Strong anthropology.
Back in the 1980s, Luhrmann, became involved with one strand of the renascent Western mystery tradition--those associated with witchcraft--in England, doing a participant-observer investigation. This book was her report.
While this is her first book, it is not the first one that I read--I earlier went through her similar investigation of a fundamentalist Christian group. I really enjoyed that book--"When God Talks Back"--and suspect I would have done the same with this book if I had read it first. But in both cases her theoretical orientation and explanation are so similar that the thunder was stolen.
It's still good, though.
Luhrmann sees 2oth-century interest in witchcraft as similar to other religions, in that what is emphasized is play and bricolage, the combining of different traditions and the engagement of the as-if sense: act as if it is true. Generally, I think this is right, but it misses some aspects, and underestimates, ironically, the degree of flexibility in the belief system (for want of a beter phrase).
The book is divided into five sections. The first is a probably-too-long account of the various actors and the place of witchcraft within the Western mystery tradition. The section is too long not because she is too focused, but because she is trying to do too much: sociology and anthropology and intellectual history and personal stories. Probably this was a bit of defensiveness based on when the study was done, with Luhrmann feeling she had to justify her study.
Parts two and three bring old-fashioned p-o anthropological techniques to the group Luhrmann studies: she investigates their underlying assumptions, and how these framing devices influence their interpretation of events. (If you view the world as imbued with magic, you will see causality working differently.) She also discusses "involvement"--the way practices such as meditation, visualization, and the use of the imagination shape how one experiences the world.
Luhrmann mentions the work of Lévy-Bruhl here, but does not draw out the comparison as far as possible. Wouter Hanegraaf's much more recent work is better at this, showing that magical understanding of the universe engages a particular sense of being in the world, participation, that is mostly downplayed in the modern world. It emphasizes empathy and imagination and intuition.
Instead, Luhrmann turns to the notion of cognitive dissonance, which I think does not take her ideas about the flexibility and imagination of her participants far enough. She points out that cognitive dissonance is not necessarily negative--true--and is something engaged in by people who subscribe to all kinds of belief systems--also true--but the negative sense lingers nonetheless. And it underestimates the self-reflection of her participants. It is entirely possible to recognize that one is making distinctions between mental states without being accused of cognitive dissonance.
Paradoxically, at the same time that Luhrmann undersells the flexibility of her participants, she is probably also overselling the plasticity of belief in witchcraft. It is certainly true that there are a range of behaviors, and she is very good at showing the diversity, the variety, tracing the ideas to the very edge. But at the sacrifice of showing the core, the shared beliefs. I never got a sense of the center.
The fourth section butts up against this to an extent, but on my reading, never really filled this lacuna. Here, Luhrmann discusses how witchcraft practitioners justify their actions and beliefs to skeptics. Because witchcraft is a fringe activity, this section mostly focuses on the practitioners's defensiveness--inventing the "magical plane" as a way to save the phenomena--and apologetics--intellectual work more in line with other Mystery traditions. She sees this all as the working out of cognitive dissonance, the explaining away of problems, which, again, seems to keep her from dealing with shared issues among practitioners: they are battling with skeptics to protect some central ideas. What are those?
The final section is the key, and probably should have better informed the introductory matter (and the introductory matter been moved elsewhere, and expanded, to give the sense of the core beliefs). She argues here that witchcraft believers move to their status slowly, through what she calls interpretive drift: over time, as they see their half-formed working assumptions about magic seemingly proved by the world, they become more fully convinced, proceeding haltingly toward full-on engagement.
She calls this--correctly-a type of imaginative play. It is Lévy-Bruhl's participation, the practitioners keeping their minds labile and coming to a different way of being in the world.
And that, after all, is what anthropology is about, understanding different ways of being in the world.