Mary
Ann Clark,
The use of spirit possession to communicate with spiri= ts and deities within Santería rituals suggests interesting questions about= the nature of the human self and the larger cosmos. We can either reject this phenomenon out of hand as an example of psychological instability or outrig= ht fraud, or we are required to develop a worldview that allows the non-materi= al (that is, the spiritual) to affect the material world. In the philosophical literature, this question is often subsumed under the so-called body-mind problem. As most clearly articulated by Descartes, the body-mind problem as= ks: how can a spiritual (that is non-material) substance affect a physical (tha= t is material) substance? Philosophers are not the only scholars concerned with = the body-mind problem. Although often unacknowledged, it permeates medical, psychological and theological contemplation.
Trance possession in the Santería and Espiritis= mo traditions involves the temporary absence of the subject’s “soul” while an alien spirit fills the space left empty by this absence. This alien spirit may be a divinity in the Afro-Cuban pantheon, a spirit of a dead relative or the personality of a spirit guide. In philosophical terms, this is a radical interpenetration of the non-material into the material world.
In this paper, I will use the phenomenon of trance possession to explore the ways in which the non-material can intrude into t= he material world and directly into the physical body. I will begin by an examination of the body-mind problem as articulated by Descartes and refine= d by later thinkers. Then I will challenge some of the underlying assumptions of these positions by examining the ways in which possession phenomena calls i= nto question these understandings of the material and the spiritual and the interaction between them. Finally, I will propose an alternative worldview = in which legitimate possession phenomena could occur in an effort to articulate a philosophical position that can accept t= he possibility of a non-fraudulent trance possession.
Descartes project, as proc=
laimed
in his Meditations on First Philoso=
phy,
was to tear down the edifice of knowledge and rebuild it on a new foundatio=
n.
This undertaking began in a quest for absolute certainty through the vehicl=
e of
radical doubt and resulted in a dualist theory that split the spiritual mind
from the material body. Only through the action of a benevolent deity was it
possible for Descartes to bridge the gap between these two disparate entiti=
es.
Later philosophers rejected this appeal to God as deus ex machina choosing instead to either deny the possibility=
of
an experience of an independently existing physical world or to deny the
spiritual “mind” as an actuality. Although both of these positi=
ons
are irrational in light of the obvious facts of experience, they provided t=
he
only philosophically sound responses to the Cartesian theory that mind and =
body
are ontologically different types of things incapable of interaction.
Materialists have solved the mind-body problem by eliminating the spiritual
mind and giving all its functionality to the physical brain, thus eliminati=
ng
the nagging problem of interaction between these two realms while opening up
another set of related questions: how can a purely physical system give ris=
e to
the non-material functions of the brain?
Concurrent with this philo=
sophical
elimination of all things spiritual was the development of psychoanalysis.
Psychological theory replaced the actions of the human soul with psychologi=
cal
phenomena that eventuated in neurosis, psychosis and complexes. Psychoanaly=
tic
theory, for example, suggests that all mental manifestations can be traced =
to physical
brain functions or childhood experiences. Freud’s suggestion that
religion was merely an illusion that could be at least partially overcome by
psychological analysis was another way the spiritual was replaced by the
material. Although how the mind/brain works was still mysterious, it was
understood to be amenable to scientific inquiry without remainder. When
accompanied by neurological theory, psychology continues to attempt to desc=
ribe
all the causes of mental processes as activities within the brain and nervo=
us
system. The use of pharmaceuticals within contemporary psychiatric practice=
is
only one indicator of this movement toward a completely materialistic theor=
y of
the mind.
However, the mind-body pro=
blem
continues to plague us. Central to this problem is the question of
spirituality. If we stay within the contemporary, materialistic worldview, =
how
can we justify belief in a non-physical realm that is beyond scientific
analysis? Must we choose between the loss of all spirituality in our quest =
for scientific
knowledge or a return to a pre-modernism that ignores the gains of empirici=
sm
and rationality? Is it possible to have both science and spirituality? These
questions do not deny that there are genuinely religious people in the
contemporary world but rather are presented to engage the larger question of
what cosmological worldview might allow for full participation of contempor=
ary
peoples in both the rational and the spiritual.
