The elementary forms of religious life

The Elementary Forms of Relisious Life a? 41 I The Elementary Forms of PELIGIOUS JJFE The Elementary Forms of EM...

Author: Émile Durkheim | Karen Elise Fields

134 downloads 1614 Views 12MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The Elementary Forms of Relisious Life

a?

41 I

The Elementary Forms of

PELIGIOUS JJFE


EMILE DÜRKHEIM Translated and with an Introduction by

Karen E. Fields

THE NEW YORK

LONDON

I

F R E E PRESS

TORONTO

SYDNEY

TOKYO

SINGAPORE

Translation and Introduction copyright © 1995 by Karen E . Fields All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Publisher. The Free Press A Division of Simon & Schuster Inc. 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y. 10020 Printed in the United States of America printing number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dürkheim, Emile, 1858-1917. [Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse. English] The elementary forms of religious life/ Emile Dürkheim; translated and with an introduction by Karen E . Fields, p. cm. Translation of: Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse. Includes index. ISBN 0-02-907936-5 (hbk.).—ISBN 0-02-907937-3 (pbk.) II. Title. GN470.D813 1995 306.6—dc20 94-41128 CIP This book was originally published as Les Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse: Le système totémique en Australie, Paris, F. Alcan, 1912. The endpaper art in this volume is based on a map that appeared in the French edition.

CONTENTS Acknowledgments Abbreviations

xiii

xv

Translator's I n t r o d u c t i o n : R e l i g i o n as an E m i n e n d y Social T h i n g

xvii

INTRODUCTION Subject o f the Study: Religious Sociology and the T h e o r y o f Knowledge

1

I . • M a i n subject o f t h e b o o k : analysis o f t h e simplest k n o w n r e l i g i o n , t o d e t e r m i n e the e l e m e n t a r y f o r m s o f r e l i g i o u s life. • W h y t h e y are easier t o arrive at a n d e x p l a i n t h r o u g h p r i m i t i v e r e l i g i o n s .

1

I I . • Secondary subject: o r i g i n o f the f u n d a m e n t a l n o t i o n s o r categories o f t h o u g h t . • Reasons f o r b e l i e v i n g t h e i r o r i g i n t o be r e l i g i o u s a n d conseq u e n t l y social. • H o w a means o f regenerating the t h e o r y o f k n o w l e d g e can be seen f r o m this p o i n t o f v i e w .

8

B O O K ONE: PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS Chapter O n e : Definition o f Religious P h e n o m e n a and o f R e l i g i o n 21 T h e usefulness o f a p r e l i m i n a r y d e f i n i t i o n o f r e l i g i o n ; m e t h o d t o be f o l l o w e d i n a r r i v i n g at that d e f i n i t i o n . • W h y the usual d e f i n i t i o n s s h o u l d be e x a m i n e d first.

21

I . • R e l i g i o n d e f i n e d b y t h e supernatural a n d the mysterious. • C r i t i c i s m . T h e idea o f m y s t e r y was n o t present at t h e b e g i n n i n g .

22

I I . • R e l i g i o n d e f i n e d i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e idea o f G o d o r a s p i r i t u a l b e i n g . R e l i g i o n s w i t h o u t gods. • R i t e s i n deistic religions that i m p l y n o idea o f d e ity.

27

I I I . • Search f o r a positive d e f i n i t i o n . • D i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n beliefs a n d rites. D e f i n i t i o n o f beliefs. • First characteristic: b i p a r t i t e d i v i s i o n o f things i n t o sacred a n d profane. • D i s t i n g u i s h i n g traits o f that d i v i s i o n . • D e f i n i t i o n o f rites i n r e l a t i o n t o beliefs. • D e f i n i t i o n o f r e l i g i o n . 111

33

Contents

IV

I V • Necessity o f a n o t h e r characteristic t o distinguish m a g i c f r o m r e l i g i o n . • T h e idea o f C h u r c h . • D o i n d i v i d u a l r e l i g i o n s e x c l u d e t h e idea o f C h u r c h ? 39

Chapter T w o : T h e L e a d i n g Conceptions o f the E l e m e n t a r y R e l i g i o n : Animism 45 Distinction between animism and naturism I . • T h e three theses o f a n i m i s m : (1) genesis o f t h e idea o f soul; (2) f o r m a t i o n o f the idea o f s p i r i t ; (3) t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f the c u l t o f spirits i n t o t h e c u l t o f nature.

45

v

I I . • C r i t i c i s m o f t h e first thesis: D i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the ideas o f soul a n d o f d o u b l e . • D r e a m s d o n o t a c c o u n t f o r the idea o f soul.

52

I I I . • C r i t i c i s m o f t h e second thesis. D e a t h does n o t e x p l a i n the

transforma-

t i o n o f the soul i n t o a s p i r i t . • T h e c u l t o f the souls o f the dead is n o t p r i m itive.

59

IV. • C r i t i c i s m o f t h e t h i r d thesis. T h e a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c i n s t i n c t . Spencer's c r i t i c i s m o f i t ; reservations o n this subject. E x a m i n a t i o n o f the facts b y w h i c h the existence o f that i n s t i n c t is said t o be p r o v e d . • D i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the soul a n d the spirits o f nature. R e l i g i o u s a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m is n o t p r i m i t i v e . 61 V. • C o n c l u s i o n : A n i m i s m reduces r e l i g i o n t o n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n a system o f hallucinations.

65

Chapter T h r e e : T h e L e a d i n g Conceptions o f the E l e m e n t a r y R e l i g i o n (Continuation): Naturism 68 R e v i e w o f the theory

68

I . • E x p o s i t i o n o f n a t u r i s m a c c o r d i n g to M a x M u l l e r .

70

I I . • I f the object o f r e l i g i o n is t o express natural forces, t h e n h o w i t c o u l d have s u r v i v e d is h a r d to see, f o r i t expresses t h e m mistakenly. T h e alleged dist i n c t i o n b e t w e e n r e l i g i o n and m y t h o l o g y .

76

I I I . • N a t u r i s m does n o t e x p l a i n t h e d i v i s i o n o f things i n t o sacred a n d p r o fane.

81

Contents

v

C h a p t e r F o u r : T o t e m i s m as E l e m e n t a r y R e l i g i o n : Review of the Question. Method of Treating It I . • B r i e f h i s t o r y o f the q u e s t i o n o f t o t e m i s m .

84

85

I I . • M e t h o d o l o g i c a l reasons f o r w h i c h the study w i l l be based m a i n l y o n A u s t r a l i a n t o t e m i s m . • C o n c e r n i n g t h e place t o be g i v e n t o A m e r i c a n e x amples.

90

B O O K TWO: T H E E L E M E N T A R Y B E L I E F S C h a p t e r O n e : T h e P r i n c i p a l T o t e m i c Beliefs: The Totem as Name and as Emblem

99

I . • D e f i n i t i o n o f the clan. • T h e t o t e m as n a m e o f the clan. • N a t u r e o f t h e things that serve as totems. • Ways i n w h i c h the t o t e m is acquired. • T h e t o t e m s o f phratries a n d o f m a r r i a g e classes. I I . • T h e t o t e m as e m b l e m . • T o t e m i c designs engraved o r sculpted o n o b jects, and t a t t o o e d o r p a i n t e d o n bodies. I I I . • Sacredness o f t h e t o t e m i c e m b l e m . • T h e churingas. • T h e n u r t u n j a . • T h e w a n i n g a . • C o n v e n t i o n a l nature o f t o t e m i c e m b l e m s .

C h a p t e r T w o : T h e P r i n c i p a l T o t e m i c Beliefs ( C o n t i n u e d ) : The Totemic Animal and Man

127

I . • Sacredness o f the t o t e m i c animals. • P r o h i b i t i o n against eating a n d k i l l i n g t h e m and against p i c k i n g t o t e m i c plants. • Various m i t i g a t i o n s o f those p r o h i b i t i o n s . • P r o h i b i t i o n s o f contact. • T h e sacredness o f t h e a n i m a l is less p r o n o u n c e d t h a n that o f the e m b l e m . I I . • M a n . • H i s k i n s h i p w i t h the t o t e m i c p l a n t o r a n i m a l . • Various m y t h s e x p l a i n i n g that k i n s h i p . • T h e sacredness o f the m a n is m o r e apparent i n c e r t a i n parts o f t h e b o d y : the b l o o d , the hair, etc. • H o w this q u a l i t y varies w i t h sex and age. • T o t e m i s m is n e i t h e r a n i m a l n o r p l a n t w o r s h i p .

Chapter T h r e e : T h e P r i n c i p a l T o t e m i c Beliefs ( C o n t i n u e d ) : The Cosmological System of Totemism and the Notion of Kind I . • Classifications o f things b y clan, phratry, a n d class.

141

141

Contents

VI

I I . • O r i g i n o f the idea o f genus: T h e first classifications o f things take t h e i r schemes f r o m society. • Differences b e t w e e n the f e e l i n g o f resemblance and t h e idea o f genus. • W h y that idea is o f social o r i g i n .

145

I I I . • R e l i g i o u s m e a n i n g o f these classifications: A l l things classified w i t h i n a clan p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e nature o f the t o t e m a n d i n its sacredness. T h e c o s m o l o g i c a l system o f t o t e m i s m . • T o t e m i s m as t r i b a l r e l i g i o n .

149

Chapter F o u r : T h e P r i n c i p a l T o t e m i c Beliefs ( E n d ) : The Individual Totem and the Sexual Totem 158 I . • T h e i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m as first n a m e ; its sacredness. • T h e i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m as personal e m b l e m . • B o n d s b e t w e e n m a n and his i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m . • L i n k s w i t h the collective t o t e m .

158

I I . • Totems o f sexual groups. • Resemblances a n d differences b e t w e e n c o l lective a n d i n d i v i d u a l totems. • T h e i r t r i b a l character.

166

Chapter Five: O r i g i n s o f These Beliefs Critical Examination of the Theories 169 I . • T h e o r i e s that d e r i v e t o t e m i s m f r o m an earlier r e l i g i o n : f r o m t h e ancestor c u l t ( W i l k e n and T y l o r ) ; f r o m the c u l t o f nature (Jevons). • C r i t i c i s m o f these theories.

170

I I . • T h e o r i e s that derive collective t o t e m i s m f r o m i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m i s m . • O r i g i n s ascribed b y these theories t o the i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m (Frazer, Boas, H i l l T o u t ) • I m p r o b a b i l i t y o f these hypotheses. • A r g u m e n t s f o r the p r i o r i t y o f the collective t o t e m .

174

I I I . • R e c e n t t h e o r y o f Frazer: c o n c e p t i o n a l a n d l o c a l t o t e m i s m . • T h e quest i o n b e g g i n g o n w h i c h i t rests. • T h e religious character o f the t o t e m is d e n i e d . • L o c a l t o t e m i s m is n o t p r i m i t i v e .

182

IV. • T h e o r y o f L a n g : t h e t o t e m is m e r e l y a name. • D i f f i c u l t i e s i n e x p l a i n i n g the r e l i g i o u s character o f t o t e m i c practices f r o m this p o i n t o f v i e w .

186

V • A l l these theories e x p l a i n t o t e m i s m o n l y b y p o s t u l a t i n g earlier r e l i g i o u s notions.

188

Contents

vn

Chapter Six: O r i g i n s o f T h e s e Beliefs (Continued): The Notion qfTotemic Principle, or Mana, and the Idea of Force

190

I . • T h e n o t i o n o f force o r t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e . • Its u b i q u i t y . • Its s i m u l t a n e ously physical a n d m o r a l character.

190

I I . • S i m i l a r c o n c e p t i o n s i n o t h e r l o w e r societies. • Gods i n Samoa. • W a k a n o f the S i o u x , o r e n d a o f the I r o q u o i s , m a n a i n Melanesia. • R e l a t i o n s h i p s o f these n o t i o n s w i t h t o t e m i s m . • A r u n k u l t a o f the A r u n t a .

193

I I I . • T h e l o g i c a l p r i o r i t y o f the n o t i o n o f i m p e r s o n a l force over the v a r i o u s m y t h i c a l personalities. • R e c e n t theories that t e n d t o accept this p r i o r i t y .

201

IV. • T h e n o t i o n o f r e l i g i o u s force is the p r o t o t y p e o f t h e n o t i o n o f force i n general.

205

C h a p t e r Seven: O r i g i n s o f These Beliefs (Conclusion): Origin of the Notion of Totemic Principle, or Mana 207 I . • T h e t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e is t h e clan, b u t t h e clan t h o u g h t o f i n tangible form.

207

I I . • G e n e r a l reasons society is capable o f arousing t h e sensation o f the sacred and the d i v i n e . • Society as an i m p e r a t i v e m o r a l p o w e r ; the n o t i o n o f m o r a l a u t h o r i t y . • S o c i e t y as a force that raises the i n d i v i d u a l above himself. • Facts p r o v i n g t h a t society creates the sacred.

208

I I I . • Reasons p e c u l i a r t o t h e A u s t r a l i a n societies. • T h e t w o phases t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e life o f these societies alternately passes: dispersal a n d c o n c e n t r a t i o n . • Great c o l l e c t i v e effervescence

d u r i n g the p e r i o d s o f c o n c e n t r a t i o n .

Examples. • H o w the r e l i g i o u s idea is b o r n f r o m t h a t effervescence. W h y t h e collective force was c o n c e i v e d o f i n t o t e m i c f o r m s : T h e t o t e m is the e m b l e m o f the clan. • E x p l a n a t i o n o f the p r i n c i p a l t o t e m i c beliefs.

216

IV. • R e l i g i o n is n o t a p r o d u c t o f fear. • I t expresses s o m e t h i n g real. • Its f u n damental i d e a l i s m . • T h a t i d e a l i s m is a general trait o f c o l l e c t i v e mentality. • W h y religious forces are e x t e r n a l t o t h e i r substrates. • O n t h e p r i n c i p l e the part equals the whole.

225

V. • O r i g i n o f t h e n o t i o n o f e m b l e m : use o f emblems, a necessary c o n d i t i o n o f collective representations. • W h y t h e clan has taken its emblems f r o m t h e animal a n d p l a n t k i n g d o m s .

231

Contents

Vlll

V I . • O n t h e t e n d e n c y o f the p r i m i t i v e t o m e r g e realms a n d classes that w e distinguish. • O r i g i n s o f those fusions. • H o w t h e y paved t h e w a y f o r scientific explanations. • T h e y d o n o t preclude the t e n d e n c y t o create distinctions a n d oppositions.

236

Chapter Eight: T h e N o t i o n o f Soul I . • Analysis o f the n o t i o n o f s o u l i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n societies.

242

I I . • Genesis o f t h a t n o t i o n . • T h e d o c t r i n e o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o Spencer and G i l l e n : I t i m p l i e s that t h e soul is a p o r t i o n o f t h e t o t e m i c p r i n ciple. • E x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e facts r e p o r t e d b y S t r e h l o w ; t h e y c o n f i r m the t o t e m i c nature o f t h e soul.

249

I I I . • G e n e r a l i t y o f the n o t i o n o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n . • E v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t the o r i g i n proposed.

259

IV. • T h e antithesis b e t w e e n s o u l a n d b o d y : w h a t is o b j e c t i v e a b o u t i t . R e l a tionships b e t w e e n t h e i n d i v i d u a l soul a n d t h e collective soul. • T h e n o t i o n o f soul is n o t c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y after that o f m a n a .

265

V • H y p o t h e s i s to e x p l a i n the b e l i e f i n life after death.

270

V I . • T h e idea o f soul a n d the idea o f person; i m p e r s o n a l elements o f p e r sonality.

272

Chapter N i n e : T h e N o t i o n o f Spirits and G o d s

276

I . • D i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n soul a n d s p i r i t . • T h e souls o f the m y t h i c a l ancestors are spirits w i t h set f u n c t i o n s . • R e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n the ancestral s p i r i t , t h e i n d i v i d u a l soul, a n d t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m . • E x p l a n a t i o n o f the last. • Its s o c i o l o g i c a l significance.

276

I I . • Spirits a n d m a g i c .

284

I I I . • C i v i l i z i n g heroes.

286

IV. • H i g h gods. • T h e i r o r i g i n . • T h e i r relationship w i t h t h e t o t e m i c system as a w h o l e . • T h e i r t r i b a l a n d i n t e r n a t i o n a l character. V. • U n i t y o f the t o t e m i c system.

298

288

Contents

IX

B O O K III: T H E PRINCIPAL MODES OF R I T U A L C O N D U C T Chapter O n e : T h e Negative C u l t and Its Functions: The Ascetic Rites 303 I . • T h e system o f p r o h i b i t i o n s • M a g i c a n d r e l i g i o u s p r o h i b i t i o n s . P r o h i b i tions b e t w e e n sacred things o f different k i n d s . P r o h i b i t i o n s b e t w e e n sacred and profane. • T h e s e last are the basis o f the negative c u l t . • P r i n c i p a l types o f these p r o h i b i t i o n s ; t h e i r r e d u c t i o n t o t w o basic types.

303

I I . • O b s e r v a n c e o f t h e p r o h i b i t i o n s m o d i f i e s the r e l i g i o u s states o f i n d i v i d u als. Cases i n w h i c h that efficacy is especially apparent: ascetic practices. • R e l i g i o u s efficacy o f p a i n . • Social f u n c t i o n o f asceticism.

313

I I I . • E x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e system o f p r o h i b i t i o n s : antagonism o f t h e sacred a n d the profane; contagiousness o f t h e sacred.

321

IV. • Causes o f this contagiousness. • I t c a n n o t be e x p l a i n e d b y the laws o f the association o f ideas. • I t arises because religious forces are e x t e r n a l t o t h e i r substrates. L o g i c a l interest o f this p r o p e r t y o f the r e l i g i o u s forces.

325

Chapter T w o : T h e Positive C u l t : The Elements of the Sacrifice

330

T h e I n t i c h i u m a c e r e m o n y i n the tribes o f central Australia. • Various f o r m s it exhibits.

330

I . • T h e A r u n t a f o r m . • T h e t w o phases. • Analysis o f the first: v i s i t i n g sacred places, spreading sacred dust, shedding b l o o d , etc., t o b r i n g a b o u t t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n o f the t o t e m i c species.

331

I I . • S e c o n d phase: r i t u a l eating o f the t o t e m i c p l a n t o r a n i m a l .

338

I I I . • I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the c e r e m o n y as a w h o l e . • T h e second r i t e consists o f a c o m m u n i o n m e a l . • R e a s o n f o r that c o m m u n i o n .

340

IV. • T h e rites o f the first phase consist o f offerings. • A n a l o g i e s w i t h s a c r i f i cial offerings. • H e n c e the I n t i c h i u m a contains t h e t w o elements o f sacrifice. • Interest o f these facts for t h e t h e o r y o f sacrifice.

344

V • O n t h e alleged absurdity o f t h e sacrificial offerings. • H o w they are e x plained: d e p e n d e n c e o f sacred beings o n t h e i r w o r s h i p p e r s . • E x p l a n a t i o n o f

Contents

X

t h e circle i n w h i c h sacrifice seems t o m o v e . • O r i g i n o f t h e p e r i o d i c i t y o f positive rites.

348

Chapter Three: T h e Positive C u l t (Continuation): Mimetic Rites and the Principle of Causality 355 I . • N a t u r e o f the m i m e t i c rites. • E x a m p l e s o f ceremonies i n w h i c h t h e y are used t o ensure the f e r t i l i t y o f the species.

355

I I . • T h e y rest o n this p r i n c i p l e : Like produces like. • T h e e x p l a n a t i o n p r o posed b y t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l s c h o o l e x a m i n e d . • W h y an a n i m a l o r p l a n t is i m i t a t e d . • W h y physical efficacy is ascribed t o these m o v e m e n t s . • F a i t h . • I n w h a t sense f a i t h is f o u n d e d u p o n experience. • T h e p r i n c i p l e s o f m a g i c were b o r n i n religion.

360

I I I . • T h e f o r e g o i n g p r i n c i p l e considered as b e i n g a m o n g t h e first statements o f the p r i n c i p l e o f causality. • Social c o n d i t i o n s o n w h i c h the p r i n c i p l e o f causality depends. • T h e idea o f i m p e r s o n a l force o r p o w e r is o f social o r i g i n . • T h e necessity o f the causal j u d g m e n t e x p l a i n e d b y t h e a u t h o r i t y i n h e r e n t i n social imperatives.

367

Chapter F o u r : T h e Positive C u l t (Continuation): Representative or Commemorative Rites 374 I . • Representative rites that have physical efficacy. • T h e i r relationships w i t h t h e ceremonies described previously. • T h e i r i n f l u e n c e is w h o l l y m o r a l .

375

I I . • Representative rites w i t h o u t physical efficacy. • T h e y c o n f i r m the p r e c e d i n g results. • T h e recreational aspect o f r e l i g i o n : its i m p o r t a n c e a n d raisons d'être. • T h e idea o f the feast.

380

I I I . • A m b i g u i t y o f f u n c t i o n i n the various ceremonies studied; t h e y are substitutes f o r o n e a n o t h e r . • H o w this a m b i g u i t y c o n f i r m s the p r o p o s e d theory. 387

Chapter Five: T h e Piacular Rites and the A m b i g u i t y o f the N o t i o n o f the Sacred 392 D e f i n i t i o n o f the piacular r i t e .

392

I . • T h e positive rites o f m o u r n i n g . D e s c r i p t i o n o f these rites.

393

I I . • H o w t h e y are e x p l a i n e d . • T h e y are n o t a display o f p r i v a t e feelings. • N e i t h e r can the m a l i c e ascribed t o t h e soul o f t h e deceased a c c o u n t f o r t h e m .

Contents

XI

• T h e y arise from the s p i r i t u a l state i n w h i c h the g r o u p finds itself. • A n a l y sis o f that state. H o w i t comes t o an e n d t h r o u g h m o u r n i n g . • Parallel changes i n the m a n n e r i n w h i c h t h e soul o f t h e deceased is c o n c e i v e d .

400

I I I . • O t h e r piacular rites: f o l l o w i n g p u b l i c m o u r n i n g , an insufficient harvest, a d r o u g h t , o r t h e s o u t h e r n lights. • R a r i t y o f these rites i n Australia. • H o w they are e x p l a i n e d .

406

I V • T h e t w o f o r m s o f t h e sacred: p u r e and i m p u r e . • T h e i r a n t a g o n i s m . • T h e i r k i n s h i p . • A m b i g u i t y o f t h e n o t i o n o f t h e sacred. • E x p l a n a t i o n o f t h a t a m b i g u i t y . • A l l the rites have this character.

412

CONCLUSION To w h a t e x t e n t t h e results o b t a i n e d can be generalized.

418

I . • R e l i g i o n rests o n an e x p e r i e n c e t h a t is w e l l - f o u n d e d b u t n o t p r i v i l e g e d . • Necessity o f a science t o get at the reality that is t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f this e x perience. • W h a t that reality is: h u m a n g r o u p i n g s . • H u m a n m e a n i n g o f r e l i g i o n . • O n t h e o b j e c t i o n that opposes the ideal society t o t h e real one. • H o w the i n d i v i d u a l i s m a n d the c o s m o p o l i t a n i s m o f r e l i g i o n are e x p l a i n e d i n this theory.

419

I I . • W h a t is eternal a b o u t r e l i g i o n . • O n t h e c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n r e l i g i o n a n d science; i t affects o n l y the speculative f u n c t i o n o f r e l i g i o n . • W h a t t h e dest i n y o f t h a t f u n c t i o n seems t o be.

429

I I I . • H o w can society be a source o f l o g i c a l — t h a t is t o say, c o n c e p t u a l — t h o u g h t ? D e f i n i t i o n o f t h e concept: n o t the same as t h e general idea; characterized b y its i m p e r s o n a l i t y a n d its c o m m u n i c a b i l i t y . • I t has a c o l l e c t i v e o r i g i n . • Analysis o f its c o n t e n t testifies i n t h e same way. • C o l l e c t i v e r e p r e sentations as t y p e - n o t i o n s i n w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l s share. • O n the o b j e c t i o n t h a t they w o u l d be i m p e r s o n a l o n l y i f t h e y w e r e t r u e . • C o n c e p t u a l t h o u g h t is contemporaneous w i t h humanity.

433

IV. • H o w the categories express social things. • T h e category par excellence is the c o n c e p t o f totality, w h i c h can be suggested o n l y b y society. • W h y t h e relationships expressed b y the categories c o u l d b e c o m e conscious o n l y i n s o ciety. • Society is n o t an alogical b e i n g . • H o w the categories t e n d t o b e c o m e detached f r o m g e o g r a p h i c a l l y d e f i n e d g r o u p i n g s . • T h e u n i t y o f science, o n the one h a n d , a n d o f r e l i g i o n a n d m o r a l i t y , o n t h e other. • H o w society ac-

Xll

Contents

c o u n t s f o r that u n i t y . • E x p l a n a t i o n o f the role ascribed t o society: its creative p o w e r . • I m p a c t o f s o c i o l o g y u p o n t h e science o f m a n . Index

449

440

ACKNOWLED GMENTS I n p r e p a r i n g this translation I have i n c u r r e d m a n y debts: t o the W b o d r o w W i l s o n I n t e r n a t i o n a l C e n t e r f o r a semester-long fellowship, the c o n g e n i a l effervescence o f its staff a n d c o m m u n i t y o f scholars, a n d f o r the q u i e t o f m y t u r r e t office i n t h e S m i t h s o n i a n I n s t i t u t i o n ; t o the U n i v e r s i t y o f R o c h e s t e r for research s u p p o r t , b o t h i n dollars a n d i n t h e k i n d s h a r i n g b y specialists i n m a n y fields that is t h e heart o f organic solidarity—classicist K a t h r y n A r ¬ getsinger,

German

Studies

scholar

Patricia

Herminghouse,

historians

W i l l i a m J. M c G r a t h a n d M o r r i s A . Pierce, I n d o l o g i s t D o u g l a s R . B r o o k s , philosophers

Lewis W. Beck,

Deborah

M o d r a k , and

George

Dennis

O ' B r i e n , p s y c h o l o g i s t C r a i g R . Barclay, a n d m o s t o f all F r e n c h scholar A n d r é e D o u c h i n , w h o read m y t e x t alongside D u r k h e i m ' s l i n e b y l i n e a n d p r o v i d e d detailed c r i t i q u e ; t o colleagues e l s e w h e r e — K a r e n M c C a r t h y B r o w n , Jay D e m e r a t h , A l e x a n d r e Derczansky, Barbara J. Fields, T e r r y F. G o d l o v e , Gila H a y i m , W i n s t o n A.James, R o b e r t Jay, R o b e r t A l u n Jones, E d w a r d K a p lan, D o u g l a s A . K i b b e e , V a l e n t i n Y . M u d i m b e , James T . R i c h a r d s o n , Jan Vansina, Loi'e W a c q u a n t , a n d R o b e r t Paul W o l f f , f o r c l a r i f y i n g c o r r e s p o n dence; t o librarians Z d e n e k D a v i d and U r s u l a H e i n e n a n d t o research assistants N a f i z

Aksehirioglu,

A n t o n i a Balosz,

Chad

Birely,

Lloyd

Brown,

Stephen M o n t o , and Samuel T y l o r , f o r help w i t h notes a n d references at the various stages o f a l o n g project; t o C h a r l e t t e W . H e n r y a n d Lela SimsGissendaner, staff o f the

F r e d e r i c k Douglass

Institute for African

and

A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n Studies, f o r practical solutions t o the practical p r o b l e m s o f p r e p a r i n g a m a n u s c r i p t ; t o B r u c e N i c h o l s , C e l i a K n i g h t , and others o f the Free Press e d i t o r i a l staff f o r t h e i r p a i n s t a k i n g a t t e n t i o n t o the text's several languages. I o w e especially large debts t o Ayala G a b r i e l , m y colleague a n d f r i e n d , w i t h w h o m I spent m a n y h o u r s o f c l a r i f y i n g conversation a b o u t r e l i g i o n a n d m u c h else; a n d t o Moussa Bagate, m y husband, w h o shared his general a n d scientifically specialized k n o w l e d g e o f F r e n c h , a n d w h o shared, p e r i o d .

Xlll

ABBREVIATIONS AA AAAS AMNH

American Anthropologist Australasian A s s o c i a t i o n f o r t h e A d v a n c e m e n t o f Science Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History

APS

Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society

ArA

Archaeologia Americana

AS BAAS

BAE CJ CNAE FR HLCAPS

JA JAI

QGJ RAM RCI RHR RIS

Année sociologique B r i t i s h A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the A d v a n c e m e n t o f Science (Reports) Reports of the Bureau of American Ethnology Cambrian Journal Contributions to North American Ethnology Fortnightly Review Transactions of the Historical and Literary Committee of the American Philosophical Society Journal asiatique Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Queensland Geographical Journal Records of the Australian Museum Revue coloniale internationale Revue de l'histoire des religions Revista italiana di sociologia

R M M

Revue de morale et de

R N M

Report of the U.S. National

RP RSC RSI RSNSW

métaphysique Museum

Revue philosophique Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada Report of the Smithsonian Institution Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales XV

Abbreviations

XVI

RSSA RSV TICHR

Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria Transactions of the Third International Congress for the History of Religions

VGJ

Victorian Geographical Journal

ZE

Zeitschrift für

ZV

Zeitschrift für

ZDP

Ethnologie Völkerpsychologie

Zeitschrift für Deutsche Philologie

TRANSLATOR'S I N T R O D U C T I O N :

RELIGION AS A N EMINENTLY SOCIAL THING [ W ] h a t I ask o f t h e free t h i n k e r is t h a t he s h o u l d c o n f r o n t r e l i g i o n i n t h e same m e n t a l state as the believer. . . . [ H ] e w h o does n o t b r i n g t o t h e study o f r e l i g i o n a sort o f r e l i gious s e n t i m e n t c a n n o t speak a b o u t i t ! H e is l i k e a b l i n d m a n t r y i n g t o talk a b o u t c o l o u r . N o w I shall address the free believer. . . . W i t h o u t g o i n g so far as t o disbelieve the f o r m u l a w e believe i n , w e m u s t f o r get i t p r o v i s i o n a l l y , reserving t h e r i g h t t o r e t u r n t o i t later. H a v i n g o n c e escaped from this tyranny, w e are n o l o n g e r i n danger o f p e r p e t r a t i n g t h e e r r o r a n d injustice i n t o w h i c h c e r t a i n believers have fallen w h o have called m y w a y o f i n t e r p r e t i n g r e l i g i o n basically i r r e l i g i o u s . T h e r e c a n n o t be a r a t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f r e l i g i o n w h i c h is f u n d a m e n t a l l y i r r e l i g i o u s ; an i r r e l i g i o u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f r e l i g i o n w o u l d be an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w h i c h d e n i e d the p h e n o m e n o n i t was t r y i n g to explain.

1

Emile D u r k h e i m (1858-1917)

Easily t h e m o s t s t r i k i n g feature o f E m i l e D u r k h e i m ' s 1912 masterpiece, Les Formes élémentaires

de la vie religieuse, is his insistence that r e l i g i o n s are f o u n d e d

o n and express " t h e real." T h e m o s t casual s k i m t h r o u g h the b o o k ' s v e r y first pages—even t h r o u g h t h e C o n t e n t s — w i l l reveal that insistence. A n d i t is c o n t i n u a l l y present, l i k e a heartbeat. A t the same t i m e , however, as a reader m i g h t w e l l m u t t e r , t h e m o s t s t r i k i n g feature o f r e l i g i o n s is that t h e y are full t o o v e r f l o w i n g w i t h spectacular i m p r o b a b i l i t i e s . As i f a n t i c i p a t i n g that t h o u g h t , D u r k h e i m challenges i t from the start: " T h e r e are n o r e l i g i o n s that are false." M o r e t h a n that: " I f [ r e l i g i o n ] h a d n o t b e e n g r o u n d e d i n the nature o f t h i n g s , i n those v e r y t h i n g s i t w o u l d have m e t resistance t h a t i t c o u l d n o t have o v e r xvu

XV111

Translator's Introduction

come."

2

A hostile r e v i e w e r w r i t i n g i n the American Anthropologist said

flady

that D ü r k h e i m s "search f o r a reality u n d e r l y i n g r e l i g i o n does n o t seem t o 3

rest o n a firm l o g i c a l basis." J u d g m e n t a b o u t the l o g i c o f that search belongs to readers o f D u r k h e i m ' s greatest b o o k , w h i c h I offer i n its first f u l l retransl a t i o n since Joseph W a r d Swain's, i n 1 9 1 5 .

4

To gauge D u r k h e i m ' s c l a i m a b o u t t h e roots o f r e l i g i o n i n " t h e real," i t w i l l be necessary t o f o l l o w an a r g u m e n t that is provocative t h r o u g h a n d t h r o u g h . Pressing that c l a i m t o its v e r y l i m i t , D ü r k h e i m announces that his case i n p o i n t w i l l b e the t o t e m i c r e l i g i o n s o f Australia, w i t h totemism's j a r r i n g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f h u m a n beings a n d animals o r p l a n t s — o n its face, to readers i n 1912, a n y t h i n g b u t a religious m i l i e u w i t h a n y t h i n g l i k e credible roots i n the real a n d , to some o f t h e m , n o t even a r e l i g i o u s m i l i e u . Au contraire, cautions D ü r k h e i m . T o t e m i s m qualifies as a r e l i g i o n ; f u r t h e r m o r e , all r e l i g i o n s are " t r u e after t h e i r o w n fashion," and a l l , i n c l u d i n g t o t e m i s m , m e e t 5

"needs" (besoins) t h a t are part and parcel o f h u m a n l i f e . T h e n o r n o w , a n y o n e e n c o u n t e r i n g t h e first pages o f Formes f o r the first t i m e m u s t w o n d e r straightaway w h a t h e intends b y " t h e real," o r b y "needs" b u i l t i n t o the h u m a n m a k e u p that r e l i g i o n fulfills. H e r e are claims l i k e l y t o d r a w the r e l i g i o u s l y c o m m i t t e d a n d the r e l i g i o u s l y u n c o m m i t t e d t o t h e edge o f t h e i r seats. F r o m the start, i t is clear that t h e questions D ü r k h e i m has set h i m s e l f a b o u t r e l i g i o n c o n c e r n t h e nature o f h u m a n life a n d t h e nature o f " t h e real." ( F r o m n o w o n I d r o p t h e q u o t a t i o n marks a r o u n d t h e phrase, n o t i n g that p a r t o f D u r k h e i m ' s agenda i n Formes is t o a p p l y his c o n c e p t i o n o f the real to all social f o r m s o f existence. Philosophers i n D u r k h e i m ' s m i l i e u w e r e r e w o r k i n g the o l d p o l a r i t y o f appearance versus essence, as h a n d l e d b y I m m a n u e l K a n t . W e c a n flash f o r w a r d t o E d m u n d Husserl, a n d again, regarding t h e social w o r l d specifically, f r o m Husserl t o A l f r e d Schutz.) I t is equally clear f r o m t h e start that received ideas offer D ü r k h e i m f e w i n t e l l e c t u a l p a r k benches a l o n g the r o u t e t o w a r d the answers. T h e o p e n i n g chapters ( B o o k O n e ) define r e l i g i o n a n d t o t e m i s m . T h e y t h e n d e m o l i s h t w o earlier families o f t h e o r y , a n i m i s m a n d n a t u r i s m , c e r t a i n o f w h o s e received ideas a b o u t w h a t is f u n d a m e n t a l t o r e l i g i o n still have a c e r t a i n c u r r e n c y — f o r example, naturism's thesis that r e l i g i o n arises f r o m h u m a n awe before the g r a n d e u r o f t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d . G o n e there and t h e n (to many, m a d d e n i n g l y ) is r e l i g i o n as " u l t i m a t e c o n c e r n " a n d as e n c o u n t e r w i t h a p o w e r transcend6

i n g the h u m a n , o r w i t h " t h e h o l y . " T h e m i d d l e chapters ( B o o k T w o ) systematically e x a m i n e w h a t D ü r k h e i m calls représentations

collectives: shared

m e n t a l constructs w i t h t h e h e l p o f w h i c h , he argues, h u m a n beings c o l l e c t i v e l y v i e w themselves, each other, a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d . H a v i n g a d o p t e d t o t e m i s m as an especially c h a l l e n g i n g system o f collective representations,


XIX

D ü r k h e i m develops a t h e o r y o f h o w society constitutes itself, o n e t h a t is s i m u l t a n e o u s l y (and i n his view, necessarily) a t h e o r y o f h o w h u m a n m e n t a l i t y constitutes itself. T h a t t h e o r y , i n t u r n , encloses another, a b o u t those " u n i f i e d systems" o f représentations

c o n c e r n i n g nature a n d h u m a n i t y that r e -

l i g i o n s always c o n t a i n . T h e f i n a l chapters ( B o o k T h r e e ) deal w i t h f o r m s o f collective c o n d u c t that can be t h o u g h t o f as c o l l e c t i v e representations i n a c t i o n a n d , at the same t i m e , as a c t i o n that makes c o l l e c t i v e representations real i n i n d i v i d u a l m i n d s . H e r e are echoes o f M a r x , i n The German Ideology, w h e r e reality is above a l l done: "Consciousness can never be a n y t h i n g else t h a n conscious existence." As t h o u g h h e a r i n g that echo, D ü r k h e i m cautions against u n d e r s t a n d i n g his 7

t h o u g h t as " m e r e l y a r e f u r n i s h m e n t o f h i s t o r i c a l m a t e r i a l i s m . " I n fact, his c o m m o n g r o u n d w i t h M a r x o n t h e subject o f r e l i g i o n is far f r o m n e g l i g i b l e and yet far f r o m t o t a l . F o r D ü r k h e i m , r e l i g i o n s exist because h u m a n beings exist o n l y as social beings a n d i n a h u m a n l y shaped w o r l d . R e l i g i o n is " a n e m i n e n t l y social t h i n g . "

8

I n t h e Australians' w o r l d , as w e c o m e t o k n o w i t t h r o u g h Formes, t o have the clan n a m e K a n g a r o o is n o t m e r e l y t o postulate a n a m a z i n g i n n e r b o n d o f shared essence w i t h animals, w h o s e i n h e r e n t distinctness f r o m h u m a n s is o b v i o u s . I t is also t o postulate a j u s t as a m a z i n g i n n e r b o n d o f shared essence w i t h o t h e r h u m a n s , b y s h a r i n g a name. H u m a n i n d i v i d u a l s are i n h e r e n t l y distinct f r o m o n e another, a n d so the p o t e n t i a l f o r m u t u a l l y r e c o g n i z e d i d e n t i t y is far f r o m o b v i o u s . O n this subject, the early c r i t i c a l v o i c e is u n a m a z e d , setding f o r w e l l - w o r n p a r k benches o f t h o u g h t : " T h e e x p e r i e n c e o f all times and places teaches t h a t the r a p p o r t o f t h e individual, as such, w i t h the religious 9

object is o f p r i m e i m p o r t a n c e i n religious situations."

B u t D ü r k h e i m s chal-

lenge i n Formes is t o detect questions, n o t self-evidences, i n phrases l i k e " i n d i v i d u a l , as such," " r e l i g i o u s object," a n d " r e l i g i o u s s i t u a t i o n . " H i s e x p e d i t i o n goes t o a place w h e r e " [ t ] h e kangaroo is o n l y an a n i m a l l i k e any o t h e r ; b u t , f o r t h e K a n g a r o o p e o p l e , i t has w i t h i n itself a p r i n c i p l e t h a t sets i t apart f r o m o t h e r beings, a n d this p r i n c i p l e o n l y exists i n a n d t h r o u g h the m i n d s o f those w h o t h i n k o f i t . " O n that e x p e d i t i o n , " i n a p h i l o s o p h i c a l sense, t h e same is t r u e o f any t h i n g ; f o r t h i n g s exist o n l y t h r o u g h r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . "

10

B y many, usually benchless, routes t h r o u g h A u s t r a l i a n ethnography, D ü r k h e i m b r i n g s us t o w h a t he intends b y the real that h u m a n beings i n g e n eral c o m e t o k n o w t h r o u g h t h e d i s t i n c t i v e l y h u m a n means o f k n o w i n g . T h o s e means b e g i n , h e argues, w i t h h u m a n sociability. Society is the f o r m i n w h i c h nature p r o d u c e d h u m a n k i n d , a n d r e l i g i o n is reason's first harbor. I n Formes, w e m e e t the m i n d as a c o l l e c t i v e p r o d u c t a n d science as an o f f s p r i n g o f r e l i g i o n . I n those v e r y processes o f abstraction that enabled the A u s t r a l i a n


XX

t o i m a g i n e w h o he was b y i m a g i n i n g his relationship w i t h o t h e r Australians a n d w i t h the n a t u r a l w o r l d , w e m e e t the b e g i n n i n g o f abstract t h o u g h t . A n d w e m e e t the c o n c e p t , ours v i a the social treasury o f language, d e f i n e d as "a b e a m t h a t lights, penetrates, a n d t r a n s f o r m s " sensation.

11

D ü r k h e i m s query-

i n g o f t h e Australians a n d t h e i r totems is thus t h e p o i n t o f departure f o r his investigation i n t o distinctive traits o f h u m a n k i n d : reason, i d e n t i t y , and c o m m u n i t y — t h r e e subjects that w e t e n d n e i t h e r t o place u n d e r the h e a d i n g " r e l i g i o n " n o r t o treat together. F e w p e o p l e today w o u l d e n d a sentence that begins, " R e l i g i o n is . . ." i n t h e w a y he does: " . . . above all, a system o f ideas b y w h i c h m e n i m a g i n e t h e society o f w h i c h t h e y are m e m b e r s a n d t h e o b scure yet i n t i m a t e relations t h e y have w i t h i t . "

1 2

I f D ü r k h e i m s sustained insistence o n r e l i g i o n s ' basis i n the real is the m o s t s t r i k i n g feature of Formes, his provocative, s h a r p - w i t t e d m o d e o f e x p o s i t i o n comes a close s e c o n d .

13

A n d i f the b o o k has a heartbeat a b o u t t h e n a -

t u r e o f the real, i t has a r h e t o r i c a l b o d y b u i l t t o subvert received n o t i o n s . A s h e admits i n the I n t r o d u c t i o n , some readers w e r e b o u n d t o find his approach "unorthodox."

1 4

H e chose t o e x p l o r e h u g e questions a b o u t h u m a n k i n d i n

general v i a t h e s t o n e - t o o l - u s i n g specificity o f A b o r i g i n a l Australia, a n d his a r g u m e n t moves i n ways that c o u l d n o t fail t o scandalize m a n y readers, o n v a r i o u s g r o u n d s . W e can b e g i n t o feel t h e specific t e x t u r e o f scandale i f w e consider a n o t h e r h o s t i l e reviewer's o b s e r v a t i o n a b o u t the academically o r t h o d o x v i e w o f t o t e m i s m , i n a l o n g article t i d e d " D o g m a t i c A t h e i s m i n the S o c i o l o g y o f R e l i g i o n . " T h e r e w e l e a r n that t o t e m i s m , "[a]s c u r r e n t l y t a u g h t i n A n g l i c a n universities, . . . appeared t o fit w i t h the p r o v i d e n t i a l m i s s i o n o f t h e Jews and the p o s s i b i l i t y o f C h r i s t i a n r e v e l a t i o n . "

15

I n o t h e r w o r d s , some

scholars dealt w i t h t o t e m i s m b y m a k i n g i t i n t o a " C h r i s t i a n i t y i n e m b r y o . " B e i n g b o r n and reared a J e w a n d t h e son o f a r a b b i , D ü r k h e i m lacked the nearsightedness t h a t made t o t e m i s m as e m b r y o n i c C h r i s t i a n i t y seem a n e c essary lens. W h a t is m o r e , he doubtless h a d n o i n v e s t m e n t i n preserving h i g h e v o l u t i o n a r y r a n k f o r any r e l i g i o n at all. A s a y o u n g m a n , he had rejected r e l i g i o u s c o m m i t m e n t o u t r i g h t , a fact t o w h i c h t h e article's n e o n title alludes. F o r the scholars referred t o and addressed i n t h a t article, i n any case, t o t e m i s m was a n y t h i n g b u t w e l l adapted t o s h o w i n g religion's roots i n the real. I t c o u l d be relegated t o t h e category o f m a g i c , as the c r i t i c p o i n t s o u t that H e r b e r t Spencer d i d ( w h i c h D ü r k h e i m disputed, since that a m o u n t e d t o disconnecting i t f r o m the real).

16

O r i t c o u l d be adapted t o that r o l e i f i m a g -

i n e d w i t h a n a r r o w o n i t , p o i n t i n g f o r w a r d i n an e v o l u t i o n i s t sense t o r e l i gions w h o s e c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h the real seemed a p r i o r i m o r e credible t h a n totemism's. B u t there s t o o d D ü r k h e i m , f i r i n g a r g u m e n t i n t w o directions: c l a i m i n g that r e l i g i o n w o u l d n o t have s u r v i v e d i f i t h a d n o t b e e n g r o u n d e d


XXI

i n t h e real a n d c l a i m i n g t o study r e l i g i o n i n general b y j u x t a p o s i n g the a l legedly lowest a n d highest. F o r m a n y reasons, i n that unself-consciously selfsatisfied era, Formes m u s t have b e e n a shocker. L o o k i n g back, the F r e n c h sociologist R a y m o n d A r o n described the i m m e d i a t e r e a c t i o n t o i t i n France as violent. B e i n g h i g h l y sophisticated, D ü r k h e i m n o d o u b t e x p e c t e d that. N o t i c e t h e r h e t o r i c a l sandpits i n the q u o t a t i o n s I used as an e p i g r a p h , taken f r o m e x t e m p o r a n e o u s remarks he m a d e i n 1914 t o the U n i o n o f Free T h i n k e r s a n d Free Believers. N o w p i c t u r e the sinuous r o a d to be traveled i n any a t t e m p t to represent h i m i n a comprehensive p o r t r a i t as t h e great c o n t r i b u t o r t o e m p i r i c a l science that he was. Dürkheims

commentators

have o f t e n

expressed dismay

about

the

r h e t o r i c a l m o d e i n w h i c h Formes is w r i t t e n . D o m i n i c k L a C a p r a spoke o f an "oceanic f o r m o f discourse" i n a t e x t " w h i c h has h a d the p o w e r t o allure a n d repel at the same t i m e . "

1 7

Steven Lukes w r o t e o f D ü r k h e i m s style that i t " o f -

ten tends t o caricature his t h o u g h t : he o f t e n expressed his ideas i n an e x t r e m e 1 8

or figurative m a n n e r . " 1 i m a g i n e that T a l c o t t Parsons was reacting i n part t o some o f those v e r y qualities w h e n h e c l a i m e d , essentially, t h a t i n Formes D ü r k h e i m was f e e l i n g his w a y uneasily b e t w e e n the naivete o f p o s i t i v i s m a n d s o m e t h i n g far s m a r t e r .

19

R a y m o n d A r o n d i s l i k e d t h e b o o k , said so i n n o u n -

certain terms ( i n c l u d i n g the t e r m " i m p i e t y " ) , a n d professed t o be so unsure i n his u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f i t t h a t he deliberately i n c l u d e d l o n g sections o f v e r b a t i m q u o t a t i o n , t o enable m o r e s y m p a t h e t i c readers t o d o better t h a n h e .

2 0

I w i l l n o t t a r r y over those w h o , f i n d i n g the posture o f Formes e n i g m a t i c , r e spond b y c h a r a c t e r i z i n g the b o o k as m y s t i c a l , metaphysical, a n d even t h e o logical, charges that m u s t m a k e D ü r k h e i m ' s soul shake its head. I f i t is t r u e that he rejected n o t o n l y r e l i g i o n b u t also his family's i n t e n t i o n f o r h i m t o become a r a b b i , i n his father's a n d grandfather's footsteps, he m u s t have p a i d full fare f o r a secular voyage t h r o u g h the mysteries a n d c o m m o n p l a c e s o f life.

21

As far as I a m c o n c e r n e d , i t is sufficient t o say that D ü r k h e i m was e x -

p e r i m e n t i n g w i t h ideas that deeply m a t t e r e d t o h i m , a n d there is every reason t o i m a g i n e that he o f t e n r a n u p against the expressive l i m i t s o f his m e d i u m . U p against those same l i m i t s , n o less a s o c i o l o g i c a l t h e o r i s t t h a n Talcott Parsons used t h e u n s e t t l i n g t e r m " n o n e m p i r i c a l r e a l i t y . "

22

D ü r k h e i m s r h e t o r i c is o f t e n r e m a r k e d u p o n b u t generally n o t b u i l t i n t o the systematic c o m m e n t a r y a b o u t h i m .

2 3

T r a d i t i o n a l accounts usually stop at

saying s o c i o l o g y was a n e w science at t h e t u r n o f t h e century, D ü r k h e i m o n e o f those b a t t l i n g t o define a tenable v e r s i o n o f its subject m a t t e r a n d m e t h o d , and his m o d e (alas) p o l e m i c a l . B u t i f p o l e m i c i n the m i d s t o f d e v e l o p i n g s o m e t h i n g n e w is s t i g m a t i z e d as a n t i t h e t i c a l t o systematic t h o u g h t , t h e n t h e very n o t i o n o f systematic t h o u g h t is i m p o v e r i s h e d . Left u n i m a g i n e d is t h e


XXII

sense o f absorbing puzzles t o be solved a n d a l i v i n g sense o f i n s p i r a t i o n b e fore i t becomes "system." I t is easy t o see a calculated p o l e m i c a l edge i n D u r k h e i m ' s Suicide, w h e r e he tackles as a s o c i o l o g i c a l puzzle an act t h a t received n o t i o n s even today h o l d t o be quintessentially i n d i v i d u a l . O f t e n n o t i c e d as w e l l is t h e s i n e w y a r g u m e n t t o be e x p e c t e d o f a p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y t r a i n e d p r o d u c t o f t h e E c o l e n ó r m a l e s u p é r i e u r e , France's crime de la crime i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . B u t s e l d o m i m a g i n e d is w h a t m u s t have b e e n the h i g h h u m o r o f w o r k i n g against received ideas a n d t o w a r d f u n d a m e n t a l t r u t h . T o miss those features is t o miss t h e freshness o f the w o r k he d i d , at t h e t i m e he was d o i n g i t : g o n e is t h e sense o f e x p e r i m e n t a n d e x c i t e m e n t he shared w i t h the m a n y talented students h e t a u g h t at the S o r b o n n e ,

a n d w i t h t h e scholars w h o

j o i n e d h i m i n creating t h e celebrated j o u r n a l Annie sociologique; g o n e t o o is his w i t o n the page. I f those elements are missed, Formes is b y the same stroke u p l i f t e d as a classic a n d d o w n g r a d e d t o a t o m e . D u r k h e i m breathed t h e air o f t u r n - o f - t h e - c e n t u r y Paris, a place that fizzed w i t h e x p e r i m e n t s i n artistic representation, and a t i m e w h e n p h i l o s o phy, science, a n d art existed i n n o t h i n g l i k e today's i s o l a t i o n f r o m o n e a n other.

