SPECIAL SECTION: The Future of a Discipline: Considering the Ontological/Methodological Future of the Anthropology of Consciousness, Part II†

Anthropological research on consciousness, particularly that published in the journal Anthropology of Consciousness, has had limited impact on mainstream anthropology partly because contributors often overlook the discipline's historical roots. The subfield of ethnometaphysics, coined by anthropologist A. Irving Hallowell, never gained traction like ethnobotany or ethnomusicology. By revisiting ethnometaphysics and using the example of Western debates over whether to call psychoactive substances hallucinogens or entheogens, the author argues that the Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness can reframe its alternative perspective as less radical, thereby increasing its chances of influencing mainstream anthropology.

Study at a glance

Abstract

ABSTRACTIn order for the valuable research published in the Anthropology of Consciousness (AoC) journal to have the impact it ought to have upon the anthropological mainstream, contributors must demonstrate that they appreciate the historical tradition of anthropology as an intellectual forebear. Although “ethnometaphysics” has been cited sporadically by anthropologists over the past half‐century, it never really caught on as an interdisciplinary speciality like ethnobotany, ethnomusicology, and ethnomathematics. Pointing to the example of discord in the West between viewing psychoactive substances as either “hallucinogens” or “entheogens,” I reassert ethnometaphysics in an aim to revamp the overlooked coining of this sub‐field by anthropologist A. Irving Hallowell. Such a position rebrands SAC's alternative outlook in a way that could be seen by mainstream colleagues as less radical, thus giving the Society a more realistic opportunity to provoke progressive changes in the mainstream of our discipline.