Khhrm... yes let's get going. My bad!
I have left here question marks in case some of you might disagree or point out the lack of my comprehension.
V: State of Research and Institutionalization pp.15-19:
Faivre lists recent events and changes in the field of study of esotericism.
He mentions so called "generalists" and their contribution on this field.
Firstly Faivre writes of contributor Wouter J. Hanegraff and his work (New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought (1996). )Faivre recognizes Hanegraff's importance as a generalist.
Faivre compares Hanegraff to Marco Pasi. Eventhough of being defined in "occultist current", in Faivre's opinion he manages to treat magic and occultism appropriately under the western esotericism.
Generally speaking, this chapter felt more as a historical and bibliographical and very difficult to translate into a memoir.
Faivre mentions many many other authors and researchers but instead of referring each of them I decide not to.
From here on Faivre tells a more historical situation of research. For example how the name History of Christian Esotericism in France was changed later in the 1979 to History of Esoteric and Mystical Currents in the Modern and Contemporary Europe and after this in the 2002 the word "Mystical" was dropped out of chair title.
Faivre opens an outlook on Amsterdam and its study of Esotericism as well as how things are or were in UK, Germany and USA.
Lastly I could mention the European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism which was founded in 2002.
ESSWE brings different kind of research across the world to exchange ideas and research and has held already two conferences.
VI: Past and Present Obstacles to the Recognition of this specific field pp. 19-22:
After the periods of marginalization this field has started to have some increasing recognition.
But there are still obstacles that slow down this recognition.
So what are the obstacles?
Faivre points out four obstacles:
1. Existence of approaches of religionist/universalist character. (Check the III part of introduction)
2. Confusionism. Meaning that the definition of esotericism gets blurred and you get to use it as an adjective for anything (portmanteau) covering fantasy, imaginary etc. "That's esoteric".
Faivre cites Artistic works associated with an aura of mystery and this feels to me to be the same not only on resesearch field but in arts and music as well. You'd have heavy metal unicorns, fantastical warriors and magic next to each other. Nowadays we have Occult rock for example.
3.Dogma of superior religion dictates what becomes marginalized and inferior. (?)
Esotericism is thought as a mere marginal heresy besides other heresies seen from the point of dogma of Catholic Christianity.
4. Composition of Academic specialities in the History of Religion.
If this discipline (History of Religion) have not accepted the specialities in the past the Gnosticism of Late Antiquity, Jewish kabbalah, Muslim theosophies or even Christian mysticism. Then how could it even recognize Western Esotericism?
Faivre points out that using blank term "mysticism" can be understood as the portmanteau mentioned in the obstacle two.
In Faivre's opinion this is one of the reasons of delay in the Research.
Because this field was never integrated into disciple of History of Religion, it found its way in the rationalist discourse, but soon it was to discarded by newer form or rationalist current as a disturbing the belief of religion emancipating out of science.
Nowadays Western Esotericism is found under the umbrella of New Age or New Religious Movements. Thus from sociological point of view media and public authorities call these religious esoteric circles as "sects".
In other words, does this mean that there is some kind of hegemony going on?This gives rise to the idea that no grounds exist to consider Western esotericism as a specific field of research, because it never does more than relate to objects with which these scholars are already preoccupied.