The Evil Eye

Towards an Exhaustive Study

Datos Bibliográficos

ID8933205
AutoresAmica Lykiardopoulos (Laiko General Hospital of Athens, autor de correspondencia)
Año1981
Volumen92
Número2
Páginas221-230
Fecha de publicación1981-01-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaFolklore (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0015-587X • E-ISSN: 1469-8315
EditorialRoutledge (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/0015587x.1981.9716210
OpenAlexW1995638922
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas14
Referencias citadas7

model, or a structural frame of reference, for possible use in future endeavours. This structural frame of reference is outlined here, together with an example of its use, in an attempt to present a more complete and organized study on the subject of the evil eye. It is suggested that the application of the frame of reference here outlined is not, by any means, limited to the area of folk/popular custom and belief, but may very well be extended to cover the other areas of folk life, namely oral folklore, the folk arts, and the study of material culture. Folk life, as an aspect of social life in general, may be conceived as consisting of a number of social actions and interactions. Social action, meaning action of an individual or a collectivity toward another individual or collectivity, has been traditionally regarded in sociological theory as consisting of five elements, namely, an actor, pursuing a certain end or ends, through certain means, under certain conditions, and the whole action being governed by certain norms.' Furthermore sociological theory has been concerned with whether it is the rational faculty of the actor that regulates the action, and with the motives that determine the actor to take one, rather than another, course of action.2 These analyses of the components of social action have failed to formulate a general theory of action, their difficulties arising from the fact that they are mainly concerned with the state of mind of the acting party in the process of undertaking an action, neglecting the receiving party, as well as the consequences of the action for both parties. An alternative analysis has been proposed,3 based on the key sentence of Mass Communication theory, that is 'Who says what, to whom, through which channel, and with what effects.' This sentence implies an actor, or source (who), transmitting a certain message (what), to a certain audience (whom), through a specific channel (how), and certain consequences arising from this procedure (effects). Mass Communication, or social communication, is one of the forms of social action and, logically, an analogous sentence can be made, referring not to a specific form of social action but to social action in general, simply by substituting the verb 'does' for the verb 'says,' and the word 'way' for 'channel.' Thus, the following sentence is formed: 'Who does what, to whom, how, and with what consequences.' Again, an actor is implied (who), directing a specific action (what) to another social unit (whom), in a certain manner (how), and this action brings about certain consequences as a result. These consequences fall broadly into two major categories: the consequences for the actor, and the consequences for the receiver of the action. In regard to the volition or will of the actor, there are intentional and uninten

Action (physics · Epistemology · Folklore · Frame (networking · Meaning (existential · Social science · Sociological theory · Sociology · Subject (documents · Computer Science · Media Studies and Communication · Media, Religion, Digital Communication · Philosophy · Rhetoric and Communication Studies