This problem is thrown int=
o high
relief when we begin to investigate parapsychological phenomena, including
possession trance, channeling, extra-sensory perception (ESP) and psychokin=
esis
(PK). The possible “reality” of each of these phenomena rests on
the possibility of interaction between the material and non-material realms.
Dualism, which posits mind and body as absolutely and ontological different,
leaves open the possibility for spiritual entities but seems to provide no
theoretical basis for analyzing interaction between them and us. Scientific
materialism, since it a priori denies the possibility of the spiritual, only
offers conscious or unconscious fraud as explanatory theory. It is instruct=
ive
that the same arguments against spiritualism presented in Allen Kardek's The Book of Mediums written in the
mid-nineteenth century can be found in Jon Klimo's 1998 book on channeling.=
No
progress seems to have been made to either confirm or deny these phenomena =
in
the ensuing 150 years. I will have more to say on this later.
It was an attempt to describe spirit possession as fou=
nd in
Santería and related religious systems that highlighted these questi=
ons
for me. What exactly is spirit possession? Vincent Crapanzano suggests the =
most
liberal description. Spirit possession, he says, is “any altered stat=
e of
consciousness indigenously interpreted in terms of the influence of an alien
spirit.”[1]
Participants in a Santería tambor or drum
ritual, may experience what I. M. Lewis calls trance possession. In his cla=
ssic
Ecstatic Religion Lewis disting=
uishes
between possession and trance. He says that trance is due “to the
temporary absence of the subject’s soul”[2] while possession is the
“invasion of the individual by a spirit.”[3] Although either state =
may
happen independently, possession trance is a state wherein an alien spirit
fills the space left empty by trance. In the Santería context, a
priest’s consciousness is temporarily displaced by the presence of a
deity or spirit. Since his (or her) consciousness is absent, the possessed
person has no memory of the possessing being and its actions and
communications. During the duration of the possession event, the priest bec=
omes
the embodiment of the Orisha for the worshipping community.
Within the Santería
community, the movement toward possession is often characterized by tempora=
ry,
often violent, physical changes in the appearance and movements of the medi=
um,
the person moving into psosession. These are understood to be one’s
reaction to “invasion” by an alien spirit. Although the possess=
ion
event is considered desirable and actually promoted by participation in the
tambor, the temporary absence of one’s soul and the
“vacating” of one’s body are not easy. Once the possessio=
n is
complete, however, the possessing spirit gains control and the medium exhib=
its
the characteristics typical of the invading Orisha. These changes alert the
remaining members of the group that the Orisha has arrived.
Several elements are neces=
sary for
a successful possession event. Orisha do not normally enter into persons un=
less
called and although participants are encouraged to communicate with their
deities outside of the communal events, they do not normally engage in full
trance possession outside of the protected communal environment. In the con=
text
of Santería, the Orisha are only allowed to invade the bodies of tho=
se
whose initiations have prepared them to receive their presence. If the
uninitiated begin to exhibit signs of possession they are removed from the
environment of the sacred drums and called back into themselves.
Possession trance requires=
, in
addition to a willing and able victim, a community that can facilitate the
passage of the deities, protect the body of the medium from injury, and
communicate the revelations of the possessing Other. Without a supportive
community, possession is both difficult, since it is understood that the
possessing entity comes at the invitation of the community, and dangerous,
since the medium is without resources to protect him- or herself or even to
effect the evacuation of the possessing spirit and the return of his
consciousness to his body. If fully possessed, the person is entranced, una=
ware
of his own or others actions. Only in the presence of another can an Orisha
speak and be heard. In the absence of the host personality, only the enabli=
ng
community can communicate with the possessing Orisha.
