Working with Spirits among Muslim Hausa in Nigeria - A Study of Bori in Jos - IN CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
WORKING PAPERS
IN
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY
No 11 2002
Working with Spirits among
Muslim Hausa in Nigeria
A Study of Bori in Jos
by
Ulrika Andersson
DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY
& ETHNOLOGY
UPPSALA UNIVERSITYWORKING WITH SPIRITS AMONG
MUSLIM HAUSA IN NIGERIA
A Study of Bori in Jos
(Report from a Minor Field Study)
by
Ulrika Andersson
Working Papers in Cultural Anthropology, No. 11
Department of Cultural Anthropology and Ethnology
Uppsala University
2002Working Papers in Cultural Anthropology
replaces the previous series
Working Papers in African Studies
(Nos. 1-35, 1984-87, ISSN 0281-6814)
The series is published by
Department of Cultural Anthropology and Ethnology
Uppsala University
Trädgårdsgatan 18
S-753 09 Uppsala, Sweden
Titel
Working with Spirits among Muslim Hausa in Nigeria: A Study of Bori in Jos (Report from a
Minor Field Study)
Abstract
This is a report from a field study that focused on bori (spirit possession) practitioners among
the Muslim Hausa speaking population in Jos, Nigeria. During the study it became apparent to
me that there are significant differences between the ways bori are defined and perceived by the
practitioners on the one hand, and researchers and other outside observers on the other.
In the report the discussions can be seen to take place on two levels. One is more
related to my field experience and the ethnographic material from my field study. The
discussions here reflect upon different interpretations of masu bori made from different
positions. Researchers’ along with some non-bori Nigerians’ views on bori are here compared
with the interpretation I made during my field study of the views of masu bori.
The other level is based on a more theoretical discussion on how to interpret a part of
a cultural process from a cultural perspective. Linked to this discussion is a question of what is
viewed to be in the centre and periphery respectively. The point of departure here is with
theoretical views of culture that have been at work in the interpretations of spirits possession in
terms of ‘deviation’, ‘deprivation’ and ‘resistance’ or ‘counter’.
My argument is that these interpretations represent an outside perspective of bori. Bori
becomes the periphery that is interpreted in relation to a perceived centre or central power.
Finally, since all views are positioned I want to conclude with raising the question of who
actually has the right to define what somebody is and does.
Keywords: Anthropology, Bori, Cultural theory, Hausa, Islam, Medicine, Nigeria, Spirit
Possession.
© Department of Cultural Anthropology & Ethnology and the author, 2002
ISSN 1401-4815
Typesetting & Layout: Ulrika AnderssonContents Acknowledgements 1. A Meeting with Bori …………………………………………………. 1 2. Trends in Literature on Spirit Possession ………………………….. 14 3. Theoretical Points of Departure …………………………………..… 17 4. Views of Kungiyar Bori in Historical Context ……………………… 23 5. What is Kungiyar Bori? ……………….……...………………….… 34 6. Masu Bori as a part of Traditional and Modern Medicine ............... 39 7. Power of a gift from Allah ……………………...…….…………....… 52 8. Conclusion ……….……………………………………………...……. 59 List of References …………...………...……………................................ 61
Acknowledgements
This report has been made possible thanks to the many people who helped and
lent me their time during my field study in Jos, Nigeria. First and foremost I want
to express my deepest respect and gratitude to the bori practitioners and other
medical practitioners, who shared their knowledge and life stories with me, and I
hope that I will do them justice in this report. I also want to thank the members of
the Nigerian Union of Medical Herbal Practitioners, Plateau State Branch, who
let me into their meetings. Especially I want to acknowledge the Chairman and
Secretary of this organisation, who introduced me to the members and lent me
their time. I am also grateful to the people who interpreted for me and many
times worked with me from early in the morning to late in the night. I am also
indebted to my supervisor in the field Dr. Umar Habila Dadem Danfulani at the
Department of Religious Studies at the University of Jos in Nigeria, whose
support I treasure. He is not only the one who invited me to Nigeria, but also
gave me much detailed local information and helped me during my stay. I also
want to thank the staff at the University of Jos for welcoming and giving me the
possibility to study the literature at the University’s library. I also want to express
my appreciation to the Dabel and Eze families whom I both cherish for letting
me into their homes and making me feel as part of their families. Na gode!
In Sweden I want to thank my supervisor, Jan Ovesen at the Department
of Anthropology & Ethnology at the University of Uppsala, for his support and
comments. I also want to acknowledge the Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency (Sida) for making it financially possible for me to undertake
this Minor Field Study in Jos, Nigeria. Finally, I am grateful for the help from
Rafael and Veronika with checking the language in this report.
Ulrika Andersson
Uppsala, September 20021. A Meeting with Bori
This is a report from a three-month field study1 in Jos, Nigeria, which focused on
bori2 medical practitioners among the Muslim Hausa speaking population in Jos.
In general, the southern part of Nigeria is Christian and the northern part Muslim
with the population predominantly being Hausa. Jos is located almost in the
centre of Nigeria in the so-called Middle Belt and is as such religiously as well as
ethnically very mixed. In the academic literature bori is commonly described as a
pre-Islamic spirit possession cult that has survived among the Muslim Hausa
speaking population, who live mainly in the northern part of Nigeria and the
southern part of Niger, an area referred to as Hausaland.
During my field study of bori practitioners in Jos, it became apparent
that these practitioners do not usually define themselves in the terms that
researchers have used to define them, namely as members of a spirit possession
cult. It is also important already at this point to acknowledge that academic
literature does not provide one single meaning or application of the word ‘cult’.
The word is used in different contexts with different meanings. Moreover, in the
literature regarding bori there are generally never any definitions of what the
authors actually mean by their use of the word ‘cult’. Nevertheless, general
references to spirit possession, including bori, frequently contain terms like
‘deviation’, ‘deprivation’, ‘peripheral’ and ‘counter’. Therefore, although not
explicitly stated, it is implied that bori as a cult is something that is not in
accordance with, or a part of, what the authors see as dominant or central.
