Richard. "The Power of Definitions." In Orientialism and Religion: Post Colonial Theory, India and 'The Mystic East,' 7-34. New York: Routledge, 1999.