Shamanism The Key To Religion

Shamanism: The Key to Religion Author(s): David Riches Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Jun.
, 1994), pp. 381-405 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2804479 . Accessed: 29/11/2013 20:13
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Man.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 200.26.133.57 on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:13:56 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SHAMANISM: THE KEY TO RELIGION

DAVID RICHES
University ofStAndrews
theprevalent religion deductive reasoning toshamanism, 'religious'. Itdoesso byapplying religious process aresimple andinwhosecosmologies insocieties whosesocialstructures theethnographic focus.The is conspicuous; heretheCanadianInuit(Eskimo)provide concontradictions article assumesthatreligious processfinds itsbasisin fundamental intheantithesis between socialstructure theconditions ofsocial eNistence, namely cerning is contemplated as this contradiction by, and communitas. Cosmologyis generated in view.The argubothwiththeir own interests respectively, laypeople and specialists, ofdistinctive ment suchcentral cultural andanalytical issuesastheexistence alsoconsiders of religion of,variously, and thepertinence forthestudy notions of thehumanperson, edicts; and itjoins with systems of classification, and religious 'secondary elaborations', in 'cosmology-making'. of thespecialist Barthin emphasizing thesalience
ofsocio-intellectual processes, fashion a composite The article lays outin schematic in respect might appropriately be labelled ofall cosmologies, which arguably evident
Introduction
yetfew woulddenythat analytical category, 'Religion' maybe a problematic in human it is meant to refer to something sociallife.Definifundamental the tional matters apart,in common sense it evokes two functions: to thesocial, especially theinstitutional); support ideological (i.e. rendering and of eschatological and the cosmological (i.e. permitting contemplation A for the individual). major difficulty inquiring related questions posedby is therelationship between thesetwofunctions, withtheories anthropology ofreligion tojustone ofthem (cf Geertz 1965:42). primacy typically giving cutsacross thetwofunctions. ofreligion which Thisarticle offers an account I shallarguethattheterm'religion' reasonably be used to describe might the which human certain socio-intellectual beingscontemplate processes by the'social'in and to delineate social.1 The taskis to exposetheseprocesses, in humaninteraction. In of something terms distinctive and fundamental as the must them byconstruing be approached principle, 'religious' processes both lay and specialist workof individuals, (hence the term continuing must be pretheseprocesses socio-intellectual Furthermore, processes). at some level, in all cosmologies sumed to be evident, (for example, in thebulk embodied though bymodemscience), including thecosmology
Man (N.S.) 29,381-405
382
DAVID RICHES
of thearticle I am content to articulate themethnographically an through Inuit(Eskimo) ofCanadian shamanism.2 examination to two majormethodological aroundsolutions is organized The article in thesocial'willbe shownto refer the'fundamental to a problems. First, universal and deep phenomenon, to communitas and socialstrucrelating is required. It is argued that this for which an ethnographic ture, counterpart is provided societies with'simple' social ethnographic counterpart byhuman - societies whoseprevalent is shamanism.3 structures This is why religion in thisdiscussion is thetraditional the exemplar society (i.e. pre-colonial) is available in numerous of aboutwhominformation CanadianInuit, texts highest quality (especially Rasmussen 1929;1930;1931;1932).4 The second like'supernatural' or 'sacred', is an analyst's problem is that'shamanism', for category This has obvious advantages a comparative project. Yetwhatis Andwhen to be included in (or excluded thenotion of shamanism? from) orwith shouldone begintheanalysis? Shouldit be withtheecstatic trance, withthat thecapricious or withthecontact worldwhich spirit world, spirit I suggest a deductive theshaman achieves? that method can avoid uniquely of taking of this'religious' theseproblems. Instead some (arbitrary?) aspect as a pointof departure, one can beginwithsome theoretical first system this principles and out of thesegenerate a bodyof knowledge. Supposing in common knowledge corresponds roughly withwhatwe are happy sense to label 'shamanism', thenwe maybe content. It is by meansof such a withreference deductive procedure that, to Inuitshamanism, thevarious of'religious willbe exposed. aspects process' In theconclusion, deductive is confronted reasoning with theassumptions of interpretive and thevarious of 'religion' reasoning, intellectual processes arelaidout.Itwillbe shown howcosmologies from thecontemplaemanate tiveworkof laypersons and specialists as eachpursuetheir rather different interests. Laypersons' interests, whichrelate to thevery constitution of the arerevealed to be themorefundamental: social, an intrinsic part ofreligious is thefact that thespecialist to practise. process laypersons' interests license to do with ownpower, Yetitis specialists' interests, themaintenance oftheir whichconstrain how cosmologies are elaborated and represented; Barth's work(1987)on divergences within a New Guineacosmology a vital provides ofcomparison boththeoretically andethnographically point here, in whatfollows The socio-intellectual processes elucidated maybe read from an evolutionary standpoint. Shamanism beenelaborated has,ofcourse, elsewhere in an evolutionary vein(e.g.,La Barre about 1970),butdistinctive is how shamanism thisarticle is shownto be linked to a fundamental social in principle, 'moment' in a manner similar, to Durkheim's discussion of in a special thismoment totemism (Durkheim 1964). By articulating way, thisarticle how religion at theinstant of socialstructure, suggests emerges withanysubstantive socialorganization. and so hand-in-hand
DAVID RICHES
383
Shamanism andthe contemplation ofthe social Discussionsin the anthropological literature frequently comment on the in societies with'simple' of shamanism socialstructures, prevalence that is, in societies withdecentralized polities, marked by egalitarianism, by social valueswhichcelebrate theautonomy oftheindividual person, andbysocial organizations where descent sodalities areabsent or notstrongly emphasized (e.g. Lewis 1971: 34-5; Knauft 1985: 319).5 Thus the cosmologies of nomadichunting and gathering societies are predominantly shamanistic (an - butthen, no one wouldclaimthat is theAustralian exception Aborigines their socialstructures aresimple!), as also arethoseof northern Old World societies reindeer pastoralists, andofsuchdiverse hunter-horticultural as the PiaroaofVenezuela, theGebusiand theBaktaman of New Guineaand the Yet there has been little of a connexion Chewongof Malaysia.6 exploration between and thistype thistype of socialstructure of religion. For example, inEcstatic in only sucha link a negative sense. Ioan Lewis, religion, approaches The unpredictable religious ecstasy whichis shamanism's hallmark would notbe tolerated in moremarkedly institution-bound societies, Lewismainof charisma tains, alluding to Weberon the routinization (1971: 174; cf in this, Douglas1973:104).Thereis force yetitis a pity that Lewis'sexplanation ofshamanism invokes pressures external tothe society. Thus,inspired by its'classical arctic' manifestation, Lewisinterprets this'ecstatic' cosmology as thevehicle from a hostile bywhich humans, under domination environment or from aremasters oftheir own fate societal encapsulation, assert that they (1971: 176). By contrast, in thepresent article it is in terms of distinctively is explained. circumstances shamanism internal (social) that ButI go further. If shamanism of societies is thereligion withsimplesocialstructures then, a relationship canbe generally established as between and supposing religion As it may be through shamanism that itwillbe exposed. socialorganization, to how thisrelationship one will haveto relate thephemaybe effected, in the human nomenon, religion, to something extremely fundamental which thanthe constellation of traits socialcondition (morefundamental to is going socialstructure' Whatthisfundamental 'simple describes). aspect be depends, in turn, on howone choosesto theorize thissocialcondition. The theoretical in the social' to discussion of something 'fundamental whichI shall attend is VictorTurner's of 'communitas' exposition (e.g. 1969; 1974). Communitas essentially refers to a primordial sociality which functions to embrace all individuals as equal and wholebeings; as such it connotes a kindof socialsoup,whosehomogeneity ex(whichpotentially tends to the limitsof the human species) reflects the existenceof socialties.Turner also expounds on the 'generalized' (i.e. undifferentiated) Characterized differentiaproperties of socialstructure. by institutionalized these properties are entirely tion and hierarchy, oppositeto those of and generic bond' (1969: communitas. Yetcommunitas, beingan 'essential forthesocialstructural: thepossibility of instituas a template 83), serves thatthere a social and hierarchy eNists differentiation tionalized presupposes
384
DAVID RICHES
