MEDICINE AND MAGIC

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 3614, 18 November 1924, Page 2

MEDICINE AND MAGIC

THE FUNCTION OF RELIGION.

[By Dean Inge in tlio ‘Morning Post.’]

Religion and Medicine, as the late Professor Rivers has said, were originally part of the same science or discipline by which primitive man sought protection against mysterious enemies. Of this combined science, Magic was a special department. Among savages, Medicine is generally subordinate to Magic; many primitive peoples do not believe that disease is ever the result of natural causes. Either it is sent by some god, or it is produced by human malice. After a long entanglement, the results of which may be studied in Sir Clifford Allbutt’s essays on ancient and medieval medicine, the healing art has nearly established its independence both of Magic and Religion. Magic, however, is far from being banished from Religion. Even if the priest does not wish to be a spiritual medicine-man—and he is sorely tempted to act the part—his Hock are often eager to endow him ■ wi+li nl-f. nnwArs • iillrl if the Ohurcll

with occult powers; ana « wvuui™ disclaims the gift of curing bodily diseases, new sects arise which offer and advertise these attractions. Medicine is ashamed of Magic, but uses it furtively and with a fairly good conscience. There is great virtue in a Latin prescription; it looks very like an exorcism. . i3ut whereas in the nineteenth century Religion and Medicine were drawing completely apart, and Magic was discredited and disowned, though sometimes used, by both, we now see a tendency to go back on this radical differentiation. Psychology is the mediator between the two branches of the healing art, which are beginning to study each other’s methods and talk of possible co-operation. And as we live in the days of the pragmatist philosophy, many are saying: If Magic works, no matter how, why should we not use it? RELIGION AND MAGIC. Magic has been distinguished from Religion, by some experts, as private and selfish' theurgy, in opposition to the officially recognised methods of propitiating the Deity. The distinction seems to me to bo rather that the sorcerer claims to tap the sources of supernatural energy without the consent of the higher power. The priest makes petitions and offers sacrifices; the magician calls spirits from the vasty deep, and forces them to serve his turn. No doubt the prayer may he, and often is, offered in the hope of controlling the event; such prayer belongs to Magic rather than to Religion. But true Religion, unlike ' Magic, says: “Thy will be done.” The habits and methods of the savage medicine-man have been much studied by modern scholars and travellers, lie not only cures disease; he is equally skilful in causing it: and it is part of his trade to call dowm rain, or to blight the crops and domestic animals of an enemy. Voltaire said that there is no doubt that a curse will destroy a flock of sheep, if administered with a sufficient quantity of strychnine. But the thing is that the medicine-man can kill a strong and healthy, bravo in a couple of days by cursing him, without strychnine or any other poison. This fact may he said to be thoroughly proved: examples are forthcoming from Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. I once asked a doctor what cause of death would be revealed by an autopsy in such cases, but he could not tell me. Perhaps the coroner would direct his jury to return a verdict: “ Died by the act of God,” which a judge once pronounced to be the proper verdict when no rational explanation of the death could ho discovered. The fact of faith-killing is very important as hearing on the possibilities of faith-healing. If a healthy man will dutifully die because a sorcerer has told him to die, or because (as in a well-authenticated case from New Zealand) he has inadvertently eaten tabu food reserved for the chief, may not the same amount of faith effect what medical science would call an impossible or miraculous cure? The limits of treatment by suggestion have not yet been fully ascertained, and the investigation is difficult because accurate diagnosis and unlimited superstition do not often meet. But it is certain that where belief in sorcery exists, it finds a great deal of incontrovertible evidence to support it. The medicine-man can point to some wonderful cures and to many extremely deadly curses. He is not, as a rule, a mere imposter, any more than tho witches of the Middle Ages, who as long as people believed in them, were really dangerous people to offend. PRIEST-PHYSICIANS. Similarly, modern medicine has discovered that half the drugs used a hundred years ago were intrinsically worthless, hut at the same time they were in practice very useful. The practitioners of that time were, in fact, sorcerers without knowing it. Tho result has been a careful study of psycho-therapeutics, which has many branches, from Freud to the American Einmanual movement, and from Christian Science to the proposad devival of sacramental Unction. We are likely to sec many more priest-physicians in tho near future. The knowledge of hypnotism owes much to India, where it was practised long before it was familiar in Europe. We used to know it as “ mesmerism,” or animal magnetism, for the materialistic science of the time postulated some sort of “ fluid,” like the imaginary fluid of electricity, as the medium of psychical influence. When tho importance of “ suggestion ” was recognised it was disputed whether the suggestion should be made to the intellect, or, as the latter school insists, by bringing to the surface experiences which have been so completely forgotten that by no effort of will could they be recalled. Professor Rivers, who not only investigated the psychology of savages, but bad much experience of nervous cases in the Great War, was led to form a high opinion of Freud’s discoveries, while at the same time he regrets that Freud concentrated his attention so exclusively on repressions connected with sex. This has caused much prejudice against phycho-analysis and lias done untold mischief by attracting morbid-minded persons to the study of it. It was the Great War which enabled experts to correct the one-sidedness of Freud’s theory. The effects of mental shock in weakening tho powers of control and setting up morbid processes have never before been exhibited on such a large scale, since never before have men undergone for a long time together such horrible ] experiences. But, as Dr Rivers says: | •“In the vast majority of cases the]

morbid processes which have been set up by shock or strain are not connected with the sexual instinct, but depend on the awakening of suppressed tendencies connected with the still more fundamental instinct of self-preserva-tion.” Tims corrected, it seems likely that Freud’s system may boar valuable fruit. SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SUGGESTION. An important part of the new treatment is to explain to the patient the true cause of his psychical troubles. He cannot be reasoned out of his delusions, which are themselves a quasirational explanation of his state of mind; but when he understands that his state of mind is itself the result of his psychical condition he may cure himself. I once cured myself of a severe fit of depression, caused by overwork, by observing that it was far worse in the small hours of the morning than at other times. This brought home to me the absurdity of attributing my depression to the condition of my country, or of my finances, or of ray soul. With intelligent people this kind of explanation is very efficacious. Sometimes, however, the morbid thought-habits have taken too strong a hold, and suggestion, which is now often imparted without hypnotism, is resorted to. The essence of suggestion is that another will, not the patient’s own, is brought in to help him. The treatment therefore differs from the training in self-knowledge and selfreliance, which in milder cases is sufficient. Suggestion is often necessary, > hut it disturbs the process by which the patient is led to recovery by knowledge of the causes which upset his equilibrium. What is the function of religion in this treatment? Surely the essence of religion is reliance on a Power which is not ourselves, and yet is not wholly external or alien to ourselves. The presence of God in the soul enhances and strengthens the personality, raising it above itself; and yet this spiritual influence acts always through the self, and not merely upon it from without. The value of prayer in neurotic conditions has not yet, I think, been sufficiently tested and considered. Professor Rivers ends his book by wondering whether the new science can ever be applied to the neuroses of the body politic, which may, ho suggests, he partly due to long-forgotten experiences and deep-buried depressions. In that case wo want an entirely new brand of politicians. This opens out fascinating speculations, not to be touched at the end of an article. But I fear that quacks now in possession will not bo easy to get rid of. We shall have to wait for the advent of Plato’s ideal State, in which kings are philosophers or philosophers kings.