Review: [untitled]

Author(s): Philip K. Bock

Reviewed work(s):
The Don Juan Papers: Further Castaneda Controversies by Richard de Mille
Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 83, No. 3 (Sep., 1981), pp. 712-714
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/676825
Accessed: 20/12/2008 20:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

712

AMERICAN ANTEIROPOLOGIST

vidual and the social merge while preserving

their own integrity,doing so throughrelations
in whichthe individualis identifiedas a divided
self and throughwhichthe socialsystemi8 constructed, when relationsare related to each
other."Thismeans,I think:throughreciprocity
and incest taboos, individualsare linked together in societies. A profounddiscoveryindeed, especially31 yearsafterthe publicationof
Les structures dlementaires de la parentd.

One last comment:Wilsonhas a knackfor

not acknowledgingthe paternityof his ideas,
even whenhe borrowsthem fromthe verypeople he criticizes.This i8 especiallytrue of his
treatmentof kinshipand of incest taboos,and
of his critiquesof L(vi-Straussand RobinFox.
Fox, for example, develops closely parallel
arents
to Wilson'sin his 1975 piece on
"Primatekin and humankinship,"in his edited
collection, Biosocull AnthropologN, including
the notion of transitivityof human kinship.
However, Fox presentsthe case much more
lucidly,and doesnot strayfroman understanding of evolutionarytheoryas Wilsondoes. Yet,
Fox appearsin Wilson'sindex underthe entry:
"Fox,R., ideasof, aboutkinshipdisputed,5S,
62, 65." Intellectualingratitudemay be the
ultimatehomagel

The Don Juan Papers: Further Castaneda

Controversies.Richard de Mille, ed. Santa
Barbara, California:Ross-EriksonPublishers,
1980. 518 pp. S8.95 (paper).
PhilipK. Bock
Universityof New Mexico
Americananthropolowists
are not noted for
their scholarship.With a few exceptions,we
preferfieldworkto libraryresearch(or even to
writingup the resultsof our field experiences).
Mostof us are ill at ease with foreignlanguage
and we soon becomeimpatientwith the scholarly apparatus of bibliographies,footnotes,
statistical safeguards, and textual criticism.
These attitudes have some positive consequences(see R. F. Murphy'sThe Duzlectics of
SocuzlLtsfe,1971:35);however,theyalsoexpose
w to dangerssuchas undetectedplagiansmand
hoazcing.
By 1976, Richardde Mille had done what
dozensof anthropological
readersand reviewers

[83, 1981]

had failedto do: he had seenthroughanddocumented the inconsistencies, fictions, and

plagiarisms of Carlos Castaneda (see
Castaneda's Journey, reviewed in AA
79(4):921).At the same time, this presumptuous psychologistcalled our profemionto account for its sloppine", gullability,and selfprotectivereflexes. Although {JCLAsuffered
most directlyfromhis revelations,professorsin
manygraduatedepartmentsmay have become
anxious about dubious dissertationsor enthwiastis endorsementsawardedto questionable candidates. As de Mille comments,
"Castanedarose to fame by breakingrules of
scholarship"(Castaneda's
Journey, 1978:110).
And no one at UCLAever saw his field notesl
When Ralph BeaLsinsisted on seeing them,
Castaneda"becameevasiveand finallydropped
from sight"(p. 61); when he re-emerged,he
found a new committeechairman. His final
doctoralcommitteeapparentlynever askedto
see the notes. Yet, as de Millestates,"ThecontradictionsbetweenTeachingsand Ixtlan were
sufficientgroundsfor disqualifyingthe divertation as a scientzsfic
report"(p. 6S, emphasis
added).
Readersof Castaneda'sJourney should be
awareof all this, but it seemsthatfewof mycolleagueshave read de Mille.All-too-humananthropologiststend to turn awayfrom information that challengessacredprinciples,though
some uncntically embrace alternativeideologies, eagerlyabandoningthe valuabletraditions of our professionto indulge in psychedelics, politics, or popularization.Meanwhile,
de Millehas been doing his homework.One of
the amazingthingsaboutthe bookunderreview
iB howmuch anthropology
its author/editorhas
learnedin a few years,and howmuchhis stalking of CarlosTricksterhas taught him about
the way scienceis organized(see pp. 104-145;
198-216).
The DonJuanPapersis a richcompilationof
44 articlesdealing with the controversiessurroundingCarlosCastaneda(nXArana). Most
of the articlesareby de Mille,but therearealso
contributionsby several anthropolopts, pro
and con (e.g., M. Douglas,R. L. Carneiro,S.
Wilk, A. Bharati, P. Riesman,and B. Myerhoff), plus a dozenother qualifiedcommentators, from ethnomycologistGordonWassonto
librananSanfordBerman(how do you catalog
a hoax?). Language professorJuan BruceNovoa diacuses Castaneda'sunfortunateimpact on Chicanoliterature(pp. 271-274), and
sociologist-naturalistHans Sebald questions

