Introduction: Anthropologies of Consciousness, Michael Winkelman

8/7/2019 Introduction: Anthropologies of Consciousness, Michael Winkelman

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/introduction-anthropologies-of-consciousness-michael-winkelman 1/10

Time and Mind Volume 3—Issue 2—July 2010, pp. 125–134

Time and Mind:The Journal of

Archaeology,Consciousness

and Culture Volume 3—Issue 2

July 2010

pp. 125–134

DOI

10.2752/175169610X12632240392677

Reprints available directly from the publishers

Photocopying permitted by licence only

© Berg 2010

Introduction: Anthropologies of

ConsciousnessThe issue of what are the “anthropologies of consciousness” is

complicated by both the many subfields of anthropology and

the diversity of perspectives regarding consciousness. This

introduction provides a systems perspective on the elements

of consciousness to provide a context for addressing explicit

and implicit anthropologies of consciousness.

Consciousness as a NeuroepistemologicalSystemLinguistic and etymological perspectives illustrate that the

term “consciousness” is used to refer to a wide range of

phenomena (Winkelman 1993, 1994, 2000). Definitions of

being conscious include: not asleep; awake; awareness of

one’s own existence, sensations, thoughts, and environment;

subjectively known; capable of complex response to the

environment; intentionally conceived or done; deliberate.

The ancient Indo-European roots provide a broader view of

consciousness’ original meanings and connotations. These

meanings of consciousness are based upon the Latin root

conscius, which means “knowing something with others.” The

roots of the Latin conscius include scire (to know) and con

(with). The conventional interpretation is that the Indo-

European root of consciousness is expressed in skei, the

extended root of sek , which means to cut, split, or divide,

implying knowing by making differentiations.

The meaning of “con” in consciousness has been

generally interpreted as referring to the communal

dimension, as socially shared knowledge, reflected in the

Latin meanings of con- “with” and “jointly.” The communal

dimension of consciousness is illustrated in the alternative

form conscience, which shares a common origin in the Indo-

European root skei. The making of a differentiation is alsoimplied by conscience—the faculty of knowing the difference

between right and wrong. This communal dimension creates

the context suggested by the meaning of consciousness

as critical awareness of one’s own identity and situation.

Consciousness has its basis in the relationship between

individual and community. The fundamental social dimension

http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175169610X12632240392677

http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175169610X12632240392677

http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175169610X12632240392677

http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175169610X12632240392677



126 Introduction: Anthropologies of Consciousness Michael Winkelman


of consciousness reflects the fact that human

survival and coordination necessitated

intensive social behavior and the ability to

attribute meaning and intentionality to others,

to be able to predict their mental states

and future behavior, and to role-play. Con

also has additional root meanings of general

ability, skill, and power for action, learning, and

memory. The English root of can and con is

gene, gno, or gen, with meanings of “to know,”“to beget,” “to be able mentally,” “to commit

to memory,” with a common original meaning

of “to know”—gnosis.

The meanings associated with the roots

and definitions of consciousness indicate

a broad semantic domain, ranging from

biologically based abilities and interactional

potentials for awareness, experience, andlearning, to culturally derived emotional,

personal, social, and mental awareness and

activities which create relationships with

and understandings of the environment

and self. These include: awake, aware,

feelings, thoughts, capacity or power,

capable of complex intentional responses,

self-awareness, internal knowledge or conviction, communal knowledge, social

awareness/conscience, to know, to learn,

to teach, skill, and knowledge. These

meanings, as well as a range of other uses

of the term consciousness in the cognitive,

artificial intelligence, philosophical, and

other scientific traditions, indicate that

the concept of consciousness refers to

a large number of interrelated behaviors

characteristic of complex systems which

respond to their environment. There is

not one consciousness, but many kind of

consciousness.

A communality underlying the diverse

meanings of “consciousness” as constituting

“knowing systems” is explicit in the

etymological roots. The many meanings

of consciousness are all fundamentally

concerned with an informational relationship

between an organism and its environment.

Consciousness involves the interaction

between knower and known, making

epistemology—the study of the nature

and processes of knowing—an essential

aspect of the science of consciousness.Laughlin et al. (1992) have suggested that

the dependence of consciousness upon

both brain and experience necessitates a

neurophenomenological epistemology.