1
The field study in Jos, Nigeria was carried out between October 2000 and January 2001. The
study was carried out within the Minor Field Studies programme of the Swedish International
Development Cooperation Agency, Sida.
2
In regard to transliteration of non-English words I have throughout this text chosen to leave
out diacritical signs. Moreover, these words are inflected in both singular and plural forms, but
when used in other forms an English translation is applied or an English article is added to the
non-English word. However, I have also chosen to inflect some words in a genitive form when
they are part of a concept, for example as sarauniyar bori, queen of bori.
1In this text I focus on how the bori practitioners themselves described
bori. This way of presenting the ethnographic material is both a matter of making
the bori practitioners the speaking subject rather than the object, and also a way
of illustrating the theoretical basis of this text.
Bori practitioners constantly stressed that they did not choose this and
that if they have had a choice, they would never have walked down this path. It is
the spirits, called iskoki (singular iska), bori, jinn or aljanu (singular aljan) who
have chosen them through illness.3 One bori man told me that I could not begin
asking just anyone questions about bori. The person must accept being asked
questions and also be a God-fearing person, somebody who likes Allah, as well
as tell the truth. He continued by claiming that not everybody will tell me the
truth the way he did, about how bori is ciwo, sickness, and that nobody likes
bori. He continued that those who are affected are not so of their own will, but
because Allah has ordained the iskoki to come upon them in the bori. He ended
by stating that bori is sickness and if anybody will tell me that he likes bori, that
person is telling me lies, because nobody wants bori, but there is nothing they
can do about it.4
Almost all bori practitioners I talked to began by describing how, when
they first fell ill, they visited many other kinds of doctors, but when none of them
could provide a cure they turned to a bori medical practitioner as a last resort.
This medical practitioner then discovered that the only way the person could be
cured was through the curing initiation rite, girka. Through this rite, a kind of
harmony is created between the iskoki and the afflicted individual. The
consequence is not only that the sick person would be cured, but also as an
initiated bori practitioner he or she gained a lifelong and close relationship with
the spirit world.
As an example of these portrayals, one woman bori practitioner
described her way of becoming a practitioner the following way: She was born in
Kano, but when she was twelve years old her husband had brought her here to
Jos. Some time after this she fell ill, and her husband took her to a hospital called
the Maternity clinic owned by a Catholic missionary body. She had pains in the
lower part of her abdomen and after series of examinations the doctors were
3
I have chosen not to use the word bori when referring to spirits, because of possible confusion
with the practitioners of bori. I have instead generally chosen to use the word iskoki when
referring to spirits, which is also the word most commonly used by the bori practitioners I met.
4
Quotations and references to informants are generally taken from taped interviews that have
been transcribed.
2unable to find the cause. She had what was called scanning and still they could
not find any problem, nothing was discovered. The doctor, who was surprised,
said – ‘well, we have tried to find out what your problem is and it is unfortunate
that we can not find it’. Some men in her village suggested that the cause must be
some kind of iskoki and that she should seek a traditional medicine person that
could give her medicine, since the Western science had failed.
However, she then turned to the Jos University Teaching Hospital.
There, she met with a gynaecological specialist, since it appeared her problems
were gynaecological. After some time, the gynaecologist suggested that there
was virtually nothing wrong with her. But every time she was asleep and
dreaming, an iska would appear to her wanting to have sex with her, which made
her feel scared and threatened. She would cry during the nights, shouting that he
is there and the people around her would not see anything. Following this, she
explained that everybody was surprised when the doctor said that she should be
taken home, because there was no remedy. Moreover, for the reason that this
hospital that is supposedly the best had failed, she and her family lost hope in the
Western medical science. Since the hospital could not treat her properly, she felt
she was going insane.
She left the hospital aware that she had to turn to traditional medicine
and submit herself to girka. She explained that the reason why she turned to
traditional medicine at this stage was that she found in the Koran that Allah has
identified the existence of iskoki. He has created man as well as iskoki, and
therefore Islam cannot deny the presence of iskoki. She said that if iskoki exist,
they must also have a function, and this was her motivation for accepting to
undergo girka. Her husband supported her decision when he realised what
torments she was going through because of the iskoki. But when living in her
father’s house, she had seen how the bori practitioners there had suffered, so she
told her husband that she did not want to undergo girka. Her husband then told
her that this sickness was going to be more terrible for her than the initiation and
reminded her that since they got married she had not been able to give birth to
any children. Faced with these arguments, she finally accepted to go through
girka.
After girka her sickness began to subside and she was able to conceive.
Notwithstanding this, the iskoki were still coming to torment her. Eventually, she
realised that she was not using the iskoki in the right way, because after girka she
was supposed to have searched for a way of using them. She understood that she
was supposed to use the iskoki to acquire medicine. Hence, she became a medical
3practitioner and has been so for the last fifteen years. She emphasised that she did
not only believe in the iskoki, but also in the potency of Allah. Even after being
initiated she has had miscarriages, but she does not believe that the iskoki are
responsible for this, it is the work of Allah.
Since becoming a bori practitioner is not a path of choice, the
practitioners do not see themselves as a group that want to keep apart from other
people. Moreover, they do not believe themselves to be in possession of any
secrets in relation to the rest of society. It is the iskoki who have the knowledge
and it is only when possessed by them that bori practitioners have access to it. It
is thus only when they are no longer themselves but possessed by iskoki that the
practitioners can be consulted regarding medical knowledge that comes from
iskoki. In this context, one bori woman explained that without the iskoki, she can
not understand the herbs. When the iskoki come to her they convey that a person
is sick, what type of illness it is and how to cure it. They tell her that if she wants
to cure the person she shall go to the bush, get a specific herb, give it to the
person and the person will get well.
