Esotericism as “Unsettled Knowledge” in the Comics of Alan Moore and David B.

With the category “occulture”, Christopher Partridge described the diffusion of esoteric and occult ideas, symbols, and narratives in mass cultural production, starting from the countercultural movement of the 1960s. Occulture is a paradigm shift in contemporary Western societies, an expression of the intertwined processes of sacralization and secularization. Furthermore, occulture normalizes esotericism, which is no longer a secret or absolute knowledge, having become just “ordinary”. Occulture is part of late capitalism, another good to consume (Partridge, 2014). Adam Possamai proposed a similar analysis, arguing that esoteric knowledge in contemporary Western societies has become a “McDonaldised Occult culture” (Possamai, 2002, p. 48), a “hyper-religion” with its political and religious values discarded, implying a process of disenchantment.

Nina Kokkinen (2013) developed the category of occulture as an analytical tool, suggesting that it could also be applied in the 19th century and highlighting the process of “religioning” carried out by artists. This artistic exploration of spirituality should not be considered “inauthentic” or “superficial”, because artists participate in shaping religion (Kokkinen, 2013, p. 22). Kokkinen’s main theoretical frame is the “seekership” or the “new age discourse” (Sutcliffe, 2003), which explains how believers in contemporary societies—and artists, in particular—undertake a spiritual quest characterized by syncretism and anti-dogmatism, focused on personal well-being. For artists and for “spiritual seekers”, the self is the ultimate authority and can question institutional religions (Kokkinen, 2021).

In the last twenty years, the literature on comics and religion has grown steadily. Scholars have described how comic artists participate in shaping religious phenomena, thereby innovating in the comics medium (Kraemer and Lewis, 2015; Lewis and Kraemer, 2010) and how comics represent and misrepresent religions (Lund, 2016). Furthermore, according to Jeffrey Kripal, comics and popular culture are the place for theological innovations and will play a crucial role in the future of religious phenomena. Kripal argued that American popular culture is suffused with mystical mythemes, and “pop-cultural products” are often the results of “private paranormal experiences” (Kripal, 2011, p. 2).

In this paper, I will not limit my arguments to detecting esoteric narratives in comics, as has been done for the works of Alan Moore (Hanegraaff, 2016) and Grant Morrison (Granholm, 2014). Rather, aligned with Kripal, I will show how comics are a place for religious innovations. I will argue that the main conceptualisations of esotericisms employed by Faivre, Hanegraaff, and von Stuckrad are not effective in describing the esoteric comics of Alan Moore and David B. Esotericism as “forms of thought” could be applied to comics, but this would not capture their specificity, since this model is too generic and could be applied to very heterogeneous phenomena, thus losing its heuristic force. Esotericism as “stigmatised” or “rejected” knowledge would not apply to a mass medium, such as comics. In fact, what has been stigmatised by contemporary science or institutional religions has been affirmed, by many contemporary artists. In addition, the esotericism of these artists is the opposite of “absolute”. It is the display of doubt, wonder, apprehension, and exploration. Finally, I will show that it is not elitist or secret since anyone who can afford a comic book has access to this esotericism.

In my opinion, the category of “occulture” aptly describes the field of art and esotericism, in which we find very different phenomena, in the work of Jorge Luis Borges and Federico Fellini, for example, but also in second-rate movies, books, and comics. Occulture artworks might be masterpieces destined to shape culture and society for decades, or entertaining products to be forgotten in a few months. Furthermore, occulture artworks could be the product of spiritual seekers, who consider art to be a spiritual practice (as argued by Kokkinen), but they could also be the product of “non-seekers”, who use esotericism merely as a narrative device. The same could be said of readers, who can read/consume an artistic product with either secular or religious lenses/appetites. Considering the heterogeneous nature of the occulture category, I prefer to think of it as a heterogeneous field, a symbolic space (Bourdieu 1989) composed of different phenomena, rather than as an analytical tool. Furthermore, I will show that the focus on seekership does not capture the specificity of comics and graphic novels nor the social and political dimensions in the artwork of Moore and David B.

To overcome these theoretical dead ends, I propose the idea of esotericism as “unsettled and unsettling knowledge”. This form of knowledge is anti-dogmatic and syncretic, not limiting itself to a specific religious or cultural context, but finding its main legitimisation in storytelling and spiritual experience. This “unsettled knowledge” blurs the boundaries of reality and fiction, and it questions, challenges, and sometimes even mocks religions. However, it should not be considered secular, but rather as the display of doubt and endless research. The protagonists of these comics are antiheroes tormented by their uncertainties about what is right and what is wrong, what is real and what is not. The focus of this “unsettled knowledge” is transcendence, but also humankind, as an exploration of the unconscious and of societies and politics. Finally, this “unsettled knowledge” is also “unsettling” for the reader, who finds, in the boundless worlds depicted by these authors, a space for dazzling, wondrous, and metaphysical and psychological explorations, which lead them to question their own assumptions of reality.