status ambiguity and spirit possession

8/13/2019 Status Ambiguity and Spirit Possession

1/14

Status Ambiguity and Spirit Possession

Author(s): Peter J. WilsonReviewed work(s):Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Sep., 1967), pp. 366-378Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2798726.

Accessed: 12/06/2012 12:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Irelandis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access toMan.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=raihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2798726?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2798726?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai


2/14

STATUS AMBIGUITY AND SPIRIT POSSESSIONPETER . WILSON

Bennington ollege, VermontIn hisrecentMalinowskiMemorial ecture,. M. Lewis I966) recommendsnepidemiologicalpproach othe tudy f spirit ossession,nalogous o prevailingmethodsnthe tudy f witchcraft.ollowinghisown suggestion,ewis reviewsvarious atafrom number f societies,sking pecificallyhe question f what

categories f personmostfrequentlyuccumb o spirit ossessionnd figuremostprominentlyn possessionults' Lewis 966: 309). Thisprocedureeads o a num-ber of insightsnd the author nds his exposition y bringing nto focus therelationship etween pirit ossession, eligion nd social therapy. he majorhypothesisrising utofthis pproach opossessionsthat hephenomenon,ndits llied ymptoms, aybe traced othe nnate onflictetweenmen nd womenin certain ypesof societywhere men monopolise he social structure. hismonopoly mplies hesubordinationnd deprivation f womenwho, in socialterms,maybe describedsperipheral.eprivationndperipherality,t s mplied,generate ostilityetweenmen ndwomenwhich omes o be expressednspiritpossession,s theres noformallyanctioned eans fexpression.pirit ossessionis thereforeart f the war between he exes' I966: 3 5-I6).Attractivendtopical s this rgumentmay eem o thebeleagueredmales ndfemalesfourown society,wonderwhetherhis ery opicalitys not beguilingtemptationeading o a falsehypothesis.or theveryethnographicalvidencecitedby Lewis n support fhisargumenteems o suggestnother xplanationwhich, submit,its hefactsmoreclosely.As this s thecase t is appropriateopresentmypoint fviewusing he ame xamples ited y Lewisand to retainheterms f hisanalyticalramework.'My 'thesis' anbe brieflytated. pirit ossessionnd similartates eemmoreclosely orrelated ith socialsituations hichregularly,houghnot necessarily,give riseto conflict,ompetition,ension, ivalry r ealousybetweenmembersof the amesex rather hanbetweenmembers fopposite exes.Since thas beenfrequentlyointed utthatmarriedwomenare pre-eminentlyubject o posses-sion Lewis 966; Harris957; Messing958) the pecificocio-structuralituationofmost nterests that f married omen n maledominatedocieties'the ermis that sedby Lewis).It salsopointed utbyLewisthat ossessionnd possessionults avedeclinedin our own society nd that heir herapeuticunction asbeen pre-empted y

variousforms f psychotherapy.owever,the sexwar still xistsn our ownsociety, factwhich ends o render ewis'sreasoninguspect.shall rgue hat he'sex war and spiritpossession s socially cceptedphenomena re mutuallyexclusive. ut ifthis s so,then pirit ossessionmust e related o somethinglseinthose ocieties here t sfound. shall uggest omethinglse.* * * *


3/14

STATUS AMBIGUITY AND SPIRIT POSSESSION 367Lewisnotes hatwomenrather hanmenare prominentnspirit ossessionndcults asedon possession.his dominant oleof womenhasbeenviewedbyother

observersnd commentatorss compensationor heir women's] xclusionndlackof uthoritynother pheres'Lewis 966: 3 O).Lewisgeneralisesurtherhanthisby specifyinghat t is through pirit ossessionhatwomen exertmysticalpressures pon their uperiors i.e., men] in circumstancesf deprivationndfrustrationhenfewother anctionsre vailable o them' I966: 3I8). Thoughhedoes notclaim t as a fact, ewis certainlymplies hatpossessionults rise n'traditionally aledominatedocieties'I966: 32I) and hatn uch ocieties omenare excludedfrom ocial and political ife, re ritually nferior nd are urallydeprivedn comparisono men. Furthermoren such ocietiesif womenarenotalways uffragetteshen hey an readily ecomeso when the circumstancesreappropriate'I966: 319).Thedeprivationfwomen n traditionallyaledominatedocietiess llustratedby examples hosen rom number f societies.Writing f theSomali, f whomhehashad first andexperience, ewis notes hat n religionwomenare merelypassive gents' nd that more generally omenare regarded s weak ubmissivecreatures,espite he xactingature f their omadic ife, nd the rduousharacterof their erding asks . .' and moreover heyare disadvantageouslylaced n theinheritancef ll formsfproperty'I966: 3II).CitingColson'swork among the Tonga he describes he deprivationf thoseruralwomen who have remained t homefascinatedy the towndelightsndmysteriesromwhichtheyhave been excluded' I966: 320). Otherwriters e-scribe,n similar ein, heplight f women nmale dominated ocieties;Messing,forexample, peaks f marriedwomen who] eelneglectedn a man'sworld nwhich hey erve s hewers f wood and haulers f water' I958: I120).I have italicisedwords which, o my way of thinking,annotbe consideredobjective utratherntrudehevalues fthe ieldworkers he perhaps nwittinglyjudges others y the tandardsfhisown culture. ertainly omaliwomen ppearbyourstandardsobe deprived rdowntrodden,ut seriouslyuestionwhetherSomali,be theymale or female, o regard heir ituation.n a 'male dominated'societyssuch omparisonetween heroles f the exes onceivableo itsmem-bers?Deprivation urely mplieswithholdinghat which s due, but in whattraditionally aledominated ocietys t everregardedsa woman'sdue that hebe grantedccess otheman'sdomain? hevery ropositionsa contradictionnterms. urther,hatevermaybe one'sopinion f the ontributionf culture' otheformationfthe ndividual,thinkt has beenwell establishedhat ocialrolesandstatusesrelearned uring hesocialisationeriod ndthereafterometobetakenforgranted.Most ethnographyndicateshatgirls earn heir ocialrolesfrom ther emales,ndboys earn oparticipaten theexclusiveworldofmen.Thus the ocial eparationfthe exes, articularlyithrespect o thedivision flabour, s learned rom hebeginningf an individual'sife nd remains featuremost esistantochange.notherwords, oys ndgirls,men ndwomen ccept-infact hey now o different-theeparationf theroles, tatuses,ightsndpre-rogatives f the sexes n their ociety.f such s the case, rivalry,ompetition,hostility,eelingsfdeprivationndperipheralityn thepart fwomen s opposedtomenwouldseemonlytheremotestfpossibilities.t is ustthis hats mplied


