
entheogens
by Carl A.
P. Ruck, Jeremy Bigwood, Danny Staples, Jonathan Ott & Gordon Wasson
(This paper
first appeared in The Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, Vol.
11(1-2) Jan-Jun, 1979)
All
languages grow together with the peoples who speak them, borrowing or
inventing terms to keep pace with what is new and retiring others when
they are no longer needed. When the recent surge of recreational use of
so-called “hallucinogenic” or “psychedelic” drugs first came to popular
attention in the early 1960’s, it was commonly viewed with suspicion and
associated with the behavior of deviant or revolutionary groups. Apart
from the slang of the various subcultures, there was no adequate
terminology for this class of drugs. Words were manufactured, and in
their making they betrayed the incomprehension or prejudice of the
times.
Out of the
many words proposed to describe this unique class of drugs only a few
have survived in current usage. It is the contention of the authors who
have subscribed their names to this article that none of these terms
really deserve greater longevity, if our language is not to perpetuate
the misunderstanding of the past.
We commonly
refer, for example, to the alteration of sensory perceptions as
“hallucination” and hence a drug that effected such a change became
known as an “hallucinogen.”(1) The verb “hallucinate,” however,
immediately imposes a value judgment upon the nature of the altered
perceptions, for it means “to be deceived or entertain false notions.”
It comes from the Latin (h)al(l)ucinari, “to wander
mentally or talk nonsensically,” and is synonymous with verbs meaning to
be delirious or insane. It appears, moreover, to have been borrowed from
the Greek, where it is related to a group of words that imply restless
movement and perplexed excitement, such as that caused by grief and
despair. How can such a term allow one to discuss without bias those
transcendent and beatific states of communion with deity that numer ous
peoples believe they or their shamans attain through the ingestion of
what we now call “hallucinogens?”
The other
terms are not less damning. During the first decade after the discovery
of LSD, scientific investigators of the influence of these drugs on the
mental processes (most of whom, it is clear, had no personal experience
of their effects) had the impression that they seemed to approximate
deranged and psychotic states. Hence the term “psychotimimetic” was
coined for a drug that induced psychosis. Psychology, which is
etymologically the study of the “soul,” has until recently concerned
itself only with mental illness and aberrant behavior, and all of the
terms formed from the psycho- root suffer from this connotation of
sickness: psychotic, for example, cannot mean “soulful.” Osmond
attempted to avoid these adverse associations when he coined
“psychedelic,”(2) the only word in English that employs the anomalous
root psyche- instead of psycho-, in hopes that this term,
as distinct from "psychotomimetic,” might indicate something that
“reveals the soul.”: However, not only is “psychedelic” an incorrect
verbal formation, but it has become so invested with connotations of the
pop-culture of the 1960’s that it is incongruous to speak of a shaman’s
taking a “psychedelic” drug. It is probable, moreover, that even its
anomalous formation cannot isolate it from confusion with the psycho-
words, so that it suffers from the same problem as “psychotropic,” which
tends to mean something that “turns one toward psychotic states” instead
of merely toward an altered mentality.
We
therefore, propose a new term that would be appropriate for describing
states of shamanic and ecstatic possession induced by ingestion of
mind-altering drugs. In Greek the word entheos means literally
“god (theos) within,” and was used to describe the condition that
follows when one is inspired and possessed by the god that has entered
one’s body. It was applied to prophetic seizures, erotic passion and
artistic creation, as well as to those religious rites in which mystical
states were experienced through the ingestion of substances that were
transubstantial with the deity. In combination with the Greek root
gen-, which denotes the action of “becoming,” this word results in
the term that we are proposing: entheogen. Our word sits easily on the
tongue and seems quite natural in English. We could speak of entheogens
or, in an adjectival form, of entheogenic plants or substances. In a
strict sense, only those vision-producing drugs that can be shown to
have figured in shamanic or religious rites would be designated
entheogens, but in a looser sense, the term could also be applied to
other drugs, both natural and artificial, that induce alterations of
consciousness similar to those documented for ritual ingestion of
traditional entheogens.

NOTES
1. “Hallucinogen” and “hallucinogenic” were first used in print by
Donald Johnson, an English physician, in a pamphlet entitled The
Hallucinogenic Drugs (Christopher Johnson, London, 1953).
Johnson, however, borrowed the term from three American physicians,
Abram Hoffer, Humphry Osmond and John Smythies, who did not use it in
print until the following year.
2. In a letter to Humphry
Osmond dated 30 March 1956, Aldous Huxley proposed that mescaline be
called “phanerothyme.” Huxley penned the sprightly lines:
To make this trivial world sublime,
Take a half a gramme of phanerothyme.
Osmond replied with the following ditty:
To fathom Hell or soar angelic,
Just take a pinch of a psychedelic.
Much of the credit must go to Ralph Metzner and Timothy Leary for
popularizing “psychedelic.” In the spring of 1963, the premier issue of Psychedelic Review was published in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, under the editorship of Metzner, Osmond and Leary, among
others. Psychedelic Review is now defunct, but the term is
perpetuated by the title of the present Journal of Psychedelic
Drugs. Huxley’s odd term did not fare so well. From Huxley’s
letter it is clear the word meant “soul-manifester” to him. Greek
thymos, however, means “organ of passion, temper and anger,” and
“phanerothyme” would indicate a drug which made intense emotions
manifest.
Few molecules can penetrate what is
known in biology as the "blood brain barrier". Those that do go
directly to the neuron. After that it becomes a matter of their
ability to imitate one of the neurotransmitters. Our neurons have a
safety device for this type of situation. The neurotransmitters have a
unique molecular shape and can only fit in a specific slot on the
synaptic surface. Mind-altering drugs all operate on mimicking one of
the neurotransmitters.