Generally those who discuss Afro-Caribbean possession = trance have either taken an emic approach, accepting as “real” those physical and psychological changes that are accepted by the participating g= roup as legitimate possession events or an etic approach that views all such eve= nts with suspicion and a need to “explain” the phenomena in psychological or sociological terms.[4] These traditions themselves recognize the possibility of conscious fraud, t= hat is, the faking of a possession event, and provides tests of the legitimacy = of any particular such event. Once a particular possession is accepted as legitimate by the community, however, the actions and statements made by the medium are accepted as the words and actions of the gods.
Nevertheless, fraud provides the only explanation open=
to
scholars whose materialistic worldview generally cannot provide a circumsta=
nce
in which a legitimate possession event is possible. While
conscious fraud is pretty much self explanatory and easily dismissed,
unconscious fraud is often suggested in the scholarly description of the
possession event, such as when possession is the explosion of personal
psychological urges and desires.[5] Lewis suggests as much=
in
his description of a Haitian Voudou ceremony in which he compares possession
rituals to a modern psychodrama where repressed urges and desires are played
out in a permissive and comforting environment. At the conclusion of the
possession ritual, he says, ideally each participant “eventual=
ly
achieves a state of ecstasy, and in stereotyped fashion collapses in a tran=
ce
from which he emerges purged and refreshed” so that each participant clearly gains “a great deal of
psychological satisfaction” as well as certain “social
advantage[s].”[6] Thus he says that the
possession event can be understood psychologically, “in the li=
ght
of the subject's own personality needs, his life situation, and cultural
background.”[7]
Possession and related phenomena are regularly compared to psychological
afflictions. Lewis say that shamanism is often seen as “an
institutionalized madhouse for primitives” and cites Levy-Valensi, who
claimed that the spiritualist séance was the ante-chamber to the asy=
lum.=
=
[8]
Like Lewis and those he ci=
tes, most
investigators into paranormal phenomena begin by exploring the various ways
this phenomenon can be explained in the light of the modern atheistic
mechanistic worldview. However, some investigators find this approach
inadequate to the data. A typical response can be found in
Just as Mack’s study=
of
alien abductees, my own investigation of possession trance challenges the b=
asic
assumptions of the Western worldview. Two important aspects of possession s=
eem
to have escaped the notice of many investigators. The first is the differen=
ce
between mediums, those subject to trance possession, and individuals we
recognize as psychologically ill. One of the primary characteristics of sev=
ere
psychological illness is an inability to engage in the activities of normal
daily living. When psychotic episodes are uncontrolled they intrude on daily
living making it difficult for the patient to maintain regular employment a=
nd on-going
personal relationships. In addition, left untreated, psychological illness
tends to worsen over time.
On the other hand, outside=
the
ritual environment, spirit mediums are difficult to differentiate from othe=
rs
in their community. They hold regular jobs, some are professionals; they
maintain relationships not only within their religious communities but other
groups as well. In addition, continued participation in ritual possession t=
ends
to facilitate the medium’s movement in and out of trance so that many=
of
the more bizarre motor activities associated with the movement into full
possession decrease, rather than increase, over time.
This leads us to the second
difference between a psychotic episode and a possession event. Although lit=
tle
commented upon in the literature, the goal of possession in Santería=
and
its sister religions is not the wild dancing and exhausted collapse but rat=
her
the subsequent controlled interaction between possessing deity and worshipp=
ing
community. The frenzy that commonly characterizes descriptions of possession
events gives way, in Santería rituals, to a more sedate and tranquil
interaction between the fully embodied spirit and the worshipping community.
The confusion and excitement so often described in the literature is merely=
the
gateway through which the medium passes on the way to a fully possessed sta=
te.
While embodied, Orisha bless their worshippers, perform healing rituals, and
give advice. Although they may eat, drink, dance and generally enjoy
themselves, they only participate in the frenetic activities associated with
possession when attempting to entice another of their sacred company to join
the ritual.
Not all possession events =
are
legitimate, some certainly are purposefully or unconsciously fraudulent. Ma=
ny mediums,
however, are accepted by participants as neither intentionally deceitful nor
the victims of their own personal psychological urges and desires. It is no=
t my
intention to prove or disprove the authenticity of this phenomenon, rather I
want to end this paper by asking how it is possible to construct a worldvie=
w in
which legitimate possession trance is possible.
David Ray Griffin suggests=
that it
is irrational to ignore both the non-material aspects of human consciousness
and the obvious interactions between mind and body found in everyday experi=
ence
simply because they contradict our metaphysical theories. Rather he suggest=
s we
reconsider Descartes’ dualism and the materialist worldview it produc=
ed
in light of the idea that they are based on a misunderstanding of the natur=
e of
the mind, of the body or both.[10]
Using the work of Alfred L=
ord
Whitehead,
The early modern worldview=
did not
entirely preclude paranormal events, as belief in the supernatural (God or
demons) abounded. However, by the late modern period, as belief in these
supernatural and spiritual agents declined, the mind was reduced to the act=
ion
of the physical brain and paranormal events were no longer possible.=
[14] This has lead to the
contemporary understanding that the mind is simply the brain and identical =
in
every respect to it.[15] Although positing the
material brain as the sum total of the mind solves the body/mind problem, it
does so at the expense of the non-material.
Whitehead called this nons=
ensory
mode of perception “prehension”[19] and suggested that all
living beings, including one-celled organisms like bacteria and amoebas, ha=
ve
perceptional experiences, even in the absence of sensory organs. The upshot=
of
accepting non-sensory perception is
According to this theory, =
sense
organs are not required for all types of perception, thus Griffin suggests,
“if we were to find ourselves existing apart from our physical bodies=
, we
would not be wholly devoid of perceptions”[21] nor would we utterly =
be
without the capability to act upon matter in the same way as (non-material)
mind can act upon brain.[22]
By allowing for the acquis=
ition of
non-sensory data and the action of the non-physical upon the physical, If we can accept Crapanzano, Vincent. 1977. Case Studies in Spirit Possession.
Edited by V. Crananzano and V. Garrison. New York: John Wiley & Sons, I=
nc. Griffin, David Ray. 1993. Introduction: Constructive
Postmodern Philosophy. In Founders =
of
Constructive Postmodern Philosophy, edited by D. R. Giffin. Albany: Sta=
te
University of New York Press. Griffin, David Ray. 1997. Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality. Albany: State
University of New York Press. Lewis, I.M. 1971. Ecstatic
Religion. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, Inc. Mack, John E. 2000. How the Alien Abduction Phenome=
non
Challenges the Boundaries of Our Reality. In UFOs and Abductions: Challenging the Borders of Knowledge, edit=
ed
by D. M. Jacobs. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Bibliography
[1] Crapanzano, Vincent. 1977. Case Studies in Spirit Possession. Edited by V. Crananzano and V. Garrison. New York: John Wiley & Sons, I= nc., 7.
[2] = Lewis, I.M. 1971. Ecstatic Religion. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, Inc., 29.
[3] Ibid., 46.
[4] In looking at possession trance in the Voudou tradition, Deren for example, takes the first approach while Lewis takes the second (Deren, Maya. 1983 [1953]. Divine Horsemen: The Living= Gods of Haiti. New Platz, NY: McPherson; Lewis, 1971).
[5] Lewis, 1971, 195.
[6] Ibid., 195.
[7] Ibid, 200.
[8] Ibid, 199.
[9] = Mack, John E. 2000. How the Alien Abduction Phenomenon Challenges the Boundaries = of Our Reality. In UFOs and Abductions: Challenging the Borders of Knowledge, edited by D. M. Jacobs. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
[10] Griffin, David Ray. 1993. Introduction: Constructive Postmodern Philosophy. In Founders of Constructive Postmodern Philosophy, edited by D. R. Giffin. Albany: State University of New York Press.
[11] Griffin, David Ray. 1997. Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirit= uality. Albany: State University of New York Press.
[12] Ibid., 11.
[13] Ibid., 16.
[14] Ibid., 21.
[15] Ibid., 113
[16] Ibid., 137-38.
[17] Ibid., 137-38
[18] Ibid., 141.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid., 142.
[21] Ibid., 143-45.
[22] Ibid., 145.
Body-Mind
Problem =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; 13
Mary Ann Clark