Read an Excerpt
Shamanic Trance in Modern Kabbalah
By JONATHAN GARB The University of Chicago Press
Copyright © 2011 The University of Chicago
All right reserved. ISBN: 978-0-226-28207-7
Chapter One
Theory of Shamanism, Trance, and Modern Kabbalah
This introductory chapter presents the book's main categories as reflected in the title. In its widest context, the book is part of a strong direction in religious studies that accords a central place to the shamanic mode of experience and practice. The most prominent scholar within this stream was of course Mircea Eliade. However, his singular and often personal approach, which was in turn part of a wider comparative orientation to the history and nature of religion, is by no means the only possible one to take. My own approach is far closer to that of Lawrence Sullivan, who chose to address the shamanic within a specific cultural context—the study of South American religion—and to enlist a deeper understanding of the figure of the shaman in order to further our appreciation of the diverse modalities of this chosen context. As he put it, through orienting itself toward South American realities, his book enabled reappraising "the meaning of religious experience and of symbolic life in general" (though for the purposes of this book I would substitute consciousness for symbolic meaning). Likewise, Pieter Craffert has written that the shamanic pattern is "reshaped or remade in each and every specific cultural setting."
Throughout, the book is informed by complementary approaches extant in the social sciences, such as psychology and anthropology. Indeed, I hope that it will contribute to the burgeoning field of psychology of religion. The varied approaches that are currently developing include cognitive theories and cultural-constructivist approaches, as well as methods allied with neuroscience. However, psychoanalytic modes of interpretation still hold a place of pride. Although at times I shall utilize such tools, such as those derived from Winnicottian and post-Jungian work, later in this chapter I contend that hypnosis, rather than psychoanalysis, is the best available lens for the analysis of mystical texts.
Besides these general pursuits, the book seeks to further the phenomenological investigation of Jewish mysticism in the form initiated primarily by Moshe Idel. As Daniel Abrams has pointed out, Idel's use of the term "phenomenology" is rather loose, and not strongly connected to the classical philosophical tradition of phenomenological investigation. For our purposes, I shall define Idel's phenomenological method as choosing a general religious form or type, such as prophecy or ecstasy, assembling related Kabbalistic texts on techniques and experiences and then formulating the resultant assortment of practices and outcomes within wider discursive frameworks, or models. My method is also similar to Idel's in that the historical narrative is subordinated to the thematic investigation. However, my approach at times differs from that of Idel and especially from some of the more specific applications extant among some of his students. Having provided this initial context, I now wish to introduce the three categories of this book and thereby show how it continues existing trajectories in Kabbalah scholarship and how it seeks to renew them.
Shamanism: Theoretical Issues
The resurgence of mysticism and magic in the last decades of the twentieth century was accompanied by an extensive popularization of the term "shamanism," made famous by writers such as Eliade and Joseph Campbell in the earlier part of the century. The transformation of the shaman as warrior or healer into a cultural hero was evinced in numerous works of fiction, such as Philip Pullman's best-selling His Dark Materials. As we shall see in chapter , New Age discourse on shamanism has at times attempted to locate shamanic elements within the Jewish tradition. It is interesting that a Buddhist teacher who played an important role in the creation of the new mystical culture in the West, Chögyam Trungpa, wrote that "Christianity came out of Judaism and its shamanistic traditions, and Buddhism came out of Hinduism and its shamanistic traditions."
This popular process has been reflected not only in religious studies but also in Kabbalah scholarship. Comments on the place of "shamanism" in the Jewish world have ranged from inflation of the term so as to include almost any mystical phenomenon to its restriction to specific contexts, such as Hasidism. However, there has been no sustained attempt to relate this term to the extensive discussions found in religious studies or anthropology, or to examine it in relationship to other central terms in the study of mysticism, starting with the term "mysticism" itself. Nonetheless, Haviva Pedaya has made some extremely valuable comments, in which she uses the term as part of a binary typology of mystical experience, to be addressed at various points in this book. Pedaya assigns phenomena that are often regarded as shamanic, such as shaking and mystical madness to what she terms the extroverted pole, while other trance-related phenomena, such as fainting and mystical death, are assigned to the introverted pole. Pedaya follows some manifestations of this modality in certain points in the history of Jewish mysticism, especially Heikhalot literature and Hasidism. As we shall see, I differ from her in preferring integrative models to binary typologies.