4/14

368 PETER J. WILSONin thedescriptionfsocial tructuren termsf ascribed tatusesndroles, amelythat-here s an insignificantikelihood hat he separationf the sexes n theirrolecapacity ill everbe modifiedromwithin.Making omewhat he amepointand speakingn general, vans-Pritchardrites: Primitivewomen do not seethemselvessan underprivilegedlass s againsthe lass f men withwhomtheyseek o gain ocial quality.. and lsothey o notwant o be ikemen' I965: 52).Unlessmen nd womenhaveaccess o the amegoals nd rewardshey anhardlybe saidto come intocompetition ith eachother.But whenthe social contextprovides oalsor rewards pento bothmen nd women, hen ompetitionxists.Examiningurownsocietyt s notable hat he mancipationfwomen, gradualprocess,meant imply hatmen andwomencouldopenly ompete or he amesocial ewards. his mancipationnourownsociety egan owards he nd ofthenineteenthenturyn the nitiativef men,and it has now reached tspresenttendencyowards quality.But, as Lewisnotes, his iming oincideswiththedecline fpossessionults nd fairly loselywith heriseof modern sychologyandpsychoanalysis'Lewis 966: 325). Yet it ssurelynlywhenmen ndwomenmay dmit hat hey an competewith achother or he ame ocialrewardshatthere anbe saidtobe a 'war between he exes'.Hence thedecline fpossessioncoincideswiththedeclarationf the sex war' and one is led to question heassertion hatspiritpossessionn any society s functionallyorrelatedwithcompetitionetween he exes.I accept hepropositiondvanced y Lewisthat hamanism,pirit ossessionndcults rerelatedn somewayto regularlyecurringensionsetween ersons homaybe thoughtf sbeing laced nstructurallyonstantositions.hus, lthoughpossession,ndthe ormsf llness ithwhicht s associated, aybepsychologicalinnature, he mportantact or he nthropologicaliewpoints that t s alsoasocialphenomenoni.e. it is public, anctionednd ritualised)nd thishelpstoconfirmhatwe should ookfor ensionsrising utof therelationshipfsocio-structuralositions r statuses. he constanttructuralituations hichgeneratetensionsnmale dominatedocietiesre notones nwhichmembersf both exesfind hemselvespposedto one another utoneswhichopposemembers fthesame sex. Sincespirit ossessionppearsmostly mongfemales,nd especiallyamongmarried emales,herelevanttructuralontext,heepidemiology,ouseLewis'sterm,will concernhe tatus f married omen nanyparticularociety.Nevertheless,s spirit ossessionlsooccursmongmales, houghmuch ess ften,it isnecessaryo extend hehypothesisf tension etween ame sexmembersomales nd their elevanttructuralituation.Itmay be noted hatmembersftheopposite exdo playvarious oles nthecomplex f pirit ossession,ut t smy ontentionhat hese oles re ntermediarybetween ontendersfthe ame ex, hatmales re he gents ffemalectors,rtospeak venmore ointedly,heirools. o expand his rgumentndsubstantiatet,I now turn o an analysisfthe xamples sedby Lewisto support isargument.* * * *

I beginwith ewis's econd ontextf Somali piritossession hich sexempli-fiedbythe ituationf camelherding oys ndunmarriedoungmenwhospendthedry easonpasturingnd wateringheir erds n regions istantrom herest


