Windigo Psychosis: The Anatomy of an Emic-Etic Confusion [and Comments and Reply]

Although "windigo psychosis" has served as a classic example of culture-bound psychopathology for almost half a century, five years' field experience among Northern Algonkians, extensive archival research, and a critical examination of the literature indicate that there probably never...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Current anthropology 1982-08, Vol.23 (4), p.385-412
Hauptverfasser: Marano, Lou, Bishop, Charles, Black, M. Jean, Bolman, William M., Brown, Jennifer, Hay, Thomas H., Hurlich, Marshall G., Landes, Ruth, McGee, H. F., Murphy, H. B. M., Paredes, J. Anthony, Preston, Richard, Ridington, Robin, Rohrl, Vivian, James G. E. Smith, Smith, R. J., Teicher, Morton, Turner, David, Waisberg, Leo, Weidman, Hazel H.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Although "windigo psychosis" has served as a classic example of culture-bound psychopathology for almost half a century, five years' field experience among Northern Algonkians, extensive archival research, and a critical examination of the literature indicate that there probably never were any windigo psychotics in an etic/behavioral sense. When the windigo phenomenon is considered from the point of view of group sociodynamics rather than from that of individual psychodynamics, the crucial question is not what causes a person to become a cannibalistic maniac, but under what circumstances a Northern Algonkian is likely to be accused of having become a cannibalistic maniac and thus run the risk of being executed as such. It is argued that those so executed were victims of triage homicide or witch hunts, events common in societies under stress. It is shown that there is no reliable evidence for psychotic cannibalism in the windigo literature, and it is held that the "psychosis" is an artifact of research which failed to distinguish the emics of thought from the etics of behavior.
ISSN:0011-3204
1537-5382
DOI:10.1086/202868