What is Shamanism?

[Nyktipolos]

Ok, everyone, unlock those antlers and please stop arguing about whether it is appropriate to use the word Shamanism and in what context - I'm not really interested in it.

 
The thing is, you asked in your original post what people meant by describing their role as a "shaman" outside of the traditional meaning. I did elude to a bit of it in my post to McCann, but generally when people outside of a Siberian culture refer to themselves as a shaman, it is an appropriated term for a spiritworker who works as an intermediary between the spirits and a person, generally with a "savage flavour" (and I am putting this in quotes because people like to romanticize the Noble Savage archetype and put it into play in their work, without regard to how offensively it has been used against people in the *very* recent past) to it as they use rudimentary tools like drums, rattles, body paint, or even stuff like poison work.

The other thing is, is that "shaman" as an umbrella term makes little sense, as tools in different cultures mean different things. For example: what a drum means and is used for by an Anishinaabe midewewin is entirely different to that of a reconstructionist Kemetic making music for Wepwawet.

Now, if you are trying to find the *rough equivalent* of a Siberian shaman in another culture, you might try letting us know what cultures you are looking into? Because learning about the culture that surrounds the worker is going to be much more informative on what they do, how they do it, and most importantly WHY they do it, than looking at a list of names and terms and seeing which one you like best to learn more about.

[SunflowerP]

This is what I was trying to ask:

Shamanism comes from the Evenk tribes in Siberia. They are nomadic. There must have been similar nomadic tribes in Europe at some point (because the Celts, the Danes and the Vikings were not the only people to have lived here), probably with similar practices. Have these also been modernised and if so, what are they generally known as?

 
Nomadic peoples? Definitely. But how similar their customs - and particularly their magico-religious customs - were is not a given, other than that they'd have customs suited to nomadic conditions rather than customs suited to permanent settlements.

Thing is, most of those nomadic peoples, over time, either took up building more permanent settlements and became the cultures we associate with specific areas, in the process morphing their customs to those suited to permanent settlement, or were assimilated into other cultures (both nomadic and settled). There's very little evidence  for what the customs of these cultures were before they had settlements - nomadic peoples leave fewer archaeological traces, and generally preserve and pass their in-group knowledge orally (since written records, and thus literacy, is a custom better suited to permanent settlement than to nomadic conditions).

Because even the archaeological and written-historical records are imperfect and incomplete, it can be challenging to determine the details of customs in permanently-settled cultures centuries ago, much less suss out what they were doing before they settled. Reconstructing the religions of even such highly-prolifically-literate cultures as the Greeks and Romans is difficult and academically-demanding; the reconstructionist polytheisms are not called 'religion with homework' for nothing.

Someone who has been doing the even-more-difficult work of attempting to reconstruct the customs/worldview of the Indo-European peoples before they diverged and settled and became the cultural/ethnic groups we have names for, is Ceisiwr Serith - you might be interested in his material, but keep in mind that it's little more than (educated) guesswork.

That sort of work has to happen first, so that there's something to modernize. While it's appealing to imagine that such customs were 'preserved in folklore', the oral lore of the folk isn't an unchanging monolith - once a custom passes out of practice because it no longer fits changing conditions, there's no reason to pass it down by word of mouth. The idea of 'the folk' preserving all the 'ancient ways' intact is a product of the imaginations of Romantics and Victorians, and is deeply tangled in the racism and colonialism you aren't interested in hearing about (and in classism as well).

And even where folk customs do preserve remnants/fragments of much older practices (hard to tell, since it's difficult to tell just how old a given bit is), they will be the customs of the folk, not of that people or tribe's 'technicians of the sacred'.

So what you'll mostly see is modern constructions, not modernized reconstructions, that draw on or are inspired by the little that we do know. I do this sort of thing myself, but I am using the methods and imagery and such that work for me, in the cultural contexts I am a part of, and any similarities between what I do and how I do it, and what any ancient nomadic people's 'technicians of the sacred' did and how they did it, is coincidental.

Sunflower

[baduhmtisss]

Nomadic peoples? Definitely. But how similar their customs - and particularly their magico-religious customs - were is not a given, other than that they'd have customs suited to nomadic conditions rather than customs suited to permanent settlements.

Thing is, most of those nomadic peoples, over time, either took up building more permanent settlements and became the cultures we associate with specific areas, in the process morphing their customs to those suited to permanent settlement, or were assimilated into other cultures (both nomadic and settled). There's very little evidence  for what the customs of these cultures were before they had settlements - nomadic peoples leave fewer archaeological traces, and generally preserve and pass their in-group knowledge orally (since written records, and thus literacy, is a custom better suited to permanent settlement than to nomadic conditions).

Because even the archaeological and written-historical records are imperfect and incomplete, it can be challenging to determine the details of customs in permanently-settled cultures centuries ago, much less suss out what they were doing before they settled. Reconstructing the religions of even such highly-prolifically-literate cultures as the Greeks and Romans is difficult and academically-demanding; the reconstructionist polytheisms are not called 'religion with homework' for nothing.

Someone who has been doing the even-more-difficult work of attempting to reconstruct the customs/worldview of the Indo-European peoples before they diverged and settled and became the cultural/ethnic groups we have names for, is Ceisiwr Serith - you might be interested in his material, but keep in mind that it's little more than (educated) guesswork.

That sort of work has to happen first, so that there's something to modernize. While it's appealing to imagine that such customs were 'preserved in folklore', the oral lore of the folk isn't an unchanging monolith - once a custom passes out of practice because it no longer fits changing conditions, there's no reason to pass it down by word of mouth. The idea of 'the folk' preserving all the 'ancient ways' intact is a product of the imaginations of Romantics and Victorians, and is deeply tangled in the racism and colonialism you aren't interested in hearing about (and in classism as well).

And even where folk customs do preserve remnants/fragments of much older practices (hard to tell, since it's difficult to tell just how old a given bit is), they will be the customs of the folk, not of that people or tribe's 'technicians of the sacred'.

So what you'll mostly see is modern constructions, not modernized reconstructions, that draw on or are inspired by the little that we do know. I do this sort of thing myself, but I am using the methods and imagery and such that work for me, in the cultural contexts I am a part of, and any similarities between what I do and how I do it, and what any ancient nomadic people's 'technicians of the sacred' did and how they did it, is coincidental.

Sunflower

 
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SunflowerP again.

Nice post!

[veggiewolf]

...

A Reminder:

A side note:  Your signature image does not meet our requirements.  Our signature image guidelines specify that an image in a signature may not be larger than 400 pixels wide by 150 tall and must be 35kb or less in file size for regular and full members.  I have to ask you to please either reduce the size of your current signature image or find a different one that complies with our rules.   This isn't a formal warning, just a heads-up.  No reply is necessary, but if you have questions or need clarification, please feel free to contact a member of staff privately. Thanks!

 
veggiewolf - TC staff

[yennork]

/snip/
Shamanism comes from the Evenk tribes in Siberia. They are nomadic. There must have been similar nomadic tribes in Europe at some point (because the Celts, the Danes and the Vikings were not the only people to have lived here), probably with similar practices. Have these also been modernised and if so, what are they generally known as? Thank you to Allaya for suggesting Tranceworker and Hedgerider.

I can only speak for Scandinavia, but there hasn't been any major change in the peoples living here - but in their culture, customs and religion. And yes, we have certainly been modernized.

No people live in a vacuum. The idea that customs remain unchanged for centuries or even millenia among "primitive" people is not only wrong, it's downright rude to those "primitives". They are not a human zoo for more educated "modern" people to walk around in, marvelling at those strange folk.

Oh, and everything Sunflower said!

[Baron]

I know that the word is Siberian and therefor most uses of it are incorrect, but what do people mean when they say 'Shamanism'? For example, Steve Sic, the founder of Omnia, describes himself as a European intuitive shaman. Obviously this means something specific for him, but there must be a European equivalent of Shamanism and I am interested in what it is.

Sorry if that lot doesn't make total sense,
Herbs Of Airmid

I really feel that this dispute over the use of the word "shamanism" is a tempest in a tea cup. I am predominantly Celtic by blood, and I could care less if a non-Celt wants to use a Celtic god, term, or technique in their own way. I don't think it is done with contempt for the original culture.

Also, words and terms move through cultures and times constantly and naturally. The whole argument seems a little precious to me. Are there really Siberian folks who are upset about this?  As a Celt, I do not consider it cultural misappropriation if someone wants to do their own spin on something out of Celtic Culture. It is a Free Country and hopefully a Free Globe. Let us share and use ideas freely. We are all human, after all...

[Baron]

I really feel that this dispute over the use of the word "shamanism" is a tempest in a tea cup. I am predominantly Celtic by blood, and I could care less if a non-Celt wants to use a Celtic god, term, or technique in their own way. I don't think it is done with contempt for the original culture.

