I am interested in G. H. West’s Ethnographic Sorcery[1], first, because of the author’s simple but powerful storytelling style of presenting the phenomenal culture of the Mueda people of Mozambique in Africa, in a captivating and elaborative way, and second, because of his remarkable attempt at objectivity, while navigating the difficulties inherent in attempting an objective ethnographic study. West explores “the epistemological paradox arising from the ethnographic study of sorcery”[2]. I begin by commenting on the author’s description of the practice of sorcery among the Muedans as a metaphor, and the implications of such description on the people’s strongly held beliefs.

In the opening chapter, West attempts to convince his audience, comprising researchers, public officials, and locales of Mueda—and convinces some—who hold the belief that certain sorcerers are capable of turning into lions to harm human victims, to see the “sorcery lions” as symbols: “the lion not only symbolized both dangerous predator and regal protector but also symbolized a deep ambivalence about the workings of power in the social world”[3], to which they reacted with dissatisfaction. Two reasons could explain this reaction: 

First, it is difficult to change people’s beliefs. It is a difficult task to try to bring a new perspective to existing knowledge, especially one that has been held for a long time. To the Muedans, as Lazaro Mmala in West’s narration puts it, “These lions that you talk about … aren’t symbols—they’re real”[4]. They do not see the practice of sorcery as a metaphor, but they believe it is real, because perhaps some of them have experienced and proven it to be real. Certain people have claimed to have seen these lions or even attacked them. Healers also attested to the existence of sorcery lions.

Second, when as a researcher you interrogate people’s beliefs, they find it confrontational, if not disrespectful, because such questioning may appear to imply that they do not know what they believe. I find West’s theory positing that “beliefs are metaphors”[5] to be audacious, especially in chapters 4 and 11, where he opines that the “imageries” of sorcery lions were “made up” by the Muedans, and that they base their beliefs on those imageries[6]. I think that for the Muedans to be able to distinguish between “bush lions’ ‘ and “magical” or “false lions,” they perfectly understand what they are saying. Perhaps, what could be understood as symbolic is the sorcery dance[7] and not the sorcery itself. The dance is the metaphor for real sorcery. 

This shows how scientists and social scientists tend to approach the study of social and cultural phenomena. While it is good to try to explain things scientifically, there are also limits to which that can go, as even West himself tried but realized the futility of subjecting everything to scientific explanation. It ended in ridicule and confusion. West’s companion, Marcos, who had advised that “these things must be studied … scientifically”[8], was the person who said “The trouble is, mano, you’re trying to understand this thing scientifically. You can’t understand this scientifically”[9], after the failed attempt. Maybe Marcos knew that it was impossible to take such an approach but did not want to discourage West; he let the ethnographer try it and find the results.

Also, the approach of people from the West in trying to understand certain phenomena in Africa is not always best. As an African myself, I am familiar with the people’s inclination to religion, and the firm belief in transcendent powers. Also from a/the Christian perspective, the belief in the existence of spiritual beings or angels, shows that science cannot explain everything. The fact that something cannot be scientifically (or logically) explained, does not render it invalid or irrelevant; that one does not understand or believe in something does not make it false or unreal. How can you explain scientifically, for instance, that you can hear the Holy Spirit talking to you, or vice versa? This does not mean that the Holy Spirit is not real. The first time I read Ethnographic Sorcery was in my Theories and Methods class at Harvard Divinity School. I submitted a reflection about and the Teaching Fellow for the course, Amanda Michela Gann, then a Ph.D. candidate at Harvard commented on this point—“the different distinctions that people try to draw between true/false, real/imaginary” as Gann put it—that: “… most of these binaries – at least as they become articulated in academic study – come out of only one particular understanding about ways of knowing.”  This is so true, and sadly, it is the approach that many Western scholars have toward religious beliefs and practices. However, one should not disregard people’s beliefs because of one’s contrary sentiments. As West posits, believing is an innate attribute of human beings, and an important component of religion[10]. 

On the other hand, however, I believe it is good to ask sincere questions to find answers or explanations to phenomena. In many African cultures, asking questions about their beliefs is considered a taboo. This is also seen in this book; how asking questions or talking openly about sorcery is forbidden. The situation has not changed even in modern day Africa, as political leaders especially, who are not performing efficiently, notwithstanding, abhor any confrontation. They continue to exploit people politically and economically. This is perhaps what West was trying to explain as a metaphor, but the people were too used to the system to accept a different perspective. West, however, does not engage deeply with the political dimensions in the book, but he suggests that most of the discourse around sorcery has complex interactions with the shifting and conflicting political climate in Mozambique. Notwithstanding, I commend West’s submission that by referring to the Muedan’s beliefs as metaphors, he did not dismiss them as false[11] but succeeded in remaking their lifeworld with his vision[12]. In my detailed review of West’s Ethnographic Sorcery, in addition to beliefs as metaphors, I consider other themes in the book including the following questions: what is West’s mission as a scholar and the limits of achieving it? Who comprises West’s audience, and does his perspective offer them something new to consider, even if it does not succeed in capturing all the fullness and nuance of Muedans’ understanding of sorcery?

[1] West, Harry G. Ethnographic Sorcery. University of Chicago Press, 2007. pp. i-xi; 1-85.

[2] West, 2007. p. xi.

[3] West, 2007. p. 4.

[4] West, 2007. p. 5.

[5] West, 2007. p. 25.

[6] West, 2007. pp. 61-4.

[7] West, 2007. p. 49.

[8] West, 2007. p. 13.

[9] West, 2007. p. 18.

[10] West, 2007. p. 43.

[11] West, 2007. p. 25.

[12] West, 2007. pp. 84-5.