Let's Discuss Shamanism

OB1Shinobi wrote: i dont use the word shaman to refer to myself - i do however fit the profile to the letter

So do many of us. That doesn't make us any closer to the shamanic calling.

im not going to defend mr harner from anyone - its not my job and in any case its not needed

but do you really feel that calling him a HACK is appropriate?

considering the influence and contribution his works have on culture today do you sincerely believe thathe deserves the word HACK because he fiddled with the word shaman?

Yes. Hack is entirely appropriate.

Let me unpack it for you a little, if I may: Harner is singlehandedly responsible for the single largest bout of cultural appropriation based on religion in the last three or four hundred years. Cultural appropriation is the act of stealing bits of culture from a group you do not belong to in a way that divorces it from its context, both diluting what you stole and helping to destroy the actual culture responsible for it. If you need a tl;dr example, cultural appropriation is like how white people love black culture, but only when other white people are doing it.

Harner's "Core Shamanism" is, on paper, really, really brilliant. It's a fascinating look at the world's oldest type of religion and how it's very similar no matter where you go in the world. But in practice, "Core Shamanism" is a vehicle of cultural appropriation on a ridiculous scale, something that's already a problem in the neopagan and new age spheres. "Core Shamanism" breaks down shamanic practices from around the globe to tiny little cultureless bits of information, completely devoid of the heart and faith that makes those practices work, and mass-markets those bits of information as a complete system to white people all over the world, who then engage in hilariously inept discussions with other people about how they're "shamans now," because they read a book.

Meanwhile, the mambo or huna or babalawo standing nearby gets a listen of this, and understands the current cultural context of "shaman" to mean "indigenous, traditional spirit worker", and hears it coming from a pumpkin-spice-latte-i-cannot-even-lemme-take-a-selfie style stereotypical white girl, and loses their sh*t because their honored traditions, their sacred rites, their genuine, heartfelt faith has been reduced to a checklist in a book.

"Core Shamanism" is the perfect starting place if you're building a brand new tradition from the ground up. But in every other, real, honest-to-the-lwa "shamanism" on the Earth, you don't need a book to learn. If you're called, the spirits will teach you or lead you to someone who will train you--the books are for the rest of us.

Harner has stomped all over the sacred rites of so many cultures with "Core Shamanism," something no anthropologist worth their salt would do, because each of these unique, individual cultures are vastly different and practice differently. That's why Harner is a hack. That's why this is a problem.

I don't think it's really necessary for a group of Westerners to worry about the way the word "shamanism" is used; it is accepted, culturally, that it is used in a certain way in the West, or in English. Certainly this definition may be inaccurate, but so long as we accept its inaccuracy and accept things as you laid out in your post, we can still have civil discussions where we use the term "shamanism" as it is commonly used. This common usage, I think, is the most important definition we can have, for we know that words change. Could you imagine if I walked up to a homosexual man and asked "What is your sexual orientation?", he responded with "I'm gay", and I said "Yes, I understand that you're happy, but are you heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc.?" This would add nothing to the conversation and would likely create unrest in our minds. We should accept terms as they are commonly used and also should keep in mind the realities of etymology and classical definitions, but we shouldn't nitpick.
As Zhuangzi says, words exist because they have meaning. (I'm paraphrasing here; though I'm certain no English translation is 100% accurate to ancient Chinese.) So what is more useful in terms of common conversation: "I engage in the practice of shamanism" or "I follow a potentially animistic path which may or may not include meditation, drumming, herbalism, the use of mind altering substances, "shamanic journeying", and a number of other things"? I think the former is more useful while conversing.

But, yes, I think shamanism should be recognized as a general set of practices as opposed to a belief system by the general population, and more work should go into delivering this kind of understanding. Since your post, to a great extent, was about how people use the term "shamanism", I hope that this post does well enough to communicate my views on the topic of how the term is used.

Edit: I should also add that I have no issue with "cultural appropriation" in the same way that you do. I think that Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly are both great rock and roll musicians, and it truly does not matter in any way whether the person making the music is white, black, or any other race; and furthermore, that cultural barriers are a negative aspect of our daily lives which we should deny. We are not groups of Americans, Europeans, Africans, Asians, we are not white, black, brown, yellow, purple, blue, or anything else. We are human beings. There is only ONE race, as far as I am concerned, and that is the human race. So what if I go into a tattoo parlor and ask for some Japanese kanji to be tattooed onto my arm? And who cares that the Japanese stole the kanji from the Chinese long ago? I don't think it diminishes the people; I don't think it diminishes the language; and I see nothing wrong with a kanji tattoo or tribal tattoo or anything else, whether it is gotten by someone native to Japan or someone native to the United States, or someone native to Ireland. We are all humans. Cultural barriers are harmful to us as a species. That is my position.

what exactly is the HARM?
i mean, in what way have the day to day lives of people been experientially detrimented by harners work?
that they get a laugh at the pretentious fluff of western gentles is not in my view a measure of hurt by any means

unless some group has experienced some kind of tangible oppression or violence as a result i just dont see it as anything to worry over

if he misrepresented peoples traditions then so what? lol people dont lose their traditions because some foreigner writes a book about them

and especially now in the information age - we're all going to influence one another in myriad ways

sometimes people will take inspiration and run with it

thats a part of civilization and the appropriation of yesterday doesnt hold a candle to what we're going to see in the next fifty years

in fact, where you see cultural appropriation, i see cultural evolution

you see a cheapening of a people and i see an enrichment of a people

i respect your opinion - i respect that you back your opinion with knowledge and consideration

if there has been actual violence done to anyone over this appropriation then i will renounce my current position gladly

if not then, not

There could be more accurate words to define particular activities which are shamanistic, but I can see how shamanism itself could be seen as the individual practises of the shaman.... but who says who is a shaman!?

