What is NOT shamanism?

[Simply Puzzled]

As we are coming into a group understanding of what constitutes shamanism and neoshamanism, I think we should also discuss what isn't it. We've already talked about it a bit, for example, one cannot practice shamanism for one's self solely, only within the context of a community.

But assuming we are looking at shamanism in more of the "toolkit" category proposed by some: that is shamanism defined by technique, how are we to classify a practice as not-shamanism? For almost every answer I come up with, I can think of a culture that violates it in some aspect. For example, if I ask why a Catholic priest isn't a shaman, you might be tempted to say that he isn't because he doesn't travel to the otherworld. But many, many traditions classified as shamanism rely not on the shaman entering the otherworld but talking to the spirits in this one. So if a Catholic priest is talking to some dead saints to gain healing for someone in his congregation, is he less of a shaman than Yoruba healer talking to the ancestor-gods to get healing for someone in the village? Or is the Buddhist monk who can enter something suspiciously like the otherworld through meditation to create healing for someone a shaman too?

What are the keys we can look at and go "No, the Catholic priest is not a shaman because of this?" I have some ideas but I don't want to bias anyone.

[Shanti]

To me the answer to this question lies in the individual.
Times change and so do the ways and definitions of words and terms.
I can only speak for myself.
I am not a Shaman. I do not title myself that way.
I say exactly what I am, a WBR (walker between realms) and thats it.

If another calls them self Shaman, it is not for me to judge if they be right or wrong.

[Eleisawolf]

I have to agree with Shanti, as much as I hate it sometimes. I go very much with what Skilly-Nilly calls "self-identification." A Catholic priest is not likely to self-identify as a Shaman, no matter how similar the practices may be. But if he does... well, let's just say I may not like it or agree with it, but that he has come to terms with a label he wants to apply to himself in his own way. Of course, if he then tries to teach others that Shamanism is historically rooted in Catholicism, well, I'll have some historical facts for him to contend with...

Like I say, I may not agree with that interpretation, but I can only base what I call Shamanism on my perceptions of what it is, and honestly from my perception it's the spiritual leadership and healing mechanism of a group of northern Asian tribes--and that there are similar tribal practices around the world, so the definition of the word probably has more to do with the tribal mechanisms from which it originates than with the spiritual ones. I'm sure some system can be found to contradict that, but I personally, then, would not call that Shamanism, whether or not someone else did. I might, in that case, simply say that it is shamanistic, which is different from it being Shamanism.

I can't ask anyone else to take on my perception, though I can explain my reasons for it and hope that they're reasonable--and expect the same from others.

*shrug*

Peace