A Critique of Core Shamanism

[Lupabitch]

I posted this to my therioshamanism blog a couple of days ago, and thought I'd share it here to spark some conversation:

http://therioshamanism.com/2007/12/05/this-may-be-blasphemous-to-some/

Thoughts?

[David19]

Cool article, thanks for sharing it :).

[Lupabitch]

Cool article, thanks for sharing it :).

NP--thank you for the feedback!

[Asuka]

I'm in no position to truly comment, as I am incredibly new to the concepts of shamanism. I have only very recently heard of Core Shamanism, but I still found this very interesting.

I also went further to look a bit into your FAQ about therioshamanism, and I found it interesting. I'd like to ask, though as you mentioned a lot about reading into cultural traditions and such like. Is it discouraged to pull cultural reference and meaning from multiple cultures?

In my personal experience, I have a hard time as a rule sticking to any one one culture. I find so much fascinating and meaningful that I find it difficult to stay focused on any one. So, does therioshamanism (or any type of shamanism that you're aware of) allow for this kind of diversity? Since therioshamanism is tied to animals, I assumed that it would, since one could serve animals from all over the world, but I thought I'd ask out of curiosity. (:

Thanks!

[Lupabitch]

I'm in no position to truly comment, as I am incredibly new to the concepts of shamanism. I have only very recently heard of Core Shamanism, but I still found this very interesting.

I also went further to look a bit into your FAQ about therioshamanism, and I found it interesting. I'd like to ask, though as you mentioned a lot about reading into cultural traditions and such like. Is it discouraged to pull cultural reference and meaning from multiple cultures?

In my personal experience, I have a hard time as a rule sticking to any one one culture. I find so much fascinating and meaningful that I find it difficult to stay focused on any one. So, does therioshamanism (or any type of shamanism that you're aware of) allow for this kind of diversity? Since therioshamanism is tied to animals, I assumed that it would, since one could serve animals from all over the world, but I thought I'd ask out of curiosity. (:

Thanks!

First bit of advice--read everything you can get your hands on ;)

Therioshamanism is my own personal path. My own balance as far as cultural appropriation goes is to primarily work with techniques drawn from others' practices, but tailored to my own cultural context, with the understanding that what I take does not make me a genuine Siberian, or Native American, or (insert non-mainstream-American culture here) shaman. I create my own cosmology to work within, and I work with what makes sense to me. I also try to be careful about my research, and I avoid sources that, for example, treat all Native American cultures as one huge monoculture.

As to other peoples' perspectives on diversity, it really depends on the individual. Some believe it's completely wrong to take anything from a living culture; others believe that spirituality should be for anyone interested.

What I've done is gotten to the point where I can reasonable construct my own path. I'm honest about where I borrow, and I rely a lot on Unverified Personal Gnosis. But that's what I've done; as I said, read a lot, and figure out for yourself what balance will work best for you.

[darkchild]

Thanks for the article. It was very informative.
I agree with you to some extent. I feel that I have been called to shamanism, but I have a problem with some of the core beliefs as well. I won't go into great detail about my own experience, but I will say that I have been called a fake (wannabe, or whatever) for deviating from what a few feel to be true shamanism.

There are so many different viewpoints, not to mention practices, across the globe for shamans of different cultures, it's a little bit confusing.

I am drawn to the siberian practices, but cannot immerse myself totally, due to some cultural and personal differences.

I guess my thought is that we each have our own experiences and must grow in our own ways.

It's the practice to some degree, not only the tradition, that makes us what we are. I am a healer, I use whatever methods I have available to help someone. If others don't agree with it, oh well...

[Lupabitch]

Thanks for the article. It was very informative.
I agree with you to some extent. I feel that I have been called to shamanism, but I have a problem with some of the core beliefs as well. I won't go into great detail about my own experience, but I will say that I have been called a fake (wannabe, or whatever) for deviating from what a few feel to be true shamanism.

There are so many different viewpoints, not to mention practices, across the globe for shamans of different cultures, it's a little bit confusing.

I am drawn to the siberian practices, but cannot immerse myself totally, due to some cultural and personal differences.

I guess my thought is that we each have our own experiences and must grow in our own ways.

It's the practice to some degree, not only the tradition, that makes us what we are. I am a healer, I use whatever methods I have available to help someone. If others don't agree with it, oh well...