who willbe incorporated in thestruccommunion amongst theindividuals alludes to something turalscheme.In this regard, communitas clearly in thesocial, thetranscendence of the fundamental sinceit exactly captures individual whichmakes human sociallifedistinctive.7 'Whilst Turner dwells on ethnographic circumstances of liminality circumstances, specifically (in ritesof passage,in pilgrimage), where communitas mightactually be theconcept's worth forme is moreabstract: glimpsed, via communitas the of socialstructure crucial underpinnings are beingtheorized. This laysthe basisforunderstanding religion.8 in contradictions It is an anthropological truism that religion has itsroots in theintellectual An appreciation or socialdomains). of religion (whether in connexion thepossibilities ofcontradiction with therefore might explore I arguethat therelevant herelies exactly in the communitas. contradiction andstructure, on theone relationship between communitas specifically that, hand, communitas is formally antithetical to structure, whereas, on theother makesstructure Such a contradiction hand,communitas possible. maybe I suggest socialexistence. construed as a expected to permeate that religion, ofknowledge, offundamental emanates as peopleconcomposite processes in so doing a root moral dilemma. It this template contradiction, confronting is proposed that many nomadic hunter-gatherer and certain other societies, come ethnographically closestto withtheirsimple, egalitarian structures, and reveal dilemma in subsuchtheorized sucha rootmoral circumstances does notequateexactly as stantive terms. withcommunitas; Egalitarianism Sallnow(1981: 176) points other thanconjunction, out,processes such as andreciprocity, areassociated withegalitarianism. Yetifone is to competition socialcommunion, an ethosin whichpeopleuphold speakof a primordial thevalueofminimal socialdifferences in power andwealth echoesit. plainly matter on the of contradiction: the which developing inequalities, Similarly, in realhumansocieties continually compromise egalitarianism, mimicthe It follows communitas. thatshaway structure theoretically compromises manism is theidealvehicle for isolating thenature ofreligious process. As an ethnographic a roughaccountof shamanism preamble, maybe In thisdescription theCanadianInuit, a nomadic helpful. hunter-gatherer in mind, is firmly on Rasmussen's The texts. society, drawing outstanding a man,forin thissociety, as in manyothers Inuitshamanis moreoften failsto extend whereshamanism to relations prevails, egalitarianism fully of a shamanistic between menand women.The hallmark must cosmology lie in thepersonage oftheshaman. The notion ofshaman marks a distinctive learned skills and supernatural socialrolewhoseincumbent, blessthrough is ableto intercede ing(normally spirit possession), witha spirit worldthat, nature whichit animates, of itscontrol overundomesticated has byvirtue misfortune on humanity. The misfortune is explained as thework dispatched at peopleforfailing of angry to observe edicts. incensed spirits, religious likeall humans, has a soul: Pertinent hereis the notionthatthe shaman, there to cajole trance theshaman's souljourneys to thespirit during world,
DAVID RICHES
385
humans on theonly-too-fallible and itsresidents once againto look kindly and,aboveall,bounteous supplies of grant them goodhealth, goodweather can interaction with the wild;the foodwhichhumans secureonlythrough moreassiduously that thepeoplewillin future attend to their soul promises from thetrance, theshaman announces that the religious duties. Emerging granted. Supposing peoplerectify their pleahas beenheard and therequest better times see foot(forbasicreferences, shortcomings, maybe expected note6). for on this skeletal picture; example, when Thereare,ofcourse, variations or wherethespirit as supplementary themes, witchcraft and sorcery prevail in pastoral without a souljoumey. Moreover, and hortiworldis contacted also occurs,evidently sacrifice frequently cultural shamanistic societies, whichan economy basedon relating to thenurturing ofplants and animals involves resources domesticated (e.g.Ingold1986:243-76).In suchsocieties, lifeare chiefly shamanic endeavours economic connected with conceming whichunpredictably on the nurturing 'external' factors impinge process disaster, andso on. from theoutside, suchas disease, ecological egalitarian valuesare incorpoAs to CanadianInuitsocialorganization, and economically withregard to rated politically withregard to leadership however able,maystand kinship sharing (cfRiches1982).Thus no hunter, has theright as structurally no hunter to be followed by superior to others: choiceand decision is entitled to exercise without restricothers; everyone tion - everyone'sopinion has an equivalentright to be heard. in speno socialrulesobligespecific individuals to reside Correspondingly, cificcommunities with specific others;social groups,albeitarticulated in composition andfluid areaccordingly tiesofkinship, amorphous through a kinship relations underpin in membership. As to the economicsphere, A notable of Canadian feature of foodthroughout thecommunity. sharing in common withmany other hunter-gatherer societies, Inuitegalitarianism, is the'levelling-down' bysuchmethprocedure (Lee 1988:262-6)inwhich, andsexual thoseof ods as 'rough teasing joking', good humour, putdowns, for ofcapitalizing on their skill. all aredenied thechance Yet, superior ability is countervailed. wheresuch egalitarianism thisthere are socialtendencies rank aboveaverage andwhosedeThus hunters whosecatches consistently will come to cisionsabout moving camp proveto be the mosteffective and be designated in thewidercommunity as 'thinkers' exercise influence The analytical the notionof prestige (Riches 1984) captures (isumataaq). andothers. oftherelationship between suchindividuals quality
a deductive Inuitshamanism: analysis
to revealsome keyeleIn thissection I attempt, reasoning, by deductive in theproduction ments ofone particular bodyofcosmological knowledge. to squareoff theknowlis occasionally The deductive account interrupted as they areknown. facts withtherough so far ethnographic edgegenerated
386
DAVID RICHES
theargument is rather the Limitations ofspacemeanthat schematic, though in moredetail. section one aspect oftheethnography following explores can be exposed, in the The contradiction underpinning religious process - thenotion to a central ofcosmology Inuitcontext, byattending aspect that souls and beingsubject to the control of spirits, animals, having willingly hunter. Whatsuchcosmology is deliver themselves to thewaiting suggests whenhunting that is successful, it is becauseanimals consciously approach thanviceversa. This is counter-intuitive, thehunters, rather forit implies to ensure a fulllarder thehunter shouldconcentrate moreon religious that on skills than withharpoon, bow or lance;yet, is no quesobservance there in Inuit theselatter The contradiction tion,Inuits deploy skills assiduously. is thus socialexperience highlighted. It revolves around thecircumstances of in thecommunity. theeconomically successful at These peopleare subject the same timeto bothnon-recognition to political and economic (thanks levelling) and recognition (as isumataaq). In other words, via egalitarianism, their standing is continually reduced, their yetas their following increases rises.9 standing continually to thepredicament haveattended of better in an Otherstudies hunters socialcontext. It hasbeenargued that socialmechanisms, suchas egalitarian toprevent function them thecommunity, evenas they prestige, leaving stand to share to lose out economically through their having spoils(e.g.Dowling is thus 1968;Ingold1986:210).Yetifprestige something special afforded the overegalitarian besthunters, thissurely dilemmas values onlyaccentuates in Inuitsocialexperience cannotbe (c? Riches 1984). The contradiction resolved through practical action;it mayonlybe addressed via intellectual The moraldilemma is obvious:how mayactualsuperior contemplation. (hunting) performance, inevitably delivered bysome,be reconciled withthe formal all?Alternatively, equality expected among sinceitis individuals who the be contemplate, question might rephrased: howmaythesuperior hunter a superior in an acceptable present performance morallight? In response, on the sequenceof deductive an initial of embarking element reasoning, is implicated: Inuit theideathat cosmological knowledge itis notthehunter, but someother non-human who is responsible forthesesuccesses.10 agent Fromthis, thefullcosmology ofshamanism follows. logically thelogic, Pursuing we havethefollowing: withregard to hunting, feeling comfortable is associated withimputing morally to somenon-human agent to exercise control overhumanfortune; is thecapacity thecruxof hunting of theanimal, so theimputation the capture will be thatthehandof the thanthehandofthehunter, non-human rather liesbehind thiscapagent, ture.To makeit absolutely thehunter's handplaysno part, it is plainthat theanimalthatthenon-human will be said to operate: the through agent is required to deliver itself animal up - ofitsownvolition. Atthis further has to be elaborated. This is in order juncture, knowledge whenthehunting to deal withsituations The very notion of animals fails. themselves from theInuits' emanates here-and-now delivering up to humans
DAVID RICHES
387
concern withmoral ofhunting upstandingness, so,whenthefailure is contemplated, thismust be associated withan ideaofmoral impropriety. Whatof the content of such impropriety? It is some non-human agent which'delivers' theanimals to humans who needtheflesh forfood, so, by it must be thesameagent parsimony, who is desisting whentheanimals fail to come,or whensomecomparable occurs. trauma The human impropriety behind thismusttherefore be affecting thenon-human agent. is The effect an adverse evidently one,andso, because we arespeaking abouttheoppositionbetween thesupposition proper and improper behaviour, mustbe that the non-human agentrefuses to deliver becausecertain humanbehaviour has givenoffence. The relevant impropriety thuscomprises anybehaviour which thenon-human finds agent Fromthis, unacceptable. twocentral ideas arenecessarily entailed. is that The first thenon-human agents haveanthropomorphic qualities. Entities that takeoffence at human behaviour arelikely to havehuman-like andtherefore cognitive attributes andsocialcharacteristics physical similar to thoseofhumans.11 Thus thenon-human agents willbe considered to have their own place(s) of residence (albeitin a non-human realm)and to be incorporated as elements in an uncentralized socialsystem which,though different from theInuitsocialsystem, mustbe imaginable Above bythem. all,thenon-humans must havedecision-making capacities. Logically implied is a non-human worldconsisting of a plethora of entities, each withits autonomous domain of interest, and each liable to reciprocate human (mis)behaviour bywithdrawing whatever resources, valuable to humans, it commands. And all this,whichhas thusbeen deducedlogically, findsa in the 'reality' of CanadianInuitcosmology. counterpart We describe Inuit as including a number cosmology ofspirits (in someplacesgenerally known as tonrait), each exercising control overdifferent of thephysical and aspects organic world,some (the chiefones) livingin distinct of the nonparts human world(sky, ofthesea),others bottom implicitly incorporated in,for theanimalitself example, volitional (as theanimal's soul),and all quickto react whenthehumanbeing(inuk)strays from whatis, in spiritual terms, each delivering such a reaction vitally important, from by withdrawing human accessgoodfortune in general andanimals in particular. Rasmussen (1929: 58-81,126-7)provides theclassicreference whichretails theseelethe originmyths in termsof which theyfind their ments,including legitimation 1930:232). (see also Rasmussen Atthis itis useful point tocomment on theexistence ofdistinctive notions of thehuman whichprevail in all societies, in orderto clarify person, the and animal between soulsin Inuitcosmology. relationship spirits The need forthisdiscussion stemsfromthe factthatthe conceptualization of the human personrequiresa benchmark, some (non-human) 'other',with whomthehumanis contrasted: is surely this'other' theanimal Thus prey. the Inuitnotionof animalsas having souls has to be explicated further, in relation to thespirit world which controls theanimals' specifically physical
388
DAVIDRICHES
themto, or withholding the human movement (dispatching themfrom, is generated from an evident hunter). The suggestion hereis that this notion ofanimals (cf Ingold intellectual contradiction concerning thereproduction humans physically de1986:250): whatthespirits, in their power, control, through stroy. Such a tension between humans and spirits can be resolved is a non-physical theidea that there sideto animals, thesoul,whichis not rite butis returned, viaa brief ofpassage bythehunter, destroyed, performed thenext to thespirit there to incarnate batch ofanimals destined for domain, For itspart, thenotion of thehumanpersonis qualitathehumanlarder. as several commentators haveobserved in general terms (e.g. tively different, Ingold1986;Bloch 1992:38). WithInuithumans, as well as an immortal soul which, foreverto thespirits' domain, there is a upon death, departs in a newly-born 'nameessence' whichis incorporated infant namedforthe 1932:274, 289; Guemple1988: 134-7).The logicof this deceased(Weyer doublemystical feature of theInuithuman person(whicheven distinctive, is that, with animals, the humanbeing now is a simplification) equivalently in thespirit domain(thustheimmortal mustat somejuncture participate willbe ideasto do withreproduction onanimals, there modelled soul);whilst, of spiritual essencein connexion with whichspecify somesortofrecycling rebirth deathand subsequent physical (thusthenameessence).Note that from soul-loss cele(to thespirits) Inuitconceptions ofdiseaseas resulting in thehuman of themystical and thecorporeal brate therelative autonomy being. from The second idealogically thenotion that non-human agents entailed as spirits and animal souls) maytakeoffence (whomwe now dubvariously is thatof some meansof intercession at humanmisdemeanour between on behalf ofthehuman humans Implied hereis a andnon-humans interest. to see to itthat retaliation is brought human initiative, notsimply thespirit's of all,to discover to a closewithall dispatch, precisely what sort of but,first as misdemeanour; as we shallsee, the facility of soul loss is behaviour counts central here. The broadform thisintercession can takewill be constrained alongtwo the fundamental dimensions. ideas,elaborated above, First, cosmological overhumandestiny rests the factthatcontrol withthe ultimately voicing cannot that be contradicted. theintercession crucially spirits, Second,given involves fundamental humansocialvaluesmaynotbe humansocialaction, willbe centrally Ideas expressing theseconstraints builtinto compromised. countthere whichstate willbe notions that, Inuitknowledge. On thefirst in addressing thespirits, thespirits noneevenas humans taketheinitiative facilitate thisinitiative. one supposes thatthisfacilitation theless Logically, human ofthespirit willbe achieved byfavour through beings being imbued, similar in kind lesspotent of with thepowers than, world, powers to,though Inuitegalitarian On thesecondcount, mean autonomous principles spirits. to intercede withthespirits couldbe develthehumanskills that required in menthanin women, moreoften as mentioned oped in anyone (though
DAVID RICHES
389
which retail these elements andwhich givedetails bothofthe(secret) magical language claims an exclusive bywhichtheshaman right to perform and, at theother of how shamans extreme, mayindeedbe deemedto haveseriouslytransgressed keyvalueswhenexacting payment, and in consequence 1959:299-303, forcomparable North mayevenbe killed(see also Spencer Alaskan material). is one element of shamanic be gainsaid However, powerwhichcannot oftheexclusive to thespirit is placed visit theshaman that, byvirtue world, to interpret thehuman whichgives thespirits perfectly misdemeanour such the nature of this'interpretation' will be considered in the next offence; section. How tobea successful shaman Likemostsystems of 'religious' theInuit'cosmology', representations, logiout of the questto resolve moraldilemmas, callyexisting simultaneously offers an account and how they can be rectified. ofwhymisfortunes occur, of it is the that Moreover, evidently largely through competence theshaman the truth is sustained: after soul of thiscosmology all, it is the shaman's which visits thespirit andreports back.Thesefacts world, together implicate theshaman in certain ofwhichthrows fresh a consideration activities, light of on the salienceof 'secondary rules and elaborations', religious systems classification.
37-8, 133-41; 1930: 51-61) andJenness(1922: 200) provideclassicreferences
is highly To be sure, earlier). theactivity skilled, and so invites thepresence ofa specialist. in thecommunity Butitwillbe from ofthewhole theranks community (not,forexample, from somesecret or from someparsociety, ticular sucha specialist willbe drawn. descent group) that To emphasize that thisis so, thetransmission oftherelevant skills shouldbe effected through direct contact between noviceand practised in a straightforward exponent is to say, apprenticeship (that unmediated in particular, through membership exclusive groups). Thus,supposing it is to a family member that thepractisedexponent is to transmit skills, this willbe through instruction and not through inheritance. The counterpart to this,in the 'reality' of Canadian Inuitcosmology, is thepersonage of theInuitshaman (angatkuq), thecommunity's religious specialist who, uniquely possessedby special'helping spirits' and supremely learned to a long-term thanks relationship withan olderandmoreexperienced thecommunity in times exponent, represents of misfortune; in thecontext of an ecstatic, publictrance hissoul contacts the in response spirits by journeying to their there to extract concessions to lairs, the promise, offered by the people,of exemplary conductin the future. Shamans are ambivalent Sometimes peoplein Inuitsociety. poor hunters, for their for they charge services, their skills demanding recompense (which to neighbouring theymayalso makeavailable communities) even as this violates strictly egalitarian values (Brunton 1989: 679). Rasmussen (1929:
390
DAVID RICHES
withthesupposition in order to upholdtheir We maystart that, position, to capitalize on the factthatan explication of shamans maybe expected enshrines. whichcosmology is beinggivenin the knowledge misfortune will set aboutdealing withmisfortune: the cosmology, Manipulating they andthen identifying therelevant human miscreancy subsequently promising arethings whichtheshaman, as a practical operator, an end to misfortune as possible. The problem fortheshamustdo as muchand as successfully itcanbe difficult to identify who offended thespirits, and manis that, first, second, oncetheshaman's soulhasreturned from thespirit world heralding theperson who gaveoffence hasbeenpersuaded to better times (supposing repent), things canactually take a turn for theworse. Thesesorts ofpredicain respect ments, especially thesecond, haveoften beendescribed of other cosmological systems (e.g.,Evans-Pritchard 1937;cf Horton1974: 162-3), withthestandard that as longas continuing does not comment misfortune is intellectual of the system compromise the system's appeal,the integrity AndinInuitcosmology, this seemsto be achieved not jeopardized. bymeans continof so-called elaborations secondary wherein, amongothernotions, comesto be attributed either to theshaman's owntechnical ued misfortune ofa morepowerful shaincompetence or,byextension, to themalevolence froma neighbouring man operating community. When,in spiteof the failto respond, and theanimals shaman's pleas,thespirits arestill notto be shamanwould have had more success(foran Inuit seen,well, a better reference, see Rasmussen 1929:41, 132). in cosmological Such secondary elaborations yet patently prevail systems, I believe their function hasbeenoverplayed, in part becausethecosmologies of thehumanbeings whosepurhavebeen treated independently through aresustained. in order to posesthey Certainly, theideathat cosmologies exist a highdegree of intellectual of offer the world comprehension experienced comesto be enhanced of secondary theexistence elaborations: this through notion lendsthesystem an additional degree of coherency and consistency. this that itis moral article concerns contradicHowever, suggests (todo with tionsin thesocial), rather thanan intellectual struggle to makesenseofthe whichsustain a cosmology. And if moralconcerns experienced universe, a cosmology's sincesucha system cannot be exunderpin existence, then, tosatisfy twofunctions with pected equalefficiency (c? Orans1975),gapsin theintellectual oftheworld, from theanalyst's ofview, comprehension point can be expected, and from thebeliever's ofviewmight be found notto point be too troubling are noticed). The workofMorris(1976) (evenwhenthey in different and Brunton therelative cos(1980),highlighting lackoforder the mological systems, squareswith such a presumption.12 Accordingly, A second functional ofsecondary is lessened. dampener salience elaborations on thesignificance of secondary relates elaborations to matters of shamanic It is illogical to claimthat, to secondary the thanks elaborations, competence. ofbelief andweaksystem neednotbe undermined bytheshaman's failures as I haveproposed thesystem nesses; it,whatintellectual strength possesses
DAVID RICHES
391
- we might want from successes theshaman's practical stems, at leastpartly, to alleviates misfortune peoplecan subscribe theshaman to saythat because itmust Ifpractical the system, then be allowed successes underpin thesystem. it- irrespective ofany undermine will,to somedegree, that practical failures to thepractical techniques Thusattention is directed secondary elaborations. suchfailures. Thereis a endeavours to minimize through which theshaman is sustained It arises from that a cosmology thefact third, andrelated, point. who both practitioners through the efforts of specialist verysignificantly (perhaps very muchmore enunciate it and elaborate on it morefrequently where Givena socialcontext thanother members ofthesociety. frequently) rests on achievement solely theassumption of socialpositions of influence to seek their role can be expected (cf Riches1982: 134-45),practitioners some personal benefit maybe confident of deriving onlyin so faras they of the and hencetheexistence ofpractitioners, from it. The very existence in theprecise on those therefore depends form ittakes, cosmological system abouttheirpractical success.In who would fillthe role beingconfident failures, we shouldfocuslesson the'secondary respect ofpossible practical away', thanon the elaborations' whichthesefailures are 'explained through in thefirst placeandthus for minimizing these failures shaman's techniques their enhancing power. andpluckout Atthispoint, we haveto plunge backintoInuitcosmology until hasbeenglossed edicts, over- the'religious' now, theelement which, Thereis or rules, whichthepeopleshouldobeylestthespirits takeoffence. and In content do notrefer to thebasicrights a plethora ofsuchrules. they kin-based socialstructure. duties Theyareedicts implied bytheegalitarian, in whichthespirits, different from thoseofhutheir interests bydefinition findappeal.In short, these ruleswill not be mans,would particularly be expected tobe butthey may socialorganization, intrinsic tothebasicInuit in humansocial significant remarkable and to refer to something highly in life-cycle amount to events; they Thus many are subsumed experience. in to such of whatshouldor shouldnot be done relation specifications follows taboos(this theconvention events. Somemayreasonably be dubbed in the texts). Inuitarealgroups(eg., Netsilik, Amongthe several Iglulik, is widevariation, in the as wellas common themes, Copper, Caribou)there are fromRasmussen): at content of the rules.For example(all instances in herown lying-in childbirth thewomanmustbe secluded house (1929. animals (1930: womenshouldnotcomecloseto hunted 172); menstruating ofanyspecies manmustnever eattheflesh ofthefirst animal 98); a young the roof lies sickin thehouse,dropsfrom he kills(1929: 179); if anyone is thrown outwith the must notbe wipedoff (lestthesoulofthesickperson thefamily of thedeceased maynotworkfor dirt)(1929: 196); upondeath, five thebody)(1929:263). days(bywhichtimethesoulwillhaveleft in theactof hunting. Further rulesare subsumed Theyareincorporated a soul- thesoulofan animal oftheanimal that withthedeath bythefact is rendered up.
392
DAVID RICHES
The carefulhunterwill alwaysdrip a piece of snow into the waterpail and let the waterdripdown intotheseal's mouth.It is said thatseals are alwaysthirsty, and they oftenlet themselves be killed just to geta drinkof water(1931: 166)
andreek Mostprohibit Otherrulesaremorepuzzling ofparadox. certain juxtapositions of things, and places.For example, activities 'fresh caribou meat must never lie on thesideplatform together withsealmeat andsalmon trout' (1932:38). Manysuchtaboos ofclothing. haveto do withthesewing I shallexamine andIglulik Inuit one suchtaboo UsingNetsilik ethnography, in detail, in order to demonstrate a relationship between thecontent ofsuch rulesand successful shamanic practice; thisis therule, validin lateautumn following thecloseof caribou hunting, that whenthewomenin thecamp from are preparing thecaribou seal hunting at the nearby garments skins, water's edgeis prohibited (1929: 192; 1931:24). I call thisrulethesewing taboo,and the location by the shorewherepeoplehave collected to sew thesewing winter garments, place. is an ecologiAs toexplanation, one approach enquires intowhether there ifan ecological cal basisto thetaboo:is sucha taboonecessary is to balance be struck between humanpopulation and natural environment? Wouldthe in itsecological context very stability of thehumanpopulation be jeopardized ifthetaboodid notexist? It soundsunlikely that thisshouldbe so, yet is a schoolof thought thekeyto anysocialcustom there whichholdsthat - a driveof which lies in a 'cultural' driveforan ecological equilibrium members ofthesociety aredeemedto be oblivious (Harris1984;cf Riches 1991:290-2).Actually, this cultural materialist is quitesuggestive as approach regards thesewing taboo. An argument maybe madethat theautumn taboosustains demosewing graphic levelsin theInuitpopulation byencouraging co-operation between able and lessable hunters throughout theensuing, economically precarious winter standsguardover the hunting season,when the hunter famously holes in the ice thatsealskeepopen to reachair (Balikci1970: breathing one couldpropose, wouldbe a risk thesewirng there 56-80).Without taboo, ablerhunters that wouldattempt to go italonethrough winter, jeopardizing - and thus, in thelonger oflessablehunters thesurvival chances the term, survival chances of theentire The reasoning on the population. hererests weeks whencaribou fact skinclothes arebeing that, during thetwoor three all hunting sealsaretheonlyreliably for available prepared, effectively stops, atthistime ofyear. forfoodon stores Therefore families haveto rely quarry built summer This meansthat up from hunting. thesummer stores become depleted andshared around themembers and so everyone among ofthe camp, - and so commences winter on a level(andlevelled hunting down)footing mutual is stimulated. everyone's subsequent co-operation it is superficially we mustdismiss exAlthough thisecological plausible, of the sewingtaboo. It cannotbe proven(cf Orans 1975). planation flow from we can showthat benefits thecustom's existGranted, ecological ence. But how maywe tellwhether thesebenefits are truly or significant
DAVID RICHES
393
invites us to assume that aretruly not?The ecological approach they significant, forit postulates that thecustom fulfils a fundamental ecological need: which failed to introduce this itimplies that societies custom wereunableto survive in theharsh arctic conditions. Yetwe areunableto demonstrate that is so,since an experiment to seewhathappens when this we cannot perform is placed a society without thiscustom, butothervvise identical to theInuit, in the same environment. We are leftto concludethatthe sewing taboo, in common probably withmostother Inuitcustoms, hasbuta trivial contributionto maketo thecause of ecological balance.In anycase,evenwith one surmises behind lessableandmoreablehunters amplestores them, that thewinter alikewouldappreciate mutual theneedfor co-operation through bad luck).We should (themoreable can themselves very easily experience for search for another reason thecustom. The anthropology of symbolic classification suppliesa quite different interpretation. This upholds a human propensity to order theexternal world it through and historically byapprehending culturally deep-rooted (i.e. un- systems conscious) systems of classification or categories which,in turn (many anthropologists argue), relate to fundamental aspects oftherespective socialstructure (e.g.Douglas1970).It produces theidea,relevant here, that or events ofsucha system ofclassificaobjects whichthreaten theintegrity - andso likely ofas powerful or dangerous to tionareliableto be conceived In thisregard, be hedged in by religious edicts or prohibitions. Mauss and in 1904-5, on behalf of theInuit, Beuchat, writing proposed, that theconof the annual round as constituting summerand ceptualapprehension division: distinct summer winter phaseswas thefundamental classificatory life andwinter socialorganizations anddistinct summer andwinter ritual are mediated by thisdivision (Mauss & Beuchat1979).An alternative opinion that thefundamental was offered byJenness (1922: 181-4)who maintained landand sea. On the a conceptual division between classification reflected in terms of either thesis. faceof it,the sewingtaboomaybe interpreted whilst skingarments seal hunting caribou at thesewing Preventing making to upholding a separation between place amounts summer/land products andwinter/sea (represented through caribou) products (represented through seals). themiNing The many other taboosimplying ofsealand caribou products could be handledin a similar manner. However, upon closerinspection, bothsuchperspectives look dubious.Specifically, whenone during spring, thebasicsummer/winter and land/sea distinctions remain maysupposethat to farless thesesortsof taboosare attended validas constructed realities, we might 1929: 191).Accordingly, assiduously (Rasmussen pursueanother This is thathumans reduce stillwithin suggestion, cognitive anthropology. of time(e.g. Leach of classificatory eventhepassage via a system categories off for chunks oftime andactivities 1961).Thus events appropriate marking itis thetraditional credence. tendto be given special symbolic Among Inuit, occurs(people in autumn that sucha temporal divide especially give up land
394
DAVID RICHES
thisseason,the and come downto the coast);accordingly, hunting during oflandand sea products can carry a symbolic load relating separation to the of thisdivide.Hence,it is at thistimeofyearthat thetaboos enunciation thesimultaneous utilization of landand sea products prohibiting are deciIn contrast, in spring, invoked. inland becomespossible sively travel again, forseal hunting while conditions remaingood. There being no abrupt ofyear time from sea backtoland, this offers little change scopefor symbolithepassage oftime. cally marking in whichthereligious ofInuittaboos, Such 'cognitive' explanations rules of systems ofclassifications areseenas contingent on theexistence aresugin supposing notleast that suchsystems gestive, yetin myviewaremistaken, ofclassification (land/sea, etc.)constitute deepcultural andhistorical givens I favour forhumansocial existence. an alternative presumably necessary - taboos, whichis that cultural forms of classification, or position, systems - aresustained ofindividuals whatever thestrategic work through (cf Riches wisdomconcerning 1985). Received the relationship between taboosand be upturned. ofclassification The argument systems mayaccordingly would a bodyoftaboos, be that to promote a system construct individuals, desiring that those find a rationale. Of course, ofclassification inorder taboos such may ofthepossibilities bothofclassificaa construction a knowledge presupposes in respect andparadox ofsuch tionand(in thecaseofsometaboos)anomaly The latter classification. arerelatively anomalies arean inherunproblematic: in anyintellectual element exercise in whichclassificatory ently intriguing constructed. As to 'knowledge of the possibilities of schemesare actively one hypothesizes that a single, classification', primordial classification event In the case of the Inuit,such a functions in thisregard. paradigmatically eventmight well be the initial primordial classification differentiation between human and non-humanagents,which underpinsthe entire whichthe role of the shamanis subsumed). cosmological system (within Such an argument that of classification areless sigclearly implies systems in human nificant than somewriters cognition claim. in thisregard is theposition a somewhat from different Helpful adopted, of theenvistandpoint, byBloch (1985).ForBloch,people'sapprehension is much more fundamentally informed ronment by (at least in part) and probably humanmental precultural, universal, propensities (for which, theterm as a matter he believes should be reserved). offact, 'cognition' One also notethat somecultures, suchas theHill Pandaram, incormight barely at all (Morris porate classificatory categories 1976). - ifwe mayreturn It follows from thisthat ofInuittaboos to thesubject - we shouldbe asking in whoseinterests theseparticular edicts The exist. is the shaman. answer, surely, shaman as cosmology maker 7The I address In this section a problem with which ifthey shamans must contend their and position. It is thatthe shaman's are to sustain power, privileges
DAVID RICHES
395
identification, from knowledge provided bythespirits, ofspecific individuals whosetransgressions havegiven thespirits offence mustbe a plausible one (Balikci1963). The shaman will be expected to exercise a certain social wherepossible of miscreancy on someone competence, laying who charges - thisobservation is thought generally to be anti-social is now a commonplaceofanthropology. Butplausibility be improved the may bymanipulating edicts themselves. As muchis intimated who says, of Iglulik byRasmussen 'But shouldthe shaman shamans: havenothing to go on, he will definite keepto matters ofordinary everyday life inwhichhe canbe surethat all the womenoffend thetaboo'(1929: 132).The pointis,thegreater thenumber of edicts, and thegreater the extent to whichtheyare linkedto ordinary everyday the morelikely it is thatthosewho standaccusedwill activity, theaccusation. accept Thisbeing so,we maylookagainat thewholegamut of edictsprevailing in Inuitcosmology, wherewe findthesesuppositions confirmed. there are thoseassociated First, withkeylife-cycle occurrences suchas birth, anddeath thedeath ofanimals coming-of-age (notto mention in hunting). Withregard to theserecurring it maybe proposed occasions, that they incorporate tabooslessbecausesomehuman socialneedexists for themto be marked symbolically, as becausereligious specialists, desiring to proliferate taboos, need to 'put' themsomewhere. As to thetaboosof the these 'paradoxical' type, areclearly associated withactivities in which people regularly engage(Balikci1970:219-24)- such activities as cooking, eating andsewing, which willfunction as 'daily reminders' 1967:17) ofthe (Fortes taboos'import. It is suggested that thelatter taboosare distinguished from everyday must be imposed activity (as plainly they cannot in be,sincetaboos blanket fashion on the ordinary run of affairs) by their veryparadoxical nature. In thefirst place,suchparadoxicality meansthat theactivities which are liableto be tabooedare,in probability, not likely to occurveryoften, itis notimpossible forthem to occur. although thisparadoxicality Secondly, renders the activities interesting, noteworthy and so, aboveall, potentially memorable. theparadoxicality maybe citedas thevery justification Finally, for their madetaboo:theactivities be picked being outfor their may intriguingoddness andso readily proposed In sum,thecreation as notquiteproper. ofsuchtaboosis an intrinsic and sustaining ofshamanic these part strategy: taboosexist becauseshamans needthem andso 'make'them. Boththeory andethnography may be invoked tosupport this case.On the matter oftheory I refer to discussion abouttheperformance ofthespecialist in theconstruction of cosmological systems, and specifically to theworkof Barth(1987), who has examined in diversecosmological developments sub-traditions theMountain Ok ofNew Guinea. neighbouring Barth among thesocialandcultural within context whichprevails argues that, amongthe Mountain areinstrumental in initiating this specialists Ok, religious diversity, their suchprocesses in the as effecting incremental shifts creativity involving the scope of particular connotation of particular and elaborating symbols in inanyinstance theovert content logical schemata, symbolic being inspired
396
DAVIDRICHES
In thisarticle the aim is to partby deep-seated personal symbolizations. rather different. It is tograsp demonstrate thenature of something ultimately a universal 'religious process'. Since,as hasbeennoted, theroleofthereligofthisprocess, ious specialist a product a focus is,in part, on thespecialist's be a means to understand thisprocess in itstotality. In fact, cannot activities in thisprocess it hasbeenintimated that certain crucial elements arisefrom ofparticular thecontemplation socialexigencies by laypeople. of Inuittaboos,the processBarth On the specific matter ethnographic identifies appears to be generally apt.In thefirst place,thevarious neighto the several bouring Inuitarealgroups, whichcorrespond roughly Ok sub-traditions (cf Riches1982),exemplify substantial differences wherethe oftaboos as Rasmussen, details areconcerned, theethnographer ofthemain notes(e.g.,1932:38). In thesecondplace,thesheer four'central' groups, number of taboosacknowledged by each500-member groupis quitestag1929: 169-203)- a striking to human gering (e.g. Rasmussen testimony in boththe veracity the interest creativity. and powerof taboos Thirdly, on theshaman's side.Rasmussen's seemsto lie strongly dramatic of account in whicha shaman a patient an Iglulik as to thetaboos seance, interrogates she has broken, this(1929: 133-41).The patient conexemplifies willingly but the shamanrefuses to restcontent, fessesto each pasttransgression, invoking more, andyetmore, breaches of taboo(in theend,around thirty The audience's is in striking taboosin all areproclaimed). attitude contrast. on behalf Evenas theshaman oftheimport oftherules invokes hisauthority ofthetransgressions), theaudience, to thepoint (andhencetheseriousness ofinsurrection, out:'Wewillnottake almost ofthat cry anynotice [breach]'; 'It is such a slight offence'; 'Oh, is thatall?'; 'Oh, such a trifling thing'. theaudience remarks 'Thatis very andserious .a great wrong.. Occasionally, butthis is quickly followed offence', by'Butletherbe released nonetheless!' Between theCanadian is some, Inuitareal there groups though notmuch, social contact (the groupsare highly endogamous). Yet thereare similar broadcultural themes where thetaboosareconcerned, the notwithstanding in detail. differences Andwithin withrespect eachgroup, to thehuge many number of taboos,there is a substantial cognitive integration (manysuch taboos fall in the land/sea classification, manyothersin the 'polluting woman'category, as proliferator etc.).The modelof theshaman of taboos showsshamans within andbetween imitating one another both areal groups, evenas they identities upholdtheir individual by sustaining idiosyncrasies within their ownparticular repertoires.