5/14

STATUS AMBIGUITY AND SPIRIT POSSESSION 369of the population o that they aredeprived f the opportunityfmeetingndchatting ith hegirls f thehamlets'Lewis 966: 313). Surprisinglynough histime f deprivations not the ime twhichyoungmen uccumb o spirit osses-sion.This occurs n thewet seasonwhentheyoungherdsmenemerge rom heirdry eason eclusion nd privationo thecomfort nd excitementf camp-life.It is on their eturn o this therwelcomingworld,with tsprospects fmeetinggirls f marriageablege, that omeoftheyoungherdsmen evelop ymptomsfhysteria'. hispossessionsnot aken ooseriouslynd s remedied ythemountingofa dance. This type f "possession", amtold, snow often eigned,ndusedby youths s a means f pointing hedirectionf their ffectionsowards parti-culargirlwho is thus rawn nto hedance.'Lewis adds: All I wish o emphasisehere, owever, s the lement f deprivationnd frustrationresentnthe ivesoftheseyoungbachelor erdsmen,nd itstraditionalutletn this nstitutionalisedform fpossession'I966: 313).Thoughthis xample, ecause t nvolvesmen, s somewhatess han ypical fspirit ossession,t seems clearly o support n alternativexplanation o thatoffered y Lewis. As notedabove,possession oesnot omeduring he timeofdeprivation ut when the frustrationsnd deprivationsavebeenremoved.Butletus assume hat t s notmenversuswomen hat s the elevanttructuralituation,but rather elations etweenmen.Possession ccurs r is feignedt a timewhenyoung men choose theirmates,whenyoung herdsmenome down from hehills'and becomepotential nd actual ivals or hegirls fmarriageablege. It isnot whenthey re away n thepastureshat heir roubles egin,but when theycomehome It is not women withwhomthey re competing,ut it is womenfor whom they are competing. ince possession s institutionalised,nd oftenfeigned, e maywell askwhythis s so inthis articularontext fmate electionin a societywhere raditionallymotions annotbe shownpubliclyI966: 3II).One answer ouldbe that hroughossession,r feigning ossession, youngmanpubliclyndicates ischoice othe ommunitynd to hispeers, hereby emovinguncertaintynd preventingpenrivalrysmight ccur f wo menwere ochoosethe amegirl.The third ontext f Somali spirit ossessions one inwhichLewisnoteswetouch on a phenomenonwith the widest ignificancend correspondencelse-where' I966: 3I3). The subject fpossessionn this ase s typically marriedwoman. The 'stock epidemiologicalituations that of the hard pressedwifestrugglingo survive .. liableto somedegree f neglect .. on the partof herhusband.Subjectedto frequent,uddenand even prolonged bsencesby herhusband .. [and] to the ealousies nd tensions f polygyny . .' (I966: 3I3).Divorce, we are told, s frequent nd easilyobtainedby men and the Somaliwoman's ot offersittle tabilityr security. ewis goes on to note that n suchcasestheonsetof spirit ossessionoincideswith a husband's peningmovestomarry n additionalpouse, nd that in every xample nown o me somegrudgeagainst er pousewas borneby thewoman concerned'I966: 314).The opinion f Somali maleson thismatters quotedby Lewis: Whatwivescallsarpossession,heir usbands allmalingering,nd they nterprethis fflictionasyet nother f hedeceitfulricksmployed ywomen gainstmen' I966: 3 I4).Finallywe maynotethat ossession yspiritseadsto demands ythewomen


6/14

370 PETER J. WILSONforluxurious lothes,erfumend delicate oods rom heirmenfolk'I966: 3I4).ForLewis this haracteristicallyoman's fflictionperates mong heSomalias a limited eterrentgainst he abuses fneglect nddeprivationn a conjugalrelationshiphich s heavily iased n favour fmen. n asociety hich ffershemlittle omestic ecurityndvery nadequately rotectshemotherwiserom hepressuresnd exactions fmen,women, am arguing,may thus esort o spiritpossessionsa means oth fairing heir rievancesbliquely nd ofgaining omesatisfaction'I966: 3I4).Sincepolygyny nd divorce re apparentlytill haracteristiclongside piritpossessionne can onlynote the neffectivenessf thedeterrent he mainpointhowever sthe tructuralituation-polygyny,nd thewoman's tatus. romherpoint ofview the adventof a new wife nto a polygynous amily s a crucialcircumstance.his s an mmediatehreat oher tandingsa wife nd canevenberegarded s a commentaryn heradequacy s a wife.2When a Somalihusbandtakes newwife, ispresent ife,we may nfer, eels istinctlyhreatened.ut thethreatsnotherhusband,t s thenew wife:not male,but female. hehusbandis the gentwho isinstrumentaln bringingboutthe ituation f tension,nd heremains hefocus f the onflict etween he wo women.We aretoldthat married omanwhosehusbands aboutto take newwifemay uccumb o possessiony spirits.Whenso possessedshe' demandsuxuriousclothing,erfumenddelicate oods rom erhusband. hesedemands re nter-preted yLewis s being he blique ettlementfgrievanceetween hemale ndfemale, rfrom he omalimalepoint fview, deceitfulrick layed ywives ntheirhusbands.Alternativelysuggest hat womanwhose marital tatus ndprestiges threatenedy thepublic ction fherhusbandntaking newwife sable,through ossession,ore-affirmhat tatus ndprestigenpublic-especiallyherstandingwith respect o the new wife. The luxurious nd feminine oodsdemanded re publiclyndicative f thewoman's uccess s a woman and a wifein face f a challenge ersonifiednthenewwife.The deceit snotsomuch hathusbandstrickedntogivinghiswifepresents,ut thathe isused sthe gent rtool to confirmhestatus f a woman whosepositionhe was instrumentalnchallenging.ewisnotes hat he ituationrisesmorefrequentlymong hewivesofwealthymen hanmong hewives fpoormen, hough e doesnotexplainwhythismight e so. But nviewofthefact hatwealthymen re ikely ohavemorewives han oormenthey re ikely o nstigate ore ituationsf femininerisis.ThefourthontextfSomali pirit ossessioneceivesnlybriefttentionromLewis-possiblybecause t does notfitverywell intohisgeneral hesis.n thiscontext he ubjects fpossessionre maleswho, t s claimed, renotso much'definable ategory' s simply psychologicallyisturbedndividuals'. uch aphrase eems o me to establishhecategory learlyThese individualsfor onereasonor another xperience articular ifficultiesn bearing hepressuresndburdens ftheirociety'I966: 3 5). Inrather he amewayHarris escribes aitamales usceptibleopossessions rather dd' (I957: I048). In other iscussionsfpossessionnd shamanismuchmales re moreopenlydescribeds beinghomo-sexual cf.Faron 964: I28; Metraux 959: 64). I do notthinktunreasonableosuggest hat ome, fnot all,Somali maleswho succumb o possessionmaybehomosexual,r at least hat heir isturbancesend n thisdirection.f thisbe so