Genetic Epistemology as aNeurophenomenological Approach

to ConsciousnessThe genetic epistemology approaches to

consciousness integrate scientific knowledge

and phenomenal experience (see Winkelman

1996, 2000, 2004; Laughlin 1992a, b).

This genetic epistemological approach

shows consciousness to be the property

of relations within a system. Concepts of

consciousness are essential to epistemology,with both concerned with the nature

of knowing. This genetic epistemology

approach to consciousness is exemplified in

Piaget’s concern with the study of the nature,

origin, evolution, and validation of knowledge

and knowing. Piaget viewed cognition,

knowledge, and consciousness as having a

common basis in the epistemic relationships

constructed by the knower with the known.

Knowledge, cognition, and consciousness are

possible because of the necessary epistemic

structures which the subject constructs.

Piaget characterizes consciousness as

being constructed in the interaction between

subject and object, a relationship established



Michael Winkelman Introduction: Anthropologies of Consciousness 127


by the knowing subject with that which is

known through epistemic structures which

contribute to the nature of the object known.

A number of structures and processes

mediate the organism’s relationship to

the environment. Social relations play a

fundamental role in blocking the individual’s

personal goals, a frustration which forces a

reflective process to understand the source

of the blockage. Reflective abstraction,involving operation on and differentiation

from the preceding level, provides for the

emergence of a higher stage, mediated by

symbolic structures that transform the mode

of consciousness. Consciousness requires

a conceptualization or representation

mediated by concepts operating on a higher

level than the experience. The self plays acentral role in this process, identifying with

that new emergent form of consciousness,

and dis-identifying with the previous

structure, permitting transcendence of the

structure and the ability to operate upon

it. These different selves mediate epistemic

relationships of the knower with the reality

known, including physical, psychological,emotional, and social dimensions. This

dependence of consciousness upon the

brain, self, social experience, and goals

requires a systems approach to articulate

their interrelations.

Consciousness can be understood from

an epistemological perspective as a “Knowing

System,” entailing relationship between knower

and known, a construct mediated self-object

relationship. Some of the most fundamental

characteristics of consciousness as a “Knowing

System” involve (Winkelman 2005):

Awareness, a capacity to process

meaningful information;

Relations with environment;

Representations in perceptions, thoughts

and memories that provide a template

for information;

Reference to the minds and values of

others; and

Self—an organism’s identity and

awareness as knower.

These elements reflect a minimalistapproach to essential elements of a system

that has consciousness, as other systems

posit dozens of elements involved in

consciousness. This perspective provides

us with a framework for understanding

the diversity of forms of consciousness

which we must address in an effort to

provide a comprehensive framework for the interactions between our inherited

potentials and the sociocultural context

in the formation of our collective and

common and individually unique aspects

of self and experience. It also provides a

system within which we can characterize the

differences among forms of consciousness,

particularly the differences with respect to those forms called trance, altered states, etc.

Their features in terms of these minimalist

elements include principal concerns with:

• Awareness of internally derived

information, a symbolic internal

environment which is interpreted

as relations with a spiritual or

transcendental world;

• Representations in visual presentational

symbolism with

• Reference to the minds and values of

spiritual others, and with respect to





• Self identities related to spirits,

archetypal representations and animals.

This engages an evaluation and development

of the self with respect to the social “others”

provided by animals and mythological

systems of interpretation. These are used

for activation of memories of central

emotional significance to self, particularly

repressed emotional desires, identities, andcomplexes; and reprogramming neurognostic

structures of the self with spirit information

from mythological interpretative systems

(Winkelman 2010).

Anthropologies of ConsciousnessAnthropological approaches to

consciousness address various processes of knowing that are embedded in a wide range

of interdisciplinary concerns with human

nature and cognitive capacities, including

memory, representation, self, and others. This

interdisciplinary and multifaceted systemic

nature of consciousness involves both explicit

and implicit anthropologies of consciousness.

The explicit approach is directly concerned with consciousness studies and,

often, some concept of altered states of

consciousness in particular. The implicit

approach addresses concerns relevant to

consciousness in other terms (perception,

cognition, thought, worldview, etc.) without

an awareness or consideration of the

relationship of these elements to broader

questions of consciousness (e.g. separate

investigations of self, emotions, memory).