Also, words and terms move through cultures and times constantly and naturally. The whole argument seems a little precious to me. Are there really Siberian folks who are upset about this?  As a Celt, I do not consider it cultural misappropriation if someone wants to do their own spin on something out of Celtic Culture. It is a Free Country and hopefully a Free Globe. Let us share and use ideas freely. We are all human, after all...

Also, I would add that probably the term "neoshamanism" would work for most Westerners who use some of these ideas and practices.

I would also point out that it seems most of what gets termed "paganism" is actually "neo-paganism", or a modern creation based upon/inspired by original pagan religions or practices.

I don't think users of the term "pagan" mean any harm to the original cultures when they use that term. Similar with "neoshamanism".

[Baron]

I really feel that this dispute over the use of the word "shamanism" is a tempest in a tea cup. I am predominantly Celtic by blood, and I could care less if a non-Celt wants to use a Celtic god, term, or technique in their own way. I don't think it is done with contempt for the original culture.

Also, words and terms move through cultures and times constantly and naturally. The whole argument seems a little precious to me. Are there really Siberian folks who are upset about this?  As a Celt, I do not consider it cultural misappropriation if someone wants to do their own spin on something out of Celtic Culture. It is a Free Country and hopefully a Free Globe. Let us share and use ideas freely. We are all human, after all...

Another point. I do also recognize that Celticism is cultural category, technically not a racial category, and many people of different types were Celtic. When I say that I am "Celtic by Blood" it is a short-hand way of saying I am from a group of people (the Irish) who are descended from ancient Celtic cultures...

[Baron]

Another point. I do also recognize that Celticism is cultural category, technically not a racial category, and many people of different types were Celtic. When I say that I am "Celtic by Blood" it is a short-hand way of saying I am from a group of people (the Irish) who are descended from ancient Celtic cultures...

Also- It seems to me that it is probable that there is (or at least was) an "authentic western shamanism" from original western cultures like the Celts or the Norse.

These customs and traditions may bear some similarities to other cultures like Siberians or varieties of Native American Cultures, as well as different particulars, practices, and beliefs.

Separate human cultures may generate similar types of spiritualities when in similar modes of life and environments (for example, hunter-gatherer societies will all have spiritual practices based upon "the Hunt").

If we can not call them "shamanic" or even "neo-shamanic", perhaps a term to use might be "spirit-workers"....

[SunflowerP]

I really feel that this dispute over the use of the word "shamanism" is a tempest in a tea cup.

 

Also, I would add that probably the term "neoshamanism" would work for most Westerners who use some of these ideas and practices.

 

Also- It seems to me that it is probable that there is (or at least was) an "authentic western shamanism" from original western cultures like the Celts or the Norse.

These customs and traditions may bear some similarities to other cultures like Siberians or varieties of Native American Cultures, as well as different particulars, practices, and beliefs.

Separate human cultures may generate similar types of spiritualities when in similar modes of life and environments (for example, hunter-gatherer societies will all have spiritual practices based upon "the Hunt").

If we can not call them "shamanic" or even "neo-shamanic", perhaps a term to use might be "spirit-workers"....

Since many of your further points here duplicate things already mentioned in the thread, with no indication at all that you're aware that they were mentioned before you came along, it appears that you didn't actually bother to read the discussion in any more detail than it took to see that it did indeed contain an instance of the dispute that you dislike so intensely that you revived a three-year-old thread just to rant about it.

To be clear, it's not the thread revival that bothers me, it's reviving it, and adding quite a lot of words to it, without troubling to see what had actually been said previously. Because you're not engaging with, or even acknowledging, any posts but the first one, that comes across as a general rant about a topic you don't like seeing discussed.

I am not explicitly responding to any (with one exception, see below) of your points, because I've already addressed those very points earlier in the thread - some in a way that agrees with you, or rather, since I said it first, that you agree with; some in disagreement; and some, 'it's more complicated than that'.
 

Another point. I do also recognize that Celticism is cultural category, technically not a racial category, and many people of different types were Celtic. When I say that I am "Celtic by Blood" it is a short-hand way of saying I am from a group of people (the Irish) who are descended from ancient Celtic cultures...

Technically, 'Celtic' is a linguistic category; as a cultural category, it's largely a modern construct.

