Anthropology Book Review

Anthropology Book Review


Mind Over Mind: The Anthropology and Psychology of Spirit Possession. Morton Klass. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003. 138 pp.

Morton Klass was a noted Anthropologist who focused primarily on religion, race relations, and social structures. He taught at Barnard College and Columbia University and was very driven by various cultures throughout the world. He also received his master’s degree and Ph.D. from Columbia University as well.

This book was published after the author’s death in 2001. His wife, Sheila Soloman Klass, put his manuscripts together while preserving as much of his own words as possible. She noted that his book’s intentions were to reach readers beyond anthropology, including psychology, as well. Dr. Klass seemed unsettled from anthropologists who seemed quick to dismiss spirit possession as fraudulent and deceptive with, perhaps, a hint of psychosis. But not true “spirit” or “demon” possession.

I selected this book because it dealt with many subjects that I’m passionate about. Cultural anthropology being one. The topic of other cultures, religions, and ways of life experienced by people different from myself is like a surprise on Christmas day. There is always something new to learn and some things are quite surprising! I also have a personal interest in the paranormal and how different groups view it. I felt that this book would put everything together perfectly. I did not have a definitive personal opinion regarding spirit possession, and since I was practically unbiased, I felt it would be a great topic to read about.

I respect Klass and his work, however this particular book was rather hard to read at times. I’m not an expert on anthropology by no means, but I felt the information he provided in the first few chapters to “introduce” the reader to anthropology was rather grueling. Sometimes it’s hard to find who his target audience is intended to be. At one point it seems somewhat elementary, and other times more of an experienced audience. He seems to go piece by piece introducing anthropology, but at the same time speaks to a more advanced audience. At the end of chapter two, however, Klass does point out the following:
“I am aware that in this chapter I have dragged the reader down an intricate and possibly even wearying road. My defense, simply, is that it was absolutely necessary if the nonanthropologist reading this book is to understand the suggestions I propose to offer about the nature of spirit possession. I think that this chapter is even necessary for my anthropological readers.” (35)

He moves on in chapter three by introducing James G. Frazer and his research of the spirit possession phenomenon. According to Klass, Frazer’s work on spirit possessions observed in countries around the world were questionable considering his observations were never made in the field. Klass moved on to compare Frazer with other anthropologists whose work did include first-hand observations. These include Alfred Metraux and his observations from Haiti, and Melville J. Herskovits and his work in Africa, Haiti, and the Caribbean.

Klass compared the work of Metraux and Herskovits and the similarities between the two regarding the onset of possession. However, he noted that others, such as Lesley Sharp, noted a far different onset. One that was more calm than the epileptic sort that they described. But Klass did a fantastic job giving detailed descriptions of the possessions that he experienced. He turns his attention later in the chapter to what is going on during the spirit possessions and finds that it is a topic often ignored in anthropology. Frazer’s proposal was that it was not as genuine as people are made to believe and that anthropologists even play in to the deception. Klass concedes that it is possible that at some point in history even an educated anthropologist can be fooled into believing, but does not agree this is always the case.

Klass later introduces anthropologist Paul Rabin as having his own explanation of what is going on in spirit possession. He describes it more of a “mental abnormality” affecting the shamans and medicine men of magic-centered cultures. But brings up the interesting question of “What is considered abnormal?” What is normal to one culture may be extremely abnormal to another. He even went on to describe his interactions with a “healer” (olja) in India in the 1960’s. The olja explains that the illnesses are caused by “tejos” and affect some people but not others to varying degrees.

Klass offers in the end of the chapter that we often try to offer simple explanations for something that is anything but simple. We are often biased and try to find a simpler explanation that soothes our own minds and doesn’t leave us thinking twice. I have to agree with how he thinks on the topic overall.

That leads in to the matter at hand in the next few chapters, which is the anthropologists place in “deciding” what really takes place in something such as spirit possession. In other cultural observations the anthropologist is keen to stay unbiased in their observations and conclusions, looking at “just the facts”. He also touches upon the need to understand fields, such as psychology, so that they can be contributing factors to the anthropologist. Klass focuses more on the psychopathological aspect of people being studied. Most notably dissociation and things such as Multiple Personality Disorder (Dissociative Identity Disorder).

Klass ends the book with combining everything into one. The hopes of getting a more thorough explanation as to what is going on with regards to spirit possession. From an anthropologists point of view, he leans away from using “mental disorder” as the explanation for what goes on with alleged spirit possession. Instead he offers up new categories that are not indicative of any sort of mental illness. He even wanders into the question of the uniqueness of this by humans only. If animals have any hint of personality, could they too be affected by the same things we find in humans with regards to dissociative disorders? Klass also goes further by identifying it as a phenomena rather than a disorder. Personally, I tend to agree with this approach.

Klass did a fantastic job of breaking down his ideas into various phenomena. The ones mentioned are Dissociative Consciousness Phenomena, Dissociative Identity Phenomena, and Imposed Dissociative Phenomena. His intention of identifying the various phenomena is to make a contribution to other sciences and specialties to reach more of an understanding. He makes a point to explain that there are still a lot of unanswered questions that still need to be resolved, but hopes that this is a big stepping stone.

Like most of Klass’ work, there is a lot of genius (for lack of a better word) in his approach and research into this topic. He is able to separate myth and preconceived ideas from what he was truly able to observe. He took subject matter that has no clear cut answer and attempts to make a modest explanation “achievable”. Overall the book is interesting, though difficult to read at times. But once you are able to get on a roll and understand his goals you see the real genius in his thought processes.

Anthropology Class Discussion - Race Relations

Well I have to say my Anthropology class in college is pretty interesting. For Chapter 4 we are discussing "Race". We are replying to the question "How is the concept of "race" a cultural construct and why do we still hear the term used?"