24

Picasso p a i n t e d his Demoiselles d Avignon

i n 1907, l a u n c h i n g c u b i s m

and, t h e r e w i t h , a n e w v o c a b u l a r y f o r the art o f t h e n e w century. I t m a y t u r n o u t that i l l u m i n a t i n g c o n n e c t i o n s can be d r a w n b e t w e e n D u r k h e i m ' s transgressing the b o u n d a r i e s b e t w e e n " p r i m i t i v e " a n d " c i v i l i z e d " i n the search f o r a v o c a b u l a r y suited t o c o m p r e h e n d i n g , a n d t h e n representing, the real, and Picasso's o w n e n c o u n t e r s w i t h those same boundaries as he r e c o n c e i v e d p e r spective. T o give a t t e n t i o n t o D u r k h e i m ' s r h e t o r i c a l leaps is n o t to s h o w w h e r e he fell s h o r t as a systematic t h i n k e r ; i t is t o a m p l i f y his v o i c e and hear h i m better. I n Formes, o n e o f his tasks is t o s h o w h o w a kangaroo can be, at o n e a n d the same t i m e , a p o w e r f u l sacred b e i n g , a m a n o r w o m a n , a n d j u s t a k a n g a r o o — a l l i n t h e real. H i s r h e t o r i c a l tactics i n representing these barely representable t h i n g s are i n themselves i n t e r e s t i n g t o observe. T h a t they have succeeded i n some w a y accounts f o r the book's capacity over the years t o m o t i v a t e f r u i t f u l e m p i r i c a l w o r k i n a range o f fields.

ANATOMY OF A CLASSIC As a classic i n the s o c i o l o g y a n d a n t h r o p o l o g y o f r e l i g i o n , Formes is w i d e l y m e n t i o n e d a n d characterized, i f n o t so w i d e l y read. M y p u r p o s e i n u n d e r t a k i n g a n e w translation is t o re-present D u r k h e i m ' s ideas a b o u t w h a t he called the " r e l i g i o u s nature o f m a n " i n the E n g l i s h o f o u r o w n day w h i l e r e n d e r i n g D u r k h e i m ' s F r e n c h as f a i t h f u l l y as I can. I have u n d e r t a k e n this n e w

XXlll


translation at a t i m e w h e n t h e serious study o f r e l i g i o n has finally b e g u n t o r e t u r n to center stage i n o u r c u l t u r e , after an u n f o r t u n a t e hiatus o f m a n y decades. M y h o p e is that this b o o k w i l l b e m o r e w i d e l y read and studied, a n d not o n l y b y sociologists and anthropologists o r scholars o f r e l i g i o n . A m e r i can p o s t m o d e r n i s t theorizers o f discursive practices a n d representations

will

recognize t h r o u g h Formes the D u r k h e i m i a n p e d i g r e e o f M i c h e l F o u c a u l t .

25

Psychologists w i l l repeatedly glimpse o l d a n d n o t - s o - o l d ways o f t h i n k i n g about p h e n o m e n a that the scientific study o f m e m o r y , identity, language, and i n t e l l i g e n c e m u s t be able t o a c c o u n t for. Philosophers w i l l f i n d o l d p r o b l e m s interestingly t a c k l e d , i f n o t necessarily s o l v e d . My

hope for a broadened

readership

26

raises a larger q u e s t i o n ,

about

Formes i n p a r t i c u l a r a n d the genus "classic" t o w h i c h i t belongs: W h y read classics? O f late, that q u e s t i o n and s u n d r y answers t o i t have f r a m e d a s o m e times p o i s o n o u s debate over w h i c h ancestors s h o u l d be so h o n o r e d i n m e m ory. T h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n is largely i m p e r s o n a l , as s h o r t o n " I ' s " as i t is l o n g o n i m p e r s o n a l , p u r i t a n i c a l " s h o u l d s " ; i t is o u t s p o k e n a b o u t d i s c i p l i n e b u t i n a r ticulate a b o u t i n d i v i d u a l pleasure, a n d m u t e as the grave a b o u t e x c i t e m e n t . L i k e b r o c c o l i , classics are said t o b e g o o d f o r one, even i f s w a l l o w e d u n w i l l ingly. M y v i e w is that dead ancestors s h o u l d stay dead t o us unless pleasure and e x c i t e m e n t c o m e f r o m g e t t i n g t o k n o w t h e m . W h i l e i n the m i d s t o f this project, I heard W y n t o n Marsalis, the v i r t u o s o classical a n d j a z z t r u m p e t e r , tell a c a u t i o n a r y tale o f honesty a b o u t the p o i n t o f classics a n d a b o u t the w o r k i n v o l v e d i n translating t h e m f o r n e w audiences. H i s i n t r o d u c t i o n t o some n e w settings o f o l d w o r k b y D u k e E l l i n g t o n b r o u g h t o u t p r o b l e m s that b o t h b e d e v i l such w o r k a n d inspire its p r o d u c t . To b e g i n w i t h , Marsalis said, he was unenthusiastic a b o u t E l l i n g t o n . H i s friend, the c h o r e o g r a p h e r G a r t h Fagan, i n v i t e d h i m t o see a rehearsal p e r formance set t o a n o l d piece b y E l l i n g t o n . A p e r i o d piece, Marsalis t h o u g h t . "That's j u s t s o m e b o r i n g o l d b a l l r o o m music. I k n o w I should w a n t t o hear i t but I d o n ' t . " B u t Fagan pressed, sure a b o u t his r e n d e r i n g . Marsalis w e n t , a n d t h e n reconsidered: " E v e r y b o d y said E l l i n g t o n was great. B u t w h a t m a d e h i m so great? N o b o d y said. W e l l , that n i g h t , I u n d e r s t o o d . " H e , i n t u r n , t r u m peted some " o l d b a l l r o o m m u s i c " t o us, his audience. As Fagan h a d i n t e r preted t o Marsalis, so Marsalis i n t e r p r e t e d t o his o w n audience, w h o w e r e i n v i t e d t o discover E l l i n g t o n ' s greatness, p a r t l y t h r o u g h t h e o r i g i n a l w o r k i t self b u t also w i t h Marsalis present as a "translator," w i t h all the c o m p l e x i t i e s that i m p l i e s . I t was Marsalis's " t r a n s l a t i o n " that gave us access t o the greatness o f some o u t - o f - s t y l e music, a n d i r r e m e d i a b l y so, f o r w e h a d n o access t o t h e music except b y h e a r i n g s o m e o n e render i t i n s o u n d (unless w e d e c i d e d t o experience the m u s i c b y sight, f r o m E l l i n g t o n ' s page). N o t w o renderings


XXIV

c o u l d be the same. N o n e c o u l d be exactly w h a t E l l i n g t o n m e a n t . W e c a n n o t k n o w exactly w h a t h e m e a n t . T h e o n l y c e r t a i n t y was that r e n d e r i n g the m u sic freed i t t o w i n t h e audience over, o r n o t to. B u t w h a t is t r u e a b o u t music that begins its p u b l i c life w i t h p o p u l a r a u diences is n o t t r u e a b o u t the h i g h c u l t u r e o f o l d b o o k s . W h e n t h a t seems at stake, t h e answer t o the q u e s t i o n , " W h y read classics?" t o o o f t e n hides b e h i n d t h e busy b o r e d o m o f Ecclesiastes: " T h a t w h i c h has b e e n d o n e is that w h i c h shall be done." I t h i n k o t h e r w i s e . E v e r y classic s h o u l d be free t o w i n t h e r i g h t t o b e read again w i t h pleasure, n o t j u s t to be set t o l a b o r as a captive servant o f t r a d i t i o n , t r a p p e d i n t h e h i g h b r o w e d storage o f a m u s e u m display. T h e case f o r s t u d y i n g o l d w o r k s n o w needs t o be made n o w , p a r t l y t h r o u g h the m a n n e r o f t h e i r presentation. I f the classics really are g o o d e n o u g h t o keep r e a d i n g , i n spite o f t h e i r age a n d flaws, t h e n t h e y are due the respect o f b e i n g a l l o w e d t o w i n t h e i r audience over. "Because t h e y are classics" a m o u n t s to saying, "Because they are there." A n d that is the u n h a p p y fate o f captives i n those Smithsonians o f t h e m i n d that college r e a d i n g lists can be, o n p e r m a n e n t e x h i b i t i o n t o pedants, connoisseurs, and c r a n k y tourists, i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y . E v e r y s c h o o l c h i l d learns that M o u n t Everest was scaled "because i t was t h e r e " a n d can u n d e r s t a n d

from

a distance w h a t makes i t

"great." B u t the superlatives a b o u t great b o o k s are n o t the same. T o k n o w there, as a character o f Z o r a N e a l e H u r s t o n says, y o u have t o go there. I have taken i t t o be m y task, i n retranslating this classic, n o t o n l y t o m a k e the w a y straight t o g o there b u t t o say w h y g o there at a l l . I r e c o m m e n d this classic i n s o c i o l o g y f o r r e a d i n g today, even t h o u g h the e t h n o g r a p h y is o u t d a t e d , and the o u t l o o k u p o n gender q u a i n t , because i t p r e sents t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o e n c o u n t e r a d a z z l i n g l y c o m p l e x s o u l w h o s e b u r d e n o f life animates the w o r k . I t is this same b u r d e n that animates great art. Formes has n o t o n l y the steady b r i l l i a n c e o f a classic b u t also a c e r t a i n incandescence. I t is l i k e a v i r t u o s o p e r f o r m a n c e that is b u i l t u p o n b u t leaps b e y o n d the t e c h n i c a l l i m i t s o f the artist's discipline, b e y o n d the safe s t r i v i n g m e r e l y to h i t the c o r r e c t notes, i n t o a felt reality o f elemental t r u t h . T o read i t is to witness such a p e r f o r m a n c e . T h e i l l u m i n a t i o n s are p u b l i c , t h e p e r f o r m a n c e personal. D u r k h e i m is usually r e m e m b e r e d as t h e no-nonsense advocate o f science positive—"positive

27

s c i e n c e " — i n t h e study o f social life, as a m a n w h o set

o u t t o rescue social science f r o m u n d i s c i p l i n e d subjectivity, f r o m p h i l o s o p h ical a r g u m e n t that delicately m i n u e t t e d w i t h facts o r t o u c h e d t h e m n o t at all, from

parochial sentimentality, a n d f r o m t h e naive i n d i v i d u a l i s m s o f his t i m e .

B u t t h e a r g u m e n t of Formes is m a r k e d l y personal i n b o t h r h e t o r i c a l style a n d scientific substance, revealing a m a n w h o was far m o r e t h a n the hard-nosed o p p o n e n t o f the second-rate a n d t h e s e n t i m e n t a l i n social science ( a l t h o u g h


xxv

he was t h a t t o o ) . W e hear the heartbeat o f Formes i n D u r k h e i m ' s s t u n n i n g t h e m e t h r o u g h o u t : that religious life (la vie religieuse) b o t h expresses a n d c o n structs t h e l o g i c a l life (la vie logique) o f h u m a n k i n d . W e hear i t i n t h e audacious c l a i m he makes, ostensibly as a secondary issue b u t i n fact t h r o u g h o u t the b o o k , that t h e e l e m e n t a l categories i n w h i c h w e t h i n k — t i m e , space, n u m b e r , cause, class, person, t o t a l i t y — h a v e t h e i r o r i g i n s i n r e l i g i o u s life. I t is g r i p p i n g drama t o see h o w a m a n o f science positive c o u l d possibly make such claims, h o w he c o u l d g o a b o u t a r g u i n g t h e m i n an era w h e n s c i ence seemed t o b e d i s m e m b e r i n g r e l i g i o n , a n d m o s t o f all, w h y such a m a n w o u l d ever choose t o . T h i s drama is g r i p p i n g f o r us still: T h e dispute b e t w e e n science a n d r e l i g i o n is at least as l o u d n o w as i t was i n his t i m e . I n t h e b o o k , D u r k h e i m ' s feet seem at o n e m o m e n t t o be o n the solid g r o u n d o f i m mensely d e t a i l e d scientific o b s e r v a t i o n a n d at the n e x t o n the h i g h w i r e o f faith. B u t whose? H i s A b o r i g i n a l A u s t r a l i a n subjects'? H i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s ' ? H i s o w n ? Ours? W e keep l i s t e n i n g i n o r d e r t o f i n d o u t w h i c h i t is, w h e n , i n w h a t , and i n w h a t capacity. People sleepwalk even i n t h e c o m p a n y o f t h e p o w e r f u l , i f t h e y are u n i n t e r e s t i n g m e n a n d w o m e n o f s h a l l o w d i l e m m a s . D ü r k h e i m was an i n t e r e s t i n g m a n , because he h a d t h e capacity t o sustain t h e m a n i f o l d i n t e r n a l t e n s i o n o f his o w n ideas, a n d because he h a d a d i l e m m a and a subject capable o f e a r n i n g p r o l o n g e d a t t e n t i o n . R e l i g i o n still arouses passionate interest, a n d passion t o o . I f i t is an o p i u m o f the oppressed, i t is n o t o n l y t h e o p i u m t h a t puts p e o p l e t o sleep b u t also the one t h a t makes l e g i o n s o f p e o p l e g o t o great lengths t o get t h e i r o w n dose o f i t . I f r e l i g i o n is i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h scientific r a t i o n a l i t y and secular p o l i t i c a l life, those conflicts are p u b l i c a n d active ones, n o t the passive w i t h e r i n g away i n t o self-evident defeat that observers o f r i g h t a n d left l o n g i m a g ined. D o o m has n o t f o l l o w e d

from

religion's d e m o n s t r a t e d

setbacks i n

describing nature. I n d e e d , o n e c a n n o t describe today's w o r l d w i t h o u t t h e collective identities t h a t r e l i g i o n s sustain: q u i e d y w o r s h i p p i n g churches i n some places, churches m i l i t a n t i n others. R e l i g i o n is the steady, d a y - i n - d a y out reality o f m i l l i o n s , t h e i r r o u t i n e

framework

o f everyday activity, t h e i r

calm c e r t a i n t y o f life a n d its steady, b u t sometimes r a c i n g , pulse. I n 1979, w e w a t c h e d as c r o w d s s h o u t i n g "Allahu Akbar!"—"God

is

great!"—destroyed t h e I r a n i a n m o n a r c h y a n d consecrated R u h o l l a h K h o m e i n i as I m a m . I n 1 9 8 9 , w e saw t h e reconsecration o f t h e People's H o u s e o f C u l t u r e i n V i l n i u s as the C a t h e d r a l o f V i l n i u s , the r e p l a c e m e n t there o f St. Casimirs bones after some f o r t y years, a n d t h e n t h e d i g n i f i e d f i l i n g past o f Lithuanians r e c o n s t i t u t i n g themselves as a r e l i g i o u s l y a n d e t h n i c a l l y d e f i n e d nation-state. A n d w h o w o u l d have t h o u g h t i n 1912 that, three

generations

later i n A m e r i c a , r e l i g i o n w o u l d b e a h o t b u t t o n p o l i t i c a l t o p i c , the object o f


XXVI

u n d i g n i f i e d e x c i t e m e n t , the locus o f dispute over w h e r e t h e a u t h o r i t a t i v e designation o f w h e r e r i g h t c o n d u c t lies a n d must l i e ?

28

As a scholar a n d

teacher, I advocate t h e d i g n i f i e d e x c i t e m e n t o f s t u d y i n g r e l i g i o n w i t h d i s c i p l i n e — a n d D ü r k h e i m s s h u t t l i n g b e t w e e n science positive a n d the h i g h w i r e o f faith exemplifies a sort o f discipline that w e can cultivate. Yet discipline c a n n o t be the w h o l e p o i n t . W o r k s o f genius u l t i m a t e l y are disrespected b y b e i n g t o u t e d as mere calisthenics f o r t h e m i n d . T h e y are d i m i n i s h e d t o the e x t e n t that, l i k e aids t o physical exercise, t h e y b e c o m e tools fitted

t o k n o w n tasks, captive servants o f m e n t a l " t r a i n i n g " i n the s c h o o l years.

T h e i m p r o v i s a t i o n a l h i g h - w i r e m o d e o f the u n e x p e c t e d is lost thereby and, w i t h i t , the special w o r k and w o r t h o f genius. I n the e n d , Formes w o u l d n o t be w o r t h reading again a n d again i f all i t d i d was h e l p us cultivate i n t e l l e c t u a l discipline i n o u r attempts t o understand w h a t w e call " r e l i g i o n . " I n fact i t does m u c h m o r e . I n this sometimes sober, sometimes h i g h - w i r e , e x p l o r a t i o n o f w h a t he calls " t h e r e l i g i o u s nature o f m a n , " D ü r k h e i m carries his readers b e y o n d o r d i n a r y ideas a b o u t w h a t r e l i g i o n is and does. W e m e e t t h e m a n w h o c o u l d say, t o the sober assent o f believers d o w n t h e ages, that " t h e m a n w h o has c o m m u n e d w i t h his g o d . . . 15 stronger"

29

b u t w h o c o u l d also say, t o the

boisterous dissent o f t r u e believers d o w n the ages, " T h e r e are n o r e l i g i o n s that are false." W e m e e t the m a n w h o said b o t h — a n d i n a w o r k of science positive.

A N ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE SOUL L i t t l e is k n o w n a b o u t D ü r k h e i m s personal life. I w i l l n o t repeat the tidbits here b u t instead refer readers t o W . S. F. Pickering's a n d Steven Lukes's c o m pilations o f w h a t is k n o w n , a n d p o r t r a y t h e m a n as w e m e e t h i m i n B o o k O n e , C h a p t e r 2, i n his m o d e o f v i r t u o s o p l a y — a n d display. T h e r e , i n the posture o f d e m o l i s h i n g m i s t a k e n t h e o r y , he takes u p o n e o f r e l i g i o n s ' elem e n t a l représentations

collectives. I propose t h a t w e m a k e o u r acquaintance w i t h

h i m b y o b s e r v i n g h o w h e acquaints us w i t h t h e great n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y scholar o f r e l i g i o n , E d w a r d B u r n e t t T y l o r . T y l o r p u t f o r w a r d a v e r y i n f l u e n t i a l t h e o r y a b o u t the o r i g i n o f an idea that a great m a n y peoples have d e v e l o p e d and v a r i o u s l y c o n c e i v e d o f as a s i n 3 0

gular t h i n g (the o r a soul), o r y e t as a generic substance (soul, p e r i o d ) , i m m o r t a l yet sometimes susceptible t o a n n i h i l a t i o n , attached t o persons yet m i g r a t o r y despite such attachments, i n t i m a t e l y k n o w n y e t almost impossible t o describe, personal y e t transmissible t o objects a n d animals, ethereal yet p o w e r f u l , a n d m u c h else, b u t above all c o n c e i v e d as m y s t e r i o u s , c o n t r a d i c tory, a n d h a r d t o conceive. I n t r o d u c i n g us t o T y l o r , t h e m a n o f science positive i n t r o d u c e s us t o t h e idea o f s o u l . I n C h a p t e r 8, D ü r k h e i m returns t o s o u l at


xxvn

l e n g t h , i n a h a u n t i n g l y b e a u t i f u l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f h o w h u m a n beings i n the full d i g n i t y o f reason m i g h t have c o m e t o postulate t h e idea o f s o u l i n order to t h e o r i z e aspects o f t h e real. I n his v i e w , those h u m a n beings w e r e n o t , l i k e St. A u g u s t i n e , able t o "believe precisely because i t was absurd." H e t r a i n e d his heavy r h e t o r i c a l guns against scholars w h o s e l o g i c entailed that t h e y must have b e e n able t o d o so. B y D ü r k h e i m ' s day, comparative studies o n r e l i g i o n had l o n g since r e vealed that soul, as a concept, is t o be f o u n d v i r t u a l l y w h e r e v e r r e l i g i o n is f o u n d . T h e q u e s t i o n scholars asked themselves was w h y such an i n h e r e n d y confusing idea came t o be such a widespread idea, even i n societies n o t h i n g like those o f the Australians. T h e existence o f i n d i v i d u a l souls had t o be acc o m m o d a t e d even i n the society i n h a b i t e d b y Descartes. A n d e v e r y w h e r e , acc o m m o d a t i n g t h e i r existence l e d t o questions a b o u t w h e r e they m i g h t reside and about t h e i r relationship t o those residences. Readers w h o r e m e m b e r t h e i r Descartes ( w h o , o f course, was at D ü r k h e i m s i n t e l l e c t u a l fingertips a n d those o f his readers) w i l l r e m e m b e r that, via his Cogito, ergo sum, the m i n d / b o d y d u alism, hence the s o u l / b o d y d u a l i s m , was r o o t e d i n his search f o r that w h i c h c a n n o t be d o u b t e d . Bear i n m i n d , t o o , that Descartes c o n c e i v e d o f a m e chanics t h a t h e l d f o r all things t h a t possessed " e x t e n s i o n " — b u t n o t f o r G o d or soul, w h o s e existence i n the real i n c l u d e d n e i t h e r e x t e n s i o n n o r s u b o r d i n a t i o n t o the laws o f mechanics. Speculating a b o u t the soul's l o c a l i z a t i o n , Descartes postulated that i t resides i n the (still mysterious) p i n e a l gland. D ü r k h e i m addressed the m a t t e r o f l o c a l i z a t i o n differently. Free f r o m t h e h o t b r e a t h o f t h e I n q u i s i t i o n , as Descartes (1596—1650) was n o t , a n d freed also b y his i n t e r p r e t i v e use o f e x o t i c materials, D ü r k h e i m repeated t h e s o l u tions his A u s t r a l i a n subjects gave the same e m p i r i c a l p r o b l e m — f o r example, i n m a n y rituals, n o t a b l y those c o n d u c t e d i n the m i d s t a n d a f t e r m a t h o f m o u r n i n g . T h e practicalities o f r i t u a l d o i n g l o c a l i z e d the s o u l i n c e r t a i n o r gans a n d i n the b l o o d , w h i c h w e r e t h e r e b y revealed, i n his phrase, as " t h e soul i t s e l f seen f r o m o u t s i d e "

31

(a f o r m u l a t i o n that m a y have suggested t o

D ü r k h e i m s audience c e r t a i n p h i l o s o p h e r s o f a n t i q u i t y ) .

3 2

T h e Australians'

urge t o localize t h e s o u l set t h e m beside n o t o n l y t h e C a t h o l i c Descartes b u t also the

pagan

Empedocles

33

a n d t h e Jewish w r i t e r s o f L e v i t i c u s

and

D e u t e r o n o m y ( w h o m D ü r k h e i m cites), all s o l v i n g i t rather m o r e l i k e t h e Australians t h a n l i k e Descartes. B y Tylor's m o r e secularized day, the q u e s t i o n was n o t m e r e l y w h e r e the s o u l m i g h t b e b u t a m o r e radical o n e that w o u l d surely have p r o v o k e d the I n q u i s i t i o n i n t o a c t i o n : w h y p e o p l e ever imagined any such t h i n g . T y l o r h e l d t h a t t h e idea arose f r o m t h e universal b u t i n d i v i d ual e x p e r i e n c e o f d r e a m i n g . F o r T y l o r , d r e a m i n g posed a t h e o r e t i c a l p r o b l e m that nagged n i g h t l y at earliest h u m a n i t y ' s consciousness u n t i l i t was solved


XXV111

w i t h t h e i n v e n t i o n o f a d o u b l e , o r a soul. D e m o l i s h i n g this a r g u m e n t was the D ü r k h e i m w h o h a d already p r o n o u n c e d r e l i g i o u s ideas t o be g r o u n d e d i n a n d t o express the real. T h e s o l u t i o n T y l o r i m p u t e d t o " p r i m i t i v e s " failed that test. A f t e r r e v i e w i n g the m e r i t s o f T y l o r s enterprise, D ü r k h e i m proceeded t o carry o u t an i n t e l l e c t u a l death o f a thousand cuts. A c c o r d i n g t o Tylor, the idea o f the soul, o r d o u b l e , e x p l a i n e d ecstasy, catalepsy, apoplexy, and f a i n t i n g ; i l l nesses a n d health, g o o d f o r t u n e , b a d f o r t u n e , special abilities, o r a n y t h i n g else that departed slightly from the o r d i n a r y ; a n d o n d o w n an e x p a n d i n g list app l i e d t o an e x p a n d i n g p o p u l a t i o n o f souls. T h u s d i d an idea o f great i m p o r t for religions e v e r y w h e r e c o m e t o e x p l a i n e v e r y t h i n g . T h u s d i d t h e p o w e r o f souls increase. A n d thus d i d T y l o r s p r i m i t i v e m a n , h a v i n g c o m e u p w i t h the concept o f soul to solve a m e r e l y speculative p r o b l e m , finally e n d u p as "a captive i n this i m a g i n a r y w o r l d , even t h o u g h he is its creator and m o d e l . "

3 4

Here

is D ü r k h e i m s coup de grace: " E v e n i f the hypothesis o f the d o u b l e c o u l d satisf a c t o r i l y e x p l a i n all d r e a m i n g , a n d all d r e a m i n g c o u l d be explained i n n o o t h e r way, o n e w o u l d still have t o say w h y m a n t r i e d t o e x p l a i n i t at all. . . . [HJabit easily puts c u r i o s i t y t o sleep."

35

I n d e e d , even i f c u r i o s i t y h a d b e e n awake,

d r e a m i n g w o u l d n o t b y any stretch have posed the m o s t o b v i o u s p r o b l e m : " T h e r e was s o m e t h i n g i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e i n the fact that a l u m i n o u s disc o f such small diameter c o u l d be adequate to l i g h t t h e E a r t h — a n d yet, centuries w e n t b y before h u m a n i t y t h o u g h t o f r e s o l v i n g that c o n t r a d i c t i o n . " So, w h y s h o u l d h u m a n i t y , especially T y l o r s m a t e r i a l l y hard-pressed p r i m i t i v e h u m a n ity, have invented an idea fundamental t o v i r t u a l l y all religions, i n order t o solve the n i g h t t i m e puzzle o f d r e a m i n g , a t r i v i a l puzzle b y c o m p a r i s o n w i t h the o n e they bypassed i n t h e l i g h t o f day? D ü r k h e i m t h e n moves o n t o stiletto H e r b e r t Spencer's amendments t o T y l o r s theory. H e ends o n his p o i n t about the real:

In the end, religion is only a dream, systematized and lived but without foundation in the real. . . . Indeed, whether, in such conditions, the term "science of religions" can be used without impropriety is questionable. . . . What sort of a science is it whose principal discovery is to make the very object it treats disappear? 36

R e t u r n i n g i n C h a p t e r 8 t o treat the idea o f soul a c c o r d i n g t o his o w n p r i n c i p l e a b o u t t h e roots o f r e l i g i o n i n t h e real, D u r k h e i m gives his a r g u m e n t a s t r i k i n g e n d a n d t h e n a still m o r e s t r i k i n g coda. T h e idea o f soul, he concludes, actually was n e e d e d t o solve a p r o b l e m that the d a y t i m e course o f social life forced h u m a n reason t o c o n f r o n t : the indisputable reality that there


xxix

is death, yet c o m m u n i t i e s live o n , a n d there is b i r t h : " I n s u m , b e l i e f i n the i m m o r t a l i t y o f souls is the o n l y w a y m a n is able t o c o m p r e h e n d a fact that cannot fail t o attract his a t t e n t i o n : the p e r p e t u i t y o f the group's l i f e . "

37

So-

cially, he argued, i t s t o o d f o r that c o l l e c t i v e life; i n d i v i d u a l i z e d , i t s t o o d f o r the social part o f every h u m a n b e i n g , the h u m a n (as d i s t i n c t f r o m the animal) part. I t is at o n c e a discrete b e i n g a n d an ethereal substance, at o n c e i n d i v i d ual par excellence and yet s o c i a l .

38

I n the coda, D ü r k h e i m ' s evocations o f L e i b n i z a n d K a n t b e g i n far f r o m ethnography, b u t close t o us. U s i n g t h e i r ideas, he r e m i n d s us that soul, h o w ever slippery as a concept, is s o m e t h i n g h u m a n k i n d has c o m e t o k n o w v e r y w e l l f r o m o u r e x p e r i e n c e o f the real: " T h e idea o f s o u l l o n g was, and i n part still is, the m o s t universally h e l d f o r m o f the idea o f p e r s o n a l i t y . "

39

A t the

very end, therefore, w e a r r i v e at t h e n o t i o n o f soul as an u t t e r l y indispensable d a y t i m e c o n c e p t b y w h i c h h u m a n k i n d has expressed a v i v i d sense o f " p e r s o n " characterized b y discreteness a n d yet b y c o n t i n u i t y t h r o u g h t i m e . D e spite the analytical prickliness f o r science positive o f this reality, t o call its reality " n o n e m p i r i c a l " w o u l d be o d d .

4 0

A f t e r a l l , w e d o n o t o r d i n a r i l y have s o m e -

t h i n g n o n e m p i r i c a l i n m i n d w h e n w e t h i n k o f " p e r s o n " as a physical b o d y plus s o m e t h i n g m o r e . A t the same t i m e , h o w e v e r , t o tackle the s o u l as an e m p i r i c a l m a t t e r is alive w i t h difficulties. Perhaps f o r this reason, D ü r k h e i m s att e m p t t o set study o f i t i n t o the frame o f e m p i r i c a l scholarship has b e e n almost c o m p l e t e l y i g n o r e d . So far as I a m aware, t h e o n l y recent scholarship that puts t o use D ü r k h e i m s elegant r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f s o u l o n secular t e r r a i n 4

o f t h e real is M i c h e l Foucault's, i n Discipline and Punish. ^ I suspect that this r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the s o u l f r o m the r a w m a t e r i a l o f real experience takes us close t o the i n t u i t i o n a l sources o f D ü r k h e i m s w o r k o n r e l i g i o n . I suddenly felt those sources nearby m e one h o t A u g u s t a f t e r n o o n as I c o n t e n d e d w i t h the chapter o n m o u r n i n g rites ( B o o k T h r e e , C h a p t e r 5 ) , w h i c h is f u l l o f evidence from Australia about sin, the soul, a n d the things that happen t o o r are d o n e about b o t h . A t o n e p o i n t , the Book of Common Prayer phrase "remission o f s i n " suddenly came u n b i d d e n from depths o f the heard but d i m l y u n d e r s t o o d formulas o f m y o w n c h u r c h g o i n g c h i l d h o o d . I t came t o m e i n a flash that D ü r k h e i m ' s m i n d m u s t have h a d strata o f the same sort. C o n sider the Modeh, a prayer o f thanks said from early c h i l d h o o d every m o r n i n g , even before w a s h i n g , b y means o f w h i c h Jews t h a n k G o d f o r the r e t u r n o f the soul after its departure each n i g h t .

4 2

I suspect that, o n an i n h e r e n d y elusive

topic like soul, D ü r k h e i m s o w n personal archaeology, available consciously and unconsciously, enabled h i m t o e n c o u n t e r religious n o t i o n s o t h e r t h a n as "a b l i n d m a n t r y i n g t o talk about c o l o u r . " C o n s i d e r this from D ü r k h e i m :


XXX

The soul is not merely distinct from its physical envelope, as the inside is from the outside. . . . [Ijt elicits in some degree those feelings that are everywhere reserved for that which is divine. If it is not made into a god, it is seen at least as a spark of the divinity. This fundamental characteristic would be inexplicable if the idea of the soul was no more than a prescientific solution to the problem of dreams. Since there is nothing in dreaming that can awaken religious emotion, the same must be true of the cause that accounts for dreaming. However, if the soul is a bit of divine substance, it represents something within us that is other than ourselves. 43

N o w consider this passage b y a J e w i s h a u t h o r i t y o f o u r o w n day: To be sure, the world as a whole may be viewed as a divine manifestation, but the world remains as something else than God, while the soul of man, in its depths, may be considered a part of God. . . . [W]e speak of only an aspect of God, or of a divine spark, as constituting the essence of the inner life of man. . . . Every soul is thus a fragment of the divine light. 44

N o t to belabor a p o i n t that c a n n o t be d e v e l o p e d here, l e t m e i n v i t e f u r t h e r study b y n o t i n g t h a t D u r k h e i m analyzes A u s t r a l i a n n o t i o n s such as t r a n s m i g r a t i o n a n d an o r i g i n a l f u n d o f souls a n d that t h e passage j u s t q u o t e d f r o m goes o n t o t a l k a b o u t Knesset Israel, " t h e p o o l i n w h i c h all t h e souls i n the w o r l d are c o n t a i n e d as a single essence." I f D u r k h e i m ' s personal e x p e r i ence is p a r t o f Formes i n this w a y a n d i f religion's roots i n t h e real p r e o c c u p y h i m , as I have s h o w n t h e y d o , t h e n w e m u s t take v e r y seriously his remarks addressed t o "free believers" a b o u t t h e injustice o f a n a t h e m a t i z i n g Formes as " i r r e l i g i ó n . " T o m a k e this p o i n t , however, is n o t t o l a u n c h a silly search f o r correspondences b e t w e e n D u r k h e i m ' s r e l i g i o u s u p b r i n g i n g a n d his t h e o r i z ing.

4 5

R a t h e r , j u s t as m y o w n understandings o f r e l i g i o n c o u l d u n p r e d i c t a b l y

mediate m y a t t e m p t t o u n d e r s t a n d D u r k h e i m , so t o o m u s t his o w n early r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e have g i v e n h i m an u n a v o i d a b l e — a n d yet i n v a l u a b l e — d o o r i n t o the subject o f this w o r k . I n j u s t i f y i n g his m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c h o i c e o f s t u d y i n g t o t e m i s m as a useful lens t h r o u g h w h i c h t o study r e l i g i o n i n general, D u r k h e i m observes that sometimes " n a t u r e spontaneously makes s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s . "

46

Analogously, I

suggest, D u r k h e i m ' s o w n e x p e r i e n c e p r o v i d e d a "spontaneous s i m p l i f i c a t i o n " that enabled h i m t o m o v e the t o p i c o f r e l i g i o n away f r o m its capacity (or its confused a n d c o n f u s i n g incapacity) t o give an a c c o u n t o f t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , b u t instead t o explore, and e x p l o r e p r o f o u n d l y , its capacity t o deliver a h u m a n l y shaped w o r l d t o that v e r y w o r l d ' s h u m a n shapers. A s he says i n the C o n c l u s i o n , "[DJebates o n t h e t o p i c o f r e l i g i o n m o s t o f t e n t u r n a r o u n d and


XXXI

about o n the q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r r e l i g i o n can o r c a n n o t be r e c o n c i l e d w i t h science. . . . B u t the b e l i e v e r s — t h e m e n w h o , l i v i n g a r e l i g i o u s life, have a direct sense o f w h a t r e l i g i o n is made of-—object that, i n terms o f t h e i r dayto-day experience, this w a y o f seeing does n o t r i n g true. . . . Its t r u e f u n c t i o n is t o m a k e us act a n d t o help us l i v e . "

47

This once-practicing m e m b e r o f a tightly k n i t religious c o m m u n i t y w h o abandoned r e l i g i o n , b u t w h o s e scientific w o r k was e n r i c h e d b y the fact that certain core i n t u i t i o n s o f r e l i g i o n d i d n o t a b a n d o n h i m , k n e w an o f f - t h e m a r k t h e o r y o f r e l i g i o n w h e n he saw one. I t is n o surprise t o find h i m s c o r n ful o f w r i t e r s w h o t h i n k t h e y have u n d o n e r e l i g i o n m e r e l y b y d e b u n k i n g its account o f nature. T o m i x a m e t a p h o r , the h u m a n K a n g a r o o clan m e m b e r s we v i e w t h r o u g h his lens h a d b i g g e r t h e o r e t i c a l fish t o f r y t h a n the kangaroos leaping a r o u n d t h e m . A n d so i t w i l l n o t be D ü r k h e i m w h o discovers a m o n g the Australians " t h e t h o r o u g h g o i n g i d i o c y " that some authors ascribed t o "primitives."

48

I t w i l l be D ü r k h e i m w h o again a n d again refutes that d i s c o v -

ery, o u t o f those same authors' o w n evidence. But

f o r m y o w n chance e n c o u n t e r w i t h a p r o b l e m o f translation, I

w o u l d n o t have guessed the c o m p l e x strata that u n d e r l i e Formes. M o s t c o m mentators w a l k b a c k a n d f o r t h o n the g r o u n d d i r e c t l y above t h e m . W . S. F. P i c k e r i n g a n d L e w i s A . Coser at least p o i n t o u t t h a t those layers are d o w n there a n d are i m p o r t a n t .

4 9

B u t consider A l v i n G o u l d n e r s s t u n n i n g charac-

t e r i z a t i o n o f D ü r k h e i m s t h o u g h t as "Catholic o r g a n i c i s m . "

50

A n d Aron, in

his magisterial c o m p a r a t i v e p o r t r a i t u r e o f n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y masters, paints D ü r k h e i m first,

i g n o r i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o f r e l i g i o u s b a c k g r o u n d altogether

u n t i l he arrives at his second p o r t r a i t , o f M a x W e b e r , a great sociologist o f rel i g i o n w h o , he observes, " b e l o n g [ e d ] t o a p r o f o u n d l y r e l i g i o u s f a m i l y ( a l though probably a nonbeliever himself)."

51

B u t i t is W e b e r w h o called

h i m s e l f r e l i g i o u s l y " u n m u s i c a l , " w h i l e D ü r k h e i m t o l d an audience that he was n o t b l i n d t o r e l i g i o n s ' c o l o r . I n general, I f o u n d l i t t l e c o n f i r m a t i o n f o r m y o w n sense that D u r k h e i m ' s r e l i g i o u s b a c k g r o u n d m a t t e r e d i n w h a t he said and w r o t e .

5 2

S o m e w r i t e r s apparently believe t h a t t r u t h can be a r r i v e d at

f r o m n o w h e r e i n particular, o r f r o m e v e r y w h e r e at once, a n d that the person is irrelevant. I n t h e case o f testing hypotheses, that v i e w is doubdess c o r r e c t . I n t h e case o f genius, however, i t is self-contradictory. Creative genius is b y its nature i n d i v i d u a l , a n d its sources are quintessentially personal.


XXX11

INDIVIDUAL MINDS A N D YET COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS: SOME KEY ARGUMENTS I N FORMES O r d i n a r i l y m y task w o u l d n o w b e t o render an a c c o u n t o f D ü r k h e i m s i n t e l lectual w o r l d : the influences h e i n h e r i t e d a n d passed o n , the debates he w a g e d w i t h his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , the understandings h e t o o k f o r g r a n t e d b u t that w e c a n n o t — i n short, a w o r l d o f texts i n t o w h i c h Formes fits. T h e r e is, o f course, such a w o r l d , b u t u n d e r s t a n d i n g i t can b e left f o r later w i t h o u t i m mediate loss t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g the central arguments o f Formes. O n e set o f questions t o be d e l v e d i n t o elsewhere w o u l d c e r t a i n l y be D u r k h e i m ' s c o n versations w i t h K a n t , a b o u t t h e p r o b l e m o f k n o w l e d g e a n d a b o u t m o r a l o b l i g a t i o n , w h i c h m e r i t s a k i n d o f a t t e n t i o n that his t r a d i t i o n a l audience o f sociologists a n d a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s has i n general n o t g i v e n i t ; a n d so does his dialogue w i t h A u g u s t e C o m t e , a p h i l o s o p h e r n o w r e m e m b e r e d b y m o s t o f us o n l y via t w o o r three c a n n e d characterizations—academic s o u n d bites, so to speak.

53

A n o t h e r w o u l d be t h e book's r e l a t i o n t o the versions o f p s y c h o l -

o g y that represented the state o f the art i n E u r o p e at the t u r n o f this c e n tury.

5 4

Finally, there is a w h o l e set o f questions that are p e r e n n i a l and that

have t h e same rewards as p l a y i n g scales: w h e t h e r Formes (like D u r k h e i m ' s 55

w o r k generally) is o r is n o t a h i s t o r i c a l — a n d , i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h that, does o r does n o t b e l o n g t o the miscellany o f t h e o r e t i c a l n o t i o n s that came t o be 56

called f u n c t i o n a l i s m . I leave all those questions aside f o r n o w . I n o t e b u t leave aside controversies a b o u t the use D ü r k h e i m made o f the A u s t r a l i a n e t h n o g r a p h y available i n his t i m e (and, t o a lesser e x t e n t , N a t i v e A m e r i c a n a n d others), o n the g r o u n d s that even f u r i o u s a n d e m o t i o n a l acad e m i c debates o f t h e past are n o t always r i v e t i n g , o r especially e n l i g h t e n i n g , i n the present. T h i s is n o t t o say that the e t h n o g r a p h i c details can safely be s k i p p e d . As w e l e a r n r i g h t f r o m t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n , D ü r k h e i m intends that his o w n r o u t e t h r o u g h t h e A u s t r a l i a n e t h n o g r a p h y s h o u l d lead t o " m a n i n g e n e r a l " — a n d " m o r e especially," h e says, "present-day m a n , f o r there is n o n e o t h e r that w e have a greater interest i n k n o w i n g w e l l . " T o t e m i s m seemed t o h i m a usefully s i m p l i f y i n g case that w o u l d reveal " t h e r e l i g i o u s nature o f m a n . . . a f u n d a m e n t a l a n d p e r m a n e n t aspect o f h u m a n i t y . "

57

So a l t h o u g h

Formes displays his grasp o f t h e ethnographies o n t o t e m i s m that w e r e available t o h i m , i t is far less an investigation o f h o w o r w h y h u m a n beings c o m e t o i m a g i n e themselves as plants o r animals t h a n an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f h o w t h e y c o m e t o i m a g i n e themselves as h u m a n beings. Since the fact j u m p s o f f the page that t o t e m i c c o m m u n i t i e s m u s t be i m a g i n e d , t h e i r study enables us t o


xxxin

grasp the same fact i n r e l a t i o n t o o u r o w n : T o exist at a l l , all c o m m u n i t i e s must be i m a g i n e d . W h a t his i n t e l l e c t u a l descendant B e n e d i c t A n d e r s o n has so w e l l s h o w n f o r large-scale t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y a n t i c o l o n i a l n a t i o n a l i s m is also t r u e o f any face-to-face c o m m u n i t y and o f t h e smallest A u s t r a l i a n c l a n .

5 8

B u t clearly, n o o n e today s h o u l d read Formes i f he o r she is o n l y interested i n the r e l i g i o n s o f A u s t r a l i a .

59

Finally, I w i l l n o t repeat here w h a t nearly three generations o f c r i t i q u e have b y n o w s h o w n i n great detail about w h e r e He t h e shortcomings of Formes and o f D u r k h e i m ' s w o r k m o r e generally. I cannot d o better t h a n Steven Lukes s intellectual b i o g r a p h y o f D u r k h e i m , i n its intellectual c o n t e x t , of religion,

6 2

61

6 0

R o b e r t Nisbet's analysis o f his t h o u g h t

o r W S. F. Pickering's close study o f his sociology

t o name o n l y three q u i t e different studies o u t o f a l o n g and often

distinguished list. I make n o a t t e m p t here t o r e v i e w the vast and g r o w i n g l i t e r ature. I n a d d i t i o n , since I have made i t m y task t o s h o w w h y the b o o k can still be read w i t h e x c i t e m e n t , I bypass m a n y difficulties and l e g i t i m a t e qualifications. Instead, I focus o n key bits a n d pieces o f D u r k h e i m ' s a r g u m e n t that are still i m m e d i a t e l y provocative, and that m o v e t h r o u g h the w o r l d as canned characterizations o f the b o o k , part o f an intellectual w o r l d about D u r k h e i m ' s s o c i o l o g y o f r e l i g i o n . A f t e r b r i e f l y c o n s i d e r i n g the elements o f his famous b u t contested d e f i n i t i o n o f r e l i g i o n , let us t u r n t o three such t r a d i t i o n a l academic sound bites, each o f w h i c h has always i m p l i e d p o t e n t i a l l y hostile queries: D u r kheim's " e q u a t i o n " o f r e l i g i o n and society, o r G o d a n d society,

63

his use o f c o l -

lective concepts, and, foremost a m o n g those, his sacred/profane d i c h o t o m y . T h i s w o r l d about D u r k h e i m contains a g o o d deal o f d i s t o r t i o n , i n p a r t the legacy o f Joseph W a r d Swain's m o n u m e n t a l 1915 translation. D i s t o r t i o n s arise n o t o n l y f r o m inaccuracies i n Swain's translating, b u t also from t h e c h a l lenges o f an E n g l i s h t e x t that discourages readers from t a c k l i n g Formes u n d e r t h e i r o w n i n t e l l e c t u a l steam. Its d i f f i c u l t E n g l i s h invites reliance o n i n t e r p r e tational clues f r o m various "trots." I f w e f o l l o w the o u t - o f - c o n t e x t bites t o t h e i r i n t e l l e c t u a l places i n Formes itself, h o w e v e r , w e g a i n keys t o the b o o k as a w h o l e . S o m e o f the m o s t persistendy t r o u b l e s o m e o f those bites are f o u n d i n B o o k T w o , C h a p t e r 7. T h e r e , t h e ideas o f t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e a n d force are d e r i v e d as o u t p u t s o f collective life, that is, as o u t p u t s o f t h e mechanisms b y w h i c h c o l l e c t i v e life is p r o d u c e d . I f those ideas d i d n o t exist, t h e y o r s o m e t h i n g q u i t e l i k e t h e m w o u l d have t o be i n v e n t e d . I w i l l t u r n t o this c e n t r a l l y i m p o r t a n t chapter o f Formes after e x a m i n i n g D u r k h e i m ' s m a n n e r o f d e f i n i n g his overall subject.


XXXIV

Religion Denned D ü r k h e i m defines r e l i g i o n i n B o o k O n e , C h a p t e r 1: A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them. 64

Bear three points i n m i n d . First, r e l i g i o n is n o t d e f i n e d i n terms o f a n y t h i n g that w o u l d t u r n a m a n of science positive away f r o m observable p h e n o m e n a , or the real—not d i v i n i t y , the o t h e r w o r l d l y , the miraculous, o r the supernatural. Second, the phrase " u n i f i e d system" postulates that religious beliefs and rites are n o t hodgepodges b u t are i n t e r n a l l y ordered. T h i r d , the objects o f those rites a n d beliefs acquire t h e i r religious status as sacred, o r "set apart and f o r b i d d e n , " as a result o f j o i n t a c t i o n b y people w h o set t h e m apart a n d w h o , by the same stroke, constitute themselves a " m o r a l c o m m u n i t y " o r "a C h u r c h . " O n c e again, t h e n , r e l i g i o n is social, social, social. I n a d d i t i o n , the " m o r a l " i n the t e r m " m o r a l c o m m u n i t y " specifies that the groups are n o t hodgepodges either b u t are made u p o f individuals w h o have m u t u a l l y recognized and recognizable identities that set t h e m , c o g n i t i v e l y a n d n o r m a t i v e l y , o n

shared

h u m a n t e r r a i n . H e n c e , the q u a l i t y o f sacredness exists i n the real, and its crea t i o n is the observable p r o d u c t o f collective d o i n g . H e r e is one reason that D ü r k h e i m f o u n d i t attractive t o handle rites analytically as b e i n g p r i o r t o b e liefs.

65

T h i s d e f i n i t i o n foreshadows the o r g a n i z a t i o n of Formes as a w h o l e . B o o k T w o examines t o t e m i c beliefs insofar as t h e y seem t o h i m j o i n t l y t o c o n s t i t u t e a " u n i f i e d system" o f core beliefs; at t h e same t i m e i t associates those b e liefs w i t h o n e k i n d o f m o r a l c o m m u n i t y , w h i c h D ü r k h e i m calls "social o r g a n i z a t i o n based o n clans."

66

B o o k T h r e e examines those beliefs as t h e y are

b e i n g c o l l e c t i v e l y done, e n t e r i n g the real t h r o u g h the p e r f o r m a n c e o f rites. I t makes an analytical d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t w o m o m e n t s o f r i t u a l d o i n g that t y p i c a l l y o c c u r simultaneously o n t h e g r o u n d : d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , o r d o i n g that creates the sacredness o f p e o p l e o r things (negative rites, characterized b y sett i n g apart people a n d things, t h r o u g h the various procedures described), a n d i n t e g r a t i o n , o r d o i n g that takes place a m i d already sanctified p e o p l e o r things (positive rites, characterized b y the b r i n g i n g together o f sanctified things and people, again b y v a r i o u s p r o c e d u r e s ) .

67


xxxv

The God/Society Equation V i r t u a l l y everyone w h o has e n c o u n t e r e d Formes is stopped dead w h e n D ü r k h e i m says, "Is i t n o t that the g o d a n d the society are o n e a n d the same?" F r o m this passage has fallen the nugget that b y " e q u a t i n g " the g o d w i t h the society, D ü r k h e i m "reduces" the g o d t o the society (sometimes revealingly s h o r t handed as G o d , capital " G , " and society). M a n y discussions about the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Formes converge here, at his famous " e q u a t i o n . " N o w , i f w e go t o the actual statement i n the actual a r g u m e n t , w e recover a fact that is sometimes lost sight of: D ü r k h e i m s question i n that chapter is h o w i t comes about that rationally c o n s t i t u t e d Australians ascribe p o w e r t o t o t e m i c beings and i n d e e d t o s y m b o l i c representations o f t h e m . As usual, he seeks t o f i n d the basis o f that i n the real. H i s p r o b l e m is n o t w h o , w h a t , o r h o w great t h e g o d is b u t h o w a science o f r e l i g i o n can t u r n its b e a m o f l i g h t o n the religious object w i t h o u t " m a k i n g i t disappear." T h e a r g u m e n t s u r r o u n d i n g t h e n u g g e t w i l l clarify:

[The totem] expresses and symbolizes two different kinds of things. From one point of view, it is the outward and visible form of what I have called the totemic principle or god; and from another, it is also the symbol of a particular society that is called the clan. It is the flag of the clan, the sign by which each clan is distinguished from the others, the visible mark of its distinctiveness, and a mark that is borne by everything that in any way belongs to the clan: men, animals, and things. Thus if the totem is the symbol of both the god and the society, is this not because the god and the society are one and the same? H o w could the emblem of the group have taken the form of that quasi-divinity if the group and the divinity were two distinct realities? Thus the god of the clan, the totemic principle, can be none other than the clan itself, but the clan transfigured and imagined in the physical form of the plant or animal that serves as totem. 68

D u r k h e i m ' s q u e s t i o n a n d his answer have t e n d e d t o b r i n g o u t c u r i o u s l y t h e o l o g i c a l anxieties and reticences. Suppose he h a d c o m m i t t e d a " r e d u c t i o n . "

6 9

W o u l d i t m e a n that some

necessary t h i n g is lost? I f so, w h a t ? F o r c e r t a i n believers, t h e answer o b v i o u s l y is that G o d , capital " G , " is lost (and so is " t h e g o d , " i f w e have i n m i n d b e lievers e c u m e n i c a l e n o u g h t o battle f o r the pagan Greeks' Zeus, say, o r f o r those aspects o f t h e e m p e r o r o f m i d - t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y Japanese that w e n t b e y o n d the o r d i n a r i l y h u m a n ) . B u t w h o is G o d t h a t secular social scientists s h o u l d take n o t e o f h i m ?

7 0

F o r secular social scientists, o r f o r m e n a n d

w o m e n o f science positive, r e l i g i o n c a n n o t be altered b y s u b t r a c t i n g a supernatural b e i n g f r o m i t . T h e i r m e t h o d s b e g i n f r o m u n b e l i e f (professionally,


XXXVI

n o t necessarily i n t e r m s o f personal c o n v i c t i o n ) i n a n y t h i n g that c a n n o t i n p r i n c i p l e be observed b y anyone w h o uses those m e t h o d s . T h r o u g h those m e t h o d s o f o b s e r v a t i o n , p e o p l e w i t h G o d l o o k exactly the same as p e o p l e without God.