My first exposure to the concept was through reading about Tibetan oracle's which say they get into a trance to let spirits speak through them to consult in divination etc, they had quite a bit of interaction with the Mongol's from the North, and prior to that Buddhism entered Tibet over a pre-existing indigenous animistic landscape which became identified as 'Bon'.

do you think the spirits can lead someone to a book or a website? or a pdf file? youtube video?

if the spirits can send a bird to fly a certain way at a certain time from a certain direction whos to say it cant forward an email or direct my attention to a blog?

in a world where particles react to awareness through space time i very much belive in magic

OB1Shinobi wrote: do you think the spirits can lead someone to a book or a website? or a pdf file? youtube video?

if the spirits can send a bird to fly a certain way at a certain time from a certain direction whos to say it cant forward an email or direct my attention to a blog?

Considering the traditional method of transmission of knowledge in "shamanism" has always been either to be taught directly by the spirits (in which case they'd have no need of pdfs, websites, or youtube) or to be called in such a way that the shaman nearest you comes looking for you and forms a master/apprentice style role (which, incidentally, is how WE do things here), I'm relatively certain that electronic media aren't really the answer to generating more shaman. In fact, they're only good for making money and making non-indigenous non-shaman interested in indigenous faiths.

jungs concepts of synchronicity and the collective unconscious?
the force?
the spirit vs the spirits?

from the broader persective of simple human experience and development, what are your thoughts on these things?
their relationships?

sometimes i hear of the spirits in the context of being ancestral spirits, sometimes of being nature spirits and elemental forces
sometimes i hear of the spirit which in usage seems similar to many peoples understanding of the force - the sentience of the universe itself so to speak

from the persective of jungs synchronistic world (the spirit? spirits?) and our inherent link to the collective knowledge of our entire lineage all the way back to who knows how far? the star dust of which the universe was formed maybe, i dont know. but it poses a set of potentialities which imo bear consideration to this topic

or at least that i am curious about lol

ive been really enjoying this guy lately

his name is robert moss and for anyone unfamiliar with him, he emphasizes dreamwork


this one is about 30 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YR2rTL51cY


this one is called Soul Recovery and is just over 15 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7MtlzZsxZY

I don't know Jung or anyone else's experience but from my experience, everything has a spirit. I think it may be why I always had the habit of naming the things that were important to me lol. (Computers, cars, motorcycles, ...)

I feel like there's a big...pool...river? Ocean? Of "Spirit" that connects everything together....or rather Spirit is what everything is apart of. I'm still trying to sort that out. I've heard of ancestral spirits but I haven't spoken with my own. I have spoken with Shaman spirits. I'm not sure if they're individual Shaman or if they are a collective like Power Animals, but something of humanity is embodied in Spirit, I wouldn't be surprised at all that an ancestor would be there either. I think deities are also a form of spirit as well. Along with mythological creatures. Also I've read about it not being strange if a person's Power Animal was one extinct, I've never met a dinosaur or any other extinct creature but I wouldn't be surprised to run into one.

thank you for answering and opening up about your experiences Kamizu

i know for a fact that the uni/multi/omniverse sends direct communication to - well me for sure but i think to everyone constantly

also when i first started reiki i remember my teacher talking about reiki guides and being open to their messages

my dad had died within a couple years of this

in my family "spirits" were demons who wanted to hurt you and lead you into hell

when i started "seeing" spirits in my room waiting for me to sleep i was scared

at the time i had competing ideas about what it meant

dad? reiki guides? demons?

i didntreally figure it out i just sort of refused to acknowledge them

for a long time i ignored it

since getting involved with the jedi community the issue has been coming up at regular intervals

my first experience of "shamanism" was castaneda - the ideas in his books are just RIGHT to me

i never understood the controversy really because the work speaks for itself

anyway now im in the position of being fairly knowledgeable of many of the concepts and practices of my path but in practical terms im still very inexperienced because of the direction my life took

jungs ideas of synchronicity are a really awesome way of describing an interactive multiverse (the multiverse concept itself is not jungs)

he talks of the nature of "coincidences" which are stunningly appropriate and instructional to the context of the moment - basically he was one of the first western scholars (he was frueds protege) who discussed the power of dreams, the ultimate unity of consciousness at a basic level and direct and intelligent communication from the world around us

thats my understanding anyway