The shaman was never a solitary practitioner, but a pillar in the community. I've had difficulty taking the concept of a solitary shaman seriously
There are cultures where solitary shamans are acceptable. Shamans who become not so much the custodians of a human community, but a community of spirits instead.
There are also, of course, accounts of shamans who - in using their powers to curse and harm others - are ostracised from their community. As they generally still have the spirits around them, and 'serve' a community (in a fairly harmful way), I think they remain shamans even once they have been ostracised. Especially if the community keeps giving them power by calling them a 'bad shaman*,' instead of a 'bad person.' I believe this was true in some areas of Siberia, and Neil Whitehead writes about feared, and yet solitary/ostracised shamans (Kanaima) in Guyana.
So it does happen, in Indigenous culture at that.
And I agree, extreme independence is a flag for mental illness for me too, imho. Just as over-dependence is.
Re: Rambling
Date: 2009-05-07 02:03 am (UTC)There are cultures where solitary shamans are acceptable. Shamans who become not so much the custodians of a human community, but a community of spirits instead.
There are also, of course, accounts of shamans who - in using their powers to curse and harm others - are ostracised from their community. As they generally still have the spirits around them, and 'serve' a community (in a fairly harmful way), I think they remain shamans even once they have been ostracised. Especially if the community keeps giving them power by calling them a 'bad shaman*,' instead of a 'bad person.' I believe this was true in some areas of Siberia, and Neil Whitehead writes about feared, and yet solitary/ostracised shamans (Kanaima) in Guyana.
So it does happen, in Indigenous culture at that.
And I agree, extreme independence is a flag for mental illness for me too, imho. Just as over-dependence is.
* Or whatever term is accurate in their dialect.