Two Faces of the Manchu Shaman: “Participatory Observation” in Western and Chinese Contexts

Feng Qu

doi:10.3390/rel9120388

Abstract

Russian anthropologist Shirokogoroff and Chinese ethnographers have provided different understandings of Manchu shamanism. The former approach is centered in the psychological dimension based on the Western context while the latter approach focuses on the ritual and sacrificial systems based on a non-Western Chinese context. However, an in-depth analysis of Chinese ethnographic writings shows that the Chinese context also embodies aspects of existing Western concepts. Due to the fact that both approaches have problems in writing cultures, the author suggests that a constructive dialogue between the Western experience and Chinese experience should be conducted in reconstruction of shamanism theories.

Highlights

Russian anthropologist Shirokogoroff and Chinese ethnographers have provided different understandings of Manchu shamanism
For Chinese scholars, the systematic fieldwork and integrative studies of Manchu shamanism were beginning in the 1980s, sixty years later than Shirokogoroff
Historical evidence indicates that the Manchu was descended from a Jurchen speaking group who came to prominence during the Ming Dynasty

Summary

Shirokogoroff’s Approach and the Western Context

When looking back to Psychomental Complex of the Tungus today, it is not difficult for us to find out that Shirokogoroff was among the first to challenge the Western tradition of the Enlightenment positivism or science and the Eurocentric trend, which “threatened anthropologists no matter which direction they went” (Znamenski 2007, pp. 107–8). From the literary theory of nineteenth century to call the ethnographical writings “ethnographic realism” and state that this is “a mode of writing that seeks to represent the reality of a whole world or form of life.” During their “interpreting” of native concepts into Western languages for the readers, anthropologists established their authority largely through three constructive ways: Establishing a narrative presence, envisioning a textual organization, and pre-encoding the presentation of data Different from Shirokogoroff who spent many years in the field among Siberian Tungus and Manchus in China, Eliade’s shamanism research relied entirely on secondary sources, including both traveler accounts and early ethnographic writings. In Sidky’s words (Sidky 2010, p. 232), this academic stream “produces a category that is so vague as to be theoretically useless.”

Chinese Scholars’ Approach and the Non-Western Context

Non-Western Context or “Non-Western” Context?

Conclusions