An “occult” anthropology of

consciousness has explicitly focused upon

aspects of consciousness related to the

transpersonal and spiritual dimensions, while

a mainstream anthropology of perception,

learning, memory, cognition, identity, and

self has engaged indirectly in the study

of aspects of consciousness, neglecting

consciousness as a paradigm, but addressing

key aspects of consciousness. This more

direct engagement with consciousness is

addressed by Throop and Laughlin (2007).

There is a long history of anthropological

engagement with consciousness in concerns

with cultural influences on perception,cognition, learning, and memory, as well

as more recent concerns with political,

social, ethnic, cultural, and other forms of

identity-based consciousness. Questions

regarding the biological bases of altered

states of consciousness associated with

religious rituals and their adaptive effects

(Winkelman 2000, 2010) has straddled theoccult and conventional anthropologies of

consciousness.

A Mainstream Anthropology of ConsciousnessThroop and Laughlin (2007) detail a

mainstream anthropology of consciousness

across more than a century, including Adolf Bastian’s engagement with the psychic unity

of mankind; Franz Boas’ study of culture and

perception; Emile Durkheim’s understandings

of the elementary forms of consciousness;

Lucien Lévy-Bruhl’s notion of different modes

of consciousness; Edward Sapir and Benjamin

Whorf ’s linguistic relativity hypothesis; and

Irving Hallowell’s concern with the behavioral

environment and cultural construction of

perception. More recent concerns are also

found in Clifford Geertz’s interpretivist

approach, Pierre Bourdieu’s concerns with

consciousness in terms of embodiment and

habitus; and Victor and Edith Turner’s focus on

the anthropology of experience. In addition,





a wide range of concerns in cognitive

anthropology, psychological anthropology,

and transpersonal anthropology also address

consciousness under the guise of cognition,

thought, perception, and other elements

necessary for consciousness.

The anthropology of consciousness is also

about the ways in which the social context

drives our development of consciousness,

providing the social forces that drive our awareness. As illustrated by the contributors

to Bronson and Fields (2009) So What? Now

What? The Anthropology of Consciousness

Responds to a World in Crisis, an anthropology

of consciousness is also an anthropology of

conscience. This reflects an awareness of

the numerous effects of our engagement

with the planet, one in which we need to take responsibility for collective well-being.

Clearly anthropologists of many backgrounds

have been leaders in this process of

“conscientization” that leads us to a sense

of personal and collective responsibility for

the planet on which we live. This collective

conscience is heightened by the millennial

transition through which we are passingwhich has made us more aware of the voices

and consciousness of the ancient, non-

western “others.”

The Implications of an OccultAnthropology of ConsciousnessDifferent, ancestral ways of knowing have

provided a virtually separate subdiscipline of

the anthropology of consciousness involving

the study of occult phenomena. These

included experiential approaches to mystical,

spiritualist, and psychic phenomena that long

predated Carlos Castaneda infamy. Early

anthropologists such as Andrew Lang and

W.Y. Evans-Wentz (1967) engaged in a variety

of studies of occult traditions, providing a

deep basis for the anthropological opening

to the basic assumptions of the worldview

of the non-Western “other” by engaging

in experiential studies of consciousness

alteration. These practices have remained

at the margins of anthropology because a

materialist bias interferes with appropriate

interpretations of non-Western religions.

These rationalist influences are quitedifferent from the views of religion found

across human history. All too often the

Western perspective discounts the claims and

statements made by religious practitioners as

non-factual, irrational, and deluded.

The anthropological encounter with

the epistemology of the “other” demands

an acceptance of animism, a mentality of causality that is automatically excluded in

the materialist ethos of Western science.

Whether conceptualized as spirit, mana,

or magic, the “other” has persistent sets

of assumptions about causal actors and

forces that fall outside of the domains of

scientific theory. Winkelman and Peek

(2004) explore divination as alternativeepistemological systems regarding the nature

of knowledge. Concepts of the spirit world

and psi/psychic powers claimed as aspects of

reality in much of the world are still generally

neglected—even tabooed—in mainstream

considerations of interpretation of the

behaviors of the past.

Ethnographic, Ethnologicaland Biological Approaches toInterpretation of the PastInterpretation of the past has been

hampered by Western biases inherent to the

archaeological enterprise. As Fogelin (2007)

notes in the Annual Review of Anthropology ,





archaeologists’ approach to interpretation of

religious beliefs of the past often has been in

terms of the assumption that a set of myths

and beliefs were to be explained. In contrast

many religions emphasize the importance of

some incredible altered experience involving

an engagement with mythical and spiritual

powers.

The religions of our own complex

societies have been the inevitable modelfor inquiry into the unknown, but this has

been fraught with many problems. Cultural

variation in religious beliefs—even with

constant forms—should make us cautions

about interpreting beliefs of those in the past

with reference to our own practices. Where

religion has an arbitrary cultural aspect, it

may mislead our interpretation.Interpretation of apparent religious

behaviors of those in the past has generally

been based on ethnographic analogies. This

analogy poses some parallels between those

practices presumed to have occurred in

the past and those of some directly known

near-contemporary culture. This approach

is embodied in the use of hunter-gatherer societies as a general model for human

life in the past. But the application of the

hunter-gatherer model has often been

more based on intuition than on cross-

cultural data on the actual similarities in

such societies. Valid interpretations of the

past cannot be justified on selective cultural

examples; rather, it requires an ethnological

model based in empirically determined

cross-cultural patterns, as illustrated in the

Winkelman article in this issue on shamanism.

Ethnological analogies, based on the patterns

revealed by cross-cultural research, provide

sounder bases for interpretation.

Biological Approaches to Religion

The nature of religion has been

misunderstood by archaeologists in part

because of the presumed incompatibly

of religion’s ideological nature with the

materialist approaches to explanation

characteristic of archaeology. Assuming

that religion was an arbitrary mental

phenomenon, archaeologists have been slow

to give attention to materialist approaches to religion, specifically the biologically

based approaches to religion as a natural

phenomenon. Yet the universality of many

aspects of our religious impulses leads us to

the inevitable conclusion that it is part of our

biological nature and evolved characteristics.

The concept of an evolved religious capacity

with a biological basis has taken severaldifferent foci, including the behavioral bases

of religion in ritual and in the cognitive

aspects of religious belief and experience,

particularly altered states of consciousness.

Here we find a new model in which

evolution and religion are not irreconcilable

alternatives, but rather partners in a co-

evolutionary process linking the mental and the material (Winkelman and Baker 2008).

These biological approaches have

emphasized cognitive interpretations

based on the assumption of inherent

psychophysiological aspects of the human

brain that provide a neurological paradigm

for interpreting the past. These approaches

include concerns with the stages of evolution

of human consciousness which cross-cut

the subdisciplines of anthropology and a

vast interdisciplinary field that grapples with

the ability of the human brain and mind to

understand their own origins. Key questions

include the different forms of consciousness

across the animal kingdom, and how our own





human past led to the evolution of uniquely

human forms of consciousness. A central

feature about interpretation of religion in the

past involves a biological capacity for altered

states of consciousness associated with

religious rituals and their adaptive effects

(Winkelman 2000, 2010). These cognitive

approaches also include a significant focus

on the specific aspects in the evolution

of our uniquely human consciousness, aconcern with the evolutionary stages in the

emergence of our modern consciousness.

Biogenetic Structuralism and

NeurophenomenologyProminent biological approaches in the

anthropology of consciousness are based

on biogenetic structuralism (Laughlin andd’Aquili 1974; d’Aquili et al. 1979; Laughlin

et al. 1992; Winkelman 2000; Winkelman

and Baker 2008). Laughlin and Loubser’s

article here in this issue illustrates the deep

scientific and intellectual basis for addressing

consciousness in biological terms.

The behavioral approaches exemplified

in biogenetic structuralism examine humanritual dynamics in the relationship to the

broader functions of ritualized displays in

the animal world. This reveals a common

dynamic of ritual across all species, the

coordination of social groups for common

good. This biological and functional dynamic

of ritual is complemented in the domains of

experience, where a neurophenomenological

approach examines the ways in which

neurological foundations of knowing—

neurognosis—are the basis for a variety

of cross-cultural patterns of shamanic

and mystical and shamanic experiences.