It is also important that the bori practitioners do not define bori in
religious terms, but see themselves as medical practitioners no different from the
rest of the medical community. Thus, they define their medicine in terms of
maganin gargajiya, traditional medicine, rather than bori medicine or any other
term that will distinguish it from other forms of maganin gargajiya. Several bori
practitioners are members of the Nigerian Union of Medical Herbal
Practitioners5, Plateau State Branch. This union has an office located at the
Pharmacology department of the University of Jos where bori practitioners have
weekly meetings as a part of the Hausa group within the Union.
Bori practitioners constantly refer to Allah in their conversations; they all
describe themselves as good Muslims. When I was invited to bori practitioners
during Ramadan they would serve me food, but they themselves would be
fasting. Many also refer to themselves as alhajiya and alhaji, a person who has
been on pilgrimage to Mecca. However, this does not necessarily mean that the
person has actually been to Mecca, because alhajiya and alhaji is commonly
used as just a word of address. Still, one of the older bori women I met explained
that she is now going on her hajj, her pilgrimage to Mecca.
5
As far as I know this national organisation was earlier called an ‘association’ and was started
in 1960. It changed the name in 1981 to a ‘union’ and is today called the Nigerian Union of
Medical Herbal Practitioners.
4Even if bori practitioners do not define bori in religious terms, they do
not only see themselves as Muslims, but also interpret bori from an Islamic point
of view. The iskoki are seen as the jinn of the Koran, so they are created by
Allah. I was told a number of different myths of origin of the iskoki, but,
importantly, they all picture Allah as the creator. One of the myths retold by a
bori woman begins with Allah creating only one human being, Adam.6 Only later
did Allah create a woman called Eve. Adam woke up and found that one of his
ribs was missing, the one that Allah used to make Eve. Allah then presented the
very pretty Eve to Adam. Adam wanted to touch her, but Allah told him no and
that he first has to give her a gift. Adam asked what the gift should be and Allah
told him that he has to read a specific verse from the Koran ten times. After
Adam read this to Eve, they began to live together as husband and wife and have
children. The children continued to multiply and they became a very large
family. The world at that time was vertical and one day Allah said that it is time
to open the world, to spread it out. He told Adam and Eve to bring all their
children so that he could count them and see where in the world he will position
them. However, since they now had become such a large family, Eve became
very afraid, because she knew that some of her children would be taken away
from her. So she looked for the most beautiful and handsome children and hid
them by the side of the door. When Allah opened the roof of the house to pick up
the children he asked Eve if these were the only children she had; she answered
‘yes’. Then Allah said that he had been told that she had more than this. Her
response was once again that these were the only ones. Allah then asked about
the ones that she had hidden. He told Eve that because of her lie, human beings
would never again see the hidden children. These children became the iskoki that
we cannot see, but if we were able to, we would see that they are formed from
the most beautiful ancient human beings.
6
Similar origin myths are related by Echard (1991b:65f) and Schmoll (1991:239) from Niger.
5None of the mallamai (singular mallam), scholars of Koran, I met who
are medical practitioners7 will ever dream of denying the existence or the actions
of jinn. In fact, I did not meet a single Christian or Muslim in Jos who would
question the existence of iskoki. Still, some mallamai argued that bori
practitioners worship jinn rather than Allah. This is of course nothing that the
Muslim bori practitioners will agree on. One mallam medical practitioner argued
that the case with bori practitioners is that they first perform tricks that confuse
and impress and then later on give the patient medicine, but all this is uncalled
for because what they have done is a lot of tricks. Nevertheless, even if some
among the mallamai condemn bori or regard it as trickery, they will not question
the iskoki as being a cause of illnesses or their ability to cure people.
Some authors define bori as devil possession (Ilyasu Yaro 1991:8f,
Madauci, Isa & Daura 1968:77-84). In a book called “Hausa Customs”, bori is
not mentioned in the chapters concerning either religion or crafts and
occupations, but in the chapter named “Sports and Pastimes”. The introduction
on bori begins by stating that
In Hausaland you will find, here and there, groups of people who have faith in devil
possession. If you ask those “possessed” by the devil, they will tell you that they do
not practise the ritual for pleasure or for fun, but to help the public with “protection”
of all kinds and cures for all kinds of diseases. They even boast that quite often a sick
person is taken to the hospital and proves incurable to the doctor, but when he is
brought to them, they cure him through the art of devil possession. (Madauci, Isa &
Daura 1968:77)
Of course, none of the bori practitioners would agree with this decription. As
mentioned above, one bori practitioner stated that the reason he had become sick
and a practitioner is ultimately that Allah had ordained it. Accordingly, to him
bori is in no way conflicting with Islam, but part of it. Some bori practitioners
even define themselves as both bori and mallam medical practitioners. Bori
7
In this context, as a medical practitioner, the Koranic scholar or mallam, through his education
has access to a body of knowledge, which is not open to ordinary people. This gives him the
ability to uncover secrets, asirai, which increases his spiritual powers. Consequently mallamai
occupy a unique position within Hausa society as a holder of the inner secrets and esoteric
learnings of Islam (Wall 1988:232). Mallamai can have a wide variety of roles including such
as “counselor, diviner, astrologer, fortune-teller, spiritual adviser, pharmacist, and physician”
(Wall 1988:232). There are considerable variations in the range of knowledge of various
Koranic scholars. In general the most sophisticated mallamai reside in the cities, while
mallamai in the villages usually possess a lesser degree of knowledge (Wall 1988:232).
6practitioners view iskoki as a part of Islam and themselves as Muslims in no way
different from other Muslims.
So, there are three different conceptions of bori. That of academics, who
see it as a ‘cult’, associated with ‘depravation’, ‘deviation’, ‘periphery’ and
‘resistance’. That of the Muslim sceptics who refer to ‘falsity’ and ‘devil
possession’. And that of the bori practitioners themselves who associate it with
illness and healing.
When asked how he would describe bori as a group, one bori man
answered that there is nothing wrong about bori, it is not a daba, cult; he would
describe it as a kungiya. Kungiya just means a neutral group, because there is
nothing devious or bad about it. This is the common view among bori
practitioners. However, when talking generally about bori as a collective
occupation, they use masu bori, ‘possessors of bori’ and sometimes yan bori,
‘children of bori’. For this reason, I have chosen in the following chapters to use
kungiyar bori when referring to bori as a group. When referring to the persons,
who actually constitute the group, I use the term masu bori. When referring to
specific practitioners I have chosen not to use the concept dan bori, son of bori
or yar bori, daughter of bori, but rather mai bori, possessor of bori. I refrain from
naming specific individuals.
