Zambezia (1986), XIII (ii).WITCHCRAFT: BELIEF AND REALITIES: A DEBATEBELIEF IN WITCHCRAFTT. J. MAFICODepartment of Religious Studies, Classics and Philosophy,University of ZimbabweBELIEF IN WITCHCRAFT is a subject which has been studied by sociologists andother specialists over a long period of time.1 Their conclusions are as diverse asthey are many. Looking at some of the latest research done in Zimbabwe by someauthorities on witchcraft beliefs, one is immediately convinced that the subjectstill bristles with difficulties. My contribution to the current discussion onwitchcraft beliefs will, however, focus on Professor G. L. Chavunduka's inaugurallecture which was subsequently published in Zambezia? The thrust ofChavunduka's thesis is on trying to resolve the dichotomy which exists betweenthe traditional courts and the formal courts by their differing attitudes towardswitch beliefs. To do this, Chavunduka prefers to draw most of his key materialfrom Zimbabwe for three main reasons: a) ideas on witchcraft are not universal,although they are widespread; b) there is information on the existence of witchesin Zimbabwe; and c) the traditional and formal courts of Zimbabwe differ sharplyin their approachs to the problem of witchcraft.3 To do justice to this wide subject,Chavunduka has drawn together some of the important conclusions on thesubject made by other sociologists, including social anthropologists, medicalpractitioners and courts of law.The author goes on to point out the pitfalls of the formal courts. Theseemanate from the fact that while the traditional courts accept the existence ofwitches the formal courts do not.4 Exercising the Witchcraft Suppression Act(Ord. 14) passed in 1899, the formal courts do not 'punish witches but thoseindividuals who name others as witches*,5 The Act was based on the premise that1 See, for example, J. Middleton and E. H. Winter, Witchcraft and Sorcery in East Africa(London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963); U. P. Mayer, Witches (Grahamstown, Rhodes Univ.,Inaugural Lecture, 1954); E. E, Evans-Pritchard, Witchraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande(London, Oxford Univ. Press, 1937); M. Gelfand, The African Witch (Edinburgh, E. & S.Livingstone, 1976); and R. Crawford, Witchcraft and Sorcery in Rhodesia (London, Oxford Univ.Press, 1967).2 G. L. Chavunduka, 'Witchcraft and the law in Zimbabwe', Zambezia (1980), VIII, 129-47.» Ibid., 129.* Ibid.s Ibid., 130. Notice that the Witchcraft Suppression Act is against anyone who, according toChavunduka, names others as witches. Surely the law would not be against someone who provesbeyond doubt that some people practise witchcraft.119120WITCHCRAFT: BELIEF AND REALITIESthe 'so-called witchcraft' was 'a pretence and a sham, something which in actualfact has no real existence'. While the formal courts agree with the WitchcraftSuppression Act, Chavunduka has noticed that 'some African lawyers appear tohave some doubts in their minds concerning the correctness of the Act'.6 He citescourt proceedings to prove the scepticism prevailing in the minds of these Africanlawyers. Suprisingly, and without convincing argument, the author blames theWitchcraft Suppression Act for defining witchcraft as' the throwing of bones, theuse of charms and any other means or devices adopted in the practice of sorcery'.7Contradicting himself, he tenuously argues that the throwing of bones 'is notnecessarily done to identify or drive out witches... Throwing of bones is a meansof divination, that is to say, a means by which a diviner or medical practitionerdetermines, or attempts to determine, who or what caused an illness or othermisfortunes complained of by an individual or group'.8 Chavunduka refuses toassociate charms with witchcraft for some charms serve as a prevention againstspecific types of illness and others confer good luck on an individual.9After labouring the question of charms and divination, Chavunduka attemptsto distinguish between witchcraft and sorcery, noting that both terms were usedinterchangeably in the Witchcraft Suppression Act.10 Regrettably, it is not clearfrom the article whether the author agrees with social anthropologists on thedefinition of witchcraft and sorcery or not. When he attempts to make his owndefinition, one quickly gets confused because it appears as though the author'sstatements imply that both the sorcerer and the witch perform the same evil ofkilling people. The difference between these types of witches, if there is any at all,seems to lie in the means by which they achieve their wicked ends.1' This is solidlysupported by his observation of what he calls a misunderstanding of the Shonaand Ndebele names for a witch, muroyi and umthakathi.12 The author goes on tomention that these terms, according to these two communities, refer totroublemakers, people who commit anti-social acts such as incest, those who bumor attempt to burn other people's property secretly at night, and 'those who fail tocarry out the necessary ritual for their dead relatives, and so on*.13 Thus, when aperson accuses another of witchcraft, he does not necessarily seek a legal decisionon the matter, but he goes to court to seek advice on how he and his neighboursmight resolve their social problems.14 Chavunduka then goes on to demonstrate* Ibid, 7 ibid., 131.* Ibid. s ibid., 131-2.10 Ibid., 132.11 According to traditional societies, witchcraft is used not only to kill but also to make a goodfootball team lose a game. Witchcraft is complex and multifarious in its effect and function.12 Traditional societies do not see a distinction between sorcery and witchcraft. Both evils areused to kill or harm others. Chavunduka observed the same fact from those who confessed that theywere witches, 'Witchcraft and the law in Zimbabwe', 140.13 Ibid., 132. !4 Ibid., 133.T. J. MAFICO/G. L. CHAVUNDUKA121that the Shona or Ndebele 'may well be right when they accuse other people ofwitchcraft, meaning sorcery.15 Sorcerers, according to him, can harm their victimsby doing physical harm, that is, putting poison in food, or can harm bypsychological means, one of which may be remotely inflicted by means of thegona, usually a horn with medicines in it.16 In a rather self-contradictoryexplanation, the author alleges that the gona is by itself harmless, 'but it is anoffence to use such charms for the purpose of injuring somebody because throughfear it can cause injury to persons or property'.17When Chavunduka turns to what he himself observes as * "real" [sic!]witches, that is, those people who are said to eat corpses, dance naked in the fieldsat night and cause sickness, death and other misfortunes',18 he straggles to produceevidence, but in vain. The author blames the courts for regarding witchcraft asmyth by accepting the erroneous Western academic view held by manysociologists and