The neurophenomenological approach

illustrates how cross-cultural uniformity to

the phenomenological nature of spiritual

experiences reflects the dynamics of

functional biological systems that support

overall consciousness. As biology and brain

processes develop in interaction with cultural

factors, both universal patterns and social

patterns emerge in the structuring of human

consciousness. These reciprocal relationships

between biology and experience are at

the basis of the neurophenomenologicalapproaches which attempt to explain

the regularities in spiritual and mystical

experiences in terms of the underlying

biological structures.

The methodologies of the biogenetic

and neurophenomenological approaches

are deliberately interdisciplinary, not merely

engaging biology and culture, body and mind,but also other comparative perspectives

based in phylogenetic, ontogenetic, and

sociogenetic development (Laughlin et

al. 1992). These comparative approaches

examining cross-species, cross-cultural, and

developmental regularities help to establish

the neurognostic paradigm of consciousness

(Winkelman 1996, 2000, 2010).Consciousness encompasses a wide

range of subsystems that together

manage organisms’ relationships with the

environment through epistemological

and self systems. The multiple aspects of

the systems underlying the production

of consciousness permit a multiplicity of

forms of consciousness. These include

developmental levels, cross-cultural

differences, and phasic differences, such

as spontaneous and deliberate entry into

alternate mental states. Explaining these

diverse manifestations of consciousness

requires a systems perspective based in the

approaches of genetic epistemology. This





approach provides a general theoretical

framework for consciousness that reveals the

biological bases of diverse phenomenological

experiences associated with the

anthropologies of consciousness.

Altered States and the PastThese biological and cognitive approaches

to the past of religion have a perennial

concern with the nature of the alteredconsciousness that is central to shamanism,

possession, and mystical phenomena. A

central feature of understanding altered

states of consciousness is the shaman.

Variously conceptualized, the shaman

represents a complex of ancient human

institutions that engaged in ritual alterations

of consciousness. A growing recognition of this common primordial form of human

spirituality and consciousness has come from

many disciplines. This notion of a cross-

culturally valid concept of the shaman is well

grounded in cross-cultural (Winkelman 1986,

1990, 1992), psychobiological (Winkelman

2000, 2002; Winkelman and Baker 2008),

and evolutionary findings (Winkelman 2009,2010). This implicit shamanic paradigm

has been a central feature of the works

of Clottes’s, Dawson’s, Lewis-Williams’s

and Whitley’s numerous publications on

shamanism.

The roles of shamanism in interpreting

human consciousness and the past are

addressed in this issue in the articles by

Winkelman and Loubser. Winkelman

outlines the shamanic paradigm as a

biopsychosocial framework for understanding

the nature, origins, and functions of

shamanism, while Loubser considers the use

of such frameworks to interpret religious

activities in African and aboriginal America.

A “Five-field” Anthropology of

ConsciousnessA comprehensive view of the anthropology

of consciousness must take a “five-

field” perspective of the discipline of

anthropology, explicitly examining the

roles of consciousness within the fields of

paleontology, archaeology, and linguistic,

cultural, and applied anthropology. A set of

primary concerns as well as a diversity of topics exists within each of the subfields:

Paleontology : the evolution of

consciousness in general, and human

consciousness in particular; stages in the

evolution of consciousness; changes in

consciousness across hominid evolution;

and factors in the emergence of uniquely human consciousness

Linguistic: the role of language in the

evolution of consciousness, the role of

language in the formation of experience,

perception, and consciousness

Archaeology : different forms of consciousness in the past of modern

humans; the role of an etic concept of

shamanism in guiding interpretation of

the human past

Cultural: explaining the cultural roles

of shamanistic traditions for altering

consciousness; ethnic, social, class, political,

historical, and other variant forms

of consciousness; and the nature of

consciousness

Applied : using ethnographic knowledge of

technologies for altering consciousness

to address modern problems, such as the





therapeutic applications of psychedelics

and the potential roles of shamanic

ritual in addressing drug addiction,

contemporary soul loss, and other

modern conditions

All that can be done within the space

limits of one issue of this journal is to offer

a preliminary exploration of some of the

explicit aspects of the anthropologies of consciousness. As the topics listed above

illustrate, there is a much broader set

of concerns about consciousness within

anthropology. These topics generally are

not recognized as explicitly concerned

with consciousness because of the lack

of a paradigm for linking these disparate

areas together. This shortcoming of theanthropologies of consciousness can be

addressed with an explicit paradigmatic

approach based in biogenetic structuralist

and neurophenomenological approaches.

