Contemporary Northeast Chinese Shamanism in the Interaction Between Public Heritage and Private Belief

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments on the paper on “Northern Chinese Shamanism”

The article is an excellent documentation of the dilemma arising in China when some local shamans are invited to be certified as local bearers of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH), a term associated with UNESCO’s worldwide ICH program.  Local Chinese officials responsible for identifying and certifying local “culture bearers,” generally  avoid practitioners of 萨满教 ”shamanism”, which by its very nature, as  its essential function,  entails skills in communicating with local spirits to solve multiple problems, (of which healing illness  is perhaps the most prominent worldwide.)  However, the article documents that those shamans  who receive official government certification are obliged, to focus on cultural matters and (at least in their new public role) to avoid invocation of spirits, which the Communist Party continues to label as superstition.  In their public performances, therefore, the newly certified shamans focus not on the spirit world but instead on respect for the ancestors and unity of the nation.  (The  theme of ancestors is acceptable to the authorities, perhaps since it can be done without implying that the souls or spirits of the ancestors continue to exist or are actually present observing the rituals.)

The article begins discussing the evolution of  UNESCO’s and China’s interest in “cultural heritage”, both tangible and intangible. It then gives an interesting history of the evolution of the shifting relationship between local religions and the Chinese State throughout history.  Whenever shamans have become agents or supporters of the State, their shamanic role has changed.  This is an interesting prelude to what is occurring as well today when shamans agree to become certified by the current Beijing government. 

The article is written in excellent  professional English. (The reviewer noticed only one minor syntactic error.)  The text is logically organized. The references  include current research. 

      However, the wording of the author’s overall conclusion – that certification in a government program is enhancing the role of shamans -- seems to be incompatible  with  the excellent information provided in the text.  The following paragraphs will suggest alternative wording of some issues.

1. A major element missing in the article is the absence of a section dealing with methodology. Footnotes and photos indicate that the author gathered some data by phone and may have been in the community from September to December of 2024.  The author  apparently witnessed, and  took pictures, of at least one ceremony.  But the article needs more on methods.  It should have at least one paragraph that answers the following questions.  How long the author was in the community.  How many public ICH events (or performances) were observed?  How many interviews were conducted with shamans, with government officials, and – above all – with ordinary ordinary local people?   What language were the interviews conducted in—a local 方言or 普通话?    This recommendation for methodological clarity would be obligatory.  The following list is a series of suggestions which, in the reviewer’s opinion, would enhance the quality of the article.   But they should be considered simply as  

 

2. To provide context the article could briefly point out that the Chinese government explicitly recognizes and financially supports  five religious 教 (“-isms): Daoism, Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism.  They are permitted to have their  traditional ceremonies that invoke Buddha, Jesus, Alla, angels, and spirits of different types.  In other words, unlike the shamans described in this article, they do not have to or be silent about their religious beliefs in public.  (They simply  have to avoid criticizing the authorities.)

 

3. The article points out clearly that the official Cultural Heritage program is reluctant to recruit shamans as cultural experts. They are tolerated and certified only as long as they agree to avoid in public their central religious role as spirit intermediaries.  In other words, unlike its support for institutional religions (Buddhism, etc.), the article shows  that the government forces shamans to avoid mention of their religious beliefs, which are defined as “superstitious”.   In this light, how can the article conclude that shamanism is “officially recognized and protected”  by the government?  (See the abstract).    It is not   It is simply tolerated as long as the certified shamans cease behaving as shamans, at least in public.

 

4. On p. 3 the article states that “the ownership of tangible cultural heritage undergoes a fundamental shift from private to public after being designated as heritage.”  This wording is incorrect, at least in ordinary English,  Local ethnic clothing and food may be declared a cultural heritage.  But the people wearing the clothing and eating the food continue to be the owners, not the government or the nation or even the communityEqually problematic is the sentence “tangible cultural heritage achieves public benefit by negating individual ownership.”  Individual ownership of TCH objects – ethnic clothes, food, paintings -- is emphatically NOT negated.  “Ownership”  here appears to be used in some mysterious poetic sense.  

 

When the government gives financial support to Buddhist or Daoist temples, Catholic churches, Muslim mosques,  the government does not “own” Buddhism or Catholicism, etc. The State may  regulate a religion.  But it does not “own” it.   The same is true of shamanism.  Neither the state nor the local community “owns” shamanism.   Semantically clearer, less poetical, wording is desirable in a scholarly article.  