7/14

STATUS AMBIGUITY AND SPIRIT POSSESSION 371then heparticularifficultiesuchndividualsave nbearinghepressuresfwhatLewis describess traditionally aledominated ocieties'willbe seento resolveinto the frustrationsndtensions eneratedetweenmales.That shamanismndpossession rovide n outlet or exual bnormalsswellknown ndneed notbeelaborated ere.The factor hat wish to stresss that he social difficultiesfhomosexualsesultnlargepartfrom he trains f their elationshipsithother,'normal'males,notfrom heir elations ithwomen.Thisbrings s to thefirstontext f Somali pirit ossession hichwe treat flastbecauset too concernsmales, s well as females. ctuallyt sambiguous romLewis'saccount s to whether ossessionnfact ccursn this ontext. e writes:'If a girl .. exhibitsymptomsfextremeassitude, ithdrawal,r evenmoredistincthysical ymptomsf llness, er onditionsattributedopossession ytheobject f her ffections'I966: 3II, my talics).A trance-liketatesnotsuggestedanddoesnotseemtoo likely.But the maindifficulty,f trance oes occur, s inaccounting or he usceptibilityfmales n this ontext. ewisnotes hatwhat reinvolved re emotionswhich, articularlynthepart fmen, renottraditionallyrecognised r overtlycknowledged'I966: 3 I). Acknowledged ywhom?Theanswer anonlybebymen,orwomen's pinions nthis, ranyothermatternamale dominatedociety, ountfornothing. o althoughheagent f themalaisemaywell be a female,heresultantondition, utativelyossession,s broughtnby the frustrationnd difficultiesccasioned y canonsgoverninghe relationsbetweenmen. t may lsobe observed hat f man srejectedya girl,tmaywellbe because f her cceptancef another uitor-anothermale. n anotherxample'a youth, orced y theoverridingontrol f hiselderkinsmano renounce hegirl f hisownchoosing nd mpelled omarry nother,may, fhe evinces imilarsymptomsf malaise r illness, e regardeds possessed y thetrue bjectof hisaffections'I966: 3I2, my talics). here s surely o evidence fstressr conflictbetweenmalesand females ere,butrather hatmembers fthesame sex findthemselvesnconflict ith neanother, hile hemember fthe ppositeex s theobjectofthe onflict.n these xamnpleshen possession' ccurs nmales, t doesso as a consequencef maledomination hich neffectlocks tatus ransition.Fromthedetailed onsiderationf his own Somalimaterial ewis adducesevidence rom umerous ther ocietiesosupport is rgument.owever, ookingat these xamplesn the amewayas havereconsideredheSomalimaterialeemsonlyto strengthenhe lternativergument. ertain f these dditional xamplescited yLewis re een, nfurthernalysis,o be rrelevantltogether;or xample,the poignant asehistory' rom he Akamba snot a caseofanyform fspiritpossessionLindblom920: 235), and thePlateauTonga is nota 'male dominatedsociety' Lewis 966: 320).Lewis'shypothesissreserved y himfor ocietiesn which pirit ossession aybe consideredperipheral'n significance,here t s not central o theupholdingofthetraditionalribalmorality'I966: 3I9). Presumablyn such societies, hehypothesisf cross ex conflict ill not standup, which s not surprisings ittotters eaklyn societies here piritossessions peripheral.ut fone examinessocietiesnwhich pirit ossessionmaybe consideredcentral' o tribalmorality,theepidemiologyfwho getspossessednd why s still hesame and seems osupport ven morestrongly he dea of same sex tension. uch a society s the


8/14

372 PETER J. WILSONMapuche fChile,described y Faron I964), fromwhich videncewill erve s anexample.

Mapuche is described s a 'thoroughly atrilineal nd patripotestalociety'(Faron964: I27), and hamans,he astmajorityfwhom rewomenI964: I23)combat sorcerersnd hence may be considered o be the representativesf theforces f goodinthe ociety t arge.Thesefemale hamans re neverpart f thecoregroup fanyreservationn which hey eside' nd so maybe aptly escribedas peripheral'members fthe ommunityI964: I30). Shamans ombat orcery,and accusationsfsorceryre madeparticularlyetweenwomen nd arise ut of:the underminingf the favour f co-wives, herelations etween o-wives n apolygynousousehold ndrelations etweenmother-in-lawnd daughter-in-lawand brothers' ives n extended amilies,nd the ecuring f mates ordesigningmen ndwomenI964: I32-3). Thus he pidemiologyf sorcery, hich eadsdirectly o possession,s identicalwith the epidemiology f possessionn thosesocieties onsideredyLewis.Even in a societywhere possessions 'central' to tribalmorality, he epi-demiologys the ame s n thoseocietieswhere t s peripheral'. hedistinction,apart rom eing o vague,does notappear o havesubstantiveelevance ither.To furtherhe mbiguity f this ermperipheral', ewis also uses t to refer otheoverallsocial status fwomen, and other ategories f persons ubject opossessioncf.Lewis 966:32I). But notonlydoesthis eripheralitymply beingon theedgeofsociety',t also has emotional r psychologicalonnotations,orit leadsdirectlyo 'deprivation'.Thus the treatmentf womenas peripheralcreatureslatlyontradictsheir undamentaliological mportancend, n socialterms, lasheswiththeirdeep commitmento a particularociety nd culture'(I966:32I). Fromthis,we are asked o believe, rises emale pirit ossession.notherwords,women n maledominatedocieties' ave nethnographer'siewoftheir ociety,nternaliset, get disturbed y it and protest y succumbingospirits.he umpsfromocietyopsychologyoaction reprodigious,ndone salso led to wonderwhy t is thatnotallwomen succumb o possession,orpre-sumablyllwomen,not omewomen, re peripheral'.There s, however, specific,tructuralensethatcan be givento theterm'peripheral'which, n turn,helpsto clarifyhe nature f female tatus nd itsrelation ospirit ossession.

