Notions about the evil eye activate that mental system too, but put
the victim in a different situation. On the surface, it would seem that
all that is involved in evil eye beliefs is straightforward jealousy and the
fear of jealousy. As Pocock says of the najarin Gujarat, the danger is in
other people's gaze: "Whenever you feel that someone is looking at
you, immediately pretend to take great interest in some worthless
object, and so direct his attention towards that." People construe
other people's envy as a force the effects of which are unpredictable.
But the situation is not in fact quite so simple. If fear of jealousy
were the only factor involved here, any social differences would give
rise to it. After all people are likely to feel envious of whatever differ- [199]
ence they can detect between their lot and that of others. Now, as
Pocock insists, some social differences are in fact nota source of appre-
hension. A rich landlord can strut along in his finest clothes without
really fearing much from the evil eye: "Najarseems to be apprehended
more from those with whom one is, in most other respects, equal, or
has reason to expect to be." What attracts the evil eye are unexpected
differences of good fortune among people of similar status.
So what you fear is not that people may be envious but that they
may mistake you for a cheater,for someone who managed to get some
benefit without paying a cost. This is relevant when the differences
occur between people who exchange directly with each other, so that
any difference between them mightbe a consequence of some cheat-
ing. But differences of social status and wealth are interpreted in this
context as the consequence of one's essence (made manifest by caste-
membership) and moral destiny. They are not construed as the result
of exchange at all, which may be why they do not activate the social
exchange inference systems; the cheater-detection that creates the evil
eye is in that case irrelevant.
Finally, social exchange considerations are obviously central to the
representation of witches. People invariably describe witches as indi-
viduals striving to reap benefits without paying the costs. This is pre-
cisely what people like the Fang and many others say about witches:
They are the ones who take but never give, who steal other people's
health or happiness, who thrive only if others are deprived. The Fang
also compare witches to a particular species of tree that starts out as a
modest shrub and gradually takes all the nutrients from the surround-
ing soil, at the expense of even the largest trees around.
This social exchange model explains why people's models of witch-
craft in Africa have changed so much to adapt to changing economic
WHYDOGODS ANDSPIRITSMATTER?