This is why I study as much as I do. Shamanism isn't a monoculture. There are some common techniques, but to truly understand their importance we need to know the context they come from, and then understand how they're changed by taking them out of that context.

My personal balance is: work with techniques within my own cultural context, and be honest about where I got them. However, each person has to find hir own balance, IMO. What works for me may not work for you.

[darkchild]

This is why I study as much as I do. Shamanism isn't a monoculture. There are some common techniques, but to truly understand their importance we need to know the context they come from, and then understand how they're changed by taking them out of that context.

My personal balance is: work with techniques within my own cultural context, and be honest about where I got them. However, each person has to find hir own balance, IMO. What works for me may not work for you.


Very true. I try not to judge other people on how they walk their path. Unless you can get under their skin and know how and why they do what they do, then it just isn't right, imo.

If it works, don't mess with it, I say. :)

[Shosha]

And I didn't even know there was such thing as "core shamanism."

going to re-read that blog too! Fasinating!

[WolfWhoSings]

(Hello again! Yes, I've been out of it. Ah, the "joy" of a transformative period...)


While CS acknowledges the existence of cultural appropriation, by implying that indigenous peoples have “culture” while modern Americans do not, not only does it degrade the inherent and vibrant spirituality that can be found in modern America and other postindustrial societies, but it also, very subtly, attaches the “exotic” label to indigenous cultures. It characterizes non-Americans as the “Other”, by implying that they have a certain quality that Americans do not.

I am reminded of the aisle of my grocery store that's reserved for culture specific foods. As you go down it, there's the British, the German, the Indian, the Jamaican, Mexican and so on, until you get to one end. There you find the mac and cheese, tuna bake, Rice-a-Roni - all the "typical" American foods. I'm always amused to see them there, shoulder to shoulder with their cousins.

I agree that its strange, but unfortunately typical, to see a "generic" version of a lot of spiritual practices. Like you said in your essay, a lot of it has to do with that particular book being an early one and trying to appeal to the widest audience and show that there is some modern application. But, to keep stretching my food analogy to the breaking point, you don't cook Indian dishes or Chinese with the same tools and spices you do American dishes. If you want to do it "right" it helps to learn how it's done by the originators of the recipe.

I lean more towards the Native American aspects of shamanism, as I understand them, but then again, I'm an American. Aspects of my heritage draw me towards Celtic direction as well. Personally, I think that considering the cultural origins and aspects of various shamanic practices could only make for a more rewarding and useful experience. You will find out what draws you, what you have a "taste" for (and the analogy snaps! *Fwick!*) more readily when things aren't as generic.

If the pathway you're on looks the same in all directions, it's kinda hard to tell where in the hell you are.

[Forest Child]

As a member of the 'Core Shamanic Practitioners Group':

http://www.shamanicpractitioners.org.uk/

and the 'Society for Shamanic Practitioners':

http://www.shamansociety.org/

I would have to say that I'm not sure Harner is saying that core shamanism is removing all cultural components but rather, finding the similarities from whence westerners who have lost their direct shamanic traditions can build from.

It is the spirits who choose us and choose to work with us, hence it is them who tell us how to treat a client, not simply our culture or our adoption of an element of someone elses.

Early days, I found myself looking at all shamanic traditions to learn but eventually, after I settled down, the spirits who work with me, with ultimate patience, finally started to teach me the way they know and that happens to be a Britanic/North European way (which coincidentally just happens to be where I live and where my ancestors hail from!). So one way or another it is our spirits who bring the cultural 'bones' of our practice home to us.

The academic argument of one system over another or neo vs tribal or core vs culturally specific seems to miss the point unless you find someone pretending to be NA Ashinabe and adopting (badly) said culture when really they are plain old dutch/irish!

Harner, Viloldo, Wesselman, Ingerman, Shutt, Tedlock etc etc, have all come from, shamanically speaking, specific cultural backgrounds as far as their shamanic education goes, yet all consider themselves core practitioners rather than Hopi, Sami or Lakota etc.

To understand the historic and cultural distinctions of different shamanic traditions, their deities, customs and beliefs is a good thing but to disseminate core shamanism on the same principle, to me, is ungrounded since there is no such thing, from a spiritual point of view, as a solely core shamanic practitioner - we all hold some core traits and some unique ones, some cultural ones and some completely new ones.

