Anthropology of consiousness: research theory and practice

Abstract

Stanley Krippner talks about his own research in the realm of anthropology of consciousness, where he brought his own perspective of a psychologist with many years of studies of sleep and dreams.

Krippner talks about the history of this academic branch: traditional for anthropology studies of consciousness transformed by psychoactive plants, contemplative disciplines, lucid dreaming, shamanic rituals, and other practices, in 1970-1990-s have been formalized into a separate discipline – anthropology of consciousness. In 1990 the Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness became an official section of AAA. This discipline adapts research methods traditional for cultural anthropology: cross-cultural comparisons, interviews, questionnaires, field work observations, participant-observations, and studying archives.

The researcher also mentions his own methodological experiments: during some shamanic ceremonies he consumed psychoactive substances, during others remained a non-involved observer. He comes to a conclusion that so-called ‘objectivity’ of research is not guaranteed in neither of these cases. The etic, as well as emic approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. He suggests to conduct research from both perspectives, perhaps with two different teams of researchers.

In some cases Stanley Krippner engaged specialists from other disciplines who brought physiological monitoring equipment to measure changes in brain waves, muscle tension, heartbeat rate, skin conductivity, and other functions. According to him, such methods of ‘neuroanthropology’ will become increasingly popular, once more compact and more portable physiological instruments are available to the field research.