Customer comments on this selection.
 Challenging the Orthodox
Shamans and Religion: An Anthropological Exploration in Critical Thinking by Alice Beck Kehoe, 2000.
I can't believe that in the 7 years since this book was published that no one has written a review worthy of reading. Here is my attempt, after my first read, to do just that.
I have read hundreds of books on the history of shamanism, religion, entheogens, etc. and there are only a few that I recommend as required reading - other than my own. This is now one of them. Though I won't give it a 5 star, I will give it a 4, maybe a 4.3. Of coarse Amazon has no such option.
In my own work and writings I've criticized the way the word "shaman" is used. I have also criticized the assumption of "primitives" and the cultures that practice various forms of "shamanism". The word shamanism, to which I completely agree with Kehoe on, is a term used by certain Siberian tribes for their medicine man, religious leader, etc. - where even there it can be an ambiguous word to use. Today the word is used to describe nearly all indigenous culture's "religious" practices, no matter how varying and different they are. In my last book, we focused the word shamanism as mainly applying to indigenous cultures that use entheogens - that is psychedelic substances. And yet this is also not a wholly correct definition.
From new age book stores to yoga classes, various forms of neo-shamanism have crept up in our society that resemble nothing of any of the original -form(s)- of shamanism - and, as she argues, have a negative impact on the seriousness of the real shaman's (and other indigenous cultures) issues, especially racism toward them.
Why not 5 stars? First off, I think this book is overly critical in an area that is caused, at least as much as anything else she mentions, by lack of a better word to use. Metaphorically or not, English fails us in these areas. But she offers us no strong or definite alternatives. She doesn't give us a clear cut solution on what we should do, or say.
Kehoe also argues that entheogenic shamanism is not necessarily arguable as related to shamanism stating that the Ostyak et al shamans may or may not use amanita muscaria mushrooms while `altering states of consciousness.' This she does in an attempt to disassociate the entheogen using "shamans" of South America with those of Siberia. This may be questionable, however, in relation to some of Christian Ratsch's newer evidence.
I'm still not convinced of this argument simply due to lack of evidence from either side. I think that abandoning a word simply because it originally applied to a specific ethnic group is also silly. We certainly need to expand our vocabulary and better define the words shaman and shamanism when we use them, and we certainly need to address cultural racism toward concurred and outside cultures. This book does a wonderful job at that! But should we limit our usage of a word altogether? There must be a better solution. We should refrain from using terms like "primitive" simply because a culture is different from our own, or more nature based. In one society the things that are deemed as worthy, are considered waste and abandoned and / or ignored by another. This does not make them primitive, per se, especially when anthropologists typically fail to observe the high skills in others areas that these types of people often posses.
Other problems with her book:
Kehoe is clearly not familiar with entheogenic substances and their experiences. On page 58 she makes the extremely prejudiced and naïve association of the use of the street drug Ecstasy to entheogens used for religious/spiritual purposes. She does so as a comparative model for shamanism.
On page 65 she states that "Nor was any psychedelic plant other than tobacco used in northern America;..." This statement in itself is wholly arguable with trade routes between Maya and other groups. As well, Amanita muscaria use (though a questionable reference) has been reported by the Owibwe in the US. But we don't need to look that far for a contradiction. On page 75 she states that "Southern California Indian boys [never mind that the word "Indian" is also racist], in contrast to the girls, underwent initiation into adulthood through taking datura (jimson weed) under the supervision of ritual leaders."
Furthermore, there is an issue in the relation with entheogens to scientific scrutiny. John Hopkins University showed in their May, 2006 study that entheogens like Psilocybin do bring about the religious experience. But on page 83 she states "The foundation of the scientific method is that it deals with phenomena that (1) can in principle be perceived by any person (although to do so may require apparatus such as a microscope), and (2) the phenomenon is seen by more than one person, i.e., the perception has been replicated." My argument here is that entheogens, like the microscope are the tools, and like a microscope, when used properly the phenomenon can be seen by more than one person.
On page 85 she tries to make a sweeping judgment at New Agers. She states "For some New Agers, that was a "Neolithic Age of Matriarchy" or Goddess Worship, when civilization was ruled by nurturing women, only to be overturned by cruel warmongering patriarchal barbaric men riding out of the steppes; archaeology can find no good evidence for such a mythical Matriarchal Age". However, here she ignores or doesn't know about recent discoveries in Caral, Peru, nor the peer-reviewed research of Dr. James DeMeo who in Saharasia proved the argument.
Other than these issues, the book is a wonderful and quick read. It will give those fluffy New Agers something to chew on when they dance about with their crystals calling themselves shamans. Read this along with the works of Dr. Neil Whitehead on Dark Shamanism.
4.5 star!
 fast shipment
the book arrive in a few days and was in great condition . i would definetley buy from this seller again.
|
