Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:34:07.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ritual stance does not apply to magic in general

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2022

Ze Hong Open the ORCID record for Ze Hong [Opens in a new window]
Ze Hong*
Affiliation:
Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA ze_hong@g.harvard.eduhttps://kevinhong.home.blog/ Department of Sociology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310000, China
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contrary to the author's proposed classification scheme, I argue that most magical practices are better viewed as “instrumental” rather than “ritualistic.” Much ethnographic and historical evidence shows that magicians and ritual experts often have elaborate causal theories regarding how magic actions lead to the putative outcome, and the “physical/mechanical” versus “supernatural” distinction in causal mechanisms needs serious reconsideration.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e258
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

Clements, J. (2017). The intellectual and social declines of alchemy and astrology, circa 1650–1720. University of York.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. P. (1978). Coercing the rain deities in ancient China. History of Religions, 17, 244–265. https://doi.org/10.1086/462793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (2006). Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon (Vol. 14). Penguin.Google Scholar
Edmonds, R. G. III (2019). Drawing down the moon: Magic in the ancient Greco–Roman world. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, Z. (2022a). A cognitive account of manipulative sympathetic magic. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 12, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2021.2006294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, Z. (2022b). Dream interpretation from a cognitive and cultural evolutionary perspective: The case of oneiromancy in traditional China. Cognitive Science, 46(1), e13088. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, Z., & Henrich, J. (2021). The cultural evolution of epistemic practices. Human Nature, 32, 1–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Hong, Z., Slingerland, E., & Henrich, J. (forthcoming). Magic and empiricism in early Chinese rainmaking – A cultural evolutionary analysis. Current Anthropology.Google Scholar
Horton, R. (1960). A definition of religion, and its uses. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 90, 201–226. https://doi.org/10.2307/2844344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, R. (1967). African traditional thought and western science. Africa. https://doi.org/10.2307/1158253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kominsky, J. F., Zamm, A. P., & Keil, F. C. (2018). Knowing when help is needed: A developing sense of causal complexity. Cognitive Science, 42, 491–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12509CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lohmann, R. (2003). Special issue: Perspectives on the category “supernatural.” Anthropological Forum, 13(2), 115–219.Google Scholar
McCauley, R. N., & Lawson, E. T. (2002). Bringing ritual to mind: Psychological foundations of cultural forms. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder-Reinke, J. (2020). Dry spells: State rainmaking and local governance in late imperial China. Brill.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. R. (1978). Why astrology is a pseudoscience. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. https://doi.org/10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1978.1.192639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiskopf, D. A. (2020). Representing and coordinating ethnobiological knowledge. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2020.101328CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed