|
|
Re: Korean Shamanism
Pauline Shafer (pali@U.WASHINGTON.EDU)
Fri, 3 Nov 1995 07:54:08 -0800
Wow, if this was imperative enough to have to say twice I guess I better
explain myself! As noted in my original request, I am approaching the
investigation with emphasis on gender. Thus, my owm personal awareness of
the term. Also, the other day when inquiring around school before I
posted, I ran into Sue-Ellen Jacobs, a wonderful influential professor of
Women's Studies and Anthropology. She has focused extensively on gender
in her work on Native Americans. When I used the term "shamans" in
reference to the Korean shamanesses, she correcetd me, offering
"shamanesses". So, I feel have to admit that I feel she is my elder and
far more knowledable in such areas, so I gladly accept her correction.
However, this doesn't mark some paradigm for me for gender inflected
titles. Also, in my scant introduction to the subject I have noted that
in writings about "shamans" there is a perponderance of absence of
mention of the Korean tradition. Which I find curious, since it is one of
the few where women predominate. I would think it would be a noteworthy
topic in a survey, or general discussion. So, I guess I feel a desire to
note that it is women who fill the role, in light of their prior absence
(excepting those works which deal with them explicitely).
So, since you asked "why", I hope this response suffices. When you say
"we" are you meaning convention in Anthropological writing? Or just
colloquial accepted usage? I actually have heard some people use the term
"poetess", in reference to themselves! Something to do with wanting to
embrace the merging of their gender with their writing.
Pauline
On Thu, 2 Nov 1995, Ruby Rohrlich wrote:
> Why "shamaness"? A shaman is a shaman is a shaman. If you want to
> distinguish a shaman by sex, use the word denoting sex, like "male" or
> "female". We no longer use poetess, authoress, etc., and never have used
> "doctoress." Ruby Rohrlich
>
|