Even were that not the case, though, culture is not transmitted by blood/genes; you may be descended from people who were part of a culture - Irish - associated with a Celtic language, but that doesn't make you culturally Irish yourself. Interestingly, we've already had someone who is (partially) culturally Irish post in this thread, though she didn't explicate what her background was in that particular post:

And furthermore, I'm from a background of people who know all about what happens when the Brits culturally appropriate. And, while I live here, I will continue to speak up against cultural appropriation. Let's NOT DO IT, and make up for all the years of colonialism. That would be nice.

So when you speak 'as a Celt', you're not speaking from a cultural-category position (or, at most, from an Irish-American cultural-category position, depending how much your family has retained of the customs and community involvement/identity of the diasporic Irish), but very much from a position of genetic connection.

Sunflower

[Baron]

Since many of your further points here duplicate things already mentioned in the thread, with no indication at all that you're aware that they were mentioned before you came along, it appears that you didn't actually bother to read the discussion in any more detail than it took to see that it did indeed contain an instance of the dispute that you dislike so intensely that you revived a three-year-old thread just to rant about it.

To be clear, it's not the thread revival that bothers me, it's reviving it, and adding quite a lot of words to it, without troubling to see what had actually been said previously. Because you're not engaging with, or even acknowledging, any posts but the first one, that comes across as a general rant about a topic you don't like seeing discussed.

I am not explicitly responding to any (with one exception, see below) of your points, because I've already addressed those very points earlier in the thread - some in a way that agrees with you, or rather, since I said it first, that you agree with; some in disagreement; and some, 'it's more complicated than that'.
 


Technically, 'Celtic' is a linguistic category; as a cultural category, it's largely a modern construct.

Even were that not the case, though, culture is not transmitted by blood/genes; you may be descended from people who were part of a culture - Irish - associated with a Celtic language, but that doesn't make you culturally Irish yourself. Interestingly, we've already had someone who is (partially) culturally Irish post in this thread, though she didn't explicate what her background was in that particular post:



So when you speak 'as a Celt', you're not speaking from a cultural-category position (or, at most, from an Irish-American cultural-category position, depending how much your family has retained of the customs and community involvement/identity of the diasporic Irish), but very much from a position of genetic connection.

Sunflower

Sorry that you feel that way about what I posted. I was just trying to get some of my own thoughts and opinions out through writing/posting. I was not trying to write a "rant", nor did I mean to dismiss what others had written before. I meant no disrespect. If I seem wrong-headed, I apologize. It was not my intent.  

As I say, I was writing to try and sort my own thoughts and opinions out. I am always open to altering those thoughts and opinions based upon the ideas and positions of others. I  meant no harm.

As far as my ethnicity goes, I fully well recognize the difference between the Irish and the Irish-American. I am not a "plastic paddy. I have a real appreciation of the culture that I am descended from. Am I a Celt, or an American descended from Celts? My point is that people are getting a bit twisted about borrowing from other cultures. Aren't modern Neo-Pagans "borrowing" from Ancient Peoples and their Cultures? Is this cultural misappropriation? I think not. I think it is an act of cultural creativity.

Even if someone is removed from that original culture through time and geography, it is still an origin point. Anyway, my point is that as an Irish-American, I do not object to people who practice using Celtic cultural materials. This is meant to be an example of why I think that it is acceptable for people to be inspired by cultures other than their own when it comes to spirituality, and other aspects of culture. You don't need to be Italian to make pasta, although it probably helps.

[Baron]

As far as my ethnicity goes, I fully well recognize the difference between the Irish and the Irish-American. I am not a "plastic paddy. I have a real appreciation of the culture that I am descended from. Am I a Celt, or an American descended from Celts? My point is that people are getting a bit twisted about borrowing from other cultures. Aren't modern Neo-Pagans "borrowing" from Ancient Peoples and their Cultures? Is this cultural misappropriation? I think not. I think it is an act of cultural creativity.

...Even if someone is removed from that original culture through time and geography, it is still an origin point. Anyway, my point is that as an Irish-American, I do not object to people who practice using Celtic cultural materials. This is meant to be an example of why I think that it is acceptable for people to be inspired by cultures other than their own when it comes to spirituality, and other aspects of culture. You don't need to be Italian to make pasta, although it probably helps.

I think that I should clarify: Yes, "Celtic" is a language category, but language is a sub-set of culture, a part of culture, and a transmitter of culture. As far as an historic or pre-historic "Celtic" culture goes: there probably were a great diversity of culture or cultures that involved Celtic Languages. We have some remnants of their material culture, plus the remaining stories and mythologies.