anthropologists.19 Referring to E. H. Winter, whom he recognizesas 'an authority on witchcraft in Africa', Chavunduka notes that Winter found 'noreason to think that anyone does in fact practise witchcraft or even that anyonecould practise it'.20 The same line, according to Chavunduka, was supported byanother authority on African studies at London University, I. M. Lewis, whodeclared:I certainly do not believe in witchcraft, I make this declaration because one of my aims inthis discussion is to show that we do not need to share other people's beliefs in order tounderstand them sympathetically: we can see the sense in beliefs even when we areconvinced they are based on false premises,21Turning to Zimbabwe, Chavunduka noted three types of witches. The firstone is possessed or said to be possessed by a spirit of a deceased relative who was awitch. The second type becomes a witch after being possessed by a stranger oralien spirit. Finally, a person may become a witch by sponsorship of a witch.22 All15 In a surprising shift of mind, Chavunduka seems now to agree with the Ndebele and Shonawho regard both witchcraft and sorcery as witchcraft. Chavunduka does not prove them wrong in sodoing. He now seems to justify their classification, ibid., 132.16 How a simple horn scares a person to the point of causing injury is mythical, if not miraculous.Chavunduka admits that the gona itself is harmless. In other words, those who believe in it areignorant. Witchcraft is therefore a 'science* perpertuated by either ignorance or blind faith.17 After asserting that the gona is harmless, one wonders why Chavunduka goes on to call it acharm, the use of which is punishable by law, ibid., 134.18 Ibid.19 Throughout the article, Chavunduka shows that he agrees with many sociologists andanthropologists (see, for example, ibid., 142). Chavunduka admits that traditional courts are notsuited for dealing with certain cases involving witchcraft charges.20 Chavunduka, 'Witchcraft and the law in Zimbabwe*, 134-5.21 Ibid., 135. 22 Ibid., 135-6.122WITCHCRAFT: BELIEF AND REALITIESthis analysis led Chavunduka to his main 'proof of the existence of witches, thatis, personal confessions. These confessions are made in church and in traditionaland formal courts. Unfortunately, when the police investigated the plants whichsome of the so-called witches are alleged to have used to kill people, they foundthem to be benign. Furthermore, post-mortems performed on some peoplealleged to have been killed by the so-called confessing witches proved that thevictim had died of natural causes and not by poisonous plants or other ooisons.The author admits that so-called witches 'who claim to operate at night all usemedicines and plants in much the same way as sorcerers do'!23 This statement is acontradiction of his main argument that witches and sorcerers are different. Henow overlooks the fact that earlier he had blamed the Shona, Ndebele andauthorities on African witchcraft for failing to note this fact which to him is a veryimportant distinction.24 Furthermore, Chavunduka testifies that post-mortemshave proved that corpses which, according to the so-called witches, weremutilated and eaten were found to be completely intact.25 To me, this creates twoproblems: why the witches make these fabulous confessions, and whyChavunduka, in spite of all the medical, police, sociological and anthropologicalresearch, still holds the witch view which is contrary to popular and learnedopinion.Chavunduka admits that cases of witchcraft he examined 'seem to indicatethat sponsored witches practise their art using methods of sorcery'. He concedesthat it may be mythical for the so-called witches to claim that they 'fly at night,possess familiars, or keep hyenas for riding on their night excursions5.26 He asserts,however, that the claims by certain witches that they use medicines or poisons toharm others should be investigated, a task one would assume the author to havedone before making most of his affirmative statements on witches and sorcerers.He should realize that the 'authorities' on witchcraft in Africa had alreadyinvestigated and found witchcraft beliefs to be a figment of the imagination.27 Bydispelling the existence of traditional witches who ride on broomsticks to witch-dances and by accepting those who poison others as witches, Chavundukavacillates between accepting and rejecting the existence of what he himself hascalled 'real' witches who practise witchcraft.His analysis of witchcraft based on the cultural, social, psychological and legalaspects is very unconvincing. It is not common practice among the Shona or23 Ibid., 143. 24 See abovC) fn 12.25 Chavunduka, 'Witchcraft and the law in Zimbabwe', 139.26 Ibid., 140.27 I. M. Lewis, Social Anthropology in Perspective (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1976), 68;E. H. Winter, 'The enemy within: Amba witchcraft and sociological theory*, in Middleton andWinter, Witchcraft and Sorcery in East Africa, 277-99.T. J. yAFICO/G. L. CHAVUNDUKA123Ndebele to accuse each other of witchcraft on a cultural level which only seeksreconciliation. As Chavunduka himself admits later when he refers to thedetection of witches,Methods of detecting a witch or a sorcerer which are commonly used, such as theboiling water test, divination either by spirit possession or the throwing of bones or thepoison ordeal, are very unsatisfactory. Such methods often lead to the punishment ofinnocent individuals. In the boiling water test the accused person is normally instructed toremove an object from a pot of boiling water. If no injuries result the person undersuspicion is deemed innocent. The other common method beside divination is the poison.If a person to whom the poison is administered vomits the poison she is believed to beinnocent but if she retains the poison she is defined as a witch.28Surely, trial of innocent people by ordeal is unjustifiable by any criterion, be itused by traditional courts or by formal courts, whether this practice be based oncultural or legal grounds. Trying anybody by divination of any kind, including thethrowing of bones, is more than criminal in offence. Chavunduka shouldremember that as far back as the tenth century BC the Hebrews, realizing thesuperstitions inherent in the belief in sorcery or witchcraft, decreed capitalpunishment on anyone practising or claiming to practise sorcery or witchcraft,either as a medium or a diviner.29 For us in Zimbabwe, living in the twentiethcentury AD, to perpetuate such belief is sadly to believe in a dangerous andoutdated myth.It is a general sociological or anthropological observation that belief inwitchcraft in its multifarious forms is a valid manifestation of a nation'sbackwardness. Belief in witchcraft is always accompanied by poverty, rampantdisease, groundless hatred, fears and the like Š evils which