in the whole Religious process cosmological system
The task in this section is to describe in schematic religious processes terms, in a manner stands ofanyparticular In previous which independently society. intothese sections havebeensecured concentratinsights processes through to a single representative ing, with reference society(Inuit), on the in egalitarian socialsettings. Thereis no cosmology (shamanism) prevalent
DAVID RICHES
397
reason, in principle, whysimilar insights might nothavebeenestablished by attending to othertypes of cosmology in non-egalitarian settings. This is despite thefact that thegreater theempirical departure suchsettings arefrom communitas, the moredifficult it will be to discern religious process: in non-egalitarian settings 'local'moral agendas maybe expected to overlay the - thenegation rootmoraldilemma13 of communitas by socialstructure it is proposed, thisprocess. The description of 'religious which, underpins - and,in contrast process' in societies without egalitarian organization to the Inuit,in circumstances wherethe negation of communitas is not under- is something pinnedby material factors forfurther research, as is the in many consideration of other religious elements that, societies (especially societies otherthanthe Inuit),standside by side withshamanism. Note, however, that religious is clearly inostensibly process apparent, atsomelevel, secular bodiesof knowledge. For example, theattribution of responsibility forsocial success(and, by implication, personal disaster) to non-human in science is clearly evident and monetarism andMarxism. We speak agents of molecular 'behaviour' thebehaviour of electrons, (likewise viruses, etc.) which, given 'respect', can render enormous human benefit (failing to offer suchrespect amounts to taking immense We speakofhaving to conrisks). cedeto the'hidden hand'ofeconomic functioning (onebucksmarket forces thesedays), at one's peril).And (sometimes we talkof beingliableto the inexorable force ofclass'exploitation'.14 The problem in displaying is thattheinreligious process schematically of Inuitshamanism, via the perusal is colouredby the vestigation so far, it is well-known an explicitly deductive that anthropologist's reasoning: apof the analyst. For some proachcan be vulnerable to the manipulations in anthropology as a smallprice theoretical is treated approaches thishazard to delineate to pay.But otherapproaches, thosewhichprefer specifically in terms ofpeople's wouldfind itincomplete: to religious process meanings, andactors' is unwarranted. assume a homology between analyst's reasonings itwillbe supremely to produce a satisfactory interYet,in myview, difficult is something pretiveaccountwhere the raw ethnographic material as as an entire in terms on theelement of bothofdeciding complex cosmology, whichto begin, thewaythiselement is thiscosmology with andofgrasping in further, The worth anchored of thedeductive encompassing meanings. is that itbothproposes account 'where to begin' and,suitably rearranged (in a suggestive of therespective encomoffers account fact, virtually reversed), is thereby further research stimulated. passing meanings; I now sketch an interpretive of cosmology, whichbeginsat the account ended- withthe factof specialists pointdeduction (shamans) upholding forhuman as appropriate specialrules(taboos,authorized by the spirits) ofpower is evident whichis promis(Inuit)behaviour. (A relationship here, in ever-subsuming is then ing.) How such actionis embedded meaning in theassumpto methodological elucidated, according principles grounded existbyvirtue of the tionthatin humansociety bothactions and notions
398
DAVID RICHES
advantage thatflowsto individuals who consciously perform/invoke them cf in Stuchlik Couched a manner (Riches 1984; 1991; Holy & 1983).15 withregard to all of socialcontext whichrespects the crucial significance are: (i) discovery of 'intention': foreach individual activity, theseprinciples thegoals(purposes) this attains must be action or notion performed upheld, of 'rationality': foreach actionperformed/notion established; (ii) discovery thebasisforithaving beenchosenmustbe revealed; upheld, (iii) discovery themanner in whichtheaction/notion, of 'legitimacy': having been introas being duced into the social arenaby onlysome people,is presented must be specified. On thisbasisI worthy ofrespect in a wider constituency, withaccompanying shallelucidate religious process, comment. Note that - specialist to twocategories distinct of individual meanings corresponding andlay- willbe discerned, theformer. This means thelatter subsuming that in terms theactivities on bytheformer aregiven licence of notions carried heldbythelatter. The initial focusin the interpretive analysis of cosmology, then,is the thenotionof certain rulesas specialist who,on everyone's behalf, upholds in some system.16 entities interrelated authorized by particular Religious ofknowledge which process comprises theitems successively encompass this be saidto havegenerated therefore notion (andwhich may it).Suchprocess, in terms ofthepurposes, I haveintimated, maybe delineated rationality and of theactivities of specifically as follows legitimacy implicated actors, (key oritalicized; notes ofcommentary arebracketed elements arecapitalized off):
withreference to the SPECIALIST (whoupholds a notion authorised in ofrules byentities some system), PURPOSE. This relatesto the rewards (payments, privileges) which accrue. Such concrete benefits make deploying such 'professional' skillsworthwhile. RATIONALITY This relates to thesystem of interrelated entities towhich the specialisthasunique access. The specialist electsto securereward specifically through upholding an idea of rulesauthorized in such a system, because by beingable uniquelyto the system, interpret and hence the rules,the specialist securespowerwhich is unavailableto everyone of the system' else. [Note thatthe 'interpretation will include such activities as promoting schemesof classificatory secondary elaborations, categories,and so on.] LEGITIMACY. The abovenotion, of a system(authorizing rules) to which unique a specialist who in return forhis troublesecuresrewards, is upheld access is granted as ofvalue. bythelayperson in upholdingthe and legitimacy [Comment: The layperson's purposes,rationality constitute crucialmeanings in religious worthof such a notionclearly process.] Therefore: a notion with reference to the LAYPERSON ( whoupholds towhich ofa system unique access isprivileged toa specialist). PURPOSE. This relates to theadvantages tothe person's well-being which,via the speflowfromthe 'system'. make acceptance of a system, Such concrete benefits cialist, specialist, etc.,worthwhile.
DAVID RICHES
399
to the factthattheentities make up which,interrelated, RATIONALITY. This relates are different in kindfrom people.People elect to uphold the worthof the the system making because the entities withthe 'system', specialist as the meansforinteraction be 'reached' throughnormalhuman competences. up the systemcannot directly fromthe fact of notionsof the humanpersonariseprecisely [Note: considerations are different in kindfrom'people'.] thatthe 'entities' that the systembrings well-being, is upheld LEGITIMACY. The abovenotion, lives.The point affects all people in all their a notionthatthe system through invoking who invokethe above notionson behalfof thewell-behere is thatit is individuals ing of their personalselvesand of people close to them.Otherpeople's acquiescence and thisis achievedby reminding them in theirso doinghas therefore to be secured, powers.Legitimacy is, in short,delivered thatthey, too, are liable to the 'system's' and omnipotent. omnipresent throughthe notion that the systemis omniscient, states that reeectively THIS AMOUNTS TO A REPRESENTATION: sucha notion do orsaydoesnotlie in their hands. people sponsibility forwhat (see IN TURN, since social actionis, by definition, a means to personaladvantage that nonetheless whenadvantage effectively denies peopleare responsible above), thenotion accrues. value of communitas.] [Comment:the notionupholdsthe supreme is thatpeople's social actionsare goal directed by thiswriter, YET, the presumption, is something in some consciousmanner: that arestrategically tosecure advantage their actions areaware. ofwhich people - captured betweencommunitas and social structure [Comment:the contradiction - is at the root of religious of advantage denial and acceptance in the simultaneous process.]
ofknowledgethiscomposite First, Threefinal observations arein order. is cosmology, wherever there shouldbe named.It seemsto process, present doesnotunduly violate commonsense meanings methat tolabelit'religious' a novel heresteers of theterm. to 'religion' provided Second,theapproach and intellectual views ofcosbetween orthodox cultural course sociological, of in It any such significance the social the foundational mology. respects that theconnexion 1964;cE Morris1987);yetit insists inquiry (Durkheim via the contemporaneous betweenthe social and cosmology is mediated It validates ofhuman thesalience ofcosmolactivities ofspecific actor. types of cultural notions of classification and including notions, ogyas a complex and events; of extra-human of activities that, yet it insists authorization rather thus construed determithan as somedeep-rooted treating cosmology is manner thequestion ofits thetask origins), nant ofaction begging (in this at the how suchnotions to demonstrate moment emerge ofsocialstructure.17 It recognizes tellan intellectual abouttheuniverse; that story cosmologies muchmorethan in whichspecialists, thatthisis a function yetit insists is as muchan in relation such a function to laypeople, invest: laypeople, we return to as itsraison unintended ofcosmology d'etre. Finally, consequence of cosmology that elements ofanthropology, thefact another commonplace in order that secular social myth, etc.)becomeimplicated (spirits, ancestors, in social theinstitutional receive vis-a-vis rulesmight function, support: they
400
DAVID RICHES
of morality, life, as charters, obscurers of societal contradictions, celebrators here.There appears to be no and so on. I would pointto a conundrum needssuchreligious inherent reason whytheinstitutional actually support: insociety tobe meeting ofsecular this function thedistribution power ought forsecularends. Yet religious notions are invoked satisfactorily18 patently Theremay be many resolutions ofthis conundrum, andthereasoning in this on behalf ofsecular article suggests one. It is that invoking religious support rulesand actions is modelled, by people,on theway specialists construct 'religious' rulesto sustain a position of power. Shamans effectively bolster via religious themselves notlaypersons enhance therighteousrules;might in similar nessoftheir activities fashion?