 

5. Line 135. “Northeast Asia is widely recognized by scholars as the core region of shamanism”.  Not true.  Please reword.  Scholars recognize that  the term “shaman” has Asian origin. (If is derived from the languages of Siberia.)  But the religious practices that are now called “shamanism” occur in every continent, with no influence from Asia.  And shamanism was practiced in Africa and the Mid-East long before humans arrived in N.E. Asia.  Why is N.E. Asia the “core” of worldwide shamanism?  Recommended rephrasing: “ Scholars recognize that the word shaman, now used worldwide,  is derived from a word in  the Tungusic languages of Siberia in N.E. Asia.” 

 

6. Line 214 “the popular belief in Shamanism shifted to a channel of faith in the Communist Party and Chairman Mao.”  Not really true.    The article itself points out correctly that popular belief in shamanism did not disappear.  It went underground and surfaced later when government policy changed. Recommended rewording:  “The Communist Party tried to transform the popular belief in Shamanism into a channel of faith in the Party and Chairman Mao.”  That statement would be correct.

 

7. Line 234 “there were own shamans in every household.” Slight grammatical error.  Rewording: “Every household had its own shamans.”

 

8. Line 264 “Shamanism … has now been recognized and protected by the government as an intangible cultural heritage and a valuable cultural resource…”   That is emphatically not true, according to information in the article itself.  The government forces ICH shamans to be quiet about their spirit beliefs and (as shown in other research) to become actors in performances of cultural matters of interest to spectators (usually Chinese tourists, though tourists are not mentioned in this article).  That is  not “recognizing” or “protecting”  shamanism;  it is converting shamanism into income-generating tourist entertainment with no publicly professed spirit beliefs.   If the author believes that the government now “protects” shamanism, he should show the reader a citation from some governmental source that explicitly approves of  萨满教-- shamanism.   The reviewer wonders if the word shamanism is ever mentioned positively in official government documents.  We know that the government officially approves of Buddhism, Daoism,  Islam, Catholicism – as long as they make no criticism of the government. Can the article show to the reader an official  document that gives official approval to the word “shaman”?

 

Line 297 “At the same time, the content of Shamanism applying for ICH must also undergo certain adaptations to meet the state's criteria for such heritage.”         The article gives 10 interesting Chinese adaptations, but then points out   “It is evident that in the Chinese version of the ICH convention, the spiritual dimension related to belief has nearly disappeared.”  Line 319 also says correctly:  “…projects related to belief have generally failed to gain approval when applying for ICH.”   In other words, belief in and communication with the spirits,  the essence of shamanism, is being suppressed in public, not protected, by the government.  A skeptic could legitimately say that, under the influence of the ICH program, the shamans are becoming performers and entertainers,  rather than bridges between “heaven and earth”.  The article discusses this dilemma in the final section but continues to say that shamanism is somehow protected and enhanced by ICH involvement.

 

Buddhist monks, Catholic priests Muslim imams receive government support but are permitted to continue preaching their beliefs in Buddha, Jesus, Alla (as long as there is no criticism of the government).   But the shamans are forced to hide of disguise their spirit beliefs.  The article might mention this difference and discuss why.

 

9. The missing issue of tourism. Line 314  The paper correctly points out that, among other things, the government wants ICH bearers to begin “boosting regional economies—”      Boosting regional economies through ICH occurs in much of China through performances for tourists (most of them Chinese on vacation).  Yet the words tourist or tourism do not occur in the article.   The article should at least briefly describe the role of tourism in the Northeast ICH.  If tourism is largely absent, then that should be mentioned as a special feature of the Northeast ICH program.

 

10. Line 540 has a nicely worded statement supporting the reviewer’s concern. “(Some) shamanic ICH performances in public discourse arbitrarily trample on sacred standards—such as casually performing the core shamanic practice of spirit possession in a decontextualized public setting, or non-shamans inheriting shamanic attire…   (These patterns violate) the prehistoric sacred essence of … "connecting heaven and earth."

 

The article is nonetheless passionate in its argument that the practice of genuine spirit-oriented shamanism is somehow enhanced in the private sphere by its reduction to non-spiritual song-and-dance  cultural performances in the public sphere.  The article should explain to the reader with clear empirical evidence showing how it is enhanced.  The ICH shamans interviewed were understandably enthusiastic about the ICH program.  (Did they receive payments from the government in addition to their certification?)  But their enthusiasm should be treated with a grain of salt.  How was N.E. Chinese shamanism enhanced?  

11. There are 41 items listed in the reference section. The items in Chinese contain the titles both in Chinese characters and pinyin (without tones). Anglophone readers would be helped if an English translation of the titles were also listed in parentheses.  But that is a decision for the author and the editors of the journal.  The reviewer found only one citation error.   Item 35, the article by Xing and Murray (2018) , is incorrectly listed in the text (line 38) as Xing and Gerald (2018). 

