In doing this week’s readings on shamanism, I was struck by
the many parallels that exist between various shamanic ideologies, through the
centuries and across the globe. Piers Vitebsky writes in The Shaman that people have speculated that shamanism may be the “original,
primordial human religion,” as numerous prehistoric cave drawings have been
discovered which depict people entering trances or taking on animal-like shapes,
as a shaman might if mid-trance.
For me, it is hard to wrap my head around shamanism being a
religion. After all, shamanism lacks many of the things which characterize all
or most of the world’s most prevalent religions: one definitive sacred text,
movements to convert others, theological beliefs, a following, and the violent conflict
which often rises when it comes in contact with another religion. In addition,
shamanism is very disorganized with respect to the religions I have become
familiar with; while there are many parallels between different shamanic
groups, all of the world’s shamen have not met to decide on their holy day, create
a set of rules for their congregation to follow, or define a set of answers for
life’s biggest questions. Vitebsky himself writes that “shamanism is not a
single, unified religion but a cross-cultural form of religious sensibility and
practice.”
But if shamanism was the first religion practiced by humans,
then does that mean that the very definition of religion has developed over
time? It would make sense that the religions practiced by early humans would not
be the same as what we would practice presently; early humans (and even humans in recent history) were more concerned with
survival than they were with adultery, or being moral, or avoiding certain
kinds of meat. Shamanism is very much an ancient practice, which does not adapt
very well to contemporary settings. The spirit world which today’s spiritualists,
who often live in cities, depend on technology, etc., would likely envision is very
different from the one that shamen who live in tribes and in rural areas
envision.
So what do you think? Was shamanism the first primordial
human religion? If it was, is it still a religion now? And if the definition of
religion changes through the course of human evolution, what might it look like
in a couple hundred years?
You bring up a very interesting idea when you compare shamanism with religion. I too did not consider shamanism being a religion, but your blog post made me start thinking about whether that initial thought was correct. Interestingly, the term ‘shamanism’ was first applied by Western scholars studying East Asian cultures. They coined this term in part to put a linguistic barrier between shamanism and religion--to distinguish between cultures.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the more I think about it the less convinced I am that this distinction is anything more than semantics. Shamanism and more commonly accepted forms of religion have more in common than we would initially think. You are correct in saying the practice of religion has changed over time, but I am not so sure the definition has changed. Most people no longer follow the tenets of the ancient Greek gods, or hold beliefs from the very beginnings of Judaism, but that does not make either of these any less a religion--just as shamanism is not any less of a religion just because it no longer fits with our idea of how to practice religion.
This is a great example of the way perspective can alter definition. I would define religion as any activity that requires faith in something that is not tangible or knowable. This would include concepts like God, the afterlife, and spirits. By this definition I think Shamanism would certainly fit. Many of the characteristics that you describe such as established texts, conflict, and following are just a byproduct of the passage of time. So perhaps Shamanism was the first religion.
ReplyDeleteI was very intrigued to see that you don’t consider shamanism to be a religion, because I had the exact opposite response to the readings! In particular, the piece by Eliade described thematic elements seen in many different subsets of shamanism and I found myself looking for similar concepts in other religions. Eliade lists the idea of a ladder or ascension into the sky as a common shamanistic element. I saw very obvious similarities between this and the Christian concept of souls ascending to heaven upon earthly death. Additionally, the idea of shamans being able to communicate with the gods drew parallels with certain Catholic traditions. For example, hundreds of years ago when the Catholic church believed priests alone had a connection with god (and therefore, could be paid to ‘put in a good word’ or free the souls of loved ones from Purgatory). The similarities and differences between different religions makes for fascinating conversation.
ReplyDeleteReading through your post and the comments, I have to agree that this is more than just a mere coincidence. I mean, Vitebsky mentions later in the piece that one of the fundamental “ideas” in shamanism is the idea that the human condition was once perfect, or like the gods. Eventually, for one reason or another, mankind fell from that grace and was degraded into this existence. This principle is the foundation for most Abrahamic religions (at least I think) which is rather interesting. I’m not too sure of other religions, but I would say that religion tries to recover this status of perfection. Sacrifices, rituals, transcendence, etc., are all found in many religions. Maybe this just fall under our tendency to categorize things. Maybe shamanism was the first manifestation of religion. I would argue that even the first humans adopted some sort of faith to explain the unexplainable. So maybe spirituality is a better term.
ReplyDelete