retard nationaldevelopment and progress.30 For Chavunduka, let alone anyone else, to supportthose 'many people in Zimbabwe [who] do not see the problem [of witchcraft] asone of eliminating the ideas but one of eradicating the witches and sorcerers'31 isto encourage the nation to take a dangerous step backwards from civilization andprogress. The problem with Chavunduka's thesis is that he refuses to come outwith a categorical position with regard to witchcraft or witches. While hecondemns the Witchcraft Suppression Act as being wrong, and while he justifiessome divination, he extols the same Act at the same time as having 'undoubtedlyremoved the most dramatic dangers to life and liberty. Diviners and others are28 Chavunduka, 'Witchcraft and the law in Zimbabwe', 142.29 I Samuel 28: 3-9.30 Except for the European witch-craze of the seventeenth century, witchcraft beliefs are rife incountries which are generally economically backward or academically poor. Developed countries,be they socialistic or captitalistic, have outgrown these primitive beliefs.31 Chavunduka, 'Witchcraft and the law in Zimbabwe", 142.124WITCHCRAFT: BELIEF AND REALITIESnow more cautious about imputing witchcraft out of fear of prosecution'.32 This isChavunduka's clear admission that countless atrocities were being perpetrated bythe so-called diviners.My position, like that of the Witchcraft Suppression Act and also of thoseChavunduka calls 'authorities on witchcraft', is that belief in witches andwitchcraft is belief in a myth. Moreover, sorcery, as described by sociologists andsocial anthropologists, differs from witchcraft only in the means employed forkilling people. Thus, witches and sorcerers, according to the Shona and Ndebele,are varoyi and abathakathi (witches).I could go on to show more pitfalls in Chavunduka's paper, but this is notnecessary because he himself admits his inadequacy in dealing with the subject ofwitchcraft, as he states quite plainly:As I have tried to point out in this discussion we are still unable to answer a number ofquestions concerning witchcraft and sorcery Š questions relating to types of witches, thekinds of medicine that people say they use in bewitching others, the reason for theconfessions that some people make in courts of law, and so on. In fact it is difficult at thepresent time to decide whether Ndebele and Shona witches are indeed witches orsorcerers. It could be that those who claim to operate at night all use medicines and plantsin much the same way as sorcerers do.33This quotation is significant in revealing a number of contradictions the authormakes. Firstly, the quotation reveals Chavunduka admitting that many questionsremain which demand serious investigation regarding belief in witches. Earlier,however, he listed those kinds of witches which he considers to be 'real' witches.Secondly, in this quotation, Chavunduka is no longer clear whether the Ndebeleor Shona are wrong in regarding the so called 'real' witches and sorcerers aswitches, without distinction. The quotation also shows that Chavunduka's wholethesis is based on tenuous evidence on witchcraft and sorcery, which henebulously affirms. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that unless concreteproof of the existence of witches and the practice of witchcraft is brought forward,it is futile for anyone to try to challenge the Witchcraft Suppression Act which isdoing Zimbabwe a great service by deterring malicious people from groundlesslyaccusing others of witchcraft and hurting them by trials by ordeal.Having challenged Chavunduka's thesis, it now remains for me to prove themythical nature of witchcraft. I shall do this first by referring to the Salemwitch-scare, a New England myth-belief which escalated because of social andpolitical problems which were besetting the country in the seventeenth century. InIbid.33 Ibid, 143.T. J. MAFICO/G. L. CHAVUNDUKA125my conclusion it will become clear that witch-belief results from manypsychological and social factors.The Salem witch-scare began slowly and innocently at the home of the RevdSamuel Parris who was the minister of the local church in Salem.34 Hishousemaid, a Black girl, Tituba, who was from Barbados, used to tell manyhorror tales of witches which she had heard at home. The stories were sofascinating that more and more White girls came to hear them. At some point intime, the little girls felt that they were seized by some supernatural powers. Severalchildren began to suffer from a strange malady which manifested itself inconvulsions, inhuman screams and other extraordinary behaviour. The townphysician, Dr Gnggs, quickly suggested a spiritual treatment since the illness wasbeyond medical capability. The Revd Parris called all the local pastors togetherfor consultation. They were all unanimous that the Devil was asserting hisauthority in Salem as a springboard for his evil campaign in America.35The girls, under pressure, admitted that they were bewitched. Threecandidates for the charge of witchcraft were readily available. The first wasTituba, who was Black and a stranger, and who had initiated the witch-scare. Thesecond was Sarah Good who was the town hag who smoked a pipe and wanderedover the countryside begging from people and cursing them if refused. The thirdwas Sarah Osbourne, who was of high social status. Her sin was to have lived witha man for a year before marrying him, and she had also not attended church forthe past fourteen months. To the New England Puritans, this was a grievous sin.36The three 'witches' were brought for trial and only Tituba confessed under duressand warned of the presence of more witches in Salem. Taking her word seriously,consternation seized the city resulting in the stepping up of witch-hunting until itembraced neighbouring towns. The five-year-old girl Dorcas, the daughter ofSarah Good, Rebecca Nurse and her two sisters, Mary Esty and Sarah Cloyce(three of the most saintly and respected members of the church), John Proctor,Giles Cory, Abigail Hobbes, Bridget Bishop, Sarah Wild, the Revd GeorgeBurroughs and many other were accused of witchcraft. The belief became so wildthat it even included the Governor's wife, Lady Phips, and the President ofHarvard College and pastor of the First Church of Boston, the Most ReverendSamuel Willard. The Governor dismissed the last two charges as mistaken.34 In Its abridged form in Witchcraft and Sorcery, edited by M. Marwick (Harmondsworth,Penguin, 1970), 151-77, the article by J. Bednarski discusses the topic, "The Salem witch-scareviewed sociologically'.35 Ibid., 152-4. The real source of the belief in witchcraft was dualism: a belief that the Devil wasre-asserting his authority in Salem. In other words, Satan was winning in a battle against God.36 Ibid., 155.126WITCHCRAFT: BELIEF AND REALITIESNonetheless a court for others was set up and matters kept