As a sociologist, i feel i must comment on the following, though:
>Some of this enormous work ["Stolen Lightning: The Social Theory of Magic"
>by >Daniel Lawrence O'Keefe] I find problematic, but one idea that in
>particular
>struck was the description of the Witch-complex. In sociology the term Witch
>and Sorcerer have specialized meanings. A witch does things that are
>manifestly impossible to do, such as fly to Sabbats, change shape, etc. A
>Sorcerer, by contrast, is a real person who practices 'magic' (herblore,
>poisons, and the whatnot) of his culture.
Ho hum. In sociology the terms 'witch' and 'sorceror' have no meaning at all, whatsoever. Whatever meanings O'Keefe gives the terms as conceptual tools in his own analysis are entirely his own, and have no relevance outside that analysis.
OK. A sorceror is someone who performs acts that aren't impossible, and thus is a real person. A witch is someone who doesn't exist. Wow.
>O'Keefe notes that since being
>a witch is manifestly impossible, the only magic going on is the Witch
>accusation, which marshals the anxiety of the entire community to brand one of
>their own as Evil.
First O'Keefe defines witch as something manifestly impossible to be. Then he argues that since it is impossible to be a witch, the only relevant phenomenon in the 'witch-complex' is the accusation. Interesting.
This means that a person's alleged witchness is always epiphenomenal to the accusation of same. Why bother defining 'witch' and 'sorceror' since the powers and acts of those are completely irrelevant to the accusation? Why distinguish witches from sorcerors, when it isn't causal to the accusation? Why bother with sorcerors when they don't enter the analysis at all?
So, if we strip the nonsense from O'Keefe's argument, we hear him say:
"If you're accused of being a witch, you're toast."
Thought-provoking, isn't it? *If* O'Keefe's analysis can be said to be sociological at all, it's *bad* sociology.
Also, the spell:
>Accuse Witch
>3 Points
>Ritual Spell (Ceremony), Nonstackable, One-use
>Waha
Do you really need a spell to accuse anyone for being a witch? Surely the accusation from a Khan (who is invested with the authority of Waha) will result in the person being shunned anyway. Social 'rituals' can have rather devastating result without being magical.
A competely non-magical gathering where the Khan pronounces the person anathema would suffice, i think.
>this spell taints the target with Chaos.
Should this really be possible? Can someone non-chaotic make someone chaotic? It takes the 4-point Pocharngo spell of Corruption to make someone chaotic, and i'd say only chaos can produce chaos. Personally embracing chaos (like being a serial rapist) can lead to chaos taint, though, according to some Lore Auction.
Assuming the spell is possible, it only works on people not tainted with chaos, i suppose, since there'd be little point in accusing someone already chaotic.
Also, condemning an obviously non-chaotic person (the Khan's stormbullers should be able to establish that quite easily) to chaos isn't exactly nice, is it? Sort of chaotic itself, in fact. Wouldn't stormbullers be highly suspicious of a person who can bestow chaoticness?
End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #565
Powered by hypermail