The Coexistence of Different Explanatory Models of Misfortune: A Case from Serbia

Abstract

The paper discusses two concepts of supernatural explanations of misfortune and how they co-exist in a particular socio-cultural environment. The author argues that these two concepts are used differently depending on the position of the person evaluating them. While the concept of supernatural harm is usually used in “first person” narratives, the concept of God’s punishment is used by community members as a warning to all wrongdoers and cheats. Searching for the external source of problems is important for personal self-esteem, while identifying an internal cause and its consequence (God’s punishment as the consequence of someone’s “sins”) is part of “immanent justice” narratives. The central claim is based on attribution theory, but the study also looks at cognitive theories of supernatural beliefs.

The “dangerous others”: Spiritual energy and contagion

“…Consequently, the participants talked about the "negative energy" emanating from him and avoided physical and verbal contact with him (he could not stand the isolation and left before the end of the seminar). Such behaviour corresponds to beliefs 132 ČESKÝ LID ročník 2020/107 2 about supernatural harm caused by magical contamination described by many ethnographers in "tribal" societies, as well as in contemporary European countries (see, for instance, Jerotijević 2010;2015). To conclude, in FSS circles the shamanic healing is conditioned by ASC which allows contact with the universal cosmic energy.…”

Supernatural belief in ‘scientific’ worldviews? Investigating science-oriented Finns’ explanations for origins, death and suffering

“…Although explanatory coexistence can refer to the parallel use of several types of explanations, such as formal and informal ones (Legare & Shtulman, 2018), work in the cognitive science of religion has mainly investigated how individuals refer to both supernatural and natural causes. Studies have reported explanatory coexistence of supernatural and natural causes in a variety of cultures (Legare & Shtulman, 2018; see also Astuti & Harris, 2008;Brent et al, 1996;Busch et al, 2017;Evans et al, 2009;Gelman & Raman, 2004;Gutiérrez et al, 2020;Harris & Giménez, 2005;Jerotijević, 2015;Legare & Gelman, 2008). Certain phenomena are expected to elicit explanatory coexistence more likely than others.…”

“…Certain phenomena are expected to elicit explanatory coexistence more likely than others. Most research has focused on themes that overlap with the 'big questions' or domains of fundamental concern, such as death and what follows (Astuti & Harris, 2008;Bering et al, 2005;Harris & Giménez, 2005), illness and other suffering (Haimila, 2016;Jerotijević, 2015;Legare & Gelman, 2008;Rosengren & Nguyen, 2004), and the origins of humans and life more generally (Evans et al, 2009;Poling & Evans, 2004).…”

“…The questions on suffering were based on 1) prior studies on the coexistence of supernatural and natural explanations for misfortune (and illness in particular) (seeJerotijević, 2015;Legare & Gelman, 2008); and 2) studies on the justice motive, especially on the possible tendency of humans to perceive an ultimate justice in life events(Anderson et al, 2010) which may manifest also as supernatural explanations, such as a belief in karma(Raman & Winer, 2004).…”

Communication of Tradition(s): Narrative Templates of Magical Healing in Urban Shamanism

“…The notion of witchcraft is treated by folklorists and anthropologists as an analytical category, although there have been debates about its theoretical value. Many researchers pointed out that folk beliefs have diverse meanings that are produced in accordance with specific socio-cultural settings; in real life, witchcraft can mean different things to different people and varied notions of 'witches' can co-exist within the same community (see, for example, Jerotijević, 2010Jerotijević, , 2015Jerotijević, , 2017Mencej, 2008Mencej, , 2016Mencej, , 2017aMencej, , 2017b. Thus, as Stewart and Strathern have noted, "it is not worthwhile to make and adhere to any rigid definitional distinctions.…”