[Aztlan] Mayanism mis-used on Wikipedia?

Thu Jan 17 12:24:03 CST 2008

Hi John,

I agree with the points you make here. The modern Maya *are* adapting to foreign influences and adopting new elements just as they have since the Early Formative period (and even earlier than that).  However, just as the introduction of Catholicism was (to put it mildly) heavy-handed with regard to earlier traditions and beliefs, the global market forces behind New Age currents can put Maya communities at a severe disadvantage. As with Catholicism, the syncretism is as often coerced as it is voluntary and Maya "adaptation" can be as detrimental as it is advantageous.  Evolution is accompanied by extinction.  It's a negotiated give-and-take process, and always has been.  Whether syncrestism is "problematic blending and dilution", "adaptation and transformation", a combination of the two, or something else altogether is a matter for debate.

You are right that some of the essential characteristics are preserved in the face of syncretism, but sorting out what's "veneer" from what's "core" is not an easy task in any analysis of religion.  If you'd like to articulate what you think constitutes the "traditional" core of Pre-Columbian Maya religion, please have at it.  My own position is that what come to be identified as "core" beliefs are part of a historical process that is strongly influenced by specific events and individuals, usually in the context of grabs for power and control.  The First Council of Nicea, in Christianity, for example.  Or Pachacuti's organization of what became "core" Inca imperial ideology.  "Core" beliefs are dynamic, not static.  The "core" Maya beliefs at Palenque were probably fundamentally different from those at Tikal, Calakmul, or Copán, and at different times in Maya history.

I agree that we should steer clear of pejorative connotations.  However, it's a tricky business.  There are plenty of people who perceive Christian elements as "irrational nonsense" and consider the Resurrection to be just as unlikely a historical event as a UFO visitation, but it's not very productive to get mean and insulting about it.  One of my own concerns is that the general public have a good understanding of the difference between pseudoscience and science, and between scholarly interpretation and speculation, even though the lines between these are not always crystal clear.  I think it's crucial for the Wikipedia entry to facilitate informed critical thinking.

Scholars will focus on those topics that they find to be of interest.  If you don't think 2012 as a topic within Maya studies is getting enough attention, then you have your work cut out for you with regard to attracting attention to the issue. That's what we all do.  I'm more interested in it (and Mayanism) as a contemporary social phenomenon, but that's my prerogative.

John H.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Major Jenkins [mailto:kahib at ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:21 AM
To: Hoopes, John W; 'David Hixson'; 'David Hixson'; 'Dave Pentecost'
Cc: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
Subject: RE: [Aztlan] Mayanism mis-used on Wikipedia?

John H.,

As I sketched in a more lengthy email to you, I believe the term syncretism should be clarified. The connotation currently being utilized is that syncretism is a problematic blending and dilution of Maya tradition in its encounter with foreign elements. However, ethnographers have observed that syncretism largely functions on the surface level of detail - the costume worn by rites, beliefs, principles, and tradition. Christianity, for example, is a thin veneer under which the core tradition is alive in well. It is this core tradition, stripped of superficial surface changes, that I believe should be what "Mayanism" refers to. That's how I intended it when I first used it in 2001.

In addition, "Mayanism" as it is being defined and used in the evolving Wikipedia entry observes that the modern Maya are adapting to foreign (primary "New Age") influences and adopting new elements. However, this is what the Maya have always done when confronted with foreign influence, although, as stated above, such adaptations and transformations occur on the surface whereas the essential tradition is preserved. It is this essential thing, the core of the Maya tradition, that should draw our attention.

Furthermore, if the process resulting in this new thing called "Mayanism" is not really a new process at all, but is what the Maya have always done, we should steer clear of the investigation taking on pejorative connotations - serving as a categorical gathering place for what is perceived as irrational nonsense and so on. Finally, since 2012 is major focus related to Mayanism as defined on Wikipedia, I observe that the scholarly analysis of 2012 has been focusing almost exclusively on the social phenomenon of 2012 (attention going to what various modern writers are saying about and how the collective tends to think about it and respond to it), rather than the artifact itself as a viable topic of study (in terms of what function it served in the Maya calendar and cosmology).

John Major Jenkins

-----Original Message-----
From: Hoopes, John W [mailto:hoopes at ku.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:03 AM
To: David Hixson; David Hixson; Dave Pentecost; John Major Jenkins
Subject: RE: [Aztlan] Mayanism mis-used on Wikipedia?

Dave H.,

Feel free to modify the entry further, but note that I've edited the reference to Castaneda in deference to your comments.  I do think his work has a central place in Mayanism, due in part to his use of the term "Toltec" and its conflation in New Age sources with the "Toltec" Maya manifest in the Quetzalcoatl/Kukulcan mythos of Chichén Itzá (which may be something Castaneda never intended, but it's happened nonetheless). One of the most salient characteristics of Mayanism is syncretism, and Castaneda's work is routinely discussed in the circles that promote New Age Mayanism.  This self-help book is just one of many examples:

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Toltec Wisdom, by Sheri Rosenthal http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Toltec-Wisdom/dp/1592573924/

Having read Richard de Mille's well-documented excoriations of Castaneda's scholarship, and with all due respect to David Grove, I'm less sanguine than you about the value of Casteneda's "research" on "Yaqui" "sorcery."  There are good reasons to doubt that Don Juan ever existed.

For a recent critical perspective on Castaneda, I recommend this article that appeared recently in (of all places) Daniel Pinchbeck's Reality Sandwich online magazine:

Shamans and Charlatans: Assessing Castaneda's Legacy, by ST Frequency http://www.realitysandwich.com/node/418

It is just a few clicks away from an article about apocalyptic interpretations of 2012:

2012 and the Annoying Persistence of Time, by Richard Smoley http://www.realitysandwich.com/node/914

Here's a contribution by John Major Jenkins pertinent to Mayanism from the same publication:

Maya Shamanism and 2012: A Psychedelic Cosmology, by John Major Jenkins http://www.realitysandwich.com/node/378

John

________________________________

From: David Hixson [mailto:aztlandave at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wed 1/16/2008 8:44 AM
To: David Hixson; Dave Pentecost; Hoopes, John W; John Major Jenkins
Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Mayanism mis-used on Wikipedia?

Note that I'm sending this message "off-list" (not via Aztlan)...

I just want to give an example of how I respect the
function of Wikipedia, but also suggest experts submit
their knowledge...

I do not believe that Mayanism is part of a "New Age fascination with Carlos Castaneda" (quoted from the Wiki entry).  His study was based in the Yaqui area of Mexico, and the implication that he "claimed to have been trained as a Mesoamerican sorcerer (though not specifically in a Maya tradition)" is out of line. That paranthetical comment should be deleted, and therefore the Wiki author should re-think whether Carlos' role was actually upon Mayanism.

There is nothing "Maya" about his research, nor did he
claim such.

I was trained under David C. Grove, who went to school
with Carlos at Berkely and I have found Carlos'
writings very insightful (you have to read the SECOND
half of his first book to get at the actual
anthropological reasoning behind his work).  Of
course, his later works are pure freakin' crazy (read: Mayanist).  But I contest the use of his name in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia definition.

I would modify the entry, pushing Carlos' name to the
end of your references, not the first, but I felt it
was proper to ask John H. about it first.

-Dave

________________________________________________________________________
____________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