Eric Voegelin.pdf - Geschwister-Scholl-Institut für Politikwissenschaft

– 27 –
(4) „From this follows the belief that the order of being will have to
be changed in an historical process“.
(5) „A change in the order of being lies in the realm of human
action“.
(6) The gnostic is ready to provide „a formula for self and world
salvation“ and „to come forward as a prophet who will proclaim
his knowledge about the salvation of mankind“. 25
Close inspection of this section of Voegelin’s essay will show
that the six features above were not put forward as a definition
of gnosticism, but rather as a description of „the attitude“
found in modern „gnostic“ mass movements, including
„progressivism, positivism, Marxism, psychoanalysis,
communism, fascism, and national socialism“ (NSP, 57).
However, this procedure is confusing, because in the essay
Voegelin does not discuss what gnosticism was initially and
why, despite profound differences in the content of the
symbolism, there is an experiential continuity between ancient
gnosticism and certain kinds of modern mass movements and
schools of thought that is so profound as to make those
differences secondary, to the point that we can speak of two
types of gnosticism, one ancient and the other modern and
contemporary. It was not until six years later and the
publication of The Ecumenic Age that this defect was
remedied.
Furthermore, the designation of psychoanalysis, positivism,
and Marxism as „mass movements“ is doubtful. Whether
„progressivism“ is a mass movement cannot easily be
determined because of the vagueness of the term. If he is using
it as equivalent to liberalism, of either the upper- or lower-case
variety, I have already expressed my disagreement in the
Introductory Note. No doubt liberalism was in part a mass
movement, but not all mass movements are gnostic. To my
knowledge,Voegelin does not refer again to this essay, and it