spiralling from there.Ninteen people were hanged after being coerced into confessions.37By empirical analysis of the situation, a position could be supported that thecause of the witch-scare in Salem was not only the political situation but alsosociological factors. King Charles's decrees had caused uncertainties in the BayColony about the future. He stationed the royal commissioners to see that hisunpopular decrees were obeyed to the letter and these included the establishmentof the Anglican Church which had hitherto been outlawed in New England.38 Hesent in a new Governor, Andros, who was an Anglican and who hated colonialinsubordination and wanted to whip the rebels into line. The Bostonians revoltedin 1689 and arrested Andros. Had William of Orange not overthrown James, areprimand of Boston's action would have caused more social problems andcreated more witches. Nonetheless, the Charter which was renegotiated withWilliam changed the Puritan structure of the colony by allowing all religiousgroups except Catholics to settle. The political structure of the colony hadcollapsed. The impact of all this was severe strain on the people, a situation whichrequired a scapegoat for the New Englanders to vent their frustrations. It wasreadily found in the witches, angels of the Devil, who were considered to beresponsible for the State's hardship.39The scapegoat hypothesis explains why an isolated incident in a small town ofSalem became a major issue involving all social groups throughout the wholecolony. The Puritan religious metamorphosis, the disintegration of the BayColony's tight and homogenous community feeling resulting from the coming ofthe other religious groups, and an elusive future Š all contributed to strainedcommunity life. The Puritan ethic which stated that God gives and God takesaway was now overtaken by circumstances. If there was adversity to progress, theDevil with his host in human form must be responsible. The reasons could beincreased to include the wilderness-phobia in the new colony, the dangerousanimals and the ever-present Red Indian threat. Now that the Bay Colony wasfacing insurmountable adversity, the witch-scare became a safety-valve forventing the social pressures which had built up.It is very obvious to me that Chavunduka has ignored the following crucialaspects of African culture which are factors in determining why Africans and37 Notice that confessions were made under pressure. Besides, once it was assumed that one was awitch, confession or no confession made no difference to the people. Furthermore, it was believedthat witches did not necessarily realize that they were witches because they inherited the craft fromtheir ancestors. See also Chavunduka on this point, 'Witchcraft and the law in Zimbabwe', 135-6.38 Bednarski, 'The Salem witch-scare viewed sociologically', 157-8.39 Chavunduka also supports this point throughout his paper.T, J. MAFICO/G. L. CHAVUNDUKA127other 'primitive5 cultures believe in witchcraft. In the so-called primitivetraditional African and similar communities, there are two distinct worlds: tfjedomain of magic and religion and that of science. ID other words, there is a sharpdistinction between the Sacred and the Profane.40 The Sacred includes all thesupernatural forces, observable and imaginary, which are regarded with awe.Unscientific man of this type cannot understand natural phenomena. He thereforecannot figure out why some people catch fish or hunt successfully while others faileven though they live in the same neighbourhood and use similar ideas. Theexplanation for him lies in magic and religion. To influence the supernatural,appropriate ritual must therefore accompany every move man makes. As EdwardTaylor observed, the supernatural was believed to reveal itself through dreams,visions, hallucinations, cataleptic states and similar phenomena.41'Primitive* man believes that he can control or rather influence thesupernatural by appropriate magic. It should be borne in mind that whereasscience is bore of critical scrutiny of experience, magic is made simply by traditionwith no criticism behind it. Science which is guided by reason is corrected byobservation; magic, which is impervious to both, lives in an atmosphere ofmysticism. As Malinowski puts it: 'Science is open to all, a common good of thecommunity; magic is occult, taught through mysterious initiations'.42To explain the source of evil in the universe, to explain why the loving Godshould snuff out an innocent child, or why an adult who is the family's onlysupport should die, witchcraft offers a plausible explanation. To give a simpleexample, man can practise soccer diligently, or study hard for examinations, andstill fail to succeed. To account for his frustration and predicament, witchcraft isblamed for the poor results. Notice that man does not believe in the directintervention of the supernatural on the victim, but considers the supernatural tooperate through the medium of human beings. This is why man affirms thatwitchcraft can be controlled by the annihilation of witches. According to J. D.Krige, this position is based on a premise that the world was originally createdgood, but the Devil has now seized it. That being the case, the elimination of evilŠ or at least its agents, the witches Š would restore the world's goodness.Witchcraft, therefore, is viewed as criminality incarnate.43Witchcraft charges effect social mobility and change in a community well-integrated and mutually interdependent This is so because once a person feelsm M. Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane (New York, Harcourt, Brace, 1959), 14-15.4! Ibid, 11-16. Bliade discusses this point at length.42 J. Middleton. (ed.), Magic, Witchcraft and Curing (Garden City NY, The Natural HistoryPress, 1967), 171-2. See also B. Malinowski. Magic, Science and Religion (New York, Doubleday,1954). 