Apotropaic magic

The problem of witches and witchcraft has been central to anthropology throughout the twentieth century. The anthropological literature is not about whether witches exist but rather about how to account for their purported existence: a cultural question of belief rather than an ontological question of under what conditions their existence can be taken for granted. These are simply the wrong questions. According to bungoma philosophy, witchcraft, like the healer's craft, is predicated on interpersonal exposure to the ‘power’ or ‘shadow/presence’ (isithunzi) of others (see Werbner 2015: 2–3 on the similar concept of seriti in Sesotho/Setswana). Witchcraft derives from a radical theory of the person as inherently infectious and vulnerable. Person-like agents cause illness, but not all agents of this sort are human, and not all are tangible; thus, their agency cannot be given a ‘social causation’ account in all cases.

From the perspective of the sangoma's patient, if not from that of most contemporary social theory, witches are person-like agents, either tangible or intangible. They are not mere ‘representations’ of what could be interpreted as imagined harm triggered by social distress. To be vulnerable to witchcraft, however, one must understand oneself as an ‘exposed being’, exposed to a range of influences that can damage health or prevent ‘good luck’. These influences include other tangible persons, some of whom may be ‘witches’, but also other intangible persons such as ‘ancestors’ and ‘spirits’. The fundamental premise of healing in the southern African healer's paradigm is that if patients/clients can be given protection through apotropaic magics their ‘natural’ health and luck will be able to continue. The ‘exposed being’ – an existential condition of personhood as ‘patient’ rather than ‘agent’ – is vulnerable unless protected from illness, witchcraft and misfortune. In terms of this concept all persons are assumed to be well unless protection fails.

This approach helps us to understand the pragmatic efficacy of logically incompatible medical beliefs in conditions of medical parallelism.