* * * *The critical pidemiological actorwithwhichwe shouldbe concerneds therelationshipsxisting mong women in a community.n 'male dominatedsocieties', ndin other ocietiesoo, tmaybe safelyndreasonably eneralisedthat o-resident ales rebound ogetherocially y mportanties ther han heirco-residence.heseoftennclude in ies, ometimespecialisednto descent ased

grouping, nd they may also include common relationships ith respect oproperty,itual nd membershipn a community ased association. ll formalstatusesre maleoccupied, lthough his oes notmean o saythatwomen annothavestatus,rachieve pecificommunitydentity.qually, t marriageheresatendencyormales oremain nthevillage f their irth; f theymove, hey endto ive n a villagewhere hey re not trangers.hus co-resident ales rebound


9/14

STATUS AMBIGUITY AND SPIRIT POSSESSION 373togethern mutual oyalty r common nterestver, bove and beyond nytiesthey ssume hroughmarriage. he verybonding ogetherf co-resident ales,their articipationn a formal tatus ystem, heir ommon nterestsn propertyandso forth re factorshatmakefor ivalry nd thence onflict hich s divisiverather han issive,.e. it maydivide hem ut does not eparate hem.Co-resident emales f a communityn a male dominated ociety, s Lewisrightlyoints ut, laynopartnthe ormalocietal tructurehile elationsmongthemselvesre only in certain spects xplicitlytructured. he women of acommunityn a societywhere the ruleof post-maritalesidence s patrilocal,virilocal r avunculocalwill include hefollowing: . thoseborn ntothecom-munity-sisters,aughters,r generally peaking nmarried emales elated ybirth o residentmales nd often o eachother; . thosemarriednto thecom-munity. hesewomen re ikely o have comefrom number f other ommuni-ties nd to be unknown o eachother efore heir rrivals spouses. xceptions ooccur, f course, s when there re preferentialarriage rrangements. omenthusmarriednto communityre affmallyelated oresidentmales ndmay ormaynotbe affmallyelated o each other. heir tatus,heir ery ocial dentitysderivedfrom hatof theirhusbands.Relations mongwomenmarriedntoacommunity ay be definedn general ermswithrespecto length f residence:thoseongresidentandolder) s against hose ewly rrived. his s alsospecificallycorrelated ith herelationship other-in-law/daughter-in-law,criticalelation-ship nmanyrespects,nd withtherelationshipsithin family: enior r elderwife/juniorryoungerwife nthose ocieties llowing olygyny.Thusfrom communitytructureoint f view twill be seen hatwomen reperipheral'nd that achwoman takesher ocial tanding rom ndividualmalesandentersnto elationshipsoreparticularlyn a dyadic asiswithin hedomesticrealm s compared o the orporate r groupmatrix fherhusband's ocial tatus.The obligations f in-married omen,especiallyheir conomic asks, re vitalto all aspects f communityife s well as to thehouseholdsn whichthey remembers.An in-married oman contributesertainwell-definednd specifictasks o thehousehold nd communityn her tatus s wife'. These nclude uchthings s child bearing, ouseholdmaintenance,rovisioningnd preparation,raising f children nd service f husband. ach ofthese asksmay be performedadequately y culturallybsolute tandards,ut n any pecificnstance hedegreeof adequacy can be measured elative o the evel of performances ithin hecommunity,r n the aseofpolygynous ouseholds, ithin hehousehold. hereisthereforecertain ossibilityf competitivenessmongwomen n a communityor segmentshereof. qually the ability f a womanto functiondequately s aiwife' in all respects ariesfrom ndividual o individual nd also in the sameindividual s shepasses hrough he ife ycle.Thusgiven he general ariation fperformancesf wifelyroles within community,nd the varying evels ofadequacy of individuals s they age, there re particular ircumstancesuringa woman'swifely areerwhenher dequacy r wife tatus ill diminish.When awomanceases o bear childrenor cannot earchildren)s one suchtime;whenherphysical owers renot dequate o thedemandsmadeon her s another. uchacts sthe aking f new, ndyounger ife, nto households public vidence fdiminution,rchange n tatus,fthe lreadyn-marriedoman;or, onversely,he