18.43 J. D. Krige, "The sodal function of witchcraft, in Marwick, Witchcraft and Sorcery, 237.128WITCHCRAFT: BELIEF AND REALITIESthreatened by a neighbour, often a relative, he will consequently detach himselffrom the community and migrate to a place where he will feel more secure. It isnormally old women who are charged with witchcraft practices. The reason forthis may be due to their feebleness. They make easy scapegoats with out much lossto the community. At their age they are generally resented by their daughters-in-law. In an extended traditional family they often complain that they are not wellcared for. It is perhaps their implacability which fosters their susceptibility towitchcraft charges.Witchcraft charges act as a cohesive force. Estranged members of the familymay air their social grievances and frustrations by means of a scapegoat, a witch,often the wife of one of the family members. Witchcraft therefore acts as aunifying factor in a strained family relationship. In traditional communities, theaccusation and execution of a witch served a useful purpose in that it was catharticŠ it purged the community of certain anxieties for the time being. The wrongdone to the community was rectified by the hunt and execution of the publicwitch who caused them. But since most problems affect individuals on anindividual basis, each person therefore identified his own witch in his own way.Witchcraft allegations provide the ultimate answer to inexplicable andenigmatic circumstances. For example, the question often asked after death orafter an accident is not 'How?', because the process is clear to everyone, but'Why?' the accident occurred at this point in time. Why should two cars meet atthat particular place; why should mine get the worst of the head-on impact,causing a fatal injury to a relative: this is what defies traditional man's rationale. Inthis case, only a charge of witchcraft on a jealous neighbour satisfies the question.In other words, the driver is not to blame for the accident. The policeman mayaccuse him of drunken driving, but his relatives would recall many times whenthe driver in question had driven in a worse state than on the day of the accidentbut had never crashed. Notice that if an accident, death or injury had notoccurred, a charge of witchcraft would not have arisen. Thus, misfortunes,jealousy and malice foster and provide for the creation or intervention of witches.That certain people should manifest these features in abundance is assumed tobe indicative of their possession by the Devil. Once a person is suspected ofwitchcraft, she will be blamed for the subsequent misfortunes, death or illness ofothers. Thus, death which cannot be avoided must be blamed on someone. Thequestion is not how it came, for there are many ways by which death is known tocome, but why at this point in time, and why following some misunderstandingwith a relative or neighbour. Notice, therefore, that if two people quarrel bitterlyand one begins to encounter a series of predicaments, the immediate explanationwould be that he has been bewitched by the other. For all these reasons we can seeclearly that witchcraft is invented to serve a social function. This is what alsomakes witchcraft mythical.T. J, MAFICO/G. L. CHAVUNDUKA129Normally witchcraft is charged against people who are known intimately toeach other, for example, a relative or neighbour, and not a stranger. TJus explain^the myth that a White person cannot be bewitched by. an African. Obviously aBlack person was not intimate enough to a White person in colonial times to beable to bewitch him.The foregoing discussion and analysis makes it dear that supernatural witchcraftis entirely mythical; it is a figment of the imagination. In the Third World, witchesare created by certain bewildering phenomena within the community or in theworld. The witch-craze arises from an attempt to explain evil of all sorts such asjealousy, envy, cruelty, status competition, hatred towards a successful neighbour,and so on. Thus, witchcraft charges often emanate from quarrels. If quarrellingpeople could be fully reconciled, witchcraft charges would not arise. It is onlywhen reconciliation is impossible and the rupture of a relationship must result,that witchcraft charges provide the only means for permanently sealing an end toa relationship.Some people confess to be witches because they claim to have practised andmastered the craft and to have the medicines which they believe transform theminto real night witches. Are these 'real' witches, or do they live under a delusionthat they are? I would like to take the position that they have surely become witchmegalomaniacs.44 At any rate, since the distinction between witchcraft, magicand sorcery is not generally made, many sorcerers and magicians have voluntarilyconfessed to witchcraft under interrogation without torture.45The best challenge to 'witches', even in the form of sorcerers, and ail mythical,imaginary so-called supernatural evil beings, is by having faith in oneself throughthe inspiration of the Creator in all His multifarious names (God, Allah,uNkulunkulu, Elohim, Yahweh, uTixo, Mwari, etc.). Since man (adorn) wascreated in God's image, or has the breath of God {ruad\ Elohim) in him, he hasGod's power enabling him to ward off any evil, supernatural or mundane, whichis haunting him by day or by night.Several studies have exposed me to many religious and political ideologiesand philosophies, all of which confirm the universal belief that man is a uniquecreature in the world. The Bible protrays him as the acme of God's creation(Ps. 8). This means that man, and no* such imaginary supernatural forces aswitchcraft and magic, has the capacity to reshape his environment for good or for44 Some people strongly believe that they are Jesus or prophets. But this claim does not transformthem into becoming what they claim to be. Such is witchcraft confession.45 Voluntary confessions in a traditional court or church may result from the fact that, since nodistinction is made between magic, sorcery and witchcraft, those who possess medicine of any kind,under the delusion that they can kill somebody, will confess to witchcraft voluntarily. This, however,does not make them 'real* witches.130WITCHCRAFT: BELIEF AND REALITIESill.46 To realize his full potential, man must devote himself to faith in God,education and hard work. Once man acquires this faith, he will be able to riseabove the incapacitating fear of the so-called witches, sorcerers and magicians.In His teachings, Jesus stressed this point in a more profound way. Herepeatedly exhorted man not to fear. The exhortations 'fear not', 'be not afraid','be not dismayed', etc., appear in the Gospel again and again. Fear underminesone's confidence in oneself. It enervates a person and makes him prone to thedebilitating feeling of failure and defeatism. Worse still, fear saps a person's will toconfront adversity with hope because it deprives one of the purpose of life.Instead, it transforms the whole earth into an 'enchanted world' in which one'spre-occupation is to be vigilant and ready to run away from 'witches'. Paniccauses one to lose all reason in one's behaviour. To eradicate fear, Jesus taughtman to regard God as 'Our Father'. Instead of being anxious, man in faith can dowhat in his frailty seems impossible: he can move 'mountains' by faith (Matt.21:21). When man realizes his uniqueness in the world, he will have enough faithto confront evil with righteousness, challenges with valour, and failure with hope.Only then will God's Kingdom, which is latent in mankind (Luke 17: 21),becoxne a reality in the world. When that stage is reached 'witches' and their craftwill be buried once and for all. Furthermore, since the 'witch' malefactors tend tooperate at night, in like manner those who walk in the light