Nevertheless, it is important to emphasise at this stage that masu bori in
general, even if initiated into the occupation, do not refer to themselves as a
distinct group as such, but as possessors of bori, or that they are working with
spirits. Even if for many masu bori their occupation is a full-time job and their
only source of income, they do not see themselves as belonging to an isolated
group, but rather as holding one of several occupations within maganin
gargajiya.
An Image is created
The material I have gathered during my three-month field study in the Jos area
consists mainly of conversations with bori medical practitioners, as well as other
medical practitioners of medicine associated with maganin Hausa, Hausa
medicine,8 mostly mallam medical practitioners. It should be mentioned that
there exist bori persons, who are not medical practitioners, but just get possessed
8
Bori medicine is both categorised as maganin hausa, Hausa medicine and maganin gargajiya,
traditional medicine. The bori people I talked to, however, generally prefer to see bori as a part
of all Nigerian traditional medicine, but it is also, even if not preferred as a description seen as
Hausa medicine in relation to other ethnic groups’ medicine in Nigeria.
7during bori festivals and similar activities. These persons sometimes are referred
to by other masu bori in negative terms like that they are fake and are just taking
part for festive reasons. It is possible that these people would have given me a
picture of bori different from the one I got from the medical practitioners, but
since I have never met one of these persons I have no knowledge of this.
However, the picture I was given during my visit is that these persons are quite
few in relation to those who are practising medicine. I also spoke with two
Christian traditional medical practitioners, who did not belong to the Hausa
medicine. In addition to these, longer discussions also took place with two Hausa
men who are not medical practitioners, one of whom is an Islamic scholar at the
University of Jos. Lengthy discussions, most of which were taped, were
conducted with 27 informants, medical practitioners between the ages of twenty
and eighty. These persons, of whom eleven were women, were of the ages
between 20 and 80 and, consequently, the length of their medical practice varied
quite a lot.
I met each informant on one to four occasions, and each meeting
generally lasted between two and four hours. An initial meeting with a medical
practitioner generally started with me introducing myself. Thereafter I asked
them to introduce themselves. This was followed by how they relate to, and
define themselves in relation to their practises and other practices surrounding
them, as well as how they view general themes such as medicine, Islam, iskoki
and power. Of course, these general questions were broken down into more
specific questions and many times the informants chose to talk about other
themes.
The interviews ordinarily took place either in the home of the informant
or in the home of another practitioner, whom I had met before and who further
introduced me to other people. In other cases, the Secretary of the Nigerian
Union of Medical Herbal Practitioners, Plateau State Branch functioned as the
person who introduced me. In some other cases, I was introduced by somebody I
knew, who did not have any direct contact with traditional medicine.
During the field study I worked with a Hausa interpreter. Only with four
persons, none of them a mai bori, could I communicate directly in English.
Throughout the study I had the help of eight different interpreters, all of whom
interpreted between English and Hausa. Their ages varied between twenty and
seventy. All translators except one were men; seven were Christians and one
Muslim. None of the interpreters were, at least openly, opposed to masu bori or
8other kinds of traditional medical practices and they were themselves often quite
interested in the topic.
Information was also obtained from observing rituals and other forms of
social interaction. For example, in Jos I took part in the weekly meetings of the
Hausa group of the Nigerian Union of Medical Herbal Practitioners, Plateau
State Branch. I also participated in meetings of the Yoruba group of the same
organisation.
Since the image of masu bori presented in this text is basically a result of
conversations between bori medical practitioners and myself, it is necessarily
shaped by how our relation was interpreted from both sides. The stories that were
presented to me by masu bori are based on their view of me. I was often seen by
masu bori as one who would be able to spread information about bori medicine,
as well as being able to give new, fruitful contacts. Moreover, I think that as a
white person I was seen as connected to maganin bature, ‘Western medicine’;
this may be the reason why masu bori often described their own medicine as
being maganin gargajiya in relation to maganin bature. A meeting with a new
informant always ended by me asking if they wanted to add something they
thought important, or if they wanted to ask me something. In their replies, the
two above described tendencies can be discerned. They would often tell me of all
the medicine they knew and all the different diseases they could cure. In some
cases I was also asked if I could tell them how they could improve the packing of
their medicines, or help them to rearrange the place where they met with their
patients. Moreover, my arrival all the way from Sweden was seen in the context
of how their medicine is becoming better known and stronger. Therefore, when I
visited a medical practitioner for the first time, he or she often would call a
photographer to take a picture of us together. Then next time I visited the picture
would be on the wall as a proof that their medicine was good.
The fact that my introduction to masu bori and kungiyar bori in Jos came
through maganin gargajiya was nothing I had chosen on beforehand; it was
partly because masu bori defined and presented themselves from the perspective
of maganin gargajiya. It is possible that if my introduction into kungiyar bori,
and the bori practitioners’ view of me had been different, I would also have had a
different view. I thus want to argue that different views of masu bori may emerge
depending on the position from which masu bori are interpreted. My own
position is one as an outsider, certainly, but I have tried nevertheless to place the
masu bori rather than myself at the centre.
9My account cannot be seen as a general picture of masu bori, only as an
account on behalf of those individuals with whom I actually had contact in Jos. I
shall therefore give a general description of the Jos context.
A Context of Creation of an Image
In general, the southern part of Nigeria is Christian and the northern part Muslim,
even if this distinction may not be as clear as it has many times been depicted
(Imo 1995:19f). Nevertheless, Nigeria in itself is pluralistic with about 250
different ethnic groups (Makozi 1988:13 in Imo 1995:46). The kungiyar bori
primarily exists among the Hausa speaking population who live mainly in the
northern part of Federal Republic of Nigeria and the southern part of Republic of
Niger, an area referred to as Hausaland. Hausa are today predominantly Muslims,
but there is also a small group of non-Muslim Hausa, called Maguzawa.