10/14

374 PETER J. WILSONadvent f a young and inexperienced ife to a household laces her n publiccontrast ithher lder nd more xperiencedo-wives. t s preciselyt such imesin a woman's career s a wife,notablywhen that tatus s rendered ven moreindefiniter ambiguous han t s at thebest f imes, hat ossession y piritseemsto occur.And it is tensions rought bout by the relations mong women of acommunityhatprovides heemotional onditioning.Aswe have seen, ossession y spiritsccurs npublic ndis associatedwithformof public performancey women duringwhich men, particularlyheirhusbands, estow n them mark ffavour. his may ndeedbe done with ittlegrace nd some unwillingness,or t is an expense orwlhichheres apparentlyneither hyme or reason o thebemusedmale, xcept hat t will buy him omepeace.But t s thehusbandwho hasbeen nstrumentalnbringingbout he tatusambiguity nd tension etween emales, nd his publicprovisioningfhis wifemarkshimout as the agentre-affirminghewifely tatus, r,as I shall uggestbelow, n some nstancesrovidinghe meansfor tatus ransition.Since woman'sposition n a community erives rom hat fherhusband,rclosecognaticmalerelative,herelationsetweenwomentend o be openended.However,participationn public trance nd possession ultsprovides rallyingactivity or women of comparable tatus n similar ife situationsnd this sespeciallyo in- hose ocieties ith hamans, ealers nd cults. he requirementsfpossessionnd possession ances, venwhere heorganisationoes not reach ultcomplexity,re extensivend require onsiderableemale o-operationsvirtuallyany ccount f he henomenon illtestify.hus while spiriteizes n ndividual,thephenomenons in fact groupactivitywithinwhich there s certain oledifferentiation.his s the aseevenwhenpossession as not been nstitutionalisedto theextent fbeing enculted.4At this oint needbrieflyorecapitulate y rgument.pirit ossessionccursprimarilymongwomen, ndespeciallymarried omen. t s thereforehe truc-tural ontext fmarried omen nmaledominatedocieties hat oncerns smost.In such contexthe tatus f wife' enjoins specified ole performance.his spotentially competitiveole and becomes ctively o, dependingn status om-petition etweenmen andthe uxtapositionf women n their oleswithin hecommunityr conjugal ituation. he life ycle nd ndividual ersonalityiffer-encesmayresultn times f crisiswhichmaybe sociallymanifestedya publicquestioningf roleadequacy.The seizure y spiritsnd the ccompanyingitualpublicly emoveshe mbiguityf statusrtransformstatus.Thus I wishto argue that ociologicallyheact and subsequentites fspiritpossessionrea form f rite epassage hereby ocial dentity aybe changedndsocialstatus efined.n societies here pirit ossessions not professionallym-ployed, pirit ossessions confinedore-affirmingarital ndsituationaltatus rre-definest. n societies here ossessions nstitutionalised,herendividualsre'professionally'eized, heachievementf specific, ormal ocial status-shamanor priest-is quiteclear. So also is therole, thatof healing r divining. uch apositionn a communitysof considerableocial ignificancendthe nfluence,swell asthewealth, fshamansnmany ocietiessfrequentlyttestedcf.Murphy(I964) onSt. Lawrencesland hamans,WhissonI964) on Luo possession, urner(I964) on Ndembu medicalpractice).The cases described n Kiev (I964) all


11/14

STATUS AMBIGUITY AND SPIRIT POSSESSION 375demonstratene other rucialfactor, amely, hat practitionernlybecomesqualifiedo deal with llnessnvolving ossessionf he orshe has herself een illand beenpossessed-usually y the ame pirits.notherwords hemalady ndthepossession, hich s oftennduced, remandatoryor he chievementf a statusposition: erson-*patient-*haman,rperson-+patient-*person. Ofcourse, otallthosewhosuccumb o possession ecome hamans, ut hissthebasic xamina-tionso to speak.Sincepossessionnvolves state ftrance, peakingn tongues,assuminganother dentity emporarily,t preciselyparallels those ritesdepassagewhich nclude ymbolic e-birth.5he socialepidemiology-ofossession,whether rofessionalisedr not, suggestshatby far hegreatest roportionfpersonsnvolvedhave some sortof ambiguous tatusdentity hether heybemale orfemale. hisambiguityanarise romnnate ersonal haracteristicsuchas sexualabnormality,pecificocial conditionse.g. the doctor' described yTurnerI964: 24I) was ofroyal ineage utwas excluded rom ffice,admigratedand thus adlbeen reventedrom oldingocalpolitical ffice,ndwasat the ametime great pportunist),rregularlyecurringonditionsssociated ith he ifecycle nditseffect n social nd conjugal dequacy.Even whenpossessionsnotprofessionalisedtbringsconomic ewards,s theexamples ited yLewis how fine lothesnd uxuries). ecoming shamanhen,notonlyprovidesnacceptedocial tatus,t sa means o economic dvancement-in many asesperhaps heonlyoneopen to women.Faron ays hatwhether rnota cure s effectedy a Mapuche haman epends nthe bility f theclient opay thehighcost of the performanceFaron 964: I24). In Haiti becominghunganr mamboanbeanexpensiveusinessMetraux959: 73) but hese xpensesare fortunatelyalanced y considerablerofits'I959: 74). The NdembudoctordescribedyTurnerI964: 24I) 'earned substantialncome' fromhispractice.Sincepossession,mong other hings,pensa way to economic dvancementnmost ocieties here toccurs, he form f ts occurrencemay well be correlatedwiththenature fthedivision f abour, articularlyetween he exes nd alsowithregard o theextent fspecialisation.his associations suggested yKiev(I964: I3) wherehe suggests n increasingpecificityf qualifications ith n-creasing pecialisationn the division f abour. would iketo note correlationbetween he exualdivision f abour ndtheform fpossession.In the traditional'ocieties f whichLewis treats,he exualdivision f abouris precisely efinednd the possibilityf any overlapbetween he sexes n theperformanceftasks sminimal. asksperformedy the exes omplementachother utremain learly eparate. here s no scope for ompetition etween hesexesnor s there nypossibilityhat hey an achieve hesamegoals orrewards.While thework ofwomen is vital to the economic ufficiencyf thesociety,wealth nd economic tatus s achieved nly by men, e.g.,having number fwives sa major venue o economic rosperitynd s alsosymbolic f such,whilebeing co-wife onferso economic tatus n a woman.

In peasant ocieties,uch as Haiti, thesexual division f labour s still learlydefinednd he oles f he exes emaineparate. utwomen anachieve conomicstatus n their wnright, hough hey annot lwaysbe completelyndependent.Theeconomic oleofwomen, articularlyn the etailmarket ituation,s often fvital ignificanceor hepublic conomy s a whole. nsituationsuch s this,men2-M.


