The origins of shamanism

If we look at the way identities are constructed by traditional forms of society, we need to concede that not everybody is allocated personhood.   Even in Rhodesia (as recent as that in historical time), there were differently allocated levels of attributable personhood.   For instance it would be very difficult for most people in that society to deny that a white person was in fact a person, possessed of full personable facilities and in command of their reason.   But others in the society were not so lucky and indeed this had everything to do with their power quotient.  A black man may have been considered needful of more cultural training and development before full personhood could be attributed to him.  If that was the case for the black man, a black woman was in an even worse position.   Her quotient of power was very limited since she was not in touch with white society at all (a proximity which, in the symbolic reading of her situation, would have brought her into closer to the radiance of civilization and power and hence the attribution of personhood).   A rural, black woman was therefore deemed to be mad, and not at all in control of her faculties.  

 

What does it mean when one’s personhood is denied?   It means that those aspects of experience that would be considered capable of driving a “normal”, civilized person to distraction are not taken into account as significant when it comes to the person who is deemed to be of a very low status.   To give an example, if a civilized person would find being raped by strangers in the middle of the night something horrifying and destructive, an entity who lacks personhood is not expected to raise a fuss.   Indeed, to raise a fuss is to be seen to be demanding higher social status than others are willing to concede to you.   It is considered to be both illogical and arrogant that a low status person would attempt to draw attention to themselves  by making something out of “nothing”.

 

I think the discussion of gender really has to be had in terms of our understandings of personhood and non-personhood.  Marechera noticed that the tendency (or capacity?) for women in his society to “see ghosts” is because they had been rendered barely existent, ghostly figures themselves.  In Western society, by contrast, we tend to take for granted that everybody has an already pre-existent state of personhood, when in fact there may still be some instances of such uneven power distribution that it attenuates personhood.  

 

In any case, you can see how the psychological systems that are developed within any particular society will tend, I think, to reflect the society’s power structures.   Rather than criticize or explain the ramifications of uneven power structures, the formal psychology emerging from a particular society merely reinforces and justifies what already exists.

 

In fact, I think only shamans like Marechera go deeper to observe the different levels of impact that these power structures have.  In this sense they are not at all like “psychologists”, but are deep readers of the actual psychical structures of society.

 

Also, it stands to reason that the motif of becoming ghostly or communicating with ghosts is reserved for those who lack the most power in the particular society.   Their personhood has become very, very thin indeed.   This may lead to the thinning of the metabolic boundaries, which is why we can talk about such people as being at lest potentially shamanic, especially if they learn to handle their disempowerment well.