L
GENERALAND THEORETICA
nearlyeverystatementCastanedamakesabout
the climate, topography, and fauna of the
Sonorandesert(pp. 34-38).
'sJourney,thisbookis not enLikeCastaneda
tirelynegative.De Mille and many other contributorsrecognize(thoughwith differingevalcontributionsto literature,
uations)Castaneda's
mysticism,and the counter-culture.Mostof the
authors utilize de Mille'sdistinctionbetween
Castaneda,the livingthoughelusivewriter,and
"Carlos,"the charactercreatedby that writer,
withhis variousavatarsindexedby subscriptsor
epithets(e.g., Carlos2or Carlos-apprentice).
De Mille also distinguishesbetween two
"componentsof truth"that he labels valtdtty
and authentictty.A valid report is one that
"agreeswith whatwe thinkwe know,"whereas
an authentic report actually arises"fromthe
persons,placesand proceduresit describes"(p.
44). Of course,aworkcan be both valid and
authentic(de Millecites Opler, Myerhoff,and
the franklyfictionalReturnto Laughter),or it
can be neither (a prime case being von
Daniken);but the correlationbetweenthe components is far from perfect. ContestingMary
Douglas'sdescriptionof Castaneda'swork as
"authentic"(pp. 25-32), de Milleclassifiesthe
Don Juan books as valid (in relation to our
general knowledge of drug experience and
mysticalpractice)but definitelynot authentic;
de Millealsosuggeststhat ColinTurnbull'sThe
MountaznPeopleis authenticbut invalidsince
it shows "the misinterpretationof ordinary
events correctlyperceived"(p. 54). The categorizationof the Don Juan books as valid/inauthenticseemsfair to me, for it classesthem
with otherworksof the imaginationthat claim
factuality(Gulkver'sTravels,or "The Ancient
Mariner")and that play on the ambiguityof
"reality"as part of their (valid)messageto the
reader.
Like certain unpopular witnesses of the
1950s, de Mille comes forwardprepared to
"namenames."If youarecuriousaboutthe role
of people like H. Garfinkel,R. Edgerton,C.
Meighan, W. Goldschmidt,P. Newman, T.
Gravesor W. Brightin the creationof the don
Juan myth, it i8 all here-at least, all that de
Millecouldreconstructfrominterviewsandcorrespondencewith the often recalcitrantparticipants.Thereis informationaboutCastaneda's
childhoodin Peru, his student days in California, and his unusualmarriageto Margaret
Runyan,as wellas the publicationhistoryof his
works.(Yes,Journeyto Ixtlanis the sameas the
dissertation,"Sorcery:A Descriptionof the

713

World,"though the dissertationabstractimplies that they are distinctworks.)De Mille's

comparisonof the don Juan booksto the Piltdown hoax ("Uclanthropus Piltdunides
Castanedae,"pp. 112-118)is a bit forced,but
only a bit. Likea carefulinvestigativereporter,
de Milledouble-checksall his sourcesand reads
imaginativelybetween the lines, producinga
plausibleaccountof "Allthe Sorcerer'sMen."
I found the 500-pluspagesof The Don Juan
Papers fascinatingand delightfulreading. De
Mille suggestsseveral useful distinctionsand
coins some nifty neologisms("ethnomethodalare my favorites).
legory"and "anthromancer"
He playfully creates fictional dialogues and
scenarios,andhe willoftendrawthe readerinto
a fantasywithoutwarning.(See the wonderful
sketchof donJuanat a P.T.A. meetingexplaining, throughan interpreter,that Johnnycan't
p.
read becawe he is practicing"not-reading,"
264.) In these passagesde Milleshowshis own
approvalof and facilitywith the use of jokes,
games,fictions,andsleightof handto trickpeople into new modesof perception;still, he insists, scientific reportsmut be tied at some
point to ordinaryreality. I also agreewith his
judgmentthat Castanedais severelylimitedas a
makerof modernmyth: "The don Juan books
deserveto surviveas an ingeniow and instructive hoax, but they will never be literatureor
sacredtexts"(p. 168).
Muchof The Don Juan Papers is devotedto
literarydetectivework,tracingthe originsof the
ideas(and even wordings)of Juanistteachings,
and demonstratinghow people like Wasson,
Myerhoff,and Harnermistookimitationand
plagiarismfor confirmationof their own findings. As de Millewrites,
Castaneda'spartisanshave not yet faced up
to don Juan'ssurprisinghabit of quotingin
Spanish from English-languagetexts, by
AlexandraDavid-Neel,SuzanneLanger,Edward Sapir, Ludwig Wittgenstein,Gordon
Wasson, Lama Govinda, Gilbert Ryle, or
D. T. Suzuki.I haveno doubttheirfaithwill
find an explanation.True belief survivesall
tests.(p. 21)
The book also includesan unauthorizedbiography, "Portrait of the Allegorist" (pp.
355-358). This aectiontells as much aboutthe
ordinaryrealityof CarlosCastanedaas we are
likelyto learnfor a long time, unlessCastaneda
acceptsde Mille'schallengeto "comeclean."
In a concludingsection entitled "Alleglossary"(pp. 390-436), de Mille cites probable

