Few books are fully dedicated to Buddhism in Cambodia – and, given the historical background of this country, those that have been produced throughout the twentieth century are mostly written in French. This shortcoming suffices to create awareness about Erik W. Davis’ Deathpower: Buddhism's Ritual Imagination in Cambodia, whose ambition is to bring a new perspective to the study of Buddhist practice of the Khmer, based on a strong ethnography, an inspiring theoretical apparatus and, to a lesser extent, a confrontation with classical and vernacular religious texts.

The volume, divided in eight chapters, starts with a short introduction in which the author evokes the reason why he has undertaken his research and, more importantly, defines the notion of “deathpower”, which gives its title to the book. Relying on Foucault's concept of “biopower” (care of the self), Davis describes deathpower as “the care of the dead”, and more precisely “that domain of death over which human power has taken control” (p. 134). Each chapter illustrates how this very idea of deathpower is reflected in a particular aspect of the Khmer religion in a wider sense. Besides, a number of broad themes that are regularly debated in specialized publications (such as syncretism or its relation to the secular power) are discussed throughout this study, which helps to strengthen its overall consistency. Finally, the author adds, at the end of each chapter, one anecdote or personal experience in order to give a concrete illustration of what has been evoked beforehand in a formal and theoretical way, which allows the reader to embrace a more down-to-earth perspective for a few pages.

The first three chapters, although well written and factually pertinent, do not entirely reflect the quality of the rest of the book. Indeed, the first chapter is limited to a brief description of the author's fieldwork in Phnom Penh. The second is dedicated to funerals, a subject that has been extensively treated by scholars working on Mainland South-East Asia, although not always in English. Furthermore, Davis does not really bring new elements here, especially regarding the rite of paṁsukūla for which comparative studies already exist. The third chapter focuses on the “binary discrimination between savage and civilised” in Khmer society. As in India, there seems to have been a strong relationship between the expansion of Buddhism and that of agro-imperial culture in Cambodia (p. 104). While this is a fascinating topic, it is probably too broad to be treated in a single chapter, and it might be somewhat outside the scope of this volume.

But the two following chapters reveal an original dimension to Davis’ work, partly because of the groundbreaking ideas and concepts that are put forward. One example is the notion of “binding”: considering that the act of binding (of corpses, wrists, spirits, boundary stones, water into fields, etc.) is omnipresent in Khmer orthopraxy, especially in connection with death, the author suggests that more broadly “Buddhism binds death … and domesticates the wildness with which death is so often associated in the Buddhist imagination” (p. 115). Thus, an act that could appear as trivial at first glance (i.e. binding) turns out to be at the core of the religious representations.

The sixth chapter is a case study of the Hungry Ghosts Festival (Kh. Pchum Ben). On this occasion, followers pay homage during a fortnight to the departed and dead relatives, with or without the intervention of the monks. Here the interest of the study does not rely on its – maybe too succinct – overview of the historical and anthropological data of this ritual, but on an attempt to understand its contemporary socio-economic meaning, by highlighting the contrast between the opulence and corruption of the cities and the rural poverty (pp. 177–9). To a broader extent, this analysis aims to provide another perspective on gift-giving and social morality. That's also the goal of the next chapter, which concerns “leftovers”, “rumour” and “witchcraft”. What seem to be peculiar or anecdotal topics happen to reveal different facets of the act of giving. Here again Davis's study shows undeniable originality, which is not an easy task for a subject that has been abundantly covered in anthropological literature.

The last chapter is the logical culmination of the author's reflections on Khmer Buddhism understood in its broader sense. Here, fresh answers are offered to fundamental questions: to what extent should Khmer Buddhism be qualified as “syncretic” (or “hybrid”, or any other qualifier of that kind)? What do the Khmer mean by “Brahmanism” (obviously not the Indian religion of the same name)? How should we describe concepts and rituals in the Khmer praxis that some consider as “non-Buddhist” (“then what are they”, p. 226)? Rather than opposing “pure Buddhism” with “animistic” practices (Davis rightly notes that “non-syncretic Theravāda” exists nowhere, p. 220), this chapter aims to consider different components of Khmer religion in the context of their interaction, by a kind of structural approach. According to this view, Buddhism in Cambodia requires a “Brahmanism” (or what will be seen as not Buddhist) “against which to offend and with which to compromise”. By doing so, Buddhism creates, at least conceptually, an area that is supposed to be exterior to it, in order to subsume it, and to brand itself as morally and technically superior to it. Even though Davis himself is unable to escape from this dichotomy (i.e. Buddhist versus non-Buddhist), his argumentation is still convincing and one must recognize the novelty of his vision.

The main criticism that can be made about Deathpower is perhaps its lack of comparative perspective. Indeed, many of these issues are not particular to Cambodia, but also concern neighbouring countries where “Theravāda” Buddhist communities live, such as Thailand, Laos or Burma, for which numerous research findings have been published. Moreover, several aspects that are presented as specific to Cambodia are actually of Indian origin. It is important to be aware of this heritage, so as to avoid speculation when it comes to figuring out certain schemes that have lost their first meaning. One example is the recurrent mention in Cambodia of “seven generations” of ancestors, which Davis understands as a way of expressing kinship with potentially anyone, that is, the whole society (p. 169). In reality, referring to seven generations is an Indian scheme that defines precisely the limit of the patrilinear kinship (Sk. sapiṇḍa); it has been transmitted to Cambodia, but only in a formal way because of a different kinship system. It is also surprising that Davis omits to clarify that the “Khmer” ritual preceding the ordination reproduces the departure of Siddhārtha from his palace, which is extensively told in Indian Buddhist literature. Conversely, this study gives too little attention to the vernacular Buddhist corpus, preferring to rest upon Canonical texts in Pali, which have barely circulated in Cambodia in their primary form (with the exception of recitations).

However, these few criticisms concern only details and in no way call into question Davis’ analysis and argumentations as a whole. Deathpower is undoubtedly a relevant and original work, which brings new perspectives and ways of understanding Buddhism in Cambodia (and, by extrapolation, in neighbouring countries), especially considering that it brings innovative answers on issues that have been questioned for more than a century.