Kungiyar bori is associated with this group, but while Maguzawa are found in
isolated rural areas, kungiyar bori exists within the Muslim communities
throughout Nigeria and Niger.
Jos is located almost in the centre of Nigeria and is today the capital of
Plateau State, which is a part of the so-called Middle Belt. It differs from the
more northern part of Nigeria referred to earlier, which is a part of Hausaland, in
that it has a much higher percentage of non-Muslim population, predominantly
Christian. It also differs from the southern part of Nigeria, which is dominated by
Christians in that it has a higher percentage of Muslim population. The British
colonial administration did not restrict Christian missionary activities in the
Middle belt in the same way as it did in areas further north. This, as well as the
Islamic impact from the imposition of the Emirate system has, according to
Sonni Gwanle Tyoden, given the area its present religious pluralism (Tyoden
1993:19). He describes an area that today “has a predominant Christian character
with a sprinkling of animists and sizeable Muslim population” (Tyoden 1993:19).
The Middle Belt is also characterised by heterogeneity regarding ethnicity,
culture and politics (Tyoden 1993:17).
Jos is a relatively new city created by the British after they had found tin
deposits in the area. It was developed early in the twentieth century as a centre
for mining and exporting of tin and became officially a town in 1915 (see Bingel
1978, Grace 1982, Plotnicov 1969, Taylor 1993). The initial role that mining
played for Jos has, however, today been largely replaced by commercial,
educational, medical, military, administrative and communication activities
(Taylor 1993:36). During the twentieth century the area has been influenced by
10many factors including the growth of Jos, the influx of people responding to the
demand for labour in the tin mines, the spread of Hausa and Southern traders
and the movements of Fulani pastoralists. Other factors affecting the area include
the spread of Islam and Christianity, as well as the constant, not yet complete
process of development of Hausa into a lingua franca. The area has also been
characterised by the presence of the colonial government and with it things like
Western education (Isichei 1982:254). The population of Jos was estimated at
between 350,000 and 450,000 in 1991 (Steed 1991:17) and close to 650,000 in
1993 (Taylor 1993:36).
Neither in the 1960s (Plotnicov 1969:84) nor today is the city of Jos
dominated by a particular ethnic group. It has been described as the Christian
capital of northern Nigeria with the largest presence of missionaries in Nigeria
and with a Christian population majority, but also with a large Muslim
community, mostly Hausa (Steed 1991:21f). Being an urban centre, it is
characterised by a large proportion of immigrants, and by ethnic diversity. The
tendency of the 1960s (Plotnicov 1969:50), that different ethnic groups live in
separate quarters, and are identified with specific occupations still exists. This
originated with the colonial administration’s original planning when the town
was divided into a Native Town and Township, the former being inhabited
mainly by people of Northern origin, particularly Hausa, Kanuri and Fulani, and
the latter primarily by Asians, Europeans and Western educated southern
Nigerians. (Bingel 1978:6ff, Zangabadt 1983:2, Plotnicov 1969:41f, 50f, Taylor
1993:27, 32).
The fact that Jos is a relatively new and a growing city implies that many
of the inhabitants are not born in Jos, but have moved there and are ‘strangers’.
Most of the medical practitioners I came in contact with were not born in Jos but
in the northern part of Nigeria. One woman cited either marriage with a Jos
townsman or a husband’s decision as the main reasons for these women to move
to Jos. The male practitioners had moved for business reasons, meaning it is a
good place for them to practice their medicine, or that they first came here to
visit a specific patient and then ended up staying. Explanations about how the
iskoki had ordained them to move were also mentioned, or that the move was
connected with a search for a cure to an illness they had obtained. The women
often seem to have moved to Jos around the age of thirteen to fourteen, the age
they were married. For the men, the ages vary from almost newborn to grown-up.
Despite varied reasons for moving, and the varied time-span spent in Jos, many
still presented themselves as having their origin in the northern part of Nigeria
11and, if not necessarily Hausa, still associate themselves with the Hausa language
and ways including the Muslim faith.
The fact that Jos is not a Hausa or Muslim dominated area affects the
role bori practices play there. For example, one bori woman explained that the
role of masu bori as the ones seeking the permission of the iskoki for
establishment of a new market place is still fulfilled in all the Hausa States. But
in Jos, since this is not a Hausa environment, and the masu bori are settlers and
not indigenous, they cannot fill that role there, even though masu bori had
reportedly invited the iskoki at the central market place at Terminus in Jos. One
bori man described in a similar fashion that up north bori is more prominent than
in Jos, and that there are not as many bori festivals as, for example, up north in
Kano. Even a mallam medical practitioner agreed that the impact of maganin
gargajiya is greater in places like Kano compared to Jos, because the
acceptability there is higher and everybody knows and patronises the practice.
The fact that Jos is an urban environment was also commented upon
during my stay when a bori festival was going to be organised. The urban
environment prevented the setting aside of a specific place for festivals. This did
not only lead to discussions of where festivals shall take place, but also to
statements by some masu bori that bori practices are not staged as often as they
were before.
On the other hand, it was also indicated that bori is actually stronger in
Jos than in other places, because of the tin. Claims were made that tin has an iska
as everything under the surface of the earth has a lot of iskoki. It was explained
that masu bori had worked together with the tin miners to find the right places to
work. If a place was diagnosed as having bad iskoki, the masu bori would tell the
miners not to work there, but to choose another place where the iskoki would be
favourably disposed.
Purpose and Framework of the Report
The purpose of this report is twofold. The first is ethnographic and aims to
discuss the various interpretations of masu bori made from different positions,
which in turn are compared with the interpretation I made during my field study
of the views of masu bori. The other aims at a more theoretical discussion of how
to interpret a part of a culture from a cultural perspective. The starting point is
with theoretical views of culture that have been at work in the interpretations of
spirits possession in general and what consequences these views have. These two
12aims are interconnected and should not be seen as involving two different
arguments.