12/14

376 PETER J. WILSONand women arepubliclydependent n each otherwhile their conomic tatusremains eparate. hey do notcompetewith eachother orthesame economicrewards nd social tatus. hesituation aybeillustratedy the xample fHaiti.Here, the peasant an compartmentalizearketings woman'sbusiness' ndalthoughhighcultural alues an continueo be interms f and' (i.e. maleroles)yet the actual conomic act s that he ocal marketsmayproduce good partofthefamilyncome-a hardreality nown o thepeasant' ndthis, n turn, angiverise o suchnterdependentituationssa 'mandoing he ooking n days hathiswifehas gone tothemarket'Underwood960: 30-I). I doubt hat uch roleexchangewould be conceivable mongthe pastoral omali. Yet while such spossiblen Haiti, hedivision f abour emains learly efined:men reconcernedwithmanual abour utside hehouse ndwomenwithhousekeepingndtrading(Herskovits937: 85).Also the videnceeems osuggest hat he ontext f nter-personal ensionsnvolvesmembers f the same sex. Herskovits escribesheviolentmanifestationsfjealousy etween o-wives ndhow, nsome nstances,newlytaken lacee 'will pace in front f the houseof her man'sother pouse,flauntinghe lothesndtrinketshehasreceived rom im' I93 : I I 5)-a vignettereminiscentfpossessionituationsmongtheSomali or Taita.Wherethis s theform fthedivision f abourbetween he exeswe find hatbothmen ndwomen uccumb ospirit ossession,utthat hey o-operate itheach other n cultrituals. oth men and womenbecomepriestsfshrines,nd,whiletheremayoften e competitionetween hrines,his s notcross excom-petition. here s noprovisionnthe rules f the ulture' ormen nd womentocompetewith achother or he amerewardslthoughhere sprovisionor heirco-operationn the chievementf economic nds.Hencethey an be expectedoco-operatenpossessionitualsndbe equally usceptibleopossession.6But f, s I havetried oshow, he sexwar' is a mythnsocieties here osses-sionoccurs,r n nmaleominated'ocieties, heres t a fact? suggesthat tmaybe foundwhereverhedivision f abourpermitsompetitionetween he sexesfor he ame ocial tatusesndrewards-ourown western' ociety or xample.But, s Lewishimself aspointed ut,possessionults isappearedorat east ublicsanctionshat pproved hemdisappeared)t around hesame time hatwomenachieved mancipation-thats to say,at the timewhenwomenentered ntocompetition ithmenfor he amepublic tatusesndrewards, hen nfact he'sex war' was oinedc t is also at this ime hatwomencameto be in a positionwhere hey ouldperceivehe elative xtent fthedeprivation'nflictedn thembymen,butcertainlyotbeforehis ime.7Spirit ossessions obviously multi-facetedhenomenon hichplays majorrole n social and individual herapyndhealing,whichprovides ntertainment(cfBeattie964: 23 I) and ven mployment.hese spects ave ll been xtensivelydescribednvarious ources.n this rticlehave oughtoemphasisehe ociologyofpossession,articularlyith especto ts elation ith emale tatus.n sodoingI havefollowed he pidemiologicalpproachuggestedyLewis andfindmyselfindisagreementithhisbasic ontention,amely,hat ossessions anoutcome fcross exrivalryndtension. uch anarguments, havesuggested,thnocentricandvagueand is notsupportedythe facts.Or at least hefacts resentedendthemselves quallywell to an alternativenterpretation.o posit thatspirit


13/14

STATUS AMBIGUITY AND SPIRIT POSSESSION 377possessions a means o status ridentityefinition,ndarisesn contexts hereindividualtatuss eopardised rrenderedmbiguous,rovides s with means fsociologicalonceptualisationetter uited oelucidatingehaviourllan hevagueand general otions f' deprivation'nd socialperipherality'.o matter hat hesocietyr what he ocial onditions,mbiguityf statussalways possibilityndoften n actuality,nd is entirelyelative epending n the life positions ndpersonalitiesf ndividuals; hile hemanifestationsf such mbiguity,r tensionresultingherefrom,an be seen to be expressed ithin he erms f the culture.That this ensions so often xpressedhroughllnesseading o spirit ossession,a form f rite epassage,eems o confirmts ssociation ith ocial dentity.

NOTESI In many espectshe ategoriesf nalysissedbyLewis re oovague ndgross o allowformuch recision, hichs why he resentrticle ouldbe written hus,t s nowherelearjust what tates f beingLewis ssubsumingnder he ermspirit ossession'. e lumps o-gethertrance', hysteria',feigned ossession',possessiony a lovedone', possessionyspiritsf thedead' and soon (for nattemptoanalysell thats subsumed nder heterm'spirit ossession' ee Bourgignon965). The categorymale dominatedociety's likewisetoogrosso llow or nambiguousrecisionf rgument.tcanbequite easonablyrguedhatour own societys male dominated'-thoughotto quitetheextent hatmalesdominateSomali ociety erhaps. utwhat ort fmeasurements mpliednthephrasenotquite heextent.. perhaps'?Withthese eservationsn mind, retain uch erms n thefollowingcritique.2 Comparison f theSomaliwithanotherociety itedby Lewis,theHausa,raises hequestionsfthe elationshipetween ankingfpolygynouslyarried ives ndthe tatusfthe seized' wife.Among heSomali t s the stablishedifewho succumbso possession,utamong heHausa t s thenew wife.Among heHausa wives reclearlyanked ccordingoseniority,ased n order fmarriageo the ommon usbandcf. mith964: 26; TremeameI9I3: 78) while mong he omali uch anking oesnot ppear o well defined. o the tatusof Hausa enior ifes not hreatenedythe dvent f newwife-infact t s enhanced.henewwife s placed n an nferiorosition,nd t s shewhosuccumbso possession. mong heSomali t s the stablishedife's osition hich s threatened,ndconsequentlyt s shewho slikely o be seized y spirits.3 A correlationetweenwitchcraftccusationsndproximityf co-wife esidenceasbeendemonstratedy LeVine I962).4 With hisnmind venturesuggestionstowhywomen sshamans,hen ossessed,ooften ssumemalegarb radopt ertain aleparaphemalias part f heir ostume. ower ndauthority,speciallyn 'male dominatedocieties', arely as any meansof expressionrauthenticityther han hroughmaleness'.t sa vital spect f hamanismhat he ractitioner

