The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

I have taken a recent interest in reading about Celtic Shamanism. I was wondering if anyone had any experiences or knowledge they would be willing to share?

As some background, this began while helping a friend research Music Therapy, especially percussion. Which lead to a book called "The Healing Power of The Drum", which led to shamanic drumming, which led to Celtic Shamanism.

There have actually been a couple of posts on the subject, including links to information about it and attempts to explain why the idea of "Celtic Shamanism" is problematic.

I agree that it's problematic and should be avoided, but even the Siberian ethnic groups that use the term borrowed it from someone else and changed the meaning. The (probable) etymology of shaman is from the Sanskrit "sramana," originally meaning a Buddhist ascetic. It was borrowed into Chinese, and then Siberian peoples borrowed it from the Chinese to describe their spirit-workers. (Obviously they must have had spirit-workers long before that, but they would have had a different word for them.)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=shaman

Academics use "shamanistic" to mean "practices similar to shamanism," and I can't see how that's an invalid use as it merely points out a similarity without asserting identity.  

So if somebody says that certain ancient Irish practices might have been shamanistic, that's a valid hypothesis in academic terms. It may or may not be true, but it's plausible.

The trouble is that if you attach the word "shamanism" to the word "Celtic," you stop thinking of the original Celtic practice on its own terms and start attaching all kinds of baggage to it, which might have been cribbed together from dozens of different cultures all over the world. It has a deeply distorting effect. So it's better to just work with the practices on their own terms. Acknowledging that some of them might be broadly described as "shamanistic" is fine; trying to cram them together into a generic neo-shamanism is more questionable.

Uh, not all academics do this. My religious studies professors were really clear about how "shamanism" was a really problematic term and that while we could point to similarities of practice and theology in different cultures at different times, slapping on a blanket term really did them (the cultures) and us (the religious scholars) a disservice.

I understand and respect the problems with the word "shaman" and its derivatives.  However, I think we need a word to use in its place to describe this *kind* of spiritual practice.

If not "shamanistic", what word would work?

That's not meant to be snarky.  It's a genuine question.

Further, I have a deep interest in exploring the kinds of practices that would fit in a hypothetical category labeled "shamanistic" and could help to bring me closer to Brighid, regardless of their source.  But I also have a deep interest in not practicing cultural appropriation.  

There are some practices referenced in Irish lore that I think would make an excellent starting point (and they are, in fact, where I'm starting).  But I believe strongly that Brighid transcends Irish -- and Celtic -- culture, whether by the name "Brighid" or by other names.  Therefore, I don't think Irish or Celtic practices are the only way to reach Her.

How do I pursue that exploration in a way that doesn't trample cultures with which I'm not as familiar as I an with ancient Celtic culture?  If my practice is private -- that is, if I'm not publicizing it, describing it as "Celtic shamanism", or teaching it -- does it even matter where my practices come from?

I guess this all boils down to:  With regard to *ancient* cultures, what exactly is cultural appropriation?  Is it always a bad thing?  If so, how do we avoid it while still using all the sources we can to help us travel our paths?

Again, these aren't meant as snarky questions.  This is something I've been pondering for some time.  

~ Aster

On the other hand, if I knew there were certain rules attached to making an offering to a particular god from another culture, I'd be very leery of making the offering without following the rules, for fear of disrespecting the deity.

Agreed.  

But making offerings isn't a practice I'd likely include in my hypothetical "shamanistic" category.  It's an important part of spiritual practice, of course, but not what I'm thinking of in this regard.

I've often asked that myself. Unfortunately among many pagans it's still common to refer to a couple of techniques (spirit travel into other worlds, animal guides, healing techniques like extraction and soul retrieval etc.) as 'shamanic'.

I really wish I had a better term to use and suggest to others as well. It's not that hard to explain why many people don't like the term, but then many people use it anyway or just put it into quoting tags because no one knows what else to use.

In some cases one can use 'core shamanism' as term, but that term still suggests that the practice is 'shamanism' - what it isn't.

Maybe we should start a thread on this subject and try to coin a new term? :confused:

 
When I can't avoid the terms at all, I consider "shamanistic" (which has the connotation of "kinda like that, but not that" built in) or "neoshamanic" to be somewhat less problematic.  (Combining them into "neoshamanistic" is useful too.).

Mostly, though, I avoid them altogether.  Really, words that have "shaman" as their root aren't all that useful (unless you're talking about the Tungus people) because - contrary to the assertions of "core shamanism", there is no common core of practices/activities; the "core sham" people basically cherry-picked things that were or seemed similar and occurred in more than one culture, ignored any differences in favor often-superficial similarities, and assumed that "done in more than one geographically-distant place" was close enough to "done by everyone" to be treated as universal and therefore "core" to the imagined worldwide commonality.  So it's never meaningful in talking about practices/activities/techniques; any of those things are their own distinct thing in context of a given culture - nor would any replacement word be, except to refer to the body of "stuff" collated into "core shamanism" (and that's where neoshamanic/neoshamanistic come in:  unless we can somehow get the core sham folks to use a different term for themselves, we can't refer to them and what they do without making some reference to that word).

(Not to imply that neoshamanistic practices are pure charlatanry, by any means; the snarky "sham" pun I keep using is because the use of "shaman" in that context is sham and bogus, based on romantic misconceptions about Exotic Others, not because their stuff is ineffective.)

It seems to me that the first step would have to be to rid ourselves altogether of the misconception of a singular thing, that manifests in different cultures in culturally-different ways, but is still of a piece with that singular thing:  there is no singular thing, much as we might like to (romantically and problematically) think there is.

Yeah, that leaves a lot of people with a sackful of mystical practices and no convenient word to describe them with.  I'm one of those people, so I get why that's awkward and uncomfortable.  But I'd rather have accurately descriptive words, even if it takes a lot more of them and is inconvenient, than an inaccurate word that's not meaningfully descriptive merely for convenience.  Anyone who values convenience more than accuracy probably shouldn't be doing this sort of work anyway; the work itself demands accuracy and is not convenient.

Words I find to be adequately descriptive, though imprecise, in referring to my own practices, which may or may not be useful to others who have similar tools in their toolboxes:  Technician of the sacred.  Walker Between the Worlds.  Witch, sometimes Primal Witch.  PWDWMWS ("Person Who Deals With Mystical Weird Shit").  Animist.

Or, I just talk about whatever the specific practice or technique is that I'm using/referring to.

Sunflower

Unfortunately among many pagans it's still common to refer to a couple of techniques (spirit travel into other worlds, animal guides, healing techniques like extraction and soul retrieval etc.) as 'shamanic'.

I like the term "fairy doctor," although it's specifically 18th-early 20th century Irish.

I certainly would love joining in a conversation to coin a new term that would be a better fit.

 
It would be interesting to have a conversation about this, for sure!

As an academic who researches a fair bit in the areas of 'paganisms' (to be broad),  finding accurate terminology is an absolute nightmare. I've spent hours wandering around the academic garden path in debate with others scholars, writing paragraph after paragraph about why 'x' term is not at all suitable....but...hey, until we invent something new we're stuck with it! :p

Regarding my actual opinion on the use of the term 'Celtic Shamanism'...definitely a no. If I was, however, writing a paper on certain practices which have previously been identified as shamanic in nature I would probably end up applying 'shamanic type practices' cautiously, and with a heck of a lot of footnotes explaining why this terminology is not best suited, but is the best we currently have.

...contrary to the assertions of "core shamanism", there is no common core of practices/activities; the "core sham" people basically cherry-picked things that were or seemed similar and occurred in more than one culture, ignored any differences in favor often-superficial similarities, and assumed that "done in more than one geographically-distant place" was close enough to "done by everyone" to be treated as universal and therefore "core" to the imagined worldwide commonality.

Can you provide any well-documented references for this counter-claim against core shamanism, please?