Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-b5k59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T00:50:28.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do shamans violate notions of humanness?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2018

Nick Haslam
Nick Haslam*
Affiliation:
School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia. nhaslam@unimelb.edu.au https://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/display/person6837
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Singh proposes that shamans violate notions of humanness in patterned ways that signal supernatural capacities. I argue that his account, based on a notion of humanness that contrasts humans with non-human animals, does not capture people's understandings of supernatural beings. Shamanic behavior may simply violate human norms in unstructured, improvised ways rather than contrast with a coherent concept of humanness.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e75
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Gray, H. M., Gray, K. & Wegner, D. M. (2007) Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315:10–619. doi:10.1126/science.1134475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haslam, N., Kashima, Y., Loughnan, S., Shi, J. & Suitner, C. (2008) Subhuman, inhuman, and superhuman: Contrasting humans with nonhumans in three cultures. Social Cognition 26:248–58. doi:10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ojamaa, T. (1997) The shaman as a zoomorphic human. Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore 4:77–92.Google Scholar
Waytz, A., Hoffman, K. M. & Trawalter, S. (2015) A superhumanization bias in whites' perception of blacks. Social Psychological and Personality Science 6:352–59. doi:10.1177/1948550614553642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar