The Possibility of a Paradigm Shift in Korean Humanities - Focusing on the Collapse of the Possessed Shaman / Hereditary Shaman Typology
The Possibility of a Paradigm Shift in Korean Humanities - Focusing on the Collapse of the Possessed Shaman / Hereditary Shaman Typology
Ⅰ. Introduction
In Korean shamanism studies, the binary typological distinction between the possessed shaman (gangsinmu, 降神巫) and the hereditary shaman (seseummu, 世襲巫), long accepted as the established view, underwent a rapid paradigm shift over the early-to-mid 2000s. The possessed shaman refers to a non-hereditary shaman who becomes a shaman primarily through an individual experience of spirit descent (a mediumistic experience), while the hereditary shaman refers to a hereditary shaman who carries on the shamanic profession through family inheritance. Traditionally, this distinction functioned as a core classification that went beyond a mere difference in the mode of initiation (ipmu, 入巫), defining a shaman’s abilities and roles, ritual forms, social status, and even geographical distribution. Indeed, the question “Is this a possessed shaman or a hereditary shaman?” was regarded not merely as a matter of an individual shaman’s personal religious experience, but as the very foundation for explaining the aspects of the gut (shamanic ritual) the shaman presided over and the shaman’s social position, and even the lineage and nature of Korean shamanism as a whole. This possessed-vs-hereditary dualism was accepted without significant dissent not only in academia but also in society at large, and it had become so widely entrenched that even shamans in the field used this classificatory concept—created by researchers—to describe themselves. In other words, the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman concept established itself as the “established orthodoxy of the academy” in Korean shamanism research, functioning as the primary framework for understanding shamanic phenomena.
However, this binary classificatory paradigm faced strong challenges in the early twenty-first century, led mainly by junior researchers in the field, and achieved a rapid transformation within a short period. Taking the collapse of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman typology as a case study, this study seeks to provide a meta-level analysis of how a paradigm shift was possible—or why it is difficult—across the entire field of Korean humanities. In other words, by examining the background to how a classificatory system that had hardened into orthodoxy within a particular specialized field (shamanism studies) was dismantled relatively quickly and quietly, the study aims to identify the conditions and obstacles that would enable similar transformations in other fields of Korean humanities (e.g., history, literature, Korean linguistics, archaeology, etc.).
The significance of this study can be summarized in two points. First, through the case of the shamanism studies community, it concretely reveals the internal dynamics by which a paradigm shift occurs within a humanities knowledge system. Second, on this basis, by comparing the academic field, methodology, and external influencing factors of each field of Korean humanities, it offers insight into why knowledge transformation in a particular field was easier or harder than in others. Such a meta-analysis provides clues for the self-reflection and development of humanities research, and is expected, furthermore, to offer implications regarding the possibility of seeking out new research paradigms.
Ⅱ. Theoretical Background
The concept of a paradigm shift originally arose in Thomas Kuhn’s discussion of the history of science, but it has come to be widely applied across academic disciplines as a whole. A paradigm is the totality of the theoretical framework, problem-consciousness, and methodological norms shared by a particular era or community; it makes possible the stable accumulation of the normal science stage, but a revolutionary transformation can also occur through the accumulation of decisive anomalies and reflection within the community. In the case of the humanities, although not in the form of explicit laws as in the natural sciences, each particular research field has a theoretical paradigm tacitly agreed upon by the scholars of the time. This paradigm governs the classificatory system of the field’s research objects, the manner in which research questions are framed, interpretive conventions, and so on, and at times dominates the tendencies of knowledge production for a long time. On the other hand, however, humanities paradigms have the characteristic of changing slowly over a longer span of time than in the natural sciences, or of being closely tied to social and cultural contexts. This is because humanistic knowledge is often bound up with national identity, ideology, and scholarly tradition, so that a challenge to an existing paradigm is not accomplished by the mere accumulation of evidence.
In this study, the concept of paradigm is grasped within the interaction of the structure of the academic field, generational change, methodological transformation, and exogenous factors. According to P. Bourdieu’s theory of the academic field, the distribution of authority and capital within a scholarly community, and the dynamics between established scholars and junior researchers, drive the formation and change of knowledge. Whether a new theory or concept is accepted is often determined not merely by its logical validity but by the power relations among the groups that support or oppose it. Therefore, to understand a paradigm shift in a given field, one must examine the field’s generational composition, the activities of its scholarly societies and study groups, and the distribution of intellectual authority.
Next, differences in methodology are a key to paradigm shifts. Different research methods (e.g., positivism vs. hermeneutics, structuralism vs. post-structuralism, etc.) raise entirely different problems and apply different standards of evidence even regarding the same object. If the existing paradigm is grounded in a particular methodology, the introduction of a new methodology can shake the existing conceptual framework. In particular, the field of shamanism studies is one where the folkloric/anthropological methods that emphasize ethnographic fieldwork and cross-cultural comparison intersect with the historical methods that explore past documents and genealogies. This provided room for a new generation to critically re-examine past concepts as they learned the latest anthropological theories abroad or grafted on methodologies from other fields. In fact, in the 2000s, junior researchers in shamanism studies sought paradigm change by bringing in a critical perspective on the essentialist frameworks—such as M. Eliade’s theory of shamanism—that had previously been tacitly accepted.
Furthermore, exogenous factors cannot be overlooked. The entry into force of UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2003, and Korea’s intangible cultural heritage (ICH) policies before and after it, influenced the atmosphere of research on traditional culture, including shamanism. As shamans’ gut and rituals came to be designated and protected as cultural heritage at the national and local-government levels, scholarly interest grew even in the hereditary shamanic traditions that had previously been dismissed as marginal or “regressive.” The intangible-heritage discourse emphasized the equal value of diverse traditions, and this created an environment that prompted a reconsideration of the view that regarded only one of the two—possessed shaman or hereditary shaman—as orthodox. In addition, policies for fostering the next generation of scholars, such as the Brain Korea 21 (BK21) program launched in 1999, breathed vitality into the humanities as a whole. In the field of shamanism studies as well, junior researchers were able, under such support, to acquire the latest scholarly trends at home and abroad and to carry out independent research projects, which can be seen as a factor that promoted the formation of new discourses challenging the conventions of established research. In sum, through the case of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman debate, this study has established a theoretical framework for examining how a humanities paradigm shift proceeds under the influence of the power structure of the academic field, methodological innovation, and the external environment.
Ⅲ. Research Methods
This study has the character of a qualitative meta-study, and it employed literature analysis and comparative analysis as its principal methods. First, as a case study, it closely analyzes the critical discourse on the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman binary system that unfolded in the Korean shamanism studies community in the early-to-mid 2000s, and the subsequent process of paradigm shift. To this end, taking as primary sources the key scholarly papers published during that period, the assertions and evidence appearing in the texts and the researchers’ lines of argument were directly quoted and cross-examined. In particular, this researcher drew on a total of eight major papers as the basis for the analysis, including the relevant papers contained in Volume 7 (2003), Volume 8 (2004), and Volume 9 (2005) of the journal Korean Shamanism (Han’guk Musokhak) published by the Korean Society for Shamanism Studies, as well as the joint-research results presented in the proceedings of the Korean Society for Shamanism Studies’ academic conference (2004). All of these documents deal with critical examinations of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman concept and the search for new alternatives, and they vividly show the turn in the internal discourse of the shamanism studies community at the time.
After grasping the internal drivers of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman paradigm shift (the researchers’ arguments and methodologies) through this primary-source analysis, the comparative-analysis stage contrasted them with other fields of the humanities. The comparative analysis focused on a macroscopic comparison of scholarly climates rather than on case studies of other fields. In other words, the factors that made the paradigm shift in the shamanism studies community possible were examined comparatively against cases in fields such as history, literary studies, Korean linguistics, and archaeology. To this end, cases in which a long-standing dominant research convention or classificatory system in each field (for example, the logic of periodization in history, or the canon system in Korean literature) was challenged were examined through the literature and scholarly discourse, and the commonalities and differences with the shamanism studies community were discussed. However, owing to constraints of length, rather than analyzing primary historical sources for the detailed cases of each field, the study relied on a secondary examination that drew on existing research trends and writings. Through this methodology, the study aims to move beyond verifying the facts of individual cases and to take a macroscopic view of the structures and dynamics inherent in the Korean humanities community as a whole.
Ⅳ. The Formation and Transformation of the Possessed-Shaman / Hereditary-Shaman Binary Paradigm
1. The Formation of the Possessed-Shaman / Hereditary-Shaman Classificatory System and the Dominant Paradigm
In modern Korean shamanism studies, as noted earlier, the distinction between the possessed shaman and the hereditary shaman is a historical concept formed relatively recently. According to Lee Yong-beom, the perspective of dividing shamans into possessed shamans and hereditary shamans in Korean society began to emerge gradually from the late 1920s and became established as a clear scholarly concept by the early 1970s. This means that this classification is not a traditional taxonomy transmitted among the common people, but a secondary concept formed in the course of modern scholarly research. In fact, the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman concept appeared within the studies of Joseon folklorists during the Japanese colonial period and within the folklore research of Korean scholars after liberation, and it became established as the representative typology of Korean shamanism by the 1960s and 1970s. Behind this lay the temporal current in which the intellectual discourse of 1970s Korean society was concentrated on the search for the archetype of national culture. Scholars at the time regarded Korean shamanism as the substratum of national culture and as the archetype of ancient religion, and they sought to explain the distinctive lineage of Korean shamanism and its relations with other cultural spheres through the distinction between the possessed shaman (a shaman centered on spiritual power) and the hereditary shaman (a shaman who presides over rites by virtue of blood kinship). In particular, Eliade’s theory of shamanism (the concept of shamanism as a “technique of ecstasy”) greatly influenced the research tendency that emphasized the spiritual experience of Korean shamanism, and it also provided a theoretical framework for the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman dualism.
This classificatory paradigm was systematized and disseminated by prominent shamanism researchers such as Kim Tae-gon and Choi Gil-seong. For example, on the basis of nationwide surveys of shamanism, Kim Tae-gon divided Korean shamans into four types (the mudang type, the dangol type, the simbang type, and the myeongdu type), and among these he presented the possessed shaman (mudang) and the hereditary shaman (dangol) as the two representative types. He understood the possessed shaman as a “mudang type who performs divination and gut by means of spiritual power (yeongnyeok, 靈力),” and the hereditary shaman as a “priestly type who presides over the rites of regular clients (dangol) without spiritual power,” holding that the two categories were essentially distinguished by the presence or absence of spiritual ability. Meanwhile, in his research on the dance and music of shamanism, Choi Gil-seong noted the differences in dance movements between possessed shamans and hereditary shamans, going so far as to clearly propose that “the side that performs the ‘leaping dance’ (domu, 跳舞), jumping with both feet together, is the possessed shaman, while the dance performed by crossing the two feet is the hereditary shaman.” Going further, on the basis of this argument, Choi Gil-seong asserted that “the hereditary shamans of the southern regions are not shamans (mudang), and that in Korean shamanism there exist two different lineages, one of the south and one of the north.” In this way, established researchers perceived the possessed shaman and the hereditary shaman as essentially distinct shamanic groups, and through these concepts they sought to explain the regional differences and historical origins of Korean shamanism.
As a result, the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman dualism functioned for a long time as the standard taxonomy of Korean shamanism without any particular questioning. In academia, the two terms were cited as a matter of convention without rigorous verification of their precise definitions or appropriateness, and their influence was so great that even in field survey reports of shamanism and in discourse in the arts, somewhat vague categories such as “dance of the possessed-shaman lineage” or “music of the hereditary-shaman lineage” circulated. In short, up to the early 2000s, the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman paradigm can be said to have settled in as the basic premise for interpreting the entire range of Korean shamanic phenomena. In such a situation, the process by which a new generation of researchers challenged this received wisdom and attempted a paradigm shift provides one example of how a firmly entrenched classificatory system in a humanities field is transformed.
2. The Prelude to the Paradigm Shift: The Emergence of the Problem
Questioning of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman binary system came to the surface in earnest in the 2000s. In fact, this questioning was not “sudden”; it had been raised gradually among some researchers from a few years earlier (judging from the nuance in a certain paper, it probably started from conversations over drinks in informal settings). As fieldwork experience accumulated, researchers were confronting a shamanic reality that the existing concepts could not capture. Lee Yong-beom pointed out that “when one reviews existing research achievements and field reports, cases that do not fit the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman concept are found,” and that even a little fieldwork would frequently bring one face to face with realities that this concept could not explain. Indeed, in the shamanic field of the late 1990s and early 2000s, cases were reported of hereditary shamans who had undergone mediumistic experiences appearing in the southern regions traditionally known as hereditary-shaman areas, or conversely, of possessed shamans emphasizing the lineage of the deities they served and claiming family-line (家系的) hereditary status. For instance, shamans who had experienced the initiation ritual (naerimgut) were active at the gut sites of certain hereditary-shaman zones (the Honam region), and among the possessed shamans of the Seoul and Gyeonggi regions, the number who said “there have been shamans in our family for generations” increased. This reality ran counter to the existing schema of “possessed = non-hereditary, hereditary = non-mediumistic.”
In addition, changes in Korean society also altered the topography of shamanism. As the country passed through industrialization and urbanization, the rural communities and the dangol (regular-client) system—which had been the foundation for maintaining hereditary shamans in traditional society—were shaken, and a tendency appeared in which the specialization and differentiation of shamans’ roles also weakened. Lee Gyeong-yeop observed that in the contemporary shamanic field, “as the reproduction of hereditary shamans has become difficult and the role of possessed shamans has expanded, the traditional dual structure of the dangol shaman and the fortune-teller has collapsed, and cases of activity in the same space are increasing.” In other words, whereas in the past the hereditary shaman (dangol shaman) who took exclusive charge of the rites of the local community and the possessed shaman who handled individual healing and divination had been separate, in the modern era this boundary has broken down, so that it has become commonplace for a single person both to perform gut and to read fortunes. This structural change weakened the functional meaning of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman distinction. The schema of “possessed shaman = gut-centered, hereditary shaman = rite-centered” could no longer properly explain reality.
As the gap between reality and theory thus widened, in the early 2000s junior researchers took the lead in giving concrete form to a critical discourse on the existing paradigm. In particular, it is worth noting as a pioneering attempt that, in a 2002 paper published in Religious Studies (Jonggyo Yeon’gu) of the Korean Association for the Study of Religion, Lee Yong-beom raised doubts about the distinction between the possessed shaman and the hereditary shaman and proposed the alternative of “classifying types of shamans on the basis of the rituals the shaman presides over.” This was a proposal to reclassify possessed and hereditary shamans not by their mode of initiation but by the aspects of their shamanic practice, and it effectively set the direction for the subsequent discussion. Bolstered by this movement, in 2003 a series of studies that directly criticized the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman concept itself finally came into view.
3. The Arguments and Methodologies of the Junior Researchers: Dismantling the Binary
In 2003, the Korean Society for Shamanism Studies adopted the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman problem as the joint theme of its academic conference, and set out to bring it into full public discussion. At the 11th academic conference of the Korean Society for Shamanism Studies, held at Inha University in November 2003, three researchers gave presentations re-examining the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman type distinction, and these research results were published as papers in Volume 7 (2003) of the society’s journal Korean Shamanism. Subsequently, over the course of 2004, the society’s officers pushed forward follow-up joint research, holding additional academic conferences (the 12th and the 13th) and drawing out more than ten presentations in all. This series of movements was an organized effort at the level of the society, and by intensively deepening the discussion over a short period, it contributed greatly to re-examining the existing paradigm. Now, by reviewing the key papers published in the 2003 journal and the main arguments of the follow-up studies, let us examine how the junior researchers went about dismantling the binary.
(1) Conceptual-historical critique – Lee Yong-beom (2003): In Volume 7 of Korean Shamanism, Lee Yong-beom published “A Critical Examination of the Concepts of Possessed Shaman and Hereditary Shaman,” pointing out, item by item, the historicity and limitations of these concepts. He reminded readers that the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman concept was, from the outset, not a primary concept describing the reality of Korean shamanism as it is, but a “secondary theoretical construct” set up by modern scholars for the convenience of research. In particular, pointing out the situation in which this concept, formed in the early period of Korean shamanism research, had at some point come to define, in reverse, the perspectives of researchers and laypeople alike, he emphasized that there exist many cases that do not correspond to the actual shamanic field. For example, he criticized the fact that, even though “realities that do not fit the concept” had been revealed—such as hereditary aspects being found among some shamans of central regions (areas of the possessed-shaman tradition), and spirit-descent experiences being reported among shamans of southern regions (the hereditary-shaman tradition)—academia had failed to connect this sufficiently to a revision of the concept. With this problem-consciousness, Lee Yong-beom pointed out that, because the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman concept is one that focuses only on “the individual shaman’s religious experience” (whether or not there was a spirit descent), it has limits in explaining the diverse aspects of contemporary shamanism. Furthermore, while drawing the line that criticism of the concept does not amount to its complete abolition, he stressed that reflection on this concept is “a task fundamentally required in Korean shamanism research.” In short, Lee Yong-beom’s argument can be summarized as the proposal that, by clarifying the historical process of the formation of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman typology and exposing its explanatory limits, academia should create an occasion to seek out new categories and concepts.
(2) Empirical refutation and conceptual redefinition – Hong Tae-han (2003): Meanwhile, Hong Tae-han’s “The Type Distinction Between Possessed Shaman and Hereditary Shaman as Seen Through the Case of the Possessed Shaman,” published in the same issue, was a study that re-examined the existing concept on the basis of more empirical data. Hong Tae-han reported that, as a result of surveying several possessed-shaman cases in possessed-shaman-tradition areas such as the Seoul and Gyeonggi regions, he had found that “even in the case of possessed shamans, hereditary aspects operate very strongly.” He carried out case analysis across six dimensions that define the characteristics of the possessed shaman—① illness from the spirits (sinbyeong) / the spirit-descent experience, ② the possession of a concrete view of the deities (sin’gwan, 神觀) and a shrine, ③ the aspects of dance and music in the conduct of gut, ④ divination by means of spiritual power, ⑤ the relationship with the dangol (the client group), and ⑥ the transmission of shaman songs (muga, 巫歌)—and empirically demonstrated that, in each of these dimensions, the traditional distinction between the possessed shaman and the hereditary shaman is not absolute. For instance, in the first dimension, the occasion of initiation, the principle is that a possessed shaman suffers spirit-illness and performs the initiation ritual, but in reality there are many cases of someone from a hereditary-shaman lineage being initiated as a possessed shaman, and likewise there are many cases in which a shaman belonging to the hereditary tradition undergoes a spirit-illness experience. Moreover, in the fifth dimension, the relationship with the dangol, he confirmed the reality that a possessed shaman does not necessarily serve only a private shrine and refrain from involvement in communal rites, and that hereditary shamans, too, actively engage in individual healing and divination. In this way, Hong Tae-han highlighted, through cases, the recognition that “the possessed shaman and the hereditary shaman are not two completely different groups, but groups that also share many commonalities.” In short, his study, on the one hand, shook the validity of the existing binary through empirical refutation, while on the other proposing that the concept of the possessed shaman be redefined to fit reality. By defining the possessed shaman as a being who “becomes a shaman through the spirit-illness experience, yet whose hereditary disposition is also closely related, and who, while grounded in spiritual power, conducts gut through individual ability and artistic cultivation,” Hong Tae-han raised the need to integrate the element of heredity into the concept of the possessed shaman. This argument is evaluated as having broken the schema that had simply opposed possessed = non-hereditary, and as having shown the possibility of reconstituting the classificatory categories.
(3) Field changes and composite aspects – Lee Gyeong-yeop (2003): As its title indicates, Lee Gyeong-yeop’s “An Examination of the Possessed-Shaman / Hereditary-Shaman Distinction Through Hereditary-Shaman Cases” developed its discussion centering on cases from the hereditary-shaman side. On the basis of fieldwork conducted mainly in the hereditary-shaman communities of the southern regions, Lee Gyeong-yeop pointed out the reality that it has become difficult for contemporary hereditary shamans to maintain their traditional status and roles. Because the younger generation avoids the shamanic profession, the family transmission of hereditary shamans has been severed, while at the same time possessed shamans who have moved out to the cities have come to stand out even at local gut sites, so that it has become hard to sustain local shamanism with hereditary shamans alone as before. As a result, structures in which possessed shamans and hereditary shamans coexist or divide roles within a single local society have become common, and he held that this signifies the fusion of “the two lineages divided into south and north, hereditary and possessed” by the existing taxonomy. Through such changes, Lee Gyeong-yeop emphasized that the boundary of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman distinction is gradually growing faint in the field of practice, and concluded that dividing shaman types in two by the single criterion of mode of initiation can no longer keep pace with reality. In particular, by developing his argument in connection with the structural changes of Korean society and the changes in shamanic reality, he highlighted that the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman binary was losing its validity for the times. Lee Gyeong-yeop’s study is also methodologically interesting, in that he used interviews with shamans in the field and oral materials to trace the changes in the shamans’ own self-perception. Through this, he illuminated what significance the “claim of heredity by possessed shamans”—the very starting point of the discussion of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman typology—holds as a strategy of identity-creation on the part of the shamans themselves. That is, he suggested that the reason some possessed shamans speak of “deities passed down in our family for generations” is not that they were in fact hereditary shamans, but that it is a kind of narrative strategy to position themselves as shamans possessing legitimacy and continuity. This perspective extended the analysis of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman discourse to the level of the individual shaman’s social strategy and agency, providing a new hermeneutic layer to the traditional category debate.
(4) Theoretical turn and comprehensive proposals – Kim Dong-gyu (2004): On the basis of the series of discussions of 2003, in 2004 a study appeared that comprehensively summarized and reflected upon the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman debate at the theoretical level. Its representative example, Kim Dong-gyu’s “A Reflection on the Possessed-Shaman / Hereditary-Shaman Typology” (Korean Shamanism, Volume 8, 2004), took as its object of analysis the very scholarly paradigm of the era in which the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman typology had emerged. Kim Dong-gyu first characterized the intellectual atmosphere of the time when the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman concept was established in the 1960s and 1970s as an “essentialist and archetype-oriented paradigm of shamanism research.” As noted earlier, this paradigm was grounded in such things as Eliade’s theory, which idealized Korean shamanism as the archetype of national culture and regarded the shaman’s ecstasy (the spirit-possession experience) as the essence of shamanism. Kim Dong-gyu introduced the fact that criticism of the Eliadean type of shamanism theory had been raised in the anthropological community, and pointed out the limits of the archetype discourse. In other words, his argument is that, while the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman binary had a certain explanatory power within that paradigm at the time of its formation, because only the concept came to be used by inertia without any replacement of the paradigm, it became unable to explain the increasingly diverse shamanic reality of the present.
Furthermore, as the existing discussions had commonly pointed out, Kim Dong-gyu held that there was a need to re-examine the very criterion of “the presence or absence of a spirit-descent experience” that had been the core of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman distinction. He criticized the existing typology for having overlooked the shaman’s continuous growth and transformation after the initiation ritual. A shaman’s identity is not fixed by a one-time initiation experience; rather, after the initiation ritual, the shaman ceaselessly creates his or her own identity over a lifetime within the relationships with the deities and the believers (sindo, 信徒). On the basis of this perspective, Kim Dong-gyu proposed that the phenomena appearing at the boundary point of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman distinction—for instance, the act of a possessed shaman claiming his or her own heredity—should be approached “not at the level of fact, but at the level of a fabricated story (narrative),” and should be understood as one of the strategies by which the shaman recreates his or her own identity. This is an interpretation that connects with the case mentioned earlier by Lee Gyeong-yeop, analyzing the active behavior of the possessed shaman in constructing his or her own identity as a kind of symbolic self-expression.
On the basis of this theoretical discussion, Kim Dong-gyu ultimately proposed a direction for establishing a new classificatory system of shamanism. Rather than immediately discarding the existing framework of possessed shaman and hereditary shaman, he argued strongly for a thoroughgoing revision and supplementation of the existing typology through a cyclical method of induction and deduction. That is, the macroscopic classificatory principles that earlier researchers had established inductively through extensive fieldwork should now be verified deductively and applied to new cases, and the new matters revealed there should again be synthesized inductively, thereby reconstructing a more flexible macroscopic typology. In particular, he pointed out the need to readjust the classificatory criteria from a multidimensional perspective encompassing not only the individual shaman but also the deities (sin’gyeok, 神格), the faith community (the believers), the structure of the ritual, and so on. For example, whereas the existing approach had concentrated on the single matter of whether or not the shaman had a spiritual experience, going forward one should seek out a classification that considers the composite characteristics appearing within the network of relations among shaman, deity, client, and ritual. This discussion is of great significance in that it goes beyond merely “breaking the binary” to become a constructive proposal toward the construction of a new paradigm. While stressing that he was not entirely negating the achievements of his predecessors, Kim Dong-gyu made clear his conclusion that “a thoroughgoing revision of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman typology to date is unavoidable.”
(5) Follow-up studies and synthesis: At the 2004 academic conference of the Korean Society for Shamanism Studies, besides Kim Dong-gyu, several researchers shed light on this binary system from various angles. Yang Jong-seung traced the background to the appearance of the terms possessed shaman and hereditary shaman and the history of the research, revealing the process by which the theories of Kim Tae-gon, Choi Gil-seong, and others became inevitably entangled with the debate over the origins of Korean shamanism and led to the use of this classification, as well as the actual situation in which the concept was expanded and reproduced for a long time without scholarly verification. By remarking that “the inevitability of using the two terms can be evaluated as an achievement that laid the scholarly cornerstone in the early days of Korean shamanism research, but today the two terms have become no small obstacle to macroscopic understanding,” he pointed out, within the historical context, both the usefulness and the limits of the concept at once. In addition, the presentation discussants re-examined the existing received view through analysis of historical materials, such as how the concept was used in the studies of Joseon shamanism by Japanese colonial-era state scholars (Choi Seok-yeong) and cases of shaman heredity seen in late-Joseon household registers (Im Hak-seong). In this way, through joint work that brought together empirical research, theoretical research, and historical research, the shamanism studies community broadly confirmed the problems of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman taxonomy, while also reaching a degree of consensus on the direction for seeking alternatives.
(6) Summary – The realization of the paradigm shift: Heo Yong-ho’s “A Critical Examination of the Possessed-Shaman / Hereditary-Shaman Typology: Centering on the Chungcheong-do Anjeun-gut” (2005) can be called the culmination of this series of discussions, concretely showing the composite aspects of a local field. Taking as a case the “anjeun-gut” (seated gut), a distinctive shamanic ritual of the Chungcheongnam-do region, Heo Yong-ho reported multilayered phenomena that are difficult to explain with the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman binary. In the Chungcheong-do anjeun-gut, aspects appear that have not until now been subsumed under the classificatory criteria, such as “the existence of a non-possessed, non-family-line hereditary type,” “the existence and recognition of distinctive deities,” “a performance mode that has almost no dance and consists of the recitation of scriptures (gyeong, 經),” and “the reproduction of a direct and magical method of exorcism (chukgwi, 逐鬼).” Furthermore, items that had been recognized only as oppositional between possessed shaman and hereditary shaman are revealed to be combined and intermingled. For instance, “the family-line heredity of spirit-descent,” “spiritual heredity (the case of becoming a shaman through the descent of an ancestor’s spirit),” “a clear teacher-disciple (sasung, 師承) relationship of possessed shamans seen among non-possessed ritual masters (beopsa),” and “a parallel emphasis on ceremony and procedure together with magicality and rituality” were confirmed. In short, within a single local case, the possessed and hereditary elements, the magical element and the ritual element, are complexly interwoven. Through this analysis, Heo Yong-ho stressed the need to establish a new system capable of encompassing intermediate and composite cases such as the Chungcheong-do anjeun-gut within the horizon of our shamanism research. And in conclusion, while urging a large-scale revision of the existing paradigm, he stated that “in researching the shamanism of other regions as well, a thoroughgoing revision of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman typology to date is unavoidable.” He repeatedly emphasized that the point was not to discard the achievements of his predecessors, but that a new macroscopic typology must be sought through a shift in awareness and through supplementation.
As examined above, in the early-to-mid 2000s the Korean shamanism studies community, by carrying out collective reflection and critique surrounding the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman classificatory paradigm, went through a process of bringing the problems of that paradigm into public discussion and seeking out alternatives. In the space of just a few years, the diverse methodologies of various researchers (fieldwork, analysis of historical documents, theoretical critique, etc.) were mobilized in full, showing a rare example of a single received view being dismantled and reconstructed. This rapid and relatively consensual transformation had a great impact on the present shamanism studies community. In subsequent research, the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman binary was no longer taken as an absolute premise, and many scholars shifted their research perspective in a direction that respects regional context and the diversity of shamanic belief. Then why was such a paradigm shift possible, and what particularity does it possess when compared with other fields of the humanities? In the next chapter, on the basis of this case, a comparative analysis with other fields within Korean humanities is attempted.
Ⅴ. Comparison with Other Fields of the Humanities: Why Was a Quiet Transformation Possible Only in the Shamanism Studies Community?
The timing and manner in which the collapse of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman dualism occurred in the shamanism studies community stand in sharp contrast to other fields of the humanities. In general, when a dominant theory or classificatory system in an academic field changes, it is often accompanied by a generational change spanning considerable time or by fierce debate. By contrast, in the case of the shamanism studies community, a change close to internal consensus within the academy was achieved within a relatively short period, and the process unfolded quietly and systematically in the arena of the specialist community—the scholarly journals and academic conferences. To understand this difference, in this section the shamanism studies community is compared and analyzed with other fields of the humanities along several dimensions.
1. The Scale of the Academic Field and Generational Dynamics
Shamanism studies belongs to a relatively small academic field even within the Korean humanities. The number of specialist researchers is not large, and the research network is formed centering on a specialist society such as the Korean Society for Shamanism Studies. This smallness of scale can be seen, rather, to have led to ease in reaching consensus. Thanks to this, although Lee Yong-beom’s study—which lit the fuse of the paradigm-shift debate—was published in the Korean Association for the Study of Religion’ Religious Studies, the discussion was soon able to develop rapidly centering on the Korean Society for Shamanism Studies. As examined earlier, over 2003–2004 the Korean Society for Shamanism Studies planned the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman topic at the level of its board of officers and held three joint-research presentation sessions, through which it gathered diverse opinions and drew out a gradual consensus. This may be called a swift and organized response that would be hard to achieve in a large academic field. By contrast, fields such as history or Korean literature have far more scholars and diverse schools and lineages, so that when dissent arises against a single received view, it is difficult to find a point of consensus at the level of a scholarly society. For example, looking at the so-called “colonial modernization theory” debate that broke out in the Korean history community in the mid-to-late 2000s, a sharp confrontation between traditional nationalist historiography and a group of scholars with a new perspective continued for years. This debate spread not only to academic conferences and journals but even to the mass media and social discourse, taking on the aspect of open conflict, and in the end it is hard to say that a single consensus has been reached even to this day. This difference also stems from the generational composition and power structure of the respective academic fields. In the case of the national-history community, senior scholars have wielded formidable influence over the field’s decision-making, and when there is a challenge from junior forces, there is a strong tendency to go through a long process of argument and verification rather than to permit immediate change. By contrast, in the shamanism studies community, the first-generation researchers who had been the authorities up to the 1990s (e.g., Kim Tae-gon (died 1996), Choi Gil-seong (who from the 2000s researched mainly the “comfort women” issue, and died in 2022), etc.) had, as the 2000s arrived, retired from the front lines or passed away, and mid-career and junior scholars were gaining a relatively autonomous space for forming discourse. In fact, the figures who actively participated in the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman debate were all, at that point, young researchers (lecturers or junior PhDs at Seoul National University, Kyung Hee University, Mokpo National University, etc.) or scholars who had studied abroad. The very atmosphere in which they could debate as equals in the conference hall without excessive burden toward established authority can be seen as the soil that made the quiet paradigm shift possible.
2. The Nature of the Research Methodology and the Evidence
The paradigm shift in the shamanism studies community depended greatly on the power of empirical evidence and multidisciplinary methodology. That is, as diverse evidence and methods—field ethnographic data, oral cases, analysis of historical documents, theoretical critique, and so on—were mobilized in full, the fictitiousness of the existing concept was persuasively exposed. For instance, the empirical observations that “hereditary shamans, too, perform the initiation ritual” or that “possessed shamans, too, speak of generations of family shamanic profession” were themselves powerful evidence refuting the propositions that possessed = non-hereditary and hereditary = non-possessed. Such direct refuting cases lowered the abstractness of the debate and served to make members of the academy grasp the true state of the problem. By contrast, in the paradigm debates of other humanities fields, the nature of the evidence is in many cases relatively ambiguous or open to wide interpretation. For example, discussions surrounding the periodization of literary history in literary studies, or debates over genealogical classification in Korean linguistics, tend to unfold mainly in the form of theoretical assertion against assertion, such as the reinterpretation of existing research and the re-examination of conceptual definitions. In such cases, each camp can arrive at a different interpretation even of the same text or material, so that the formation of consensus becomes difficult before a conclusion is reached. By comparison, in the shamanism studies debate, the discovery of new primary materials (fieldwork results, etc.) was presented at each turning point of the discussion, and this served to make scholars unable to avoid revising the existing theory.
In addition, on the methodological side, the junior members of the shamanism studies community deepened the discussion by grafting anthropological theory onto existing folklore studies. As seen in Kim Dong-gyu’s study, bringing in the anthropological community’s critical discourse on Eliade’s theory to reflect on the paradigm of Korean shamanism research was a perspective that would have been hard to arrive at by the methodology of traditional folklore studies alone. The fact that this theoretical transfusion and turn was accomplished relatively smoothly can also be said to be a characteristic of the shamanism studies community. By contrast, in fields such as history or literary studies, a sense of rejection toward the introduction of new theory (for example, postmodernist historiography, postcolonial literary theory, etc.) or a verificationist attitude has long persisted. This is one factor that slows down or makes contentious the change of the paradigm in those fields. For instance, in the Korean literature community, regarding the question of accepting Western literary theory (structuralism, deconstruction, etc.) since the 1990s, persistent differences of view existed between the traditional empirical-research camp and the junior theory camp, and these were for some time not clearly resolved. In fields where methodological differentiation is thus pronounced, different paradigms often coexist or clash while running on parallel lines without one gaining a decisive advantage. By comparison, in the shamanism studies debate, various methodologies were cooperatively utilized under a common problem-consciousness (the validity of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman concept), and in the end a relative consensus could be reached regarding the direction of problem-solving. This can be attributed to the urgency of the shared perception of reality among the researchers in the field, and to the coordinating efforts at the level of the society to lead the debate productively.
3. External Environmental Factors
As mentioned earlier in the theoretical background, the social and policy environment also influences the aspect of a paradigm shift. The timing of the shamanism studies case (the early-to-mid 2000s) happens to coincide with a time when the re-examination of and support for traditional culture were becoming active in Korea. In particular, the spread of the UNESCO intangible cultural heritage discourse repositioned shamanism anew within the context of national cultural heritage. Up until the 1970s, shamanism had been in a dual status: praised by some scholars as the essence of national culture, while on the other hand being rejected in society at large as superstition. In the 2000s, however, as shamanic rituals (gut) came to be introduced as artistic performances or tourism resources, and as local festivals presided over by hereditary shamans received government support, social perceptions of shamanism changed relatively favorably. This is highly likely to have acted as a factor that prompted, even within academia, a reconsideration of the evaluation of the hereditary-shaman tradition. For instance, as gut performed by hereditary shamans—such as the “Donghaean Byeolsin-gut” of the Yeongnam region and the “Jindo Ssitgim-gut” of Honam—were designated as Important Intangible Cultural Properties of the nation and succession activities were carried out, the cultural value of the hereditary gut—which scholars in the past had dismissed as “degenerated shamanism,” or regarded as pseudo-priests or quack shamans, or, even when viewed favorably, thought of as the remnants of a shaman in whom only the priestly function survived, or as the taxidermied specimen of traditional art—was re-recognized. In this context, an atmosphere formed in which the implicit value judgment that only the possessed shaman is a genuine shaman was reconsidered, and the hereditary shaman, too, was acknowledged as an important axis of Korean shamanism. This provided the soil in which the critical discourse on the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman binary hierarchy was accepted in academia without great resistance. By contrast, in other fields of the humanities, external factors sometimes acted in a direction that hindered the paradigm shift. For instance, in the case of the Korean history community, there are cases in which external groups such as the political world or civic organizations intervened in the direction of historical narration, turning the debate surrounding a particular paradigm (e.g., the colonial-modernization discourse) into an ideological confrontation. In such cases, the examination of evidence and logic that ought to be carried out calmly within academia is clouded, and camp logic is strengthened, so that the formation of consensus can become all the more remote. The shamanism studies debate, fortunately, did not erupt into a major issue extending even to the general public. Perhaps this was because the distinction by mode of initiation was, from the start, distant from real-world shamanism. In any case, the debate thus remained mainly within the discussion of the specialist community and could be concentrated on scholarly discussion alone. This can be evaluated as an environmental factor that made the “quiet transformation” possible.
4. The Nature of the Classificatory Paradigm Itself (Its “Thickness”)
Finally, what influences the ease of transformation is the nature and “thickness” of the paradigm that is the object of the challenge. Here “thickness” is a metaphorical expression for how deeply the paradigm in question is rooted in the knowledge system and discourse as a whole. Although the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman classification functioned as the established view of academia for some thirty years, it had not been socialized to the degree of, say, the orthodox interpretation of Korean history or the canon system of Korean literature. In other words, the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman distinction existed as relatively shallow knowledge outside the specialist scholarly domain. While the general public may have had the common-sense notion that “shamans come in possessed shamans and hereditary shamans,” this was not bound up with social identity or deeply imprinted in the school curriculum. Even within academia, this concept was mainly a technical category used for the convenience of explanation; it was not the case that a vast theoretical system or ideology had been constructed around it. Indeed, Choi Gil-seong, a representative researcher of the previous generation, even recognized and warned against the fact that nationalism had influenced shamanism research. In this sense, the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman paradigm can be said to have been comparatively thin in its thickness. Therefore, when researchers pointed out its limits and proposed supplementation, there was little psychological or ideological resistance to accepting this. As Lee Yong-beom too had stressed earlier, “recognizing the limits of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman concept does not amount to abolishing that concept,” and it was clear that it was not a matter of negating the achievements of existing researchers. This was a factor that could lead the debate in a cooperative and constructive direction.