714

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOCIST

sourcesforJuanistconceptssuch as the "ally,"

the "gaitof power"
the worldas a "description,"
(peyote).The parallelsin many
and "Mescalito"
of the entriesare extremelyclose, while others
are leu certainbut still of interestto futureinvestigators.It was disappointingto learn that
someof my favoratemetaphors("thecrackbetween the world?"'and incidents (e.g., don
Genaro'sbalancingat the waterfall)were apparently plagiarized.True believersmay, of
course,interprettheseparallelismsas confirmations, but de Millehas convincedme that most
wasdonein a libraryor
fielxlwork
of Castaneda's
with colleagues.
in conversations
I understandthat severalpeoplehavealready
askedto respondto this review,so I shalltry to
make my own positionperfectlyclear. At this
time I do not knoweitherCarlosCastanedaor
Richardde Mille,and I am not awareof having
any particularax to grind. I do not feel that I
was "stung"by Castaneda.I genuinelyenjoyed
the filrstthree don Juan bookswhen they appeared(especiallyA Separate Reality which, as
the Quakerssay, appealedto mycondition);but
the many close parallelswith Zen Buddhism
mademe suspiciousof theirauthenticity,as did
the extraordinaryhappenings in Tales of
Power. Beforereadingde Mille'sbooks,I wrote
the followingin my Continuities Psycholog-

[83, 1981]

controversyas an aberrationin the otherwise

untroubledevolutionof ethnology,let us try to
learn all we can fromit, for otherhoaxesloom
on the horizon(e.g., the worksof the alleged
Australianaboriginalpoet B. Wongar;see pp.
374-575).Richardde Millehasdone all anthropologistsa service-one that we should have
performedfor ourselves,but couldn't,givinga
new meaningto the term "anthropocentrism"
(or, as de blille mightprefer,anthropallegory).
He showsthat Castanedatoo may have done a
service, but only if we do not "stonewall"in
reactionto Sonoragate:
Byfacingup to the implicationsof fraudsand
hoaxes, and of their acceptancein quarters
wherepeopleshouldknowbetter, and of attemptsto dismissthem once exposed,we can
learn much about the way science i8 conducted, about the nature of sophisticated
beliefs,and aboutthe surprisingdifficultyof
achievingconsensusthrough civil dialogue
amongwell-disposed,intelligent,professional
peoplewho are at the sametime passionately
committedto particulartheoriesof how the
world is put together, or to particularpropositionsabouehow to be a moral scientist
doingproperscience[p. 118].

in

ical Anthropology:

The Castanedabooksconstitutea fascinating

culturalphenomenonwhatevertheirground
ing in "reality."If, as I swpect, Castaneda The Way of the Shaman:A Guide to Power
has imaginativelytransporteda JapaneseZen and Healing. Michael Harner. New York:
master to the Sonoran desert, presenting Harper& Row, 1980. xviii + 167 pp. $9-95
parablesas real events and koans (Zen rid- (cloth).
dles)as the wisesayingsof an old Indian,the
cumulativeeffect is still quite appealingas
RobertMurphy
literature[1980:220-221].
ColumbiaUniversity
I still stand by this assessment,thoughtodayI
am more skeptical about Castaneda'sElrst- Manyyearsago, in an Indianvillagelocated
person reports of drug experiences. If "la deep in the Amazonianhinterlands,one of
Catalina,"the "worthyopponent"of Carlos- fieldwork'ssmall dilemmasbefell my wife: she
sorcerer, is really named after the hotel in had a recurrenceof a chroniclower-backpain
whereTim Learyand Co. stayedin that left her in agony and unable to move.
Zihuatanejo
196S,there are doubtlessfurtherrevelationsto When this happenedat home, she would visit
come(p. 310). Howlong de Millewill continue the orthopedist,who would prescribepainas the Jack Andersonof anthropologyremains killers, corsets, heat treatments, and other
nostrumsand recommendrest on a hard, flat
to be seen.
Those who feel that they were "had" by surface.In a weekor 80, she wouldbe able to
Castanedaor by "Carlos"may be more forgiv- moveaboutstifflyand withina monththe coning, defensive,or unhappy-perhaps each of ditionwoulddisappear.In ourvillage,however,
these at differenttimes. (Cognitivedissonance it wouldhavetakenweeksof travelto find comtheorycan explain,but not predict,thesereac- petent medical help, our only anodyne was
tions.) Yet before we shrugoff the Castaneda aspirin,and we sleptin hammocks.