14.
Shamanism Is a Dangerously Vague Word
French anthropological theorist Arnold Van Gennep coined the term rite of passage, which has proved useful for the study of human societies. One could say that becoming a shaman is a major rite of passage, but Van Gennep did not approve of the word shamanism.
We have inherited a certain number of very vague terms, which can be applied to anything, or even to nothing; some were created by travelers and then thoughtlessly adopted by the dilettantes of ethnopsychology, and used any which way. The most dangerous of these vague words is shamanism.
One finds it used, even in specialized journals, to signify a “religious form” of a certain kind. Thus one speaks of the shamanism of Siberian populations, African Negroes, North, Central, and South American Amerindians. . . .
But this is a strange abuse of language. There can be no shamanic beliefs or cults, and therefore no shamanic religion, for the simple reason that the word does not designate a set of beliefs that manifest themselves through a set of customs. It merely affirms the existence of a certain kind of person who plays a religious and social role. Would one speak of a sorcery-religion in medieval France or of a witch-religion in Germany? By using the noun shamanism and the adjective shamanic, one has accepted the terms invented by eighteenth- and nineteenth-century explorers in Siberia. These explorers, who knew almost nothing about ethnography and general ethnopsychology, thought they had found a special, characteristic form of religious belief and practice. Then the word gained favor among the ignorant, general public and among amateurs of exotic euphonism. . . .
But as soon as one has some knowledge of the beliefs and customs not only of Siberians but of the semicivilized the world over, one realizes that they are more or less the same, that the Siberians are no exception and that it is pointless to borrow one of their words, to divert it from its etymological meaning and to apply it elsewhere, when other terms, which are more precise, comprehensive, and logical, exist.
“Shamanism” comes from shaman (saman), a word used only by the Tungus, Buryats, and Yakuts. . . .
The shaman is a sorcerer who is essentially no different from the medicine men of the Amerindians, Negroes, Malaysians, etc. What, then, does the derived word shamanism mean? That one adores sorcerers and worships them? That is impossible, because the sorcerer is neither a spirit nor a god. Perhaps one believes in sorcerers and considers them to have special, magical, and supernatural powers? But that would not suffice to constitute a religion; Siberians are not the only ones to have individuals who serve as intermediaries between the divinities and ordinary humans; one does not refer to catholicism as priestism, to protestantism as ministerism, or to buddhism as bonzism. . . .
The word sorcerer is too evocative of modern or medieval Europe; for the semicivilized, it is better to use the word shaman. But when it comes to the word shamanism, which does not apply to anything definite, one would do better, it seems to me, to leave it out.