Although the study of Western esotericism is fairly new as an independent discipline, the question of what meaning “esotericism” holds has been the subject of much scholarly debate. Unfortunately, the meaning of “Western” has not been subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny. If “Western” is to be a defining term, as it can be expected to be in the study of Western esotericism, then it should be discussed thoroughly. The term may seem simple, but it is actually a tricky one to define in a way that makes it analytically useful. As with identities in general, “the West” as a region, “Western” as a quality and “Westerner” as a self-identity are often defined in relation to that which is conceived of as non-Western. In this, esotericists have been no different. However, whereas the “non-Western” is commonly depicted in a negative tone in order to present the “Western” in a good light (see Said 1979), esotericists have tended to adopt romanticized views of “the other”, or at least of certain aspects of “the other”. The prominence of this romanticizing tendency, combined with the near impossibility to demarcate “the West” from the “non-West” in any conclusive and satisfactory manner, suggests that “Western” is best approached as an internal, emic, category in esoteric discourse. Furthermore, in a late-modern globalizing world solid distinctions between “West” and “non-West” are becoming increasingly difficult and problematic to sustain.