I do not think these are modern constructions. Celtic Neo-Paganism may be a modern construction, but these remnants of Celtic Culture are not modern. They are the remains of an ancient culture that is largely out of view. So, I disagree (respectfully) with the article you posted a link to...Just as there are several "related" English speaking cultures (British, Irish, American, Australian, etc.), the surviving Celtic Languages themselves are evidence of what was probably a diverse set of related cultures that we may generically term "Celtic" as a modern short-hand. That is my view. Yours may vary.

[Baron]

The thing is, you asked in your original post what people meant by describing their role as a "shaman" outside of the traditional meaning. I did elude to a bit of it in my post to McCann, but generally when people outside of a Siberian culture refer to themselves as a shaman, it is an appropriated term for a spiritworker who works as an intermediary between the spirits and a person, generally with a "savage flavour" (and I am putting this in quotes because people like to romanticize the Noble Savage archetype and put it into play in their work, without regard to how offensively it has been used against people in the *very* recent past) to it as they use rudimentary tools like drums, rattles, body paint, or even stuff like poison work.

The other thing is, is that "shaman" as an umbrella term makes little sense, as tools in different cultures mean different things. For example: what a drum means and is used for by an Anishinaabe midewewin is entirely different to that of a reconstructionist Kemetic making music for Wepwawet.

Now, if you are trying to find the *rough equivalent* of a Siberian shaman in another culture, you might try letting us know what cultures you are looking into? Because learning about the culture that surrounds the worker is going to be much more informative on what they do, how they do it, and most importantly WHY they do it, than looking at a list of names and terms and seeing which one you like best to learn more about.

 
I am sorry, I did miss this original reference to the term "spiritworker", which I later suggested in one of my posts. Sorry for not reading more thouroughly.

[Baron]

...Since many of your further points here duplicate things already mentioned in the thread, with no indication at all that you're aware that they were mentioned before you came along, it appears that you didn't actually bother to read the discussion in any more detail than it took to see that it did indeed contain an instance of the dispute that you dislike so intensely that you revived a three-year-old thread just to rant about it.

To be clear, it's not the thread revival that bothers me, it's reviving it, and adding quite a lot of words to it, without troubling to see what had actually been said previously. Because you're not engaging with, or even acknowledging, any posts but the first one, that comes across as a general rant about a topic you don't like seeing discussed.

I am not explicitly responding to any (with one exception, see below) of your points, because I've already addressed those very points earlier in the thread - some in a way that agrees with you, or rather, since I said it first, that you agree with; some in disagreement; and some, 'it's more complicated than that'...
 
Sunflower

If I am duplicating what has been posted before, it is because I think that the points are worth repeating. My point in posting was to restate the original argument again in general terms and move out to the more specific afterwards. I am sorry if what I think is being thorough comes off as redundant.

I wanted to restart the conversation. I do not dislike the dispute. I was just trying to express myself and seek some clarity and the opinions of others. I did not wish to rant, but rather tried state my views thoroughly. Part of it is because my opinion differs from the prevailing opinions of the prior posts. I wanted to express that opinion and get legitimate reactions.

So, I wanted to start at the general and move to the more specific. I am sorry if this appears to you as a "rant". I have a tendency to monologue sometimes rather than dialogue, and that is something I need to work on.

Again, I do not dislike the conversation; I just had a different view that I wanted to express. I wanted to restart the conversation and put my two cents in. I did not mean to irk you or disrespect anyone. Just expressing a view, an opinion. I am open to the views and opinions of others, and if I disagree, I try to disagree respectfully.

[MamaThistle]

I really feel that this dispute over the use of the word "shamanism" is a tempest in a tea cup. I am predominantly Celtic by blood, and I could care less if a non-Celt wants to use a Celtic god, term, or technique in their own way. I don't think it is done with contempt for the original culture.

Also, words and terms move through cultures and times constantly and naturally. The whole argument seems a little precious to me. Are there really Siberian folks who are upset about this?  As a Celt, I do not consider it cultural misappropriation if someone wants to do their own spin on something out of Celtic Culture. It is a Free Country and hopefully a Free Globe. Let us share and use ideas freely. We are all human, after all...

I understand this your point and I usually feel similar to you about this type of stuff. However, the use of "Shamanism, Shamans" is a pet peeve of mine, especially when referring to Native Americans. Basically, it just makes me think the user has not put enough thought or research in the topic and is probably not someone I want to learn from. It's more of an irritation and a turn off than anything.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk