Korean shamanism in America

So the tricky thing about Korean shamanism in America is that no one seems to know anything about it. At least in the English-language academic literature, there’s nothing. Silence. Crickets. (Crickets and not the cicadas [매미] of a Korean summer.)

But that’s the interesting thing, too. I’m beginning to think that I should write my thesis about shamanism in America. And possibly Western responses to shamanism at different periods as well. Start with an overview of the first references to it from missionaries and such, then look at the more sympathetic anthropological literature, then pivot to the US. Where there is nothing. Where it would be up to me to do field research.

That scares me. I haven’t a clue how one does such a thing. But then, neither do most anthropologists when they start, as far as I can tell. And considering how void the literature is, even my fractured images — gleaned through translators, bad English, and misunderstood observations — might add value.

So how do I find shamans, or fortune tellers, or other Koreans in America who work with the spirit world? Will they trust me? Let me do research? Let me record them as they work with others? All of this is unsettling to think about. Unlike archives, which are there when you need them, actual human subjects can be slippery. What if they don’t show up? What if they make it impossible for me to do the work I need to do to graduate?

And yet … This is a subject that grabs me. It’s interesting. It’s juicy. It’s unpredictable and raw and real and maybe a little dangerous. It’s an adventure, and it promises a more intimate connection with the culture I’m studying than a journey through the dusty archives of New England churches that sent missionaries a hundred years ago.

I’ll talk to my advisor tomorrow and see what we come up with.

Laughter and the infinite

When we talk about religion, we rarely talk about humor. Discussions of Confucian funerary ritual, for example, don’t usually spend a lot of time on what’s funny about the rituals, either intentionally or unintentionally.

So I am delighted that Laurel Kendall, a leading scholar of Korean shamanism and an excellent writer, actually raises the issue of humor in her writing on shamanistic rituals. It turns out that in Korean shamanism, one jokes with spirits, and spirits certainly joke with us.

And when you look a little below the surface, you find that there’s actually a lot of humor in religion. Zen is, of course, a fantastic repository of absurdist humor (cf. shit on a stick). But one finds humor elsewhere, too, if one looks for it: in Abraham’s haggling with God over Sodom and Gomorrah, in Taoist writing (especially Zhuangzi), even in the mad genius of Jesus spotting a crowd of people about to stone a woman, and instead of pleading with them to stop, simply suggesting that whoever is without sin go first. (This scene is much funnier and more astounding if you imagine it actually happening.)

This is something I want to look at more deeply. Writing on humor can be depressingly humorless, and I’d like to avoid that. But there may be something to the comedy of the spiritual.

On the passing of my grandmother

When my sister saw the text message from Dad telling her to call, she knew already what it was about. She had dreamed the night before that she’d been discussing with our grandmother what to post on Facebook about her funeral. Shirley told her to post that she’d gotten a Ph.D. when she was a married mother, something women didn’t really do back in the 1970s.


The Ph.D. was in parapsychology. My grandmother devoted a considerable part of her life and intellect to what is known as ESP or the paranormal, and especially to the power of the mind to heal. She did what she called psychic healings, sometimes alone, sometimes in groups, sometimes at great distances. In her Ph.D. work, she had tried to heal a group of six mice that had been bred to have a certain cancer. She didn’t like mice, so she named them after Santa’s reindeer to try and create some kind of emotional connection. The control group were numbered 1 through 6. The mice in the healing group lived slightly longer, but not statistically significantly so. Much more interesting was that the numbered mice died in order — an occurrence with a probability of 1/720, or 0.00138. Shirley was well aware that whatever it was she and her mentor, Lawrence LeShan, were working with, they had no idea how to control for it in experiments.


When her husband of more than seventy years, Stanley, passed away, Shirley was deep enough in dementia that it seemed cruel to tell her he’d gone. She was unable to retain new information for more than a few seconds, so there was no point in upsetting her with terrible news that would only have to be repeated anyway. The day after he died, my brother and sister went to visit her. She was sitting at a table in the day room when they arrived. “Come,” she said, “sit down. I’m doing a healing.” They asked her how she was feeling, and she told them she was sad because her favorite dance partner had died. In her conscious conversation she meant someone else, but it was my grandfather who took her dancing all through their youth, my grandfather with whom she’d gone on a folk-dancing tour of Eastern Europe in the 1960s.


For the most part, she never fully grasped that Stanley was gone. She would ask after him, and sometimes my mother would tell her he’d passed away. “How old was he?” she would ask. When my mother answered that he was 94, Shirley’s usual answer was, “That’s very old. It’s to be expected.” More often, my mother would deflect the question. “You know how actors run late,” she would say — my grandfather, after a long career as a corporate lawyer, became a successful actor in his sixties. Or Mom would simply say that Stanley was coming for her soon.


But there was one day, Stanley’s birthday, when Shirley not only realized Stanley had died, but held onto the information for hours and was as distraught as you would expect someone to be on losing her husband of more than seventy years. Why this happened on his birthday we don’t know. It’s not like someone told her it was his birthday, and anyway she wouldn’t have remembered if someone had — she had no idea what year it was, or who the people around her were. But that day, she knew he was gone. Again and again she asked my mother and father to stay with her, not to leave her. “I don’t know what to do,” she said. “I feel like I should scream.” And she said that despite all her years as a practicing psychologist, counseling people who were grieving, she had never really understood grief until this moment. My parents stayed with her until she fell asleep that night. The next morning, the memory was gone again. Thankfully.


My sister was not the only one to get a visit from Shirley on the night she passed. Just around the time Shirley was leaving, my mother awoke, feeling uneasy and thinking that she ought to check on Shirley, maybe talk to a family friend about scheduling some extra visits. Shirley’s older daughter, my aunt Roberta, had all week been having strange flashes of early memory. And my cousin Louise, when she got the call from my aunt Roberta saying, “It’s grandma,” burst into tears and declared, “I spoke with her last night.” In her dream, Louise had sat and talked with the formidable, brilliant matriarch that was Shirley in her seventies. She couldn’t remember what they talked about, just that Shirley was there, present, with the full power of her intellect.


You will forgive me, a child of the 1970s who grew up just a few miles from Skywalker Ranch, if I can’t help but think of Obi-wan Kenobi’s words to Darth Vader: “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.” For a long time, my grandmother’s spirit was locked inside of a body that couldn’t keep up with it. As far back as 2000, her health problems were such that I rushed into a sort of commitment ceremony with my girlfriend at the time so that Shirley could attend. That relationship didn’t last the year, but Shirley remained in this world for another 13 years, surprising us all by surviving her husband — himself a remarkable man who sometime around the age of 87 slowed down to the speed of a normal person, and when he died at 94 was working on getting a fountain renamed, teaching several music classes for people with severe dementia and Parkinsonism, and performing once a week with an Irish band down at the local pub, and also finding the time to visit his wife often, to comb out her beautiful long gray hair, and to play his pennywhistle for her as they sat in the garden. Reduced as she was, she could still gaze up at him with the wonder and admiration of a teenager in love.  Freed from the confines of that body, in a way that I don’t begin to understand but would feel foolish to discount, my grandmother visited the women of the family and reminded us all of her extraordinary power.


In the last year of her life — her year without Stanley — she spoke of him often. In her final conversation with my mother, she said that Stanley would be coming soon to pick her up and take her dancing. I would like to think that he did.

Monogamish

In the rush of excitement about today’s Supreme Court rulings overturning a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act and enforcement of Prop 8 in California, Slate has produced an appalling little article pointing out that many gay relationships and marriages are not, in fact, monogamous. She describes, for example, Dan Savage’s self-description as “monogamish.”

What’s appalling is not this key point (although it’s questionable), but the author’s titillated shock at those adventurous gays and smug certainty that no such arrangements could ever be made among straight couples. “In some far off ideal world,” she writes, “this kind of openness may infect the straight world, and heterosexual couples actually start to tackle the age old problem of boring monogamous sex. But do any of us really believe that?”

We will, for the moment, let slide the unfortunate use of the word “infect” to describe something gays might be doing to straights. Instead, let’s focus on this 1950s attitude about women’s sexuality. In the era of What Women Want, 16 years after publication of The Ethical Slut, nearly a decade after the end of Sex and the City, who is still astonished by the idea that a woman might embrace non-monogamy?

Relationships involve choices, not all of them easy. Monogamy is a choice that many couples make. But it’s a choice, not a gender- or orientation-based inevitability. By now it should no longer be controversial or surprising to recognize that women have their own sexual desires, and their own agency in responding to those desires. Monogamy is no more an inevitability for straight women than non-monogamy is for gay men.

Making work workable

The New York Times has a report on widespread worker discontent in America. According to a Gallup study, 70% of full-time workers either hate their jobs or have checked out completely.

The surprise is that it’s bosses who make the difference:

Gallup has found that
managers who focus on their
employees’ strengths can
practically eliminate active
disengagement and double the
average of U.S. workers who are
engaged nationwide.

Motivation and engagement in any relationship can come from focusing on people’s strengths and helping them to grow and develop, whether those people are formally in a subordinate role or not. It’s also incredibly satisfying to engage with people that way. And if you are part of the 70%, you might want to consider engaging your manager by focusing on his or her strengths.

After all, your manager might also be in the 70% percent. Your manager might dread going to work each day to face a bunch of unhappy employees. A little authentic communication between human beings could work wonders. It’s risky, but it just might be worth it.

