This study has had two entrances to the phenomenon. On the one hand, it has focused on the impact of doctrine on the individual. Much more can be done here. An in-depth psychodynamic-psychoanalytic examination. "Good" and "bad" religion. On the one hand, it has taken up an old track from religious psychology that deals with things like that.
I have suggested in this study that the phenomenon should be understood psychodynamically. It is probably the case that some spirituality exposes the individual to greater pressure/temptation to function "below his level". But this will have different effects on different individuals, probably depending on several different factors: the "compelling coherence" of the doctrine, the personality structure of the individual, etc.
To do longitudinal studies to gain a greater understanding of how an interest in new age/newness may arise remains to be done (Granqvist, et al). But it bears pointing out that even if these findings were to point to a causality with upbringing factors, these results would not be convincing from a new age/new age perspective, as it is assumed that the individual has with him his own personality from a previous life that is only "activated" by contact with nursing subjects and early environmental factors.
The philosophical or theological objectings made naturally come mainly from the Christian side (Adel…, etc.). It would be interesting if a philosopher wanted to try to describe what is characteristic of new age or newness, in relation to, for example, atheism/agnosticism and Christianity. What if it can be captured? Equation, conditional clauses. Philosophically speaking, the new world declaration may seem watertight. It explains
Differentiate, new age/newness "type 1", "type 2", etc.
New Age has been accused of lacking common worldview, common ideology, common organization, p17
New age is of a nebulös nature, s21 Chryssides 2007. The research that has been done has been on "new age" interested (Granqvist). The popular notion that the New Age is a smorgasbord is put into question by several researchers.
New age and newness are generally perceived as very heterogeneous groups. Instead of arguing that this phenomenon is actually more homogeneous than one usually imagines, you can approach it all from the other side. To specify a few criteria that may constitute one's group. You can call it what you want. The call for the call that expired stated "new age". This may also apply in this study. Here after called NA, which should be seen as a kind of mix of the two.
I find that it is heterogeneous, not so much for all its exotic practices and beliefs, and that there are so many different kinds of healing, for example – with strange names and claims – that the individual can shift between, but that the width is along a kind of axis, which has to do with rationality versus feeling.
Everyone in NA embraces an acceptance of basically the same things. They differ — and can possibly be distributed on that basis to a few groups — according to what is at the center of their attention, and what is peripheral: For some, experience is the primary, metaphysics secondary. For others, it is the opposite. Just like any other religious context. Often, these individuals don't have much to say to each other, because their perceptions are so undeveloped in the department that isn't in their focus. In a survey, the group will appear more homogeneous than it actually is! And when an inventory of the supply in a new-age bookstore etc. it will appear more heterogeneous and fickle than it really is. Both perspectives are true.
Here is the research done in cognitive psychology, which indicates that in some aspects traditional Christianity and atheism have more in common, compared to new age/newness, both enigmatic and fruitful.
It would be interesting to investigate more in depth gender aspects of new age/newness. Some have been done (Löwenadler, et al. This material suggests that there could be gender-specific differences here, for example in how women and men perceive and/or even use things like separations in light of new age/newness. This is probably not different from emancipatory aspects in other research, but what makes it particularly interesting in this group is that the very interest itself is so much about emancipation, personal self-realization, experiencing oneself strong and free, agency, independence, individualism, etc.
Another gender aspect is how new age/newness encourages the individual to develop or emphasize more classically female ideals, to be loving, understanding, ally and so on. How does this work for men and women? For women, this could mean strengthening something that is already expected of them. Partly to live up to a classic female ideal, and partly to take care of yourself, free yourself, put your foot down. At the same time, there are individualist imperatives, to self-realization, emancipation.
Is it the case that the emancipation for women in NA can become a trap or an overwhelming project? (What have I been thinking here?)
Parallels to contemporary thinking.
It is clear that typical new-age beliefs have great acceptance among the public. What does that mean? To investigate differences between magical thinking or superstition and new age/newness as a philosophy of life. To further differentiate in this. Benign and malignant.
There are examples everywhere in the literature of how accepted diagnoses are used in the "light" sense. "Imposed aneroxia" in a sect context, a kind of "psychopathy" or iniocuousness that can follow drug use, hare crisis monks who may seem "psychotic", adolescents who may exhibit a "borderline-like" personality on the threshold of adulthood, etc.
Healthy supporters of new age/newness
To examine in more detail the group that seems to be able to encompass this worldview without any negative consequences whatsoever. Individuals who may have their own experiences of such "enlightenment" that occur anecdotally in the material, which the interviewees believe can be confused with psychotic phenomena. This will be a research that crosses the line into transpersonal psychology, in the wake of Abraham Maslow.
Many great scientists are and have also throughout history been deeply religious, and superstitious, by today's standards. Newton, et al. Why? Out of habit? The norm of the outside world? What so about us today, what norm are we easily falling back on, or may need to raise awareness of? Synchronistic ideas, about astrology.