I will at first turn to an outline of how spirit possession in general, as
well as bori in particular, has been defined and interpreted among researchers.
Then I shall go into a theoretical anthropological discussion on what grounds and
from what perspective these definitions and interpretations of spirit possession
have been made, including who is doing the defining and what is being defined.
This will be done more specifically in relation to views on cultural process,
power, resistance, centre and periphery.
Subsequently I will go into bori as a specific example of spirit
possession by presenting bori within a historical context. The purpose is to
illustrate how different understandings of bori have positioned it as a historical
phenomenon. Following this is a chapter on different interpretations of masu bori
and kungiyar bori, describing from which perspectives these interpretations have
been made in relation to what I perceive to be the way that the masu bori see
themselves.
After this I come to a more specific treatment of the field material I have
collected. My point of departure is that masu bori perceive themselves as a part
of maganin gargajiya as well as of the Islamic tradition. I will present the view
the masu bori have of themselves as medical practitioners and how they relate to
other kinds of medical practitioners, specifically to maganin Bature. I will also
portray how they see themselves as a part of both traditional and modern
medicine, and show that basically this is connected to power and how power is
perceived. I will also describe the masu bori self-image as Muslims and how this
once again is connected to how power is perceived.
Finally, I want to conclude with a discussion where I posit researchers’
as well as some non-masu bori Nigerians’ views on spirit possession in relation
to how masu bori have been described identifying themselves in relation to the
areas mentioned above. A question that will be asked is: from what different
perspectives or positions within a culture do these definitions come? The final
question that I will ask is who has the right to define what somebody is and does.
132. Trends in Literature on Spirit Possession
Academic interest in the bori is nothing new. A. J. N. Tremearne’s book The Ban
of the Bori was published as early as 1914. This study contains a detailed record
of bori beliefs and practices, and identities of spirits (Tremearne 1914). Joseph
Greenberg’s study (1946) contains mainly discussions about Islamic influences
on Maguzawa religion, including information of the bori cult from this
perspective (Greenberg 1946). Nevertheless, in his 1966 article, Anthony King
stated that, up to that date, bori had not received much scholarly attention (King
1966:105). His article has been seen as the beginning of a ‘modern’ interest in
the bori cult (Besmer 1983:1).
Some of the recent studies of bori have focused on the place of bori in
the Hausa medical system, primarily from the relationships between Muslim,
bori and Western medical practices (Abdalla 1991, Schmoll 1991, Wall 1988).
Others deal with the origin of the cult and reasons for its survival (Danfulani
1999, Echard 1991b, Shuaibu 1990), and many have discussed bori with
reference to gender roles (Callaway 1984, 1987, Cooper 1997, Danfulani 1999,
Echard 1991a, Onwuejeogwu 1969).9 Many of these studies are connected to I.
M. Lewis’ discussion on what has been labelled ‘the sex war’.
Lewis makes a distinction, which has greatly influenced the literature
concerned with spirit possession, between what he calls ‘main morality cults’ and
‘peripheral cults’. The former are involved in the maintenance of general
morality in society, while the latter play no direct part in the upholding of
society’s moral code. The spirits are here seen as peripheral, also because they
are seen as originating from outside the society. Lewis argues that these
‘peripheral cults’ are peripheral also in the sense that the individuals who are
possessed come from peripheral groups in the society (Lewis 1989:27, 29).
Lewis argues that these ‘peripheral cults’, including the bori cult, can be
derived from an inherent conflict between men and women, and that spirit
possession functions as a means primarily for women to put pressure on their
(male) superiors (Lewis 1966:317f, 1989:27f). In a critique of Lewis, Peter
Wilson claims that possession is rather connected to conflicts between members
of the same sex and argues that in contexts where an individual’s status is
9
For discussion of bori within the Maguzawa system out of this perspective see Last (1991).
14threatened or ambiguous, spirit possession is a means for attaining status or
identity definition (Wilson 1967:366, 374-377).
In his book Horses, Musicians, and Gods, Fremont Besmer sees the bori
cult as a good example of both deprivation and deviation. He suggests that bori
can be seen as a cult of deprivation because its members are recruited from
marginal social categories, and as one of deviation because in Hausa society
members of the cult are regarded as social deviants and their behaviour as
unacceptable (Besmer 1983:19-21, 149).
Even if bori can be interpreted as a ‘peripheral cult’ the question still
remains if it should be reduced to just that. Michael Lambek questions whether
possession should be approached as an epiphenomenon of socio-economic and
socio-political relations. Such a view ignores the fact that possession is guided
and constrained by cultural models. Rather than seeing possession as a
counterculture triggered by relative deprivation, Lambek wants to place it within
a wider system of meaning. Based on his work in Mayotte, he argues that spirit
possession is an integral part of the whole culture. It is neither abnormal
behaviour nor counterculture (Lambek 1981:5, 60, 63f).
Possession is an autonomous, culturally constituted system. It is not the product of a
few deviant individuals, nor necessarily the symptom of a deeply divided society. [...]
Possession is thus a basic aspect of the social structure, not a by-product of it.
(Lambek 1981:69)
In a similar vein, Ivan Karp warns against explanations of spirit possession
without taking into account the particular intervening variables of culture, history
and society. Universal explanations cannot work across time and space (Karp
1989:91ff).
Adeline Masquelier (1993) focuses on the power relations between
Muslims and yan bori and criticises the interpretation of the cult as a disguised
protest movement for deprived individuals. Rather than a sociological problem-
solving mechanism, she sees bori as a discourse about power. Arguing that “bori
is not a symbolic alternative to an estranging reality, or an idealised refuge,”
(Masquelier 1993:3) she states that yan bori “impress upon the whole community
an alternative moral order that maintains an ever-precarious balance of power
[between yan bori and Muslims]” (Masquelier 1994:44).