Michael Winkelman

ReferencesBronson, M. and Fields, T. (eds), 2009. So What? Now

What? The Anthropology of Consciousness Responds

to a World in Crisis. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars

Publishing.

d’Aquili, E., Laughlin, C., and McManus, J. (eds),

1979. The Spectrum of Ritual. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Evans-Wentz, W.Y., 1967. Tibetan Yoga and Secret Doctrines. New York : Oxford University Press.

Fogelin, L., 2007. “The Archaeology of Religious

Ritual.” Annual Reviews of Anthropology 36: 55–71.

Laughlin, C., 1992a. “Consciousness in Biogenetic

Structural Theory.” Anthropology of Consciousness 3(1

and 2): 17–22.

Laughlin, C., 1992b. Scientific Explanation and the Life-

world. A Biogenetic Structural Theory of Meaning and Causation. Sausalito, CA: Institute of Noetic Sciences.

Laughlin, C. and d’Aquili, E., 1974. Biogenetic

Structuralism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Laughlin, C., McManus, J., and d’Aquili, E., 1992. Brain,

Symbol, and Experience Toward a Neurophenomenology

of Consciousness. New York: Columbia University

Press.

Throop, C. and Laughlin, C., 2007. “Anthropology of Consciousness.” in P. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch and

E. Thompson (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of

Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, pp. 631–69.

Winkelman, M., 1986. “Magico-religious Practitioner

Types and Socioeconomic Analysis.” Behavior Science

Research 20(1–4): 17–46.

Winkelman, M., 1990. “Shaman and Other ‘Magico-religious Healers:’ A Cross-cultural Study of their

Origins, Nature, and Social Transformation.” Ethos

18(3): 308–52.

Winkelman, M., 1992. “Shamans, Priests, and

Witches. A Cross-cultural Study of Magico-religious

Practitioners.” Anthropological Research Papers No. 44.

Arizona State University.

Winkelman, M., 1993. “The Evolution of

Consciousness: Transpersonal Theories in Light of Cultural Relativism.” Anthropology of Consciousness

4(3): 3–9.

Winkelman, M., 1994. “Multidisciplinary Perspectives

on Consciousness.” Anthropology of Consciousness

5(2): 16–25.

Winkelman, M., 1996. “Neurophenomenology and

Genetic Epistemology as a Basis for the Study of

Consciousness.” Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 19(3): 217–36.

Winkelman, M., 2000. Shamanism the Neural Ecology

of Consciousness and Healing . Westport: Bergin and

Garvey.

Winkelman, M., 2002. “Shamanism and Cognitive

Evolution.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12(1):

71–101.





Winkelman, M., 2004. “Spirits as Human Nature and

the Fundamental Structures of Consciousness.” in J. Houran (ed.), From Shaman to Scientist: Essays on

Humanity’s Search for Spir its. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow

Press.

Winkelman, M., 2005. “Understanding Consciousness

Using Systems Approaches and Lexical Universals.”

Anthropology of Consciousness 15(2): 24–38.

Winkelman, M., 2009. “Shamanism and the Origins of

Spirituality and Ritual Healing.” Journal for the Study of

Religion, Nature and Culture (forthcoming).

Winkelman, M., 2010. Shamanism: A Biopsychosocial

Paradigm of Consciousness and Healing . Oxford: ABC

CLIO (forthcoming).

Winkelman, M. and Baker, J., 2008. Supernatural as

Natural: A Biocultural Theory of Religion. New Jersey:

Prentice Hall.

Winkelman, M. and Peek, P. (eds), 2004. Divination

and Healing: Potent Vision . Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

Winkelman, M., and White, D., 1987. “A Cross-cultural

Study of Magico-religious Practitioners and Trance

States: Data Base.” in D. Levinson and R. Wagner

(eds), Human Relations Area Files Research Series in

Quantitative Cross-cultural Data, Vol. 3. New Haven,

CT: HRAF Press.

This is a Special Issue of Time & Mind ,

edited by Michael Winkelman, focusing

on the theme of “Anthropologies of

Consciousness,” a comprehensive overview

of which has yet to be written.

Documents

Introduction: Anthropologies of Consciousness, Michael Winkelman