“It is hard to focus our attention on the nameless,” said William James. 

Indeed, most people would say that a movement must have a name in order to even be discussed in any meaningful sense. 

Yet, as explored elsewhere in this site, New Agers are notoriously reluctant to align themselves with any name at all. Even the New Age Journal itself, in a 1998 issue celebrating the 25th anniversary of the New Age, called it “the movement without name.”  With such lack of support, it is no wonder the term failed to command loyalty, let alone respect, from the movement’s own adherents. 

It is not surprising that the decline of the term “New Age” has coincided with a decline in the social impact of the movement.  Clearly, we discarded much more than an outdated term, and I believe the first step in recovering what was lost, and setting us back on the road to a better future, lies in reviving the term.

Now first, I will admit that my view of the New Age label is probably unique to my particular age (43 in 2006).  I was a teenager when the New Age was most popular, and because I embraced it so enthusiastically at such a young age, it became part of my spiritual identity.

I also understand that just because the term holds special meaning for me, doesn't mean everyone else feels the same.  Older idealists are likely to have experimented with different belief systems before the New Age became popular.  If the term appealed to them at all, they probably tried it on for a time, then discarded it with relative ease. Younger idealists probably did not encounter the term "New Age" until it was regarded as passé, and so never identified with it at all.

Yet even those who never identified with it still know the term, and have a general idea of what it means. Certainly no other term introduced in the past 25 years to describe popular idealism has the same recognition factor.  

The “stickiness” factor

Malcolm Gladwell’s 2002 book on how trends and social epidemics work, The Tipping Point, became such a phenomenal bestseller that his ideas have become part of our common knowledge.  One of the terms he coined in that book was the “Stickiness Factor,” which describes an idea or phrase that not only “sticks” in people’s mind, but is easy to pass along.

Visionary writers, along with progressive organizers, want very much to find a term that will “stick” with their idealistic audience.  They try hard to find the just right words that unify a group and motivate it to action. But, being visionaries, they rarely employ terms already used someone else.  After all, a visionary is by definition an innovator, a trailblazer.  So most New Age writers try to reinvent the wheel, and come up with something new and different.  

Yet all substitutes to the term New Age have failed to "stick."  Remember the Global Renaissance Alliance introduced in 2000 with much fanfare?  It’s gone. And have you heard talk of "cultural creatives" lately? 

Just recently, in June 2006, Newsweek magazine and Beliefnet.com began calling New Agers Lohasians, derived from the marketing acronym LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainibility).  Even if the consensus on the Beliefnet message board wasn't that most people at first thought the term referred to a Lindsay Lohan celebrity cult, the odds are the term won't really stick either.

The “Holistic Movement” is more particular to alternative health and food products.  Body/Mind/Sprit is an unwieldy publishing category.  Radical Spirit, New Consciousness, Self-Actualization– all these terms have made brief appearances before getting lost in the shuffle.

But just because most other names fail to stick doesn’t mean we could just as easily do without one.  Naming focuses attention, and clarifies intention, provides a “master narrative” by which to understand ourselves and organize our efforts.  A name is a vitally important rallying point with the power to help build critical mass and carry us across the tipping point.

Yes, the term “New Age” has been maligned and misused and misunderstood to the point it barely conveys the meaning it once did.  But rather than keep trying out different names that do not fit, do not stick, do not inspire – why not step up and reclaim the name that everyone already knows?

No doubt many would say it is no longer “realistic” to openly embrace a term with as much baggage as New Age, let alone hold on to its utopian vision for the future.  But as Michael Lerner writes, “If you are on the Left, the strategy of realism is a huge mistake.  When you stop asking, ‘What do I really believe in?’ and substitute instead a focus on asking, ’What is realistic?’ you are on a slippery slope toward the values of materialism and selfishness that receive much clearer statement by the Right.”

If we are going to change the world, Lerner continues, we have to stop worrying about being realistic and turn instead to our values, our ideals, our visionary hopefulness – “the kind of hopefulness that makes you willing to fight for your highest ideals and take risks to make them happen.”

Indeed, the most stunning transformations in our society -- from abolition to women’s suffrage to the ending of segregation –  succeeded because people mobilized behind a set of ideas that were originally considered utopian and unrealistic.

The fact is, in spite of all efforts to sweep the New Age under the rug – or ridicule and demonize it out of existence -- the term has remained stubbornly sticky, still hanging on, more than a decade after the supposed death of the movement. 

Perhaps that is why even the pessimistic Sutcliffe says that the term "New Age" remains the idealistic/holistic/spiritual contingent's "one potentially explosive emblem" -- a potential thus far unrealized.

I propose that we help the emblem explode.

Go back to Pride Power .