[Note: cf. also the rise of an engineering mentality among evangelical Christians during the twentieth century, exemplified by classic dispensationalism. That's not a pejorative, just an observation. We want to know What's Going On, in as much detail as we can.]

Actually, my thesis depends less on the persona (or lack thereof) of the magic source than with the idea that we feel there needs to be something understandable about it if we’re to use it. This is certainly an industrialization-compatible idea, but I imagine it’s rooted in the Enlightenment at the latest. Which would also account for the Eastern/Western dichotomy.

It also enables us in the West to feel more comfortable. After all, if we don’t know what makes it tick (heh), we’re at the mercy of the one who does — the god/demigod/djinn. Which makes us “masters of our fate” very, very nervous. To illustrate:

Cho: If dark forces did exist, it stands to reason there could be people who control them for their own ends.
Patrick: They’re called investment bankers.
— The Mentalist: “Red Rum”

Economics. <shudder> Makes me nervous, anyway. Especially after realizing that what I learned about it in school is rubbish.

One nit with your central thesis, which is that most magic, from primitive tribal religions all the way up through sophistocated religious practice, is what you would here call “scientific” in the sense that it works according to certain rules, is understood to be constrained by certain limitations, etc.

I think the major difference is that post-Victorian views of magic are more likely to view magic as tapping a natural force rather than currying favor with a god/demigod to secure their agency in gaining access to power. But this isn’t exactly a constrained thing — Dharmic religions are more likely to view the universal source of magic as impersonal, while Occidental ones are more likely to view it as personal (although this isn’t a hard-and-fast rule).

Anyway, that’s my nit, FWIW — thanks for the enjoyable article!

— Dan