assume ndbe granteduthority,t eastwithin he ontextf he erformance.he assumptionofmaleparaphemaliauch swands, anes, rowns,atssa means f xpressingr symbolisingauthoritynthe orrectulturaldiom.Certainlyoaccount fpossession hich escribeshosepossesseds wearingmaleattire,ssertshat heparticipantsonsider hemselveso be men(cfHarris957: I054, 'theresnoattempto mpersonateen').5 Possessions a means f tatusdentificationasbeennoted y Wallace I966: I43-6), buthis mphasiss somewhatifferent.6 Anunusual ult, heConvince ultofJamaica,eemso provide n exceptiono the bovegeneralisationsbout ossessionn peasant ocieties.his ultnvolvesmales xclusively.t thetime f hisfieldwork,he thnographereportshat he ulthad deterioratednd functionedprimarilys entertainment.ut there re one or two nterestingbservationshich eem oconfirmhat he ult tselfs a manifestationfcompetitionndfrustrationetweenmen.Hoggwrites:TheMaroons,mongwhom he ult riginated,ere xceedinglyestrictedndmenwere ngreat conomic ompetitionith achother' Hogg 960: 22). And further:Bongomenthemselvesontributeo their otoriety y accusing ach other f black magicandadmitting alevolentendenciesf their pirits'.t wouldseem, n thebasis f ratherlightinformation,hat he tructuralituationf ame exrivalryndtensions presentnd hat venthisexceptional' ase upports y rgument.7 AsLewisobserves, sychoanalysisegan tsrise o prominencet this ime, nd, thinkquitereasonably,he connexion etween he therapeuticconsultation'nd the shamanistic


14/14

378 PETER J. WILSON'performance' as been much xplored. t is of some, lbeit light, elevance o notewithrespecto the same sexhypothesis'hat t s a major ontentionfFreudianheory,speciallyas implied n the dea of theOedipus omplex or xample, hatmembers f the ame ex,especially ithin he nuclear amily, ival ach other orpossessionf the members ftheopposite ex.

REFEREN CESBeattie, . 964. Otherultures.ew York:FreePress.Bourgignon,rika 965.The self,hebehavioralnvironment,ndthe heory f piritosses-sion. n Contextnd meaningn culturalnthropology.ed.) M. Spiro. New York: FreePress.Colson, lizabeth958. Marriagend he amilymonghe lateau onga fNorthernhodesia,Manchester: niv.Press.I960. Social rganizationf heGwembeonga.Manchester:niv. Press.Evans-Pritchard,. E. I965. Thepositionfwomennprimitiveocietiesnd therssaysn socialanthropology.ewYork: FreePress.Faron, ouis C. I964. Shamanismnd sorcerymong heMapucheAraucanians)f Chile.InProcessndpatternnculture:ssaysnhonorf ulian . Stewarded.) RobertA. Manners.Chicago:Aldine ress.Harris, race 957.Possessionhysteria'n a Kenya ribe. m.Anthrop.9, IO46-66.Herskovits,. J. 937.Life n a Haitian alley. ew York:Knopf.Hogg,Donald 960. TheConvinceultnJamaicaYale Univ.Publ.Anthrop.8).New Haven:Yale Univ. Press.Kiev,Ari I964. The study f folkpsychiatry.n Magic, aith ndhealinged.) Ari Kiev.Glencoe:FreePress.LeVine,R. A. I962.Witchcraftnd co-wife roximityn southwesternenya. thnology,,39-45.Lewis, I. M. I966. Spiritpossession nd deprivation ults.Man (N.S.), I, 307-29.

Lindblom, erhard920. TheAkambanBritishastAfrica.ppsala:AppelbergsoktryckeriAktiebolag.Messing, imonD. 1958. Group herapyndsocial tatusn the Zar cultof Ethiopia.Am.Anthrop.o, II20-6.Metraux, lfred959.Voodoon Haiti.New York: OxfordUniv.Press.Murphy, aneM. I964. Psychotherapeuticspects f shamanismn St. Lawrencesland,Alaska. nMagic,aith ndhealinged.)AriKiev.Glencoe:FreePress.Smith,Mary 964.BabaofKaro: womanf heMoslemausa.New York:Praeger.Tremearne, . J. N. I9I3. Hausa superstitionsndcustoms.ondon: JohnBale, Sons andDanielsson.Turner, ictorW. I964. An Ndembudoctornpractice.nMagic, aithndhealinged.)AriKiev.Glencoe:FreePress.Underwood, rances960. Themarketingystemnpeasant aiti Yale Univ.Publ.Anthrop.60). New Haven: Yale Univ.Press.Wallace,A. F. C. I966. Religion:nanthropologicaliew.New York:RandomHouse.Whisson,Michael G. I964. Some aspectsof functional isorders mong theKenya Luo. InMagic,faithndhealinged.)AriKiev. Glencoe: ree ress.

status ambiguity and spirit possession

Documents