 

12. Scholarly journal articles often end with a paragraph on “Limitations and suggestions for future research”. This article might end with a discussion of limitations of the present study and suggestions of further research which is needed.

Summary: 

1. The article provides excellent information about the relationship between the government and shamanism, throughout history and today in N.E. China. It deserves publication.
2. The reviewer believes that the article would be improved if attention is paid to items discussed above.
3. Some brief but honest paragraphs on methodology are essential for publication.

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Contemporary Northern Chinese Shamanism in the Interaction between Public Heritage and Private Belief” (ID: religions-3541716). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving my paper, as well as the important guiding significance to my research. I have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which I hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red on the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer's comments are as follows:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The argument of this paper turns on a distinction between public, institutionalized performances and rituals that are performed privately and are not open to a wider public. Some scholars have suggested that the public events reflect a ‘heritization’ of ritual processes which supplants the more deeply felt and intimate processes of the private kind. However, the author suggests that a new synthesis occurs, with mutual influence between the public and private domains of ritual practice rather than one -way processes. The author suggests that a new synthesis or symbiosis occurs with mutual influence between domains rather than one-way processes The author’s view seems to be valid, and offers an alternative view of change in ritual systems.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Contemporary Northern Chinese Shamanism in the Interaction between Public Heritage and Private Belief” (ID: religions-3541716). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving my paper, as well as the important guiding significance to my research. I have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which I hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red on the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer's comments are as follows:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article explores the interaction between public heritage and private belief in contemporary Northern Chinese shamanism in the context of China's accession to the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2004.

Although the author provides very interesting ideas, relevant references and valuable ethnographic data, the article raises several theoretical and methodological issues. I suggest that the author considers major revisions to the paper. Below are some concrete comments (see also the comments written directly in the word file).

 

1) Definitions/explanations  

-The article seems to be written for Chinese readers. Many names, places or historical events are not properly explained, and the average reader who does not know China will be quickly lost.

- The author writes about Northern Chinese Shamanism without giving an appropriate definition of these terms. What does Northern Chinese shamanism refer to? Does it mean that in China, there are concurrent forms of shamanisms (i.e southern shamanism, western shamanism, etc.?)and if so, what kind of distinctions can we make?  The reader may have the impression that in this article northern shamanism refers to a set of common practices. However, every group, every clan, and every shaman possess its own spirits. My feeling is that the author should highlight the differences existing between groups and shamans.  

-What is Northern China (again for those who are not familiar with the country, a map would be welcomed)? Furthermore, nothing is written about the “ethnic minorities” 少数民族 such as Daur, Manchus, Evenki, Oroqen, Mongols, etc. who are the autochthonous people of Northeastern China and who have been practicing shamanism (see the numerous references regarding the “traditional” Tungus shamanism) for a very long time. These minority people and their “religious” practices played a very big role in the process of intangible cultural heritage in China. This should be outlined.

-The article is full of inappropriate terms such as: “small traditions”, “folk society”, etc. An important revision/rewriting should be made.

 

2) Methodology

 

-The author states that “Through fieldwork and historical analysis, this paper examines the interaction between public heritage and private belief in contemporary Northern Chinese shamanism”. The author should clearly explain his/her methodology: what kind of historical data/sources did he/she use? Where and for how long did she/he conduct ethnographic fieldwork? Did she/he take part into shamanic rituals? If so, when and where? How many interviews did she/he conduct? And in which language (mandarin Chinese)?

- I fully understand the author’s wish to set shamanism in the broader context of Chinese history but since the article deals with contemporary shamanism in 21^st century China, it is not suitable to write a long paragraph about the prehistoric period. I am afraid these data do not bring anything concrete to the author’s argument. I suggest to delete this paragraph. 

- More insight should be given to the interviewees.

- A lot of references are not properly cited.

- Pinyin should be given with the Chinese characters.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Contemporary Northern Chinese Shamanism in the Interaction between Public Heritage and Private Belief” (ID: religions-3541716). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving my paper, as well as the important guiding significance to my research. I have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which I hope meet with approval. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate that the author took into consideration my comments. The revised manuscript has improved a lot and is almost ready for publication.

I added some further comments directly in the text (only minor revisions are required).

One last thing : I think it is better to write everywhere in the text "Northeast China" instead of "Northern China" since the author's fieldwork was done in Dongbei and Northeastern Inner Mongolia.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewer:
Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Contemporary Northern Chinese Shamanism in the Interaction between Public Heritage and Private Belief” (ID: religions-3541716). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving my paper, as well as the important guiding significance to my research. I have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which I hope meet with approval. Given that there are numerous modifications, the revised content has been directly highlighted in red within the revised version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf