Talk:Core Shamanism

To me, neoshaminism is a general category, and Core Shamanism is a specific. It would be like lumping Judaism, Christianity, and Islam under an article called "Religions that began in the Middle East" or Gettysberg and Bull Run under "Battles of the American Civil War." Keep them seperate. Carptrash 15:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

agree with above
yeah, "Core shamanism" is actually, in my opinion, the "scientology" of NeoShamanism. It may be popular and ketchy, but its not fair to other Shamanic systems to lump them in under it. More importantly, it isn't a real taxonomy.

And, as it admits, its an amalgam of assorted Shamanic systems, in the tradition of "New Age". Simply put, when Michael Harner integrated 10 different systems, he had only a superficial understanding of any one particular of them. The system flails because it is a non lucid eclectic attempt, at too low an educational level. Prometheuspan 21:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"the" being a perfect example
"to attain the Shamanic State of Consciousness,"

There isn't >>one<< shamanic state of consciousness, there are 4 main brainwave states of consciousness and intermediate levels between them. Prometheuspan 21:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Further merging suggestion
Both articles are very low on actual content. Surely they can both be redirected to, and merged into, Shamanism as it already has a Shamanism and New Age section that is arguably better written. San de Berg 10:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

moved from article
I just moved this here, out of the artcle. Carptrash 02:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * While this is mostly true, it is not clear quite who would benefit from an abundance of shamans trained in the arts of killing, inducing sickness and unwanted infertility, especially since our modern culture achieves those things quite well using perfectly conventional methods.

Merge
As per the common naming conventions at wikipedia, I think Core Shamanism should be merged into Neoshamanism, not the other way around. Currently, neither of these entries are very notable. Core shamanism is a subset of neoshamanism, and the neoshamanism material is so sparse, perhaps they should both be merged into a sub-section of shamanism. WeniWidiWiki 06:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan 02:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC) I think they deserve their own articles, however, at least thats a cogent taxonomy.

New Age and Shamanism don't go together. Both are alternatives to mainstream. One is very old or reconstructionist, the other is very new and eclectic. They have less in common than say, Christianity and Islam, of which at the very least it can be said that Islam and Christianity are both Patrifocal Religions originating in the middle East. New Age and Shamanism weren't even born on the same continent.

-In response to unknown writer. I disagree. NEOshamanism has incorpated certain elements from certain traditional practices with New Age beliefs. (I honestly think you need to do some rearch and work on your comprehension abilities; get also a good dictionary and get informed about the topics. We are talking about NEOshamanism here.)

You stated:"One is very old or reconstructionist"

In my response: "old" and "reconstructionist" does not mean the same thing (use the dictionary). Besides that certain ethnic groups still practice shamanism & has never abandon its practices (do some anthropological research).

-Bill July 26, 2007

keep them seperate
if we go around merging all the article that don't hve content into something else we severly limit the ability of these articles to grow. Seperate But Equel. Carptrash 02:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Additions/Changes
"They say this is out of respect for indigenous peoples, and that they are usually very careful to avoid cultural imperialism. However, critics like Daniel C. Noel, Robert J. Wallis see Harner's teachings as based on cultural appropriation and a misrepresentation of the various cultures he claims to have been inspired by; (reference: "The Soul of Shamanism: Western Fantasies, Imaginal Realities" )they believe Harner's work laid the foundations for massive exploitation of Indigenous cultures by "plastic shamans" and other cultural appropriators. (reference: "The Soul of Shamanism: Western Fantasies, Imaginal Realities "

I made a few additions to the article (mainly the citation sources & references). I'm not sure how to properly insert the foot notes here in wikipedia but if someone is so kind to willing to do so please go right ahead. Thanks -Bill July 26,2007

Out of Context
Regarding an edition added in the Criticism section. "However, recent work by Peter N. Jones questions this criticism, as his work shows that the term shamanism has been used by a wide number of individuals, groups, and cultures across time and can not be linked to a specific group, culture, or ethnic identity (reference: "Shamans and Shamanism: A Comprehensive Bibliography of the Terms Use in North America")."

(respectfully) Native Americans dont have issues with shamanism of other cultures or the term shamanism.

The issue among Native Americans is that of: those people exploiting the term "Native American", "Indian", passing themselves as Native Americans (when they are not), non Natives selling certain "Native American" characteristic religious items (such as Native American type drums, Native american type of rattles, Native American type of feather headresses, Made in China 'Dream Catchers' etc), selling New Age type books (by non Natives) with reference to Native people (but with historically and anthropological incorrect and revisonist information) just to make it catchy to sell for personal profit etc. Theres seems to be strong elements of 'cultural fetishism' and romanticism ('Noble Savage' false sterotyping) which I find.

Theres tons of info about this issue over the net and on youtube. For example on youtube about "Ego Woman". Someone whose clearly non Native but continues to pass herself as Native American...etc

I hope that clears things up.

Henry123ifa (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Henry123ifaHenry123ifa (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger: Power animal / Neoshamanism
(this copied over from the talk page for "Power Animal" article for which I have attempted a clean merger into this "Core Shamanism" article) The article "Power animal" has one sole source, that being Michael Harner's "The Way of the Shaman," and for all intents and purposes I would argue that the claims made in this article are the opinions of one man and one man only - Michael Harner. Certainly fine enough, as the fellow is a popular New Age author, but I suggest to the Wikipedia community that this article be merged with the pre-existing "Core Shamanism" article.

My suggestion is based on the following: 1.) The term "power animal" as defined by the current article lacks substantial value devoid of its appropriate context. Namely, the philosophy of Core Shamanism as synthesized by Michael Harner. Thus, it is best served by appearing in the latter article. 2.) "Power animal," as a colloquial expression (e.g. in reference to athleticism, personality typology, aesthetic stylings), may have nothing to do with Michael Harner's anthropological theories, or even spirituality in the abstract. Refer to first point. 3.) I posit that the phrases "shamanistic worldview" mentioned in the article are weasel words for "Harner's worldview," as no specific animistic religions are actually referenced, and this is a vague and sweeping statement founded on the work of Michael Harner, rather than any demonstrated survey of Eurasian or American religious practices.

I fully disclose my own personal bias against the scholarship and of Michael Harner, but I believe that the above suggestions and critiques are fair to this article and respectful of his work and influence. I would greatly appreciate other opinions on the article merger.

I propose the following body of text to be included from the "Power Animal" article. I believe it sufficiently summarizes the information to be merged - " ''Core shamanism also involves communication with "power animals," which are tutelary spirit guides who help or protect individuals, lineages and nations. This view is not unlike parallel beliefs in guardian spirits or angels in the Abrahamic traditions. In this context power animal(s) represent a person's connection to all life, their qualities of character, and their power. " '' A.Aboumrad (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. A bit of a sticky wicket, but you make a good argument so you get my vote. My reluctence stems from my uninformed view that while Core Shaminism is a Harner thing power animals are found in many different traditions.  However since I don't have, for example, any Ted Andrews books on hand I am not able to come up with any references.  I say, go for it.  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But also relevant, at least in my mind, is the fact that Core shamanism get 15 visits a day while Power animal get ten times that, around 150, (carpmath, always suspect, so do your own).  That should count for something, so I take back my "go for it." Carptrash (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ooh, that's a good point. In that case, maybe the "Power Animal" article could just use a big improvement. Absent additional opinions on this merger, I will take the discussion back to the "Power animal" talk page so that we can propose a better approach to appropriately framing the context of Harner's definition and use of the phrase. Thanks for the feedback! A.Aboumrad (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, merging the text from Power Animal, and turning Power Animal into a redirect to Core shamanism would work. However, I don't see why Core shamanism has been split from Neoshamanism, as Harner's work formed the foundations of the entire NeoShamanic phenomenon. It's only because Harner's misrepresentations have been exposed that those who are using his materials want to distance from his reputation (much as has been seen with Wiccans and Gerald Gardner).
 * As long as Power animal is framed in the context of Harner's collages/inventions, might as well merge it. Harner is not a reliable source on anything except citing direct quotes and documenting his various claims (or, like in this case, when he's the only one making a claim that is now accepted by the misinformed as "traditional"). It is clear to anyone in the field that his popular book, Way of the Shaman relied on third-rate and third-hand anthropological reports by non-trusted, cultural outsiders. There are blatant howlers in his writings, long-known misinformation that he reports as fact. Harner is not a respected ceremonial person or academic, he's a New Age entrepreneur.
 * Carptrash, while many animistic religions, the world over, use animal symbolism, Harner's particular framing of it is his own invention. it's because Harner has been so successful that people think otherwise. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 21:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There could be a way to merge/redirect all three articles, given how brief they are. Believe me, I'm as critical as Harner as you, but he is a popular figure and his views are of mass interest. I think as long as his views are appropriately framed as such and given adequate academic qualifiers, I might support a merge of "Power animal" and "Core shamanism" into a sub-paragraph of "Neoshamanism." My concern with that move is that it would give a disproportional amount of real estate to Harner in the general Neoshamanism article. If we make such a merger, it may be worth drafting and including other brief summaries of the specific views of other big figures in the Neoshamanism movement (similar to how the Wicca article does indeed have quite good sub-paragraphs dedicated to other faction leaders). Such an inclusion is a little bit more of an undertaking, and I don't have too much reading material at the moment, so I'm on the fence with this one. Put succinctly - good suggestion, it would just take a bit of extra work (the reward, however, being a much richer article on Neoshamanism). A.Aboumrad (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Kathryn, perhaps you couldd add some of the power animal takes from "many animistic religions, the world over," to that article and thus make it less Harnercentric? Carptrash (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Aren't these culture-specific topics covered already in the "Totem," "Totemism," "Spirit Guides," "Familiar Spirits," articles, to name a few? I think this is the sticking point- we're having difficulty seeing the significance of the specific phrase "Power Animal" outside of the Harner context. Does anyone use this term besides Harner-influenced people? Btw, Carptrash, I've just been reading over your suggestions in past Talk posts against the merger of this article with Neoshamanism, and I think you make a good case for keeping the "Neoshamanism" article separate (at least until it can be drastically expanded and turned into something like the "Abrahamic Religions" article which is a jumping off point into more specific articles). Anyway, how would you two (and anyone else) feel about merging/redirecting "Power Animal" and "Core Shamanism" into the "Michael Harner" article? Not trying to stifle future article expansion, but just a thought. A.Aboumrad (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Since Core shaminism is a Harner concoction I see no problem putting tht in his article. I don't have a copy of Ted Andrews books on spirit guides, so am not sure if he uses the term "power animals."  If the term is coined and  starts and ends with Harner then moving it to his article seems fine with me. Carptrash (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)