Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[Dire Bare]

There is no value judgement made ON human history.
I believe your post does not provide contrary evidence when one takes into account the preposition.

Describing a culture as primitive, savage, barbaric, simple . . . that's a value judgment my friend.

 

[Aldarc]

For some "civilized" examples of shamans, other than modern-day Western practitioners . . . . how about the mediums of the 19th century? These European practitioners didn't call themselves shamans (not sure the term had been appropriated yet by scientists) . . . but they did act as intermediaries between the spirit world and the mortal world. Instead of "primitive" ritual tools, they used crystal balls, ouija boards, and tarot cards . . . instead of dances and chants, they used seances. How about practitioners in the West who claim they can intercede with angels (spirits of God) and/or devils (spirits of Satan) on behalf of mortals?

In the great history of double-standards, they called themselves "spiritualists" rather than "shamans." The term "shaman" had already been brought into Europe in the 17th century.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Describing a culture as primitive, savage, barbaric, simple . . . that's a value judgment my friend.

One part of the problem here is that historically 'primitive tribal societies' have been so vilified and derided that there is sort of vicious association circle here. Most of the language we have to describe non-city-based low-tech civilisations comes across as at least somewhat offensive. Which is just messed up as such cultures have existed, still exist and are perfectly fine and valid. Granted, in many instance D&D doesn't even try.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In the great history of double-standards, they called themselves "spiritualists" rather than "shamans." The term "shaman" had already been brought into Europe in the 17th century.

Is this is a double standard or is this just the nature of language (where people don't always use words consistently). Also, from a modern standpoint, it isn't like spiritualism itself is taken more seriously now than shamans (I would say the opposite, where the spiritualist moment is regarded as a little ridiculous by most people, and shamanism is considered a more legitimate spiritual practice). When I think of spiritualism, I think of charlatans and a quirky religious fad (I live in an area where spiritualism was pretty prevalent at its height, and today most people here would look upon it with some amount of mockery).

 

[Dire Bare]

In the great history of double-standards, they called themselves "spiritualists" rather than "shamans." The term "shaman" had already been brought into Europe in the 17th century.

The only practitioners that called themselves shamans, other than modern neoshamans, are the Asiatic Tungusic peoples . . . if even them. The word shaman, as noted before in the thread, is really a Western appropriasm that oversimplifies indigenous religious practice and reinforces the false duality of primitives versus civilized peoples.

I don't know if spiritualists or mediums not using the word shaman is a double-standard . . . they may have never made the connection. They certainly didn't see their tradition as primitive, and as far as I'm aware, didn't try to make connections to ancient practice. Despite the fact that "speakers for the dead" go back to the dawn of human culture . . . .

 

[Aldarc]

Paizo’s Occult Adventures had a number of applicable classes: Psychic, Medium, Spiritualist, and Occulist. Not to mention their Shaman class in one of their other books. So a number of other labels would work as well for one who deals with spirits.

 

[Dire Bare]

Paizo’s Occult Adventures had a number of applicable classes: Psychic, Medium, Spiritualist, and Occulist. Not to mention their Shaman class in one of their other books. So a number of other labels would work as well for one who deals with spirits.

I prefer the term shaman. It's problematic, like the term barbarian . . . but it's already a part of the fantasy lexicon (beyond even D&D) and I think expanding the term and making it more positive is better than removing it from the game (and the larger fantasy genre literature).

But, if I had to choose a second favorite . . . I'd go with spiritualist.

 

[Sadras]

Describing a culture as primitive, savage, barbaric, simple . . . that's a value judgment my friend.

This reply is based on this and your immediate reply to @reelo

My understanding of the word primitive - is low level technology and where culture/traditions/law are all learned and passed down orally. This is not a value judgement.
My understanding of the word simple - runs along the same lines. The bureaucracy which may exist in a town, city, barony, duchy or nation is limited or non-existent within a simple culture. This is not a value judgement.

Savage and Barbaric may refer to a number of things - the way one eats (living creatures as opposed to cooked or dead), treatment of elderly, sick or cripple, treatment of prisoners, rule of law, execution...any number of things.
Again, these are not value judgements on RL people but yes we do draw these words from our own human experience.

On the otherhand, I'm with you in that I'm all for a Shaman class. It is not something that I believe is depicted negatively, instead I think it is not depicted at all. Calling it a tribal druid I believe does the word a disservice IMO. As a D&D player I'd like some proper stats.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I prefer the term shaman. It's problematic, like the term barbarian . . . but it's already a part of the fantasy lexicon (beyond even D&D) and I think expanding the term and making it more positive is better than removing it from the game (and the larger fantasy genre literature).

But, if I had to choose a second favorite . . . I'd go with spiritualist.

In terms of what these words evoke, none of them seem particularly helpful, certainly not as flavorful as shaman for what is being aimed for in these instances. When I hear "spiritualist", however badly informed this imagery is, what I imagine is a person in a monocle flipping a switch to make a table hover somewhere in the late 19th, early 20th century east coast USA. I get the term has other uses, I am not sure it connotes what the writers of these sections were trying to convey.

And I think this brings us to one of the issues with taking such fine combs to peoples language. This is how people talk and communicate, and not everyone does so in the same way, or with the same degree of 'sophistication'. Like I said earlier, this is a product of how people naturally communicate and convey what they are trying to say. By putting this lens on it, and not reading things charitably, I think it starts to go from an attempt to be sensitive, to an attempt to control language, and that is going to stifle people. You had mentioned anthropology and similar social science. I am sure the conversations in those fields have advanced and developed to a certain point beyond what the public's lexicon is around these things. Are we really reaching the point where one needs to 1) be an anthropologist, 2) be deeply familiar with the literature around use of language in anthropology, or 3) be personally guided by an expert in anthropology to write a book about orcs and knights fighting in a fantasy setting? Some of the things you mentioned, are also a bit questionable (like equating all ways of knowing with science, which seemed to be the implication of part of your post----but probably a subject for another topic). This is where I start to have issues because it does turn into something where what we are really talking about is the etiquette around these things adopted by people from the more educated classes, sneering at people who may just not have as much education on these matters (or to frame it the way you did earlier, may just have a different mode of education). This is why I think intent needs to be weighed. There is a difference between someone who doesn't share your lexicon describing something as primitive because that seems to be the best word, and someone who is intentionally trying to make a commentary about some group of modern hunter gatherers. We are also talking about orc tribes, or in some cases fantasy world human tribes, not real world people, and I think that is a very big difference that we shouldn't lose sight of.

 

[Maxperson]

One could hardly get a clearer, simpler, value judgement than Good and Evil in the D&D alignment system. That’s what its proponents like about it. A GM can look at the alignment of an NPC or monster and quickly determine its behaviour. It's also a way of judging a PC's actions.

As to whether D&D has anything to say about human history -

1e PHB: "Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest."

2e PHB: "The cleric class is similar to certain religious orders of knighthood of the Middle Ages: the Teutonic Knights, the Knights Templar, and Hospitalers."

So alignment is a value judgment, but not about human history, and the Druid and Cleric reference human history, but fail to make a value judgment. Your examples don't apply to what Sadras said.