Thus, interpretations of spirit possession in terms of ‘peripheral cults’ not
only ignore their cultural particularity and reduce their wider social relevance,
but also presuppose researchers’ perceptions of a steady and static centre as well
15as periphery. It implies a judgement on what is central, normal or correct in a
culture. Such judgements are always made from a specific position, and the
question rather becomes from what position one should define something or,
rather, since all persons are positioned within a specific context, who has the
right to define what somebody is or does.
Janice Boddy in her overview of spirit possession studies concludes that
most contemporary researchers would agree that spirit possession cults are or
have become modes of cultural resistance against colonial, national, or global
hegemonies (Boddy 1994:419) and cites studies by Jeanette Mageo (1996) on
girls’ possession in Samoa, Paul Stoller (1995) on the hauka spirits in Niger, Jean
Comaroff (1985) on South African Zionism, Dorothy Hodgson (1997) on
possession among Maasai women, as well as her own study of the zar cult in
Sudan (1989) in support of this view.
Many scholars have argued that the analysis of spirit possession should
be confined to the particular societies they occur in and have warned about the
dangers in interpreting spirit possession from a transcultural perspective. The trap
they see lies in scholars’ imposition of their own biased conceptions. By
searching for essentialist and reductionist explanations they destroy the meaning
and in the end submerge the local manifestations into abstract schema (Levy,
Mageo & Howard 1996:24). The abovementioned authors, who consider spirit
possession from a resistance perspective, analyse them in the light of the
particular cultures, but the question re-emerges whether spirit possession is not
once again being reduced to an epiphenomenon, this time to a by-product of
resistance?
In my view, the resistance interpretations, just like the deviation and
deprivation theories, leave it for the researchers to decide what is the centre and
what is deviating from it or reacting against it. Spirit possession is defined from a
perceived centre, which becomes the norm and, as I will show below, these
definitions do not necessarily correspond with how the masu bori themselves
perceive bori.
163. Theoretical Points of Departure
Cultural Diversity and Conflict
Roger Keesing (1987) has questioned the perception of culture in ‘traditional’
society as a collective creation (Keesing 1987:164). This view, he argues, has its
origin in the nineteenth century assumption regarding a collectiveness and
sharedness of ‘customs’. The reason for the survival of this perspective is, that
when anthropology refined the concept of ‘custom’ into ‘culture’, it principally
left unexamined the assumption about collectivity and uniformity (Keesing
1994:306). Going a step further, Fredrik Barth states that “[a]ll views are singular
and positioned; and anthropological accounts and generalizations about a cultural
tradition will represent the anthropologist’s construction” (Barth 1994:356). This
applies as well to anthropologist’s generalisations of spirit possession and its
position within the cultural process that it is a part of, to which I will return.
Nevertheless, as Henrietta Moore points out in relation to the view of
culture as a shared totality, a change has occurred from an interest in differences
between cultures to an emphasis on differences within cultures and a focus on
conflict and indeterminacy (Moore H. L. 1994a:15). She means that this shift has
resulted in a view that puts significance on culture as constituted through
performance and practice (Moore H. L. 1994b:825). In accordance with this,
Ward Goodenough maintains that an awareness regarding the active role people
play in the creation of their culture directs attention to culture not as a collective
property or existing independently from the actors, but created by them
(Goodenough 1994:262).
This latter perspective corresponds with the theories described in the
previous chapter regarding the interpretation of spirit possession in terms of
resistance. Jean and John Comaroff describe this change in the context of ritual
as a move from a perspective where ritual ensured solidarity and redressed
conflict to one where it transforms rather than reproduces. They reject “the long,
persistent tradition that sees ritual as conservative and conservationist, as a
(indeed, the) prime mechanism of social reproduction, cultural continuity, and
political authority” (Comaroff & Comaroff 1993:xxix) in favour of the view of
ritual as “a site and a means of experimental practice, […] of creative tension and
transformative action” (ibid.).
17If we accept that all cultures are dynamically diverse, holding multiple
perspectives, and that conflicts and tensions are a normal state, we should
question the interpretation of spirit possession in terms of resistance, cultural
resistance, counter hegemony or counterculture. For, as Lambek observes, spirit
possession (in Mayotte) is not a counterculture or a by-product, but an integral
part of the culture (Lambek 1981:63, 69). And how can an integral part of a
culture be construed as being against it? Can something, which is a part of a
culture at the same time be a reaction against it?
Relation between Power and Cultural Process
Although there are several anthropological views on power, there is “a fragile
consensus that power refers to the ability […] to control the behavior of others or
produce a desired reaction in them” (Hunter & Whitten 1976:314); in other
words, power “combines force with a specific end: getting one’s way” (Lomnitz
1996:1004). However, as William Arens and Ivan Karp observe, there are
problems with studies of power, which emphasise the pursuits of goals and view
power as rational calculation, in that they often fail to consider how concepts of
power are grounded in cultural resources and instead adopt a universalising view
power as secular, unvarying in time and space, something which implies a static
view of power relations and culture (Arens & Karp 1989:xiiif).
Keesing maintains that the production and reproduction of the cultural
must involve an examination of how it is connected to power (Keesing 1994:
309). Cultures, he says, constitute ideologies, which not only empower and
sustain the interests of some and subordinate and work against others, but also
disguise realities. Therefore “[w]e need to ask who creates and defines cultural
meanings, and to what ends” (Keesing 1987:161, 166). His answer is “that the
global schemes of symbolic structure are […] maintained, comprehended,
progressively created, elaborated, changed mainly by the experts in each
generation” (Keesing 1987:164).
J. G. Oosten has commented on this view that relations between experts
and others are much more complicated and that it is misleading to perceive one
particular group as being in control over cultural knowledge (Oosten 1987:171). I
share this view; culture cannot be seen as created and directed only by those
perceived to belong to the dominant group, since it is in the interaction between
the individuals (subordinate and dominant) that culture is created, and we should
be careful not to ascribe passivity to supposed subordinate individuals or groups.
The subordinate is not just moulded by cultural significance created by the
18dominant group, but are active in its creation. The cultural is not just a replication
of the expert’s understandings of the cultural.
