REL 3145: Discussion of Papers

Think about the intended audience of your paper, and always think about the question. Consider the following conclusion:

Even though possession isn't something that we can prove, or demonstrate for sure, there is scientific reasoning stipulating that the cause of this condition is multifactorial, in which spiritual, social, psychological and physical factors may all play a role...However, as yet, there are no biological theories concerning the origins of these disorders. Therefore, besides screening for common medical and psychiatric conditions, the clinician should also examine the particular cultural context in which the patient presents.

The question was whether it is true that women are more likely to be possessed than men, and if so, why. This paragraph - remember, it is the concluding paragraph of the paper - does not address that at all. Instead, we are given advice that is obviously aimed at clinicians. I wasn't asking how to treat people with possession. Don't just pad out a paper with random information that you read somewhere - and incidentally, this should have been attributed to a source. It also seems odd to say that physical factors might be a cause, and yet dismiss the role of biology.

Here's from a paper that is better researched:

The overwhelming presence of women in possession activities can also be explained through a more scientific lens. Anthropologists Alice B. Kehoe and Dody H. Giletti argue that this preponderance is linked to deficiencies in thiamine, tryptohan-niacin, calcium and vitamin D commong among women in traditional societies where poverty of sumptuary ruls may limit their nutrient intakes (549). Keho and Giletti propose that there is a strong correlation between societies that subsist on diets lacking the aforementioned nutrients and spirit possession, while populations that report adequate intakes of these same nutrients tend to lack 'culturally sanctioned spirit possession' (550).

This is excellent research: we didn't cover Kehoe's and Giletti's theory in class, but it offers a biological explanation for the higher probability of women being possessed - if you search, there's a lot that you can find, and you get credit for going beyond what we've discussed in class. Notice that this demonstrates that the diagnostic manual used by the previous student was out of date.

Here is some weak research:

The events that happened in prehistory were not written, all the events were oral and still we believe them to be real. So why would not the Nican Mopohua be true?


The trouble is that the student poses this question but leaves it unanswered - even though there are some obvious responses that could be made. A prehistoric society is one for which no written sources survive. For such socieites, oral testimony may well be the main source we have (along with artefacts). But, as I explained in class, New Spain  (as Mexico was then known) is not prehistoric. We have many written sources - for example, Zumarraga's will and the reports of Bustamante's sermon. The sermon of Bustamante, in particular, is written evidence for the falsity of the Nican Mopohua, and it alone constitutes a sufficient response to the question. In any case, even when dealing with a prehistoric society, we do not just assume that oral testimony is true.

This is a common problem. If you are engaged in an argument with someone who is present, then it is a fair tactic to ask a question and wait for a response. If someone cannot offer a good answer to your question, then you win the argument. But when you are writing a paper, you have a duty to offer an answer on your opponent's behalf. If you cannot do so, that does not necessarily indicate that this was a telling question. It might just advertise, as in this case, that you have not researched the topic very thoroughly.

Back to REL 3145