In order to further the discussion, I have made two main moves: one is to offer a broad, yet focused, definition of shamanism, which integrates recent theoretical discussions. I present this definition fully in chapter and then continue to refine it throughout the book. At this point it is necessary only to emphasize that my definition combines the mystical and the social elements of the activity of the shaman. On the first level, the shaman transcends consensual perception through movement in internal space—a process that is often manifested in trance. On a social level, this transcendence challenges societal structures only in order to revitalize them. My second move is to restrict my investigation to a broad yet defined historical and geographical context—that of European modern Kabbalah and especially Hasidism. This historical framing is helpful in avoiding the excessive loosening of my investigation as well as the accompanying danger of essentialism.
The question of shamanism is indeed tagged by the very quandary that divides scholars of mysticism: are we speaking of a universal category or rather of a scholarly construction that brings together cultural and social contexts, which are more properly separated. One must not opt sharply for either pole. To take the first stance would rob shamanic phenomena in modern Kabbalah from any cultural and historical specificity, so that describing them as shamanic would not be a move essentially different from those made in the unscholarly New Age discourse. However, avoiding the use of the term, as in the case of mysticism, would effect an unnecessary atomization of contexts while depriving us of a useful bridge to wider scholarly domains. In other words, abstaining from general scholarly categories exacerbates the existing gap between much of Kabbalah scholarship and the broader intellectual arena, of which I shall have more to say soon.
I believe that this dilemma is largely resolved by the moves demonstrated here. I have given shamanism a flexible, yet clearly formulated definition as movement beyond habitual frames of reference, as a transformative process, culminating in return to these frames in pursuit of revitalization and empowerment. I have also restricted the discussion to phenomena that share not only a general cultural context—that of Judaism or Kabbalah (terms no less general than mysticism or shamanism)—but also that of European modernity. By doing so, I have striven to maintain a useful balance of generality and specificity. This is part of a wider move from discussing mysticism in generic terms towards examining specific issues within specific cultural and historical contexts. In this sense, shamanism can be seen as a branch of the wider family of mysticism, rather than as opposed in any way to this more prevalent term. This Wittgensteinian idea of family resemblance has been used, not without opposition, in the study of religion in general, as well as of mysticism, shamanism, and magic.
From this vantage point, I am not in any way claiming that Kabbalistic or Hasidic phenomena are very similar to Tibetan or Amazonian shamanic experiences. Rather, the use of the term "shamanic," in the sense elected here, is primarily designed to better appreciate the connections between sets of phenomena inside the modern Jewish world, such as rites of descent to the underworld and somatic transformations. My claim is that the term "Jewish mysticism," used famously by Gershom Scholem but adopted by his staunchest critics, served a similar function. While not joining those who eschew this term, I also do not accord it any dominant position. At times, following the direction indicated by the texts themselves, there is greater interpretative advantage in describing phenomena as mystical, or magical, or mystico-magical and at other times it is best to use an alternative category, such as shamanism or incarnation.
This terminological flexibility creates a certain hermeneutical circle. If employing a term enables more penetrating readings of a cluster of texts, the insights drawn from this reading can then be used to further refine and specify the use of the original term. In this way, the main thrust of scholarship remains embedded in the deeper understanding of texts and is not diverted to questions of nomenclature. However, delving into texts must remain open to wide cultural and intellectual horizons. Conjointly using etic terms, either drawn from Christian religious language (mysticism, imitatio dei, incarnation) or derived from archaic cultures, overcomes the artificial wall that scholars such as Eliade have erected between archaic and scriptural religion, while safeguarding from parochial attitudes within Jewish studies.
