Criticism Of Shamanism

There is a large amount of criticism on the practice of shamanism, and Neoshamanism. The obvious flaws, and impracticalities of Neoshamanism are discussed elsewhere on this site; have a look at our article titled “Neoshamanism” to get a better idea. On the other hand, the strict etymology of the term “shaman” has recently been under attack by a large number of anthropology experts and scholars. The need for a closer look at the history of shamanism has grown, and certain anthropologists, such as Alice Kehoe, Mihály Hoppál, and the opposing end, Mircea Eliade have taken their area of study to new levels.

Mircea Eliade, was both philosopher and historian of religious beliefs, was not acquainted closely with anthropology, nor did Eliade ever directly study any shaman directly. His greatest religious study achievements were being acquainted with Ghandi, and having a doctorate, based on the successful acceptance of his thesis on Yoga. Eliade was of the myriad scholars of religous study who treated as being definite of shamanism, things like drumming, spiritual healing, chanting, using hallucinogenics as a healing method, and spirit communication. However, these are all practices that exist inside of the so called “non-shamanic” cultures. Chanting plays a role in numerous Jewish and Christian “rituals”. Thus, the way these actions are all expressed make it impossible to ignore that they are unique to each culture that uses them, and equally impossible to accurately and collectively refer to them as a single global religion under the term “shamanism.”

Piers Vitebsky, a noted anthropologist, has stated conclusively that despite the similarities in shamanism practices, there is an astonishing lack of unity. Though many shamanistic practices co-exist with that of other cultures globally, there is still no basis for comparison, outside of general methods. What else is left to be determined, other than that the currently used “shaman” term, is just a reinforcer for racist thinking?