I got the following reply from Robert J. Wallis. It seems nuanced and accurate.
"You ask me to respont to Carroll's statement on my work, and I apologise for sounding defensive but I am concerned when someone states "I haven't read that book" and then proceeds to make an unfounded critical and offhand statement about it. This is something I see often (not only in relation to my own work, but elsewhere too), especially on the internet where people seem to be more blasse about making off-the-cuff, critical remarks. Perhaps its because they don't know how to fight fair and also the internet avoids seeing "the white's of their eyes"!
Carroll goes onto state, regarding my citing of Neihardt that "it doesn't say much for his scholarship". Sound scholarship, in my view, requires diligent research. Had Carroll been diligent enough to read my book and the way in which I cite Neihardt, then he would know that my work is by no means uncritical of neo-shamans.Indeed, in place of trite remarks, my book theorises, problematises and critcally engages with the topic.
Carroll also suggests I read Armin Geertz's book. Again, had he read my book, he would know that I refer often to this among other of Armin's works on the new age and neo-shamans.
After looking at my Richmond University biog, Carroll states that he (i.e. me) "is himself a British pagan and academic who ... seems to spend most of his career defending Nuage and esp pagan beliefs and practices, minimizing the huge problems and damage they often do". How he can come to that conclusion without reading any of my work is surprising. Especially since, if he knew my work, would understand this is a gross misrepresentation of what I actually say.
I am indeed a pagan and an academic. That I am a pagan and academic does not remove a critical faculty from my scholarly work (this is something anthropologists and scholars of religion have been discussing for some time - see e.g. 'Researching Paganisms' published by AltaMira). In my book 'Shamans/neoShamans' I crticically engage with a range of New Age, neo-shamanic and pagan discourses, with especially harsh words for those Westerners who refuse to listen to Native (American and other) voices which call for an end to appropriation. Indeed, I use the term neo-colonialism for such cultural theft. Regarding Neihardt, Fools Crow and the other comments on Lakota: I am in agreement with what is said on the website and am grateful to hear of these developments. I would point out that my book only briefly gets involved in this issue since I focus on the Pueblos of the Southwest. This research, indeed, would strengthen Carroll's argument (i.e. I cite Pueblo voices critiquing neo-shamans). But I am not out to lambast new age, neo-shamans and others...
The situation is by no means simple and I make the point in that book and elsewhere that it is all too easy to dismiss neo-shamans in an off-the-cuff way as neo-colonialist. I offer a number of examples where pagans in particular take a more nuanced approach to shamanic practices and have answered Native voices by looking to their own European traditions rather than to (other) indigenous ones. This raises other problems that I also discuss... My interest in this area (contemporary paganism and the past) is one reason behind our 'Sacred Sites, Contested Rites/Rights Project' (
www.sacredsites.org.uk) examining contemporary pagan engagments with the past - not only to critique negative engagements (graffitti, inappropriate offerings, fire damage, etc) but also to point to more positive instances - such as fruitful relationships between pagans and heritage managers in Britain.
I would be happy to engage in further dialogue on this subject but not if it involves a misrepresentation of my work. I would be happy for you to post my comments on the "New Age Fraud..." site if that opens up constructive discussion."
