"A superstition which pretends to be scientific creates a much greater confusion of thought than one which contents itself with simple popular practices"
About this Quote
Huizinga is taking a scalpel to the most seductive kind of nonsense: the kind that wears a lab coat. Folk superstition, in his telling, is at least honest about what it is. It lives in ritual, habit, and local custom; you can bracket it off as "what people do" without mistaking it for "how the world works". The real danger arrives when superstition borrows the prestige of science and starts issuing claims with the tone of measurement and proof. Then error stops being merely practiced and becomes systematized.
The intent here is defensive and diagnostic. As a historian of culture, Huizinga watched modern Europe cultivate a near-religious faith in "scientific" language, even as propaganda, racial theory, eugenics, and pseudo-psychologies smuggled old fears and desires into new vocabularies. The subtext is that modernity doesn't abolish superstition; it upgrades it. Once myth is expressed as data, it gains institutional leverage: it can be taught, legislated, administered, and used to justify harm while claiming neutrality.
What makes the line work rhetorically is its inversion of expectations. We assume the more "scientific" version is cleaner. Huizinga argues it's messier, because it corrupts the categories we rely on to think clearly. If everyone knows a charm is a charm, the damage is bounded. If a charm is presented as a finding, it colonizes the very tools meant to correct it. He's warning that confusion isn't a side effect of bad science; it's a political and cultural outcome of bad faith dressed up as method.
The intent here is defensive and diagnostic. As a historian of culture, Huizinga watched modern Europe cultivate a near-religious faith in "scientific" language, even as propaganda, racial theory, eugenics, and pseudo-psychologies smuggled old fears and desires into new vocabularies. The subtext is that modernity doesn't abolish superstition; it upgrades it. Once myth is expressed as data, it gains institutional leverage: it can be taught, legislated, administered, and used to justify harm while claiming neutrality.
What makes the line work rhetorically is its inversion of expectations. We assume the more "scientific" version is cleaner. Huizinga argues it's messier, because it corrupts the categories we rely on to think clearly. If everyone knows a charm is a charm, the damage is bounded. If a charm is presented as a finding, it colonizes the very tools meant to correct it. He's warning that confusion isn't a side effect of bad science; it's a political and cultural outcome of bad faith dressed up as method.
Quote Details
| Topic | Reason & Logic |
|---|
More Quotes by Johan
Add to List