of God are immune tothe scares and snares of 'witches' because they are perpetually in the Light. Thebest prescription against witchcraft is not to counter 'witch' medicines, but to haveunwavering faith in oneself and, better still, faith in God, the Creator of heavenand earth Š in whom is light which drives away darkness, the domain of'witches', and fear, a pre-requisite of defeatism.REALITIES OF WITCHCRAFTG. L. CHAVUNDUKA 'Department of Sociology, University of ZimbabweThis article deals with the views expressed by Dr T. J.'Mafico in his 'Belief inWitchcraft' which appears above. In that article Mafico has described what he46 In Isaiah (see 35: 4; 41:10; 41: 13, 14; 43: 1, 5; 44: 2; 45: 7; 54: 4) there are at least eightreferences where Isaiah tells Israel to 'fear not'. Insecurity breeds irrationality, particularly in'primitive' people. The New Testament also shows Jesus telling his disciples not to fear. There are atleast six references in Luke alone (1: 13, 30; 2: 10; 5: 10; 12: 7; 12: 32),T. J. MAFICO/G. L. GHAVUNDUKA131regards as pitfalls in my inaugural lecture, 'Witchcraft and the law in Zimbabwe5,delivered before the University of Zimbabwe in 1980.47 Mafico is angry becauseon that occasion I criticized some aspects of the Witchcraft Suppression Act ofZimbabwe (Ord. 14 of 1899), and went on to raise the possibility that witchcraft,or at least certain types of it, may exist. To Mafico this is encouraging 'the nationto take a dangerous step backwards from civilization and progress* (p. 123). Hegoes on: 'unless concrete proof of the existence of witches and the practice ofwitchcraft is brought forward,-it is futile for anyone to try to challenge theWitchcraft Suppression Act which is doing Zimbabwe a great service bydeterring malicious people from groundlessly accusing others of witchcraft andhurting them by trials by ordeal' (p. 124). Mafico is convinced that witchcraft isentirely mythical: 'it is a figment of the imagination' (p. 129). To him, witchcraftcan only be explained as an attempt by 'Africans and other "primitive" cultures'(pp. 126-7) to explain 'evil of all sorts such as jealousy, envy, cruelty, statuscompetition, hatred towards a successful neighbour, and so on' (p. 129). He endsby suggesting that the 'best prescription against witchcraft is not to counter"witch" medicines, but to have unwavering faith in oneself and, better still, faithin God, the Creator of heaven and earth Š in whom is light which drives awaydarkness, the domain of "witches", and fear, a pre-requisite of defeatism' (p. 130).I can understand the Revd Dr Mafico's anger. He is a very rigid and dedicatedChristian missionary. His article reads more like a church sermon than anacademic piece of work.Unfortunately, many people in Zimbabwe, as in many other parts of theworld, do not agreee with Dr Mafico's position on the subject of witchcraft. Manypeople say that witches exist, while others, of course, say that witches do not exist.One object of my inaugural lecture was, in fact, to attempt to resolve this conflictbetween the two positions. In doing so I criticized some aspects of the WitchcraftSuppression Act of Zimbabwe. One important criticism (there are others) was thefailure on the part of the legislators to make a clear distinction between witchcraftand sorcery. A distinction between witchcraft and sorcery is important. I willreturn to this issue later.I also criticized the definition of witchcraft given in the WitchcraftSuppression Act. Witchcraft is defined in the Act as 'the throwing of bones, theuse of charms and any other means or devices adopted in the practice of sorcery'.Throwing of bones is a means of divination used by traditional healers; it is notnecessarily done in order to identify or drive out witches. It is an attempt todiscover the cause of illness or other misfortune complained of by an individual. I47 Chavunduka, 'Witchcraft and the law in Zimbabwe'.132WITCHCRAFT: BELIEF AND REALITIESalso explained in my inaugural lecture that many charms have nothing to do withwitchcraft:A large part of the traditional healer's practice is concerned with prescribing remedies andpreventive charms. Some of these charms confer or are believed to confer immunityagainst specific types of illness or to protect the individual against misfortune. Othercharms confer or are believed to confer positive benefits such as physical strength,attractiveness to the opposite sex and other desirable qualities (p. 132).The first important source of misunderstanding in discussing witchcraft is thedefinition of witchcraft itself. To many people there are three possible broadmeanings of the term 'witchcraft'. The first is a social one. There are some peoplewho are accused of witchcraft merely because they are bad individuals ŁŠ personswho commit anti-social acts. Some are accused of witchcraft because they arehated or disliked by other people. Because of this social definition of witchcraft, Iargued that when a Shona or Ndebele person accuses another person ofwitchcraft (meaning that the person was a bad individual), he may well be right.There are many bad persons in society. On this point I agree with Middleton andWinter48 and others, that accusations of witchcraft may be a response to situationsof anxiety and stress, or a means for the expression of social strains and tensions.At other times the accusation may be a means of social control or of socialrupture, or a means of adaptation to rapid and disruptive social change. I madethis point in my inaugural lecture (p. 141). These social aspects of witchcraft havebeen studied by sociologists, anthropologists, historians and others for a long time.There is, therefore, nothing new in Dr Mafico's so-called contribution. In hisdiscussion of the social functions of the belief in witchcraft he has merely repeated,although rather badly, what is already known. In my inaugural lecture Iattempted to go beyond what is already known. I suggested other possibleavenues of research.The term witch is also often used by the Shona and the Ndebele to mean asorcerer or a poisoner. When pressed to define the term further, people make adistinction between types of witches by saying there are night witches and daywitches. Day-witches fit the anthropological description of a sorcerer. As I pointout in my inaugural lecture (p. 132), sorcery is merely a technique or a toolemployed by an individual under certain circumstances. Recourse to sorcery isalways on a deliberate, conscious, voluntary basis. A sorcerer may cause illness orkill his fellows by blowing harmful medicine towards them; by putting poison inhis victim's food, drink or tobacco; or by concealing the poison or the poisonousobjects on a path where the victim will pass.48 Middleton and Winter, Witchcraft and Sorcery in East Africa.T, J, MAFICO/G. L. CHAVUNDUKA133The distinction between witchcraft and