This argument highlights the limitations of viewing the cultural process
from a perceived centre, specifically, in the present context, of viewing spirit
possession as peripheral or as a reaction against something. Arens and Karp point
out that the organisation of power relations is shifting among different domains
because social systems are not systematic and coherent, but hold views which
stand in opposition to what seems to be the accepted norm, and it is under such
circumstances resistance may emerge; power does not emanate from a single
source. “Social formations are composed of centers and epicenters of power in
dynamic relationship with one another. Domination and subordination operate on
both sides of all relationships, […] since dependence and control are shared
unequally among the actors” (Arens & Karp 1989:xvi).
Resistance in Relation to Power and the Cultural Process
In recent years there has been a growing interest in subordinate people’s
resistance, and in the power relations involved (Abu-Lughod 1990:41, Lomnitz
1996:1006), which can be seen manifested in the wide use of terms like “voices,
subversion, dissidence, counter-discourse, and counter-hegemony as well as
resistance” (Abu-Lughod 1990:53). This interest in power inequalities has further
led anthropologists to connect subjects such as shamanism, ritual and spirit
possession with power and resistance.
‘Resistance’ provided a broad rubric for innovative work which, above all, showed
how local cultural resources could empower people confronted by global structures of
inequality. Its chief drawbacks were the vagueness of what was taken to be
‘resistance’ — i.e. action which impeded or subverted unequal power relations, as
apart from moments of relative autonomy when the apparently powerless could step
aside from the realities of oppression — and consequently the considerable
interpretive licence used by some ethnographers in reading resistance into acts and
symbols which people themselves might describe in quite different terms. At its most
extreme, this could lead into a kind of neo-functionalism in which all social and
cultural phenomena might be reduced to the role they play in maintaining or
subverting power relations. (Spencer 1996:489)
19James Scott, one of the leading proponents of resistance thinking, has
demonstrated how dominated people manipulate their own power resources.
Realising that the oppressed can rarely afford an open conflict he employs the
concept ‘weapons of the weak’, which includes forms of resistance such as foot
dragging and false compliance (Scott 1985:xvf).
Judith Okely follows Scott in seeing persons as active subjects and
focusing on moments of resistance in relation to conditions of subordination.
Whether part of a mass protest or as sporadic occurrences, these moments reveal
power in structures of subordination. For subordination to exist, it does not have
to recognised by the subordinate groups or individuals.
Indigenous interpretations are significant; the observation that people appear content
and do not see themselves as victims of domination cannot however be conclusive
proof of its absence. In the last instance the anthropologist has to attempt to formulate
more objective criteria. This includes examining examples of resistance, which reveal
the cracks in contentment. (Okely 1996:211)
Resistance is part of creating the cultural and, as such, a form of force or power.
The question is what decides resistance and power, respectively? If resistance is
connected to actions of subordinates and power is connected to performance of
dominant groups or individuals, does this mean that when a subordinate person
carries out an action against something it is always resistance, and when a
dominant person performs an action against something it is always a realisation
of power? This would imply that groups and individuals, who are perceived as
subordinate, would never be able to perform actions of power. If we accept that
interpretations of both dominant and subordinate are always positioned in
specific contexts, how do we handle situations of changing contexts are shifting
relations? This becomes even more complicated if we acknowledge Arens and
Karp’s observation that subordination and domination is to be found on both
sides in all social relations; how do we decide who is subordinate and who is
dominant?
I want to raise the question whether the distinctions between power and
resistance, dominant and dominated, have more to do with a moral statement by
the anthropologist than with the usefulness of these as analytical categories.
Dichotomies such as ‘power and resistance’ and ‘dominated and subordinate’ are
grounded in a view of culture as uniform and power as centralised. But we need
to acknowledge that power does not emanate from a single source.
20A Return to Interpretations of Spirit Possession
If the participants in spirit possession are not aware of the act of resistance they
are supposed to be performing and do not perceive their actions in such terms,
how can we claim it is resistance? Especially so, when the effect of the act is not
yet clear. As Comaroff and Comaroff point out when discussing ritual in general,
consequences do not “invariably follow envisaged scripts and scenarios: some
ritual practices aimed explicitly at changing received circumstances do not do so
at all—in fact, some may become downright reactionary. […] Such things are
never fully predictable” (Comaroff & Comaroff 1993:xxix). Similarly, Janice
Boddy, when interpreting the zar cult as a counter hegemonic process, observes
that the cult also reproduces the dominant system by taking part in it. The
message which is communicated through the zar often has “subversive overtones
as well as supportive ones” (Boddy 1989:5). According to Hodgson spirit
possession among Maasai women may also “serve merely to reinforce the
existing gendered relations of power” (Hodgson 1997:125). The question I want
to ask here is whether the descriptions of spirit possession in terms of resistance,
cultural resistance, counter hegemony and counterculture do not in fact reduce
their relationship with the surrounding culture, since they are not just a reaction
against the culture they are a part of, but also reinforce it. Can one be counter a
cultural process of which one is a part? Abu-Lughod states that resistance in all
forms points to locations of struggle (Abu-Lughod 1990:47). If resistance is
always a part of a struggle, would it not be better to interpret spirit possession in
the light of power and not just as counter power, but as a power in its own right
that is part of a cultural process.
To sum up: In a search for essentialist and reductionist explanations, we
may be imposing our own biased conceptions and thereby destroying their
meaning (Levy, Mageo & Howard 1996:24). As Lambek argued, there is no
single essence underlying different instances of spirit possession, and it equally
reductionist to interpret them in terms of resistance, counter hegemony or
counterculture as in terms of sickness, hysteria or relative deprivation.
Furthermore, spirit possession phenomena are not just reactions against,
but also enforce the dominant power relations, and interpretations of spirit
possession in terms of resistance tend to reduce the role of the phenomena in the
cultural process to an epiphenomenon. Moreover, such interpretations have their
origin in a view of power as emanating from one centre. I have argued that it is
more fruitful to see power as emanating from many centres and that the
21You can also read
