What has really been learned about shamanism?

Anthropological investigations of shamans and their altered states of consciousness have inherited prescriptive problems from psychology, including dichotomies such as conscious versus unconscious mental processes, objectivism versus subjectivism, environmentalism versus nativism, and others. These perspectives have colored assumptions in the field but have not prevented the acquisition of new knowledge about shamanism. However, a resolution of these problems remains lacking due to insufficient data.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Within anthropology, investigations of shamans and their altered states of consciousness have followed some of the prescriptive problems inherited from the discipline of psychology, coloring the assumptions and perspectives of students of shamanism. These inherited problems include the following: conscious/volitional versus unconscious/involuntary mentalisms; contentual objectivism versus contentual subjectivism; environmentalism versus nativism; monopsychism versus polypsychism; mechanism versus vitalism; and quantitativism versus qualitativism. Although the polemics of anthropological studies of shamanism have reflected these prescriptive perspectives, this has not inhibited the acquisition of new knowledge about shamanism. Nonetheless, a resolution of these problems is lacking due to insufficient data.