Singh's cultural evolutionary theory of shamanism primarily illustrates the cultural traits that are selected for based on their efficacy in bolstering a shaman's credentials. Although identifying the functions that shamans practice is integral to understanding the development of shamanism, in the present essay we argue that not all individuals in a culture have the psychological predilections or genetic predispositions to become shamans.
Shamanism commonly involves not only a predictable cluster of practices, but also a predictable cluster of personal characteristics in its practitioners. As Singh described in his review, the profession of shamanism is limited to a select few who are recognized as possessing shamanic potential. This potential is designated not only by cultural practices, but also by psychological and medical conditions resulting from genetic predilections or predispositions such as epilepsy (and associated auras and seizures), ambiguous sexual identity, polydactylism, proneness to psychotic states, and personality disorders. Indeed, several of Singh's defining shamanistic characteristics imply underlying psychological propensities. For example, psychosis, by definition, is a psychological propensity toward delusions, hallucinations, and/or unusual or arcane speech and behaviors. Charlatanism implies a propensity to deceive and manipulate. A proclivity toward entering trance states implies an intentional or unintentional tendency to do so. We believe that the explicit incorporation of such personal factors is vital for a comprehensive theory of shamanism for several reasons.
First, cultural pressures alone are not sufficient to explain the initial emergence of shamanism within a culture. As Singh observes, shamanism is the only profession in a society in many cases. It is extremely improbable that the cultural demand for a practitioner capable of influencing uncertain outcomes has happened strictly by chance to be the only cultural demand to be capitalized upon in societies. Rather, it is far more likely that intrinsic personal characteristics have led individuals in societies to conclude and assert that they have dominion over uncertain outcomes and, in so doing, establish a tradition that capitalizes on cultural needs and demands.
Second, the cultural pressures described by Singh select for both genetic predispositions and behavioral practices. This implies that shamanism involves a distinct mix of both behavioral practices and genetically influenced personal characteristics in almost all cultures. As an example, Singh presents the case of a shaman who possesses a genetically determined personal characteristic and attains higher credibility than a rival shaman who possesses equally convincing practices but lacks that credibility-bolstering characteristic. Because shamanistic practices often carry evolutionary costs (e.g., celibacy, starvation, chemical toxicity) and because many credibility-bolstering personal characteristics do not necessarily carry these costs, shamans who established their credibility strictly through cultural practices frequently would be at a disadvantage compared with shamans with additional beneficial personal characteristics. This implies the third and final reason to be discussed: The phenomenon of shamanism has biological, psychological, and cultural repercussions.
Many evolutionary psychologists have argued that the genes that contribute to the development of schizophrenia were selected for because of their association with shamanism (e.g., Polimeni & Reiss Reference Polimeni and Reiss2003). Despite myths to the contrary, however, schizophrenia is more often than not a highly debilitating disease, both socially and interpersonally. It is a highly genetically influenced disease of a polygenic nature (many genes, each with a small but cumulative effect), which may indicate that relatives of schizophrenic people may have similar propensities and related behaviors without the debilitating side effects. The same is true of related disorders such as schizotypal personality disorder, which is characterized by odd beliefs, magical thinking, highly superstitious behavior, and beliefs in telepathy, clairvoyance, or a sixth sense (e.g., Segal et al. Reference Segal, Coolidge and Rosowsky2006). Further, evidence suggests that schizophrenia and schizotypal personality disorder overlap substantially, both genetically and neurobiologically (e.g., Ettinger et al. Reference Ettinger, Meyhöfer, Steffens, Wagner and Koutsouleris2014), such that the milder but highly related version of schizophrenia, that is, schizotypal personality disorder, may be particularly advantageous to shamans. In the same vein, the major personal characteristic implicated by the charlatanism hypothesis of shamanism, namely, deceitfulness and conning others, has been found ubiquitously in all cultures with individuals who have antisocial personality disorders, and the latter is also polygenic and highly genetically influenced (e.g., Rosenström et al. Reference Rosenström, Ystrom, Torvik, Czajkowski, Gillespie, Aggen, Kendler and Reichborn-Kjennerud2017).
Additionally, following the agricultural revolution, shamanism may have been a contributor to the co-evolution of cultures with local psychoactive substances, especially those that alter perceptions. The universal cultural practice of ingesting psychoactive substances dates back to pre-agricultural societies and was motivated primarily by shamanism, ritual, and medicine (e.g., Wadley Reference Wadley2016). Following the advent of farming, it appears that various cultures began to domesticate psychoactive substances, including those that alter perceptions and mood. Therefore, it is also theoretically possible that, if shamanism had not been common in ancient societies, many perception and mood-altering substances (such as psilocin, mescaline, and scopolamine) may have been less prevalent or less prestigious in subsequent generations.
The emergence, development, and repercussions of shamanic traditions all involve dynamic interaction between biological, psychological, and cultural factors. By viewing shamanism as only a suite of practices and focusing primarily on how shamanic practices have been shaped by cultural pressures, we think Singh presents a restricted view of shamanism. Nonetheless, the framework his theory provides is capable of organizing both the clusters of practices and personal characteristics commonly found in shamanism. Most importantly, it offers a convincing explanation as to why they have consistently emerged across numerous cultures and generations. It is our hope that this brief attempt to incorporate previous relevant data into Singh's model will illustrate the full utility and applicability of the cultural evolutionary theory of shamanism for future research.
Singh's cultural evolutionary theory of shamanism primarily illustrates the cultural traits that are selected for based on their efficacy in bolstering a shaman's credentials. Although identifying the functions that shamans practice is integral to understanding the development of shamanism, in the present essay we argue that not all individuals in a culture have the psychological predilections or genetic predispositions to become shamans.
Shamanism commonly involves not only a predictable cluster of practices, but also a predictable cluster of personal characteristics in its practitioners. As Singh described in his review, the profession of shamanism is limited to a select few who are recognized as possessing shamanic potential. This potential is designated not only by cultural practices, but also by psychological and medical conditions resulting from genetic predilections or predispositions such as epilepsy (and associated auras and seizures), ambiguous sexual identity, polydactylism, proneness to psychotic states, and personality disorders. Indeed, several of Singh's defining shamanistic characteristics imply underlying psychological propensities. For example, psychosis, by definition, is a psychological propensity toward delusions, hallucinations, and/or unusual or arcane speech and behaviors. Charlatanism implies a propensity to deceive and manipulate. A proclivity toward entering trance states implies an intentional or unintentional tendency to do so. We believe that the explicit incorporation of such personal factors is vital for a comprehensive theory of shamanism for several reasons.
First, cultural pressures alone are not sufficient to explain the initial emergence of shamanism within a culture. As Singh observes, shamanism is the only profession in a society in many cases. It is extremely improbable that the cultural demand for a practitioner capable of influencing uncertain outcomes has happened strictly by chance to be the only cultural demand to be capitalized upon in societies. Rather, it is far more likely that intrinsic personal characteristics have led individuals in societies to conclude and assert that they have dominion over uncertain outcomes and, in so doing, establish a tradition that capitalizes on cultural needs and demands.
Second, the cultural pressures described by Singh select for both genetic predispositions and behavioral practices. This implies that shamanism involves a distinct mix of both behavioral practices and genetically influenced personal characteristics in almost all cultures. As an example, Singh presents the case of a shaman who possesses a genetically determined personal characteristic and attains higher credibility than a rival shaman who possesses equally convincing practices but lacks that credibility-bolstering characteristic. Because shamanistic practices often carry evolutionary costs (e.g., celibacy, starvation, chemical toxicity) and because many credibility-bolstering personal characteristics do not necessarily carry these costs, shamans who established their credibility strictly through cultural practices frequently would be at a disadvantage compared with shamans with additional beneficial personal characteristics. This implies the third and final reason to be discussed: The phenomenon of shamanism has biological, psychological, and cultural repercussions.
Many evolutionary psychologists have argued that the genes that contribute to the development of schizophrenia were selected for because of their association with shamanism (e.g., Polimeni & Reiss Reference Polimeni and Reiss2003). Despite myths to the contrary, however, schizophrenia is more often than not a highly debilitating disease, both socially and interpersonally. It is a highly genetically influenced disease of a polygenic nature (many genes, each with a small but cumulative effect), which may indicate that relatives of schizophrenic people may have similar propensities and related behaviors without the debilitating side effects. The same is true of related disorders such as schizotypal personality disorder, which is characterized by odd beliefs, magical thinking, highly superstitious behavior, and beliefs in telepathy, clairvoyance, or a sixth sense (e.g., Segal et al. Reference Segal, Coolidge and Rosowsky2006). Further, evidence suggests that schizophrenia and schizotypal personality disorder overlap substantially, both genetically and neurobiologically (e.g., Ettinger et al. Reference Ettinger, Meyhöfer, Steffens, Wagner and Koutsouleris2014), such that the milder but highly related version of schizophrenia, that is, schizotypal personality disorder, may be particularly advantageous to shamans. In the same vein, the major personal characteristic implicated by the charlatanism hypothesis of shamanism, namely, deceitfulness and conning others, has been found ubiquitously in all cultures with individuals who have antisocial personality disorders, and the latter is also polygenic and highly genetically influenced (e.g., Rosenström et al. Reference Rosenström, Ystrom, Torvik, Czajkowski, Gillespie, Aggen, Kendler and Reichborn-Kjennerud2017).
Additionally, following the agricultural revolution, shamanism may have been a contributor to the co-evolution of cultures with local psychoactive substances, especially those that alter perceptions. The universal cultural practice of ingesting psychoactive substances dates back to pre-agricultural societies and was motivated primarily by shamanism, ritual, and medicine (e.g., Wadley Reference Wadley2016). Following the advent of farming, it appears that various cultures began to domesticate psychoactive substances, including those that alter perceptions and mood. Therefore, it is also theoretically possible that, if shamanism had not been common in ancient societies, many perception and mood-altering substances (such as psilocin, mescaline, and scopolamine) may have been less prevalent or less prestigious in subsequent generations.
The emergence, development, and repercussions of shamanic traditions all involve dynamic interaction between biological, psychological, and cultural factors. By viewing shamanism as only a suite of practices and focusing primarily on how shamanic practices have been shaped by cultural pressures, we think Singh presents a restricted view of shamanism. Nonetheless, the framework his theory provides is capable of organizing both the clusters of practices and personal characteristics commonly found in shamanism. Most importantly, it offers a convincing explanation as to why they have consistently emerged across numerous cultures and generations. It is our hope that this brief attempt to incorporate previous relevant data into Singh's model will illustrate the full utility and applicability of the cultural evolutionary theory of shamanism for future research.