Shamanism, Mysticism, and Israeli Kabbalah Scholarship
I would like to expand on the scholarly and cultural implications of the last move and place them within the context of the present state of Kabbalah scholarship in Israel. In his programmatic Kabbalah: New Perspectives, Idel noted that the choice of the founding father of modern Kabbalah scholarship, Gershom Scholem, to largely avoid comparative study and instead to develop the philological-historical mode, was entirely understandable in the initial phases of the development of the field. However, as Idel sharply noted, in the subsequent generation, this avoidance was solidified into an ideology of textology, which in turn led to repetition of Scholem's positions. In order to break out from this impasse, Idel proposed his alternative phenomenological method for the study of Jewish mysticism, which I am largely following here. This method draws on insights from comparative religious studies, while maintaining vigilance as to the need for textual foundation of any claims based on such cross-fertilization. He suggested that this realignment with the broader structure of religious studies, reinforced by tools taken from other branches of humanistic studies, especially psychology, would offset the conceptual aridity characterizing Kabbalah scholarship at that time.
Idel himself took major steps towards realizing this program, and he was rapidly joined by central scholars such as Elliot Wolfson, Charles Mopsik, and later Pedaya. As a result, more than twenty years later, Kabbalah scholarship is in a very different place than that prevailing when Idel made his clarion call. However, recalling these achievements should by no means give the impression that the conceptual aridity and ideology of textology have evaporated. Idel refrained from fully diagnosing one of the deep structures underlying Scholem's strategies—the Zionist ideology that dominated and to a large extent still dominates Jewish studies in Israel. It is this ideology that has led to the containment of the study of Jewish mysticism in Israel within Jewish studies—a practice that goes far beyond custom or administrative organization.
Thus, for example, Yehuda Liebes, a very central figure in Israeli Kabbalah scholarship, drew numerous comparisons between Kabbalah and Hellenistic, Christian, and Islamic texts in face of some local opposition. However, he eschewed comparison to religions that did not have clear historical contact with the Jewish world. Furthermore, he almost entirely abstained from integrating contemporary theory, including that of myth, perhaps the central theme in his writing. Liebes' conscious choice to almost entirely abstain from publication in languages other than Hebrew is a paradoxical mirror to his virtuosic mastery of several classical (as well as modern) languages, which has a profound presence in his research. This containment has much value, as it led scholars, including this author (as shown in chapter 6), to insist on the rather organic connection, in both discourse and practice, between Kabbalah and other Jewish worlds, such as Halakha, Midrash, Piyyut (liturgical poetry), and Minhag (custom). However, it could have had an arresting effect in terms of comparative and theoretical study of Kabbalah in Israeli universities.
Kabbalah scholarship in Israel enjoys many advantages, such as several strong libraries of texts and manuscripts, as well as a reservoir of students who not only read Kabbalistic texts in their native language but often have an advanced training in institutions specializing in the study of Jewish texts (in recent years including Kabbalah and Hasidism). However, it is my opinion that it is also weakened by the effect of the intense identity politics of an increasingly fragmented society, which has reinforced particularistic tendencies among those same students. The strongly local color of Kabbalah studies in Israel has led to a growing and distressing distance from the centers in North America and Europe, where Kabbalah studies is often situated within broader frameworks, such as religious studies. I am especially saddened by the fact that the seminal theoretical and comparative English-language contributions of Elliot Wolfson have at times been ignored or downplayed by certain scholars and advanced students in Israel.
Here, as elsewhere, I strive to distance myself from this unfortunate practice. My discussion of ethics and the nomian shall engage the recent work of Wolfson on these issues. My very choice to add the term "shamanism" to the terminological repertoire of Kabbalah scholarship, as well as my suggestion that Pauline experience can be seen as one of the early stages of Jewish shamanism, join the major move initiated by Wolfson in his extensive use of the term "incarnation." I regard these moves as cultural interventions, which undermine the nationalistic approaches currently gaining ground in some Jewish studies circles in Israel. I thus also share with Wolfson the underlying motivation of preserving the vitality of the study of Jewish texts through learned engagement with issues of current import, as in his critique of misogynic and ethnocentric views in the Kabbalistic literature itself. The latter increasingly carry over into scholarly positions, as the gap between contemporary Kabbalistic discourse and scholarship constantly narrows.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Shamanic Trance in Modern Kabbalah by JONATHAN GARB Copyright © 2011 by The University of Chicago. Excerpted by permission of The University of Chicago Press. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