NOTES of thisarticle were presented at the conference, Earlierversions 'Cosmologiesof Polar Peoples',organized by the Traditional CosmologySociety(Edinburgh), and at a soseminar at the University of St Andrews. are cial anthropology department My thanks due to the participants on thoseoccasionsfortheirhelpful comments, and likewiseto referees. the editorof Man and one of myanonymous 1 Limitations to othertheories of of space mean thatI can only allude,in passing, religion. However,I should explicitly note thatI avoid providing a definition of the discourseabout religionis thattoo 'phenomenon'.The weaknessof anthropological The problemwith definimuch timehas been takenup by a searchfora definition. leads the investigator is thatit too readily tion-ledinquiry (i) to assumewhathas to be proved,(ii) to be misledby westernconcepts,in termsof which 'religion'typically in the contextof not prevailing connotes 'somethingextra' (belief?emotionality?) 'secularrelationship'(cf. Horton 1960: 211-2), (iii) to be diverted intofunctionalist explanations, focusingas these do on a (defined)phenomenon'sconsequencesrather it. In this articleI elucidatethe generation than on what generates of certain human socio-intellectual processes in relationto certaintheorizedsocietal firstprinciples. These processesmustbe called something, but my argument clearly does not standor or not 'religion' term(cf. Spiro 1965: 91). Although fallon whether is the appropriate the aim of the articleis to elucidate'religion' as an analytical cercategory connoting I stillsometimes tain distinctive socio-intellectual processes, use 'religion'as an oddin earlypartsof the discussion; job word (e.g. connoting the supernatural), especially thisshouldbe plainfrom the context. 2 As the context I am distinguishing should clearly indicate, 'cosmology'from'cosThe former termsimply has a descriptive task- to label a bodyof mologicalfunction'. labels knowledge whichmakesa statement about 'the universe'. Cosmologicalfunction in humanaffairs. a particular theoretical view aboutthe salienceof cosmology 3 Justas 'small is beautiful', here pejorasimpleis subtle.'Simple' is not construed tively and, in commonwithotherwriters (e.g. Knauft1987), I use the phrase'simple because it aptlyconveys of a particular, structure' the character challenging typeof social structure. 4 There is excellent material on AlaskanInuitcosmology, not leastin first-rate contemporary studiessuch as thatof Fienup-Riordan (1983). Yet the AlaskanInuit have quite complex social structures which, on a religiousplane, their large communal
DAVID RICHES
401
ceremonies no doubt reflect. For my purposes,to dwell on the AlaskanInuit would onlycomplicate matters. 5 Two pointsdeservenoticehere. First,the notionof egalitarianism is being used herequite loosely,simply to capture of thesocialvalueswhichpredominate the nature in 'simple-structured societies'.I am not referring to the much narrower category of societieswhichWoodburn(1982) has named 'egalitarian societies'.Secondly,thereis the whole questionof the existential statusof somesuch simple-structured societies, a matterdebated with particular vigour with reference to the San (Bushman) (e.g. Schrire1984). Are such societiesbut historical of an experience withcoloniproducts alism or with surrounding, more powerful societies? The crucialissue here politically is not in facthistory, but whether or not thesesocietiesmaybe deemed,in the present,to be sustaining themselves of theirneighbours. If they relatively independently may be so deemed,it seems to me that,because theyare simple-structured, even if theydo not exemplify historical withthe 'stoneage', theypresent continuity an interintowhatstoneage society have been: theyare,therefore, of evoestinginsight might lutionary significance. Here I note thatWoodburn (1988), in a meticulousempirical demonstration, has arguedthatmanysuch societies do existin present timesin relative independence. 6 Hunter-gatherer shamanism is excellently for example,by Rasmussen described, (1929; 1930; 1931; 1932) forthe Inuit,by Tanner (1979) for the northern Canadian Indians,by Endicott(1979) forthe BatekNegritos, and by Morris(1980) forthe Hill Pandaram, among others.Bourguignon (1977) remarks on the ubiquitouspersistence of shamanism among aboriginal hunting people in the New World (see also, Morris 1980: 214). Shirokogoroff (1935) is the classicwork on the shamanism of northern NorthAsian pastoralists. Documentation on the Piaroa is fromOveringKaplan (1975) and Overing(1990), the Gebusi fromKnauft fromBarth(1975) (1985), the Baktaman and the Chewong fromHowell (1984). Among some of the non-hunter-gatherers here,descentgroupsprevail, but theyare weaklyincorporated and their is not function alwaysclear(e.g. Ingold 1979; cf Humphrey 1980). In addition, shamanism a prevailsin yet othersocietiesif one definesthe category littlemore broadly.For example,on such groundsBushman religionis shamanistic. to Katz (1976), some 50 per cent. of men and 33 per cent.of women are According of the ghosts', 'masters but some of thesepeople are quite evidently renownedas bethan others,it being said of them thattheyreceivedtheir ing much more powerful capabilities directly fromthe gods (1976: 295-6; Marshall1969). More complexly, the nosame categorization can be givento Iban religion(ensen 1974). The (analytical) tion of shamanseems to covera compositeof fourdistinct Iban social roles: the tuai rumah who guardsthe moralcode, the tuaiburung who is possessedby spirits, the lewho journeysto the spirit who heals the spiritually mambang world,and the manang afflicted. the categorization Stretching further, 'spiritmediumship' mightbe incorporatedinto the notionof shamanism withoutviolating the latter termas an analytical concept. 7 Carrithers similar the notionof 'sociality, ideas through (1990) is clearly grasping and is placingthemin an explicitly context. For anthropologists evolutionary working or close to, theparadigm of methodological such such as myself, within, individualism, of the 'non-socialindividual'. As I notionsare crucialin orderto layto restthe spectre in part servinglegitimating show later,a contextof more encompassing meanings,
402
DAVID RICHES
to an individual's activities. In the lastanalysis some such is alwayspertinent functions, meaning. notionas communitas servesas theultimate encompassing 8 I have triedto lay out here,as a basis forunderstanding a constitution of religion, I intendto capturesomething foundasociety. Via communitas and social structure the processesof individuals and tional about human social life,which underwrites the way these conceptsare defined, theydo not groups.Moreover,notwithstanding the one (structure) amount to a dichotomy: presupposesthe other (communitas). counterpart to the Turner's'existential communitas' is obviously the closestempirical theorized communitas withwhichI am concerned. 9 The presumption here is thatmoralquestionsrelating to the violation of egalitarito the activities of the successful, rather than to the circumanism pertainentirely the net. It seems not stancesof those,the 'impoverished', who have fallenthrough unreasonable to supposethatit is the potentially politically strong who are overwhelmof an ideal of equality. ingly the more likely tojeopardizethe fortunes 10 Bruntonhas offered a similarargument (1989: 679). Where thereis egalitarianand inventive activity ism,the ethosmaybe appropriately upheldifpeople's evaluative and creative processes, but by comis deemed to come not from'theirown cognitive or spirits.' municating withthegods,ancestors 11 Guthrie(1980) has proposedthatanthropomorphism is the distinctive feature of For him,humanswill inevitably model the external worldthrough religious discourse. in thisarticle The perspective whichevokehuman-like faculties. is, of course, symbols to graspthe For me anthropomorphic notionsarisethrough different. attempts entirely if anything, thenproduce the very natureof distinctively social existence. Such notions, of an external universe.But (evolutionarily existence speaking)this all occurs at the of the emergence of societyas such - at the momentof the social 'big veryinstant are neverwithout conceptualizations. bang. So humansin society cosmological 12 Speakingof the 'relatively Melanesian societies,Bruntonmaintains egalitarian' 'we are probably notjustified in assuming that, thereis a basic humanneed to develop and consistent to whatwe mightsee as fundamental existencomprehensive responses tialquestions'(1980: 123). 13In consequence, the 'manipulative' betweenhumansand spirits, a crucial relation, elementin 'religious come partially to process'may,as Horton (1960: 212) intimates, be overlain of 'communion'. by a relation 14 That such abstract entitiesas molecules,monetary flow and class relationsin some manneror other 'behave' surelybespeaksof anthropomorphism; in therefore, Guthrie'sterms(1980); science and the rest embodyreligiousprocess.The latteris in Overing'sstudy(1990), whichexplicitly evokesthe shaman(and directly suggested as 'makers the scientist) of theworld'. 15 We do not need to be undulyexercisedby the notion of 'conscious' here. By one means 'withdeliberation'. But deliberation may,when activities are 'consciously' or stereotyped: one does not any more repeatedtime and again,become automatic as one does it. However,in such situations 'think about' the activity the consciousreaa challenge son forthe activity can alwaysbe restated by theactorshould,forexample, in Stuchlik occur.See the discussion (1977: 9). 16 'System'is used here as a shorthand to denote the interrelationships among the have in mind,in the case of shamanism, souls 'entities' spirits, (by which I obviously connotea totalcoherency, or integratedand the like). The termdoes not necessarily or anything it. ness,in theseinterrelationships, approaching
DAVID RICHES
17
403
Bird-David(1990), speaking of precisely the sortsof hunter-gatherer societiesin which I am interested, evokesa cultural perspective on hunter-gatherer activities relating to the economy,which is certainly reminiscent of this study.Accordingto her, the environment as inherently cognizing benevolent (as a 'giving environment', thanks to the spirits whichanimateit) disposeshunter-gatherers to sharefood in the manner forwhich theyare well-known. The present study, with its different orientation, explainswhyit is thathunter-gatherers in thisway. construe their environment 18 Horton (1968: 626) recognizes the issue in a similar way,in commenting on the prevalence of religious in political elements manipulation: he asks,why do not people couch their moredirectly? political arguments
REFERENCES A. 1963. Shamanistic Balikci, behaviour amongtheNetsilik Eskimos.S West. J.Anthrop. 19, 380-96. 1970. TheNetsilik Eskimos. New York:NaturalHistory Press. Barth, F. 1975.Ritual andknowledge among the Baktaman ofNew Guinea.New Haven:Yale Univ. Press. 1987. Cosmologies in the Univ. Press. making. Cambridge: N. 1990.The giving Bird-David, environment: another on theeconomic perspective system of hunter-gatherers. Curr. Anthrop. 31, 189-95. to ideology. In Powerand knowledge Bloch, M. 1985. From cognition (ed.) R. Fardon. Scottish Academic Press. Edinburgh: 1992.Prey into hunter: the politics ofreligious experience. Cambridge: Univ. Press. Bourguignon, E. 1977.Altered states of consciousness, myths and rituals. In Drugs, rituals andaltered states AA Balkema. ofconsciousness (ed.) B. du Toit. Rotterdam: R. 1980.Misconstrued Brunton, orderin Melanesian Man (N.S.) 15, 112-28. religion. 1989.The cultural instability of egalitarian societies. Man (N.S.) 24, 673-81. M. 1990.Whyhumanshavecultures. Man (N.S.) 25, 189-207. Carrithers, anddanger. Douglas,M. 1970.Purity Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1973.Natural symbols. Harmondsworth: Penguin. and thesharing ofgamein hunting Dowling, J. 1968.Individual societies. ownership Am. Anthrop. 70, 502-7. E. 1964 [1915]. Elementaryforms Durkheim, ofthe religious Ife. London:Allen& Unwin. K. 1979.Batek Endicott, Oxford: Negrito religion. ClarendonPress. E. 1937.Witchcraft, Evans-Pritchard, oracles andmagic among theAzande. Oxford: Univ.Press. A. 1983. TheNelson Fienup-Riordan, Island Eskimo. Pacific Univ. Press. Anchorage: M. 1967.Totemand taboo.Proc. R. anthrop. Inst.1966,1-22. Fortes, In Anthropological tothe Geertz,C. 1965. Religionas a cultural system. approaches study of religion (ed.) M. Banton.London:Tavistock. In Hunters to Inuit children. andgatherers: Guemple,L. 1988. Teachingsocial relations andideology Oxford: property, power (eds) T. Ingold,D. Riches&J. Woodburn. Berg. of religion. Curr. S. 1980.A cognitive Guthrie, theory Anthrop. 21, 181-203. M. 1984.A cultural In Warfare, materialist ofwarfare. andenvironment culture Harris, theory New York:Academic Press. (ed.) B. Ferguson. norms andrepresentations:foundations 1983.Actions, Holy, L. & M. Stuchlik ofanthropological Univ. Press. inquiry. Cambridge: of religion, and itsuses.J.R. anthrop. Inst. Horton,R. 1960.A definition 90, 201-25.