One student wrote this:
"This is a touchy subject to most people even though it should not be. yes i am white and i have been that way all of my life. the music out today that glorifies the fact that each race has to act a certain way does not help the smoothing out of the race line either. race is always going to be a factor because we as people make judgements on what we see, skin color, but the education of all people can make a better working society."

To which another student wrote this:
"Its not that its a touchy subject, but is an important issue to discuss. But on te other hand you may not see it as touchy subject or a big deal due to the fact that you are white and the chances of you getting racially profiled are slim to none. For instance when you hear rich people say money isnt important, well of course it isnt to them, they have it so it nothing to ever worry about. The same thing goes to racism, prejudice, and inequality, if it has never happened to you or its not something that is likely to happen to you, then of course you wouldnt see if as a problem. But unless you are living under a rock and dont watch your daily news, it is a very important topic and no matter what a lot of us may think, there are still people out there that believe and act as if they are superior to other people based on the color of his or her skin. And in the end that affects us ll especially if those are the same people that are making important decisions for the rest of the world. Im not mad, or getting on you or anything, I just wanted to inform you that thins may not seem as touchy or significant to you if it doesnt invlove you, but believe it or not peoples "race" affects them everyday, regarding getting a job, a home loan, a college loan. So it does mater."

Another student wrote:
"
I know what you're saying. That's a good point of comparing it to rich people. Take a millionaires money away and ask them how important it is LOL

I think everyone of every color and nationality has experienced some degree of racism. Just because someone is white doesn't mean they are immune to racism. There are situations in some parts of the country where whites are a minority, but they can't claim minority status. They are rejected by the majority as well. I've had it happen several times. It's not right to assume all whites are racist. I can't be held accountable for what someone did in the past who just happens to be the same color as me. I can only be accountable for my own actions and strive to do what's right. I just happen to be fascinated by people of all colors, nationalities, religions and it just amazes me how sometimes people might think just cause I'm white I'm racist. That's unfair. And please don't think I'm referring all this to you cause I'm not. I'm speaking in generality. Being bigoted is a problem with alot of people, not just one particular color. And take for example the fact that there's ALOT of scholarships I can't apply for because I'm not a particular color or nationality. Things like this are an issue to everyone to varying degrees.

It is a touchy subject in the sense that alot of people get really fired up over it. Sometimes you can't express your opinion without it becoming an all out fight. Which I'm hoping does not result from this."

And finally another student wrote:
"I think you make a very interesting point from the other side of a common racial issue in America. I am labeled "white" (although I have so many nationalities in my ancestry, I find it an arbitrary title!) and while there are many issues I don't have to deal with, I'm often surprised by how many I encounter because people assume I feel a certain way because I'm white. I grew up in an open-minded household, and have friends of many nationalities. I currently work as a secretary at a church in Decatur that has over 60 nationalities that attend the congregation. We will often have people come in seeking monetary assistance, and we have a fund for that. However, the fund always runs out before the end of the month and we end having to tell some people no. I have had several occassions where people end up screaming at me accusing me of not assisting them because they are of certain "race". They assume that because I'm not the same race, that's why they don't get any money, no matter how many times I explain it. It's very sad and difficult for me sometimes, because it hurts me that someone thinks I'm that shallow. I try to remember they've probably had numerous instances where that was the reason they were treated poorly and they may be more sensitive about it."

Ethnocentric America?

In my summer Anthropology class (held online) we have to participate in discussions on subject matter from the book. For one particular chapter we had to discuss ethnocentrism. This is the belief that the ways of one's own culture are the only proper ones. Here is the question presented:

"Although all cultures across the world display some degree of ethnocentrism, some are more ethnocentric than others. In what ways is your own society ethnocentric? Considering the modern fact of globalization (as described in Chapter 1) do you think ethnocentrism poses more of a problem in today's world than in the past?"

What are your views on this? Personally I think that yes, the US does have this "we do it the best way" mentality sometimes, but compared to alot of countries we are sometimes more accepting of non-traditional ways. For instance, in some countries, not following the government mandated "norm" will get you killed. I would like to believe that the US is somewhat more forgiving in many ways. Of course, in some ways there's a long way to go. Take for instance north vs south. Growing up in the north I thought that the Civil War ended a long time ago. But when I moved to the south I found there are people who are still bitter about it and hate northerners. I don't see it too often here but I have encountered it.

For the second part of the question, I believe that given technology of today with telephone, television, internet, books, etc we are all more exposed to things across the world that 100 years ago we wouldn't have been. I mean, even when I was young I remember teen magazines with a classified section at the end that gave peoples names, interests, and addresses. You could have a penpal. It was the coolest thing when you got a letter back from someone in another state! Now look at us. Look at MySpace! Most likely you are from another state or even another country. As a "common" person would I have been able to reach you without the internet giving my thoughts on this subject? I think that ethnocentrism is less of a problem these days than it was 100 or even 500 years ago because we are exposed to so much more.

But I was really surprised to see just how many people felt differently than I did. I thought that there was more faith in us as Americans. Yes, sometimes we can be arrogant, but I would like to think we aren't that bad of a country. I think it's normal human nature to look at something that's different a little weird. But people have the freedom to keep alot of their own traditions in their own home. They don't have to turn 100% "American". They can remain individuals.

Take for example the Pastoralists in Africa. For years they were able to survive drought by moving to other parts of Africa. Now the governments won't allow them to move across borders and therefore they are forced to stay in the same drought stricken area. That results in starvation and death and other problems. All because their government wants control. You do things their way.

I guess I'm not 100% sure of how I feel about this. I see both sides, but I was really stricken by the bashing that went on in our class discussion boards. For once I kept my mouth shut. I'm just there to earn the grade that I work for and to get out of there, not to deal with drama.