Shamanism is ever evolving, hence it has survived all other forms of belief system. It hasn't always been perfect or practiced in a way that we, today would find acceptable but it does survive because the world over, the same core techniques such as journeying, soul fragmentation and retrieval, energy work/extraction etc are true and prove to work. These practices are core because they are true no matter where you go regardless of culture. The rest is just how you and your team make it work. Rather like building blocks - the colours don't matter but they are still building blocks.

[Sage Rainsong]

Hmm well I sort of waffle on the idea of core shamanism. On one hand I respect a persons' right to believe whatever they want to believe. On the other hand it annoys me when someone get bored one day, takes a class in order to find their spirit animal and suddenly they are a genuine shaman. If I were drawn to such a path I would probably say that my practices were shamanic or shaman like as opposed to me saying that I am a shaman. This may sound like spilting hairs but IMO it is an important distinction.

[Forest Child]

Hmm well I sort of waffle on the idea of core shamanism. On one hand I respect a persons' right to believe whatever they want to believe. On the other hand it annoys me when someone get bored one day, takes a class in order to find their spirit animal and suddenly they are a genuine shaman. If I were drawn to such a path I would probably say that my practices were shamanic or shaman like as opposed to me saying that I am a shaman. This may sound like spilting hairs but IMO it is an important distinction.

That would seem to be an entirely different discussion.

[BearDancing]

Hmm well I sort of waffle on the idea of core shamanism. On one hand I respect a persons' right to believe whatever they want to believe. On the other hand it annoys me when someone get bored one day, takes a class in order to find their spirit animal and suddenly they are a genuine shaman. If I were drawn to such a path I would probably say that my practices were shamanic or shaman like as opposed to me saying that I am a shaman. This may sound like spilting hairs but IMO it is an important distinction.

I totally agree....actually I am surprised anyone would actually call themselves a Shaman.....like the saying....if you have to tell someone you are a LADY...you probably are not....THIS IS MY OPINION...so back off and do not go for my throat....:hairred:

[skilly-nilly]

Shamanism is ever evolving, hence it has survived all other forms of belief system.....the same core techniques such as journeying, soul fragmentation and retrieval, energy work/extraction etc are true and prove to work.

I don't see Shamanism as a "belief system" at all, but a set of practices, such as you detail later in your post.

Or, as I would put it, Shamanism is orthopraxy and not orthodoxy.

In order to put the practice of shamanistic techniques into use, I believe that one must have a belief system that supports Shamanism. So, while I would agree that there are definitely core practices, there has to be cultural (or personal) belief as well.

[Forest Child]

I don't see Shamanism as a "belief system" at all, but a set of practices, such as you detail later in your post.

Or, as I would put it, Shamanism is orthopraxy and not orthodoxy.

In order to put the practice of shamanistic techniques into use, I believe that one must have a belief system that supports Shamanism. So, while I would agree that there are definitely core practices, there has to be cultural (or personal) belief as well.

No neither do I per say, perhaps I worded that particular section innapropriately. However, shamanism is a belief system in a way if you see the core principles being the belief that all things have a spirit and the belief that these spirits form the world around us, can help us, harm us and it is the shaman's job to restore energy balance with the assistance of certain spirits. That belief pervads all systems.

To answer the question of whether someone (non-tribal or otherwise) can call themselves 'Shaman', its of little matter. This site is a perfect example of people calling themselves just about anything yet the proof of the pudding is in the eating and if you wish to be called 'Shaman' in the Tungus where the name originates, you need an official card. To obtain this card from the Russian government you have to prove that you can heal so they give you 12 clients and if you heal them, you get your card, if not, you are not an official Shaman no matter what you call yourself or where you come from - simple as that.

The 'Real' Shaman that I know, ie, the native, tribal grown shaman, sangomas, nagual, mondang etc don't really care, they can tell an 'empty rattle' a mile off so its off little matter really unless you pay for help from someone who claims to be a healer and can't help you. But then our own health care service can't always deliver that either!

It must be a genuine testament to the power of a shaman that even those who do not come from a native shamanic culture or have ever even met a 'real' shaman feel them to be in need of distinction.

We are all from a shamanic ancestry if we look back far enough so each to their own I say, let the proof be in what the practitioner claims to be able to do, not what they call themselves. Any 15 yr old can call themselves 'Master Shaman' but do you give him your money? I personally don't care what people call me, spirit talker, practitioner, oi you . . . doesn't matter. What matters for me is whether I can actually be useful.