Rejoinder

Abstract

I have been offered a 'very brief ' rejoinder. I shall do so in four points.1. Kenny's constructive remarks are welcome. Certainly there is an involuntary aspect to startle, the form of which is significantly shaped by social and cultural conditioning. In discussing behavior labeled as latah, beyond the possibility of the subject initially being genuinely startled and reacting in an involuntary stereotypical manner reflective of the Malayo-Indonesian social and cultural dynamic before beginning their performance, only in this sense do I regard latah as involuntary.2. Winzeler's exchange is helpful in drawing out issues. In my letter to him, there was certainly an intent for more information on his 'serious' cases. That he did not pick up on this, I accept at face value. My sole purpose in pointing this out was not to suggest that he hasn't done the interviews or isn't a competent ethnographer (and he discloses in his 1995 book, that he felt it unethical to startle subjects). My point is, it is remarkable that after research spanning three decades, having written the definitive work on the subject, and interviewing over 100 'serious' cases, he cannot offer so much as a single, detailed, first-hand case study of a latah subject, or a single first-hand description involving death or serious injury. Given that these are 'serious' cases, one would expect startles triggered by friends and relatives, or inadvertently in the normal course of events -enough to provide detailed inclusion in his book. Because Winzeler's book is so rich, it is a conspicuous and ironic omission. What does this say about the 'compelling' nature of latah?Winzeler states that I made it seem as though he had asserted 'that latah is involuntary and offer these accounts as evidence of this, and then go on to reluctantly admit that this evidence is really hearsay.' This was not my intent, but upon rereading the passage, he is absolutely correct. I plead guilty to ambiguous writing.