sorcery is important because it can bedemonstrated fairly easily that sorcerers exist in society. I stated in my inaugurallecture that medicines used by sorcerers to harm people are derived from plantsthat can be pointed out and examined. Nowadays some sorcerers use arseniccattle dip, insecticides and other poisons. I then argued (p. 133) that when aShona or Ndebele person accuses another person of witchcraft, in this casemeaning sorcery, again he may well be right. In fact, courts in Zimbabwe ofteninvestigate this type of witchcraft (sorcery), although these are not always labelledas such. Where an individual has died and it is believed that a poison may havebeen used, the courts usually make an attempt to discover the actual cause ofdeath. The courts usually rely on the post-mortem examination. Where thesorcerer has indicated to the police the plants or roots used to harm anotherindividual, such plants or roots are often tested in order to determine whether theyare poisonous. Many people have been sentenced for murder or attemptedmurder as a result of such investigations.The other types of sorcery often do psychological rather than physical harm tothose who believe in sorcery. One example of this type of sorcery is where thesorcerer plants poison or dangerous objects on a path or in the victim's home sothat people coming into contact with them become sick. Another sorcerytechnique is intended to operate at a distance without actual physical contact. Inmy inaugural lecture (p. 134) I gave an example of what is called the gona inShona country. Some people believe that the gona has occult powers. It is usuallyan animal's horn with medicines in it. Through fear it can cause injury to personsor property or do psychological harm to those who believe that it possesses occultpowers. Similarly, poison or poisonous objects or even harmless roote placed on apath or in someone's home can cause psychosomatic illness, especially whencoupled with threats. There are certain conventional phrases often used in theheat of an argument which are often construed by many Shona and Ndebelepeople as threats of sorcery or witchcraft, and there are many instances of personswho have become sick as a result of being convinced that they have been sobewitched.I now turn to what many Ndebele and Shona people call night witches.'Mafico firmly believes that this issue has been studied adequately in the past; it Łdoes not need any further investigation. He writes that I 'should realize that the"authorities" on witchcraft in Africa had already investigated and foundwitchcraft beliefs to be a figment of the imagination'. Mafico also asks .why I, inspite of all the medical, police, sociological and anthropological research, stillhold the witch view which is contrary to popular and learned opinion' (p. 122).I do not believe that witchcraft has been adequately studied in the past, andthis was the main theme of my inaugural lecture. Sociologists and socialanthropologists have been interested in sorcery and witchcraft in so far as these act134WITCHCRAFT: BELIEF AND REALITIESas social sanctions controlling anti-social behaviour. In sociology and socialanthropology we have been concerned with finding out what is the basic realityunderlying witchcraft ideas, and the kind of reality we have been searching for issocial and psychological. These basic social and psychological realities underlyingwitchcraft ideas have been well documented by fieldworkers since the pioneeringdays of Evans-Pritchard.49 But as Sister Mary Aquina points out, 'becausesociologists are exclusively concerned with the effects of these beliefs on the sociallife of the people, they do not discuss the question whether or- not witchcraft andsorcery beliefs correspond to metaphysical realities*.50I ended my inaugural lecture by arguing that 'sociologists and anthropologistsmust, where necessary, shift from the social to the physical aspects of the problemunder investigation.' And thatwhere these physical aspects of the problem fall outside the competence of the sociologistor social anthropologist, co-operation with other specialists should be attempted. Shiftingour analysis to the physical reality of witchcraft and sorcery will not invalidate thesociological analysis itself but it may help us and the general public to understand morefully some of the puzzling aspects of the society in which we live (p. 144),One hypothesis which, in my view, had not been adequately considered in thepast is that witchcraft, or at least certain types of it, is objectively valid.I have already shown (bearing in mind the Ndebele and Shona definitions ofwitchcraft) that when a Shona and Ndebele person accuses another of witchcraft,he may be referring to direct sorcery, that is, putting medicine or poison insomeone's food, drink, and so on. There is no doubt that such sorcerers exist insociety. Go the other hand the person accusing another of witchcraft may bereferring to indirect sorcery, that is, medicines, poisons or strange objects plantedsomewhere with the intention of harming those who see them or come intocontact with them. These are techniques which can also cause illness to those whobelieve in them. There are many accounts of the effect of indirect sorcery. Manypeople have become and do become sick as a result of being convinced that theyhave been bewitched.There is a lot which is'already known about witches (night witches) in Shonaand Ndebele country. Firstly, there is no doubt that some people attempt topractise this kind of witchcraft. I stated in my inaugural lecture (p. 139) that inaddition to court hearings, it is well known that there are confession meetings atwhich people confess to witchcraft and even exhibit human bones, poisons, hair,49 Evans-Pritchard, Witchraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande.50 Sr. Mary Aquina, *A sociological interpretation of sorcery and witchcraft beliefs among theKaranga', NADA (1968), IX, v, 47-53.T. j, MAFICO/G. L. CHAVUNDUKA135finger-nails, and so on, which they say they have used on their night excursions. Ihave attended such confession meetings. I have also argued that the claim by somepeople accused of witchcraft that they ate people, that they have exhumed thebody of the newly dead and eaten the flesh, cannot always be dismissed as fantasyor as a psychic act. There are instances where the police exhumed the body andconfirmed that parts of the body were missing. In fact, cases of this nature arereported from time to time in the press of various African countries.The claim by some people, whom I have called sponsored witches (p. 136),that they practise their art at night using methods of sorcery, should not, in myview, be dismissed at this stage. There are many people all over the country whomake such claims and any serious research worker should meet them and testtheir claims Š admittedly a very long, costly, time-consuming and sometimesrisky exercise. I have, so far, had long discussions with fifteen of them. I have alsobeen shown the various medicines that they say they use at night. They have alsodescribed to me their methods of operation. They are normal men and women.Although my own study is incomplete I still hold the view that this kind ofwitchcraft may be possible. It was my intention in the inaugural lecture, therefore,to encourage my students and fellow workers to investigate this matter further.It is a fact that many people in Zimbabwe, as in many other countries, will notat present accept Mafico's advice that 'the best challenge to "witches", even in theform of sorcerers, and all mythical, imaginary so-called supernatural evil beings, isby having faith in oneself through the inspiration of the Creator in all Hismultifarious names' (p. 129). Many people see the problem not only as one ofeliminating the ideas but also of eradicating some witches and sorcerers. As I havetried to show, they are right, at least in part. More studies should be carried out.There are certainly some sorcerers in our society who use poisons andmedicines to harm other people. And it is possible that sorcery techniques are alsoused at night by some people. Mafico should not, therefore, ignore such badpeople; they are sinners who should be identified and helped to conform to theacceptable standards of behaviour. Sorcery and witchcraft cases will decrease aspeople make more use of social and legal mechanisms for settling their disputes.I still support all the statements and hypotheses presented in my inaugurallecture. Mafico has not always understood my argument, in certain parts haschosen to ignore them, and at times has misinterpreted them in order to continuehis fight against what he regards as primitive and unchristian ideas Š- 'Satanwinning a battle against God". It is my job as a sociologist to investigate andencourage others to investigate all puzzling aspects of social life everywhere.136WITCHCRAFT: BELIEF AND REALITIESA LAST WORDT. J. MAFICOThis debate on witchcraft has a long history. It began in 1967 when Prof.Chavunduka convinced his Sociology students, of whom I was a member, thatbelief in witchcraft was nothing but a myth. He added that the only value tosociety of witchcraft beliefs lay in their social functions. His position then agreedwith the views held by reputable authorities on witchcraft. Chavunduka'scomplete reversal of what was a sound academic stance has prompted severaldebates between the two of us, including one which was televised on the ZBCtelevision programme, 'Forum'. This academic exercise should, therefore, beviewed as a 'quarrel' between a teacher and his former student on a subject ofcurrent importance and relevance to Africans and other peoples of the worldwhere witchcraft beliefs are rampant.The present debate has served a very useful purpose. It has enabledChavunduka to clarify his position on beliefs in witchcraft. Whereas his inaugurallecture appeared to me to be muddled and full of self-contradictions, his rejoinderto my paper is very clear. I am now only summarizing significant points thecurrent debate has established.Chavunduka now categorically states that in his inaugural lecture his aim wasto criticize some aspects of the Witchcraft Suppression Act of Zimbabwe. He thensupported his critique by raising 'the possibility that witchcraft, or at least certaintypes of it, may exist' (p. 131). According to this statement, Chavunduka does notbelieve in the existence of witchcraft, but is noticing a dichotomy between thetraditional courts which try 'witches' and the formal courts which punish thosewho charge others of witchcraft. One would therefore assume that Chavundukahas not deviated from the position he taught us in 1967 but is only shifting areas ofresearch. This is a laudable academic exercise. However, when one re-examinesthis assumption in the light of the television debate and the general positionemerging out of the inaugural lecture, one is only more confused by Chavunduka'sposition than convinced.Chavunduka now clearly states that his main criticism of the WitchcraftSuppression Act is its failure to distinguish between witchcraft and sorcery. Iwould like to reply by reiterating that many people who believe in the existence ofwitches will care less about the distinction as long as both inflict death. This is whythe Shona and Ndebele regard a sorcerer or a poisoner as a witch. The onlypurpose of distinguishing between witchcraft and sorcery, according toChavunduka, is to show that sorcery in the form of poisoners exists.Obviously no one would deny that poisoners do exist. Anybody could be apoisoner by choice. If Chavunduka wants to call poisoners sorcerers or witches, Ihave no problem with that and would like to assure him that even ministers ofT. J. MAFICO/G. L, CHAVUNDUKA137religion would make no qualms about that. Furthermore, the WitchcraftSuppression Act would not prosecute anyone for charging another of witchcraftwhen referring to a poisoner convicted of murder by poisoning. On academicgrounds one would still question the appropriateness of the terms 'witch' or'sorcerer' when referring to poisoning by murderers. But there would be no onewho would deny the existence of such killers in any society. Chavunduka's broaddefinition, though acceptable, would, however, create witches and sorcerers evenin countries such as Great Britain and the United States where murderers bypoisons and weapons are numerous nowadays.I agree with Chavunduka that the subject of witchcraft should be a focus ofresearch, particularly in Africa and other parts of the world where witchcraft isclaimed to exist. I would suggest, however, that the emphasis should be on how toeradicate beliefs in supernatural witches who claim to practise witchcraft, ratherthan in trying to establish whether mythical witches are real. On this point, Iwould agree with Chavunduka that research on witchcraft should no longer beconfined to anthropologists and sociologists. This is a noble invitation whichshould be a challenge to historians, theologians and medical practitionersworking in Africa and in other parts of the world where witchcraft beliefs persist.The end result of these diverse researchers, I am inclined to believe, wouldconfirm the futility of belief in supernatural witches. Only when that goal isachieved will Zimbabwe and many other developing countries free themselvesfrom the shackles of witchcraft-phobia which retards the thrust of nationaldevelopment programmes.It is because of this adverse effect of witchcraft that beliefs in mythicalwitchcraft must be eradicated before they eradicate our national developmentalefforts. This is why countries which hold strongly to beliefs in witchcraft are poor,starving, and generally illiterate.