It is a term that denotes a special kind of behaviour, not necessarily religious, which follows from the acceptance of beliefs in one or another type of supernaturalism. If people believe in animism, they may act so as to get certain things done with the help of the spirit beings whom they believe to be present.
“If people believe in mana or animatism, they may act in a somewhat different way in order to affect desired ends with the help of the impersonal sort of power they presume can be tapped. They also assume that certain things will happen inevitably because the power has always operated in that way.
If people believe in a pantheon of deities, one or another of those deities will be propitiated, sacrificed to, or angled in some way in order to bring about other desired ends.
Image Source: mysticpolitics.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
However, the essential characteristic of magic is that its procedures tend to be mechanistic and to function automatically if one knows the proper formula.” Religion and magic are alternative techniques. Sometimes, one is supplementary to another.
Anthropologists have defined magic on the strength of their experience in the field, though a few of the definitions are not directly related to empirical observations. However, we would make an attempt here to define magic in a systematic way. Let us begin with John Lewis. He says:
Magic is the technique of coercion by making use of belief in supernatural power. Sympathetic or imitative magic supposes that an action committed upon something that stands for a person or a thing will have the desired effect upon the actual person or thing.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Malinowski has defined magic in a very precise way as under:
Magic is a body of purely practical acts, performed as a means to an end.
According to Herskovits, magic is a substantial part of culture. People often use prayer as a form of worship. A prayer uses words to bring about the favourable intervention of the powers of the universe in the affairs of men. Magic stands in contrast to prayer.
This contrast was for the first time attempted by Evans-Pritchard in the discussion of the magic among the Azandes. Herskovits draws his comprehension of magic from Evans-Pritchard and Frazer. His understanding of magic is explained as below:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The charm and the spell are widely spread devices employed in magic. A specific power, held to reside in a specific object, is set in operation by the pronouncement of a formula that, of itself, can wield power.
The magic charm takes innumerable forms. It most often includes some part of the object over which its power is to be exerted, or some element that, because of outer resemblance or inner character, habitually achieves the desired result.
Though the definitions of religion given by the anthropologists vary in their form and content, the basic idea is more or less the same. The tribals believe that there is one supernatural power. None can contest it. It is universal.
This supernatural power is endowed with ample power which is positive (white) and negative (black) both. The person, who wants to obtain expertise in the art of magic, appeases the supernatural power to make it bestow some power on him. The supernatural thus can be obliged to part with some of its power through certain magical performances. These performances vary from society to society.
Magic :
If we make a quick survey of research in sociology and social anthropology, we realize that during the last few decades no empirical study on magic has been made by social anthropologists.
Sachchidananda has prepared an elaborate bibliography on rural studies, and to our surprise no study has been conducted on the influence of magic among the Indian tribes.
Similarly, the project Peoples of India does not mention anything about this. On the other hand, the textbooks on social anthropology invariably carry a chapter on tribal magic. Clearly, there is a wide gap on what we find today and what is given in the textbooks.
It is beyond comprehension as to what makes the textbook writers devote many pages to vivid accounts of tribal magic. Perhaps, the fault does not lie with the textbook writers. The responsibility of including magic rests with the framers of the syllabuses.
Magical practices in India go back to medieval and pre-capitalist society. Magic has a specific role in the evolution of our institutions. Malinowski, Evans-Pritchard and Frazer were evolution lists. It is this evolutionary perspective which led these anthropologists to write about tribal magic.
Religion, too, like any other social institution, has evolved through a long process of development. Magic was perhaps the first stage in the evolutionary phase of development of religion. Besides tribals the non-tribal groups who were living in isolation also had firm faith in magic.
The allopathic system of treatment had not come into existence then, and people were perennially becoming victims of varying ailments. They were living in unfriendly environments. There was scarcity, famines, epidemics, and the people had no other alternatives other than resorting to magic.
Malinowski and Frazer who worked among the tribals reported the role of magic in tribal society in middle of the 19th and 20th centuries. Malinowski’s Trobrianders and Evans-Pritchard’s Azandes have now taken to modernization. All of them have accepted the modern system of medicine.
In India, the ‘civilized’ castes also took to magical practices and, in some cases, these proved more sophisticated than tribals’. When there was invasion on Somnath temple (Gujarat), the Hindu Rajas invited a group of Brahmins to perform magic so that the invasion could be made ineffective.
Even today, we see that when political leaders or elites of high status are in a struggle with death, Brahmins and tantriks are called to perform Mratunjaya Jap-a clear example of belief in superstitions.
The point which we want to emphasize here is that magic was not a specific art practiced only by the tribals. The whole subcontinent believed in magical practices. If Frazer and Malinowski mentioned tribal magic, they were only discussing the tribal situation which was found during the medieval and pre-capitalist periods, not only of India but the whole of Europe.