..-11- 11 ­ 1l AFRICAN ilITCHCRAFTUITCHCRAFT\"lITCHCRAFT BELIZFS:BELII:FS:BELIEFS: TEETHE DEFIIUTIONALDEFllUTIONALDEFINITIONAL PROBLEl!IPROBLEl'IPROBLEHl In any comparative studystu~ the initial problem to be faced by the analyst is that of defining tiletlle phenomena he has selected for examination. This is rarely an easy task. I1hetherlJhetherWhetl1er one focusses on totemismtotez:ri.sm (Golden1treiser(Goldenweiser(Goldemreiser 1910; Levi-Strauss 1964), marriage (Leach(Leacll 1961), incest (Fox 1967), ma;erilinealma:erilineal descent (Richards 1990),1990),' ancestor cults (Kopytoff 1968),1968).1968) t or age sets (Eisenstadt 1956), usually one of the first things to be found by tiletlle analyst is the fact thatt11at a single termte~ has been used to cover a number of often .ridelyllidelywidely varying, although related phenomena. 'I1henllhen this .happens one may 't-lellI·rell~lell be tempted to invent a number of nevInevTne~1 termterms to cover all 'thethe possiblep'ossible refractiol1srefractions and ma.nifestationsmanifestations cifof the phenomena·phenomena being studied, but as Leach has so \iellw'ellwell demonstrated, this can only lead to the excessiveexcessive-development development of terminological classifications, an effort that he has so aptly termed 'Butterfly collecting' (1961:2). He strongly suggests that 'tiewe~ie must seek other methodsmet110ds of organizing and defining our phenomena. Needham has indicated an awareness of this problem as 1'lell,Hell,uell, and has pointed out that: ••• social anthropology is in a state of conceptual confusionconfl~ion expressed in proliferating technical taxonomiestaxonornies and definitional exercises, each nel'Tne~Tne"T field study offering enough ''anomalous' anomalous t features to lead to yet more typologicaltypolOgical and methodological pronouncements. (1963: xli). It "1ouldwould~1ould probably be a fair statementstatecent to say that the tackling of defini­ tional problems is one of the most basic tasks to be faced in our discipline toclay.today. Real advances in our understanding of social phenomena can onl~Tonl:,'onl~r' be made thr01."!.c;hthrouchthr01.lc;h intensive comparative analysis aimed at establishing 110rkable,rorkableworkable definitions as ,iellHell as the essential features aridand range ofof. variability of the particular phel".or.J.enaphe~ooenaphel".of.1ena being examined. The stwlys·h~.rlys·h~.'ly of .ri'toriui tchcraft belief~beliefs is one partparticular icular example of a field of stud;:rstud.~rstud~f th:::tt~-:,::.-!;tb.:~t 1,.:'1,.:L..:"' . :';11ffered:-:uffered?;11ffered from a lacklacl{ of adequate definition.definition. Although ue do not findfil'!.d. i::i2:L-~ ',:'".J,'l',;"t~:; " . ~~;!".~rature_>,rature_,;,;rature on 11il1itchcraft~iitchcraft tchcraft beliefs that they are divided intoint 0 'Haint1'Nainilain 3u~;,-::;:;·pe ty}?oO\ty;;ntY})o .••• It·J ,o 3uJ··~~r·cJe3U~i··¥,t:;~pe ••• Sub-sub-type', (Leach 1961: 3) the ,myI'TayTvlay sooesomeSOlJe social phenomena ha,YG"bAen}·haYGh.~vG ;y,"::m,bAcm} there is, nevertheless, a certain cmount of conceptual confusion about 't"lb.o:ti'Tho.tuhnt ~;.,.tt";hc~~-s.ft~;_.-t,;nc"'::£t~; .':;: ,;h (''' 2i't really is, and the grounds upon 'TtThichvThich it may usefully be distin­ gt,ishedguished frumf:cuLlL:0@ sorcery.sorce~. Turner (1964:322), in a reviewrevie~1reviel'!' of i'litchcraftWitchcraftiiitchcraft and SorcerSorcery in East Africa (},Iiddleton(Hiddleton(Niddleton and 1iinter~linter 1963), refers to the rterminologicaltterminological 1-TOod~10odl-TOod (oror jungle)'jungle')jungle I' one encounters in reading profes~ionalprofessional accounts of uitchcraft't'ritchcraft" beliefs. After surveying the literaturelite~atu~ on uiwitchcraft tchcraft beliefs inin' a number of AfricanAf'rican societies, he concludes, 'It 110ulduould seem, therefore, from the various usages 1ihich't'lhichl"1hich I have discussed that there is little general agreement on the criteria '1hich\'1hichl"1hich distinguish sorcery from vIivdvdtchcraft.' tchcraft.tchcraft.' ' (1964:(1964:322). 322) • _ - "' Turner is not entirely accurate in making the above statement hmrever.hmtever.hmlever. 1·lost1·1ostnost Africanists base their distinction bet~leenbetueen the tl'10tl'TO on the one :nademade by Evans­ ,I Pritchard for the Azande, despite the fact that many systems of belief do not easily fall into the polar oppositesoppositea Characteristiccharacteristiccha:racterist~c of the "AzandeAzande .system. Evans-Pritchard states: .,Azande AzandeAZa.l1de believe that someSODe people are witchesui tches and can injure~nJure themtllem in virtue of an inherent quality. A llitchuitch performs no rite, utters no spell, and possesses no medicines. An act of "TivIiwitchcraft tchcraft is a psychic act. They believe also that sorcerers may do themtllem ill by performing magic rites ,nthl"1ith~nth bad medicines. Azande distinguish clearly betl'leenbetlieen·be~'Teen witchesuitchesnitches and sorcerers. (1937:(1937:21). 21) . .' AlthoughAltliough Evans-PriEVrulS-Pri tchardtchard. does -notnot indicateindic.ate in the Azande tTorknorkuork that thethe 1"1iwitch-sorcerer tch-sorcerer distinction has any ~riderwider\1ider application beyond Azande society,socie~, thethe I distinction has,has. been rudely"ddelyvTidely adopted by Africanists. Ex~t1plesEX~t1plesEx~mples of its use cancan I I I - 12 -~,' be found in the "orkwork~lork of Scha.peraSchapera (1934a:293-4,(1934a: 293-4, 1934b:43); Hunter (1936:275);(1936: 275); 1Iilsonililson (1951:307-8); Gluckman (1955:87); I'iitcheilIviitcheilN:itcheil (1956: 1'53);153); Bea:ttieBea~tieBeaj;tie (1963: 29-30); Douglas (1963:220); Har'liickMarwickMar\'/'ick (1963a: 7.-8,7-8, 1963b:264, 1965a:69, 1965b:2l-51965b:21-51965b:21-5~ 1967: 232); l~liddletonr,liddleton and 1'linterUinter (1963: 2); Reynolds (1963:14) and HairI~Iair (1969:21-3).(1969:21-3~. Careful research and analysisanalys~s ..,illwilluill ShOHshowshoH that in manyr:lany cases the use of Evans-Pritchard'sEvans-Pritchard's.Evans-Pritchard'~. distinction has, how'ever,ho\,/,ever,hOl'1eVer, been highly inappropriate. Although many ~lritersvlritersvTriters do appear to appreciate the fact that their material'materialr:laterial ~aymay not easily .'., fit into the Azande frame'liorkframe\'I'orkframeliork (see for example Schapera 1934a:294, and IJIarvTic~Harvdck 1963a: 7-8), they nevertheless feel they must adopt the terminology, and ,ifif a uitch in tlleirtheir society uses medicines, they tend to 'fall intoin~o line' as Douglas (1967:72) has put it, and the 'Intchbecomes\'I'iwitch tchbecomes ,becomes te.rmedt~~edtarmed a 'sorcerer'. Exam:plesExam~les of this usage of terms can be found in studies of the Cewa (Iilanlick(HanTick(Hanlick 1965a), and Yao (Mitchell(Mi tchell 1956) as 'Iiell\'/'ellwell as Douglas'sDouglas' s o'l'mo~m ethnography of the Lele (1963). , Douglas statesstates, that 'Evans-Pritchard ••• vigorously disavowed the intention of foisting a terminological straight-jacket on future generations.' (1967:72) This has, ho't'lever,houever,hOvTever, been the effecteff.ect of his diatinction.dis.tinction. Use of the .AzandeAzande model has imposed a straight-jacket of thought which has 'blindedblinded people for many years and k~ptkept them from seeing "Thatwhatuhat the essential characteristics of ",i,dwitchcraft tchcraft beliefs are. Implicit in this criticism of the use lihichwhich has been made of Evans-Pritchard's distinction, is the conviction that it is the imageimage, of the lntch'Intch\n tch that is im-im~ portant for definitional purposes, not the use or non-use of medicines, or unconscious use of evil pO"Ter.po't'ler.povler. 1ilhenHhenwlhen we ask ourselves 't'lhatuhatVThat it is that many of the African systems of b'e1iefbelief have in common, 't"Ieneue find the ''Ii'Iii\dtch tch image occurring in a large number ofof. cases - combinedcOl:lbined 'VTithvTithuith the use of medicines as 'fellwell as the possession of innate mystical ability to cause l1arm.harm. Audrey Richards,Ri chards , in a revie,\frevie\'1review of ilitchcraftUitchcraftWitchcraft and Sorcery in East Africa.Africa, has commented on the fact that 'The similarity of the "dinvd tchtoo image in all thesethese societies is striking.' (1964:188) She points out tl1at:that: tllat: Essay after essay describes illlaginaryi1Ilaginaryi:maginary figures, usually vTiuith~Ti th hereditary attributes, thought to be able to fly by night, to produce glO'Vl a glorTglovT in the sky, to eat corpses or theth·e entrails ,?fof human beings, to t be accom.paniedacconl.::paniedaccom~nnied by familiars and to act contrary to all moral rules. I. The similarity of these images is not of course limited to East Africa. (1964:188). It is somewhat remarkable to note however,hOliever,hOl'Tever, that in all the African literature"literature on s"ocietiess'ocietiess·ocieties 'tfith,'/'ithliith vTitchcraftvlitchcraftvd t chc raft and sorceryso'rcery beliefs·beliefs'beliefs" (of 'l'lhich~lhichuhich there are at leastl~ast sixty':'fivesixty':'£ivesixty~£ive available accounts),acc.ounts), not one 'I'Triterifri,·r.riter ter has ever thought to focus on this image as the defining characteristiccharacter~stic o,fof ,·Titchcraft.'I,dl·Ti tchcraft. Unfortunately, it does not appear toto.have have .been,been as clearly evident as 'itit might have been that the features'featuresfeatut'esassociated assocl.atedassociated In'tiith'In th this image~age themselvesthemselv~s form a cp.tegoryc~tegorycfl,tegory of symbolicsymbolibsymboli"c phenomena worthy of investigation.investigation.- ",' Once the pattern