Anthropological Research of the Phenomenon of Spirit Possession: Social Aspects and Implications

Spirit possession is a significant factor in many religions and cults worldwide, yet it has been under-researched in national anthropological circles. British social anthropologist A.M. Lewis is the most influential researcher, introducing concepts like peripheral and central possession and classifying types of possession. Lewis demonstrated that possession offers marginalized or disempowered individuals a rare opportunity to draw attention to their problems and a channel for vertical social mobility. While his work gained wide recognition, it also attracted poorly argued criticisms. Subsequent authors such as Gellner, Gomm, Giles, and Lambeck have contributed new ethnographic examples and functions, but many who claimed to surpass Lewis merely applied his premises to new material.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Spirit possession, in its many forms, represents an important factor in numerous re­ligions and cults throughout the world. In the international context, work on spirit possession is abundant, and theories and their implications have been developed based on rich and lively ethnographic material gathered in many cultures. Unfortu­nately, in the context of national disciplinary production, this phenomenon was not thoroughly researched in anthropological circles. The most significant researcher of the problem of spirit possession and its social consequences is undisputedly British social anthropologist A.M. Lewis. Lewis intro­duced concepts such as peripheral and central possession to the study of spirit posses­sion; he offered classification of different types of possession; and demonstrated that this phenomenon represents, for those who are in any way marginalized or disem­powered, a rare opportunity to draw attention to their problems and a channel of verti­cal social mobility. Apart from the wide recognition and publicity it acquired, Lewis’ work also at­tracted a number of criticisms from authors of different background, but those criti­cisms are mostly poorly argumented or fail to take into account the additions and elaborations of results offered by Lewis himself. In the past decades, the problem of spirit possession has been approached from various points of view; ethnographies were filled with new examples; its various functions discovered in societies where it plays a significant role; and different theo­retical and methodological approaches developed. Among the most significant contri­butions to the study of this phenomenon are those offered by authors such as Gellner, Gomm, Giles and Lambeck. However, after years of studying this phenomenon, we can conclude that even authors who claimed to be making a qualitative leap from A.M. Lewis’ approach just, in fact, applied his premises on new ethnographic mate­rial, and occasionally pointed to new functions or roles this phenomenon can assume in different communities.