404
DAVID RICHES
1968.Neo-Tylorianism: soundsenseor sinister prejudice? Man (N.S.) 3, 625-34. InRationality 1974.African traditional thought andwestern science. (ed.) B. Wilson. Oxford:Blackwell. andcosmos: the Peninsular Oxford:Clarendon Howell, S. 1984.Society Chewong of Malaysia. Press. shamanism. In Soviet Humphrey, C. 1980. Theoriesof Siberian and Western anthropology (ed.) E. Gellner.London:Duckworth. Ingold, T. 1979.Hunters, pastoralists andranchers. Cambridge: Univ. Press. Univ. Press. 1986. Theappropriation ofnature. Manchester: D. 1922.Ltfe Ottawa:Acland. Eskimo. Jenness, ofthe Copper E. 1974. TheThan Oxford: Univ. Press Jensen, andtheir religion. Katz,R. 1976.Education for transcendence: !kiahealing andtheKalahari !Kung.In Kalahari hunter-gatherers (eds) R. Lee & I. DeVore. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. andsocial B. 1985. Goodcompany andviolence: action ina lowland Knauft, sorcery New Guinea Univ. of CalifomiaPress. Berkeley: society. insimple humansocieties. 1987.Reconsidering violence Anthrop. 28,459-99. Curr. La Barre, dance: New York:Doubleday. W. 1970. Theghost the origins ofreligion. London:Athlone. Leach,E. 1961.Rethinking anthropology. on primitive In Hunters communism. evolution Lee, R. 1988.Reflections andgatherers: history, D. Riches&J. Woodburn. Oxford:Berg. andsocial change (eds) T. Ingold, Harmondsworth: Lewis,I. 1971.Ecstatic religion. Penguin. 1986.Religion incontext: cults andcharisma. Cambridge: Univ. Press. L. 1969.The medicine danceof the !KungBushman. Marshall, Africa 39, 347-80. Mauss,M. & H. Beuchat1979 [1906]. Seasonal variations ofthe Eskimo (translated and with an introduction byJj. Fox). London:Routledge & KeganPaul. Morris, B. 1976.Whither thesavagemind:noteson thenatural taxonomies of a hunting and gathering people.Man (N.S.) 11, 542-57. 1980.Hill godsandecstatic cults:noteson thereligion ofa hunting andgathering people.Man in India61, 3-36. 1987.Anthropological studies Cambridge: Univ. Press. ofreligion. thefunctional an analysis ofPiddocke's Orans,M. 1975.Domesticating dragon: potlatch. Am.Anthrop. 77, 312-28. of worlds:Nelson Goodmanin theAmazon. Overing, J. 1990. The shamanas a maker Man (N.S.) 25, 602-19. a people Orinoco Basin.Oxford: Clarendon Press. Overing Kaplan, J. 1975.ThePiaroa: ofthe K 1929.Theintellectual culture the Eskimos. Rasmussen, of Iglulik Copenhagen: Glydendalske Borgenhandel. 1930. Observations on theintellectual culture oftheCaribou Eskimos. Copenhagen: Glydendalske Borgenhandel. 1931.TheNetsilik Eskimos: social Ifeandspiritual culture. Copenhagen: Glydendalske Borgenhandel. 1932. Intellectual culture of the CopperEskimos.Copenhagen: Glydendalske Borgenhandel. D. 1982.Northern nomadic London:Academic Press. Riches, hunter-gatherers. herders and potlatchers: a sociological Man 1984. Hunters, accountof prestige. (N.S.) 19, 234-57. 1985. Power as a representational model.In Power andknowledge: sociological and Scottish AcademicPress. anthropological approaches (ed.) R. Fardon.Edinburgh:
DAVID RICHES
405
andparadigm. 1991.Aggression, violence: Man (N.S.) 26,281-98. war, space/time Sallnow,M. 1981.Communitas Man (N.S.) 16, 162-82. reconsidered. Schrire, C. (ed.) 1984.Pastandpresent in hunter-gatherer studies. London:AcademicPress. Shirokogoroff, S. 1935.Psychomental complex ofthe Tungus. London:KeganPaul,Trench& Trubner. Spencer,R. 1959. The North Alaskan Eskimo: a study in economy and society. Washington: BureauofAmerican Ethnology. M. 1965.Religion: Spiro, problems andexplanation. ofdefinition InAnthropological approaches tothe study ofreligion (ed.) M. Banton.London:Tavistock. In Goalsandbehaviour M. 1977.Goals andbehaviour. (ed.) M. Stuchlik (Queen's Stuchlik, Univ. Pap. socialAnthrop. 2). Belfast: Queen's University. A. 1979.Bringing Tanner, home animals: religious ideology andmode ofproduction among Mistassini Creehunters. London:C. Hurst. Turner, V. 1969. Theritual process. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1974.Dramas, feldsandmetaphors. Ithaca:CornellUniv. Press. E. TheEskimos. New Haven:Yale Univ. Press. Weyer, Man (N.S.) 17, 431-51. Woodburn, J. 1982.Egalitarian societies. 1988.African hunter-gatherer socialorganisation: is itbestunderstood as a product In Hunter-gatherers: of encapsulation? evolution andsocial history, change (eds) T. Ingold, D. Riches&J. Woodburn. Oxford. Berg.
Le chamanisme: la cle pour comprendrele phenomenereligieux

R6sumtW Cet article ordonned'une maniereschMmatique un nombrecompositede processus sociauxet intellectuels qu'on retrouve dans toutecosmologie, et qui peuvent, en toute justification, etre qualifi&s de religieux. Cetteetude du chamanisme, lareligion qui pr&vaut dansles soci&t&s etauxcosmologies aux structures socialessimples, qui laissent entrevoir le processus religieux, suitune forme de raisonnement dMductif. Les Inuitdu Canada (Eskimo)servent d'exemple du principe ethnographique. L'auteur part que le processus religieux prendracine dansles conditions memesde l'existence sociale,et les contradictions fondamentales qui la constituent, dansl'antithese ou, en d'autres termes, qui oppose les structures sociales'communitas'. sur ces contradictions C'est en mMditant que les gensordinaires, toutcommelessp&cialistes (chaquegroupe &tant animE parleursint&rets la pens&e L'auteur abordeEgalement des quesparticuliers), engendrent cosmologique. culturelle tionsd'analyse centrales de concepts d6finissant comme l'existence distincts la personne humaine, ou la pertinence des '6laborations secondaires', des systemes de classification ou des editsreligieux pour l'&tude des religions. Finalement, l'auteurse sur la pro6minence du sp&cialiste joint a Barthqui, lui aussi,insiste dans le religieux de cr6ation processus cosmologique.
Department ofSocial University ofStAndrews, StAndrews, KY16 9AL Ftfe Anthropology,

Shamanism The Key To Religion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shamanism The Key To Religion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shamanism: The Key to Religion Author(s): David Riches Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Jun.

SHAMANISM: THE KEY TO RELIGION

Man (N.S.) 29,381-405

37-8, 133-41; 1930: 51-61) andJenness(1922: 200) provideclassicreferences

Le chamanisme: la cle pour comprendrele phenomenereligieux

Department ofSocial University ofStAndrews, StAndrews, KY16 9AL Ftfe Anthropology,

You might also like