Every now and then in books or film I see a reference to people of certain cultures objecting to having their picture taken because they believe their soul, or a part of their mana, will be taken from them in the process. I know I’ve seen portrayals of African bushmen and American Indians with this belief.
Was/is this an actual belief or is this just an example of a creative myth that has become popular for storytelling purposes?
It seems unlikely that people unfamiliar with photography would have cared about it all. It also seems unlikely that cultures that allowed for painting and other visual arts to portray the human form would have had a problem with photography once they understood it. And if this belief was held by people in the cultures in question it was far from universal since there are numerous posed-for photos of people in those cultural groups.
I’m not sure if this is true or not, but my best guess is that because a camera can take such a realistic likeness of a person, perhaps a less tech savvy individual might wonder if the photograph looks a little too realistic…
That would be my guess. There’s A photograph is much, much more realistic than even the best drawings. I can see how a group that did not understand the concept behind photography might be freaked out by it.
But these cultures used painted pictures of humans already for magical purposes, not for decoration (those were symbols, flowers etc.)
And given the behaviour of today’s tourists when in Africa or elsewhere, descending like vultures on “photographic motives”, looking at everything only through the viewfinder of the camera, without stopping to really look at it, I find it not hard to believe that this behaviour would frighten people not used to it. Yes, I don’t know if the early tourists/ethnographers behaved like that, or more moderate - but I’ll assume they behaved very different from the local shaman or craftsman who painted pictures of his tribespeople.
It has been many years since I witnessed it, but as a kid I saw many southwestern US tribes perform various dances. In every case they were insistant that the performance not be photographed.
The dances were intended to invoke, or impress certain gods or spirits. There was a concern that the camera would literally capture these spirits.
The concern did not extend to themselves. Most were quite happy to pose for photographs for a dollar or two.
If you research indian dances, you will find lots of drawings of dances, but very few photographs.
Tell you what, sit down and compose a list of frequently photographed people. I’ll start you off.
Paris Hilton
Lindsay Lohan
Michael Jackson
George W. Bush
Tom Cruise
Do you notice a certain, well, let’s call it superficiality about them? Based on the evidence I have, I would have to say that the belief arose because it accurately describes a real phenomenon.
Hey, now. Until there’s evidence to the contrary, there’s a possible risk there.
Maybe I should start a thread, “Ask the Guy Who Thinks Having His Photograph Taken Will Cause the Loss of His Soul. Oh, and Microwave Pancakes Are Satan’s Own Maxipads. Fhtagn!”
Still an issue in some of the villages in Mexico that are run by the indigenous people.
This is a photo of a sign in San Juan Chamula:
I’ve heard the general reaction is to first destroy your camera, and then maybe arrest you. And the local tour guide we had was pretty pissed when someone took a photo of the locals.
That sign, according to the translation on the Flickr page, says not to photograph the church or the rituals. Doesn’t say anything about the people themselves. Since I assume you’re the source of both the photo and the translation, is there something I’m missing?
I first heard this story in an episode of the 1960s Ron Ely “Tarzan” series. Some evil photographer had captured the souls from some villagers, and Tarzan captured the captured souls to return them to their owners.
A few years back, my company was working with a group of Mennonites in Montana (note: all Mennonites do not interpret things identically.) They did not want their faces photographed.
Not because it would steal their souls, but because it was a “graven image.” They were okay with photographs of the countryside, or where you could not make out the faces.
So how does this apply to digital photography? If I can “capture” a piece of your soul with any camera, what happens to it when I delete that image from the camera?
Does that mean I can effectively delete anyone’s soul with a digital camera as long as I have a large enough SD card?
I think SmackFu might be referring to the section where it reads English:
“It is strictly forbidden to take photos in the church and in other places where rituals are being perfomed.”
I take it to mean that what is being prohibited is not the taking photos of the place, but of the rituals, wherever they may take place, i.e., not take photos of the people doing religios acts.
Heh, this reminds me of the episode of Babylon 5 about the Soul Hunter (called, IIRC, “Soul Hunter”) who wanted to steal Delenn’s soul (before she was good and ready to die) because she had prevented him from “saving” Dukhat’s soul when Dukhat was mortally wounded during the botched first contact between the Minbari and the Earth Alliance. The device he was using to try and capture her soul (and presumably the one he would use to get the soul from someone who was about to die) looked kinda like an alien sci-fi version of a large-format camera (the kind that take pictures on pieces of film that can get upwards of the size of a piece of letter paper or legal paper, usually used for types of photography where a lot of detail is needed (portraits, architecture, landscapes, etc.).
From the movie *Witness * and I don’t know how accurate this is. The Amish don’t like you photographing them. Not because they think it captures their souls, not because they object to graven images, but because they object to nosy strangers treating them as tourist attractions. Certainly makes sense.
I’m speaking WAY outside of my own experience here, but maybe one of our Jewish members can pitch in on this (has anyone seen Zev_Steinhart lately?):
I saw an interview with Leonard Nimoy once, in which he discussed the Vulcan hand-sign meaning “Live long and prosper.” (I think that’s what it means; I’m not much of a Trekkie.) He said that as a boy, in synagogue, there was a part of the service–it may have been a special service for a holiday or something–when everyone had to turn around and face away from the rabbi while he did something. Being an inquisitive kid, young Nimoy turned around and looked, and saw the rabbi making that hand sign over the congregation. He found this a strange and mystical experience, and remembered it on the set of Star Trek.
I’m just guessing here, but if even the congregation isn’t supposed to look while the rabbi does this, I would think that taking photos of it would be verboten as well. Does anyone know anything about this? And particularly the theology behind it?
Disclaimer and preemptive apology: As is probably clear from this post, I know very little about the actual practices of Judaism. I apologize if I’ve unwittingly used words that are Christian-centric (such as maybe “congregation”) or otherwise trod upon any toes.
This kinda reminds me of the Holy of Holies, basically the most sacred part of Solomon’s Temple where the Ark of the Covenent was kept. Nobody but the highest ranking rabbis were even allowed in the room, and when the Romans invaded, the Jews fought ferociously and stubbornly for days to keep the Roman army out (in return, the Roman Army attacked even harder, wanting to see what it was that was so danged important).
After they had killed pretty much everyone in the temple, the commander (Justinian, I think, but I may be talking out of my assicus here) entered the Holy of Holies to find that it was entirely empty. Nobody knows what happened to the Ark, where it went, or when it happened/went. So few people were ever allowed into the room, that the vast majority of everyone never knew when it had stopped being there.
Back to the topic, I’d be willing to bet that, even had cameras existed back then, the Jews probably wouldn’t have appreciated me trying to get in there with my Pentax Spotmatic to get a picture of it, even if I promised to keep my eyes closed for it.
I’ve heard that some Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Muslims consider any representation of the human body (drawings, pictures) to be graven images. Can anybody here say if that’s true or not?
Oops… you’re right about that. I conflated the sign with the separate warnings from our local guide to not take photos of the indigenous peoples unless we had permission. So, they were very anti-photography, but perhaps not in the steal-your-soul sense.
It was really a shame, since the church was mind-blowing.