By contrast, the dominant paradigms in other fields of the humanities are often connected to discourses thickly formed not only in the scholarly field but also at the level of the nation and society. For example, the “single-ethnic-origin theory” that had long been the paradigm of the Korean archaeology community was, at the same time as being a scholarly hypothesis, a narrative discourse bound up with the formation of the modern nation-state. Therefore, when a new hypothesis surrounding it (such as a multiple-origin theory) was raised, there was the potential to provoke social controversy beyond a mere scholarly debate. Such thick discourses do not change easily, and even when they do change, it takes a long time and is accompanied by the pains of debate. The genealogical debate in the field of Korean linguistics (e.g., the Altaic theory vs. the non-Altaic theory), too, has similarly been perceived as a matter beyond scholarship, with national identity and scholarly authority at stake. Viewed in this light, the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman typology of the shamanism studies community was a relatively local and limited-scope paradigm, which is why it appears to have been able to be revised flexibly.
Synthesizing the above comparisons, the fact that the paradigm shift in the shamanism studies community took place uniquely quickly and quietly can be said to be because internal factors (rapid consensus in a small academic field, the presentation of diverse evidence and the integration of methodologies, the leadership of young researchers) and external factors (the current of re-evaluating traditional culture, the non-diffusion of the debate into society, the shallow thickness of the paradigm) all happened to align. These may be conditions that are not easily satisfied in other fields. Nevertheless, this case shows that humanities knowledge paradigms, too, are capable of change, and that this change is not to be left solely to natural generational change but can be promoted through conscious reflection and joint effort. In the next chapter, on the basis of this comparative analysis, the implications of this study are discussed.
Ⅵ. Discussion and Implications
On the basis of the observations derived through the comparison in the previous section, this chapter comprehensively discusses the possibilities and limits of a paradigm shift within Korean humanities. The case of the collapse of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman typology provides several important implications.
First, even in fields of the humanities it is possible to transform a dominant paradigm in a relatively short period. This is a result that challenges the received notion that “humanities paradigms, unlike science, are hard to change revolutionarily.” As the case of the shamanism studies community shows, when an appropriate problem-consciousness is shared, an evidence-based and persuasive alternative is presented, and the communication structure of the scholarly community is smooth, even a framework that had hardened into orthodoxy can be revised relatively quickly. This is a perspective gained when humanistic knowledge is viewed not as a stagnant accumulation but as a living discourse. In particular, we were able to confirm the importance not only of the efforts of individual researchers but also of the role of collective intelligence, such as scholarly societies. The planning capacity and coordinating ability shown by the Korean Society for Shamanism Studies are worth referring to for other humanities societies as well. For example, if the work of re-examining the periodization system or genre divisions long used in the field of Korean literature were organized at the level of a society, the introduction of new perspectives and the formation of consensus could be carried out more systematically. That is, a paradigm shift does not occur in a laissez-faire manner; it can be promoted to some degree through a mechanism of deliberate planning and consensus formation. This is a positive implication that the present case study offers to the Korean humanities community as a whole.
Second, a paradigm shift requires persuasion on both the “evidence” and the “context” dimensions. The reason the junior researchers of the shamanism studies community were able to successfully shake the received view was that, on the one hand, they presented diverse empirical evidence to expose the flaws of the existing theory, while on the other hand they critically dismantled the historical and theoretical context in which that received view had formed. The field cases presented by Lee Yong-beom, Hong Tae-han, and others exercised evidential persuasiveness, while the conceptual-history and research-history analyses developed by Kim Dong-gyu, Yang Jong-seung, and others produced the effect of relativizing the existing paradigm. This means that a multilayered approach is necessary in the transformation of humanities discourse. Merely discovering a new fact or material may be insufficient to shake the paradigm itself. Conversely, abstract theoretical critique alone lacks practical persuasiveness. Only when the dual verification of material and context is carried out in parallel does the scholarly community finally become ready to break away from the existing conceptual framework. This strategy will be valid in other fields as well. For example, in the case of history, a more fundamental transformation of narration will become possible when the discovery of new historical materials (evidence) is carried out in parallel with the critical examination of the period discourse (context) in which the existing interpretive framework was formed. This suggests that the humanities researcher must perform the dual role of being both an analyst of historical sources and a critical theorist.
Third, the generational change and openness of the scholarly field govern paradigm shifts. As the case of the shamanism studies community shows, the new paradigm originated mainly from the layer of junior researchers. And the reason they were able to raise problems freely was that the scholarly field in question was relatively open. This reaffirms the importance of a smooth transition of generational change for the development of the humanities. Sometimes, the reason a field’s dominant discourse is maintained firmly for a long time is that researchers of the new generation are unable to gain a voice or are incorporated into the structure of vested interests. Therefore, to raise the possibility of a paradigm shift, it is necessary to prepare channels for junior researchers to participate as agents in the running of societies and in the allocation of research funds, and a culture is needed in which established authorities, too, listen to new assertions with a flexible attitude. In the case of the senior researchers of the shamanism studies community, in the debate of the 2000s they did not show direct refutation or a defensive attitude, but accepted the discussions of the following generation while leaving the arena of dialogue open. Such intergenerational communication is a virtue needed in other fields as well. Of course, the situation differs from field to field, and the value of the knowledge accumulated by existing researchers must also be respected. However, this case reminds us that scholarly authority must never become a barrier obstructing a paradigm shift.
Fourth, external support for humanities research and changes in social perception can be a catalyst for a paradigm shift. The atmosphere of re-examining traditional culture in Korean society in the early 2000s, and the support for the humanities through programs such as BK21 (money), amounted to sponsoring—if only indirectly—the new research of the shamanism studies community. This shows that policies for promoting the humanities can bring about not merely an increase in the number of researchers or in the number of papers, but also a qualitative transformation. When support at the level of the government or universities is used for young researchers’ international scholarly exchange or interdisciplinary collaborative research, it can breathe new life even into discourses that had previously been stagnant. In addition, changes in the public’s perception of traditional culture (such as the perspective of viewing shamanism as culture rather than regarding it negatively) create an environment in which scholars can push their research forward with greater pride. This is the same for other humanities fields going forward. For example, reconstituting an old literary canon or changing the narration of national-history textbooks requires the formation of a social consensus as much as efforts internal to academia. Therefore, humanities scholars must also carry out, in parallel, the work of explaining to society the significance of new research achievements and gaining support, through the popularization of scholarship and communication. The reason shamanism scholars in this case study could transform the scholarly discourse without public controversy was, fortunately, that the topic in question was not ideologized; but, put paradoxically, it also means that the general public’s interest was that much smaller. For the new perspectives of the shamanism studies community to be reflected even in popular-cultural discourse or education going forward, additional efforts at knowledge transmission on the part of academia will be required. This corresponds to the stage of the diffusion and settling of the new paradigm after the paradigm shift, and is the dimension of the social embodiment of humanistic knowledge.