Writing a manifesto and other ways of figuring out who you are

Lifehacker has a great article on choosing your direction in life. They offer four tips:

  1. Think about where you’ll be in five years.
  2. Write your personal manifesto.
  3. Volunteer or shadow someone in a job you’re interested in.
  4. Dig into those side projects.
These are great ideas, and the one that stand out to me is number 2. It’s the one I’ve heard least, and it just might be the most powerful.
I’ve never written a manifesto, but I’ve done a couple of related exercises: declaring myself as a possibility, and writing a personal brand statement.
A while back, in a Landmark Education course, I declared myself as the possibility of intimacy and adventure. Without getting into the tortured syntax, we can see that finding a juicy, resonant concept as your guiding principle can certainly help you to make choices in the real world. When I found that grad school was starting to overwhelm me, for instance, I realized that I needed to add in more intimacy and adventure: I made plans to study in Korea, started asking classmates to dinner, connected with others as language partners, and ultimately ended up dating a Chinese woman who will go with me to Beijing this summer. Intimacy and adventure indeed!
Personal branding is something I teach at Google. Each time I teach the course, we go through the exercise of writing a personal brand statement, and I refine mine. Simpler and shorter than a manifesto, a brand statement can be a path to understanding what’s important to you — again, a guide to real-world choices. In my case, I found that I want my brand to be someone who’s a guide, mentor and teacher. That’s why this blog exists for you to read. 
However you do it, figuring out what matters to you — and then checking again often, and refining — can help you choose what to do from moment to moment. 
Or, as Dolly Parton once put it, “Figure out what you’re doing, and do it on purpose.”

Hitting the wall

We all hit a wall sometimes.

This week I traveled to the Google Boston office to teach a course called Managing Your Energy, developed by The Energy Project. It’s a full-day course that delves into some deep areas, and by the end of the day, I was exhausted.

Totally drained, I could feel a wave of despair creeping up on me. Rather than try to run away from that feeling or shut it down, I decided, in that moment, to embrace it and care for it.

I had a long train ride ahead. I put on my headphones and listened to Paul Simon — really listened, letting the heartbreaking lyrics touch me — and I let my mind wander where it wanted to go: to lost loves, to sorrow for friends who have suffered unspeakable abuse at the hands of a brutal government, to sadness about getting older and seeing my parents get older.

There are times when we can, and probably should, let ourselves go this way. When despair takes over your life, it’s a disaster. When it takes over your late afternoon on a train ride, it can be a kind of melancholy sweetness.

Science-based life advice

A pair of sociologists have come up with science-based advice for grads. It’s a powerful antidote to the usual “follow your dreams” stuff. For example:

College graduates are often told: “follow your passion,” do “what you love,” what you were “meant to do,” or “make your dreams come true.” Two-thirds think they’re going find a job that allows them to change the world, half within five years. Yikes. 

This sets young people up to fail. The truth is that the vast majority of us will not be employed in a job that is both our lifelong passion and a world-changer; that’s just not the way our global economy is.

I would add that the pressure even to know what you love, what your passions are, or what your dreams are when you’re graduating from college is mistaken. When I graduated with a degree in creative writing, I assumed that I ought to want to be in publishing, which it turns out is like loving food and thus deciding to work in an abattoir. It was only through a series of odd decisions and happenstance — deciding on a whim to go off to India instead of figuring out my career, coming back from India just as the dot-com boom was taking off, following a girlfriend to Korea to teach English for a year — that I gradually came to know what I love and care about.  

The keys seem to be flexibility, friendship, and listening, rather than a relentless focus on any particular goal, such as children, a house, or changing the world. (Via BoingBoing.)

Positive, not polyanna

Can you stay positive without being naive?

Business Insider has a set of charts meant to restore your faith in humanity. A lot of the data is US-focused, and there are points where you can find clouds in the silver linings. But overall the data BI highlights is credible evidence of things getting better for lots of people.

We all know there are awful things in the world. There is too much suffering, too much cruelty, too much sorrow.

But naivete cuts both ways. Focusing on the negative and staying blind to the positive is just as naive as doing the opposite. Only by noticing where — and how — things are getting better can we apply the lessons and do our part.

Letting desire flow

A new study (picked up by BoingBoing) makes the case that BDSM practitioners are actually better adjusted psychologically than the population at large. The reasons given are speculative, but the researcher argues that “BDSM play requires the explicit consent of the players regarding the type of actions to be performed, their duration and intensity, and therefore involves careful scrutiny and communication of one’s own sexual desires and needs.”

It’s one study, and these studies should always be taken with a grain of salt. Still, what stands out here is that there’s some scientific evidence that exploring desire — in thought and in action — can lead to greater happiness.

We often look at desire as something to move beyond. Shouldn’t we be helping society or focusing on our families or working harder? Isn’t craving the source of our suffering, as the Buddhists might say?

Mark Epstein, a psychologist and Buddhist writer, argues in his book Open to Desire that we can’t simply turn off desire. Desire is part of who we are, and exploring our deep and sometimes frightening desires can be a path to self-knowledge.

In so many other contexts, we’re ready to encourage the intimacy of close communication and the adventure of pushing our own limits, even to the point of intense physical pain. Skydiving? Sure! Running a marathon? Hey, awesome! Taking a long weekend to spend some time with your partner? Sounds wonderful!

If we step back from the cultural shaming and pathologizing, is BDSM really any different? It’s likely to hurt less than running a marathon (and is actually kind of less likely to make your nipples bleed), it’s not nearly as risky as backpacking across Latin America, and it will probably create more intimacy and openness in a relationship than going to see The Great Gatsby together (a different opportunity to hang out together in a dark room while wearing ridiculous outfits).

The main point is to stay open to who you really are and what you really desire. If there’s something inside your own mind that scares you, instead of shutting it away, you might want to try walking toward it and making friends.

Update: While we’re on the topic …