Fifth, the ultimate aim of a paradigm shift lies in the construction of a more comprehensive and flexible theoretical system. In the case of the shamanism studies community, the researchers did not stop at simply tearing down the existing binary, but aimed at the establishment of a new typology. This shows the perspective of viewing a paradigm shift not as a “process of negation” but as a “process of creation.” In fact, Heo Yong-ho and others proposed the work of contemplating a multilayered classificatory system in place of the possessed shaman / hereditary shaman. In this way, not all problems are solved by a single debate; follow-up studies that apply and refine the new paradigm in actual research are needed one after another. What is important is that a paradigm shift is a continuous inquiry that pays attention to phenomena that had previously been overlooked and that frames new conceptual systems. If a paradigm shift is achieved in other fields as well, it will likewise be followed by the challenge of seeking out and verifying a new theory. Therefore, humanities scholars must, while leaving open the possibility of change, also be prepared to carry out steadily the tasks that follow the change. The discussion of the present case study presents a direction for the humanities, as a self-reflective scholarship, to move forward. Pursuing flexible theories that respond to changing reality rather than fixed and immutable truths, and being able, when necessary, to reflect upon and reform one’s own premises—this is likely the secret to maintaining the vitality of the humanities.
Ⅶ. Conclusion
Taking as its case the collapse of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman typology that unfolded in the Korean shamanism studies community in the early-to-mid 2000s, this study has analyzed, at a meta-level, the possibilities of and conditions for a paradigm shift in the field of Korean humanities. As the problem-consciousness raised in the introduction noted, the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman binary was once a concept deeply rooted in both academia and society, but through the critical examination of junior researchers and communal discussion it was revised and supplemented relatively quickly and peacefully.
The findings of the analysis can be summarized as follows. First, the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman paradigm shift was accomplished, under the leadership of junior researchers such as Lee Yong-beom, Hong Tae-han, Lee Gyeong-yeop, Kim Dong-gyu, and Heo Yong-ho, through a combination of the presentation of empirical evidence and theoretical reflection. Through concrete cases from the shamanic field they showed that the existing binary did not correspond to reality, and by exposing the fact that this binary was a concept formed in modern scholarly history, they relativized the authority of the received view. Second, this knowledge transformation proceeded smoothly thanks to systematic efforts at public discussion at the level of the society. Through three joint-research presentation sessions over 2003–2004, the Korean Society for Shamanism Studies gathered diverse perspectives and drew out a consensus. As a result, an understanding of the problems of the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman distinction came to be shared within academia, and a consensus was formed regarding new research directions. Third, it was confirmed that the background that made this “rapid transformation,” unique to the shamanism studies community, possible was a complex interplay of the openness and flexibility of a small academic field, an interdisciplinary tradition encompassing diverse methodologies, and the social current of re-evaluating traditional culture. This is a point of contrast with fields of grand discourse such as history or literary studies, and it explains why a paradigm shift is slow in other fields. For instance, in fields where the academic field is large in scale and the intergenerational power gap is great, or in fields where the dominant theory is thickly linked to social and ideological discourses, even when a new perspective emerges it is difficult to reach consensus in a short period.
Through the above discussion, this study presents several meta-level conclusions. A paradigm shift in the field of Korean humanities is both possible and necessary. Insofar as knowledge is not a fixed truth but a product that changes along with the times, scholars must have the courage to reflect upon the paradigm to which they belong and, when necessary, to go beyond it. This does not simply mean pursuing innovation; it means that scholarship itself needs to become flexible for the sake of a faithful understanding of its research object. In the case of the shamanism studies community, the researchers themselves revised the existing conceptual framework in order to grasp and describe the reality of Korean shamanism more accurately. As a result, in place of the overly simplified binary of possessed shaman and hereditary shaman, a perspective opened up that understands Korean shamanism on a multilayered spectrum. In this way, a paradigm shift can function as a process for the refinement and advancement of knowledge.
Of course, it is not the case that a transformation in the manner of the shamanism studies community can be reproduced in every field. The tradition and context of each scholarship differ, and the obstacles to change also differ. However, the elements of the scholarly community’s efforts and dialogue, evidence-based persuasion, and communication with the outside are likely universal conditions that can be applied in any field. Through the case of a change that occurred in a small field, this study has presented one vision for the development of the Korean humanities as a whole. It is the vision that the humanities, when they do not rest content with the authority of the past but remain open to new questions and evidence, can at last carry on their intellectual vitality in contemporary society. The process of dismantling the possessed-shaman / hereditary-shaman typology will remain in history as a case that well demonstrates this possibility of self-renewal in the humanities. It is to be hoped that, going forward as well, new knowledge paradigms will continue to be generated through healthy critique and reflection in each field of the humanities.
References
- Lee Yong-beom. (2002). A Study on the Type Classification of Korean Shamans—Centering on the Distinction Between Possessed Shamans and Hereditary Shamans—. Religious Studies, 27, -.
- Lee Yong-beom. (2003). A Critical Examination of the Concepts of Possessed Shaman and Hereditary Shaman. Korean Shamanism, 7, 9-32.
- Hong Tae-han. (2003). The Type Distinction Between Possessed Shaman and Hereditary Shaman as Seen Through the Case of the Possessed Shaman. Korean Shamanism, 7, 33-50.
- Hong Tae-han. (2002). On the Problem of “Je” (祭) in Seoul Shamanism. Korean Shamanism, 5, 225-241.
- Lee Gyeong-yeop. (2003). An Examination of the Possessed-Shaman / Hereditary-Shaman Distinction Through Hereditary-Shaman Cases. Korean Shamanism, 7, 51-66.
- Yang Jong-seung. (2004). A Review of Shamanism Research According to the Possessed-Shaman / Hereditary-Shaman Typology—Centering on the Theories of Kim Tae-gon and Choi Gil-seong—. Korean Shamanism, 8, 9-36.
- Heo Yong-ho. (2005). A Critical Examination of the Possessed-Shaman / Hereditary-Shaman Typology. Korean Shamanism, 9, 27-46.
- Kim Dong-gyu. (2004). A Reflection on the Possessed-Shaman / Hereditary-Shaman Typology. Korean Shamanism, 8, 37-60.
This paper was written with the help of ChatGPT.
EOD
20251001
Leave a comment