7 1

N o supernatural r e a l m o r b e i n g is available t o a ( m e t h o d -

o l o g i c a l l y ) u n b e l i e v i n g social scientist, w h o can c l a i m access o n l y t o nature, n o t t o supernature. T o a believer, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , i t is unclear that anyone else's supernatural r e a l m is available. So unless s o c i o l o g y m u s t be made c o n sonant w i t h t h e o l o g y , n o t h i n g necessary is lost. A reader n o w w o n d e r i n g w h e t h e r the i n t e g r i t y o f t h e o l o g y is t h e r e b y c o m p r o m i s e d has a r r i v e d o n the fascinating a n d a m b i g u o u s s p i r i t u a l t e r r i t o r y p r o m i s e d b y the

quotations

f r o m D u r k h e i m w i t h w h i c h I began this I n t r o d u c t i o n . T h e r e is n o n e e d t o resolve the q u e s t i o n . T o keep i t o p e n is t o keep pace w i t h an agile g u i d e t o this t e r r i t o r y . If, alternatively, w e asked w h a t necessary t h i n g m u s t be k e p t o r added, some w o u l d argue that n o t G o d o r gods b u t belief o r i e n t e d t o h i m o r her, o r t o t h e m , m u s t be i n c l u d e d .

7 2

F o r D u r k h e i m , h o w e v e r , r e l i g i o n was "a f u n -

d a m e n t a l and p e r m a n e n t aspect o f h u m a n i t y , " t h o u g h gods w e r e n o t a f u n d a m e n t a l a n d p e r m a n e n t aspect o f r e l i g i o n . I t thus f o l l o w e d that n e i t h e r gods themselves n o r beliefs a b o u t gods c o u l d be essential. W h a t i f w e disagreed, insisting that observed b e l i e v i n g was essential, c o n t e n d i n g s o m e t h i n g l i k e this: I f gods and t h e supernatural c a n n o t be observed b y scientific means, a c t i o n o r i e n t e d t o t h e m o r presupposing b e l i e f i n t h e m can be. B u t i f o n l y b e l i e f i n supernatural beings is the v i c t i m , t h e n D u r k h e i m has a p o w e r f u l r e p l y : N o t h i n g durable is lost, for w h a t is m o r e f l e e t i n g o r h a r d t o observe t h a n subjective belief? W h a t is m o r e o p e n t o d e r a i l m e n t , f r o m o n e m o m e n t t o the n e x t , w h i m s i c a l l y o r i n the c o l d l i g h t o f observable fact (recall those v e r y things w h o s e "resistance" r e l i g i o n s " c o u l d n o t have o v e r c o m e " ) ? A n d b e sides, f r o m t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f t h e social scientist, believers i n gods l o o k e x actly t h e same as unbelievers i n g o d s — a n d exactly t h e same as people w i t h beliefs i n o r a b o u t o t h e r t h i n g s . T h e subjective is n o h a n d i e r t h a n the supernatural, and b u t s l i g h t l y m o r e accessible. I n those t e r m s , w e can b e g i n t o see t h e advantage i n D u r k h e i m ' s c h o i c e o f o b s e r v i n g r e l i g i o u s ideas

(représenta-

tions, t h e subject o f B o o k T w o ) as b e i n g (observably) done (as attitudes rituelles, t h e subject o f B o o k T h r e e ) a n d , hence, w h y even his e x p o s i t i o n o f the ideas ( B o o k T w o ) resorts t o s l o w - m o t i o n , set-piece d e p i c t i o n s o f t o t e m i c rites, g i v i n g t h e m an almost y o u - a r e - t h e r e vividness. As a w a y o u t o f the p r e d i c a m e n t o f e v a p o r a t i n g t o o l s , i t m i g h t be t e m p t i n g t o accept b e l i e f as g i v e n , t a k i n g u p t h e W . I . Thomases' famous s o c i o l o g i c a l c r u t c h : W h a t e v e r is b e l i e v e d i n as real is real i n its consequences. B u t t o regard b e l i e f as a s i m p l e g i v e n is also t o s k i r t t h e o b v i o u s q u e s t i o n o f h o w


xxxvn

people c o m e t o treat s o m e t h i n g as real that t o the u n b e l i e v i n g o n l o o k e r c a n n o t be. T h e w o r l d o f r e l i g i o n is f u l l o f i m p r o b a b l e things: C h r i s t i a n s ' I m maculate C o n c e p t i o n o r t h e i r life f r o m death; Aztecs' sunrises caused b y h u m a n sacrifices; L i t h u a n i a n s ' g a i n i n g w e l l - b e i n g f r o m the bones o f St. C a s i m i r ; Australians' black m e n w h o are also w h i t e cockatoos. A n d as D ü r k h e i m h i m s e l f p o i n t s o u t , deadpan, p e o p l e l o o k m o s t l i k e relatives and friends, n o t l i k e plants o r a n i m a l s .

73

" R e a l i n its consequences" q u i c k l y wears t h i n .

W h i c h consequences? W h a t reality? I f t h e faithful are t h o u g h t o f as r a t i o n a l l y c o n s t i t u t e d h u m a n beings, w h a t w o u l d cause t h e m t o fly i n t h e face o f w h a t they can observe f r o m m o m e n t t o m o m e n t and year after year? A n d is o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g advanced i f w e assume t h e r e l i g i o u s f a i t h f u l o f all ages m e r e l y to be p e o p l e w h o can be s o l d t h e B r o o k l y n B r i d g e , n o t j u s t o n c e b u t over and over again? U l t i m a t e l y , t h e n , t o leave b e l i e f u n e x a m i n e d is t o g a i n a mentally incompetent human. H e n c e , o n c e again, D ü r k h e i m s p o i n t a b o u t t h e real holds i m p o r t a n c e : A h u m a n i n s t i t u t i o n that endures m u s t necessarily be f o u n d e d o n s o m e t h i n g that anyone, n o t j u s t those certifiably afflicted w i t h " t h o r o u g h g o i n g idiocy," can accept as b e i n g really r e a l — n o t j u s t "believed i n " as real a n d n o t j u s t p a t r o n ized as "believed i n . " T h e w h o l e o f B o o k O n e spectacularly demolishes t h e o ries o f r e l i g i o n t h a t w a n t t o be scientific b u t w h o s e l o g i c i m p l i e s that religion's objects are unreal, and its subjects eternally o p e n t o b e i n g sold the B r o o k l y n Bridge.

7 4

H o w t h e objects o f r e l i g i o n can be real f o r a secular social scientist is

the q u e s t i o n D ü r k h e i m asks his reader t o explore w i t h h i m . H i s p o i n t is n o t t o d i m i n i s h G o d b u t t o lift i n t o v i e w the reality o f G o d w o r s h i p p e d , the reality o f the experience o f G o d , a n d the r a t i o n a l i t y o f those w h o experience G o d . T h e C h a p t e r 7 academic s o u n d b i t e j u s t p i c k e d apart belongs t o an e x t e n d e d a r g u m e n t establishing that " r e l i g i o u s forces are real forces," n o t m e r e figments o f m y t h i c o r m y s t i c belief. I f w e b e g i n again, n o t at t h a t m e m o r a b l e s h o w - s t o p p i n g l i n e a b o u t the g o d a n d t h e society as b e i n g o n e b u t i n its i n tellectual c o n t e x t w i t h i n Formes, w e n e e d n o t h o p a r o u n d t o a v o i d t r e a d i n g o n the t h e o l o g i c a l a n d metaphysical feet o f social researchers a n d t h e i r s u b jects. T o start, a l l w e have t o d o is concede t h a t sometimes the objects o f r e l i g i o n strain the sense o f w h a t is real b u t d o n o t necessarily lose the adherent for that reason. (Besides, f o r D ü r k h e i m , the v e r y w a r p a n d w o o f o f r e l i g i o n s is s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n reality "as t h e senses s h o w i t t o h i m . "

7 5

A n d yet

w i t h o u t this h u m a n i m a g i n i n g b e y o n d reality as t h e senses s h o w i t , science w o u l d be impossible.) R e l i g i o u s c o n c e p t i o n s that d o strain c r e d u l i t y pose t h e question D ü r k h e i m tries t o answer. H i s r e l i g i o u s h u m a n is capable o f n o t i c i n g religion's e m p i r i c a l discrepancies. E v e n i f i t was t r u e , as L a C a p r a has ( I t h i n k , m i s t a k e n l y ) suggested, that D ü r k h e i m is o n a " T h o m i s t " m i s s i o n o f


XXXVU1

r e c o n c i l i n g f a i t h w i t h reason, h e w o u l d be d o i n g so precisely because i t is b e l i e v i n g that is i n h e r e n t l y p r o b l e m a t i c f o r t h e f a i t h f u l .

76

D o i n g , o n the o t h e r

h a n d , is n o t ; hence, yet a n o t h e r r o u t e t o t h e p r i o r i t y D ü r k h e i m gives t o rites over beliefs a n d its usefulness as a w a y o f t h i n k i n g a b o u t t h e persistence o f beliefs that are nonsensical o n t h e i r f a c e .

77

B u t n o t o n l y that: Since w e speak

o f " T h o m i s m , " let us r e m e m b e r that T h o m a s A q u i n a s came centuries after Jesus's personal f r i e n d T h o m a s , w h o m the sophisticated faithful o f a n t i q u i t y passed d o w n the ages as an eternal f i g m e n t o f r e l i g i o u s life: d o u b t .

7 8

I f reli-

g i o n c o u l d exist only o n c o n d i t i o n o f b e i n g b e l i e v e d o r even believable, its life w o u l d have h a d n u m b e r e d days, speedily exhausted. T h e l i n e a b o u t the g o d a n d t h e society as o n e and t h e same can be t h o u g h t about i n yet a n o t h e r way. C o n s i d e r the r e l i g i o u s w o r l d i n t o w h i c h G o d , o r " t h e g o d , " sent t h e T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s ( E x o d u s 2 0 ) . N o t e that the first five c o n c e r n t h e relationship o f humans t o G o d , a n d t h e second five, that o f h u m a n s t o o n e another. F u r t h e r m o r e , the passage contains n o i n v i t a t i o n t o regard e i t h e r set as h a v i n g a different o r h i g h e r status t h a n t h e other, as b e i n g o b l i g a t o r y i n a w a y that the o t h e r is n o t — o r , f o r t h a t matter, as b e i n g separately c o n c e i v e d . I n terms o f t h a t t h e o l o g i c a l w o r l d , the c o n c e p t i o n s o f the g o d a n d o f t h e society are inseparable. T o say that " t h e g o d a n d the soc i e t y are o n e a n d t h e same" is n o t necessarily t o say any m o r e t h a n G o d d i d , speaking t h r o u g h Moses. I t seems t o m e that Formes t h r o u g h o u t has that w o r l d i n v i e w . I f t h e p o i n t j u s t m a d e is at all c o n t e n t i o u s , and I have n o d o u b t i t is, t h e n t h e contentiousness itself gives a p o i n t t o D ü r k h e i m s strategy i n c h o o s i n g an e x o t i c case.

The Case for a Simplifying Case L e t us n o w n o t i c e h o w D ü r k h e i m prepares the t o o l o f using an e x o t i c case t o simplify. First, h e assumes t h e Australians t o be r a t i o n a l l y c o n s t i t u t e d h u mans, as are t h e i r Parisian c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . T h e r e is n o q u e s t i o n o f one's b e i n g c i v i l i z e d a n d t h e o t h e r n o t , o r o f t h e t w o groups' h a v i n g different m e n t a l c o n s t i t u t i o n s . H e presumes the Australians t o h o l d the same t i d e o f " m a n " as Parisians do, a n d i n t h e same r i g h t . " M a n is m a n o n l y because he is c i v i l i z e d , " 79

he says. T h e r e f o r e Australia is as g o o d a place as any o t h e r f o r s t u d y i n g " t h e religious nature o f m a n , " a n d i t has an advantage: Small-scale, s t o n e - t o o l using societies w e r e " s i m p l e " a n d thus p e r m i t t e d a degree o f c l a r i t y a n d distinctness i n t h i n k i n g that France d i d n o t . Formes exemplifies a single w e l l - c o n d u c t e d e x p e r i m e n t w h o s e results m a y be p u t f o r w a r d as h o l d i n g f o r all cases that can be s h o w n t o be o f the same k i n d . F u r t h e r m o r e , as C o m t e


xxxix

had said, " T h e simplest p h e n o m e n a are the m o s t g e n e r a l . "

80

Boiled down

to its c o n s t i t u e n t elements, r e l i g i o n i n A u s t r a l i a is r e l i g i o n a n y w h e r e else. Second, i n u s i n g e t h n o g r a p h y t o study r e l i g i o n , D u r k h e i m follows

ex-

actly a p r o c e d u r e others h a d used i n a t t a c k i n g r e l i g i o n : t a k i n g e x o t i c facts t o expose r e l i g i o n universally as d e l u s i o n , f a b r i c a t i o n , a n d the like. W h a t is d e l u s i o n a n d so o n i n r e l i g i o n a m o n g the n a k e d " X ' s " is also d e l u s i o n a n d so o n i n r e l i g i o n a m o n g t h e w e l l - c o v e r e d consumers o f haute couture. B u t he t h e n stands t h a t p r o c e d u r e o n its head, m a k i n g A u s t r a l i a serve as a s i m ple

and, b y t h e same stroke, a t o u g h case f o r religion's roots i n t h e real.

D e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e t o u g h case w i l l c a r r y the easier one: W h a t is t r u e for t h e t u r n - o f - t h e - c e n t u r y A u s t r a l i a n w i l l t h e n be t r u e f o r the t u r n - o f - t h e - c e n t u r y Parisian.

81

D u r k h e i m uses t h e same r h e t o r i c a l tactic i n a r g u i n g the reality o f " r e l i gious forces": t a k i n g t h e idea of tnana o r t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e as t h e t r u l y t o u g h case. W h a t is s h o w n t o be t r u e o f the less credible real w i l l be established f o r the m o r e c r e d i b l e o n e . B e f o r e s h o w i n g h o w this t o u g h case also simplifies, however, I b r i e f l y digress, f o r there is o n e c r i t i c i s m against D u r k h e i m ' s use o f e t h n o g r a p h y t h a t can derail us i f bypassed. D u r k h e i m was w r o n g , i t is said, to i m a g i n e that the societies a n d r e l i g i o n s o f Australia w e r e " s i m p l e . " T h e i r ideas w e r e as elaborate o r sophisticated as anyone else's, a n d since those ideas were as m u c h subject t o h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t a n d change as anyone else's, he h a d a m i s t a k e n fantasy (shared w i t h others i n his t i m e ) that Australia's s t o n e - t o o l users preserved i n p r i m i t i v e f o r m w h a t m u s t have existed at t h e d a w n o f h u m a n i t y . A l t h o u g h he d i d n o t i n fact t h i n k t h a t ,

82

such c r i t i c i s m s

are nevertheless p a r t l y v a l i d . Yet s i m p l i c i t y is n o t o n l y a w a y o f characterizi n g (or s t i g m a t i z i n g ) things b u t also a w a y o f setting p r o b l e m s w i t h c l a r i t y — for e x a m p l e , physicists' c a l c u l a t i n g g r a v i t a t i o n a l force u n d e r the (never t r u e ) assumption o f a perfect v a c u u m . Since w e easily u n d e r s t a n d w h y i t is useful to s i m p l i f y b y assuming away the atmosphere, w e can easily set aside as i r r e l evant someone's insistence that i t is really t h e r e .

83

Similarly, rather t h a n settle

for t h e generous discovery that l i t d e a b o u t t h e Australians was simple, w e d o better t o i m a g i n e w h a t m i g h t have b e e n c o m p l i c a t i n g a b o u t the F r e n c h .

8 4

W h a t m i g h t D u r k h e i m have t h o u g h t s i m p l i f y i n g a b o u t l o o k i n g as far afield f r o m France as he d i d t o investigate " t h e r e l i g i o u s nature o f m a n " ? O n e answer surely was t h e u n c o n t r o l l a b l y vague, h a l f - f o r m u l a t e d n o t i o n s that are characteristic o f t h e familiar. ( T h i n k back t o m y c o n t e n t i o u s statem e n t a b o u t t h e T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s . ) I f the d i s c i p l i n e o f e t h n o g r a p h i c study is t o u n c o v e r w h a t is f a m i l i a r i n t h e strange, i t is also t o u n c o v e r w h a t is strange a b o u t the familiar. F r o m that angle, things Europeans

vaguely

" k n o w " a b o u t t h e " p o w e r o f G o d " l o o k strange e n o u g h t o m a k e t h e e x o t i c

xl


case of mana a usefully s i m p l i f y i n g place t o b e g i n . W h y is i t , f o r example, that f r o m w i t h i n t h e J u d e o - C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n , even f o r t h o r o u g h l y secular p e o ple, i t is s o m e h o w less t r o u b l e s o m e t o speak a b o u t " t h e p o w e r o f G o d " and m e a n a transcendental d e i t y t h a n t o use the same phrase i n respect t o a p h y s ical object? T o b o r r o w Parsons's phrase again, b o t h d e i t y a n d mana s h o u l d p r o b a b l y be classified together, as " n o n e m p i r i c a l reality." Yet s o m e h o w , f o r n o l o g i c a l reason, kfeeb l i k e a different m a t t e r t o speak o f a transcendent d e i t y t h a n t o speak o f mana, the t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e , o r someplace i n the real w h e r e objects speak w i t h lips o f w o o d a n d smite f r o m p a i n t e d pedestals (and inversely, w h e r e lips a n d s m i t i n g hands o f flesh are alleged t o be o n l y h u m a n i n appearance b u t s u p e r h u m a n i n essence). T h i n k o f h o w w e read the e n c o u n t e r b e t w e e n the ancient Israelites a n d t h e i r enemies, the p e o p l e o f A s h d o d , w h o b u i l t a t o w e r i n g g o d w i t h feet o f clay. T h a t phrase "feet o f c l a y " contains i n itself, and takes as g i v e n , a c o m p l i c a t e d and c o m p l i c a t i n g discourse a b o u t o b v i o u s l y m i s p l a c e d (as opposed t o w e l l - p l a c e d ) f a i t h . A n d consider this: I t is a transcendent G o d w h o s e e x istence a l o n g t r a d i t i o n i n W e s t e r n p h i l o s o p h y attempts t o prove rationally, w h i l e l i v i n g w i t h t h e c u l t u r a l l y g i v e n safety net t h a t the failure o f p r o o f n e e d n o t i m p o s e t h e c o n c l u s i o n that that G o d does n o t i n fact e x i s t .

85

I f I am right

a b o u t w h a t w e " k n o w " c u l t u r a l l y a b o u t t h e " p o w e r o f G o d , " even the m o s t secular a m o n g us, i n contrast t o the ideas D ü r k h e i m explores (mana, kwoth, orenda, etc.), I have j u s t t u r n e d u p the v o l u m e o f o u r o w n half-heard c u l t u r a l M u z a k , as i t w e r e , o f an especially t r o u b l e s o m e case f o r the real. W h y s h o u l d this be so? F o r the same reason that an " e q u a t i o n " o f society a n d G o d s h o u l d be t r o u b l e s o m e f o r social scientists supposedly o p e r a t i n g n o n t h e o l o g i c a l l y . A m o r a l e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e m a t e r i a l perfect v a c u u m was called for.

Conscience Collective Mana, D ü r k h e i m says, is the " q u a s i - d i v i n e p r i n c i p l e " i m m a n e n t i n things that gives p o w e r to c e r t a i n plants o r animals, and to representations of them. B e fore t a c k l i n g i t , he r e m i n d s his reader ( i n the last paragraph o f the p r e c e d i n g chapter) that C o m t e , i n c a l l i n g t h e idea o f force metaphysical, a n d m e t a physics t h e direct descendant o f theology, h a d already i m p l i e d that the idea o f force began i n r e l i g i o n , f r o m w h i c h i t was b o r r o w e d first b y p h i l o s o p h y a n d later b y science. B u t C o m t e m i s t a k e n l y c o n c l u d e d that, because o f this ancestry, the idea o f force h a d n o objective c o u n t e r p a r t i n reality and thus w o u l d eventually disappear f r o m science. T o the c o n t r a r y , h o w e v e r , the c o n cept o f force was alive a n d w e l l i n t h e m o d e r n science o f D ü r k h e i m s day. I n fact, the E n g l i s h t e r m " v e c t o r " ( w h i c h appeared i n E n g l i s h i n 1867) e n -


xli

tered F r e n c h (vecteur) i n 1899, a n d D ü r k h e i m used the t e r m "resultant" (a vector sum) to m e a n a social s u m o f i n d i v i d u a l forces. T h e r e f o r e , i n contrast to C o m t e , D ü r k h e i m " w i l l s h o w . . . that r e l i g i o u s forces are real, n o m a t t e r how

i m p e r f e c t t h e symbols w i t h w h o s e help t h e y w e r e c o n c e i v e d of. F r o m

this i t w i l l f o l l o w that t h e same is t r u e f o r the c o n c e p t o f force i n g e n e r a l . "

86

T h e reality o f r e l i g i o u s forces is t o be f o u n d i n the real e x p e r i e n c e o f social life, a c c o r d i n g t o D ü r k h e i m . Just as, i n the case o f soul, p s y c h o l o g y sought a physical basis f o r w h a t h u m a n k i n d h a d l o n g since discovered i n social life, so t o o force. C o n t r a r y t o w h a t C o m t e a n t i c i p a t e d , b y t h e e n d o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , t h e idea o f force h a d c o m p l e t e d its transit f r o m r e l i g i o n , to metaphysics, t o science positive. T o appreciate D ü r k h e i m ' s c o n t e x t , n o t e that c u t t i n g - e d g e w o r k o n t h e f u n d a m e n t a l forces was b e i n g d o n e n o farther away t h a n t h e laboratories o f M a r i e a n d P i e r r e C u r i e . F r o m 1906 o n , M m e . C u r i e c o n t i n u e d h e r w o r k o n r a d i o a c t i v i t y as a professor at t h e S o r b o n n e . D u r k h e i m ' s a c c o u n t o f rites is m e a n t t o seize the idea o f force at its " b i r t h , " as he says. H e f o u n d t h e b i r t h o f t h a t idea i n rites, at m o m e n t s o f collective effervescence, w h e n h u m a n beings feel themselves t r a n s f o r m e d , a n d are i n fact t r a n s f o r m e d , t h r o u g h r i t u a l d o i n g . A force e x p e r i e n c e d as e x t e r n a l t o each i n d i v i d u a l is the agent o f t h a t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , b u t the force itself is created b y the fact o f assembling a n d t e m p o r a r i l y l i v i n g a c o l l e c t i v e life that transports individuals b e y o n d themselves. T h o s e m o m e n t s h e conveys i n a set piece drawn from ethnographic description. D u r k h e i m ' s set piece opens w i t h the practical occupations o f life suspended, the v a h d i t y o f o r d i n a r y rules a d j o u r n e d , people dressed a n d p a i n t e d t o resemble o n e another a n d the a n i m a l o r plant b y w h i c h they name t h e i r shared identity, the objects a r o u n d t h e m " u n i f o r m e d " i n the same way, the w h o l e t a k i n g place u n d e r a n i g h t sky, the scene d o t t e d w i t h firelight, a n d frenzy—a collective effervescence. Swept away, the participants experience a force e x t e r n a l to t h e m , w h i c h seems t o be m o v i n g t h e m , a n d b y w h i c h t h e i r v e r y nature is transformed. T h e y experience themselves as grander t h a n at o r d i n a r y times; they d o things t h e y w o u l d n o t d o at o t h e r times; they feel, and at that m o m e n t really are, j o i n e d w i t h each o t h e r a n d w i t h the t o t e m i c b e i n g . T h e y c o m e t o experience themselves as sharing o n e and the same essence—with the t o t e m i c animal, w i t h its representation, and w i t h each other. I n a d d i t i o n , since a s y m b o l i c representation o f the t o t e m i c b e i n g stands at the center o f things, the real p o w e r generated i n the assembly comes t o be t h o u g h t o f as residing i n the t o t e m i c object itself. Symbols o f the t o t e m i c object e x t e n d the effects o f the effervescence i n t o life after the assembly is dispersed. Seen o n objects, and s o m e times o n bodies, t o t e m i c representations o f various k i n d s w i l l f i l l the role o f w h a t w o u l d be called today a secondary s t i m u l u s — a r e m i n d e r that reactivates

xlii


the i n i t i a l feelings, a l t h o u g h m o r e d i m l y .

8 7

Since the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n cannot be

d o n e o n c e a n d f o r all and fades despite the s y m b o l i c reminders, i t must p e r i odically be r e d o n e — h e n c e , the cyclically repetitive p e r f o r m a n c e o f rites. T h r o u g h real e x p e r i e n c e , t h e n , t h e participants c o m e t o ascribe p o w e r to sacred objects, t h a t p o w e r h a v i n g n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h the physical characteristics o f those objects. I t is also t h r o u g h real e x p e r i e n c e t h a t t h e y arrive at the c o n c e p t o f force, b u t the real experience t h e y have is t h a t o f h u m a n b e ings assembled—or t o use D u r k h e i m ' s abstract f o r m u l a t i o n , that o f society's " c o n c e n t r a t i n g " o r " p u l l i n g itself t o g e t h e r " a n d thus b e c o m i n g a u n i t y i n t h e real. T h i s d e p i c t i o n w i l l n o d o u b t seem c o n t r i v e d a n d m e c h a n i c a l at first glance a n d o n that a c c o u n t m a y t e m p t d i s c o u n t i n g , u n t i l t h e h i s t o r i c a l m e m o r y i t activates i n us b r i n g s us t o s i m i l a r events t h a t w e ourselves k n o w operated

mechanically—uniformed,

firelit,

n i g h t t i m e effervescences o f the

Nazis o r the K u K l u x K l a n , w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s l e d to i m p u t e t o shared i n b o r n essences a n d fabulous c o l l e c t i v e i d e n t i t i e s ,

88

themselves

w i t h symbolic re-

m i n d e r s shaping everyday life afterward, a n d w i t h i n d i v i d u a l d o u b t i n large p a r t n o t r e q u i r i n g physical v i o l e n c e t o be o v e r c o m e . T h e m e c h a n i s m i t s e l f is n e i t h e r g o o d n o r e v i l . I f D u r k h e i m is r i g h t that i t is universal, t h e n w e s h o u l d expect t o find i t , a n d d o find i t , f r o m t a t t o o e d street gangs t o the Salv a t i o n A r m y , from t h e habits o f the c o n v e n t t o those o f t h e exclusive c l u b . I n a l l cases an o u t c o m e o f j o i n t d o i n g , the real that comes i n t o b e i n g i n t h e r i t e , as D u r k h e i m describes i t , is i n d e p e n d e n t o f ( b u t n o t necessarily e x clusive o f ) i n d i v i d u a l belief. T h e p o w e r felt is real, a n d is felt n o t o n l y i n the physical b e i n g o f h u m a n k i n d b u t also i n its m e n t a l b e i n g — h u m a n k i n d ' s conscience collective, that is, i n b o t h " c o n s c i e n c e " and "consciousness." Besides, its reality can be d r a m a t i c a l l y t r a n s f o r m i n g . D u r i n g the e x a l t a t i o n o f the F r e n c h R e v o l u t i o n , f o r e x a m p l e , " [ w ] e see the m o s t m e d i o c r e o r harmless b o u r geois t r a n s f o r m e d . . . i n t o a h e r o o r a n e x e c u t i o n e r . "

89

I n u n d r a m a t i c times,

i t is u n d r a m a t i c a l l y t r a n s f o r m i n g , as D u r k h e i m says a f e w sentences later: There is virtually no instant o f our lives i n w h i c h a certain rush o f energy fails to come to us from outside ourselves. I n all kinds o f acts that express the understanding, esteem, and affection o f his neighbor, there is a lift that the man w h o does his duty feels, usually w i t h o u t being aware o f i t . 9 0

W h a t creates the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n is a p r o d u c t o f t h o u g h t , b u t t h o u g h t that c a n n o t be a c c o m m o d a t e d

b y o u r usual v o c a b u l a r y o f m e r e i n d i v i d u a l s '

t h i n k i n g . I t exists o n l y i n the m i n d ; b u t i f i t exists i n o n l y o n e m i n d , i t does n o t b e l o n g t o w h a t can be e x p e r i e n c e d by any and everyone as the real. W e arr i v e b y this r o u t e at D u r k h e i m ' s superficially t r o u b l e s o m e t e r m pensée collec-

xliii


five, " c o l l e c t i v e t h o u g h t . " I t is i n collective t h o u g h t , b u i l t i n t o the e x p e r i e n c e o f social life, t h a t t h e idea o f a d i v i n i t y to w h i c h h u m a n beings are s u b o r d i nate gains its f o o t h o l d i n t h e real. Y e t — a n d this is a b i g " y e t " — f a r f r o m erasing the t h o u g h t o f i n d i v i d u a l s , collective t h o u g h t is f o u n d n o w h e r e else. T h r o u g h o u t C h a p t e r 7 a n d i n d e e d the w h o l e o f Formes, w e f i n d statements such as this, p e r i o d i c a l l y inserted w i t h teacherly r e p e t i t i o n : [B]ecause society can exist only i n and by means o f individual minds, i t must enter i n t o us and become organized w i t h i n us. That force thus becomes an integral part o f our being and, by the same stroke, uplifts i t and brings i t to maturity. 91

[L]ike any other society, the clan can only live i n and by means o f the i n d i vidual consciousnesses o f w h i c h i t is made. Thus, insofar as religious force is conceived o f as embodied i n the totemic emblem, i t seems to be external to individuals and endowed w i t h a k i n d o f transcendence; and yet from another standpoint, and like the clan i t symbolizes, i t can be made real only w i t h i n and by t h e m . " 92

D ü r k h e i m has n o t postulated some outside m i n d h o v e r i n g i n the h u m a n m i d s t . H e is s t r i v i n g c o n c e p t u a l l y t o represent aspects o f t h e real that are readily observable b u t that c a n n o t possibly be there t o observe o r represent at all, i f the l o n e i n d i v i d u a l is o u r c o n c e p t u a l u n i t . T o see those aspects o f t h e real, let us t u r n n o w t o sacredness, an e x t r a o r d i n a r y q u a l i t y that o r d i n a r y objects acquire o n l y w i t h i n m o r a l c o m m u n i t i e s . Sacredness is e m i n e n t l y a représentation

collective, e m i n e n d y a feature of pensée a n d conscience collectives. A s

a q u a l i t y o f t h i n g s — o r , rather, as D ü r k h e i m insists, a q u a l i t y superadded t o things—sacredness can c o m e t o be its real self o n l y w i t h i n the d o m a i n o f c o l lective consciousness (that is, i n t h e d o m a i n o f conscience and o f consciousness). Sacredness is an aspect o f the real that exists o n l y i n the m i n d b u t c a n n o t possibly exist as the real i n o n l y o n e m i n d .

9 3

The Sacred/Profane Dichotomy O v e r t h e years, i t has p r o v e d easy t o m a k e heavier w e a t h e r t h a n n e e d be o f b o t h le sacré a n d la conscience collective. W . E . H . Stanner's careful and respectful article o n Formes called the sacred/profane d i c h o t o m y "unusable except at the cost o f u n d u e interference w i t h the facts o f o b s e r v a t i o n . "

94

T r y as he

m i g h t i n his f i e l d w o r k , he said, he c o u l d n o t f i n d i t . I f there is i n fact n o t h i n g a b o u t the idea that connects us w i t h o u r o w n sense o f the real i n a w a y

xliv


that i l l u m i n a t e s i t , t h e n D ü r k h e i m w o u l d r i g h d y be p a t r o n i z e d as t h e w r i t e r o f a classic f r e i g h t e d w i t h intractable concepts, t o be suffered t h r o u g h and f o r g o t t e n . B u t this classic suggests m o r e i n t e r e s t i n g m e n t a l a c t i v i t y t h a n the exercise i n v o l v e d i n l o g i c a l l y dissecting the t e r m "sacred" itself. I n any case, Lukes has already s h o w n i n detail its l o g i c a l r o u g h surfaces.

95

T h e sacred

p o i n t s t o aspects o f the real that w e r e doubdess a m a z i n g t o D ü r k h e i m , a n d t h a t are still there i n the social w o r l d t o amaze us. C o n s i d e r first t h e b i b l i c a l e x a m p l e o f t h e H o l y A r k . R e a d i n g at E x o d u s 25, w e see i t b e i n g m a d e t o exact specifications ( t w o carved c h e r u b i m o n top, the tablets inside, etc.), u s i n g materials c o l l e c t e d f r o m the c o m m u n i t y a n d m a n u f a c t u r e d i n f u l l v i e w o f all those present (and subsequendy, all readers o f the B i b l e ) . Thousands o f years a n d miles f r o m that b i b l i c a l scene, w e f i n d v e r y p o w e r f u l sacred objects called churingas i n the same state: " [ E ] v e n a m o n g the A r u n t a , there are churingas that are made b y the elders o f the g r o u p , w i t h the full knowledge o f and i n full v i e w o f everyone."

96

W h a t e v e r is added t o m a k e

those objects' sacredness is, l i k e soul, real b u t w i t h o u t extension. J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n w o n d e r f u l l y presents that feature b y saying o f the A r k that even t h o u g h its dimensions w e r e k n o w n , i t " m i r a c u l o u s l y o c c u p i e d n o space i n the H o l y of Holies."

9 7

T h e real, yet n o n p h y s i c a l , characteristic w e can observe i n b o t h

cases c a n n o t be the feature, o r the creature, o f an i n d i v i d u a l m i n d . I n b o t h cases, t h e physical characteristics o f t h e things c a n n o t possibly disclose w h a t t h e y are i n the real. I n D ü r k h e i m s w o r d s , " T h e sensations that the physical w o r l d evokes i n us c a n n o t , b y d e f i n i t i o n , c o n t a i n a n y t h i n g that goes b e y o n d that w o r l d . F r o m s o m e t h i n g t a n g i b l e o n e can o n l y m a k e s o m e t h i n g tangible; f r o m e x t e n d e d substance o n e c a n n o t m a k e u n e x t e n d e d substance."

98

A t t h e same t i m e , b o t h objects' n o n p h y s i c a l reality is available t o the i n d i v i d u a l m i n d o n l y as i t participates i n m i n d b o t h inside a n d outside itself. A n d because sacredness originates as i t does, i t is i n h e r e n d y i m p e r m a n e n t a n d so m u s t b e a d d e d t o t h e object again a n d again, j u s t as i t was o r i g i n a l l y : b y collective h u m a n d o i n g . Equally, because sacredness originates as i t does, there necessarily is n o u n i f y i n g characteristic that is shared b y e v e r y t h i n g desi g n a t e d as sacré, n o a l l - p u r p o s e key t o p r e o r d a i n the o u t c o m e o f f i e l d w o r k . " T h i n g s so disparate cannot f o r m a class [the sacred] unless a class can be m a r k e d b y a p r o p e r t y , its absence, and its c o n t r a r y , "

99

Stanner w r o t e . B y

t h i n k i n g i n such t e r m s , h e created f o r h i m s e l f t h e u n - D u r k h e i m i a n n i g h t m a r e I w i l l n o w i n d i c a t e b y m o v i n g f r o m the A r k t o o t h e r examples: A y a t o l l a h K h o m e i n i , t h e bones o f St. C a s i m i r , the louse, a n d M t . Sinai. R e m e m b e r the t u m u l t u o u s a r r i v a l i n 1979 o f R u h o l l a h K h o m e i n i at T e h r a n a i r p o r t , w i t h a m i l l i o n p e o p l e c r o w d i n g t o w e l c o m e h i m . D u r i n g the e v e n i n g news, the effervescence o f t h a t m o m e n t c o u l d be felt w o r l d w i d e r e -

xlv


gardless o f language a n d i n every h o u s e h o l d o f secularized A m e r i c a . D e s p i t e the haze o f T V distance, t h e v o c a l flatness o f T V correspondents,

dissonant

s h o u t i n g i n a language m o s t A m e r i c a n s d o n o t understand, a n d r i t u a l gestures specific t o the m o r a l c o m m u n i t y K h o m e i n i shared w i t h the c r o w d , every v i e w e r witnessed the elevation o f K h o m e i n i t o sacredness. B e f o r e o u r eyes, K h o m e i n i became s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n w h a t he h a d b e e n as he left Paris o n l y h o u r s before. T h a t K h o m e i n i ' s e l e v a t i o n was attached t o a p a r t i c ular m o r a l c o m m u n i t y was e v i d e n c e d straightaway. H e h a d p u t o n sacredness there, b u t n o t e v e r y w h e r e — a m o r a l distance m a r k e d i n A m e r i c a b y c o n t i n u i n g t o call " A y a t o l l a h " a m a n w h o h a d gained, there, a h i g h e r t i d e , " I m a m , " b y a c c l a m a t i o n . W h a t was d o n e c o u l d o n l y have b e e n d o n e w i t h i n a g r o u p o f assembled f a i t h f u l a n d c o u l d n o t be u n d o n e b y i n d i v i d u a l d o u b t o r u n b e lief. I t was the real t o anyone g o i n g t o I r a n t h e n , n o m a t t e r w h e r e t h e y w e r e c o m i n g from. L i k e t h e A r k , K h o m e i n i ' s h u m a n measurements w e r e k n o w n and the same as before; t h e beard, the t u r b a n , a n d the robes l o o k e d exactly as before, b u t t h e m a n was n o t t h e same as before. W h a t was added b e l o n g e d t o the real, b u t i t t o o k u p n o space. W e have also witnessed the inverse process, i n w h i c h the o t h e r c r u c i a l t e r m , m o r a l c o m m u n i t y , is created. I n 1989, leaders o f a n e w l y i n d e p e n d e n t t e r r i t o r y o f L i t h u a n i a r e t u r n e d relics said t o be t h e bones o f St. C a s i m i r t o the People's H o u s e o f C u l t u r e , w h i c h they r e c o n s t i t u t e d a n d reconsecrated as the C a t h e d r a l o f V i l n i u s . L i t h u a n i a n s f i l e d t h r o u g h the n e w cathedral and past t h e bones, participants i n t h e b i r t h o f a n a t i o n . I n this e x a m p l e , the sanctification preceded, a n d was a t o o l i n , t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a n e w m o r a l c o m m u n i t y , n o w added t o (or superadded t o ) t h e already e x i s t i n g physical t e r r i t o r y , p o p u l a t i o n , a n d apparatus o f statehood. T o the possible o b j e c t i o n that such c o m m u n i t y "always existed," t h e answer w e find i n t h e d o i n g is t h e l a t e - t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y revival o f o l d bones; the answer w e

find

i n Formes is that n o t h i n g t h a t m u s t be i m a g i n e d "always exists," b u t m u s t b e c o n t i n u a l l y r e - i m a g i n e d t h r o u g h h u m a n d o i n g . T h i s is j u s t as t r u e o f m o r a l c o m m u n i t y as i t is o f sacred objects. B y the selfsame process, those d r y bones w e r e made to l i v e again as the sacred objects t h e y o n c e h a d b e e n .

1 0 0

They

were resurrected i n p o s t c o m m u n i s t L i t h u a n i a a n d r e h a b i l i t a t e d f r o m t h e i r l o w l y state f o r f o r t y years as the dusty trove o f the r e a c t i o n a r y a n d t h e superstitious. T h e k n o w n physical characteristics a n d p o p u l a t i o n o f L i t h u a n i a were the same as before, b u t the m o r a l c o m m u n i t y was n o t . W h a t was added was o b j e c t i v e l y real, b u t i t t o o k u p n o space. I m a g i n e the c o n f u s i o n m a n y A m e r i c a n s w o u l d feel i f asked t o pay t h e i r respects t o t h e bones. Sacredness is n o t a q u a l i t y i n h e r e n t i n c e r t a i n objects, n o r is i t available to the u n a i d e d senses o f j u s t any i n d i v i d u a l h u m a n observer. I t is a q u a l i t y

xlvi


that objects acquire w h e n t h e y are, i n the phrase f r o m D u r k h e i m ' s d e f i n i t i o n , "set apart a n d f o r b i d d e n . " T h e y are m a d e sacred b y groups o f people w h o set t h e m apart and keep t h e m b o u n d e d b y specific actions; t h e y r e m a i n sacred o n l y so l o n g as g r o u p s c o n t i n u e t o d o this. H u m a n s a c t i n g c o l l e c t i v e l y m a k e a n d remake this q u a l i t y o f sacredness b u t t h e n e n c o u n t e r i t after t h e fact as i f i t had always b e e n b u i l t i n t o objects a n d was ready-made. I n t h e r e l i g i o u s v o cabulary used w i t h i n c o m m u n i t i e s o f f a i t h , those things that have b e e n sanct i f i e d , "set apart a n d f o r b i d d e n , " are i n t r i n s i c a l l y " h o l y " — a n d have always been. I n the t e c h n i c a l v o c a b u l a r y d e v e l o p e d i n Formes, t h e y are "sacred"— b u t made so b y d o i n g .

1 0 1

T h e same process can m a k e a m a n o r w o m a n , a

piece o f c l o t h , a lizard, a tree, an idea o r p r i n c i p l e ( a n y t h i n g , i n c l u d i n g e x c r e m e n t , w h i c h D ü r k h e i m slides i n t o a f o o t n o t e ) i n t o a sacred t h i n g a n d the m a n d a t o r y r e c i p i e n t o f elaborated deference. D ü r k h e i m makes this p o i n t over a n d over again, h a m m e r i n g i t h o m e o n e last t i m e i n B o o k T h r e e , C h a p ter 2. T h e r e w e c o m e u p o n r i t u a l celebrations that center o n , o f all things, t h e louse. Sacredness is n o t m e r e l y a set o f p e c u l i a r relationships b e t w e e n people a n d c e r t a i n designated objects. T h e v e r y act that constitutes those peculiar relationships also relates a designated g r o u p o f p e o p l e t o o n e a n o t h e r a n d sets t h e m apart from others t o w h o m t h e y are n o t b o u n d and w h o d o n o t have t h e same relationship t o designated physical objects. T u r n the Thomases' f o r m u l a a r o u n d : W h a t e v e r is o b v i o u s l y real, g i v e n its o b v i o u s l y real consequences, tends to b e accepted as real. W h a t e v e r p o w e r t h e y acquire, a n d i t can be q u i t e considerable, is real p o w e r . N o t i c e that there is n o q u e s t i o n o f d e b u n k i n g native beliefs a b o u t that p o w e r as i m a g i n a r y . T o d o so w o u l d be t h e same as saying t h a t social life itself is m e r e l y i m a g i n a r y a n d society itself changeable m e r e l y b y an i m p u l s e t o change one's m i n d . So far as sacred o b jects are c o n c e r n e d , t h e q u e s t i o n is h o w t o describe a n d explicate the nature o f that p o w e r , w h i c h D ü r k h e i m posits as real. " P o w e r " i n w h a t sense a n d " r e a l " i n w h a t sense m a y be observed i n the f o l l o w i n g passage f r o m E x o d u s (19), w h e n M o u n t Sinai" evolves b y a set o f h u m a n actions i n t o a place w h e r e the p o w e r o f G o d m a y " b r e a k f o r t h u p o n " t h e p e o p l e a n d destroy t h e m :

And the Lord said unto Moses, G o unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes. . . . And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall

xlvii


not live. . . . And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their clothes. (Exodus 19:10, 12, 13)

Remember

b y w h a t agency

transgressors w o u l d be

"stoned"

or

"shot

t h r o u g h . " As t h e p e o p l e d i d t h e i r part, t h e m o u n t a i n d i d its o w n , a n d b y the " t h i r d d a y " o f God's i n s t r u c t i o n s t o Moses, i t h a d b e c o m e e n v e l o p e d i n smoke a n d i t q u a k e d . And the Lord said unto Moses, G o down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish. . . . A n d Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to mount Sinai: for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount and sanctify it. (Exodus 19:21, 23)

N o t i c e that the b i b l i c a l t e x t explains natural p o w e r i n natural terms ( w h o ever violates the sacredness o f the m o u n t a i n w i l l be "stoned," "shot t h r o u g h , " or "surely p u t t o death") b u t that the p o w e r o f the m o u n t a i n is n o t thereby explained away. T h e B i b l e w r i t e r s presumably c o u l d see w h a t w e d o i n w h a t they themselves w r o t e q u i t e m a t t e r - o f - f a c d y yet w i t h o u t d i m i n i s h i n g the real p o w e r o f t h e i r G o d . I t came t o b e the case that w h o e v e r w e n t u p i n t o t h e m o u n t a i n , apart f r o m Moses a n d A a r o n , w o u l d surely die. I t h i n k this is w h a t D u r k h e i m f o u n d remarkable about the n a t u r a l means b y w h i c h sacred objects m o v e above a n d beyond—really

above and really b e y o n d — t h e i r natural o r d i -

nariness a n d a b o u t h o w the people w h o exert those natural means thereafter m o v e i n a n d o u t o f awareness o f h o w w h a t was d o n e was d o n e . I n o t h e r w o r d s , " M a n makes G o d , " as M a r x w r o t e , b u t n o t i n any w a y he pleases. A n o b j e c t such as that m o u n t a i n moves above and b e y o n d its n a t u r a l ordinariness i n this w a y o n l y w i t h i n t h e a m b i t o f a conscience collective—collective conscience n o r m a t i v e l y , i n c o n d u c t , a n d collective consciousness c o g nitively, i n t h o u g h t . T h e t w o are n o t separate. Conscience collective is t h e achievement o f m i n d that transfigures the real w o r l d a n d makes i t a shared w o r l d that is i n fact the real w o r l d as k n o w n a n d k n o w a b l e b y some g r o u p , some m o r a l c o m m u n i t y . I t w o u l d n o t be o b v i o u s t o an i g n o r a n t f o r e i g n passerby h o w M o u n t Sinai was different from o t h e r m o u n t a i n s . H e m i g h t w e l l c l i m b i t w i t h his shoes o n , travel its slopes at w i l l , and, caught i n this p r o f a n a t i o n , m i g h t b e "shot t h r o u g h . " Readers m a y recognize this i g n o r a n t passerby as the sort favored b y o l d - f a s h i o n e d m o v i e s o f c o l o n i z a t i o n , i n w h i c h t h e c o l o n i a l officer i n his p i t h h e l m e t a n d shorts steps o n t h e sacred spot o r shoots t h e sacred a n i m a l f o r a d r a w i n g - r o o m trophy, and t o w h o m k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e real p o w e r o f t h e o r d i n a r y - s e e m i n g object arrives s i -

xlviii


m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h a real native r i s i n g , u n w i t t i n g l y detonated. T h e c o m monsense approach that w o u l d be satisfied w i t h t h i n k i n g a b o u t the p o w e r o f t h e spot o r the a n i m a l as m e r e l y i m a g i n a r y , m e r e l y an a m a z i n g f i g m e n t o f s u p e r s t i t i o n ablaze i n each i n d i v i d u a l native m i n d b u t i n n o colonialist's, seems an unnecessarily r o u n d a b o u t r o u t e t o grasping t h e real events that f o l l o w . S o m e years ago, as I was t e a c h i n g Formes t o an especially

1 0 2

responsive

g r o u p , m y students d e m a n d e d that w e see as a class Stephen Spielberg's (and H a r r i s o n Ford's) first-rate adventure m o v i e , Raiders of the Lost Ark. T h e story t u r n s o n i g n o r a n t passersby, g o o d guys and b a d guys, engaged i n archaeological excavation i n a race t o acquire the p o w e r o f t h e A r k as a k i n d o f u l t i m a t e w e a p o n . W i t h a sophistication that t h r i l l e d t h e i r teacher, m y students p r o n o u n c e d j u d g m e n t o n Raiders's ark: T h e real A r k was a far m o r e interesting object t h a n the fantasy one because i t h a d a c o m p l e x h u m a n nature. T h e A r k ' s p o w e r i n h e r e d i n its sacredness, and its sacredness was a feature o f its collective life. B u t w h a t is t r u e o f sacred objects is also t r u e o f the transcendent

beings

that c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h h u m a n k i n d . S t r i p away t h e c o l l e c t i v i t y that makes sacredness real, a n d y o u are left w i t h w h a t i n d i v i d u a l s can manage, a c t i n g alone: Freud's patients w i t h the o d d b a l l reverences f o r animals that occasioned t h e i r g o i n g t o the d o c t o r ,

1 0 3

the bag lady o u t o f w h o s e m o u t h Jehovah G o d speaks

incessantly i n the u n k n o w n t o n g u e , t h e i n n o c u o u s b o u r g e o i s w h o secretes l i v i n g a n d dead things i n a hideous p r i v a t e shrine. S t r i p away sacredness as a feature o f that m a d d e n i n g D u r k h e i m i a n reality pensée collective, a n d y o u have n o t a c o l l e c t i v e l y k n o w a b l e w o r l d at all b u t a w h o l e set o f p r o b l e m s about h o w this o r that p e r s o n c o u l d leap t o b e l i e v i n g this o r that strange t h i n g . Y o u r hands are t i e d t o d o a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n suspend disbelief about the o n t o l o g ical claims f o r w h a t e v e r i t is, i n c a n t the f o r m u l a a b o u t things believed i n as real as real i n t h e i r consequences, h u m o r the believer, o r j u s t believe the claims. T h e real A r k was w h a t i t was b y v i r t u e o f w h a t D u r k h e i m calls " m o r a l " o r " i d e a l " forces, t h a t is, collective h u m a n forces. D e p e n d i n g o n its life w i t h i n some g i v e n c o l l e c t i v i t y , a n y t h i n g can b e c o m e t h e c o n t a i n e r o f such forces, n o t j u s t a w o o d e n b o x m a d e i n a c e r t a i n way. B u t l i k e the fantasizers o f the m o v i e , some theorists have i m a g i n e d the process t o be o t h e r w i s e , b e g i n n i n g s o m e h o w i n t h e i n h e r e n t g r a n d e u r o f the o b j e c t (the naturists' mistake) o r i n the i n h e r e n t c o n f u s i o n o f the believer's m i n d (the animists' mistake). A n y o n e w h o t h i n k s e i t h e r w a y w i l l miss D u r k h e i m ' s p o i n t that the same h u m a n capacities that m a k e society possible m a k e w h a t D u r k h e i m calls la vie religieuse inevitable. T h e t r u t h o f t h e m i n d is i n the f i c t i o n s

1 0 4

that, v i a conscience collec-

tive, c o n s t r u c t t h e real. I f there is ever t o be a general t h e o r y o f the m i n d that can be r e d u c e d t o specific capacities o f t h e b r a i n , o r an " a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e " w h o s e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s a n d c o m b i n a t i o n s have a n y t h i n g l i k e

the

xlix


c o m p l e x i t y o f w h a t w e observe i n even c o m m o n p l a c e acts a n d facts o f h u m a n life, t h e n the t h e o r y o f t h e b r a i n s p e r c e p t u a l capacity m u s t i n c l u d e things l i k e the collective representation that makes i t possible f o r a m a n , a m o u n t a i n , a b o x o f bones, o r a louse t o be p e r c e i v e d as themselves o n e m o m e n t a n d as themselves-plus, the n e x t .

Religious Life in Seemingly Nonreligious Life D ü r k h e i m sums u p w h a t makes la vie religieuse i n e v i t a b l e : [I]n all its aspects and at every m o m e n t o f its history, social life is only possible thanks to a vast symbolism. The physical emblems and figurative representations w i t h w h i c h I have been especially concerned i n the present study are one f o r m o f it, but there are a good many others." 105

W i t h that s u m m i n g u p , he suggests t h a t w e c o u l d a p p l y the same analysis i n domains r e m o t e f r o m a n y t h i n g w e c o u l d call " r e l i g i o u s " — p o l i t i c s certainly, from w h i c h D ü r k h e i m draws some o f his o w n examples, a n d status orders o f various k i n d s ( t h i n k o f the n o t i o n " b l u e b l o o d , " a racialized s h o r t h a n d f o r t h e "set apart a n d f o r b i d d e n " qualities o f West E u r o p e a n aristocrats, a n d w h i t e bones f o r those o f Russia, as opposed t o the b l a c k bones o f Russian s e r f s ) . A l l such p h e n o m e n a seem the m o r e o u t l a n d i s h , a n d the m o r e d i s t i n c t

106

from

reason, t h e f u r t h e r t h e y seem t o b e f r o m o u r o w n e x p e r i e n c e o f the real. B u t the b u r d e n o f D u r k h e i m ' s a r g u m e n t is that t h e y are n o t t o be separated f r o m h u m a n reason, i n f u l l o p e r a t i o n — h e n c e , from us. T o w a r d the e n d o f C h a p ter 7, he uncovers t h e roots o f scientific abstraction i n t h e same processes o f abstraction that m a k e c o l l e c t i v e i d e n t i t i e s possible. T h e r e f o r e , i t is n o m o r e remarkable that a m a n s h o u l d i n t o t e m i c observances manage t o a f f i r m his k i n s h i p w i t h a w h i t e c o c k a t o o (despite physical dissimilarities) t h a n t h a t he s h o u l d manage

t o a f f i r m his k i n s h i p w i t h m e n a n d w o m e n o f t h e

W h i t e C o c k a t o o clan (for, again, i t is physical dissimilarities that m u s t b e overcome).. B o t h i n v o l v e abstraction, b y w h i c h invisible qualities are added to w h a t is visible, f o r there is n o o t h e r r o u t e t o u n i f y i n g t h e discrete i n d i v i d u alities that o u r sensory e x p e r i e n c e gives us. T h a t t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h this is d o n e m a y be c r u d e is beside the p o i n t : The great service that religions have rendered to thought is to have c o n structed a first representation o f what the relations o f kinship between things might be. Given the conditions i n w h i c h i t was tried, that enterprise could obviously lead only to makeshift results. B u t then, are the results o f any such

1


enterprise ever definitive, and must it not be taken up again and again? Furthermore, it was less important to succeed than to dare. What was essential was not to let the mind be dominated by what appears to the senses, but instead to teach the mind to dominate it and to join together what the senses put asunder. As soon as man became aware that internal connections exist between things, science and philosophy became possible. 107

T h a t w h i c h makes la vie religieuse inevitable also links o u r ways o f k n o w i n g c o m m u n i t y a n d i d e n t i t y w i t h o u r ways o f k n o w i n g the natural w o r l d . S o u l was needed t o account theoretically f o r aspects o f o u r h u m a n experience, a n d e m p i r i c a l needs localized i t i n selected parts o f natural bodies. T h e experience o f force arose first i n h u m a n relations, b u t i t was f o u n d again i n nature, i n r e lations a m o n g things. B y so d o i n g , D ü r k h e i m says, h u m a n k i n d made r o o m f o r nature i n society, i m a g i n i n g i t o n the m o d e l p r o v i d e d b y schemes f o r o r d e r i n g collective life. B u t b y the same stroke, the w a y nature's order was i m a g i n e d i n t u r n became consequential for h u m a n order. L i k e the Australians, all h u m a n beings acquire a w o r l d o f nature, as i f i t was the w o r l d o f nature, k n o w l e d g e o f w h i c h is m e d i a t e d b y relations w i t h h u m a n contemporaries. A l t h o u g h that real w o r l d varies from place t o place and f r o m o n e historical e p o c h t o another, t h e fact that i t is consequential f o r the w a y humans live i n c o m m o n does n o t vary. T h i n k i n g t h r o u g h w h a t those c o n n e c t i o n s still m e a n is o n e o f the i n t e l lectual demands that D ü r k h e i m 's e x p e d i t i o n i n Formes leads us t o c o n f r o n t . I t is n o t t r u e that science is consequential o n l y for those w h o d o science. E a r l y i n this century, the Russian p h i l o s o p h e r L e v Shestov contrasted t h e w a y a c h i l d learned that ghosts d o n o t exist b u t at the same t i m e was " g i v e n reliable i n f o r m a t i o n , the i m p l a u s i b i l i t y o f w h i c h surpasses absolutely every fib ever t o l d . . . that t h e e a r t h is n o t motionless, as t h e evidence indicates, that the S u n does n o t revolve a r o u n d the E a r t h , that the sky is n o t a solid, that the h o r i z o n is o n l y an o p t i c a l i l l u s i o n a n d so o n . "

1 0 8

O n c e that child's v i e w was the w o r l d

o f nature, as adult h u m a n beings k n e w i t . T h a t k n o w l e d g e , i n t u r n , was c o n sequential f o r t h e i r relations to o n e another. F o r the k i n d o f reason that Formes draws a t t e n t i o n to, i t was o b v i o u s straightaway that Copernicus's discovery affected n o t o n l y ideas o f the relationships heavenly bodies have t o one another b u t ideas o f relationships a m o n g earthly, h u m a n bodies, a c o n n e c t i o n that the I n q u i s i t i o n d i d n o t fail t o n o t i c e . C o s m o l o g y was n o t i m a g i n e d i n i s o l a t i o n from morality. N o t t h e n , b u t also n o t n o w : O u r o w n recent debates i n A m e r ica today over c r e a t i o n science a n d e v o l u t i o n t u r n o n questions o f h o w c i t i zens s h o u l d b e t a u g h t m o r a l l y (and legally) t o regard and relate t o o n e another. C r e a t i o n i s m dresses itself i n the f o r m s o f scientific discourse, i f n o t t h e i r spirit; e v o l u t i o n i s m sheds t h e open-endedness o f scientific discourse and reclothes

li


itself as h a r d nuggets o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y c o r r e c t scientific c o n t e n t f o r s c h o o l children's unexperimental c o n s u m p t i o n . T h e heat o n b o t h sides points to the dual aspect o f conscience collective—normative

and cognitive—to w h i c h D u r k -

heim's i n t e l l e c t u a l l y d e m a n d i n g e x p e d i t i o n takes us. T h a t e x p e d i t i o n is m o r a l l y d e m a n d i n g as w e l l , i f w e reflect o n f u r t h e r i m plications o f its discoveries. T h e passage I j u s t q u o t e d seems t o ennoble r e l i g i o n as the source o f quintessentially h u m a n achievements. B u t l i k e every o t h e r h u m a n achievement, its m e c h a n i s m can t u r n i n m o r e t h a n o n e way. I f D u r k h e i m ' s analysis is r i g h t , i t suggests that this century's monstrosities i n c o l lective life arise n o t from aberrations i n h u m a n reason b u t from w h a t is f u n damental t o i t . T h a t analysis also leads t o a d i s t u r b i n g suggestion: that t h e o r d i n a r y h u m a n agents w h o serve as r a w m a t e r i a l f o r e x t r a o r d i n a r y abusers o f h u m a n d i g n i t y are, i n vast m a j o r i t y , the n o r m a l a n d the socially responsible— n o t deviants, sociopaths, o r the crazy. I t suggests, finally, that the h u m a n n a ture o n w h i c h w e depend, o u r social nature, is o u r u p l i f t and o u r d o w n f a l l . T h e o n l y e x i t from this d i l e m m a appears t o be i n d i v i d u a l i s m . B u t the i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f i n d i v i d u a l i s t assumptions w i t h h u m a n nature as it can be observed in the real world was c h i e f a m o n g D u r k h e i m ' s discoveries i n Formes and t h r o u g h o u t his w o r k . W h a t w e see, t h r o u g h his theoretical lens o f conscience collective, is present i n a social w o r l d o f the real that c a n n o t be a r r i v e d at w i t h n o t i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l conscience, alone. W e see that Socrates' individualistic preference f o r the c u p o f h e m l o c k over i n t e l l e c t u a l c o n f o r m i t y has appealed d o w n the ages precisely because, i n that respect, he was n o t h u m a n i n the sense w e can o b serve day i n a n d day o u t — i n social life as e m p i r i c a l l y available t o us. T h e r e , w e see i n d i v i d u a l d o u b t , i n h e r e n d y present, and w e see h o w d o u b t is o v e r c o m e . T h u s , i n the e n d , there is a deep and tragic tension i n D u r k h e i m ' s discoveries.

FORMES

I N FRENCH AND I N ENGLISH

A n e w translation n e e d n o t be the occasion t o d e n y the m e r i t o f an o l d o n e . Joseph W a r d S w a i n gave Formes m o n u m e n t a l life i n E n g l i s h t o generations o f scholars, and that life i n E n g l i s h has b e e n r i c h l y p r o d u c t i v e . N o one w i t h a f u l l understanding o f w h a t translating Formes demands even n o w s h o u l d d o a n y t h i n g b u t salute D r . Swain's achievement. I r e - d o that w o r k n o w w i t h the b e n efit o f the use I have made o f the b o o k , i n E n g l i s h a n d i n F r e n c h . T h a t use itself has benefited from almost n i n e t y years o f c r i t i q u e , t h e availability o f specialized readings and field applications b y some o f the great anthropologists (Claude L é v i - S t r a u s s , E . E . Evans-Pritchard, a n d B r o n i s l a w M a l i n o w s k i , t o name o n l y three), various E n g l i s h translations o f D u r k h e i m ' s o t h e r w o r k , a n d g o o d p a r t i a l retranslations of Formes itself. These are aids that S w a i n d i d n o t have. A l t h o u g h

Iii


m y m a i n purposes are b o t h t o re-present Formes i n i d i o m a t i c E n g l i s h and c o r rect Swain's inaccuracies, I differ w i t h S w a i n w i t h o u t immodesty. T h e a c c u racy o f m a n y passages cannot be i m p r o v e d u p o n . I n d e e d , the v e r y alienness o f Swain's E n g l i s h , to o u r ears, is i n a sense faithful t o D ü r k h e i m , w h o s e ideas are n o t i d i o m a t i c t o E n g l i s h speakers—and ultimately, o f course, there is n o substitute f o r reading a w o r k i n its native language. W h a t e v e r its aims, translation requires scholarly, interpretive, a n d stylistic j u d g m e n t s at m a n y levels. Readable E n g l i s h has b e e n m y g o a l t h r o u g h o u t . T o this e n d , I have c h o sen resonant E n g l i s h equivalents w h e n e v e r I c o u l d — f o r example, " o u t w a r d a n d v i s i b l e " f o r externel et visible, a n d " n e i g h b o r " f o r semblable, i n cases w h e r e r e l i g i o u s resonance seems i m p o r t a n t . ( C o m p a r e " T h o u shalt love t h y n e i g h b o r as t h y s e l f " ) T o t h e same e n d , I have replaced F r e n c h w i t h E n g l i s h w o r d order, d i v i d i n g o r m o v i n g D u r k h e i m ' s frequent parenthetical insertions acc o r d i n g l y , a n d I have n o t hesitated t o change t h e p u n c t u a t i o n and d i v i s i o n i n t o paragraphs, i f s u c h changes seemed t o m e to i m p r o v e the text's c l a r i t y i n E n g l i s h o r its accessibility t o a w e l l - e d u c a t e d reader. I have, i n a d d i t i o n , r e peated t h e subject i n those new, s h o r t e n e d , sentences—grammatical

gender

a n d verb endings are n o t signposts i n E n g l i s h f o r w h a t goes w i t h w h a t . F u r t h e r m o r e , I have d o n e w h a t e v e r I h a d t o i n t h e service o f g o o d E n g l i s h style, a v o i d i n g d o u b l e genitives and m u l t i p l e uses o f " i t " w i t h m u l t i p l e antecedents (besetting sins i n the o l d e r w o r k ) . I n the service o f future scholarly w o r k , I have also checked,

supple-

m e n t e d , and i n some instances c o r r e c t e d as m a n y o f the o r i g i n a l footnotes as I c o u l d , abbreviating the j o u r n a l tides differendy t h a n D ü r k h e i m d i d and b r a c k e t i n g the n e w i n f o r m a t i o n i n D u r k h e i m ' s footnotes. I n m a n y cases, I d i d n o t change those v e r y short paragraphs, sometimes o n l y a sentence l o n g , that D ü r k h e i m used m o r e o r less as section headings. W h e r e I d i d make changes i n structure, t h e y are n o t m a r k e d , to a v o i d r i d d l i n g the text. I n any case, w e still have Joseph W a r d Swain's t e x t , w h i c h makes f e w concessions t o readable E n g l i s h and can serve as a r o u g h - a n d - r e a d y c h e c k for readers w h o d o n o t w i s h to tackle the F r e n c h . I n t h e i r h i g h - q u a l i t y p a r t i a l retranslation of Formes, P i c k e r i n g and R e d d i n g deliberately keep t h e o r i g i n a l s t r u c t u r e .

109

I have d e -

c i d e d differendy. M y o w n a i m , besides accuracy, is r e m o v a l o f structural a n d stylistic i m p e d i m e n t s t o e n c o u n t e r i n g the b o o k as the e x c i t i n g read t h a t I consider i t to be. A sample passage w i l l illustrate m y changes. I n t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n , D ü r k h e i m draws an analogy t o m a k e his p o i n t a b o u t s t u d y i n g t h e simplest case available, i n order t o u n c o v e r t h e f u n d a m e n t a l sources o f r e l i g i o u s life. H i s o w n enterprise is l i k e that o f a d o c t o r seeking t o u n c o v e r the cause o f a d e l u -

liii


sion. T h e F r e n c h passage seems r e m i n i s c e n t o f F r e u d ; Swain's E n g l i s h passage does n o t ; m i n e recovers t h e resemblance t o F r e u d . H e r e is Swain's passage: I n order to understand a hallucination perfectly, and give i t its most appropriate treatment, a physician must k n o w its original point o f departure. N o w this event is proportionately easier to find i f he can observe i t near its beginnings. T h e longer the disease is allowed to develop, the more it evades observation [au contraire, plus on laisse à la maladie le temps de se développer, plus il se dérobe à l'observation]; that is because all sorts o f interpretations have i n tervened as i t advanced, w h i c h tend to force the original state into the background [qui tendent a refouler dans l'inconscient l'état originel], and across w h i c h it is sometimes difficult to find the initial o n e . 110

N o w consider t h e same passage as i t appears i n the n e w translation: To understand a delusion properly and to be able to apply the most appropriate treatment, the doctor needs to k n o w what its point o f departure was. That event is more easily detected the nearer to its beginning the delusion can be observed. Conversely, the longer the sickness is left to develop, the more that original point o f departure slips out o f view. This is so because all sorts o f interpretations have intervened along the way, and the tendency o f those interpretations is to repress the original state into the unconscious and to replace i t w i t h other states through w h i c h the original one is sometimes not easy to detect. I t is the p o i n t o f departure o f an illness ( n o t t h e illness itself) t h a t is screened f r o m v i e w . T h a t , plus the terms "repress" a n d " u n c o n s c i o u s , "

instead o f

" f o r c e " a n d " b a c k g r o u n d , " a l l o w the n e w passage t o s o u n d r e m i n i s c e n t o f Freud. I p r o b a b l y have n o t u n c o v e r e d a m i s s i n g l i n k b e t w e e n D ü r k h e i m a n d Freud; Steven Lukes's exhaustive research t u r n e d u p " n o e v i d e n c e " D ü r k h e i m k n e w o f Freud's w o r k .

1 1 1

that

O n the o t h e r h a n d , there is g o o d reason

to t h i n k D ü r k h e i m k n e w o f the celebrated w o r k b e i n g d o n e i n the 1880s at the H ô p i t a l S a l p ê t r i è r e i n Paris b y J e a n - M a r t i n C h a r c o t , Freud's predecessor i n t h e study o f hysteria, a n d o f t h e h u g e controversy a b o u t t h a t w o r k i n t h e mid-1890s.

1 1 2

So f o r n o w , w e can be tantalized. Present i n the passage is t h e

n o t i o n that t o d a y w e t e r m "screen m e m o r i e s , " w h i c h is generally c r e d i t e d t o Freud, n o t C h a r c o t .

1 1 3

T h e p l o t thickens w h e n w e realize that F r e u d c e r -

tainly k n e w o f a n d c i t e d D ü r k h e i m s w o r k ( i n c l u d i n g Formes) i n his 1912 p a per, " T h e R e t u r n o f T o t e m i s m i n C h i l d h o o d . "

1 1 4

I n this way, c o r r e c t i n g

Swain's inaccuracies can a d d nuance t o a scholarly q u e s t i o n .

liv


M y goal, t h o u g h , was n o t m e r e l y t o c o r r e c t Swain's w o r k . I t a c k l e d the French originals

1 1 5

w i t h an eye t o the difficulties I have w r e s t l e d w i t h a n d t o

the characteristic p r o b l e m s I have f o u n d i n t e a c h i n g this w o r k t o A m e r i c a n students. F o r those reasons, I d i d n o t settle for m e r e l y l i t e r a l renderings. I f a literal translation c o n v e y e d n o t h i n g d e f i n i t e i n E n g l i s h , I sought a clearer a l ternative. O f course, the search f o r expressive equivalents has its l i m i t s . R e g a r d i n g t h e phrase solution de continuité,

m y colleague A n d r é e D o u c h i n t o l d

m e , "Let's face i t . T h a t phrase goes back t o 1 3 1 4 . "

1 1 6

She m e a n t there are

things a b o u t that phrase, l i t e r a l l y " d i s s o l u t i o n o f c o n t i n u i t y , " that c a n n o t be naturalized. T r y n a t u r a l i z i n g this i l l u s t r a t i o n f r o m the Petit Robert, q u o t i n g V i c t o r H u g o , " B e t w e e n present a n d future, there is solution de

continuité."

H e n c e , a l t h o u g h t h e translator's responsibility is to m o v e D u r k h e i m ' s t e x t l i n g u i s t i c a l l y t o w a r d the reader, p a r t o f the reader's o w n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y is to move intellectually toward D ü r k h e i m .

1 1 7

S t i l l , i t does n o t f o l l o w that the

E n g l i s h i t s e l f must s o u n d alien. L i t e r a l equivalents o f t h e w o r d s a n d m o s t o f t h e syntax are t o b e f o u n d i n S w a i n . B u t as I have j u s t s h o w n , literalness is n o guarantee against a l l mistakes. M o r e o v e r , to b e literal is n o t necessarily t o be faithful. D u r k h e i m ' s l a n guage was precise a n d scholarly, to b e sure, b u t his t e x t reads w e l l i n F r e n c h . As a r u l e , his sentences d o n o t force a calisthenics o f d e c i p h e r m e n t u p o n the reader. N o r d o they assail the reader's ear w i t h u g l y r h y t h m s , rhymes, a n d assonances o r w i t h images that clash. I have t r i e d n o t t o l e t Formes read less w e l l i n E n g l i s h t h a n i t does i n F r e n c h . I have also t r i e d as m u c h as possible t o r e n der a feature o f D u r k h e i m ' s personal style that can be lost i n translation that is n o t literal e n o u g h : the m e t a p h o r i c a l c o n t e n t i n his w o r d choices. D ü r k h e i m , the w o r k m a n l i k e scientist, deliberately avoided l i t e r a r y nights i n scientific w r i t i n g , b u t he sometimes t h o u g h t i n p o e t i c ways. H i s w o r d choices p u s h a w h o l e w o r l d o f images i n t o t h e t e x t , a n d I have t r i e d t o keep that w o r l d i n the n e w E n g l i s h Formes. D u r k h e i m ' s images give us i n s i g h t i n t o his m o d e o f t h i n k i n g and thus i n t o some o f the i n t u i t i v e leaps that m o b i l i z e d his w o r k . Still, the notes i n t h e m i n d o f the creative genius are n o t available t o be played b y his interpreter. E v e n w h e n t h e translator's search f o r equivalents is w e l l i n f o r m e d and resolute, the results stand at a distance f r o m the o r i g i n a l t e x t . E v e r y t r a n s l a t i o n is a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . M a n y w o r d s and t u r n s o f phrase have n o exact equivalents b e t w e e n o n e language a n d another. O f t e n the same is t r u e even o f w o r d s that m o v e b o d i l y . C o n s i d e r the F r e n c h w o r d s opinion a n d attitude. D u r k h e i m ' s opinion c o u l d have b e e n rendered as " p u b l i c o p i n i o n , " i f that t e r m h a d n o t c o m e t o m e a n discrete bits o f m e n t a l m a t e r i a l t o be d r a w n f r o m i n d i v i d u a l m i n d s b y pollsters a n d measured as t o t h e i r frequency

lv


o f o c c u r r e n c e . T h a t m e a n i n g o f " p u b l i c o p i n i o n " carries us t o t h e d i a m e t r i cal opposite o f w h a t D ü r k h e i m m e a n t b y représentation

collective.

118

I n a simi-

lar v e i n , i t is n o w h a r d t o extract " a t t i t u d e " f r o m the m i n d — t h e senses o f " d o i n g " o r " c o n d u c t " are n o l o n g e r o n its surface. T o dramatize the F r e n c h t e r m , as w e l l as a n o l d e r E n g l i s h sense, consider the painted attitudes o f Jesus's disciples i n The Last Supper. N o w consider " v i r t u e , " w h i c h n o l o n g e r has some o f the meanings that are present i n D ü r k h e i m s vertu. Just as, i n the K i n g James B i b l e , the salt can lose its savor, so a m e d i c i n e o r m a g i c a l o b j e c t c o u l d lose its v i r t u e ( o r v i r t u e s ) , m e a n i n g its m a t e r i a l potency, as w e l l as t h e m o r a l m e a n i n g e v i d e n t i n t h e phrase "a m a n o f v i r t u e , " o r the c u r i o u s l y d i f ferent o n e i f w e shift gender. I n t h e t e x t , vertu goes w i t h o t h e r w o r d s , efficace and efficacité, w h o s e E n g l i s h equivalents are o l d i s h b u t w h o s e m o r e m o d e r n s o u n d i n g equivalents seem o u t o f place. H e n c e : T h e potency o f t h e c h e m i c a l called fluoxetine h y d r o c h l o r i d e makes Prozac effective, b u t t h e virtues i n b l o o d s p r i n k l e d o n the sacred r o c k m a k e the Intichiuma rites efficacious. I n some instances, D u r k h e i m ' s m e a n i n g a n d o u r o w n everyday one i n t e r sect b u t t h e n diverge so far that o u r o w n familiar w o r d becomes strange t o us. O n e such w o r d is " m o r a l . " I n Formes, moral is often s y n o n y m o u s w i t h "social," very nearly the inverse o f w h a t w e usually m e a n b y " m o r a l . "

1 1 9

Its m o s t i m -

p o r t a n t a n t o n y m is n o t " i m m o r a l , " as w e m i g h t t h i n k , b u t " m a t e r i a l , " " t a n g i ble," and "physical." Consequently, " m o r a l " is real b u t n o t m a t e r i a l . " G o o d " is often n o t its s y n o n y m ; together w i t h "social," " s p i r i t u a l " and " m e n t a l " o f ten are. " I n d i v i d u a l " stands w i t h the a n t o n y m s o f " m o r a l , " because D u r k heim's " i n d i v i d u a l " denotes the body, its drives a n d appetites, its sensory apparatus—in s h o r t , o u r b o d i l y b e i n g considered as distinct from o u r h u m a n b e i n g . T h e " s o c i a l " is the source from w h i c h comes t h e h u m a n i z i n g discipline o f the " i n d i v i d u a l " that creates the "person." H e n c e , the f o l l o w i n g d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n " i n d i v i d u a l " a n d " p e r s o n " : " O u r sensations are i n t h e i r essence i n d i v i d u a l . B u t the m o r e emancipated w e are from the senses, and the m o r e capable w e are o f t h i n k i n g and a c t i n g conceptually, the m o r e w e are p e r s o n s . "

120

N o t o n l y is " m o r a l " n o t necessarily " g o o d " ; i t is o f t e n n o t even o n the same t e r r a i n as abstract j u d g m e n t s o f " g o o d " a n d "bad." F o r D ü r k h e i m , those j u d g m e n t s can b e m a d e o n l y i n p a r t i c u l a r social s e t t i n g s .

121

W h a t is

" m o r a l " is " s o c i a l " ; b o t h v a r y w i t h t i m e a n d place. A c c o r d i n g l y , the d o m a i n o f the " m o r a l " is n o t p r i v a t e , w i t h its o r i g i n i n some m y s t e r i o u s s o m e w h e r e i n the depths o f t h e physical i n d i v i d u a l , as o u r c o m m o n s e n s e usage suggests. Clearly, b y that p o i n t , w e are o n g r o u n d q u i t e alien t o o u r o w n . O n D u r k heim's g r o u n d , there can be n o f u l l - f l e d g e d p e r s o n s t a n d i n g apart from the " m o r a l , " as i n s t i t u t e d i n some h i s t o r i c a l l y g i v e n social setting. T h u s , whereas

lvi


i n o u r o w n h a b i t u a l w a y o f t h i n k i n g , that w h i c h is best i n us stands apart f r o m t h e social, i n D u r k h e i m ' s i t is that, precisely, w h i c h is at w a r w i t h o u r humanity.

1 2 2

F o r D u r k h e i m , w h a t stands apart is a b e i n g that is n o m o r e t h a n

t h e body, and all t h a t the b o d y t o w s a l o n g w i t h i t : T h e b r a i n is there b u t n o t w h a t w e recognize as t h i n k i n g ; m o v e m e n t is there b u t n o t w h a t w e r e c o g nize as h u m a n d o i n g . T h e m e r e co-presence o f m a n y such bodies is j u s t that, a m e r e co-presence, as l a c k i n g i n m u t u a l l y recognizable i d e n t i t y as so m a n y potatoes i n a sack. W i t h n o t h i n g b u t the m e r e l y physical a n d m a t e r i a l c o l l e c t i o n o f " i n d i v i d u a l s , " there is n e i t h e r reason n o r i d e n t i t y n o r c o m m u n i t y . T h e r e is n o language a n d n o k i n s h i p ; there are age differences b u t n o generations; there are sex differences b u t n o genders. U n l i k e morale, w h i c h can b r o a d e n a l o n g w i t h its place i n a distinctive syst e m o f t h o u g h t , the t e r m culte n a r r o w s i n A m e r i c a n E n g l i s h . A l t h o u g h " c u l t " o n c e m e a n t "a system o f religious w o r s h i p , especially w i t h reference t o its rites and ceremonies," i t n o w has a pejorative c o n n o t a t i o n that gives an o d d r i n g t o such sentences as these o f D u r k h e i m : " B u t feasts a n d r i t e s — i n a w o r d , the cult—are n o t t h e w h o l e o f r e l i g i o n . "

1 2 3

Again: " A l t h o u g h i n principle derived

f r o m the beliefs, the c u l t nevertheless reacts u p o n t h e m , a n d t h e m y t h is often m o d e l e d o n the r i t e so as t o account f o r i t . . . . "

1 2 4

" C u l t " n o w connotes n o t

j u s t feasts and rites b u t excessive and perhaps obsessive ones, attached t o b e liefs assumed t o be o u d a n d i s h .

125

F o r that reason, used w i t h o u t w a r n i n g today,

i t can plant i n the A m e r i c a n reader's m i n d a different attitude t o w a r d the t o t e m i c cults t h a n D u r k h e i m had. I d e c i d e d nevertheless, t o retain " c u l t " i n most contexts, f o r this reason: I f i t is d r o p p e d i n favor o f terms l i k e " w o r s h i p " and "practice," w h i c h sometimes w i l l do, D u r k h e i m ' s o w n use o f le culte decouples f r o m t h e cognate t e r m " c u l t u r e . " B u t that w i l l n o t d o at all. D u r k h e i m ' s o w n f o r m i d a b l e e x p l o r a t i o n o f religious beliefs and r i t e s — o f représentations collectives, and conscience collective, that is, o f shared ways o f t h i n k i n g and acting—was seminal t o the vast t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y e x p l o r a t i o n o f "culture." D i f f e r e n t p r o b l e m s arise w i t h t h e use o f "essential," w h i c h is nearly, b u t n o t entirely, s y n o n y m o u s i n E n g l i s h and F r e n c h . I n b o t h , i t means " f u n d a m e n t a l " a n d "necessary"; b u t i n A m e r i c a today, i f I q u o t e D u r k h e i m as h a v i n g called r e l i g i o n " a n essential a n d p e r m a n e n t aspect o f h u m a n i t y , " he m a y seem t o be saying t h a t r e l i g i o n is "indispensable" and, possibly, a d v o c a t i n g i t . Some readers m i g h t expect a case f o r prayer i n schools t o f o l l o w o r o t h e r r e suscitations o f o l d - t i m e r e l i g i o n i n t h e p u b l i c r e a l m . B u t w h e n D u r k h e i m calls r e l i g i o n an "essentiel et permanent" aspect o f h u m a n i t y , h e means n o such t h i n g . H i s use o f a similar phrase, " i n t e g r a l a n d p e r m a n e n t , " t o describe society, b r i n g s o u t w h a t he does m e a n : S o c i e t y "arouses i n us a w h o l e w o r l d o f

lvii


ideas a n d feelings that express i t b u t at the same t i m e are an integral and permanent part o f o u r s e l v e s . "

126

A t h i r d phrase, d e s c r i b i n g conscience collective,

w o r k s similarly: " B e i n g outside a n d above i n d i v i d u a l a n d l o c a l c o n t i n g e n cies, c o l l e c t i v e consciousness sees things o n l y i n t h e i r p e r m a n e n t a n d f u n d a mental

aspect."

127

Therefore,

noting D ü r k h e i m s

own

substitutions

of

" i n t e g r a l " and " f u n d a m e n t a l " f o r "essential," t r e a t i n g t h e three s y n o n y mously, a n d t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t subde differences o f shading i n different contexts o f use, I have sometimes r e n d e r e d essentiel as "essential" b u t far m o r e often as " f u n d a m e n t a l " o r " b a s i c . "

128

T h e s e are, unavoidably, choices. T h a t

v i r t u a l l y every o n e c o u l d have b e e n m a d e o t h e r w i s e inserts t h e translator's o w n response t o the t e x t i n t o w h a t c a n n o t h e l p b u t appear t o be w h a t i t c a n n o t possibly be: t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t "itself," o n l y p u t i n t o E n g l i s h . Now,

finally, three smaller matters o f c h o i c e n e e d t o be n o t e d here; o t h -

ers w i l l appear i n f o o t n o t e s , as t h e y c o m e u p i n the t e x t . First, n o w that w e have a n i m a t e d cartoons, the w o r d "animate," as a verb, has a c e r t a i n i n c o n g r u o u s h u m o r . B u t i n Formes, " a n i m a t e " goes w i t h t h e q u i t e serious ideas o f " s o u l " a n d " s p i r i t . " F o r o n e reason o r another, t h o u g h , t h e alternatives are j u s t as h a r d t o n a t u r a l i z e — o r t h e y are h u m o r o u s as w e l l : " q u i c k e n " (as i n " t h e q u i c k a n d t h e dead"), " e n l i v e n , " " v i v i f y , " " v i t a l i z e . " Since w e have T y l o r a n d " a n i m i s t " t h e o r y , I k e p t "animate." T h e n e x t m a t t e r concerns sentiment, w h i c h i n today's A m e r i c a n E n g l i s h strongly c o n n o t e s a f e e l i n g that is said (as o n a H a l l m a r k card) o r at least f o r m u l a t e d (sentiment against i n t e r v e n i n g m i l i t a r i l y ) . I n F r e n c h , i t o f t e n means d i r e c t " f e e l i n g , " o r "awareness" rather t h a n t h e i r f o r m u l i z e d versions. I n E n g l i s h , w e c a n n o t say, " I have the s e n t i m e n t that i t w i l l r a i n . " I d r o p p e d Swain's " s e n t i m e n t " almost e v e r y w h e r e . Finally, se représenter means t o "present t o the m i n d " — i n o t h e r w o r d s , to " c o n c e i v e " o r " i m a g i n e . " T r a n s l a t i n g literally, o n e can a r r i v e at "represent to oneself," a n d t h a t can mislead. I n m y first r e a d i n g o f Swain's, " R e l i g i o n is, above all, a system o f ideas b y w h i c h m e n represent to themselves t h e society o f w h i c h t h e y are m e m b e r s , " I p i c t u r e d t h e m c r e a t i n g emblems. W r o n g . B u t left u n t o u c h e d are c e r t a i n famous set phrases that after e i g h t y - p l u s years I feel c a n n o t be e x t r i c a t e d from D u r k h e i m ' s life i n E n g l i s h w i t h o u t d o i n g v i o l e n c e t o t h a t l i f e — f o r e x a m p l e , Swain's r e n d e r i n g o f D u r k h e i m ' s c e l ebrated d e f i n i t i o n o f r e l i g i o n a n d his m a r v e l o u s phrase " t h o r o u g h g o i n g i d i o c y " f o r illogique foncière, a b r i l l i a n d y n o n l i t e r a l r e n d e r i n g that captures n o t o n l y D u r k h e i m ' s sense b u t also his a t t i t u d e t o w a r d c e r t a i n accounts o f a supposed mentalité primitive t o w h i c h l o g i c is u t t e r l y alien. Sometimes t h e p r o b l e m o f equivalents lies at a different level from terms and phrases o r structure. T h e r e

is n o

serviceable

A m e r i c a n equivalent

Iviii


f o r D u r k h e i m ' s n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y F r e n c h and academic m o d e o f expression, even i n m o s t scholarly w r i t i n g . Therefore, paradoxically, the search f o r equivalence l e d m e t o one change that may at first seem radical. W h a t , for e x ample, c o u l d be o u r i d i o m a t i c equivalent t o D u r k h e i m ' s e d i t o r i a l " w e " ? M i c h a e l Gane recounts a p a r o d y b y M a u r i c e R o c h e that b r i n g s o u t part o f the p r o b l e m .

1 2 9

I n i t , a hapless lecturer, s l e e p w a l k i n g annually t h r o u g h D u r k -

heim's classic The Rules of Sociological Method, collides w i t h a w i d e - a w a k e u n dergraduate.

T h e student refuses t o grant a n y t h i n g , n o t least D u r k h e i m ' s

" w e , " the v e r y first w o r d i n that t e x t , as i t is i n Formes. T h e student brings the class to a halt b y d e m a n d i n g t o k n o w w h o precisely " w e " are. W h a t is m o r e , he refuses t o cooperate w h e n w h a t he calls an a u t h o r i t a r i a n v o i c e addresses h i m w i t h the " w e " that apparendy means " y o u a n d I " : I t was u n e a r n e d c o m m o n ground. I t o o stumble over the e d i t o r i a l " w e " i n the existing E n g l i s h translations. I n D u r k h e i m ' s day, i t was the s i m p l y the modest, objective v o i c e o f academic o r scientific w r i t i n g (as i t is still i n the preferred r h e t o r i c o f some d i s c i p l i n e s ) .

130

As such, that modest, objective " w e " f o r m a l l y gestured t o w a r d a scientific c o l l e c t i v i t y standing b e h i n d every published w o r k , despite solo a u t h o r s h i p . Nonetheless, i t is m e r e l y a r h e t o r i c a l d e v i c e .

132

131

So t o render the t e x t i n an E n -

glish r h e t o r i c that does n o t d r a w the w r o n g sort o f a t t e n t i o n t o itself, w e have substituted " I " for " w e , " except w h e n " w e " seems i n c o n t e x t t o m e a n " y o u a n d I , " i n c l u d i n g the reader. W e have, however, retained the

first-person

plural

i n the m a n y statements D ü r k h e i m makes about the behavior o f h u m a n beings generally, i n c l u d i n g b o t h h i m s e l f a n d the reader, o r i n reference to h i m s e l f as a m e m b e r o f a g r o u p that excludes the reader. W e have shifted t o the e d i t o r i a l " w e " t o illustrate o u r p o i n t about h o w the t e x t sounds w i t h o u t o u r effort, i n retranslating, t o reconstruct the p l a i n - s o u n d i n g n e u t r a l i t y o f the o r i g i n a l . W e have n o t changed the t e x t i n o n e respect that m a y disconcert some readers: homme is translated as " m a n " o r " m a n k i n d . " " H u m a n b e i n g " renders être humain; a n d "person," personne. T h i s translation does n o t t r y t o reconstruct D u r k h e i m ' s gender vocabulary o r his o u d o o k . D u r k h e i m ' s homme, " m a n , " i n cludes " w o m a n , " at least some o f the t i m e ; b u t nowadays w e insist o n saying " h u m a n b e i n g " o r " p e r s o n " all o f the t i m e . I n Formes, however, " p e r s o n " (as used i n everyday speech) w i l l n o t w o r k . W h y not? W e q u o t e D ü r k h e i m : " T h e t w o terms [person a n d i n d i v i d u a l ] are b y n o means s y n o n y m o u s . I n a sense, they oppose m o r e t h a n they i m p l y o n e a n o t h e r . "

133

Besides, w h i l e D ü r k h e i m

is a theorist o f social c o n d u c t , considered globally and e m b r a c i n g all h u m a n beings, i t w o u l d be an abuse t o m a r k this b y i n s e r t i n g a m o d e r n t e r m i n o l o g y that achieves this embrace b y means o f linguistic affirmative a c t i o n — i n our

lix


o w n t i m e , and for us (a p r o n o u n w h i c h f r o m n o w o n does n o t designate an e d i t o r i a l " w e , " b u t is m e a n t t o i n c l u d e m e and the reader). Our o w n usage i m plies the (ideally) inclusive gender conventions that b e l o n g to o u r o w n day; D ü r k h e i m s i m p l i e s the q u i t e different gender conventions o f his o w n . T h e s e c o n v e n t i o n s are i m p l i c i t i n all his w r i t i n g , a n d sometimes t h e y are e x p l i c i t . L i k e m a n y o f his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , he b e l i e v e d w o m a n ' s b r a i n a n d m e n t a l capacity t o be smaller t h a n man's. M u c h t o take issue w i t h f o l l o w e d f r o m that belief. A l t h o u g h t h e t e m p t a t i o n arises t o i m p r o v e u p o n the elegant o l d f u r n i t u r e t h a t is Formes, I have resisted i t . T o give i n w o u l d a m o u n t t o D ü r k h e i m s p o s t h u m o u s " r e c o n s t r u c t i o n " b y m e , i n a different and u n a c ceptable sense. I c a n n o t be i n the business o f r e h a b i l i t a t i n g D ü r k h e i m s u n e n l i g h t e n e d attitudes a b o u t w o m e n . I f sufficient t o sink h i m forever, t h e y s h o u l d be a l l o w e d to. R e c o n s t r u c t i o n o n this a c c o u n t is d o u b l y u n a c c e p t able, because i t w o u l d p r o f o u n d l y alter D u r k h e i m ' s m e a n i n g as that m e a n i n g can be o b j e c t i v e l y k n o w n f r o m t h e passage j u s t c i t e d , a n d at t h e same t i m e i n t r o d u c e a deep i l l o g i c i n t o the b o o k as a w h o l e . T h e a r g u m e n t is c o n structed u s i n g evidence f r o m rituals t h a t D ü r k h e i m imagines as h a v i n g h a d almost exclusively male p a r t i c i p a t i o n . W h e n D ü r k h e i m says "he," r e f e r r i n g to an A u s t r a l i a n o r t o a deity, that is m o s t o f t e n w h a t he l i t e r a l l y m e a n s .

134

M o r e o v e r , c o n d u c t i n g repairs w o u l d displace c e r t a i n possible c r i t i q u e s . For example, N a n c y Jay, a f e m i n i s t sociologist o f r e l i g i o n , a r g u e d that i n s o far as exclusively male rituals p r o v i d e t h e e m p i r i c a l f o u n d a t i o n f o r D u r k heim's social a c c o u n t o f reason, i t c o m m i t s h i m t o o n e o f t w o anomalous conclusions: W o m e n c a n n o t reason, w h i c h is false, o r w o m e n ' s a b i l i t y t o reason w o u l d r e q u i r e a separate t h e o r y . heim's

gender

outlook would

1 3 5

Additionally, reconstructing D u r k -

conceal

the

sense i n w h i c h

his

grand

oppositions b e t w e e n sacred a n d profane, social a n d i n d i v i d u a l , m i n d a n d body, person a n d i n d i v i d u a l , m o r a l and m a t e r i a l , are l a t e n t l y a n o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n male a n d f e m a l e .

136

Surely i t m u s t be the g o a l o f translation t o leave

i n t a c t the i n t e r n a l tensions o f the o r i g i n a l t e x t — i n this case, the l i m i t s o f t h e b o l d l y universalistic a r g u m e n t , s t u n n i n g f o r its t i m e , that t h e b o o k attempts. R e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f elegant o l d f u r n i t u r e m u s t n o t m e a n sanding away characteristic features o f its o r i g i n a l design. Swain's o w n r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f D u r k h e i m ' s F r e n c h title as " T h e E l e m e n tary F o r m s o f t h e R e l i g i o u s L i f e " n o w carries the patina o f respectable age. T h i s t i d e has b e c o m e so m u c h p a r t o f the b o o k ' s life i n E n g l i s h that, except i n the d e l e t i o n o f o n e "the," I have n o t changed i t . B u t I w o u l d have p r e ferred the t e r m " e l e m e n t a l , " even t h o u g h élémentaire

expresses b o t h . T h e

question is n o t r i g h t o r w r o n g translation b u t t h e scope each alternative

lx


leaves f o r r i g h t o r w r o n g u n d e r s t a n d i n g . O n t h e o n e h a n d , " e l e m e n t a r y " w i l l d o i n some respects; t h i n k o f the c o n c e p t " e l e m e n t a r y particles," d e f i n e d as b e i n g the smallest a n d m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l particles k n o w n . O n the o t h e r h a n d , i n d a y - t o - d a y usage, " e l e m e n t a r y " has a d i m i n u t i v e a n d vaguely dismissive c o n n o t a t i o n a n d sets u p the same p o t e n t i a l p r o b l e m f o r some readers as " s i m p l e . " C o n s i d e r S h e r l o c k Holmes's " E l e m e n t a r y , m y dear W a t s o n , " o r consider the charge, " Y o u j u s t d o n ' t seem t o get t h e m o s t elementary p o i n t s , " w h i c h means the easiest o r simplest—addressed

b y a scold t o a d i m w i t .

D u r k h e i m means " s i m p l e s t " as w e l l , b u t ( i n a d d i t i o n t o the o t h e r considerat i o n s already referred to) he means i t as p a r t i c l e physicists m e a n i t , scientists w h o assuredly m e a n things that challenge t h e i n t e l l e c t . H e seeks t o e x p l o r e b u i l d i n g b l o c k s o f h u m a n social life, as physicists e x p l o r e b u i l d i n g b l o c k s o f matter. " E l e m e n t a r y " is suitable o n l y i f used i n a restricted sense that is n o t altogether Sir A r t h u r C o n a n D o y l e ' s a n d n o t at all t h e scold's. I n a sense, D u r k h e i m was a t t e m p t i n g i n his study w h a t the C u r i e s w e r e a t t e m p t i n g i n t h e i r labs. D u r k h e i m s " s i m p l e s t " f o r m s are indispensably p a r t o f the m o s t c o m p l e x . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e y can be t h o u g h t o f as atoms a n d c o m p a r e d t o the c h e m i c a l substances that m a k e u p t h e p e r i o d i c chart, the elements.

The

formes that he discovers i n this p a r t i c u l a r study are the elements t o be f o u n d i n the m a k e u p o f t h e r e l i g i o n s he t h o u g h t o f as m o r e complexes o r as " h i g h e r " i n an e v o l u t i o n a r y sense. D u r k h e i m is interested i n "a f u n d a m e n t a l and p e r m a n e n t " aspect o f h u m a n i t y a n d i n its "ever-present source," w h i c h can be discerned i f studied i n w h a t he takes t o be its elemental f o r m s . W h a t e v e r those f o r m s are (and I n o w paraphrase a p h y s i c i s t ) ,

137

t h e y have an u n d e r l y i n g i d e n -

t i t y that persists despite unceasing change a n d limitless diversity. M o r e o v e r , as i n the physicist's search f o r e l e m e n t a r y particles, t h e q u e s t i o n o f c h r o n o l o g i cal o r i g i n s is related and yet separable. So i f w e understand the phrase formes élémentaires

i n that way, w e need n o t get b o g g e d d o w n , as some have, i n the

n o t i o n that D u r k h e i m made t h e e r r o r o f t h i n k i n g t o t e m i s m b r o u g h t h i m t o o r i g i n s i n a c h r o n o l o g i c a l sense. Instead, w e can take h i m at his w o r d . W h e t h e r he was r i g h t o r w r o n g a b o u t t h i n k i n g this o r a b o u t t h i n k i n g t h a t the study o f Australians c o u l d possibly y i e l d u p r e l i g i o n i n elemental f o r m are v a l i d b u t separate questions. W h a t is i m p o r t a n t is t o grasp t h e scientific e x p l o r a t i o n that D u r k h e i m a t t e m p t e d . T h e b u r d e n o f t h e b o o k as a w h o l e is that an aspect o f h u m a n i t y ' s " f u n d a m e n t a l and p e r m a n e n t " nature is t o be f o u n d i n h u m a n i t y ' s social nature. A n d that h u m a n , social nature is n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n its vie religieuse. T o s h o w us w h a t is i n c l u d e d i n this vie religieuse r e quires t h e f u l l l e n g t h o f a l o n g b o o k . W e can already say that this n o t i o n goes far b e y o n d w h a t p e o p l e d o specifically as c h u r c h m e n o r - w o m e n .

lxi


A c c o r d i n g l y , the n e w t i t l e rejects Swain's r e n d e r i n g "the r e l i g i o u s life." I f taken as an u n f o r t u n a t e artifact o f l i t e r a l translation, the phrase "the r e l i g i o u s l i f e " furnishes D u r k h e i m w i t h a v o i c e i n a h e a v i l y accented a n d game b u t c l u m s y use o f E n g l i s h . I t is as i f he offered a Gallic s h r u g t o an i n t e l l e c t u a l l y s w a m p e d A m e r i c a n u n d e r g r a d u a t e a n d said t o h i m , " A s w e t e l l i n France, 'c'est la vie'—that's

t h e l i f e ' ! " W e l l , Non. T h e d e f i n i t e article d e f i n i t e l y does

n o t b e l o n g there. B u t w h a t a b o u t the E n g l i s h phrase " r e l i g i o u s life," w h i c h suggests a life apart? F r o m t h e a r g u m e n t o f t h e p r e c e d i n g paragraph, i t is o b v i o u s that the b o o k is n o t a b o u t monasteries o r r e l i g i o u s v i r t u o s i , o r a b o u t beliefs a n d practices

sealed

o f f w i t h i n a separate sphere o f h u m a n

life

u n i q u e l y t h e i r o w n . I n o u r o w n day, " r e l i g i o u s l i f e " connotes an exclusively i n w a r d a n d p r i v a t e sphere—but t h e s e v e n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y w o r l d that was h o s tile t o P i l g r i m s and Puritans d i d n o t , a n d the w o r l d o f Formes does n o t . T h i n k b a c k t o t h e w a y D u r k h e i m answered those w h o believe the f u n c t i o n o f r e l i g i o n is t o offer a t h e o r y o f the w o r l d : " I t s t r u e f u n c t i o n is t o m a k e us act and t o h e l p us live." Finally, I t h i n k D u r k h e i m does m e a n "the e l e m e n t a l f o r m s . " H e offers his study based o n A u s t r a l i a n ethnographies as a "single, w e l l - c o n d u c t e d e x p e r i m e n t . " I t is v e r y clear, f r o m t h e first page, that a l t h o u g h based u p o n o b servations i n A b o r i g i n a l A u s t r a l i a n societies, he intends his findings t o reveal the f u n d a m e n t a l b u i l d i n g b l o c k s o f all r e l i g i o n , its ever-present source a n d natural resource i n the m e n t a l i t y , a n d i n the reality, o f h u m a n k i n d . W h a t e v e r is i n theirs is i n his a n d i n ours. K a r e n E . Fields Rochester, N e w Y o r k O c t o b e r 1994

NOTES 1.

Emile Durkheim, "Contribution to discussion 'Religious Sentiment at the Present Time,' " reproduced in W. S. F. Pickering, Durkheim on Religion:A Selection of Readings with Bibliographies, London, Roudedge, 1975, p. 184, which includes new translations by Pickering and Jacqueline Redding.

2.

Introduction, p. 2.

3.

A. A. Goldenweiser, "Emile Durkheim—Les Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse:Le Système totémique en Australie, 1912," originally published in American Anthropologist 17, 1915, reproduced in Peter Hamilton, ed., Emile Durkheim: Critical Assessments, London and N e w York, Routledge, 1990, 3:240.

4.

Durkheim published three other major books during his lifetime: The Division of Labor in Society (1893), The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), and Sui-

bcii


cide (1897). For a comprehensive bibliography of his work, see W. S. F. Pickering, Durkheim's Sociology of Religion: Themes and Theories, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984, pp. 535-543. 5. 6.

Introduction, pp. 2-3. I refer to Paul Tillich's (1955) essay "Religion" in Mark Van Dören, ed., Man's Right to Knowledge and the Free UseThereof, New York, Columbia, 1955, and to Rudolf Otto s (1917) book Das Heilige, translated in 1923 as The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational, John W. Harvey, trans., London, Oxford, 1923.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

P. 426. P. 9. Goldenweiser, "Emile Dürkheim," p. 218. M y italics. P. 349 and n. 55. P. 437. One of the many delights of Formes is to encounter the nineteenthcentury philologists, whose explorations of how language shapes reality (in the Vedas, twenty Sanskrit words for "sky") remain important even today. See p. 75.

12. 13.

P. 227. Here I am talking about rhetorical features of the text. O n its characteristic logical features, Steven Lukes has written a comprehensive analysis: Emile Dürkheim: His Life and Work, A Historical and Critical Study, London, Penguin, 1973.

14.

D ü r k h e i m used the word paradoxale, which literally means "against doctrine," but the everyday meaning of its English counterpart waters down into mere strangeness.

15.

Gaston Richard, originally published in Revue d'histoire et de philosophie re¬ ligieuse (1923), reproduced in Pickering, Dürkheim on Religion. Pickering and Redding explain that they substituted "English" for Pochard's own term "Anglican." I imagine he said what he meant.

16.

Not being grounded in the real, magic did not survive, except as entertainment. Here, briefly, is the threefold analytical distinction that Dürkheim makes: (1) religion is social, built on communities, whereas magical practices are individual, linking a practitioner and a client; (2) religion builds on altruism, and magic on individual utility; and (3) given the previous two points, religion works in the real, whereas magic does not, because religion works morally rather than materially, that is, on human minds operating collectively rather than on things. See pp. 41—42, pp. 360, 363. M y own example: It has turned out that gold cannot be made from baser metals, but paper money can be made to be as good as gold.

17.

Dominick LaCapra, Emile Dürkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher, Chicago, U n i versity of Chicago Press, 1972.

18. 19.

Lukes, Emile Dürkheim, p. 4. Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action, New York, Free Press, 1968 [1937], 1:421-429.


lxiii

20.

Raymond Aron, Main Currents of Sociological Thought, Middlesex, England, Penguin, 1967, 2:66-68.

21.

I say this in full awareness of Mordecai Kaplans embrace of Formes as an intellectual foundation for Reconstructionist Judaism and even though Kaplan's student, the well-known popularizer Harold Kushner, uses somewhat Durkheimian formulations. See To Life! A Celebration of Jewish Being and Thinking, Boston, Little, Brown, 1993, esp. chap. 3.

22. 23.

Parsons, Structure of Social Action, p. 421. But see a splendid article by Patricia Cormack, " The Rules of Sociological Method: The Paradox of Dürkheims Manifesto," Theory and Society, forthcoming.

24.

Judith Ryan provides an illuminating account of the links joining physics, psychology, philosophy, painting, and literature in The Vanishing Subject: Early Psychology and Literary Modernism, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1991.

25.

According to Frank Pearce, The Radical Dürkheim, London, Unwin, 1989, p. 3, Foucault did not usually acknowledge his debt to Dürkheim. However, according to Stuart Hall, he did indeed. Discussion following a paper, " C o n structing the Black Subject." Presented at the conference Race Matters: U.S. Terrain, Princeton University, April 29, 1994.

26.

See Terry F. Godlove, Religion, Interpretation, and Diversity of Belief: The Framework Model from Kant to Dürkheim to Davidson, Cambridge, Cambridge U n i versity Press, 1989.

27.

In this context, "empirical science" will do, but I retain the French phrase, so that the dense tangle of meanings can be unraveled by the reader according to context. T h e following statement by Auguste Comte can serve as a guide: "Considered first in its oldest and commonest sense, the word 'positive' designates the real as opposed to the chimerical. In this respect, it well suits the new philosophical spirit, the mark of which is its constant dedication to research that is accessible to our intelligence, to the permanent exclusion of the impenetrable mysteries with which it was occupied in its infancy." See André L a lande, Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie, Paris, F. Alcan, 1926, p. 597.

28.

O n this point, see the papers collected in Said A . Arjomand, ed., The Political Dimensions of Religion, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1993. P. 419.

29. 30.

Dürkheim titled his chapter on soul La Notion d'âme—"the idea of soul"— but he could have said La Notion de l'âme—"the idea of the soul."

31. 32.

P. 262. A n 1894 publication, a classic almost instantly, launched modern research on the early Greek idea of the soul: E . Rhode, Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen, 2 vols., Freiburg, Leipzig, and Tübingen, which appeared in English as Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality among the Greeks, W. B. Hillis, trans., London, 1925, cited by Jan Bremmer, The Early Greek Concept of the Soul, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1983, p. 6.

33.

Empedocles was one of the early Greek philosophers who thought (like the

lxiv


Australians) that the soul resides in the blood. And consider this: In Homer, the soul leaves the body via wounds. See Bremmer, Early Greek Concept, pp. 3, 15, which also brings out the multifariousness of that concept. For helpful conversation and references, I am indebted to my colleagues Lewis W. Beck, Deborah Modrak, and George Dennis O'Brien. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

P. 49. P. 54. Pp. 65, 66, 67. P. 271. This argument also lays the foundation for an argument (made in Bk. I l l , chap. 3, esp. p. 368) against the claim that the concept "cause" can be derived from the individual experience of willing.

39.

P. 368.

40.

To get a sense of what is involved, work through the intricate diagram in Craig Barclay, "Autobiographical Remembering: Creating Personal Culture," in M . A. Conway, D. C . Rubin, and W. Wagenaar, eds., Theoretical Perspectives on Autobiographical Memory, Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992, esp. p. 2.

41.

Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish:The Birth of the Prison, Alan Sheridan, trans., N e w York, Vintage, 1979, pp. 23ff. For conversation and references on this and many of the points that follow, I am indebted to my colleague Ayala Gabriel. P. 265.

42. 43. 44.

Adin Steinsaltz, The Thirteen Petalled Rose: A Discourse on the Essence ofJewish Existence and Belief, Yehuda Hanegbi, trans., N e w York, Basic Books, 1980, pp. 51-52.

45.

N o r does the fact that a powerful abstract notion is to be found in religious tradition by any means make its use suggest residual believerhood. P. 8. P. 419. P. 177. This chapter especially, including its footnotes, has many dry rejoinders. Pickering, Durkheim's Sociology of Religion, p. xxiv; Lewis A. Coser, Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context, N e w York, Harcourt, 1971, pp. 162-163.

46. 47. 48. 49.

50.

Quoted from Gouldner's The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology in a valuable discussion of Durkheim by Peter Ekeh: Social Exchange Theory:The Two Traditions, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1974, p. 12.

51. 52.

Aron, Main Currents, pp. 13—14. Stjepan G . Mestrovic formulated the question properly in his Emile Durkheim and the Reformation of Sociology, Totowa, NJ, R o w m a n & Littlefield, 1987, p. 19. There is also a speculative, Freudianized article by J. C . Filloux, "Il ne faut pas oublier que je suis fils de rabbin," Revue française de sociologie 17, no. 2, 1976, pp. 259-266.


Ixv

53.

For fascinating suggestions about the relationships between Comte s historical epistemology of science and modern writers, see Johan Heilbron, "Auguste Comte and Modern Epistemology," Sociological Theory 8, no. 2, Fall 1990, pp. 152—162. Full-scale analysis of D ü r k h e i m s work by professional philosophers has been relatively rare. But see, in addition to Godlove, Religion, Interpretation, and Diversity, Warren Schmaus, Durkheim's Philosophy of Science and the Sociology of Knowledge: Creating an Intellectual Niche, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1994.

54.

Robert Bellah has disposed of the myths that Dürkheim was antipsychological and that he thought a sociology wholly independent of psychology was possible. Robert N . Bellah, Emile Dürkheim on Morality and Society, Chicago, U n i versity of Chicago Press, 1973, pp. xx—xxi. And see Ryan, Vanishing Subject, for an excellent introduction to early psychology and its entrance into the consciousness of educated turn-of-the-century West European and American audiences. Ryan, however, excludes psychoanalysis. See also John Kerr, A Most Dangerous Method: The Story ofJung, Freud, and Sabina Spielrein, New York, V i n tage Books, 1993, pp. 27—29. Kerr's Introduction provides a sense of the milieu in which Dürkheim discussed phenomena such as transmigration of souls and metempsychosis. For a time, investigations into spiritualism were not sharply distinguished from what would later be designated specifically as scientific work.

55.

With his characteristic acuteness but without lasting effect on subsequent commentary, Talcott Parsons pointed out that the absence of a theory of social change does not render a theory ahistorical. Structure of Social Action, 1:450

56.

But see Parsons's brilliant 1937 synthesis, which revealed how ambiguous the relationship of Formes is to functionalism (Structure of Social Action, esp. 1:441—450), and Pickering, Durkheim's Sociology of Religion, pp. 88—89, 300—317—both of which read Formes rather differently than I have done here.

57. 58.

P. 1. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London, Verson, 1983.

59.

For a crisply made case of why not, see Lukes, Emile Dürkheim, pp. 477-479. For early ethnographers' criticisms of the work that emerged almost immediately, see A . A. Goldenweiser, "Review of Les Formes élémentaires de la vie religieux: Le Système totémique en Australie" (originally published in 1915), in Peter Hamilton, ed., Emile Dürkheim: Critical Assessments, London and N e w York, Routledge, 1990, 3:238-252; and another review (published in 1913), reproduced in Pickering, Dürkheim on Religion, pp. 205—208.

60. 61. 62. 63.

Lukes, Emile Dürkheim. Robert Nisbet, The Sociology of Emile Dürkheim, N e w York, Oxford, 1974. Pickering, Durkheim's Sociology of Religion. Although many readers have arrived at this under their own steam, scholarly sources include Mary Douglas's view on "the Durkheimian premise that soci-

lxvi


ety and God can be equated." Mary Douglas, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology, London, Barrie andRockliff, 1970, quoted by Pickering, Durkheim's Sociology of Religion (whose discussion, pp. 227—241, provides a learned analysis and many useful references). See also Aran's very strong statement in Main Currents: "It seems to me absolutely inconceivable to define the essence of religion in terms of the worship which the individual pledges to the group, for in my eyes the essence of impiety is precisely the worship of the social order. To suggest that the object of the religious feelings is society transfigured is not to save but to degrade that human reality which sociology seeks to understand" (p. 68). 64.

P. 44. Le Petit Robert quotes this definition to illustrate the term système in the sense of "a structured set of abstract things."

65.

H e is thought to have been influenced in this direction by his reading of Robertson Smith's Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (Pickering, Durkheim's Sociology of Religion, p. 63). But readers who hear echoes of historical materialism in this movement from deed to idea are referred to, pp. 385ff. There Durkheim talks about the elaboration of rites in a way that brings to mind the later Marxist use of "relative autonomy," to discuss the elaboration of beliefs.

66.

A main argument of Bk. I, Chap. 4, esp. p. 93. It sometimes goes unnoticed that Durkheim points out precisely those traits of the clan that make its coherence improbable: no stable authority, not based on well-defined territory or common residence, not necessarily consanguineous, and virtually no utilitarian functions. Cf., p. 234.

67.

This formulation is drawn from Nancy Jay, ThroughoutYour Generations Forever: Sacrifice, Religion, and Paternity, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1992, pp. 17-19.

68.

P. 208. My italics. The French reads as follows: [Le totem] exprime et symbolise deux sortes de choses différentes. D'une part, il est la forme extérieure et sensible de ce que nous avons appelé le principe ou le dieu totémique. Mais d'un autre côté, il est aussi le symbole de cette société déterminée qu 'on appelé le clan. C'en est le drapeau; c'est le signe par lequel chaque clan se distingue des autres, la marque visible de sa personnalité, marque que porte tout ce qui fait partie du clan à un titre quelconque, hommes, bêtes et choses. Si donc il est, à la fois, le symbole du dieu et de la société, n'est-ce pas que le dieu et la société ne font qu'un? Comment l'emblème du groupe aurait-il pu devenir la figure de cette quasi divinité, si le groupe et la divinité étaient deux réalités distinctes? Le dieu dit clan, le principe totémique, ne peut donc être autre chose que le clan lui-même, mais hypostasié et représenté aux imaginations sous les espèces sensibles du végétal ou de l'animal qui sert de totem.

69.

The controverted "reduction" of God to society can be taken in at least two senses: simplifying something complex to the point of distorting it, or restating something in different but equivalent terms (e.g., 2/6 = 1/3). T h e fact that both in this context imply diminishment reveals the theological strata of the controversy. (A third sense, the theory of explanation, is not at issue.) If God is


70.

lxvii

in the definition of religion, keeping theological and nontheological things aloft is like juggling rubber balls and wooden Indian clubs at the same time. The reader who is prepared to jump to conclusions about what the Dürkheim whom we saw addressing "free believers" was prepared to say about G o d should turn now to p. 15, and reflect on the nicety of this statement about man's social being, which "represents within us the highest reality in the intellectual and moral realm that is knowable through observation: I mean society." My italics.

71.

In these terms, I miss the point of laboring to protect God's separateness, as in the following passage of Pickerings (Dürkheims Sociology of Religion, p. 235): "The danger is always to jump the parallel [society is to its members as G o d is to the faithful] and make the two concepts or realities identical, or at least to suggest that one is the other. Critics claim that Dürkheim makes such a step, but they disregard all caution. . . . Dürkheim is much more careful, and nowhere does he take the final and irrevocable step."

72.

For a carefully reasoned statement of this view, see Melford E . Spiro, " R e l i gion: Problems of Definition and Explanation," in Michael Banton, ed., Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, London, Tavistock, 1966. P. 172.

73. 74.

See, for example, p. 77, on naturism: "It is not by praying to them, celebrating them in feasts and sacrifices, and imposing fasts and privations on himself that he could have prevented them from harming him or obliged them to serve his purposes. Such procedures could have succeeded only on very rare occasions—miraculously, so to speak. I f the point of religion was to give us a representation of the world that would guide us in our dealings with it, then religion was in no position to fulfill its function, and all peoples would not have been slow to notice that fact: Failures, infinitely more common than successes, would have notified them very quickly that they were on the wrong path; and religion, constantly shaken by these constant disappointments, would have been unable to last."

75.

P. 239.

76.

Dürkheim not only denies that reconciliation is possible but also dismisses that argument along those lines as beside the point. Pp. 419—43Iff. See L a Capra, Emile Dürkheim, p. 289.

77.

See Jay, Throughout Your Generations, pp. 30—40, where we encounter an instructive example of beliefs that could not exist if, to exist, they had to be merely believable—for example, male priests disguised as pregnant women and conducting blood sacrifices. Jay argues that unilineal descent through fathers is publicly done through blood sacrificial rites, in rites that are often explicitly formulated as transcending birth from mothers. It is precisely through participation in those rites that (a counterfactual) one-sided descent is collectively established as real.

lxviii


78.

To any reader who imagines doubt as the exclusive intellectual property of recent times or of cultures near our own, I recommend a spectacular article by Claude Lévi-Strauss, D ü r k h e i m s direct intellectual descendant: "The Sorcerer and His Magic," in Structural Anthropology, Garden City, N Y , Doubleday, 1967 [1963].

79.

P. 214. D ü r k h e i m does not make the assumption that the rational capacity of man differs from race to race or from time to time. For him, humanity is one. For a statement of the opposite assumption, see Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, Les Fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures, Paris, Alcan, 1910, which Dürkheim disputes throughout Formes.

80.

This remark by Comte appears in the Petit Robert, to illustrate one sense of the word simple. Cormack, "Rules of Sociological Method," has pointed out that this strategy is akin to that used by the ancient Greek rhetoricians, especially the sophists.

81. 82.

He repeats this point in criticizing concepts like "primitive" and "savage," and elsewhere. See his side criticism of Frazer, for example, p. 183, and the distinction between origins and elements that he takes for granted throughout, for example, p. 55.

83.

See D ü r k h e i m s rationale for simplifying in order to reduce differences and variations to a minimum (pp. 5-7). Note also that he opens the first chapter of Book One with the observation that even the simplest religions known are of very great complexity (p. 45).

84.

One sometimes hears the simplistic consideration that Dürkheim might have found exotic cases expedient at a time in France when religion was a hot button issue, and the anti-Semitism exposed in the Dreyfus Affair might have made it still hotter for Dürkheim. But then, what would we make of the fact that an international legion of scholars accorded totemism general theoretical interest? See Claude Lévi-Strauss, Totemism, Rodney Needham, trans., Boston, Beacon Press, 1963.

85.

Peter Berger drew out some of these implications of Formes by devising the concept of "plausibility structures," communities whose everyday life takes for granted religious definitions of reality. See The Sacred Canopy, Garden City, N Y , Doubleday, 1967, pp. 16, 46, 156.

86. 87.

P. 206. Psychologist Craig Barclay tells me that the scheme Dürkheim lays out is more or less the classical paradigm of conditioned response. Little has been written about how closely Dürkheim followed developments in psychology. Lukes's footnotes indicate that Dürkheim read Wilhelm Wundt through the 1880s and 1890s, and it is clear in Formes that he closely read the work of William James, whose Principles of Psychology appeared in French translation in 1910. Besides, James (according to Ryan, Vanishing Subject, pp. 12, 17) disseminated and received ideas, on and from both sides of the Atlantic, even as he developed his


lxix

own, and his earliest publications in France appeared in a journal edited by D ü r k h e i m s teacher, Charles Renouvier. 88.

See Trudier Harris, Exorcising Blackness: Historical and Literary Lynching and Burning Rituals, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1984, on the passage of such effervescences into American literary art; Albert Speer, Inside the Tliird Reich: Memoirs, N e w York, Macmillan, 1970, the self-aware artist of buildings and Nazi effervescences; and Marcel Mauss, D ü r k h e i m s younger collaborator who lived to see the Nazis' effervescences and then saw how "many large modern societies" could be "hypnotized like Australians are by their dances, and set in motion like a children's roundabout." Quoted in Lukes, Entile Dürkheim, p. 338n.

89. 90. 91. 92. 93.

P. 213. Ibid. P. 211. P. 223. Cf. the classically instructive but (I believe) mistaken view of Parsons, Structure of Social Action, pp. 442ff. Parsons objected to D ü r k h e i m s pensée and conscience collectives as reified "group mind" concepts. But actually, I think, not only the mind but also the senses are not fully accounted for if conceived of in their individual aspects alone. Consider what the neurologist Oliver Sacks tells us about "Virgil," blind from early childhood, who through surgery forty-five years later regained the physical capacity to see. But, not having "spent a lifetime learning to see," he did not regain the seen world of his contemporaries—a condition for which neurologists have the interesting term "agnostic." See Oliver Sacks, An Anthropologist on Mars: Seven Paradoxical Tales, N e w York, Knopf, 1995, pp. 108-151, esp. pp. 114-115.

94. 95. 96.

Approvingly quoted by Lukes, Emile Dürkheim, p. 25. See ibid., pp. 25-26. P. 122.

97.

Alan Unterman, Dictionary of Jewish Lore and Legend, London, Thames and Hudson, 1991, p. 25.

98.

P. 226. Here is a glaring mistake by Joseph Ward Swain, who for l'étendu and l'inétendu wrote, respectively, "heard" and "not heard" (as if Dürkheim had written l'entendu and Vinentendu), thereby making the connection to Descartes disappear and also the logic that joins this chapter with the one i m mediately following, on the idea of soul. The 1975 translation by Pickering and Redding (Dürkheim on Religion, p. 134) renders étendu and inétendu as if the difference was a matter of size: "The impressions made on us by the physical world cannot, by definition, embody anything which transcends this world. T h e tangible can only be made into the tangible; the vast cannot be made into the minute." M y italics.

99.

Lukes, Emile Dürkheim, p. 26.

lxx


100.

I have no access to the evolving representations, but even at this distance, standing only within the argument of Formes, I venture to predict that, by now, the bones were not preserved by human beings but preserved themselves, were not dusted off by human hands but resurrected themselves, that in so doing they towed upward with them on the rope of miracle the eternal Lithuanian nation-state, and that, for some among Lithuanians sons and daughters, they have acquired exceptional virtues.

101.

After defining sacre, Durkheim sometimes uses the term saint, without saying how the two are related. I speculate that the shifting has to do, at least in part, with the problem sacred objects posed for Durkheim's written representation. If "holy" is used to render saint, there is a risk of sliding over into religious actors' point of view, where religious objects are intrinsically holy. But at the same time, given in French was a fixed phrase incorporating the term saint: L'arche sainte specifically denotes the Holy Ark but is also equivalent to "sacred cow." The term saint is more frequent in Book III than elsewhere, four of whose five chapters are about ritual conduct regarding things that have already been sanctified (but are, from the actors' standpoint, intrinsically holy). As the context shifts, the same object comes into view as different at different moments, one during the process of sanctification, the other after the process of sanctification is complete. To be represented was not only changing time, and not only changing viewpoints, but also the changing fundamental nature of the object itself. I speculate that, for Durkheim, the two terms were sometimes synonymous and sometimes not.

102.

A serviceable concept of "believing" need imply no more than this. In three studies about colonial settings, I have shown how British rulers came to accept witchcraft and prophetic dreaming as real and how supernatural utterance by millenarian prophets forced real-world colonial police into action. See "Political Contingencies of Witchcraft in Colonial Central Africa: C u l ture and the State in Marxist Theory," Canadian Journal of African Studies 16, no. 3, December 1982; Revival and Rebellion in Colonial Central Africa, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1985; " I Had a Dream: Dreams and Visions upon the Political Landscape of Waking Life," Etnofoor 4, no. 2, 1991.

103.

See the articles Freud published in 1913 as Totem and Taboo. D o not overlook his footnote references to Durkheim's work, including Formes.

104.

In one place, Durkheim uses the term "fiction" but spins it: There is a reality that gains religious expression only through imaginative transfiguration (p. 385).

105. 106.

P. 223. See Peter Kolchin, Unfree Labor: American Slavery and Russian Serfdom, C a m bridge, Harvard University Press, 1987, pp. 170-191, quoted in Barbara Jeanne Fields, "Slavery, Race, and Ideology in the United States of America," New Left Review, no. 181, May-June 1990, pp. 95-118, an exploration of reason, identity, and community deployed within the socially constructed framework of quasi-biological race.


lxxi

107.

P. 239.

108.

Quoted by Czeslaw Milosz, The Witness of Poetry, Cambridge, Harvard U n i versity Press, 1983, p. 42. Pickering, Dürkheim on Religion, pp. ix, 102—166. P. 19 in Swain translation; pp. 6—7 in present one. Lukes, Emile Dürkheim, p. 433n.

109. 110. 111. 112. 113.

See Kerr, A Most Dangerous Method, pp. 27-29. O n this point I am indebted to my colleague William J. McGrath, author of Freud's Discovery of Psychoanalysis: The Politics of Hysteria, Ithaca, N Y , Cornell University Press, 1986. Personal communication, February 20, 1994. McGrath confirms the absence of correspondence between the two men.

114.

In Totem and Taboo: Some Points of Agreement Between the Mental Lives of Savages and Neurotics, New York, Norton, 1952, pp. 100—161. In addition, Mestrovic, Emile Dürkheim, p. 109, has pointed out a striking kinship of approach to magic as early as the 1907 paper, "Obsessive Acts and Religious Practices," in which Freud describes the obsessional neurosis as a "privatized religious system."

115.

M y heart nearly stopped when, two years into the project and working from the first edition, I found something in the Bibliothèque nationale called a second, "revised" edition of Formes, published in 1921. Why or under what i n spiration (Dürkheim having been dead since 1917) proved impossible to discover. Comparison showed that this "revision" contains many typographical errors not present in the first. The current Presses Universitaires de France paperback is based on that second edition.

116.

Looking for something abstract, I queried various colleagues as to the possibility of its having a technical meaning in some body of philosophical work but turned up nothing. What I found in the Petit Robert was horrifyingly literal: fourteenth-century surgeons coined the term.

117.

Robert Alun Jones and Douglas Kibbee have argued this point quite cogently in "Dürkheim in Translation: Dürkheim and Translation," a paper presented at the conference Humanistic Dilemmas: Translation in the Humanities and Social Sciences, State University of N e w York at Binghamton, September 27-28, 1991.

118.

See his "Représentations individuelles et représentations collectives," 6, 1898.

119.

O n this point, see Nisbet, Sociology of Emile Dürkheim, p. 187, and the clear discussion of D ü r k h e i m on morality that follows. Note as well Dürkheim 's contrast of "moral" and "physical" at p. 192.

120. 121.

P. 275. O n this point, see D ü r k h e i m s famous discussion of crime in The Rules of Sociological Method. Mestrovic, Emile Dürkheim, makes a good case that this view is common i n -

122.

RMM,

lxxii


tellectual ground between D ü r k h e i m and Freud (in Civilization and Its Discontents). D ü r k h e i m s "individual" would parallel Freud's "es," which entered English as "id." 123. 124.

P. 430. M y italics. P. 99.

125.

In fact, survey research has shown that the term "cult" in this pejorative sense has become sufficiently potent not only to color the response in America to those "new" religious movements that are called "cults," but indeed to influence legal proceedings—so much so that a strong case has been made for abandoning the term altogether in serious scholarship. See James T. Richardson, "Definitions of Cult: From Sociological-Technical to PopularNegative," Review of Religious Research 34, no. 4, June 1993, who also surveys the evolution of the term's scholarly usages in the twentieth century. I am indebted to Dr. Richardson for sharing with me various references on this terrain of contested words.

126. 127.

P. 226. M y italics. P. 445.

128.

Dürkheim brings out this nuance on p. 5. "Everything is boiled down to what is absolutely indispensable, to that without which there would be no religion. But the indispensable is also the fundamental [essentiel], in other words, that which it is above all important for us to know."

129.

Michael Gane, On Dürkheims ledge, 1989, p. 9.

130.

However, Claude Lévi-Strauss has given unsettling philosophical reasons for referring to himself in the third person or as "we": "Throughout these pages, the 'we' the author has deliberately adhered to has not been meant simply as an expression of diffidence. . . . I f there is one conviction that has been intimately borne upon the author of this work during twenty years devoted to the study of m y t h s . . . it is that the solidity of the self, the major preoccupation of the whole of Western philosophy, does not withstand persistent application to the same object, which comes to pervade it through and through and to imbue it with an experiential awareness of its own unreality" (p. 625). I am indebted to the philosopher V. Y. Mudimbe for this reference and for instructive correspondence on several issues.

131.

D ü r k h e i m s scientific collectivity included distinguished researchers in their own right, such as Marcel Mauss and Henri Hubert, whose works he continually cites.

132.

See the discussion on this issue by John and Doreen Weightman, translators of Claude Lévi-Strauss 's The Naked Man: Introduction to a Science of Mythology, vol. 4, New York, Harper & Row, 1981 [1971], p. 625.

133. 134.

P. 274-275. Women come up explicitly, however, in various contexts—for example, male

Rules of Sociological Method, London, R o u t -


135. 136. 137.

lxxiii

initiation rites (in which they are designated as profane), observances regarding maternal totems, and, occasionally, female mythical messages. Nancy Jay, "Gender and Dichotomy," Feminist Studies 7, no. 1, pp. 38-56. Jay, ThroughoutYour Generations, p. 136. Leon Lederman, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1993, p. 34.


TÊLIGIOUS JJFE

INTRODUCTION I I propose i n this b o o k t o study the simplest a n d m o s t p r i m i t i v e r e l i g i o n that is k n o w n at present, t o discover its p r i n c i p l e s a n d a t t e m p t an e x p l a n a t i o n o f i t . A r e l i g i o u s system is said t o be the m o s t p r i m i t i v e that is available f o r o b servation w h e n i t meets the t w o f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s : First, i t m u s t be f o u n d i n societies the s i m p l i c i t y o f w h o s e o r g a n i z a t i o n is n o w h e r e exceeded;

1

sec-

o n d , i t m u s t be explainable w i t h o u t the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f any e l e m e n t f r o m a predecessor r e l i g i o n . I w i l l m a k e every effort t o describe the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f this system w i t h all the care and p r e c i s i o n that an e t h n o g r a p h e r o r a h i s t o r i a n w o u l d b r i n g t o the task. B u t m y task w i l l n o t stop at d e s c r i p t i o n . S o c i o l o g y sets itself different p r o b l e m s f r o m those o f h i s t o r y o r ethnography. I t does n o t seek t o b e c o m e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h b y g o n e f o r m s o f c i v i l i z a t i o n f o r the sole purpose o f b e i n g a c q u a i n t e d w i t h a n d r e c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e m . Instead, l i k e any positive science, * its p u r p o s e above all is t o e x p l a i n a present reality that is near t o us a n d thus capable o f affecting o u r ideas a n d actions. T h a t reality is m a n . M o r e especially, i t is present-day m a n , f o r there is n o n e o t h e r that w e have a greater interest i n k n o w i n g w e l l . T h e r e f o r e , m y study o f a v e r y archaic r e l i g i o n w i l l n o t be f o r the sheer pleasure o f r e c o u n t i n g the bizarre and the eccentric. I have made a v e r y archaic r e l i g i o n the subject o f m y research because i t seems better suited t h a n any o t h e r t o h e l p us c o m p r e h e n d the r e l i g i o u s nature o f m a n , that is, t o reveal a f u n d a m e n t a l a n d p e r m a n e n t aspect o f h u m a n i t y . T h i s p r o p o s i t i o n is b o u n d t o p r o v o k e s t r o n g o b j e c t i o n s . I t m a y be t h o u g h t strange that, t o a r r i v e at an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f present-day h u m a n i t y , w e s h o u l d have t o t u r n away f r o m i t so as t o travel b a c k t o the b e g i n n i n g o f history. I n the m a t t e r at h a n d , that p r o c e d u r e seems especially u n o r t h o d o x . R e l i g i o n s are h e l d t o be o f u n e q u a l value a n d standing; i t is c o m m o n l y said that n o t all c o n t a i n t h e same measure o f t r u t h . T h u s i t w o u l d seem that t h e h i g h e r f o r m s o f r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t c a n n o t be c o m p a r e d w i t h the l o w e r w i t h *Here, knowledge (science) acquired by means of systematic observation. This use of the term positive is indebted to Auguste Comte (1798—1857) who postulated a human evolution from the theological to metaphysical to positive epochs. The complexities of the term positive in general, and in Comtes use of it, are examined by André Lalande, Dictionnaire technique de la philosophie, Paris, F. Alcan, 1923, pp. 595-600. T will call those societies and the men of those societies primitive in the same sense. This term certainly lacks precision, but it is hard to avoid; if care is taken to specify its meaning, however, it can safely be used. 1

2

out

Introduction

b r i n g i n g t h e h i g h e r forms d o w n t o t h e l o w e r level. T o grant that the

c r u d e cults o f A u s t r a l i a n tribes m i g h t help us u n d e r s t a n d C h r i s t i a n i t y , for example, is t o assume—is i t n o t ? — t h a t C h r i s t i a n i t y proceeds f r o m the same mentality, i n o t h e r w o r d s , that i t is made u p o f the same superstitions and rests o n the same errors. T h e t h e o r e t i c a l i m p o r t a n c e sometimes accorded to p r i m i t i v e religions c o u l d therefore be taken as evidence o f a systematic irre¬ l i g i o n that i n v a l i d a t e d the results o f research b y p r e j u d g i n g t h e m . I need n o t go i n t o the question here w h e t h e r scholars can be f o u n d w h o w e r e g u i l t y o f this a n d w h o have made h i s t o r y and the e t h n o g r a p h y o f r e l i g i o n a means o f m a k i n g w a r against r e l i g i o n . I n any event, such c o u l d n o t possibly be a sociologist's p o i n t o f view. I n d e e d , i t is a fundamental postulate o f sociology that a h u m a n i n s t i t u t i o n cannot rest u p o n e r r o r and falsehood. I f i t d i d , i t c o u l d n o t endure. I f i t h a d n o t been g r o u n d e d i n the nature o f things, i n those v e r y things i t w o u l d have m e t resistance that i t c o u l d n o t have overc o m e . Therefore, w h e n I approach the study o f p r i m i t i v e religions, i t is w i t h the certainty that they are g r o u n d e d i n and express the real. I n the course o f the analyses and discussions that follow, w e w i l l see this p r i n c i p l e c o m i n g u p again a n d again. W h a t I c r i t i c i z e i n the schools I part c o m p a n y w i t h is p r e cisely that they have failed t o recognize i t . N o d o u b t , w h e n all w e d o is c o n sider

the

formulas

literally,

these religious beliefs

and

practices

appear

disconcerting, and o u r i n c l i n a t i o n m i g h t be t o w r i t e t h e m o f f t o some sort o f i n b o r n aberration. B u t w e must k n o w h o w t o reach beneath the s y m b o l t o grasp the reality i t represents and that gives the s y m b o l its t r u e m e a n i n g . T h e most bizarre o r barbarous rites a n d the strangest m y t h s translate some h u m a n need and some aspect o f life, w h e t h e r social o r i n d i v i d u a l . T h e reasons the faithful settle f o r i n j u s t i f y i n g those rites and m y t h s m a y be mistaken, and m o s t often are; b u t the t r u e reasons exist nonetheless, a n d i t is the business o f science t o u n c o v e r t h e m . Fundamentally, t h e n , there are n o religions that are false. A l l are t r u e after t h e i r o w n fashion: A l l f u l f i l l g i v e n c o n d i t i o n s o f h u m a n existence, t h o u g h i n different ways. G r a n t e d , i t is n o t impossible t o r a n k t h e m hierarchically. S o m e can be said t o be s u p e r i o r t o others, i n the sense that they b r i n g h i g h e r m e n t a l faculties i n t o play, that t h e y are r i c h e r i n ideas a n d feelings, that they c o n t a i n p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y m o r e concepts

t h a n sensations a n d images,

and

that t h e y are m o r e elaborately systematized. B u t the greater c o m p l e x i t y and h i g h e r ideal c o n t e n t , h o w e v e r real, are n o t sufficient t o place the c o r r e s p o n d i n g religions i n t o separate genera. A l l are equally r e l i g i o u s , j u s t as all l i v i n g beings are e q u a l l y l i v i n g beings, f r o m the h u m b l e s t plastid t o m a n . I f I address m y s e l f t o p r i m i t i v e r e l i g i o n s , t h e n , i t is n o t w i t h any u l t e r i o r m o t i v e o f disparaging r e l i g i o n i n general: T h e s e religions are t o be respected n o less

3

Introduction

t h a n the others. T h e y f u l f i l l t h e same needs, play the same role, a n d p r o c e e d f r o m the same causes; therefore, t h e y can serve j u s t as w e l l t o elucidate the nature o f r e l i g i o u s life and, i t f o l l o w s , t o solve the p r o b l e m I w i s h t o treat. Still, w h y give t h e m a k i n d o f p r i o r i t y ? W h y choose t h e m i n preference t o others as the subject o f m y study? T h i s choice is solely f o r reasons o f m e t h o d . First o f all, w e c a n n o t a r r i v e at an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the m o s t m o d e r n r e l i g i o n s w i t h o u t t r a c i n g h i s t o r i c a l l y the m a n n e r i n w h i c h t h e y have gradually taken shape. I n d e e d , h i s t o r y is the o n l y m e t h o d o f e x p l a n a t o r y analysis that can be a p p l i e d t o t h e m . H i s t o r y alone enables us t o break d o w n an i n s t i t u t i o n i n t o its c o m p o n e n t parts, because i t shows those parts t o us as they are b o r n i n t i m e , o n e after the other. Second, b y s i t u a t i n g each part o f the i n s t i t u t i o n w i t h i n t h e t o t a l i t y o f circumstances i n w h i c h i t was b o r n , h i s t o r y puts i n t o o u r hands t h e o n l y tools w e have f o r i d e n t i f y i n g the causes that have b r o u g h t i t i n t o b e i n g . T h u s , w h e n e v e r w e set o u t t o e x p l a i n s o m e t h i n g h u m a n at a specific m o m e n t i n t i m e — b e i t a r e l i g i o u s belief, a m o r a l r u l e , a legal p r i n c i p l e , a n aesthetic t e c h n i q u e , o r an e c o n o m i c s y s t e m — w e m u s t b e g i n b y g o i n g b a c k t o its simplest a n d m o s t p r i m i t i v e f o r m . W e m u s t seek t o a c c o u n t f o r the features that define i t at that p e r i o d o f its existence a n d t h e n s h o w h o w i t has g r a d u a l l y d e v e l o p e d , g a i n e d i n c o m p l e x i t y , a n d

become

w h a t i t is at the m o m e n t u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . I t is easy t o see h o w i m p o r t a n t the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the i n i t i a l starting p o i n t is f o r this series o f progressive explanations. A cartesian p r i n c i p l e h a d i t that the first l i n k takes precedence i n the c h a i n o f scientific t r u t h s . T o be sure, i t is o u t o f the q u e s t i o n t o base the science o f religions o n a n o t i o n elaborated i n t h e cartesian m a n n e r — t h a t is, a l o g i c a l c o n c e p t , p u r e possibility c o n structed solely b y force o f intellect. W h a t w e m u s t find is a concrete reality that h i s t o r i c a l a n d e t h n o g r a p h i c o b s e r v a t i o n alone can reveal t o us. B u t i f that p r i m a r y c o n c e p t i o n m u s t be a r r i v e d at b y o t h e r m e t h o d s , the fact remains that i t is destined t o have an i m p o r t a n t i n f l u e n c e o n all the subsequent p r o p o sitions that science establishes. B i o l o g i c a l e v o l u t i o n was c o n c e i v e d altogether differently f r o m t h e m o m e n t the existence o f u n i c e l l u l a r organisms was d i s covered. L i k e w i s e , the particulars o f religious facts are e x p l a i n e d d i f f e r e n d y i f n a t u r i s m is placed at the b e g i n n i n g o f religious e v o l u t i o n t h a n i f a n i m i s m , o r some o t h e r f o r m , is placed there. I n d e e d , even the m o s t specialized scholars must choose a hypothesis a n d take t h e i r i n s p i r a t i o n f r o m i t i f t h e y w a n t t o t r y t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e facts they analyze—unless

they m e a n t o c o n f i n e t h e m -

selves t o a task o f pure e r u d i t i o n . W i l l y - n i l l y , the questions t h e y ask take t h e f o l l o w i n g f o r m : W h a t has caused n a t u r i s m o r a n i m i s m t o take o n such a n d such a p a r t i c u l a r aspect here o r there, a n d t o be e n r i c h e d o r i m p o v e r i s h e d i n such and such a way? Since t a k i n g a p o s i t i o n o n the i n i t i a l p r o b l e m is u n -

4

Introduction

avoidable, a n d since the s o l u t i o n g i v e n w i l l affect the science as a w h o l e , the p r o b l e m is best c o n f r o n t e d at the outset. T h i s is w h a t I propose t o do. Besides, apart f r o m those i n d i r e c t consequences, the study o f p r i m i t i v e religions i n itself has i m m e d i a t e interest o f the first i m p o r t a n c e . I f i t is useful t o k n o w w h a t a g i v e n r e l i g i o n consists of; i t is far m o r e i m p o r t a n t t o e x a m i n e w h a t r e l i g i o n is i n general. T h i s is a p r o b l e m that has a l ways i n t r i g u e d p h i l o s o p h e r s , a n d n o t w i t h o u t reason: I t is o f interest t o all h u m a n i t y . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the m e t h o d philosophers o r d i n a r i l y use t o solve i t is p u r e l y o n e o f dialectic: A l l t h e y d o is analyze the idea t h e y have o f r e l i g i o n , even i f t h e y have t o illustrate t h e results o f that m e n t a l analysis w i t h examples borrowed

from

those r e l i g i o n s that best suit t h e i r m o d e l . B u t w h i l e this

m e t h o d m u s t be a b a n d o n e d , the p r o b l e m o f d e f i n i t i o n remains; a n d p h i l o s ophy's great service has b e e n t o prevent i t f r o m b e i n g settled o n c e a n d f o r a l l * b y the disdain o f t h e savants. T h e p r o b l e m can i n fact b e approached i n a n o t h e r way. Since all r e l i g i o n s m a y be c o m p a r e d , all b e i n g species w i t h i n t h e same genus, s o m e elements are o f necessity c o m m o n t o t h e m all. B y that I m e a n n o t o n l y t h e o u t w a r d a n d visible features that t h e y all equally e x h i b i t a n d that m a k e i t possible t o define r e l i g i o n i n a p r o v i s i o n a l w a y at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f research. T h e discovery o f these apparent signs is relatively easy, f o r the o b s e r v a t i o n r e q u i r e d does n o t g o b e y o n d the surface o f things. B u t these e x t e r n a l resemblances presuppose deeper ones. A t the f o u n d a t i o n o f all systems o f b e l i e f a n d all cults, there m u s t necessarily be a c e r t a i n n u m b e r o f f u n d a m e n t a l representations

a n d modes o f r i t u a l c o n d u c t ^ that, despite

the

diversity o f f o r m s t h a t the o n e a n d t h e o t h e r m a y have taken o n , have the same objective m e a n i n g e v e r y w h e r e a n d e v e r y w h e r e f u l f i l l t h e same f u n c tions. I t is these e n d u r i n g elements that c o n s t i t u t e w h a t is eternal a n d h u m a n i n r e l i g i o n . T h e y are the w h o l e objective c o n t e n t o f the idea that is expressed w h e n religion i n general is s p o k e n of. H o w , t h e n , can those elements be uncovered? Surely i t is n o t b y o b s e r v i n g the c o m p l e x r e l i g i o n s that have arisen i n the course o f history. E a c h o f those r e l i g i o n s is f o r m e d from such a v a r i e t y o f e l ements that i t is v e r y h a r d t o d i s t i n g u i s h w h a t is secondary t o t h e m f r o m w h a t is p r i m a r y , a n d w h a t is essential f r o m w h a t is accessory. S i m p l y consider religions l i k e those o f E g y p t , I n d i a , o r classical a n t i q u i t y ! E a c h is a dense t a n gle o f m a n y cults t h a t can v a r y a c c o r d i n g t o localities, temples, generations, dynasties, invasions, a n d so o n . P o p u l a r superstitions i n t e r m i n g l e i n t h e m w i t h the m o s t sophisticated dogmas. N e i t h e r r e l i g i o u s t h i n k i n g n o r r e l i g i o u s * Swain rendered Durkheim's prescrit as "suppressed," as if he had written proscrit. Âttitudes rituelles. On this phrase, see below, p. 301n.

Introduction

5

practice is shared equally a m o n g the mass o f the faithful. T h e beliefs as w e l l as the rites are t a k e n i n different ways, d e p e n d i n g o n m e n , m i l i e u x , and c i r cumstances. H e r e i t is priests, there m o n k s , elsewhere the laity; here, mystics and rationalists, theologians a n d prophets, a n d so o n . U n d e r such c o n d i t i o n s , it is d i f f i c u l t t o perceive w h a t m i g h t be c o m m o n t o all. I t is i n d e e d possible t o f i n d ways o f s t u d y i n g some p a r t i c u l a r p h e n o m e n o n f r u i t f u l l y — s u c h

as

p r o p h e t i s m , m o n a s t i c i s m , o r the m y s t e r i e s — t h r o u g h o n e o r a n o t h e r o f those systems i n w h i c h i t is especially w e l l d e v e l o p e d . B u t h o w can o n e f i n d t h e c o m m o n basis o f r e l i g i o u s life u n d e r the l u x u r i a n t v e g e t a t i o n that g r o w s over it? H o w can o n e f i n d the f u n d a m e n t a l states characteristic o f the r e l i g i o u s m e n t a l i t y i n general t h r o u g h the clash o f theologies, the variations o f r i t u a l , the m u l t i p l i c i t y o f g r o u p i n g s , a n d the diversity o f individuals? T h e case is altogether different i n the l o w e r societies. T h e lesser d e v e l o p m e n t o f i n d i v i d u a l i t y , t h e smaller scale o f the g r o u p , a n d t h e h o m o g e n e i t y o f e x t e r n a l circumstances all c o n t r i b u t e t o r e d u c i n g the differences a n d v a r i ations t o a m i n i m u m . T h e g r o u p regularly produces an i n t e l l e c t u a l a n d m o r a l u n i f o r m i t y o f w h i c h w e find o n l y rare examples i n the m o r e advanced s o c i eties. E v e r y t h i n g is c o m m o n t o everyone. T h e m o v e m e n t s are stereotyped; everyone executes the same ones i n t h e same circumstances; a n d this c o n f o r m i t y o f c o n d u c t m e r e l y translates that o f t h o u g h t . Since all the consciousnesses are p u l l e d a l o n g i n the same c u r r e n t , the i n d i v i d u a l t y p e v i r t u a l l y c o n f o u n d s i t s e l f w i t h the generic type. A t the same t i m e that all is u n i f o r m , all is simple. W h a t c o u l d b e m o r e basic t h a n those m y t h s c o m p o s e d o f a s i n gle t h e m e , repeated endlessly, o r t h a n those rites c o m p o s e d o f a small n u m ber o f m o v e m e n t s , repeated u n t i l the participants can d o n o m o r e . N e i t h e r the p o p u l a r n o r the p r i e s t l y i m a g i n a t i o n has yet h a d the t i m e o r the means t o refine a n d t r a n s f o r m t h e basic m a t e r i a l o f ideas a n d r e l i g i o u s practices; r e d u c e d t o essentials, that m a t e r i a l spontaneously presents itself t o e x a m i n a t i o n , a n d d i s c o v e r i n g i t calls f o r o n l y a m i n i m a l effort. Inessential, secondary, a n d l u x u r i o u s d e v e l o p m e n t s have n o t yet c o m e t o h i d e w h a t is p r i m a r y .

2

E v e r y t h i n g is b o i l e d d o w n t o w h a t is absolutely indispensable, t o that w i t h o u t w h i c h there w o u l d be n o r e l i g i o n . B u t the indispensable is also the f u n d a m e n t a l , i n o t h e r w o r d s , that w h i c h i t is above all i m p o r t a n t f o r us t o k n o w . T h u s , p r i m i t i v e civilizations are p r i m e cases because t h e y are s i m p l e cases. T h i s is w h y , a m o n g all the orders o f facts, the observations o f e t h n o g 2

This is not to say, of course, that primitive cults do not go beyond bare essentials. Quite the contrary, as we will see, religious beliefs and practices that do not have narrowly utilitarian aims are found in every religion (Bk.III, chap.4, §2). This nonutilitarian richness is indispensable to religious life, and of its very essence. But it is by far less well developed in the lower religions than in the others, and this fact will put us in a better position to determine its raison d'être.

6

Introduction

raphers have often b e e n veritable revelations that have b r e a t h e d n e w lite i n t o the study o f h u m a n i n s t i t u t i o n s . Before the m i d d l e o f the n i n e t e e n t h century, for example, i t was generally believed that the father was the essential elem e n t o f the f a m i l y ; i t was n o t even i m a g i n a b l e that there c o u l d be a family o r g a n i z a t i o n o f w h i c h paternal p o w e r was n o t the keystone. Bachofen's disc o v e r y t o p p l e d that o l d n o t i o n . U n t i l q u i t e recent times, i t was t h o u g h t o b v i o u s that the m o r a l and legal relations that c o n s t i t u t e k i n s h i p w e r e o n l y another aspect o f the p h y s i o l o g i c a l relations that result f r o m shared descent. B a c h o f e n and his successors, M c L e n n a n , M o r g a n , a n d m a n y others, were still o p e r a t i n g u n d e r the i n f l u e n c e o f that p r e c o n c e p t i o n . B u t , q u i t e the c o n trary, w e have k n o w n ever since w e became a c q u a i n t e d w i t h the nature ot the p r i m i t i v e clan that k i n s h i p c a n n o t be d e f i n e d b y c o m m o n b l o o d . * T o ret u r n t o r e l i g i o n s : E x c l u s i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the r e l i g i o u s f o r m s that are the m o s t familiar t o us l o n g l e d us t o believe that the idea o f g o d was characteristic o f all that is r e l i g i o u s . T h e r e l i g i o n I w i l l study b e l o w is largely a stranger to any n o t i o n o f d i v i n i t y . I n i t , the forces t o w h i c h the rites are addressed differ greatly f r o m those that are o f p a r a m o u n t i m p o r t a n c e i n o u r m o d e r n r e l i gions, and yet they w i l l help us t o understand o u r m o d e r n r e l i g i o n s better. N o t h i n g is m o r e unjust, therefore, t h a n the disdain w i t h w h i c h t o o m a n y historians still regard ethnographers' w o r k . I n p o i n t o f fact, e t h n o g r a p h y has o f t e n b r o u g h t a b o u t the m o s t fertile r e v o l u t i o n s i n the various branches o f sociology. F o r the same reason, m o r e o v e r , t h e discovery o f u n i c e l l u l a r creatures, w h i c h I n o t e d earlier, t r a n s f o r m e d the idea o f life that was w i d e l y h e l d . Since life is d o w n t o its f u n d a m e n t a l features a m o n g v e r y s i m p l e beings, those features m a y be less easily misread. B u t p r i m i t i v e r e l i g i o n s d o n o t m e r e l y a l l o w us t o isolate the c o n s t i t u e n t elements o f r e l i g i o n ; t h e i r great advantage is also t h a t t h e y a i d i n its explanat i o n . Because the facts are simpler, the relations b e t w e e n t h e m are m o r e apparent. T h e reasons m e n i n v o k e t o e x p l a i n t h e i r actions t o themselves have n o t yet b e e n r e f i n e d a n d r e v a m p e d b y sophisticated t h o u g h t : T h e y are closer and m o r e a k i n t o t h e motives that caused those actions. T o u n d e r s t a n d a d e l u s i o n p r o p e r l y a n d t o b e able t o a p p l y the m o s t appropriate treatment, the d o c t o r needs t o k n o w w h a t its p o i n t o f departure was. T h a t event is the m o r e easily detected the nearer t o its b e g i n n i n g s t h e d e l u s i o n can b e

observed.

*Jacob Johann Bachofen (1815—1887) postulated the existence of matriliny (reckoning descent through the female line) and matriarchy or mother right, a stage he envisaged as standing between primitive promiscuity and patriarchy. Ethnographic study worldwide has borne out the first and discredited the second. Like Bachofen. John Ferguson McLennan (1827-1881) and Lewis Henry Morgan (1818—1881) were lawyers interested in the rules that govern family and property. Among other achievements, Morgan pioneered the study of kin statuses distinct from blood relationship; McLennan is credited with having drawn attention to totemism. See below, Bk.I. chap.4, p. 85.

1

Introduction

Conversely, the l o n g e r a sickness is left t o develop, the m o r e that o r i g i n a l p o i n t o f departure slips o u t o f v i e w . T h i s is so because all sorts o f i n t e r p r e t a tions have i n t e r v e n e d a l o n g the way, a n d the t e n d e n c y o f those i n t e r p r e t a tions is t o repress the o r i g i n a l state i n t o the unconscious and t o replace i t w i t h o t h e r states t h r o u g h w h i c h the o r i g i n a l o n e is sometimes n o t easy to detect. T h e distance b e t w e e n a systematized d e l u s i o n and the first i m p r e s sions that gave b i r t h t o i t is o f t e n considerable. T h e same applies t o religious t h o u g h t . As i t progresses historically, the causes that called i t i n t o existence, t h o u g h still at w o r k , are seen n o m o r e except t h r o u g h a vast system o f dist o r t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . T h e p o p u l a r m y t h o l o g i e s a n d the subtle theologies have d o n e t h e i r w o r k : T h e y have o v e r l a i d the o r i g i n a l feelings w i t h v e r y d i f ferent ones that, a l t h o u g h s t e m m i n g f r o m p r i m i t i v e feelings o f w h i c h t h e y are the elaborated f o r m , nevertheless a l l o w t h e i r t r u e nature t o s h o w o n l y i n part. T h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l distance b e t w e e n t h e cause a n d the effect, a n d b e t w e e n the apparent cause a n d the effective cause, has b e c o m e w i d e r a n d m o r e d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e m i n d t o o v e r c o m e . T h e r e m a i n d e r o f this w o r k w i l l be an i l l u s t r a t i o n a n d a test o f this m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p o i n t . W e w i l l see h o w , i n the p r i m i t i v e r e l i g i o n s , the r e l i g i o u s p h e n o m e n o n still carries the visible i m p r i n t o f its o r i g i n s . I t w o u l d have b e e n m u c h m o r e d i f f i c u l t f o r us t o infer those o r i g i n s b y c o n s i d e r i n g m o r e d e v e l o p e d r e l i g i o n s alone. T h u s , the study I u n d e r t a k e is a w a y o f t a k i n g u p again t h e o l d p r o b l e m o f the o r i g i n o f r e l i g i o n s but under new conditions. G r a n t e d , i f b y o r i g i n o n e means an absolute first b e g i n n i n g , there is n o t h i n g scientific a b o u t the quest i o n , a n d i t m u s t be resolutely set aside. T h e r e is n o radical instant w h e n r e l i g i o n began t o exist, a n d the p o i n t is n o t t o find a r o u n d a b o u t w a y o f c o n v e y i n g ourselves there i n t h o u g h t . L i k e every o t h e r h u m a n i n s t i t u t i o n , r e l i g i o n begins n o w h e r e . So all speculations i n this genre are r i g h t l y discredited; they can consist o f o n l y subjective a n d a r b i t r a r y c o n s t r u c t i o n s

without

checks o f any sort. T h e p r o b l e m I pose is altogether different. I w o u l d l i k e t o find

a means o f d i s c e r n i n g the ever-present causes o n w h i c h the m o s t basic

f o r m s o f religious t h o u g h t a n d practice d e p e n d . F o r t h e reasons j u s t set f o r t h , the causes are m o r e easily observable i f the societies i n w h i c h they are o b 3

served are less c o m p l e x . T h a t is w h y I seek t o get closer t o the o r i g i n s . T h e reason is n o t that I ascribe special v i r t u e s t o t h e l o w e r r e l i g i o n s . Q u i t e the contrary, t h e y are c r u d e a n d r u d i m e n t a r y ; so there can be n o q u e s t i o n o f m a k i n g t h e m o u t t o be m o d e l s o f some sort, w h i c h t h e later r e l i g i o n s w o u l d 3

It will be seen that I give the word "origins," like the word "primitive," an entirely relative sense. I do not mean by it an absolute beginning but the simplest social state known at present—the state beyond which it is at present impossible for us to go. When I speak about origins and the beginnings of history or religious thought, this is the sense in which those phrases must be understood.

8

Introduction

o n l y have h a d t o reproduce. B u t t h e i r v e r y l a c k o f e l a b o r a t i o n makes t h e m instructive, f o r i n this w a y t h e y b e c o m e useful e x p e r i m e n t s i n w h i c h the facts and the relations a m o n g facts are easier t o detect. T o u n c o v e r the laws o f the p h e n o m e n a he studies, t h e physicist seeks t o s i m p l i f y those p h e n o m e n a and to r i d t h e m o f t h e i r secondary characteristics. I n the case o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , nat u r e spontaneously makes s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s o f the same k i n d at the b e g i n n i n g o f history. I w i s h o n l y t o p u t those s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s t o g o o d use. Doubtless, I w i l l be able t o o b t a i n o n l y v e r y e l e m e n t a r y facts b y this m e t h o d . W h e n I have a c c o u n t e d for t h e m , t o the e x t e n t this w i l l be possible, the novelties o f all k i n d s that have b e e n p r o d u c e d i n t h e course o f e v o l u t i o n w i l l still n o t be e x p l a i n e d . B u t a l t h o u g h I w o u l d n o t d r e a m o f d e n y i n g the i m p o r t a n c e o f the p r o b l e m s such novelties pose, I t h i n k those p r o b l e m s b e n e f i t b y b e i n g treated at the p r o p e r time, and there is g o o d reason n o t t o tackle t h e m u n t i l after those w h o s e study I have u n d e r t a k e n .

II M y research is n o t solely o f interest t o the science o f religions. T h e r e is an aspect o f every r e l i g i o n that transcends the r e a l m o f specifically r e l i g i o u s ideas. T h r o u g h i t , t h e study o f r e l i g i o u s p h e n o m e n a provides a means o f r e v i s i t i n g p r o b l e m s that u n t i l n o w have b e e n debated o n l y a m o n g p h i l o s o p h e r s . I t has l o n g b e e n k n o w n that the first systems o f representations that m a n made o f the w o r l d a n d h i m s e l f w e r e o f religious o r i g i n . T h e r e is n o r e l i g i o n that is n o t b o t h a c o s m o l o g y and a speculation a b o u t the d i v i n e . I f p h i l o s o p h y a n d the sciences w e r e b o r n i n r e l i g i o n , i t is because r e l i g i o n itself began b y serving as science a n d philosophy. F u r t h e r , and less o f t e n n o t e d , r e l i g i o n has n o t m e r e l y e n r i c h e d a h u m a n i n t e l l e c t already f o r m e d b u t i n fact has h e l p e d to f o r m i t . M e n o w e t o r e l i g i o n n o t o n l y the c o n t e n t o f t h e i r k n o w l e d g e , i n significant part, b u t also the f o r m i n w h i c h that k n o w l e d g e is elaborated. A t the r o o t o f o u r j u d g m e n t s , there are c e r t a i n f u n d a m e n t a l n o t i o n s that d o m i n a t e o u r e n t i r e i n t e l l e c t u a l life. I t is these ideas that philosophers, b e g i n n i n g w i t h A r i s t o t l e , have called the categories o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g : n o t i o n s 4

o f t i m e , space, n u m b e r , cause, substance, personality. * T h e y c o r r e s p o n d t o *Usually referred to in Kantian circles as the "categories of understanding" or the "categories of the understanding" technically these are called "pure concepts of understanding"—that is, concepts, or rules for organizing the variety of sense perceptions, that lie ready in the mind and are brought into play by our efforts to make sense of our sensations. For clarifying correspondence on these points, I thank Professor Robert Paul Wolff. 4

I call time and space categories because there is no difference between the role these notions play in intellectual life and that which falls to notions of kind and cause. (See on this point [Octave] Hamelin, Essai sur les éléments principaux de la représentation, Paris, Alcan [1907], pp. 63, 76.)

Introduction

9

the m o s t universal properties o f things. T h e y are l i k e solid frames that c o n fine t h o u g h t . T h o u g h t does n o t seem t o be able t o break o u t o f t h e m w i t h o u t d e s t r o y i n g itself, since i t seems w e c a n n o t t h i n k o f objects that are n o t i n t i m e o r space, t h a t c a n n o t be c o u n t e d , a n d so f o r t h . T h e o t h e r ideas are c o n t i n g e n t a n d c h a n g i n g , and w e can conceive o f a m a n , a society, o r an e p o c h that lacks t h e m ; b u t these f u n d a m e n t a l n o t i o n s seem t o us as almost inseparable f r o m the n o r m a l f u n c t i o n i n g o f the i n t e l l e c t . T h e y are, as i t were, the skeleton o f t h o u g h t . N o w , w h e n o n e analyzes p r i m i t i v e religious beliefs m e thodically, o n e n a t u r a l l y finds the p r i n c i p a l categories a m o n g t h e m . T h e y are b o r n i n a n d f r o m r e l i g i o n ; t h e y are a p r o d u c t o f r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t . T h i s is a p o i n t that I w i l l m a k e again a n d again i n the course o f this b o o k . E v e n n o w t h a t p o i n t has a c e r t a i n interest o f its o w n , b u t here is w h a t gives i t its t r u e significance. T h e general c o n c l u s i o n o f the chapters t o f o l l o w is that r e l i g i o n is an e m i n e n t l y social t h i n g . R e l i g i o u s representations are collective representations that express collective realities; rites are ways o f a c t i n g that are b o r n o n l y i n the m i d s t o f assembled groups a n d w h o s e p u r p o s e is t o evoke, m a i n t a i n , o r recreate c e r t a i n m e n t a l states o f those groups. B u t i f the categories are o f religious o r i g i n , t h e n they m u s t participate i n * w h a t is c o m m o n t o all r e l i g i o n : T h e y , t o o , m u s t be social things, p r o d u c t s o f c o l l e c t i v e t h o u g h t . A t the v e r y least—since w i t h o u r present u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f these matters, r a d i cal and exclusive theses are t o be guarded against—it is l e g i t i m a t e t o say that they are r i c h i n social elements. T h i s , i t m u s t be added, is s o m e t h i n g o n e can b e g i n t o see even n o w f o r c e r t a i n o f the categories. F o r example, w h a t i f o n e t r i e d t o i m a g i n e w h a t the n o t i o n o f t i m e w o u l d be i n the absence o f the m e t h o d s w e use t o d i v i d e , measure, a n d express i t w i t h objective signs, a t i m e that was n o t a succession o f years, m o n t h s , weeks, days, a n d hours? I t w o u l d be nearly impossible t o conceive of. W e can conceive o f t i m e o n l y i f w e differentiate b e t w e e n m o ments. N o w , w h a t is the o r i g i n o f t h a t differentiation? U n d o u b t e d l y , states o f consciousness t h a t w e have already e x p e r i e n c e d can be r e p r o d u c e d i n us i n the same o r d e r i n w h i c h they o r i g i n a l l y o c c u r r e d ; and, i n this way, bits o f o u r past b e c o m e i m m e d i a t e again, even w h i l e spontaneously d i s t i n g u i s h i n g themselves f r o m t h e present. B u t h o w e v e r i m p o r t a n t this d i s t i n c t i o n m i g h t

*The phrase "participate in," which occurs frequently, has usually not been replaced with simpler possibilities such as "partakes of" or "shares in" because the notion of participation that can be seen in the sentence "Jesus participated in divine and human nature" must be borne in mind, together with an argument in which Dürkheim was engaged. Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, whose book Les Fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures Dürkheim criticizes, considered "participations" to exemplify the inherent illogic of "primitive" thought. Dürkheim held just the opposite.

10

Introduction

be for o u r p r i v a t e e x p e r i e n c e , i t is far f r o m sufficient t o c o n s t i t u t e the n o t i o n o r category o f t i m e . T h e category o f t i m e is n o t s i m p l y a p a r t i a l o r c o m p l e t e c o m m e m o r a t i o n o f o u r l i v e d life. I t is an abstract a n d i m p e r s o n a l f r a m e w o r k that contains n o t o n l y o u r i n d i v i d u a l existence b u t also that o f h u m a n i t y . I t is l i k e an endless canvas o n w h i c h all d u r a t i o n is spread o u t before the mind's eye a n d o n w h i c h all possible events are l o c a t e d i n r e l a t i o n to p o i n t s o f reference that are fixed a n d specified. I t is n o t my time that is o r g a n i z e d i n this way; i t is t i m e that is c o n c e i v e d o f o b j e c t i v e l y b y all m e n o f t h e same c i v i l i z a t i o n . T h i s b y i t s e l f is e n o u g h t o m a k e us b e g i n t o see that any such organ i z a t i o n w o u l d have t o be collective. A n d i n d e e d , o b s e r v a t i o n establishes that these indispensable p o i n t s , i n reference t o w h i c h all things are arranged t e m porally, are taken f r o m social life. T h e d i v i s i o n i n t o days, weeks, m o n t h s , years, etc., corresponds t o the recurrence o f rites, festivals, a n d p u b l i c cere3

m o n i e s at regular i n t e r v a l s . A calendar expresses the r h y t h m o f collective act i v i t y w h i l e e n s u r i n g that r e g u l a r i t y .

6

7

T h e same applies t o space. As H a m e l i n has s h o w n , space is n o t the vague and i n d e t e r m i n a t e m e d i u m that K a n t i m a g i n e d . I f p u r e l y a n d absolutely h o m o g e n e o u s , i t w o u l d be o f n o use a n d w o u l d offer n o t h i n g for t h o u g h t t o h o l d o n t o . Spatial representation essentially consists i n a p r i m a r y c o o r d i n a t i o n o f g i v e n sense experience. B u t this c o o r d i n a t i o n w o u l d be i m possible i f the parts o f space w e r e qualitatively equivalent, i f t h e y really w e r e m u t u a l l y interchangeable. T o have a spatial o r d e r i n g o f things is t o be able t o situate t h e m differently: t o place some o n the r i g h t , others o n the left, these above, those b e l o w , n o r t h o r s o u t h , east o r west, a n d so f o r t h , j u s t as, t o arrange states o f consciousness t e m p o r a l l y , i t m u s t b e possible t o locate t h e m at d e f i n i t e dates. T h a t is, space w o u l d n o t be itself if, l i k e t i m e , i t was n o t d i v i d e d a n d differentiated. B u t w h e r e d o these divisions that are essential t o

5

In support of this assertion, see Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss, Mélanges d'histoire des religions, the chapter on "La Représentation du temps dans la religion," Paris, Alcan [1909]. 6

Through this we see how completely different are the complexus of sensations and images that serves Co orient us in duration, and the category of time. The first are the summary of individual experiences, which hold only for the individual who has had them. By contrast, the category of time expresses a time common to the group—social time, so to speak. This category itself is a true social institution. Thus it is peculiar to man; animals have no representation of this kind. This distinction between the category of time and the corresponding individual sensations could easily be made in regard to space and cause. This may perhaps help clear up certain confusions, which have fed controversies on these questions. I will return to this point at the Conclusion of the present work. 7

Hamelin, Essai sur les éléments principaux de la représentation, pp. 75fF.

11

Introduction

space c o m e from? I n itself i t has n o r i g h t , n o left, n o h i g h o r l o w , n o n o r t h o r s o u t h , etc. A l l these d i s t i n c t i o n s e v i d e n t l y arise f r o m the fact that different affective c o l o r i n g s have b e e n assigned t o regions. A n d since all m e n o f the same c i v i l i z a t i o n conceive o f space i n the same manner, i t is e v i d e n t l y necessary that these affective c o l o r i n g s a n d the d i s t i n c t i o n s that arise from t h e m also b e h e l d i n c o m m o n — w h i c h i m p l i e s almost necessarily that t h e y are o f social o r i g i n .

8

Besides, i n s o m e instances this social character is m a d e manifest. T h e r e are societies i n Australia a n d N o r t h A m e r i c a i n w h i c h space is c o n c e i v e d i n 9

the f o r m o f an i m m e n s e circle, because the camp itself is c i r c u l a r ; a n d the spatial circle is d i v i d e d i n exactly the same w a y as t h e t r i b a l circle a n d i n its image. As m a n y regions are d i s t i n g u i s h e d as there are clans i n the t r i b e , a n d i t is t h e place the clans o c c u p y i n the e n c a m p m e n t that d e t e r m i n e s the o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e regions. Each r e g i o n is d e f i n e d b y t h e t o t e m o f the clan t o w h i c h i t is assigned. A m o n g the Z u f i i , f o r example, the p u e b l o is m a d e u p o f seven sections; each o f these sections is a g r o u p o f clans that has a c q u i r e d its o w n u n i t y . I n all l i k e l i h o o d , i t was o r i g i n a l l y a single clan that later s u b d i v i d e d . Space s i m i l a r l y contains seven regions, a n d each o f these seven sections o f the w o r l d is i n i n t i m a t e relationship w i t h a section o f the p u e b l o , that is, w i t h a g r o u p o f c l a n s .

10

" T h u s , " says C u s h i n g , " o n e d i v i s i o n is considered

t o be i n r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e n o r t h ; a n o t h e r represents the west, a n o t h e r the south,

11

etc." E a c h section o f the p u e b l o has its d i s t i n c t i v e c o l o r , w h i c h s y m -

bolizes i t ; each r e g i o n has its o w n c o l o r , w h i c h is that o f t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g section. O v e r t h e course o f history, the n u m b e r o f basic clans has v a r i e d , a n d t h e n u m b e r o f regions has v a r i e d i n the same way. T h u s , spatial o r g a n i z a t i o n was m o d e l e d o n social o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d replicates i t . Far f r o m b e i n g b u i l t i n t o h u m a n nature, n o idea exists, u p t o a n d i n c l u d i n g t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e -

otherwise, in order to explain this agreement, one would have to accept the idea that all individuals, by virtue of their organico-psychic constitution, are affected in the same manner by the different parts of space—which is all the more improbable since the different regions have no affective coloring. Moreover, the divisions of space vary among societies—proof that they are not based exclusively on the inborn nature of man. 9

See Emile Durkheim and Marcel Mauss, "De Quelques formes primitives de la classification," AS, vol. VI, 1903, pp. 47ff. 10

Ibid., pp. 34ff.

"[Frank Hamilton] Cushing, "Outlines of Zuñi Creation Myths," Tlnrteenth Report, BAE, Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, 1896, pp. 367ff. [Throughout, quoted material is translated into English from Durkheim s French renderings.]

12

Introduction

t w e e n r i g h t a n d left, that is n o t , i n all p r o b a b i l i t y , the p r o d u c t o f religious, hence collective, representations.

12

A n a l o g o u s d e m o n s t r a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the n o t i o n s o f genus, force, personality, and efficacy w i l l be f o u n d b e l o w . O n e m i g h t even ask w h e t h e r the n o t i o n o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n does n o t also arise f r o m social c o n d i t i o n s . W h a t tends t o m a k e this plausible is the fact that t h e h o l d the n o t i o n o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n has h a d over t h o u g h t has v a r i e d w i t h times and societies. Today the p r i n c i p l e o f i d e n t i t y governs scientific t h o u g h t ; b u t there are vast systems o f representation that have played a m a j o r role i n the h i s t o r y o f ideas, i n w h i c h i t is c o m m o n l y i g n o r e d : These systems are the m y t h o l o g i e s , f r o m the c r u d est t o the m o s t s o p h i s t i c a t e d .

13

M y t h o l o g i e s deal w i t h beings that have the

m o s t c o n t r a d i c t o r y attributes at the same t i m e , that are o n e a n d many, m a t e r i a l and s p i r i t u a l , a n d capable o f s u b d i v i d i n g themselves i n d e f i n i t e l y w i t h o u t l o s i n g that w h i c h makes t h e m w h a t t h e y are. T h e s e h i s t o r i c a l variations o f the r u l e that seems t o g o v e r n o u r present l o g i c s h o w that, far f r o m b e i n g e n c o d e d f r o m e t e r n i t y i n the m e n t a l c o n s t i t u t i o n o f m a n , the r u l e depends at least i n part u p o n h i s t o r i c a l , h e n c e social, factors. W e d o n o t k n o w exactly w h a t these factors are, b u t w e can presume that t h e y e x i s t .

14

O n c e this hypothesis is accepted, the p r o b l e m o f k n o w l e d g e can be framed i n n e w t e r m s . U p t o the present, o n l y t w o d o c t r i n e s have opposed o n e another. For some, the categories c a n n o t be d e r i v e d f r o m experience. T h e y are l o g i c a l l y p r i o r t o experience and c o n d i t i o n i t . T h e y are t h o u g h t o f as so m a n y simple data that are i r r e d u c i b l e and i m m a n e n t i n the h u m a n i n t e l l e c t b y v i r t u e o f its natural m a k e u p . T h e y are thus called a priori. F o r others, b y contrast, the categories are c o n s t r u c t e d , m a d e o u t o f bits a n d pieces, and i t is t h e i n d i v i d u a l w h o is the artisan o f t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n .

1 3

i2

See Robert Hertz, "La Prééminence de la main droite: Etude de polarité religieuse," RP, December, 1909. On this question of the relations between the representation of space and the form of the group, see the chapter in [Friedrich] Ratzel, Politische Geographie [Leipzig, R. Oldenbourg, 1897], titled "Der Raum im Geiste der Völker" [pp. 261-262]. 13

I do not mean to say that it is unknown to mythological thinking but that mythological thinking departs from this principle more often and more overdy than scientific thought. Conversely, I will show that science cannot help but violate it, even while following it more scrupulously than religion does. In this respect and many others, there are only differences of degree between science and religion; but if these should not be overstated, it is important to notice them, for they are significant. 14

This hypothesis has already been advanced by the founders of Völkerpsychologie. It is referred to, for example, in a short article by Wilhelm Windelband titled, "Die Erkenntnisslehre unter dem Völkerpsychologischen Geschichtspunkte," in ZK [Lichtenstein, Kraus Reprints, Ltd., 1968], VIII, pp. 166ff. Cf. a note by [Heymann] Steinthal on the same subject, ibid., pp. 178ff. 1:,

Even in the theory of [Herbert] Spencer, the categories are constructedfromexperience. The only difference in this respect between ordinary and evolutionary empiricism is that, according to the latter,

Introduction

13

B o t h solutions give rise t o grave difficulties. Is the e m p i r i c i s t thesis adopted? T h e n the categories m u s t be s t r i p p e d o f t h e i r characteristic properties. I n fact, t h e y are d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m all o t h e r k n o w l e d g e b y t h e i r u n i v e r s a l i t y a n d t h e i r necessity. T h e y are the m o s t g e n eral concepts t h a t exist, because t h e y are a p p l i e d t o all that is real; a n d j u s t as t h e y are n o t attached t o any p a r t i c u l a r object, t h e y are i n d e p e n d e n t o f any i n d i v i d u a l subject. T h e y are the c o m m o n g r o u n d w h e r e all m i n d s meet. W h a t is m o r e , m i n d s m e e t there o f necessity: R e a s o n , w h i c h is n o n e o t h e r t h a n the fundamental categories taken together, is vested w i t h an a u t h o r i t y that w e c a n n o t escape at w i l l . W h e n w e t r y t o resist i t , t o free ourselves from some o f these f u n d a m e n t a l n o t i o n s , w e m e e t sharp resistance. H e n c e , far f r o m m e r e l y d e p e n d i n g u p o n us, they i m p o s e themselves u p o n us. B u t the characteristics o f e m p i r i c a l data are d i a m e t r i c a l l y opposite. A sensation o r an i m a g e is always l i n k e d t o a d e f i n i t e object o r c o l l e c t i o n o f definite objects, a n d i t expresses the m o m e n t a r y state o f a p a r t i c u l a r consciousness. I t is f u n d a m e n t a l l y i n d i v i d u a l a n d subjective. M o r e o v e r , w e can d o as w e w i s h w i t h representations that are o f this o r i g i n . O f course, w h e n sensations are present t o us, they impose t h e m selves o n us in fact. By right, however, w e r e m a i n free t o conceive t h e m o t h e r wise than they are and to picture t h e m as o c c u r r i n g i n an order different from the o n e i n w h i c h t h e y o c c u r r e d . I n regard t o t h e m , n o t h i n g is b i n d i n g o n us u n less considerations o f a different sort i n t e r v e n e . H e r e , t h e n , are t w o sorts o f k n o w l e d g e that are l i k e opposite poles o f the intellect. U n d e r these c o n d i t i o n s , t o reduce reason t o e x p e r i e n c e is t o m a k e reason disappear—because i t is t o reduce the u n i v e r s a l i t y a n d necessity that characterize reason t o m e r e appearances, illusions t h a t m i g h t be p r a c t i c a l l y c o n v e n i e n t b u t that c o r r e s p o n d t o n o t h i n g i n t h i n g s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , i t is t o d e n y all o b j e c t i v e reality t o that l o g ical life w h i c h t h e f u n c t i o n o f the categories is t o regulate a n d organize. Classical e m p i r i c i s m leads t o irrationalism; perhaps i t s h o u l d be called b y that name. N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e sense w e o r d i n a r i l y attach t o the labels, i t is the apriorists w h o are m o r e attentive to the facts. Since they d o n o t take i t as selfe v i d e n t t r u t h t h a t the categories are made o f the same elements as o u r sense representations, t h e y are n o t c o m m i t t e d t o i m p o v e r i s h i n g the categories systematically, e m p t y i n g t h e m o f all real c o n t e n t a n d r e d u c i n g t h e m t o m e r e verbal artifices. Q u i t e the contrary, apriorists leave the categories w i t h all t h e i r d i s t i n c t i v e characteristics. T h e apriorists are rationalists; t h e y believe

the results of individual experience are consolidated by heredity. But that consolidation adds nothing essential; no element enters into their composition that does not originate in the experience of the individual. Also, according to that theory, the necessity with which the categories impose themselves upon us in the present is itself the product of an illusion, a superstitious prejudice that is deeply rooted in the organism but without foundation in the nature of things.

14

Introduction

that the w o r l d has a l o g i c a l aspect that reason e m i n e n t l y expresses. T o d o this, however, they have t o ascribe t o the i n t e l l e c t a c e r t a i n p o w e r t o transcend e x p e r i e n c e and a d d t o w h a t is i m m e d i a t e l y g i v e n . B u t f o r this singular p o w e r , t h e y offer n e i t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n n o r w a r r a n t . M e r e l y t o say i t is i n h e r ent i n the nature o f h u m a n i n t e l l e c t is n o t t o e x p l a i n that p o w e r . I t w o u l d still be necessary t o see w h e r e w e acquire this a s t o u n d i n g prerogative a n d h o w w e are able t o see relationships i n things that m e r e spectating c a n n o t reveal t o us. To c o n f i n e oneself t o saying that e x p e r i e n c e itself is possible o n l y o n that c o n d i t i o n is t o shift t h e p r o b l e m , perhaps, b u t n o t t o solve i t . T h e p o i n t is to k n o w h o w i t happens that e x p e r i e n c e is n o t e n o u g h , b u t presupposes c o n d i tions that are e x t e r n a l and p r i o r t o experience, a n d h o w i t happens that these c o n d i t i o n s are m e t at the t i m e and i n the m a n n e r needed. T o answer these questions, i t has sometimes b e e n i m a g i n e d that, b e y o n d the reason o f i n d i viduals, there is a s u p e r i o r and perfect reason f r o m w h i c h that o f individuals emanated and, b y a sort o f mystic p a r t i c i p a t i o n , presumably a c q u i r e d its m a r velous faculty: T h a t s u p e r i o r a n d perfect reason is d i v i n e reason. B u t , at best, this hypothesis has the grave disadvantage o f b e i n g shielded f r o m all e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n t r o l , so i t does n o t m e e t the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f a scientific h y p o t h e sis. M o r e t h a n that, the categories o f h u m a n t h o u g h t are never f i x e d i n a d e f i n i t e f o r m ; t h e y are ceaselessly made, u n m a d e , and remade; t h e y v a r y acc o r d i n g t o t i m e a n d place. B y contrast, d i v i n e reason is i m m u t a b l e . H o w c o u l d this invariance a c c o u n t f o r such constant variability? S u c h are the t w o c o n c e p t i o n s that have c o m p e t e d f o r centuries. A n d i f the debate has g o n e o n a n d o n , i t is because the arguments back a n d f o r t h are i n fact m o r e o r less equivalent. I f reason is b u t a f o r m o f i n d i v i d u a l e x p e r i ence, t h e n reason is n o m o r e . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , i f the capacities w i t h w h i c h i t is c r e d i t e d are r e c o g n i z e d b u t left u n a c c o u n t e d for, t h e n reason apparently is placed outside nature and science. Faced w i t h these opposite o b j e c t i o n s , the i n t e l l e c t remains u n c e r t a i n . B u t i f the social o r i g i n o f the categories is accepted, a n e w stance becomes possible, o n e that s h o u l d enable us, I believe, t o avoid these opposite difficulties. T h e f u n d a m e n t a l thesis o f a p r i o r i s m is that k n o w l e d g e is f o r m e d f r o m t w o sorts o f elements that are i r r e d u c i b l e o n e t o the o t h e r — t w o distinct, sup e r i m p o s e d layers, so t o s p e a k .

16

M y hypothesis keeps this p r i n c i p l e intact.

T h e k n o w l e d g e that people speak o f as e m p i r i c a l — a l l that theorists o f e m p i r i c i s m have ever used t o c o n s t r u c t reason—is the k n o w l e d g e that t h e direct ^'[t is perhaps surprising that I should not define apriorism by the hypothesis of innateness. But that idea actually has only a secondary role in the doctrine. It is a simplistic way of portraying the irreducibility of rational cognition to empirical data. To call it innate is no more than a positive way of saying that it is not a product of experience as usually conceived.

Introduction

15

a c t i o n o t objects calls f o r t h i n o u r m i n d s . T h u s t h e y are i n d i v i d u a l states that are w h o l l y " e x p l a i n e d b y the psychic nature o f the i n d i v i d u a l . B u t i f the categories are essentially collective representations,

as I t h i n k they are, they

translate states o f the c o l l e c t i v i t y , first and foremost. T h e y d e p e n d u p o n the way m w h i c h the c o l l e c t i v i t y is o r g a n i z e d , u p o n its m o r p h o l o g y , its r e l i g i o u s , m o r a l , a n d e c o n o m i c i n s t i t u t i o n s , and so o n . B e t w e e n these t w o k i n d s o f representations, t h e n , is all the distance that separates the i n d i v i d u a l f r o m t h e social; o n e can n o m o r e derive the second f r o m the first t h a n o n e can deduce the society f r o m the i n d i v i d u a l , the w h o l e f r o m the part, o r the c o m p l e x f r o m the s i m p l e .

18

Society is a reality stti generis; i t has its o w n characteristics

that are e i t h e r n o t f o u n d i n the rest o f the universe o r are n o t f o u n d there i n the same f o r m . T h e representations that express society therefore have an a l t o g e t h e r different c o n t e n t f r o m the p u r e l y i n d i v i d u a l representations,

and

one can be c e r t a i n i n advance that the f o r m e r add s o m e t h i n g t o the latter. T h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h b o t h k i n d s o f representations are f o r m e d b r i n g s a b o u t t h e i r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . C o l l e c t i v e representations are the p r o d u c t o f an i m m e n s e c o o p e r a t i o n that extends n o t o n l y t h r o u g h space b u t also t h r o u g h t i m e ; t o m a k e t h e m , a m u l t i t u d e o f different m i n d s have associated, i n t e r m i x e d , and c o m b i n e d t h e i r ideas a n d feelings; l o n g generations have a c c u m u l a t e d t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e and k n o w l e d g e . A v e r y special i n t e l l e c t u a l i t y that is i n f i n i t e l y r i c h e r a n d m o r e c o m p l e x t h a n that o f the i n d i v i d u a l is distilled i n t h e m . T h a t b e i n g the case, w e u n d e r s t a n d h o w reason has gained the p o w e r t o go b e y o n d t h e range o f e m p i r i c a l c o g n i t i o n . I t owes this p o w e r n o t t o some mysterious v i r t u e b u t s i m p l y t o the fact that, as the w e l l - k n o w n f o r m u l a has i t , m a n is d o u b l e . I n h i m are t w o beings: an i n d i v i d u a l b e i n g that has its basis i n the b o d y a n d w h o s e sphere o f a c t i o n is s t r i c t l y l i m i t e d by this fact, and a social b e i n g that represents w i t h i n us the highest reality i n the i n tellectual and m o r a l * r e a l m that is k n o w a b l e t h r o u g h o b s e r v a t i o n : I m e a n so!

'~On Durkheim's characteristic uses of the term "moral," see above, p. Iv—lvi.

' At least to the extent that there are individual, and thus fully empirical, representations. But m fact there probably is no case in which those two sorts of elements are not found closelv bound up together. ^Furthermore, this irreducibility should not be understood in an absolute sense. I do not mean that there is nothing in the empirical representations that announces the rational ones, or that there is nothing in the individual that can be considered the harbinger ot social life. If experience w as completely foreign to all that is rational, reason would not be applicable to it. Likewise, if the psychic nature of the mciis idual was absolutely resistant to social life, society would be impossible. Therefore a full analvsis ot the categories would look for the seeds of rationalitv in individual consciousness. ! shall have occasion to return to this point in my Conclusion. All I wish to establish here is that there is a distance between the indistinct seeds of reason and reason properly so-called that is comparable to the distance between the properties of mineral elements, from which the living being is made, and the characteristic properties of life, once constituted. 7

16

Introduction

c i e t y [J'entends la société].

I n the r e a l m o f practice, the consequence o f this

d u a l i t y i n o u r nature is the i r r e d u c i b i l i t y o f the m o r a l ideal to the u t i l i t a r i a n m o t i v e ; i n the r e a l m o f t h o u g h t , i t is the i r r e d u c i b i l i t y o f reason t o i n d i v i d ual experience. As p a r t o f society, the i n d i v i d u a l n a t u r a l l y transcends himself, b o t h w h e n he t h i n k s a n d w h e n he acts. T h i s same social characteristic enables us t o u n d e r s t a n d w h e r e the n e cessity o f the categories comes f r o m . A n idea is said t o be necessary* w h e n , due t o some sort o f i n t e r n a l p r o p e r t y , i t enjoys credence w i t h o u t the support o f any p r o o f . I t thus contains i n itself s o m e t h i n g that compels the i n t e l l e c t a n d w i n s over i n t e l l e c t u a l adherence w i t h o u t p r i o r e x a m i n a t i o n . A p r i o r i s m postulates that remarkable capacity w i t h o u t a c c o u n t i n g f o r i t . T o say that the categories are necessary because t h e y are indispensable t o t h o u g h t is s i m p l y t o repeat that they are necessary. B u t i f they have the o r i g i n that I a m att r i b u t i n g t o t h e m , n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e i r ascendancy s h o u l d surprise us any l o n g e r . T h e y d o i n d e e d express the m o s t general relationships that exist b e t w e e n things; h a v i n g broader scope t h a n all o u r ideas, t h e y g o v e r n all the particulars o f o u r i n t e l l e c t u a l life. I f , at every m o m e n t , m e n d i d n o t agree o n these f u n d a m e n t a l ideas, i f t h e y d i d n o t have a h o m o g e n e o u s c o n c e p t i o n o f t i m e , space, cause, n u m b e r , a n d so o n . A l l consensus a m o n g m i n d s , a n d thus all c o m m o n life, w o u l d b e c o m e impossible. H e n c e society c a n n o t leave the categories u p t o the free c h o i c e o f i n d i viduals w i t h o u t a b a n d o n i n g itself. T o live, i t requires n o t o n l y a m i n i m u m m o r a l consensus b u t also a m i n i m u m l o g i c a l consensus that i t c a n n o t d o w i t h o u t either. T h u s , i n o r d e r t o prevent dissidence, society w e i g h s o n its m e m b e r s w i t h all its a u t h o r i t y . D o e s a m i n d seek t o free itself f r o m these n o r m s o f all t h o u g h t ? Society n o l o n g e r considers this a h u m a n m i n d i n the full sense, a n d treats i t accordingly. T h i s is w h y i t is that w h e n w e try, even deep d o w n inside, t o get away from these f u n d a m e n t a l n o t i o n s , w e feel that w e are n o t f u l l y free; s o m e t h i n g resists us, f r o m inside a n d outside ourselves. O u t s i d e us, i t is o p i n i o n that j u d g e s us; m o r e t h a n that, because society is represented inside us as w e l l , i t resists these r e v o l u t i o n a r y impulses

from

w i t h i n . W e feel t h a t w e c a n n o t a b a n d o n ourselves t o t h e m w i t h o u t o u r t h o u g h t ' s ceasing t o be t r u l y h u m a n . S u c h appears t o be the o r i g i n o f the v e r y special a u t h o r i t y that is i n h e r e n t i n reason a n d that makes us t r u s t i n g l y accept its p r o m p t i n g s . T h i s is n o n e o t h e r t h a n t h e a u t h o r i t y o f s o c i e t y

19

pass-

i n g i n t o c e r t a i n ways o f t h i n k i n g that are t h e indispensable c o n d i t i o n s o f all *Note here that the sense of the word "necessary" is distinct from the everyday concept of need. See also the next paragraph. ly

It has often been noticed that social disturbances multiply mental disturbances. This is further evidence that logical discipline is an aspect of social discipline. The former relaxes when the latter weakens.

17

Introduction

c o m m o n a c t i o n . T h u s the necessity w i t h w h i c h the categories press t h e m selves u p o n us is n o t m e r e l y the effect o f habits w h o s e y o k e w e c o u l d slip w i t h l i t t l e effort; n o r is that necessity a h a b i t o r a physical o r metaphysical need, since the categories change w i t h place a n d t i m e ; i t is a special sort o f m o r a l necessity t h a t is t o i n t e l l e c t u a l life w h a t o b l i g a t i o n is t o the w i l l .

2 0

B u t i f the categories at first d o n o m o r e t h a n translate social states, does i t n o t f o l l o w t h a t t h e y can be a p p l i e d t o the rest o f nature o n l y as metaphors? I f t h e i r p u r p o s e is m e r e l y t o express social things, i t w o u l d seem that t h e y c o u l d be e x t e n d e d t o o t h e r realms o n l y b y c o n v e n t i o n . T h u s , insofar as t h e y serve us i n c o n c e i v i n g the physical o r b i o l o g i c a l w o r l d , t h e y can o n l y have the value o f artificial symbols—useful perhaps, b u t w i t h n o c o n n e c t i o n t o r e ality. W e w o u l d thus r e t u r n t o n o m i n a l i s m a n d e m p i r i c i s m b y a n o t h e r r o u t e . T o i n t e r p r e t a sociological t h e o r y o f k n o w l e d g e i n that w a y is t o forget that even i f society is a specific reality, i t is n o t an e m p i r e w i t h i n an e m p i r e : I t is part o f nature and nature's highest expression. T h e social r e a l m is a n a t u r a l r e a l m that differs f r o m others o n l y i n its greater c o m p l e x i t y . I t is impossible that n a ture, i n that w h i c h is m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l i n itself, s h o u l d be radically different b e t w e e n o n e p a r t a n d a n o t h e r o f itself. I t is impossible that the f u n d a m e n t a l relations that exist b e t w e e n things—precisely those relations that the categories serve t o express—should be f u n d a m e n t a l l y dissimilar i n o n e r e a l m a n d a n other. I f , for reasons that w e shall have t o discover,

21

they stand o u t m o r e clearly

i n t h e social w o r l d , i t is impossible that t h e y s h o u l d n o t be f o u n d elsewhere, t h o u g h i n m o r e s h r o u d e d f o r m s . Society makes t h e m m o r e manifest b u t has n o m o n o p o l y o n t h e m . T h i s is w h y n o t i o n s w o r k e d o u t o n the m o d e l o f social things can h e l p us t h i n k a b o u t o t h e r sorts o f t h i n g s . A t t h e v e r y least, i f , w h e n they deviate f r o m t h e i r i n i t i a l m e a n i n g , those n o t i o n s play i n a sense the role o f symbols, i t is the role o f w e l l - f o u n d e d symbols. I f artifice enters i n , t h r o u g h the v e r y fact that these are c o n s t r u c t e d concepts, i t is an artifice that closely f o l l o w s nature and strives t o c o m e ever closer t o n a t u r e .

22

T h e fact

2

"There is an analogy between this logical necessity and moral obligation but not identity—at least not at present. Today, society treats criminals differentlyfrompeople who are mentally handicapped. This is evidence that, despite significant similarities, the authority attached to logical norms and that inherent in moral norms are not of the same nature. They are two different species of one genus. It would be interesting to research what that difference (probably not primitive) consists of and where it comes from, since for a long time public consciousness barely distinguished the delinquentfromthe mentally ill. From this example, we can see the numerous problems raised by the analysis of these notions, which are generally thought elementary and simple but actually are extremely complex. 21

22

This question is treated in the Conclusion of this book.

Hence the rationalism that is immanent in a sociological theory of knowledge stands between empiricism and classical apriorism. For the first, the categories are purely artificial constructs; for the second, on the other hand, they are naturally given; for us, they are works of art, in a sense, but an art that imitates nature ever more perfectly.

18

Introduction

that the ideas o f t i m e , space, genus, cause, a n d personality are constructed f r o m social elements s h o u l d n o t lead us t o c o n c l u d e that they are s t r i p p e d o f all objective value. Q u i t e the contrary, t h e i r social o r i g i n leads o n e i n d e e d to suppose that they are n o t w i t h o u t f o u n d a t i o n i n the nature o f t h i n g s .

23

I n this fresh f o r m u l a t i o n , the t h e o r y o f k n o w l e d g e seems destined t o j o i n the opposite advantages o f t h e t w o r i v a l theories, w i t h o u t t h e i r disadvantages. I t preserves all the essential p r i n c i p l e s o f a p r i o r i s m b u t at the same t i m e takes i n s p i r a t i o n f r o m the positive t u r n o f m i n d that e m p i r i c i s m sought to satisfy. I t leaves reason w i t h its specific p o w e r , b u t accounts f o r that power, a n d does so w i t h o u t l e a v i n g the observable w o r l d . I t affirms as real the d u a l i t y o f o u r i n t e l l e c t u a l life, b u t explains that duality, and does so w i t h natural causes. T h e categories cease t o be regarded as p r i m a r y and unanalyzable facts; a n d yet t h e y r e m a i n o f such c o m p l e x i t y that analyses as simplistic as those w i t h w h i c h e m p i r i c i s m c o n t e n t e d itself c a n n o t possibly be r i g h t . N o l o n g e r d o they appear as v e r y simple n o t i o n s that anyone can sift from his personal observations, and t h a t p o p u l a r i m a g i n a t i o n u n f o r t u n a t e l y c o m p l i c a t e d ; q u i t e the contrary, they appear as i n g e n i o u s i n s t r u m e n t s o f t h o u g h t , w h i c h h u m a n groups have p a i n s t a k i n g l y f o r g e d over centuries, a n d i n w h i c h t h e y have 24

amassed the best o f t h e i r i n t e l l e c t u a l c a p i t a l . A w h o l e aspect o f h u m a n hist o r y is, i n a way, s u m m e d u p i n t h e m . T h i s a m o u n t s t o saying that t o succeed i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d evaluating t h e m , i t is necessary t o t u r n t o n e w p r o c e dures. T o k n o w w h a t the c o n c e p t i o n s that w e ourselves have n o t made are made of, i t c a n n o t be e n o u g h t o c o n s u l t o u r o w n consciousness. W e must l o o k outside ourselves, observe history, a n d i n s t i t u t e a w h o l e science, a c o m p l e x o n e at that, w h i c h can advance o n l y s l o w l y a n d b y c o l l e c t i v e labor. T h e present w o r k is an a t t e m p t t o m a k e c e r t a i n fragmentary c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o that science. W i t h o u t m a k i n g these questions t h e d i r e c t subject o f m y study, I w i l l take advantage o f all the o p p o r t u n i t i e s that present themselves t o capture at b i r t h at least some o f those ideas that, w h i l e religious i n o r i g i n , w e r e b o u n d nevertheless t o r e m a i n at the basis o f h u m a n m e n t a l i t y .

23

For example, the category of time has its basis in the rhythm of social life; but if there is a rhythm of collective life, one can be certain that there is another in the life of the individual and, more generally, that of the universe. The first is only more marked and apparent than the others. Likewise, we will see that the notion of kind was formedfromthat of the human group. But if men form natural groups, one can suppose that there exist among things groups that are at once similar to them and different. These natural groups of things are genera and species. 24

This is why it is legitimate to compare the categories with tools: Tools, for their part, are accumulated material capital. Moreover, there is close kinship between the three ideas of tool, category, and institution.

BOOK

ONE

PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS

CHAPTER ONE

DEFINITION OF RELIGIOUS PHENOMENA AND OF RELIGION 1

I

n o r d e r t o i d e n t i f y the simplest a n d m o s t p r i m i t i v e r e l i g i o n that observat i o n can m a k e k n o w n t o us, w e m u s t first define w h a t is p r o p e r l y u n d e r -

s t o o d as a r e l i g i o n . I f w e d o n o t , w e r u n the risk o f either c a l l i n g a system o f ideas a n d practices r e l i g i o n that are i n n o w a y r e l i g i o u s , o r o f passing b y r e l i g i o u s p h e n o m e n a w i t h o u t d e t e c t i n g t h e i r t r u e nature. A g o o d i n d i c a t i o n that this danger is n o t i m a g i n a r y , a n d the p o i n t b y n o means a concession t o e m p t y m e t h o d o l o g i c a l f o r m a l i s m , is this: H a v i n g failed t o take that p r e c a u t i o n , M . Frazer,* a scholar t o w h o m the c o m p a r a t i v e science o f religions is nevertheless gready i n d e b t e d , failed t o recognize t h e p r o f o u n d l y r e l i g i o u s character o f the beliefs a n d rites that w i l l be s t u d i e d b e l o w — b e l i e f s and rites i n w h i c h , I s u b m i t , the o r i g i n a l seed o f r e l i g i o u s life i n h u m a n i t y is visible. I n the m a t t e r o f d e f i n i t i o n , t h e n , there is a p r e j u d i c i a l q u e s t i o n that m u s t be treated before any other. I t is n o t t h a t I h o p e t o arrive straightaway at the deep a n d t r u l y e x p l a n a t o r y features o f r e l i g i o n , f o r these can be d e t e r m i n e d o n l y at the e n d o f the research. B u t w h a t is b o t h necessary and possible is t o p o i n t o u t a c e r t a i n n u m b e r o f readily visible o u t w a r d features that a l l o w us t o recognize r e l i g i o u s p h e n o m e n a w h e r e v e r t h e y are e n c o u n t e r e d , a n d that p r e v e n t t h e i r b e i n g confused w i t h others. I t u r n t o this p r e l i m i n a r y step. I f t a k i n g this step is t o y i e l d t h e results i t s h o u l d , w e m u s t b e g i n b y freei n g o u r m i n d s o f all p r e c o n c e i v e d ideas. W e l l before t h e science o f r e l i g i o n s i n s t i t u t e d its m e t h o d i c a l c o m p a r i s o n s , m e n h a d t o create t h e i r o w n idea o f w h a t r e l i g i o n is. T h e necessities o f existence r e q u i r e all o f us, believers a n d unbelievers, t o conceive i n some fashion those t h i n g s i n the m i d s t o f w h i c h *Sir James George Frazer (1854-1941). 'I have already tried to define the phenomenon of religion, in a work published by AS, vol. II [1899], pp. Iff. ["De la Definition des phénomènes religieux"]. As will be seen, the definition given there differs from the one I now propose. At the end of this chapter (p. 44, n. 68), I will give the reasons for these modifications. They do not, however, involve any fundamental change in the conceptualization of the facts. 21


22

w e live, a b o u t w h i c h w e c o n t i n u a l l y m a k e j u d g m e n t s , a n d o f w h i c h o u r c o n d u c t m u s t take a c c o u n t . B u t since these n o t i o n s are f o r m e d u n m e t h o d i c a l l y , i n the c o m i n g s a n d goings o f life, t h e y c a n n o t be relied o n and m u s t be r i g o r o u s l y k e p t t o o n e side i n the e x a m i n a t i o n that f o l l o w s . I t is n o t o u r prec o n c e p t i o n s , passions, o r habits that m u s t be c o n s u l t e d f o r the elements o f the d e f i n i t i o n w e need; d e f i n i t i o n is t o b e sought f r o m reality itself. L e t us set ourselves before this reality. P u t t i n g aside all ideas a b o u t r e l i g i o n i n general, let us consider r e l i g i o n s i n t h e i r concrete reality a n d t r y to see w h a t features t h e y m a y have i n c o m m o n : R e l i g i o n can be d e f i n e d o n l y i n terms o f features that are f o u n d w h e r e v e r r e l i g i o n is f o u n d . I n this c o m p a r i s o n , t h e n , w e w i l l i n c o r p o r a t e all the r e l i g i o u s systems w e can k n o w , past as w e l l as present, the m o s t p r i m i t i v e and simple as w e l l as t h e m o s t m o d e r n a n d r e f i n e d , f o r w e have n o r i g h t t o e x c l u d e some so as t o keep o n l y certain others, a n d n o l o g i c a l m e t h o d o f d o i n g so. T o anyone w h o sees r e l i g i o n as n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n a n a t u r a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f h u m a n activity, all r e l i g i o n s are i n s t r u c t i v e , w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n o f any k i n d : E a c h i n its o w n w a y expresses m a n , a n d thus each can h e l p us u n d e r s t a n d b e t t e r that aspect o f o u r nature. Besides, w e have seen that the preference f o r s t u d y i n g r e l i g i o n a m o n g the m o s t c i v i l i z e d peoples is far f r o m b e i n g t h e best m e t h o d .

2

Before t a k i n g u p the q u e s t i o n a n d i n o r d e r t o h e l p the m i n d free itself o f c o m m o n s e n s e n o t i o n s w h o s e i n f l u e n c e can prevent us f r o m seeing things as t h e y are, i t is advisable t o e x a m i n e h o w those prejudices have entered i n t o some o f the c o m m o n e s t d e f i n i t i o n s .

I O n e n o t i o n that is generally t a k e n t o be characteristic o f all that is r e l i g i o u s is the n o t i o n o f the supernatural. B y t h a t is m e a n t any o r d e r o f things that goes b e y o n d o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g ; the supernatural is the w o r l d o f mystery, the u n k n o w a b l e , o r t h e i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e . R e l i g i o n w o u l d t h e n be a k i n d o f speculation u p o n all that escapes science, a n d clear t h i n k i n g generally. A c c o r d i n g t o Spencer, " R e l i g i o n s that are d i a m e t r i c a l l y opposite i n t h e i r d o g mas agree i n t a c i d y r e c o g n i z i n g that the w o r l d , w i t h all i t contains and all that surrounds i t , is a m y s t e r y seeking an e x p l a n a t i o n " ; he makes t h e m o u t basically t o consist o f " t h e b e l i e f i n the o m n i p r e s e n c e o f s o m e t h i n g that goes

2

See above, p. 3.1 do not push the necessity of these definitions further or the method to be followed. The exposition is to be found in my Règles de la méthode sociologique [Paris, Alcan, 1895], pp. 43ff. Cf. Le Suicide; [étude de sociologie] (Paris, F. Alcan [1897]), pp. Iff.

Definition of Religious Phenomena and of Religion

23

3

b e y o n d t h e i n t e l l e c t . " Similiarly, M a x M i i l l e r saw all r e l i g i o n as " a n effort t o conceive the i n c o n c e i v a b l e a n d t o express the inexpressible, an aspiration t o ward the infinite."

4

C e r t a i n l y the role played b y the feeling o f m y s t e r y has n o t b e e n u n i m p o r t a n t i n c e r t a i n r e l i g i o n s , i n c l u d i n g C h r i s t i a n i t y . E v e n so, the i m p o r t a n c e o f this role has s h o w n m a r k e d v a r i a t i o n at different m o m e n t s o f C h r i s t i a n history. T h e r e have b e e n p e r i o d s w h e n t h e n o t i o n o f m y s t e r y has b e c o m e secondary and even faded altogether. T o m e n o f the seventeenth century, f o r e x a m p l e , d o g m a c o n t a i n e d n o t h i n g that unsettled reason. F a i t h effortlessly r e c o n c i l e d itself w i t h science a n d p h i l o s o p h y ; a n d t h i n k e r s like Pascal, w h o felt strongly that there is s o m e t h i n g p r o f o u n d l y obscure i n things, w e r e so l i t tle i n h a r m o n y w i t h t h e i r epochs that i t was t h e i r fate t o be m i s u n d e r s t o o d 5

b y t h e i r c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . T h e r e f o r e , i t w o u l d seem rash t o m a k e an idea that has b e e n subject t o p e r i o d i c eclipse the essential e l e m e n t even o f C h r i s t i a n ity. W h a t is c e r t a i n , i n any case, is that this idea appears v e r y late i n t h e h i s t o r y o f r e l i g i o n s . I t is t o t a l l y alien n o t o n l y t o the peoples called p r i m i t i v e b u t also t o those w h o have n o t attained a c e r t a i n level o f i n t e l l e c t u a l c u l t u r e . O f course, w h e n w e see m e n i m p u t i n g e x t r a o r d i n a r y v i r t u e s t o insignificant o b jects, o r p o p u l a t i n g the universe w i t h e x t r a o r d i n a r y p r i n c i p l e s made u p o f the m o s t disparate elements a n d possessing a sort o f u b i q u i t y t h a t is h a r d t o conceptualize, i t is easy f o r us t o find an air o f m y s t e r y i n these ideas. I t seems t o us that these m e n have resigned themselves t o ideas so p r o b l e m a t i c f o r o u r m o d e r n reason o n l y because t h e y have b e e n unable t o find m o r e r a t i o n a l ones. I n reality, however, the explanations that amaze us seem t o the p r i m i tive t h e simplest i n t h e w o r l d . H e sees t h e m n o t as a k i n d of ultima ratio*' t o w h i c h the i n t e l l e c t resigns itself i n despair b u t as the m o s t direct w a y o f c o n c e i v i n g and u n d e r s t a n d i n g w h a t he observes a r o u n d h i m . F o r h i m , there is n o t h i n g strange i n b e i n g able, b y v o i c e o r gesture, t o c o m m a n d t h e elements, h o l d u p o r accelerate the course o f the stars, m a k e t h e r a i n fall o r stop i t , a n d so o n . T h e rites he uses t o ensure the f e r t i l i t y o f the soil o r o f the a n i m a l species that n o u r i s h h i m are n o m o r e i r r a t i o n a l i n his eyes t h a n are, i n o u r *Last resort. '[Herbert Spencer, First Principles, New York, D. Appleton, 1862, French translation based on the sixth English edition], Paris, F. Alcan [1902], pp. 38-39, [p. 37 in the English edition. Trans.]. 4

Max Miiller, Introduction to the Science of Religions [London, Longmans, 1873], p. 18. Cf. [Lectures on]

the Origin and [Growth] of Religion [as Illustrated by the Religions of India, London, Longmans, 1878], p. 23. 5

The same turn of mind is also to be found in the period of scholasticism, as is shown in the formula according to which the philosophy of that period was defined, Fides quaerens intellectum [Faith in search of intellect. Trans.].

24


o w n eyes, the t e c h n i c a l processes that o u r agronomists use f o r t h e same p u r pose. T h e forces he b r i n g s i n t o play b y these various means d o n o t seem to him

p a r t i c u l a r l y m y s t e r i o u s . C e r t a i n l y , these forces differ f r o m those the

m o d e r n scientist conceives o f a n d teaches us t o use; t h e y behave differently a n d c a n n o t be c o n t r o l l e d i n t h e same w a y ; b u t t o the o n e w h o believes i n t h e m , t h e y are n o m o r e u n i n t e l l i g i b l e t h a n g r a v i t a t i o n o r e l e c t r i c i t y is t o physicists today. F u r t h e r m o r e , as w e w i l l see i n the course o f this w o r k , the idea o f natu r a l forces is v e r y l i k e l y d e r i v e d from that o f religious forces, so b e t w e e n the o n e a n d the o t h e r there c a n n o t be t h e chasm that separates the r a t i o n a l from the i r r a t i o n a l . N o t even the fact that r e l i g i o u s forces are o f t e n c o n c e i v e d o f as s p i r i t u a l entities a n d conscious w i l l s is any p r o o f o f t h e i r i r r a t i o n a l i t y . R e a son does n o t resist a priori the idea that i n a n i m a t e bodies m i g h t be m o v e d b y intelligences, as h u m a n bodies are, even t h o u g h present-day science does n o t easily a c c o m m o d a t e this hypothesis. W h e n L e i b n i z p r o p o s e d t o conceive the e x t e r n a l w o r l d as an i m m e n s e society o f intelligences, b e t w e e n w h i c h there w e r e n o t a n d c o u l d n o t be any b u t s p i r i t u a l relations, he m e a n t t o be w o r k i n g as a rationalist. H e d i d n o t see this universal a n i m i s m as a n y t h i n g that m i g h t offend the i n t e l l e c t . Besides, the idea o f the supernatural, as w e u n d e r s t a n d i t , is recent. I t presupposes an idea that is its n e g a t i o n , a n d that is i n n o w a y p r i m i t i v e . T o be able t o call c e r t a i n facts supernatural, o n e m u s t already have an awareness that there is a natural order of things, i n o t h e r w o r d s , that t h e p h e n o m e n a o f t h e universe are i n t e r n a l l y l i n k e d a c c o r d i n g t o necessary relationships called laws. O n c e this p r i n c i p l e is established, a n y t h i n g that departs from those laws n e c essarily appears as b e y o n d nature and, thus, b e y o n d reason: F o r w h a t is i n this sense natural is also r a t i o n a l , those relations expressing o n l y the m a n n e r i n w h i c h things are l o g i c a l l y c o n n e c t e d . N o w , the idea o f universal d e t e r m i n ism is o f recent o r i g i n ; even the greatest t h i n k e r s o f classical a n t i q u i t y d i d n o t achieve f u l l awareness o f i t . T h a t idea is t e r r i t o r y w o n b y the e m p i r i c a l sciences; i t is the postulate o n w h i c h t h e y rest a n d w h i c h t h e i r advancement has p r o v e d . So l o n g as this postulate wag l a c k i n g o r n o t w e l l established, there was n o t h i n g a b o u t the m o s t e x t r a o r d i n a r y events that d i d n o t appear p e r fectly conceivable. So l o n g as w h a t is i m m o v a b l e and i n f l e x i b l e about the o r der o f things was u n k n o w n , a n d so l o n g as i t was seen as the w o r k o f c o n t i n g e n t w i l l s , i t was o f course t h o u g h t n a t u r a l that these w i l l s o r others c o u l d m o d i f y the o r d e r o f things arbitrarily. F o r this reason, the m i r a c u l o u s i n t e r v e n t i o n s that the ancients ascribed t o t h e i r gods w e r e n o t i n t h e i r eyes miracles, i n the m o d e r n sense o f the w o r d . T o t h e m , these i n t e r v e n t i o n s w e r e beautiful, rare, o r t e r r i b l e spectacles, a n d objects o f surprise a n d w o n -


25

der (9auu,aTct, mirabilia, miracula); b u t t h e y w e r e n o t regarded as glimpses i n t o a mysterious w o r l d w h e r e reason c o u l d n o t penetrate. T h a t m i n d - s e t is all the m o r e readily understandable t o us because i t has n o t c o m p l e t e l y disappeared. A l t h o u g h the p r i n c i p l e o f d e t e r m i n i s m is f i r m l y established i n t h e physical a n d natural sciences, its i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o the social sciences began o n l y a c e n t u r y ago, a n d its a u t h o r i t y there is still c o n tested. T h e idea that societies are subject t o necessary laws and constitute a r e a l m o f nature has deeply penetrated o n l y a f e w m i n d s . I t f o l l o w s that t r u e miracles are t h o u g h t possible i n society. T h e r e is, f o r example, t h e accepted n o t i o n that a legislator can create an i n s t i t u t i o n o u t o f n o t h i n g a n d t r a n s f o r m o n e social system i n t o another, b y fiat—just as t h e believers o f so m a n y r e l i gions accept that the d i v i n e w i l l m a d e t h e w o r l d o u t o f n o t h i n g o r can a r b i t r a r i l y m u t a t e some beings i n t o others. As regards social things, w e still have the m i n d - s e t o f p r i m i t i v e s . B u t i f , i n matters s o c i o l o g i c a l , so m a n y p e o p l e t o day l i n g e r over this o l d - f a s h i o n e d idea, i t is n o t because social life seems o b scure a n d mysterious t o t h e m . Q u i t e the opposite: I f they are so easily c o n t e n t e d w i t h such explanations, i f t h e y c l i n g t o these illusions that are r e peatedly c o n t r a d i c t e d b y experience, i t is because social facts seem t o t h e m the m o s t transparent things i n t h e w o r l d . T h i s is so because t h e y have n o t yet appreciated t h e real obscurity, a n d because t h e y have n o t yet grasped t h e n e e d t o t u r n t o t h e p a i n s t a k i n g m e t h o d s o f t h e n a t u r a l sciences i n o r d e r p r o gressively t o sweep away t h e darkness. T h e same cast o f m i n d is t o be f o u n d at the r o o t o f m a n y r e l i g i o u s beliefs that startle us i n t h e i r o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n . Science, n o t r e l i g i o n , has t a u g h t m e n that things are c o m p l e x a n d d i f f i c u l t t o 6

understand. B u t , Jevons replies, the h u m a n m i n d has n o n e e d o f p r o p e r l y scientific e d u c a t i o n t o n o t i c e that there are d e f i n i t e sequences a n d a constant o r d e r o f succession b e t w e e n p h e n o m e n a o r t o n o t i c e that this o r d e r is o f t e n d i s t u r b e d . A t times t h e sun is suddenly eclipsed; t h e r a i n does n o t c o m e i n t h e season w h e n i t is expected; t h e m o o n is s l o w t o reappear after its p e r i o d i c disappearance, a n d t h e l i k e . Because these occurrences are outside the o r d i n a r y course o f events, p e o p l e have i m p u t e d t o t h e m extraordinary, e x c e p t i o n a l — i n a w o r d , extranatural—causes. I t is i n this f o r m , Jevons claims, that the idea o f the supernatural was b o r n at the b e g i n n i n g o f h i s t o r y ; a n d i t is i n this w a y a n d at this m o m e n t that r e l i g i o n a c q u i r e d its characteristic o b ject. T h e supernatural, however, is n o t r e d u c i b l e t o the unforeseen. T h e n e w is j u s t as m u c h p a r t o f nature as the opposite. I f w e n o t i c e that, i n general, p h e n o m e n a o c c u r o n e after t h e o t h e r i n a d e f i n i t e order, w e also n o t i c e that 6

[Frank Byron] Jevons, Introduction to the History of Religions [London, Methuen, 1896], p. 15.

26


the o r d e r is never m o r e t h a n a p p r o x i m a t e , that i t is n o t exactly the same at different times, a n d that i t has all k i n d s o f exceptions. W i t h even v e r y little experience, w e b e c o m e a c c u s t o m e d t o h a v i n g o u r expectations u n m e t ; and these setbacks o c c u r t o o o f t e n t o seem e x t r a o r d i n a r y t o us. G i v e n a certain e l e m e n t o f chance, as w e l l as a c e r t a i n u n i f o r m i t y i n experience, w e have n o reason t o a t t r i b u t e t h e o n e t o causes a n d forces different f r o m those t o w h i c h t h e o t h e r is subject. T o have the idea o f t h e supernatural, t h e n , i t is n o t e n o u g h f o r us t o witness u n e x p e c t e d events; these events m u s t be c o n c e i v e d o f as impossible besides—that is, impossible t o r e c o n c i l e w i t h an o r d e r that r i g h d y o r w r o n g l y seems t o be a necessary p a r t o f the o r d e r o f things. I t is the positive sciences that have gradually c o n s t r u c t e d this n o t i o n o f a necessary order. I t follows that the c o n t r a r y n o t i o n c a n n o t have predated those sciences. F u r t h e r m o r e , n o m a t t e r h o w m e n have c o n c e i v e d t h e i r experience o f novelties a n d chance occurrences, these c o n c e p t i o n s can i n n o w a y b e used to characterize r e l i g i o n . R e l i g i o u s c o n c e p t i o n s a i m above all t o express a n d e x p l a i n n o t w h a t is e x c e p t i o n a l a n d a b n o r m a l b u t w h a t is constant a n d r e g ular. A s a general r u l e , the gods are used far less t o a c c o u n t f o r monstrosity, o d d i t y , a n d a n o m a l y t h a n f o r the n o r m a l m a r c h o f the universe, the m o v e m e n t o f the stars, t h e r h y t h m o f the seasons, t h e annual g r o w t h o f vegetation, the p e r p e t u a t i o n o f species, a n d so f o r t h . H e n c e , any n o t i o n that equates r e l i g i o n w i t h t h e u n e x p e c t e d is w i d e o f the m a r k . Jevons's r e p l y is that this w a y o f c o n c e i v i n g r e l i g i o u s forces is n o t p r i m i t i v e . A c c o r d i n g t o h i m , p e o p l e c o n c e i v e d o f t h e m first i n o r d e r t o a c c o u n t f o r disorder a n d accident, a n d 7

o n l y later used t h e m t o e x p l a i n the u n i f o r m i t i e s o f n a t u r e . B u t i t is unclear w h a t c o u l d have m a d e m e n i m p u t e such o b v i o u s l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y f u n c t i o n s t o t h e m , o n e after t h e other. M o r e o v e r , the s u p p o s i t i o n that sacred beings w e r e at first c o n f i n e d t o t h e negative role o f disturbers is c o m p l e t e l y a r b i trary. A s i n d e e d w e w i l l see, starting w i t h the simplest r e l i g i o n s w e k n o w , the f u n d a m e n t a l task o f sacred beings has b e e n t o m a i n t a i n t h e n o r m a l course o f life b y positive a c t i o n .

8

T h u s t h e idea o f m y s t e r y is n o t at all o r i g i n a l . I t does n o t c o m e t o m a n as a g i v e n ; m a n h i m s e l f has f o r g e d this idea as w e l l as its contrary. For this reason, i t is o n l y i n a small n u m b e r o f advanced r e l i g i o n s that the idea o f m y s tery

has

any place

at a l l . T h e r e f o r e

i t cannot

be

made

the

defining

characteristic o f r e l i g i o u s p h e n o m e n a w i t h o u t e x c l u d i n g f r o m the d e f i n i t i o n m o s t o f t h e facts t o b e d e f i n e d . 7

Ibid., p. 23.

8

See below Bk. III. chap. 2.

27


II A n o t h e r idea b y w h i c h m a n y have t r i e d t o define r e l i g i o n is that o f d i v i n i t y . A c c o r d i n g to M . R é v i l l e ,

9

" R e l i g i o n is the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f h u m a n life

b y the sense o f a b o n d j o i n i n g the h u m a n m i n d w i t h t h e mysterious m i n d w h o s e d o m i n a t i o n o f t h e w o r l d a n d o f itself i t recognizes, and w i t h w h i c h i t takes pleasure i n f e e l i n g j o i n e d . " I t is a fact that i f the w o r d " d i v i n i t y " is taken i n a precise a n d n a r r o w sense, this d e f i n i t i o n leaves aside a m u l t i t u d e o f o b v i o u s l y r e l i g i o u s facts. T h e souls o f the dead a n d spirits o f all kinds and ranks, w i t h w h i c h the religious i m a g i n a t i o n s o f so m a n y diverse peoples have p o p ulated t h e w o r l d , are always the objects o f rites a n d sometimes even o f r e g u lar cults. S t r i c t l y speaking, however, t h e y are n o t gods. Still, all that is necessary t o m a k e the d e f i n i t i o n i n c l u d e t h e m is t o replace the w o r d " g o d " w i t h the m o r e inclusive t e r m " s p i r i t u a l b e i n g . " T h i s is w h a t T y l o r has d o n e . " I n s t u d y i n g the r e l i g i o n s o f l o w e r races," he says, " t h e first p o i n t is t o define a n d specify w h a t o n e means b y r e l i g i o n . I f o n e insists that the t e r m means b e l i e f i n a supreme b e i n g . . . , a c e r t a i n n u m b e r o f tribes w i l l be e x c l u d e d

from

t h e w o r l d o f r e l i g i o n . B u t that

t o o - n a r r o w d e f i n i t i o n has the flaw o f i d e n t i f y i n g r e l i g i o n w i t h c e r t a i n o f its p a r t i c u l a r developments. . . . I t seems better t o set ' s p i r i t u a l beings' as a m i n i m u m definition."

1 0

" S p i r i t u a l b e i n g s " m u s t be u n d e r s t o o d t o m e a n c o n -

scious subjects that have capacities s u p e r i o r t o those o f o r d i n a r y m e n , w h i c h therefore r i g h t l y includes the souls o f the dead, g é n i e s , a n d d e m o n s as w e l l as deities, p r o p e r l y so-called. I t is i m p o r t a n t t o n o t i c e i m m e d i a t e l y the p a r t i c u lar idea o f r e l i g i o n that this d e f i n i t i o n entails. T h e o n l y relations w e can have w i t h beings o f this sort are d e t e r m i n e d b y the nature ascribed t o t h e m . T h e y are conscious beings, a n d w e can o n l y i n f l u e n c e t h e m as w e i n f l u e n c e c o n sciousnesses generally, that is, b y p s y c h o l o g i c a l means, b y t r y i n g t o c o n v i n c e o r rouse t h e m e i t h e r w i t h w o r d s (invocations a n d prayers) o r w i t h offerings a n d sacrifices. A n d since the o b j e c t o f r e l i g i o n w o u l d t h e n be t o order o u r relations w i t h these special beings, there c o u l d be r e l i g i o n o n l y w h e r e there are prayers, sacrifices, p r o p i t i a t o r y rites, a n d t h e l i k e . I n this way, w e w o u l d have a v e r y simple c r i t e r i o n f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g w h a t is religious f r o m w h a t is n o t . Frazer

11

systematically applies this c r i t e r i o n , as d o several e t h n o g r a p h e r s .

12

9

[Albert Réville], Prolégomènes de l'histoire des religions [Paris, Fischbacher, 1881], p. 34.

10

Edward Burnett Tylor, Primitive Culture, vol. I [London, John Murray, 1873, p. 491].

"Starting with thefirstedition of The Golden Bough, vol. I, pp. 30-32. [James Frazer, The Golden Bough, 2 vols., London and New York, Macmillan, 1890.] 12

Including [Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [Francis James] Gillen and even [Konrad Theodor] Preuss, who calls all nonindividualized religious forces magic.

28


B u t h o w e v e r o b v i o u s this d e f i n i t i o n m a y seem, g i v e n habits o f m i n d that w e o w e t o o u r o w n religious u p b r i n g i n g , there are m a n y facts t o w h i c h i t is n o t applicable b u t that nevertheless b e l o n g t o the d o m a i n o f r e l i g i o n . I n the first place, there are great religions f r o m w h i c h the idea o f gods a n d spirits is absent, o r plays o n l y a secondary a n d i n c o n s p i c u o u s role. T h i s is the case i n B u d d h i s m . B u d d h i s m , says B u r n o u f , "takes its place i n o p p o s i t i o n t o B r a h m a n i s m as a m o r a l i t y w i t h o u t g o d a n d an atheism w i t h o u t N a ture."

13

" I t recognizes n o g o d o n w h o m m a n depends," says M . B a r t h ; "its

d o c t r i n e is absolutely atheist." religion w i t h o u t god."

1 5

14

A n d M . O l d e n b e r g , f o r his part, calls i t "a

T h e entire essence o f B u d d h i s m is c o n t a i n e d i n f o u r

p r o p o s i t i o n s that the faithful call the F o u r N o b l e T r u t h s .

1 6

T h e first states

that t h e existence o f suffering is t i e d t o the p e r p e t u a l change o f things; the second finds t h e cause o f suffering i n desire; the t h i r d makes the suppression o f desire the o n l y w a y t o e n d suffering; the f o u r t h lists the three stages that m u s t be passed t h r o u g h t o e n d suffering—uprightness,

meditation, and f i -

n a l l y w i s d o m , f u l l k n o w l e d g e o f the d o c t r i n e . T h e e n d o f t h e r o a d — d e l i v erance, salvation b y N i r v a n a — i s reached after these stages have been passed through. I n n o n e o f these p r i n c i p l e s is there any q u e s t i o n o f d i v i n i t y . T h e B u d dhist is n o t p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h k n o w i n g w h e r e this w o r l d o f b e c o m i n g i n w h i c h he lives a n d suffers came from; he accepts i t as a f a c t ,

17

a n d all his s t r i v -

i n g is t o escape i t . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , f o r this w o r k o f salvation he counts o n l y o n himself; he "has n o g o d t o t h a n k , j u s t as i n his struggle he calls u p o n none to help."

18

Instead o f p r a y i n g — i n the usual sense o f the w o r d , t u r n i n g

t o a s u p e r i o r b e i n g t o b e g f o r h e l p — h e w i t h d r a w s i n t o h i m s e l f and m e d i tates. T h i s is n o t t o say " t h a t he denies o u t r i g h t t h e existence o f beings

"[Eugène] Burnouf, Introduction à l'histoire du bouddhisme indien, 2d. ed. [Paris, Maisonneuve, 1876], p. 464. The last word of the text means that Buddhism does not even accept the existence of an eternal Nature. "Auguste Barth, The Religions of India [translatedfromFrench by Rev. J. Wood, London, Houghton Mifflin, 1882], p. 110. 15

[Hermann] Oldenberg, Le Bouddha [Sa vie, sa doctrine, sa communauté, translated from the German by A. Foucher, Paris, F. Alcan, 1894, p. 51. I could not find an edition Dürkheim lists as translated by "Hoey" and giving the page as 53. Trans.]. 16

Ibid. [pp. 214, 318]. Cf. Hendrick Kern, Histoire du bouddhisme dans l'Inde, vol. I [Paris, Ernest Leroux, 1901], pp. 389ff. "Oldenberg, Bouddha, p. 259 [this passage actually examines the denial of the existence of the soul. Trans.]; Barth, Religions of India, p. 110. '"Oldenberg, Bouddha, p. 314.

29


named Indra, A g n i , or Varuna;

19

b u t he feels that he owes t h e m n o t h i n g and

has n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h t h e m , " because t h e i r p o w e r is effective o n l y over the things o f this w o r l d — a n d those things, f o r h i m , are w i t h o u t value. H e is thus atheist i n t h e sense that he is u n i n t e r e s t e d i n w h e t h e r gods exist. M o r e o v e r , even i f t h e y exist a n d n o m a t t e r w h a t p o w e r t h e y m a y have, the saint, o r he w h o is u n f e t t e r e d b y t h e w o r l d , regards h i m s e l f as s u p e r i o r t o t h e m . T h e stature o f beings lies n o t i n the e x t e n t o f t h e i r p o w e r over things b u t i n the e x t e n t o f t h e i r progress a l o n g t h e w a y t o s a l v a t i o n .

20

I t is t r u e that, i n at least some divisions o f t h e B u d d h i s t c h u r c h , * the B u d d h a has c o m e t o be regarded as a k i n d o f g o d . H e has his temples and has b e c o m e t h e o b j e c t o f a c u l t . B u t t h e c u l t is v e r y simple, essentially l i m i t e d t o offerings o f a f e w flowers a n d the v e n e r a t i o n o f relics o r sacred images. I t is l i t t l e m o r e t h a n a c o m m e m o r a t i v e c u l t . B u t further, assuming the t e r m t o be apposite, this divinization o f t h e B u d d h a is p e c u l i a r t o w h a t has b e e n called N o r t h e r n B u d d h i s m . " T h e B u d d h i s t s o f the S o u t h , " says K e r n , " a n d the least advanced a m o n g t h e B u d d h i s t s o f the N o r t h can be said, a c c o r d i n g t o presently available evidence, t o speak o f t h e f o u n d e r o f t h e i r d o c t r i n e as i f he were a m a n . "

2 1

T h e y p r o b a b l y d o ascribe t o t h e B u d d h a e x t r a o r d i n a r y p o w -

ers, s u p e r i o r t o those o r d i n a r y m o r t a l s possess; b u t i t is a v e r y o l d b e l i e f i n I n d i a (and a b e l i e f w i d e s p r e a d i n m a n y different religions) that a great saint is gifted w i t h exceptional v i r t u e s .

22

S t i l l , a saint is n o t a g o d , any m o r e t h a n a

priest o r a m a g i c i a n is, despite the s u p e r h u m a n faculties that are o f t e n asc r i b e d t o t h e m . Besides, a c c o r d i n g t o the best scholarly a u t h o r i t y , this sort o f t h e i s m a n d the c o m p l e x m y t h o l o g y that o r d i n a r i l y goes w i t h i t are n o m o r e t h a n a derivative a n d d e v i a n t f o r m o f B u d d h i s m . A t first, the B u d d h a was n o t regarded as a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n " t h e wisest o f m e n . "

2 3

" T h e conception o f a

B u d d h a w h o is o t h e r t h a n a m a n w h o has reached t h e highest degree o f h o liness is," says B u r n o u f , " o u t s i d e the circle o f ideas that are the v e r y f o u n d a -

*Here, as in the definition of religion (p. 44), Durkheim capitalizes the word "church." 19

Barth [Religions of India], p. 109. "I am deeply convinced," says Burnouf as well, "that if Çâkya had not found around him a Pantheon full of the gods whose names I gave, he would have seen no need whatever to invent it" ([Eugene Bournoufj, Bouddhisme indien, p. 119). 20

Burnouf, Bouddhisme indien, p. 117.

21

Kern, Histoire du bouddhisme, vol. I, p. 289.

22

"The belief universally accepted in India that great holiness is necessarily accompanied by supernatural faculties, is the sole support that he (Çâkya) had to find in spirits" (Burnouf, Bouddhisme indien, p. 119). 23

Ibid., p. 120.

30


t i o n o f even the simple S u t r a s " ;

24

a n d as the same a u t h o r adds elsewhere, "his

h u m a n i t y has r e m a i n e d a fact so uncontestably a c k n o w l e d g e d b y all that i t d i d n o t o c c u r t o the m y t h makers, t o w h o m miracles c o m e v e r y easily, t o m a k e a g o d o u t o f h i m after his d e a t h . "

25

H e n c e , o n e m a y ask w h e t h e r he has

ever reached the p o i n t o f b e i n g c o m p l e t e l y s t r i p p e d o f h u m a n character and thus w h e t h e r i t w o u l d be p r o p e r t o l i k e n h i m t o a g o d ;

2 6

w h a t e v e r the case

is, i t w o u l d be t o a g o d o f a v e r y special nature, a n d w h o s e role i n n o w a y resembles that o f o t h e r d i v i n e personalities. A g o d is first o f all a l i v i n g b e i n g o n w h o m m a n m u s t c o u n t a n d o n w h o m h e can c o u n t ; n o w , the B u d d h a has d i e d , he has entered N i r v a n a , a n d he can d o n o t h i n g m o r e i n the course o f h u m a n events.

27

Finally, a n d w h a t e v e r else o n e m a y c o n c l u d e a b o u t the d i v i n i t y o f the B u d d h a , the fact remains that this c o n c e p t i o n is w h o l l y extraneous t o w h a t is t r u l y f u n d a m e n t a l i n B u d d h i s m . B u d d h i s m consists first a n d foremost i n the idea o f salvation, a n d salvation o n l y requires o n e t o k n o w and practice the r i g h t d o c t r i n e . O f course, that d o c t r i n e w o u l d n o t have b e e n k n o w a b l e i f the B u d d h a h a d n o t c o m e t o reveal i t ; b u t o n c e that r e v e l a t i o n was made, the Buddha's w o r k was d o n e . F r o m t h e n o n , he ceased t o be a necessary fact o r i n religious life. T h e practice o f the F o u r H o l y T r u t h s w o u l d be possible even i f the m e m o r y o f the o n e w h o m a d e t h e m k n o w n was erased f r o m memory.

2 8

V e r y different from this is C h r i s t i a n i t y , w h i c h is i n c o n c e i v a b l e

w i t h o u t the idea o f C h r i s t ever present a n d his c u l t ever practiced; f o r i t is t h r o u g h t h e e v e r - l i v i n g C h r i s t , daily sacrificed, that the c o m m u n i t y o f the faithful goes o n c o m m u n i c a t i n g w i t h the supreme source o f its s p i r i t u a l life.

29

24

Ibid„ p. 107.

25

Ibid., p. 302.

26

Kern makes this point in the following terms: "In certain respects, he is a man; in certain respects, he is not a man; in certain respects, he is neither one nor the other" (Histoire du bouddhisme vol. 1, p. 290). 27

"The idea that the divine head of the Community is not absent from among his people, but in reality remains among them as their master and king, in such a way that the cult is nothing other than the expression of the permanence of that common life—this idea is entirely foreign to Buddhists. Their own master is in Nirvana; if his faithful cried out to him he could not hear them" (Oldenberg, Le Bouddha [p. 368]). 28

"In all its basic traits, the Buddhist doctrine could exist, just as it does in reality, even if the idea of Buddha remained wholly foreign to it" (Oldenberg, Le Bouddha, p. 322). And what is said of the historical Buddha also applies to all the mythological ones. 29

See in this connection Max Müller, Natural Religion [London, Longmans, Green & Co., 1889], pp. 103ff., 190.

31


A l l t h e p r e c e d i n g applies equally t o a n o t h e r great r e l i g i o n o f I n d i a , J a i n i s m . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e t w o d o c t r i n e s h o l d practically the same c o n c e p t i o n o f the w o r l d a n d o f life. " L i k e t h e Buddhists," says M . B a r t h , " t h e Jainists are atheists. T h e y reject the idea o f a creator; f o r t h e m , the w o r l d is eternal a n d t h e y e x p l i c i t l y d e n y that there c o u l d exist a b e i n g perfect from all eternity." L i k e t h e N o r t h e r n B u d d h i s t s , the Jainists, o r at least c e r t a i n o f t h e m , have nevertheless r e v e r t e d t o a sort o f deism; i n the i n s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e D e c c a n , o n e Jinapati*

is spoken of, a k i n d o f supreme Jina w h o is called the first cre-

ator; b u t such language, says the same author, " c o n f l i c t s w i t h the m o s t e x p l i c i t statements o f t h e i r m o s t a u t h o r i t a t i v e a u t h o r s . "

30

F u r t h e r m o r e , this indifference t o the d i v i n e is so d e v e l o p e d i n B u d d h i s m a n d Jainism because the seed existed i n the B r a h m a n i s m from w h i c h b o t h r e l i g i o n s derive. I n at least c e r t a i n o f its f o r m s , B r a h m a n i c speculation l e d t o "a f r a n k l y materialist a n d atheist e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e u n i v e r s e . "

31

W i t h the pas-

sage o f t i m e , the m u l t i p l e deities that the peoples o f I n d i a had l e a r n e d t o w o r s h i p w e r e m o r e o r less amalgamated i n t o a k i n d o f abstract and i m p e r sonal p r i n c i p a l deity, t h e essence o f all that exists. M a n contains w i t h i n h i m self this supreme reality, i n w h i c h n o t h i n g o f d i v i n e p e r s o n h o o d remains; o r rather, he is o n e w i t h i t , since n o t h i n g exists apart f r o m i t . T h u s t o f i n d and u n i t e w i t h this reality, he does n o t have t o search f o r s u p p o r t outside himself; all i t takes is f o r h i m t o focus o n h i m s e l f a n d m e d i t a t e . O l d e n b u r g says, " W h e n B u d d h i s m takes u p the g r a n d endeavor o f i m a g i n i n g a w o r l d o f salv a t i o n i n w h i c h m a n saves himself, a n d o f creating a r e l i g i o n w i t h o u t a g o d , B r a h m a n i c speculation has already prepared the g r o u n d . T h e n o t i o n o f d i v i n i t y has gradually receded; t h e figures o f the a n c i e n t gods d i m , a n d s l o w l y disappear. Far above the terrestrial w o r l d , B r a h m a sits e n t h r o n e d i n his eternal q u i e t , a n d o n l y o n e p e r s o n remains t o take an active part i n the great w o r k o f salvation: M a n . "

3 2

N o t e , t h e n , that a considerable part o f religious

e v o l u t i o n has consisted o f a gradual m o v e m e n t away from the ideas o f s p i r i t u a l b e i n g a n d d i v i n i t y . H e r e are great r e l i g i o n s i n w h i c h invocations, p r o p i tiations, sacrifices, a n d prayers p r o p e r l y so-called are far f r o m d o m i n a n t , and therefore d o n o t e x h i b i t t h e d i s t i n g u i s h i n g m a r k b y w h i c h , i t is c l a i m e d , specifically r e l i g i o u s p h e n o m e n a are t o be r e c o g n i z e d . *This term means "conquering lord" and, according to current scholarship, refers to a spiritual ideal, not co a creator. I am indebted to my colleague Douglas Brooks on this point. 30

Barth, Religions of India, p. 146.

"Barch, ["Religions de l'Inde"] in Encyclopédie des sciences religieuses [Paris, Sandoz et Fischbacher, 1877-1882], vol. VI, p. 548. 32

01denberg, Le Bouddha [p. 51].

32


B u t m a n y rites that are w h o l l y i n d e p e n d e n t o f any idea o f gods o r s p i r i t u a l beings are f o u n d even i n deistic r e l i g i o n s . First o f all, there are a m u l t i t u d e o f p r o h i b i t i o n s . F o r example, t h e B i b l e c o m m a n d s the w o m a n t o live i n isolation f o r a d e f i n i t e p e r i o d each m o n t h , time o f childbirth,

3 4

3 3

imposes similar i s o l a t i o n at the

a n d forbids h i t c h i n g a d o n k e y and a horse together o r

w e a r i n g a g a r m e n t i n w h i c h h e m p is m i x e d w i t h l i n e n .

3 5

I t is impossible t o

see w h a t role b e l i e f i n Y a h w e h c o u l d have played i n these p r o h i b i t i o n s , f o r he is absent f r o m all the relations thus p r o h i b i t e d a n d c o u l d h a r d l y be i n t e r ested i n t h e m . T h e same can be said f o r m o s t o f the d i e t a r y restrictions. S u c h restrictions are n o t peculiar t o t h e H e b r e w s ; i n various f o r m s , t h e y are f o u n d i n innumerable religions. I t is t r u e that these rites are p u r e l y negative, b u t they are nonetheless r e l i g i o u s . F u r t h e r m o r e , there are o t h e r rites that i m p o s e active and positive o b l i g a t i o n s u p o n t h e f a i t h f u l a n d yet are o f t h e same nature. T h e y act o n t h e i r o w n , a n d t h e i r efficacy does n o t d e p e n d u p o n any d i v i n e p o w e r ; t h e y m e chanically b r i n g a b o u t t h e effects that are t h e i r reason f o r b e i n g . T h e y c o n sist n e i t h e r o f prayers n o r o f offerings t o a b e i n g o n w h o s e g o o d w i l l t h e anticipated result depends; instead, the result is achieved t h r o u g h the a u t o m a t i c o p e r a t i o n o f the r i t u a l . S u c h is the case, f o r example, o f sacrifice i n Vedic r e l i g i o n . "Sacrifice," says M . Bergaigne, "exerts d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e u p o n celestial p h e n o m e n a " ; fluence.

36

i t is all p o w e r f u l b y itself a n d w i t h o u t any d i v i n e i n -

For instance, i t is sacrifice that b r o k e the doors o f the cave w h e r e the

auroras w e r e i m p r i s o n e d , a n d thus d i d d a y l i g h t e r u p t i n t o t h e w o r l d .

3 7

Like-

wise, i t was appropriate h y m n s that acted d i r e c t l y t o m a k e the waters o f the sky

flow

o n e a r t h — a n d this despite the gods.

38

C e r t a i n ascetic practices are

equally efficacious. C o n s i d e r this: "Sacrifice is so m u c h t h e p r i n c i p l e , par e x -

33

34

I Sam. 21, 6. [This is in fact about the sexual purity of men. Trans.]

Lev. 12.

35

Deut. 12, 10—11. [These verses are in fact about establishing a place for God's name to dwell in. They go on to discuss sacrifices. Trans.] 36

Abel Bergaigne, La Religion védique [d'après les hymnes du Rig Véda, 4 vols. Paris, F. Vieweg, 1878-1897], vol. I, p. 22. 37

Ibid., p. 133.

38

M. Bergaigne writes, "No text better reveals the inner meaning of magical action by man upon the waters of the sky than Verse X, 32, 7, in which that belief is expressed in general terms as applicable to the man of today as to his real or mythological ancestors. The ignorant man queried the savant; taught by the savant, he acts, and therein lies the benefit of his teaching, he conquers the rush of the rapids." Ibid, (p. 137).


33

cellence, that n o t o n l y t h e o r i g i n o f m e n b u t even that o f the gods has been ascribed t o i t . Such an idea m a y v e r y w e l l seem strange. I t is explicable, h o w ever, as o n e u l t i m a t e consequence, a m o n g others, o f t h e idea that sacrifice is all p o w e r f u l . "

3 9

T h u s , t h e w h o l e first p a r t o f M . Bergaigne's w o r k deals o n l y

w i t h those sacrifices i n w h i c h the deities play n o role. T h i s fact is n o t p e c u l i a r t o Vedic r e l i g i o n ; t o the contrary, i t is q u i t e widespread. I n any c u l t , there are practices that act b y themselves, b y a v i r t u e t h a t is t h e i r o w n , a n d w i t h o u t any god's s t e p p i n g i n b e t w e e n t h e i n d i v i d u a l w h o p e r f o r m s the r i t e a n d t h e o b j e c t sought. W h e n t h e J e w stirred the air at the Feast o f the Tabernacles b y s h a k i n g w i l l o w branches i n a c e r t a i n r h y t h m , i t was t o m a k e t h e w i n d b l o w a n d t h e r a i n fall; t h e b e l i e f was that t h e r i t e p r o d u c e d the desired result automatically, p r o v i d e d i t was c o r r e c t l y p e r formed.

4 0

I t is this, b y t h e way, that explains t h e p r i m a r y i m p o r t a n c e that

nearly all cults g i v e t o t h e physical aspect o f ceremonies. T h i s r e l i g i o u s f o r m a l i s m ( p r o b a b l y t h e earliest f o r m o f legal f o r m a l i s m ) arises from t h e fact that, h a v i n g i n a n d o f themselves the source o f t h e i r efficacy, the formulas t o be p r o n o u n c e d a n d t h e m o v e m e n t s t o be executed w o u l d lose efficacy i f they w e r e n o t exactly the same as those that h a d already p r o v e d successful. T h u s there are rites w i t h o u t gods, a n d i n d e e d rites from w h i c h gods d e r i v e . N o t all r e l i g i o u s v i r t u e s emanate from d i v i n e personalities, a n d there are c u l t ties o t h e r t h a n those that u n i t e m a n w i t h a deity. T h u s , r e l i g i o n is broader t h a n the idea o f gods o r spirits a n d so c a n n o t be d e f i n e d exclusively i n those t e r m s .

Ill W i t h these d e f i n i t i o n s set aside, l e t us n o w see h o w w e can approach t h e problem. First, let us n o t e that, i n all these f o r m u l a s , scholars have b e e n t r y i n g t o express the nature o f r e l i g i o n as a w h o l e . A l t h o u g h r e l i g i o n is a w h o l e c o m posed o f parts—a m o r e o r less c o m p l e x system o f m y t h s , dogmas, rites, and c e r e m o n i e s — t h e y operate as i f i t f o r m e d a k i n d o f i n d i v i s i b l e entity. Since a w h o l e can be d e f i n e d o n l y i n relationship t o the parts that c o m p r i s e i t , a b e t ter m e t h o d is t o t r y t o characterize t h e e l e m e n t a r y p h e n o m e n a from w h i c h any r e l i g i o n results, a n d t h e n characterize t h e system p r o d u c e d b y t h e i r

"Ibid., p. 139. Ôther examples are to be found in [Henri] Hubert, "Magia," in Dictionnaire des antiquités, vol. VI, p. 1509 [Paris, Hachette, 1877-1918].

34


u n i o n . T h i s m e t h o d is all the m o r e indispensable i n v i e w o f the fact that there are r e l i g i o u s p h e n o m e n a that d o n o t fall u n d e r the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f any p a r t i c u l a r r e l i g i o n . T h o s e that f o r m t h e subject m a t t e r o f f o l k l o r e d o n o t . I n general, these p h e n o m e n a are j u m b l e d survivals, the remnants o f e x t i n c t r e l i g i o n s ; b u t there are some as w e l l that are f o r m e d spontaneously u n d e r the i n f l u e n c e o f l o c a l causes. I n E u r o p e , C h r i s t i a n i t y u n d e r t o o k t o absorb and assimilate t h e m ; i t i m p r i n t e d t h e m w i t h C h r i s t i a n c o l o r a t i o n . Nonetheless, there are m a n y that have persisted u n t i l r e c e n d y o r that still persist m o r e o r less autonomously—festivals o f t h e m a y p o l e , the s u m m e r solstice, carnival, assorted beliefs a b o u t genies a n d l o c a l d e m o n s , a n d so o n . A l t h o u g h t h e r e l i g i o u s character o f these p h e n o m e n a is r e c e d i n g m o r e a n d m o r e , t h e i r r e l i gious i m p o r t a n c e is still such that t h e y have p e r m i t t e d M a n n h a r d t * a n d his s c h o o l t o rejuvenate the science o f r e l i g i o n s . A d e f i n i t i o n o f r e l i g i o n that d i d n o t take t h e m i n t o a c c o u n t w o u l d n o t encompass a l l that is r e l i g i o u s . R e l i g i o u s p h e n o m e n a fall i n t o t w o basic categories: beliefs and rites. T h e first are states o f o p i n i o n a n d consist o f representations; the second are p a r t i c u l a r modes o f a c t i o n . B e t w e e n these t w o categories o f p h e n o m e n a lies all that separates t h i n k i n g f r o m d o i n g . T h e rites can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m o t h e r h u m a n practices—for e x a m ple, m o r a l p r a c t i c e s — o n l y b y the special nature o f t h e i r object. L i k e a r i t e , a m o r a l r u l e prescribes ways o f b e h a v i n g t o us, b u t those ways o f b e h a v i n g a d dress objects o f a different k i n d . I t is t h e o b j e c t o f t h e r i t e that m u s t be characterized, i n order t o characterize the r i t e itself. T h e special nature o f that object is expressed i n the belief. T h e r e f o r e , o n l y after h a v i n g d e f i n e d the b e l i e f can w e define the r i t e . W h e t h e r s i m p l e o r c o m p l e x , all k n o w n r e l i g i o u s beliefs display a c o m m o n feature: T h e y presuppose a classification o f t h e real o r ideal things that m e n conceive o f i n t o t w o classes—two opposite genera—that

are w i d e l y

designated b y t w o d i s t i n c t t e r m s , w h i c h the w o r d s profane a n d sacred translate fairly w e l l . T h e d i v i s i o n o f t h e w o r l d i n t o t w o d o m a i n s , o n e c o n t a i n i n g all that is sacred a n d t h e o t h e r all that is p r o f a n e — s u c h is the distinctive trait o f religious t h o u g h t . Beliefs, m y t h s , dogmas, a n d legends are e i t h e r representations o r systems o f representations that express the nature o f sacred t h i n g s , the v i r t u e s a n d p o w e r s a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e m , t h e i r history, a n d t h e i r r e l a t i o n ships w i t h o n e a n o t h e r as w e l l as w i t h profane t h i n g s . Sacred things are n o t

""Wilhelm Mannhardt (1831-1880). Influenced by Jakob Grimm and borrowing methods from the new disciplines of geology and archaeology, he pioneered the scientific study of oral tradition in Germany. James G. Frazer's The Golden Bough drew on Mannhardt's European material.


35

s i m p l y those personal beings that are called gods o r spirits. A r o c k , a tree, a s p r i n g , a pebble, a piece o f w o o d , a house, i n a w o r d a n y t h i n g , can be sacred. A r i t e can have sacredness; i n d e e d there is n o r i t e that does n o t have i t t o some degree. T h e r e are w o r d s , phrases, a n d f o r m u l a s that can be said o n l y b y consecrated personages; there are gestures a n d m o v e m e n t s that c a n n o t be e x e c u t e d b y j u s t anyone. I f Vedic sacrifice has h a d such great efficacy—if, i n deed, sacrifice was far f r o m b e i n g a m e t h o d o f g a i n i n g t h e gods' favor b u t , a c c o r d i n g t o m y t h o l o g y , actually generated the gods—that is because the v i r t u e i t possessed was comparable t o that o f the m o s t sacred beings. T h e c i r cle o f sacred objects c a n n o t be fixed o n c e a n d f o r all; its scope can v a r y i n f i n i t e l y f r o m o n e r e l i g i o n t o another. W h a t makes B u d d h i s m a r e l i g i o n is that, i n the absence o f gods, i t accepts t h e existence o f sacred things, namely, the F o u r N o b l e T r u t h s a n d t h e practices that are d e r i v e d f r o m t h e m .

4 1

B u t I have c o n f i n e d m y s e l f thus far t o e n u m e r a t i n g various sacred things as examples: I m u s t n o w i n d i c a t e the general characteristics b y w h i c h they are d i s t i n g u i s h e d from profane things. O n e m i g h t be t e m p t e d t o define sacred t h i n g s b y the rank that is o r d i n a r i l y assigned t o t h e m i n the h i e r a r c h y o f beings. T h e y t e n d t o be regarded as s u p e r i o r i n d i g n i t y a n d p o w e r t o profane t h i n g s , a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y t o m a n , i n n o w a y sacred w h e n he is o n l y a m a n . I n d e e d , he is p o r t r a y e d as o c c u p y i n g a r a n k i n f e r i o r t o a n d d e p e n d e n t u p o n t h e m . W h i l e that p o r t r a y a l is cert a i n l y n o t w i t h o u t t r u t h , n o t h i n g a b o u t i t is t r u l y characteristic o f t h e sacred. S u b o r d i n a t i o n o f o n e t h i n g t o a n o t h e r is n o t e n o u g h t o m a k e o n e sacred a n d the o t h e r n o t . Slaves are subordinate t o t h e i r masters, subjects t o t h e i r k i n g , soldiers t o t h e i r leaders, l o w e r classes t o r u l i n g classes, t h e miser t o his g o l d , a n d t h e p o w e r seeker t o t h e p o w e r holders. I f a m a n is sometimes said t o have t h e r e l i g i o n o f beings o r things i n w h i c h he recognizes an e m i n e n t value a n d a k i n d o f s u p e r i o r i t y t o h i m , i t is o b v i o u s that, i n a l l such cases, t h e w o r d is taken i n a m e t a p h o r i c a l sense, a n d there is n o t h i n g i n those relations that is r e l i g i o u s i n a strict sense.

42

O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w e s h o u l d bear i n m i n d t h a t there are things w i t h w h i c h m a n feels relatively at ease, even t h o u g h t h e y are sacred t o t h e highest degree. A n a m u l e t has sacredness, a n d yet there is n o t h i n g e x t r a o r d i n a r y a b o u t t h e respect i t inspires. E v e n face t o face w i t h his gods, m a n is n o t a l ways i n such a m a r k e d state o f i n f e r i o r i t y , f o r he v e r y o f t e n uses physical co'e r c i o n o n t h e m t o get w h a t h e wants. H e beats the fetish w h e n he is 41

42

Not to mention the sage or the saint who practices these truths, and who is for this reason sacred.

This is not to say that the relations cannot take on a religious character, but that they do ¡y>t necessarily.

36


displeased, o n l y t o b e r e c o n c i l e d w i t h i t i f , i n the end, i t becomes m o r e amenable t o t h e wishes o f its w o r s h i p p e r .

43

T o get r a i n , stones are t h r o w n

i n t o the s p r i n g o r the sacred lake w h e r e the g o d o f t h e r a i n is p r e s u m e d t o reside; i t is b e l i e v e d t h a t he is f o r c e d b y this means t o c o m e o u t and s h o w himself.

44

F u r t h e r m o r e , w h i l e i t is t r u e that m a n is a d e p e n d e n t o f his gods,

this dependence is m u t u a l . T h e gods also n e e d m a n ; w i t h o u t offerings a n d sacrifices, t h e y w o u l d die. I w i l l have occasion t o s h o w that this dependence o f gods o n t h e i r faithful is f o u n d even i n the m o s t idealistic* r e l i g i o n s . H o w e v e r , i f t h e c r i t e r i o n o f a p u r e l y h i e r a r c h i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n is at o n c e t o o general a n d t o o imprecise, n o t h i n g b u t t h e i r h e t e r o g e n e i t y is left t o d e fine the r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e sacred a n d the profane. B u t w h a t makes this h e t e r o g e n e i t y sufficient t o characterize that classification o f things and t o distinguish

i t from any o t h e r is that i t has a v e r y p a r t i c u l a r feature: It is absolute.

I n t h e h i s t o r y o f h u m a n t h o u g h t , there is n o o t h e r e x a m p l e o f t w o categories o f things as p r o f o u n d l y differentiated o r as radically o p p o s e d t o one another. T h e t r a d i t i o n a l o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n g o o d a n d e v i l is n o t h i n g beside this o n e : G o o d a n d e v i l are t w o o p p o s e d species o f the same genus, n a m e l y morals, j u s t as h e a l t h a n d illness are n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n t w o different aspects o f t h e same o r d e r o f facts, life; b y contrast, t h e sacred a n d the profane are always a n d e v e r y w h e r e c o n c e i v e d b y t h e h u m a n i n t e l l e c t as separate genera, as t w o w o r l d s w i t h n o t h i n g i n c o m m o n . T h e energies at play i n o n e are n o t m e r e l y those e n c o u n t e r e d i n the other, b u t raised t o a h i g h e r degree; they are d i f ferent i n k i n d . T h i s o p p o s i t i o n has b e e n c o n c e i v e d differently i n different r e l i g i o n s . H e r e , l o c a l i z i n g t h e t w o k i n d s o f things i n different regions o f t h e physical universe has appeared sufficient t o separate t h e m ; there, the sacred is t h r o w n i n t o an ideal a n d transcendent m i l i e u , w h i l e t h e r e s i d u u m is aband o n e d as t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e m a t e r i a l w o r l d . B u t w h i l e the f o r m s o f the c o n trast are v a r i a b l e ,

45

t h e fact o f i t is universal.

T h i s is n o t t o say t h a t a b e i n g can never pass from o n e o f these w o r l d s t o the other. B u t w h e n this passage occurs, the m a n n e r i n w h i c h i t occurs *For the meaning of "idealistic," bear in mind Durkheim's contrast (above, p. 2) between religions that contain more concepts and fewer sensations and images. 43

[Fritz] Schultze, [Der] Fetichismus [Ein Beitrag zur Anthropologic und Religionsgeschichte, Leipzig, C.

Wilfferodt, 1871], p. 129. "Examples of these customs will be found in [James George] Frazer, Golden Bough, 2d ed., vol. I [New York, Macmillan, 1894], pp. 8Iff. 45

The conception according to which the profane is opposed to the sacred as the rational is to the irrational; the intelligible to the mysterious, is only one of the forms in which this opposition is expressed. Science, once constituted, has taken on a profane character, especially in the eyes of the Christian religions; in consequence, it has seemed that science could not be applied to sacred things.

37


demonstrates t h e f u n d a m e n t a l d u a l i t y o f t h e t w o realms, f o r i t i m p l i e s a t r u e m e t a m o r p h o s i s . R i t e s o f i n i t i a t i o n , w h i c h are p r a c t i c e d b y a great m a n y p e o ples, demonstrate this especially w e l l . I n i t i a t i o n is a l o n g series o f rites t o i n t r o d u c e t h e y o u n g m a n i n t o r e l i g i o u s life. F o r the first time, he comes o u t o f t h e p u r e l y profane w o r l d , w h e r e he has passed his c h i l d h o o d , a n d enters i n t o the circle o f sacred things. T h i s change o f status is c o n c e i v e d n o t as a m e r e d e v e l o p m e n t o f p r e e x i s t i n g seeds b u t as a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n totius substantiae. * A t that m o m e n t , the y o u n g m a n is said t o die, a n d the existence o f the particular

p e r s o n he was, t o cease—instantaneously

t o be replaced b y another.

H e is b o r n again i n a n e w f o r m . A p p r o p r i a t e ceremonies are h e l d t o b r i n g a b o u t the death a n d t h e r e b i r t h , w h i c h are taken n o t m e r e l y i n a s y m b o l i c sense b u t l i t e r a l l y .

46

Is this n o t p r o o f that there is a r u p t u r e b e t w e e n the p r o -

fane b e i n g that he was a n d t h e r e l i g i o u s b e i n g that he becomes? I n d e e d , this h e t e r o g e n e i t y is such that i t degenerates i n t o real antagon i s m . T h e t w o w o r l d s are c o n c e i v e d o f n o t o n l y as separate b u t also as host i l e a n d jealous rivals. Since the c o n d i t i o n o f b e l o n g i n g fully t o o n e is f u l l y t o have left t h e other, m a n is e x h o r t e d t o retire c o m p l e t e l y f r o m the profane i n o r d e r t o live an exclusively r e l i g i o u s life. F r o m thence comes m o n a s t i c i s m , w h i c h artificially organizes a m i l i e u that is apart f r o m , outside of, a n d closed t o t h e n a t u r a l m i l i e u w h e r e o r d i n a r y m e n live a secular life, and that tends a l m o s t t o b e its antagonist. F r o m thence as w e l l comes mystic asceticism, w h i c h seeks t o u p r o o t all that m a y r e m a i n o f man's a t t a c h m e n t t o the w o r l d . Finally, f r o m t h e n c e c o m e all f o r m s o f r e l i g i o u s suicide, the c r o w n i n g l o g i c a l step o f this asceticism, since the o n l y means o f escaping profane life f u l l y a n d finally is escaping life altogether. T h e o p p o s i t i o n o f these t w o genera is expressed o u t w a r d l y b y a visible sign that p e r m i t s ready r e c o g n i t i o n o f this v e r y special classification, w h e r ever i t exists. T h e m i n d experiences deep repugnance a b o u t m i n g l i n g , even simple contact, b e t w e e n the c o r r e s p o n d i n g t h i n g s , because the n o t i o n o f the sacred is always a n d e v e r y w h e r e separate f r o m the n o t i o n o f the profane i n man's m i n d , a n d because w e i m a g i n e a k i n d o f l o g i c a l v o i d b e t w e e n t h e m . T h e state o f dissociation i n w h i c h the ideas are f o u n d i n consciousness is t o o strongly c o n t r a d i c t e d b y such m i n g l i n g , o r even b y t h e i r b e i n g t o o close t o

*Of the whole essence. 46

See James George Frazer, "On Some Ceremonies of the Central Australian Tribes," in AAAS [Melbourne, Victoria, published by the association], 1901 [vols. VIII-IX], pp. 313ff. The concept is, moreover, very common. In India, mere participation in the sacrificial act has the same effects; the sacrifices by the very fact of entering into the circle of sacred things, changes personality. (See Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss, "Essai sur [la nature et fonction du] sacrifice," AS, vol. II [1897], p. 101.)

38


o n e another. T h e sacred t h i n g is, par excellence, that w h i c h the profane must n o t and c a n n o t t o u c h w i t h i m p u n i t y . T o be sure, this p r o h i b i t i o n cannot go so far as t o m a k e all c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n the t w o w o r l d s impossible, for i f the profane c o u l d i n n o w a y enter i n t o relations w i t h the sacred, the sacred w o u l d be o f n o use. T h i s p l a c i n g i n relationship i n itself is always a delicate o p e r a t i o n that requires precautions a n d a m o r e o r less c o m p l e x i n i t i a t i o n .

4 7

Yet such an o p e r a t i o n is impossible i f the profane does n o t lose its specific traits, a n d i f i t does n o t b e c o m e sacred itself i n some measure and t o some degree. T h e t w o genera cannot, at t h e same t i m e , b o t h c o m e close t o o n e a n o t h e r a n d r e m a i n w h a t t h e y were. N o w w e have a first c r i t e r i o n o f religious beliefs. N o d o u b t , w i t h i n these t w o f u n d a m e n t a l genera, there are secondary species that are m o r e o r less i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h each o t h e r .

48

themselves

B u t characteristically, the r e l i -

gious p h e n o m e n o n is such that i t always assumes a b i p a r t i t e d i v i s i o n o f the universe, k n o w n a n d k n o w a b l e , i n t o t w o genera that i n c l u d e all that exists b u t radically e x c l u d e o n e another. Sacred things are things p r o t e c t e d a n d i s o lated b y p r o h i b i t i o n s ; profane things are those things t o w h i c h the p r o h i b i tions are a p p l i e d a n d that m u s t keep at a distance f r o m w h a t is sacred. R e l i g i o u s beliefs are those representations that express t h e nature o f sacred things a n d the relations t h e y have w i t h o t h e r sacred things o r w i t h profane things. Finally, rites are rules o f c o n d u c t that prescribe h o w m a n m u s t c o n d u c t h i m s e l f w i t h sacred t h i n g s . W h e n a certain n u m b e r o f sacred things have relations o f c o o r d i n a t i o n a n d s u b o r d i n a t i o n w i t h o n e another, so as t o f o r m a system that has a certain coherence a n d does n o t b e l o n g t o any o t h e r system o f the same sort, t h e n the beliefs and rites, taken together, constitute a r e l i g i o n . B y this d e f i n i t i o n , a r e l i g i o n is n o t necessarily c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n a single idea a n d does n o t derive from

a single p r i n c i p l e that m a y v a r y w i t h t h e circumstances i t deals w i t h ,

w h i l e r e m a i n i n g basically the same everywhere. Instead, i t is a w h o l e f o r m e d o f separate and relatively distinct parts. E a c h h o m o g e n e o u s g r o u p o f sacred things, o r i n d e e d each sacred t h i n g o f any i m p o r t a n c e , constitutes an o r g a n i zational center a r o u n d w h i c h gravitates a set o f beliefs a n d rites, a c u l t o f its o w n . T h e r e is n o r e l i g i o n , h o w e v e r u n i f i e d i t m a y be, that does n o t a c k n o w l edge a p l u r a l i t y o f sacred things. E v e n C h r i s t i a n i t y , at least i n its C a t h o l i c f o r m , accepts the V i r g i n , the angels, the saints, the souls o f the dead, etc.-—

47

See what I say about initiation on p. 37, above.

48

Later I will show how, for example, certain species of sacred things between which there is incompatibility exclude one another as the sacred excludes the profane (Bk.III, chap.5, §4).


39

above a n d b e y o n d the d i v i n e personality ( w h o , besides, is b o t h three and one). As a r u l e , f u r t h e r m o r e , r e l i g i o n is n o t m e r e l y a single c u l t either b u t is made u p o f a system o f cults that possess a certain a u t o n o m y . T h i s a u t o n o m y is also variable. Sometimes the cults are r a n k e d a n d subordinated t o some d o m i n a n t c u l t i n t o w h i c h they are eventually absorbed; b u t sometimes as w e l l they s i m p l y exist side b y side i n c o n f e d e r a t i o n . T h e r e l i g i o n t o be studied i n this b o o k w i l l p r o v i d e an e x a m p l e o f this confederate o r g a n i z a t i o n . A t the same t i m e , w e can e x p l a i n w h y groups o f religious p h e n o m e n a that b e l o n g t o n o c o n s t i t u t e d r e l i g i o n can exist: because they are n o t o r are n o l o n g e r i n t e g r a t e d i n t o a r e l i g i o u s system. I f , f o r specific reasons, o n e o f those cults j u s t m e n t i o n e d s h o u l d manage t o survive w h i l e the w h o l e t o w h i c h i t b e l o n g e d has disappeared, i t w i l l survive o n l y i n fragments. T h i s is w h a t has h a p p e n e d t o so m a n y agrarian cults that live o n i n f o l k l o r e . I n cert a i n cases, w h a t persists i n t h a t f o r m is n o t even a c u l t , b u t a m e r e c e r e m o n y or a particular r i t e .

4 9

A l t h o u g h this d e f i n i t i o n is m e r e l y p r e l i m i n a r y , i t indicates the terms i n w h i c h t h e p r o b l e m that d o m i n a t e s t h e science o f r e l i g i o n s m u s t be posed. I f sacred beings are b e l i e v e d t o be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m the others solely b y the greater i n t e n s i t y o f the p o w e r s a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e m , the q u e s t i o n o f h o w m e n c o u l d have i m a g i n e d t h e m is rather simple: N o t h i n g m o r e is n e e d e d t h a n t o i d e n t i f y those forces that, t h r o u g h t h e i r e x c e p t i o n a l energy, have managed t o impress t h e h u m a n m i n d forcefully e n o u g h t o inspire r e l i g i o u s feelings. B u t if, as I have t r i e d t o establish, sacred things are different i n nature from p r o fane things, i f t h e y are different i n t h e i r essence, t h e p r o b l e m is far m o r e c o m p l e x . I n that case, o n e m u s t ask w h a t l e d m a n t o see the w o r l d as t w o heterogeneous a n d i n c o m p a r a b l e w o r l d s , even t h o u g h n o t h i n g i n sense e x p e r i e n c e seems l i k e l y t o have suggested the idea o f such a radical duality.

IV E v e n so, this d e f i n i t i o n is n o t yet complete, f o r i t fits equally w e l l t w o orders o f things that must be distinguished even t h o u g h they are a k i n : magic and r e l i g i o n . M a g i c , t o o , is m a d e u p o f beliefs a n d rites. L i k e r e l i g i o n , i t has its o w n m y t h s a n d dogmas, b u t these are less w e l l d e v e l o p e d , p r o b a b l y because, g i v e n its p u r s u i t o f t e c h n i c a l a n d u t i l i t a r i a n ends, m a g i c does n o t waste t i m e i n p u r e speculation. M a g i c also has its ceremonies, sacrifices, p u r i f i c a t i o n s , prayers,

49

This is the case,forexample, of certain marriage and funeral rites.


40

songs, a n d dances. T h o s e beings w h o m the m a g i c i a n invokes and the forces he puts t o w o r k are n o t o n l y o f the same nature as the forces addressed b y rel i g i o n b u t v e r y o f t e n are the same forces. I n the m o s t p r i m i t i v e societies, the souls o f the dead are i n essence sacred things a n d objects o f r e l i g i o u s rites, b u t 50

at the same t i m e , t h e y have played a m a j o r role i n m a g i c . I n A u s t r a l i a as w e l l as i n M e l a n e s i a ,

51

i n ancient Greece as w e l l as a m o n g C h r i s t i a n p e o p l e s ,

52

the

souls, bones, a n d hair o f the dead figure a m o n g the tools m o s t often used b y the m a g i c i a n . D e m o n s are also a c o m m o n i n s t r u m e n t o f m a g i c a l influence. N o w , demons are also s u r r o u n d e d b y p r o h i b i t i o n s ; t h e y t o o are separated a n d live i n a w o r l d apart. I n d e e d , i t is o f t e n d i f f i c u l t t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e m f r o m gods p r o p e r .

53

Besides, even i n C h r i s t i a n i t y , is n o t the d e v i l a fallen god? A n d

apart from his o r i g i n s , does he n o t have a r e l i g i o u s character, s i m p l y because the h e l l o f w h i c h he is the keeper is an indispensable p a r t i n t h e m a c h i n e r y o f the C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n ? T h e m a g i c i a n can i n v o k e regular and

official

deities. Sometimes these are gods o f a f o r e i g n p e o p l e : F o r example, the G r e e k magicians called u p o n E g y p t i a n , A s s y r i a n , o r J e w i s h gods. Sometimes t h e y are even n a t i o n a l gods: H e c a t e a n d D i a n a w e r e objects o f a m a g i c c u l t . T h e V i r g i n , the C h r i s t , a n d the saints w e r e used i n the same m a n n e r b y Christian magicians.

54

M u s t w e therefore say that m a g i c c a n n o t be r i g o r o u s l y differentiated from

r e l i g i o n — t h a t m a g i c is f u l l o f r e l i g i o n a n d r e l i g i o n f u l l o f m a g i c and,

consequently, that i t is impossible t o separate t h e m a n d define the o n e w i t h o u t t h e other? W h a t makes that thesis h a r d t o sustain is the m a r k e d r e p u g nance o f r e l i g i o n f o r m a g i c a n d t h e h o s t i l i t y o f m a g i c t o r e l i g i o n i n r e t u r n . M a g i c takes a k i n d o f professional pleasure i n p r o f a n i n g h o l y t h i n g s , v e r t i n g r e l i g i o u s ceremonies i n its r i t e s .

56

55

in-

O n the o t h e r h a n d , w h i l e r e l i g i o n

has n o t always c o n d e m n e d a n d p r o h i b i t e d m a g i c rites, i t has generally r e 50

See [Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [Francis James] Gillen, The Native Tribes of Central Australia [London, Macmillan, 1889], pp. 534£F., and Northern Tribes of Central Australia [London, Macmillan, 1904], p. 463; [Alfred William] Howitt, Native Tribes of South East Australia [London, Macmillan, 1904], pp. 359-361. 51

See [Robert Henry] Codrington, The Melanesians [Studies in Their Anthropology and Folklore, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1891], chap. 12. 52

See Hubert, "Magia," in Dictionnaire des antiquités.

53

For example, in Melanesia the tindalo is a spirit that is sometimes religious and sometimes magical (Codrington, The Melanesians, pp. 125ff., 194ff.). 54

See Hubert and Mauss, "Esquisse d'une théorie générale de la magie," AS, vol. VII [1904], pp. 83-84. 55

For example, the Host is profaned in the Black Mass.

56

See Hubert, "Magia," in Dictionnaire des antiquités.


41

garcled t h e m w i t h disfavor. A s messieurs H u b e r t a n d Mauss p o i n t o u t , there is s o m e t h i n g i n h e r e n d y a n t i r e l i g i o u s a b o u t the maneuvers o f t h e m a g i c i a n .

57

So i t is d i f f i c u l t f o r these t w o i n s t i t u t i o n s n o t t o oppose o n e a n o t h e r at some p o i n t , w h a t e v e r the relations b e t w e e n t h e m . Since m y i n t e n t i o n is t o l i m i t m y research t o r e l i g i o n a n d stop w h e r e m a g i c begins, d i s c o v e r i n g w h a t d i s tinguishes t h e m is all the m o r e i m p o r t a n t . H e r e is h o w a l i n e o f d e m a r c a t i o n can be d r a w n b e t w e e n these t w o domains. R e l i g i o u s beliefs p r o p e r are always shared b y a d e f i n i t e g r o u p that p r o fesses t h e m a n d that practices the c o r r e s p o n d i n g rites. N o t o n l y are t h e y i n d i v i d u a l l y accepted b y all m e m b e r s o f that g r o u p , b u t t h e y also b e l o n g t o the g r o u p a n d u n i f y i t . T h e i n d i v i d u a l s w h o c o m p r i s e t h e g r o u p feel j o i n e d t o o n e a n o t h e r b y t h e fact o f c o m m o n f a i t h . A society w h o s e m e m b e r s are u n i t e d because t h e y i m a g i n e the sacred w o r l d a n d its relations w i t h the p r o fane w o r l d i n t h e same way, a n d because t h e y translate this c o m m o n r e p r e sentation i n t o i d e n t i c a l practices, is w h a t is called a C h u r c h . * I n h i s t o r y w e d o n o t find r e l i g i o n w i t h o u t C h u r c h . S o m e t i m e s the C h u r c h is n a r r o w l y n a t i o n a l ; sometimes i t extends b e y o n d frontiers; sometimes i t encompasses an e n t i r e p e o p l e ( R o m e , A t h e n s , t h e H e b r e w s ) ; sometimes i t encompasses o n l y a fraction

( C h r i s t i a n d e n o m i n a t i o n s since the c o m i n g o f Protestantism);

sometimes i t is l e d b y a b o d y o f priests; sometimes i t is m o r e o r less w i t h o u t any official d i r e c t i n g b o d y .

5 8

B u t w h e r e v e r w e observe r e l i g i o u s life, i t has a

definite g r o u p as its basis. E v e n so-called p r i v a t e cults, l i k e the domestic c u l t o r a c o r p o r a t e c u l t , satisfy this c o n d i t i o n : T h e y are always celebrated b y a g r o u p , t h e f a m i l y o r the c o r p o r a t i o n . A n d , f u r t h e r m o r e , even these p r i v a t e r e l i g i o n s o f t e n are m e r e l y special f o r m s o f a broader r e l i g i o n that embraces the t o t a l i t y o f l i f e .

5 9

T h e s e small C h u r c h e s are i n reality o n l y chapels i n a

larger C h u r c h and, because o f this v e r y scope, deserve all the m o r e t o be called b y that n a m e .

60

*Durkheim capitalizes this term. "Hubert and Mauss, "Esquisse," p. 19. 58

Certainly it is rare for each ceremony not to have its director at the moment it is conducted; even in the most crudely organized societies, there generally are men designated, due to the importance of their social role, to exercise a directive influence upon religious life (for example, the heads of local groups in certain Australian societies). But this attribution of functions is nevertheless very loose. 59

In Athens, the gods addressed by the domestic cult are only specialized forms of the gods of the City (Zev; KTrjoxo?, Zev; epicetos). [Zeus, protector of property, Zeus, the household god. Trans.] Similarly, in the Middle Ages, the patrons of brotherhoods are saints of the calendar. ^For the name of Church ordinarily applies only to a group whose common beliefs refer to a sphere of less specialized things.


42

M a g i c is an e n t i r e l y different matter. G r a n t e d , m a g i c beliefs are never w i t h o u t a c e r t a i n currency. T h e y are o f t e n widespread a m o n g b r o a d strata o f the p o p u l a t i o n , a n d there are even peoples w h e r e t h e y c o u n t n o fewer active followers t h a n r e l i g i o n proper. B u t they d o n o t b i n d m e n w h o believe i n t h e m t o o n e a n o t h e r a n d u n i t e t h e m i n t o the same g r o u p , l i v i n g the same life. There is no Church of magic. B e t w e e n the m a g i c i a n a n d t h e i n d i v i d u a l s w h o consult h i m , there are n o durable ties that m a k e t h e m m e m b e r s o f a single m o r a l body, comparable t o t h e ties that j o i n t h e faithful o f the same g o d o r the adherents o f the same c u l t . T h e m a g i c i a n has a clientele, n o t a C h u r c h , a n d his clients m a y have n o m u t u a l relations, a n d m a y even be u n k n o w n t o o n e another. I n d e e d , t h e relations t h e y have w i t h h i m are generally a c c i d e n tal a n d transient, analogous t o those o f a sick m a n w i t h his d o c t o r . T h e o f f i cial a n d p u b l i c character w i t h w h i c h t h e m a g i c i a n is sometimes invested makes n o difference. T h a t he functions i n b r o a d d a y l i g h t does n o t j o i n h i m i n a m o r e regular and lasting m a n n e r w i t h those w h o m a k e use o f his services. I t is t r u e that, i n certain cases, magicians f o r m a society a m o n g themselves. T h e y m e e t m o r e o r less p e r i o d i c a l l y t o celebrate certain rites i n c o m m o n i n some instances; the place h e l d b y w i t c h e s ' meetings i n E u r o p e a n folklore is w e l l k n o w n . B u t these associations are n o t at all indispensable f o r the f u n c tioning

o f magic. I n d e e d , they are rare a n d rather exceptional. T o practice his

art, the m a g i c i a n has n o need w h a t e v e r t o congregate w i t h his peers. H e is m o r e often a loner. I n general, far f r o m seeking company, h e flees i t . " H e stands aloof, even f r o m his colleagues."

61

B y contrast, r e l i g i o n is inseparable

f r o m the idea o f C h u r c h . I n this first regard, there is already a fundamental d i f ference b e t w e e n magic and r e l i g i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , and above all, w h e n m a g i c societies o f this sort are f o r m e d , they never encompass all the adherents o f magic. Far from i t . T h e y encompass o n l y the magicians. E x c l u d e d from t h e m are the laity, as i t w e r e — t h a t is, those f o r w h o s e benefit the rites are c o n d u c t e d , w h i c h is t o say those w h o are the adherents o f regular cults. N o w , the m a g i cian is t o magic w h a t the priest is t o r e l i g i o n . B u t a college o f priests is n o m o r e a r e l i g i o n t h a n a religious c o n g r e g a t i o n that worships a certain saint i n the shadows o f the cloister is a private cult. A C h u r c h is n o t s i m p l y a priesdy b r o t h e r h o o d ; i t is a m o r a l c o m m u n i t y * made u p o f all the faithful, b o t h laity a n d priests. M a g i c o r d i n a r i l y has n o c o m m u n i t y o f this s o r t .

62

*Note thefirstuse in this book of this fundamentally important Durkheimian concept which can also be thought of as "imagined community." See pp. xxii-xxxiii, xiv. 61

Hubert and Mauss, "Esquisse," p. 18.

62

[William] Robertson Smith had already shown that magic is opposed to religion as the individual is to the social {[Lectures on] the Religion of the Semites, 2d ed. [London, A. & C. Black, 1894], pp. 264-265).

43

Definition of Religious Phenomena and of Religioi

B u t i f o n e includes the n o t i o n o f C h u r c h i n the d e f i n i t i o n o f r e l i g i o n , does o n e n o t b y the same stroke e x c l u d e the i n d i v i d u a l religions that the i n d i v i d u a l institutes f o r h i m s e l f and celebrates f o r h i m s e l f alone? T h e r e is scarcely any society i n w h i c h this is n o t t o be f o u n d . As w i l l be seen below, every O j i b w a y has his personal manitou that he chooses h i m s e l f and t o w h i c h he bears specific religious o b l i g a t i o n s ; t h e M e l a n e s i a n o f the Banks Islands 63

has his tamaniu;

t h e R o m a n has his genius;

64

the C h r i s t i a n has his p a t r o n

saint a n d his guardian angel, a n d so f o r t h . A l l these cults seem, b y d e f i n i t i o n , t o be i n d e p e n d e n t o f the g r o u p . A n d n o t o n l y are these i n d i v i d u a l religions v e r y c o m m o n t h r o u g h o u t history, b u t some p e o p l e today pose the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r such r e l i g i o n s are n o t destined t o b e c o m e the d o m i n a n t f o r m o f r e l i g i o u s l i f e — w h e t h e r a day w i l l n o t c o m e w h e n the o n l y c u l t w i l l be the o n e that each p e r s o n freely practices i n his i n n e r m o s t s e l f .

65

B u t , let us p u t aside these speculations a b o u t the future f o r a m o m e n t . I f w e c o n f i n e o u r discussion t o r e l i g i o n s as t h e y are i n t h e present a n d as they have b e e n i n t h e past, i t becomes o b v i o u s that these i n d i v i d u a l cults are n o t distinct a n d a u t o n o m o u s r e l i g i o u s systems b u t s i m p l y aspects o f the r e l i g i o n c o m m o n t o t h e w h o l e C h u r c h o f w h i c h the i n d i v i d u a l s are part. T h e p a t r o n saint o f the C h r i s t i a n is chosen f r o m the official list o f saints r e c o g n i z e d b y the C a t h o l i c C h u r c h , a n d there are c a n o n i c a l laws that prescribe h o w each believer m u s t c o n d u c t this p r i v a t e c u l t . I n t h e same way, the idea that every m a n necessarily has a p r o t e c t i v e genie is, i n different f o r m s , at t h e basis o f a large n u m b e r o f A m e r i c a n r e l i g i o n s , as w e l l as o f R o m a n r e l i g i o n (to cite o n l y these t w o examples). As w i l l be seen b e l o w , that idea is t i g h t l y b o u n d u p w i t h the idea o f soul, a n d the idea o f soul is n o t a m o n g those things that can be left e n t i r e l y t o i n d i v i d u a l c h o i c e . I n a w o r d , i t is the C h u r c h o f w h i c h he is a m e m b e r that teaches t h e i n d i v i d u a l w h a t these personal gods are, w h a t t h e i r role is, h o w he m u s t enter i n t o relations w i t h t h e m , and h o w he must h o n o r t h e m . W h e n o n e analyzes the d o c t r i n e s o f that C h u r c h systematically, sooner o r later o n e comes across t h e d o c t r i n e s t h a t c o n c e r n these special cults. T h u s there are n o t t w o r e l i g i o n s o f different types, t u r n e d i n opposite Further, in thus differentiating magic from religion, I do not mean to set up a radical discontinuity between them. The frontiers between these two domains are often blurred. 63

[Robert Henry] Codrington, "Notes on the Customs of Mota, Bank Islands in RSV, vol. XVI [1880], p. 136. M

[Augusto] Negrioli, Dei Genii pressa i Romani, [Bologna, Ditto Nicola Zanichelli, 1900].

65

This is the conclusion at which [Herbert] Spencer arrives in his Ecclesiastical Institutions [Part VI of The Principles of Sociology, New York, D. Appleton, 1886], chap. 16. It is also the conclusion of [Auguste] Sabatier, in his Esquisse d'une philosophie de la religion d'après la Psychologie et l'Histoire, [Paris, Fischbacher,

1897], and that of the entire school to which he belongs.

44


directions, b u t t h e same ideas a n d p r i n c i p l e s a p p l i e d i n b o t h cases—here, t o circumstances that c o n c e r n t h e g r o u p as a w h o l e , a n d there, t o the life o f the i n d i v i d u a l . I n d e e d , this u n i t y is so close that, a m o n g c e r t a i n p e o p l e s ,

66

the

ceremonies d u r i n g w h i c h t h e believer first enters i n t o c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h his p r o t e c t i v e genie are c o m b i n e d w i t h rites w h o s e p u b l i c character is i n contestable, namely, rites o f i n i t i a t i o n .

6 7

W h a t remains are the present-day

aspirations t o w a r d a r e l i g i o n that

w o u l d consist e n t i r e l y o f i n t e r i o r a n d subjective states a n d b e freely c o n structed b y each o n e o f us. B u t n o m a t t e r h o w real those aspirations, they c a n n o t affect o u r d e f i n i t i o n : T h i s d e f i n i t i o n can be a p p l i e d o n l y t o real, acc o m p l i s h e d facts, n o t t o u n c e r t a i n possibilities. R e l i g i o n s can be d e f i n e d as t h e y are n o w o r as t h e y have b e e n , n o t as t h e y m a y be t e n d i n g m o r e o r less vaguely t o b e c o m e . I t is possible that this r e l i g i o u s i n d i v i d u a l i s m is destined t o b e c o m e fact; b u t t o be able t o say i n w h a t measure, w e m u s t first k n o w w h a t r e l i g i o n is, o f w h a t elements i t is made, f r o m w h a t causes i t results, a n d w h a t f u n c t i o n i t p e r f o r m s — a l l questions w h o s e answers c a n n o t be p r e o r dained, f o r w e have n o t crossed the t h r e s h o l d o f research. O n l y at the e n d o f this study w i l l I t r y t o l o o k i n t o t h e future. W e a r r i v e thus at the f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n : A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them. T h e second e l e m e n t thus holds a place i n m y d e f i n i t i o n that is n o less essential t h a n the first: I n s h o w i n g that the idea o f r e l i g i o n is inseparable f r o m t h e idea o f a C h u r c h , i t conveys the n o t i o n that r e l i g i o n m u s t be an e m i n e n t l y c o l l e c t i v e t h i n g .

6 8

66

Among numerous Indian peoples of North America, in particular.

"However, that factual point does not settle the question of whether external and public religion is anything other than the development of an interior and personal religion that would be the primitive phenomenon, or whether, on the other hand, the personal religion is the extension, inside individual consciousnesses, of the exterior one. The problem will be taken up directly below (Bk. II, chap. 5, §2. Cf. Bk. II, chap. 6 and Bk. II, chap. 7, §1). For now I merely note that the individual cult presents itself to the observer as an element and an appendage of the collective cult. Ît is there that my definition picks up the one I proposed some time ago in the Année sociologique. In that work, I defined religious beliefs exclusively by their obligatory character; but that obligation evidendy arises, as I showed, from the fact that those beliefs belong to a group that imposes them on its members. Thus the two definitions partly overlap. If I have thought it necessary to propose a new one, it is because the first was too formal and went too far in downplaying the content of religious representatiops. In the discussions that follow, we will see the point of having placed in evidence immediately what is characteristic of this content. In addition, if the imperative character is indeed a distinctive feature of religious beliefs, it has infinite gradations; consequently, it is not easily perceptible in some cases. There arise difficulties and troublesome questions that are avoided if this criterion is replaced by the one I have used above.

CHAPTER T W O

THE LEADING CONCEPTIONS OF THE ELEMENTARY RELIGION I. Animism

W

i t h this d e f i n i t i o n i n h a n d , w e can set o u t i n search o f t h e e l e m e n t a r y religion, o u r i n t e n d e d goal.

E v e n the crudest religions that h i s t o r y a n d e t h n o g r a p h y make k n o w n t o us are already so c o m p l e x that t h e y d o n o t f i t the n o t i o n people sometimes have o f p r i m i t i v e mentality. T h e y display n o t o n l y a l u x u r i a n t system o f beliefs b u t also such v a r i e t y i n p r i n c i p l e s and w e a l t h i n basic ideas that i t has seemed impossible t o regard t h e m as a n y t h i n g b u t a late p r o d u c t o f a rather l o n g e v o l u t i o n . F r o m this scholars have c o n c l u d e d that i n o r d e r t o u n c o v e r the t r u l y o r i g i n a l f o r m o f religious life, t h e y h a d t o delve beneath these observable r e ligions, analyze t h e m t o i d e n t i f y the basic elements t h e y share, and find o u t w h e t h e r there is o n e such e l e m e n t f r o m w h i c h the others are d e r i v e d . Set i n those t e r m s , t h e p r o b l e m has received t w o c o n t r a r y solutions. I t can be said t h a t there is n o r e l i g i o u s system, o l d o r new, i n w h i c h w e d o n o t find w h a t a m o u n t s t o t w o r e l i g i o n s e x i s t i n g side b y side and i n v a r i ous f o r m s . A l t h o u g h closely allied and even i n t e r p e n e t r a t i n g , yet t h e y r e m a i n d i s t i n c t . O n e is addressed t o p h e n o m e n a i n n a t u r e — w h e t h e r great cosmic forces, such as the w i n d s , t h e rivers, the stars, t h e sky, etc., o r t h e objects o f all sorts t h a t p o p u l a t e t h e earth's surface, such as plants, animals, rocks, etc. F o r this reason, i t is g i v e n the n a m e " n a t u r i s m . " T h e o t h e r is addressed t o s p i r i t u a l beings—spirits, souls, genies, d e m o n s , deities proper. These beings are animate a n d conscious agents, l i k e m a n , b u t differ from m a n i n the n a t u r e o f the p o w e r s ascribed t o t h e m , i n p a r t i c u l a r the special characteristic that t h e y d o n o t affect t h e senses i n the same w a y ; t h e y are n o t usually p e r ceptible t o h u m a n eyes. T h i s r e l i g i o n o f spirits is called " a n i m i s m . " T w o i n c o m p a t i b l e theories have b e e n p u t f o r w a r d t o e x p l a i n the m o r e o r less 45


46

universal coexistence o f the t w o sorts o f c u l t . S o m e h o l d a n i m i s m t o have b e e n the p r i m a r y r e l i g i o n , a n d n a t u r i s m o n l y a derivative a n d secondary f o r m . O t h e r s h o l d that the c u l t o f nature was the starting p o i n t o f r e l i g i o u s e v o l u t i o n , a n d t h e c u l t o f spirits o n l y a special case o f i t . U p t o n o w , these t w o theories have b e e n the o n l y ones b y w h i c h p e o p l e 1

have t r i e d t o e x p l a i n t h e o r i g i n s o f r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t r a t i o n a l l y . T h u s , the c h i e f p r o b l e m that the science o f religions m o s t o f t e n sets itself comes d o w n t o d e c i d i n g w h i c h o f these t w o solutions m u s t be a d o p t e d , o r w h e t h e r i t is n o t better t o c o m b i n e t h e m and, i f so, w h a t place s h o u l d be assigned t o each 2

o f the" t w o e l e m e n t s . E v e n those scholars w h o accept n e i t h e r hypothesis i n 3

its e n t i r e t y still r e t a i n some o f the p r o p o s i t i o n s o n w h i c h t h e y rest. T h u s w e have a c e r t a i n n u m b e r o f r e a d y - m a d e ideas a n d s e e m i n g truisms that must be subjected t o c r i t i q u e before w e take u p t h e study o f the facts o n o u r o w n acc o u n t . H o w indispensable i t is t o t r y a n e w approach w i l l be clearer o n c e t h e inadequacy o f these t r a d i t i o n a l n o t i o n s is u n d e r s t o o d .

I T y l o r d e v e l o p e d the a n i m i s t t h e o r y i n its essential features.

4

I t is t r u e that

Spencer, w h o thereafter t o o k i t u p , d i d n o t m e r e l y c o p y i t w i t h o u t m o d i f i 5

c a t i o n . B u t , o n the w h o l e , b o t h T y l o r a n d Spencer pose the questions i n the same terms, and, w i t h o n e e x c e p t i o n , t h e solutions a d o p t e d are i d e n t i c a l . I

'Thus I leave aside here the theories that, wholly or in part, involve supraexperimental data. This is true, for example, of the theory Andrew Lang set forth in his book The Making of Religion [London, Longmans, 1898], and that Wilhelm Schmidt took up again, with variations of detail, in a series of articles on "L'Origine de l'idée de Dieu" (in Anthropos [vols. Ill, IV], 1908, 1909). Lang does not wholly reject either animism or naturism but accepts that, in the last analysis, there is a sense or a direct intuition of the divine. Also, while I do not believe I must present and discuss that idea in this chapter, I do not intend to pass over it in silence, but will return to it below, when I explain the facts to which it is applied (II.9, p. 4). 2

This is the case, for example, of Fustel de Coulanges, who accepts the two ideas concurrendy (see Bk. I and Bk. Ill, chap. 2 [of La Cité antique, Paris, Hachette, 1870] . 3

In this way, Jevons, while criticizing animism as set forth by Tylor, accepts his theories on the genesis of the idea of soul and the anthropomorphic instinct of man. Inversely, while [Hermann Karl] Usener, in his Gotternamen [Versuch einer Lehre von der religiosen Degengriffebildung, Bohn, F. Cohen, 1887], rejects

certain of hypotheses of Max Miiller to be presented below, he accepts the chief postulates of naturism. 4

[Edward Burnett] Tylor, Primitive Culture [2 vols., London, J. Murray, 1871], chaps. 11, 18.

5

See [Herbert Spencer], Principles of Sociology, 1st and 6th parts [New York, D. Appleton, 1886].

47

The Leading Conceptions of the Elementary Religion

can therefore c o m b i n e the t w o d o c t r i n e s i n the f o l l o w i n g e x p o s i t i o n , n o t i n g the p o i n t at w h i c h they p a r t c o m p a n y . T h r e e c o n d i t i o n s m u s t be m e t i f animist beliefs a n d practices are l e g i t i m a t e l y t o be seen as the o r i g i n a l f o r m o f r e l i g i o u s life: First, because o n that hypothesis the idea o f soul is the cardinal idea o f r e l i g i o n , o n e must s h o w h o w i t was f o r m e d , w i t h o u t t a k i n g any o f its elements f r o m an earlier r e l i g i o n ; seco n d , i t m u s t be s h o w n h o w souls became the object o f a c u l t and t u r n e d i n t o spirits; t h i r d , since the c u l t o f spirits is n o t the w h o l e o f any r e l i g i o n , h o w the c u l t o f nature was d e r i v e d from that c u l t m u s t also be explained. A c c o r d i n g t o a n i m i s t t h e o r y , the idea o f s o u l was suggested t o m a n b y the p o o r l y u n d e r s t o o d spectacle o f the d o u b l e life that he n o r m a l l y leads, o n the o n e h a n d w h i l e awake, o n the o t h e r w h ü e asleep. T h e c l a i m is that, f o r 6

the savage, the representations he has i n his m i n d are o f the same s i g n i f i cance w h e t h e r h e is awake o r d r e a m i n g . H e objectifies b o t h ; that is, he sees t h e m as the images o f e x t e r n a l objects, the e n t i r e appearance o f w h i c h they r e p r o d u c e m o r e o r less accurately. T h u s , w h e n h e dreams o f h a v i n g v i s i t e d a f a r - o f f c o u n t r y , he believes he really has g o n e there. B u t he can have gone there o n l y i f t w o beings exist i n h i m : one, his b o d y , w h i c h

remained

stretched o u t o n the g r o u n d a n d w h i c h , w h e n he awakens, he finds still i n the same p o s i t i o n ; a n d another, w h i c h has m o v e d t h r o u g h space d u r i n g that same t i m e . L i k e w i s e , i f w h i l e h e sleeps, he sees h i m s e l f t a l k i n g w i t h o n e o f his friends w h o he k n o w s is far away, he concludes that this f r i e n d , t o o , is c o m p o s e d o f t w o beings: o n e w h o is sleeping some distance away, a n d a n o t h e r w h o has manifested h i m s e l f t h r o u g h the d r e a m . F r o m the r e p e t i t i o n o f such experiences, l i t d e b y l i t t l e t h e idea emerges that a d o u b l e , a n o t h e r self, exists i n each o f us, and that i n p a r t i c u l a r c o n d i t i o n s i t has the p o w e r t o leave the b o d y i n w h i c h i t lives a n d t o travel far a n d w i d e . O f course, this d o u b l e replicates all the basic features o f the visible b e i n g that serves as its e x t e r n a l envelope. A t t h e same t i m e , however, i t differs

from

t h e visible b e i n g i n several respects. I t is m o r e m o b i l e , since i t can cover vast distances i n an instant. I t is m o r e malleable a n d m o r e plastic; for, t o leave the body, i t m u s t be able t o pass t h r o u g h the body's openings, especially t h e nose a n d m o u t h . I t is c o n c e i v e d o f as s o m e h o w made o f matter, b u t o f a m u c h m o r e subtle a n d ethereal m a t t e r t h a n any w e k n o w e m p i r i c a l l y . T h i s d o u b l e

6

This is the word Tylor [Primitive Culture, pp. 489fF.] uses. It has the drawback of seeming to imply that human beings, in the full sense of the term, exist before civilization exists. However, there is no suitable term to render the idea; the term "primitive," which I prefer to use for want of anything better, is, as I have said, far from satisfactory.


48

is the soul. A n d i t is b e y o n d d o u b t that, i n m a n y societies, the soul has b e e n t h o u g h t o f as an image o f t h e b o d y . I t is even t h o u g h t t o reproduce a c c i d e n tal d e f o r m i t i e s , such as those caused b y w o u n d s o r m u t i l a t i o n s . C e r t a i n A u s tralians c u t o f f t h e i r enemy's r i g h t t h u m b after k i l l i n g h i m , so that his soul, h a v i n g b e e n relieved o f its o w n t h u m b b y t h e same stroke, c a n n o t t h r o w a spear a n d avenge itself. B u t at the same t i m e , even t h o u g h i t resembles the body, there is s o m e t h i n g already s e m i - s p i r i t u a l a b o u t i t . People say that " i t is the m o s t insubstantial part o f t h e body, as l i g h t as air," that " i t has n e i t h e r flesh, n o r bones, n o r nerves"; that i t is " l i k e a p u r i f i e d b o d y . "

7

I n a d d i t i o n , o t h e r facts o f e x p e r i e n c e that t u r n e d m i n d s o n t o t h e same p a t h q u i t e n a t u r a l l y t e n d e d t o gather a r o u n d this f u n d a m e n t a l fact o f the dream: f a i n t i n g , apoplexy, catalepsy, ecstasy—every state o f t e m p o r a r y u n consciousness. Actually, t h e y are e x p l a i n e d v e r y w e l l b y the hypothesis that the p r i n c i p l e o f life a n d awareness can m o m e n t a r i l y leave the body. Besides, i t was natural that this p r i n c i p l e s h o u l d have b e e n m e r g e d w i t h the d o u b l e , since each day the absence o f the d o u b l e d u r i n g sleep suspends life a n d t h o u g h t . T h u s various observations seemed m u t u a l l y t o test a n d c o n f i r m the idea o f the b u i l t - i n d u a l i t y o f m a n .

8

B u t the soul is n o t a s p i r i t . I t is attached t o a b o d y f r o m w h i c h i t exits q u i t e rarely; and, so l o n g as i t is n o t h i n g m o r e , i t is t h e object o f n o c u l t . B y contrast, a l t h o u g h the s p i r i t generally has a d e f i n i t e t h i n g as its residence, i t can m o v e away at w i l l , a n d m a n can enter i n t o relations w i t h i t o n l y b y t a k i n g r i t u a l precautions. T h e soul c o u l d b e c o m e spirit, t h e n , o n l y i f i t transf o r m e d itself. T h i s m e t a m o r p h o s i s was q u i t e easily a r r i v e d at, m e r e l y b y t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f the f o r e g o i n g ideas t o the reality o f death. T o a r u d i m e n t a r y intellect, death is n o t m u c h different from a l o n g f a i n t i n g spell o r a p r o l o n g e d sleep; i t has all t h e i r traits. T h u s , death also seems t o consist i n a separation o f soul a n d b o d y , analogous t o t h e separation that occurs each n i g h t ; b u t b e cause t h e y d o n o t see the b o d y t o revive, t h e y c o m e t o accept the idea o f a separation that is n o t l i m i t e d t o a specified p e r i o d . I n d e e d , o n c e the b o d y is destroyed—and the object o f funeral is i n p a r t t o hasten this d e s t r u c t i o n — t h e separation is o f necessity considered f i n a l . H e r e , t h e n , are spirits detached from

any b o d y a n d at l i b e r t y i n space. I n this w a y a p o p u l a t i o n o f souls is

f o r m e d all a r o u n d the l i v i n g , t h e i r n u m b e r g r o w i n g over t i m e . Because these souls o f m e n have the needs and passions o f m e n , t h e y seek t o i n v o l v e t h e m -

7

Ibid., vol. I, pp. 455£F.

8

See Spencer, Principles of Sociology, vol. I, pp. 1439".; and Tylor, Primitive Culture, vol. I, pp. 434ff., 445ff.

49


selves i n t h e lives o f t h e i r f o r m e r c o m p a n i o n s a n d t o h e l p t h e l i v i n g o r h a r m t h e m , d e p e n d i n g o n the feelings t h e y still have f o r t h e m . T h e i r nature makes t h e m e i t h e r v e r y precious allies o r v e r y f o r m i d a b l e enemies. T h a n k s t o t h e i r extreme

fluidity,

t h e y can g o inside bodies a n d cause t h e m disorders o f all

k i n d s , o r t h e y can increase t h e b o d i e s ' vitality. A n d so people take u p the h a b i t o f a s c r i b i n g t o t h e m all t h e events o f life that are s l i g h d y unusual: T h e r e are h a r d l y any t h e y c a n n o t a c c o u n t for. I n this w a y t h e y c o n s t i t u t e a v e r i t a ble arsenal o f causes, always at h a n d , never l e a v i n g t h e m i n d that is i n search o f explanations u n e q u i p p e d . D o e s a m a n seem i n s p i r e d ; does he speak w i t h e l o q u e n c e ; does he seem l i f t e d above b o t h h i m s e l f a n d t h e o r d i n a r y level o f men? I t is because a b e n e v o l e n t s p i r i t is i n h i m , a n i m a t i n g h i m . Is a n o t h e r m a n taken b y a seizure o r b y madness? A n e v i l s p i r i t has entered his body, agi t a t i n g h i m . T h e r e is n o sickness that c a n n o t be p u t d o w n t o some such i n fluence.

I n this way, t h e p o w e r o f souls increases from a l l that is a t t r i b u t e d t o

t h e m , so m u c h so that, i n the e n d , m a n finds h i m s e l f a captive i n this i m a g i n a r y w o r l d , even t h o u g h he is its creator a n d m o d e l . H e becomes the vassal o f those s p i r i t u a l forces that h e has made w i t h his o w n hands a n d i n his o w n image. F o r i f these souls are so m u c h i n c o n t r o l o f h e a l t h a n d illness a n d o f g o o d a n d e v i l things, i t is w i s e t o seek t h e i r benevolence o r t o appease t h e m w h e n t h e y are annoyed. F r o m t h e n c e c o m e offerings, sacrifices, p r a y e r s — i n short, the w h o l e apparatus o f r e l i g i o u s observances.

9

B e h o l d , t h e n , t h e s o u l t r a n s f o r m e d . I t has g o n e from b e i n g m e r e l y a life p r i n c i p l e a n i m a t i n g a h u m a n b o d y , t o b e i n g a s p i r i t , a g o o d o r e v i l genie, a n d even a deity, d e p e n d i n g o n the scope o f t h e effects i m p u t e d t o i t . B u t since i t is death that is p r e s u m e d t o have b r o u g h t a b o u t this apotheosis, i n the e n d i t is t o the dead, t o t h e souls o f the ancestors, that t h e first c u l t that h u m a n i t y has k n o w n was addressed. T h u s : T h e first rites w e r e m o r t u a r y rites; the first sacrifices, f o o d offerings t o satisfy the needs o f t h e departed; a n d t h e first altars, t o m b s .

1 0

B u t because these spirits w e r e o f h u m a n o r i g i n , t h e y w e r e interested o n l y i n the lives o f m e n a n d w e r e t h o u g h t t o act o n l y u p o n h u m a n events. Yet t o be e x p l a i n e d is h o w o t h e r spirits w e r e i m a g i n e d i n o r d e r t o a c c o u n t for o t h e r p h e n o m e n a o f t h e universe, a n d h o w a c u l t o f nature was t h e n f o r m e d alongside the c u l t o f t h e ancestors. As T y l o r has i t , this e x t e n s i o n o f a n i m i s m is d u e t o the peculiar m e n t a l i t y o f t h e p r i m i t i v e , w h o , l i k e t h e c h i l d , does n o t d i s t i n g u i s h t h e animate

'Tylor, Primitive Culture, vol. II [pp. 113ff.]. ,0

Ibid., vol. I [pp. 113ff., 481ff.].


50

f r o m the i n a n i m a t e . Because the first beings o f w h i c h the c h i l d begins t o f o r m any idea are h u m a n s — h i m s e l f a n d his parents—he tends t o i m a g i n e all things o n t h e m o d e l o f h u m a n nature. H e sees t h e toys he uses, and the various objects that affect his senses, as l i v i n g beings l i k e himself. T h e p r i m i t i v e t h i n k s l i k e a c h i l d , so h e t o o is i n c l i n e d t o e n d o w t h i n g s , even i n a n i m a t e things, w i t h a nature similar t o his o w n . A n d thus, f o r the reasons already g i v e n , o n c e he has a r r i v e d at the idea that m a n is a b o d y that a s p i r i t a n i mates, t h e n he m u s t o f necessity i m p u t e t o n a t u r a l bodies that same sort o f duality, plus souls l i k e his o w n . T h e sphere o f i n f l u e n c e c o u l d n o t be the same f o r b o t h , h o w e v e r . T h e souls o f m e n have d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e o n l y over the w o r l d o f m e n . T h e y have a sort o f p r e d i l e c t i o n f o r the h u m a n body, o n c e death has g i v e n t h e m t h e i r liberty. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , the souls o f t h i n g s r e side above a l l i n things a n d are v i e w e d as t h e operative causes o f all t h a t h a p pens t o things. H e a l t h o r illness, a g i l i t y o r clumsiness, a n d the rest, are a c c o u n t e d f o r b y t h e souls o f m e n ; t h e p h e n o m e n a o f the physical w o r l d above a l l — t h e m o v e m e n t o f t h e waters o r o f t h e stars, t h e g e r m i n a t i o n o f the plants, the abundant r e p r o d u c t i o n o f the animals, a n d the rest—are a c c o u n t e d for b y the souls o f things. T h u s , the f i n i s h i n g t o u c h t o that first p h i l o s o p h y o f m a n , o n w h i c h the c u l t o f the ancestors is based, was a p h i l o s o p h y o f the w o r l d . V i s - a - v i s those cosmic spirits, m a n f o u n d h i m s e l f i n an even m o r e o b v i ous state o f dependence t h a n vis-a-vis the w a n d e r i n g doubles o f his ancestors. W i t h t h e ancestors, he c o u l d o n l y have i d e a l * a n d i m a g i n a r y relations, b u t he really does d e p e n d u p o n things. Since h e needs t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n i n order t o live, m a n came t o believe t h a t h e also n e e d e d t h e spirits that w e r e h e l d t o animate those things a n d c o n t r o l t h e i r v a r i o u s manifestations. H e i m p l o r e d t h e i r h e l p t h r o u g h offerings a n d prayers. T h u s , t h e

finishing

touch to

the r e l i g i o n o f m a n was a r e l i g i o n o f nature. H e r b e r t Spencer objects that this e x p l a n a t i o n rests o n a hypothesis that is c o n t r a d i c t e d b y the facts. I t is h e l d , he says, that there was a t i m e w h e n m a n d i d n o t grasp the differences b e t w e e n the animate a n d the inanimate. B u t as w e ascend a m o n g the animals, w e see an increasing capacity t o make that dist i n c t i o n . T h e h i g h e r animals d o n o t confuse an object that moves b y itself, w h o s e m o v e m e n t s are d i r e c t e d t o w a r d goals, w i t h objects that are m o v e d m e chanically from outside. " W h e n a cat w h o is p l a y i n g w i t h a mouse he has caught sees that i t stays still f o r a l o n g w h i l e , he touches i t w i t h his c l a w t o make i t r u n . O b v i o u s l y , the cat t h i n k s that a l i v i n g b e i n g that o n e bothers w i l l t r y t o escape."

11

M a n , even p r i m i t i v e m a n , c o u l d n o t be less i n t e l l i g e n t t h a n

*Note Durkheim's use of this term in reference to things of the mind. "Spencer, Principles of Sociology, vol. I [p.126].


51

animals l o w e r t h a n he o n the scale o f e v o l u t i o n . I t was n o t t h r o u g h lack o f disc e r n m e n t , t h e n , that he m o v e d f r o m the c u l t o f ancestors t o the c u l t o f things. A c c o r d i n g t o Spencer, w h o o n this p o i n t (but o n this p o i n t o n l y ) parts c o m p a n y w i t h T y l o r , this passage is i n d e e d d u e t o a c o n f u s i o n , b u t o n e o f a different k i n d . H e t h i n k s i t results, at least i n the m a i n , f r o m the numberless a m b i g u i t i e s o f language. I n m a n y l o w e r societies, i t is a v e r y c o m m o n cust o m t o give each i n d i v i d u a l t h e n a m e o f an a n i m a l , p l a n t , star, o r some o t h e r natural object, e i t h e r at b i r t h o r later. B u t , g i v e n the e x t r e m e i m p r e c i s i o n o f his language, i t is v e r y d i f f i c u l t f o r the p r i m i t i v e t o d i s t i n g u i s h a m e t a p h o r f r o m reality. T h u s he w o u l d q u i c k l y have lost sight o f the fact that these names w e r e o n l y figures o f speech and, b y t a k i n g t h e m literally, e n d e d u p b e l i e v i n g that an ancestor called T i g e r o r L i o n was actually a tiger o r a l i o n . A n d so, the c u l t o f w h i c h that ancestor h a d b e e n the object theretofore, w o u l d have b e e n transposed thereafter t o the a n i m a l w i t h w h i c h the ancest o r h a d b e c o m e o n e a n d the same. A n d , the same s u b s t i t u t i o n b e i n g operative f o r the plants, stars, t o g e t h e r w i t h all t h e n a t u r a l p h e n o m e n a , the r e l i g i o n o f nature t o o k t h e place o f t h e o l d r e l i g i o n o f the dead. T o be sure, Spencer p o i n t s t o o t h e r confusions besides this one, r e i n f o r c i n g its effect i n this case o r that. F o r example, as he proposes, the animals that frequent the environs o f the t o m b s o r houses o f m e n w e r e t a k e n f o r r e i n c a r n a t e d souls and revered as s u c h ;

12

o r else, the m o u n t a i n h e l d b y t r a d i t i o n t o be the site w h e r e the race

b e g a n was taken t o be its actual f o u n d e r ; the ancestors b e i n g p r e s u m e d t o have c o m e f r o m i t , a n d t h e m e n t o be its descendants, the m o u n t a i n itself was therefore treated as an ancestor.

13

B u t as Spencer admits, these a d d i t i o n a l

causes c o u l d have h a d o n l y a secondary i n f l u e n c e . P r i n c i p a l l y , w h a t l e d t o the institution names.

o f n a t u r i s m was

"the

literal interpretation o f metaphorical

"

F o r the sake o f completeness i n m y o w n e x p o s i t i o n o f a n i m i s m , I h a d t o give an a c c o u n t o f this t h e o r y , b u t i t is t o o inadequate t o the facts, a n d today t o o universally a b a n d o n e d , t o w a r r a n t b e i n g d w e l l e d u p o n further. F o r a p h e n o m e n o n as w i d e s p r e a d as t h e r e l i g i o n o f nature t o be explainable b y an i l l u s i o n , the cause o f t h e v e r y i l l u s i o n that is i n v o k e d w o u l d have t o be equally widespread. E v e n w h e n such errors as those o f w h i c h Spencer r e p o r t s a f e w isolated examples ( w h e r e w e find such examples) can i n d e e d e x p l a i n t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f the c u l t o f ancestors i n t o a c u l t o f nature, i t is n o t

12

Ibid., pp. 322ff.

"Ibid., pp. 366-367. 14

Ibid., p. 346. Cf. p. 384.

52


clear w h y t h e y w o u l d be so w i d e l y p r o d u c e d . N o psychic m e c h a n i s m necessitates t h e m . N o d o u b t , t h r o u g h t h e i r o w n a m b i g u i t y , w o r d s c o u l d lead p e o ple t o be m i s t a k e n ; b u t , at the same t i m e , all t h e personal m e m o r i e s that t h e ancestor left i n men's m e m o r i e s m u s t have w o r k e d against t h e c o n f u s i o n . W h y w o u l d the t r a d i t i o n that p o r t r a y e d t h e ancestor as he h a d b e e n — t h a t is, as a m a n w h o h a d l i v e d a man's l i f e — h a v e g i v e n w a y e v e r y w h e r e t o the m a g i c o f w o r d s . Besides, people m u s t have h a d a c e r t a i n d i f f i c u l t y a c c e p t i n g the idea that m e n c o u l d have b e e n b o r n f r o m a m o u n t a i n o r a star, an a n i m a l o r a plant; the idea o f such an e x c e p t i o n t o the o r d i n a r y c o n d i t i o n s o f p r o c r e a t i o n was b o u n d t o raise s t r o n g resistance. I n this way, far f r o m f i n d i n g the w a y m a d e straight, this e r r o r w o u l d have b e e n i m p e d e d b y all sorts o f reasons d e f e n d i n g m i n d s against i t . T h e r e f o r e h o w its v i c t o r y c o u l d have been so general, despite so m a n y obstacles, is n o t clear.

II T h e r e remains t h e t h e o r y o f T y l o r , w h i c h still has great a u t h o r i t y . Since his hypotheses o n dreams a n d o n h o w the ideas o f soul and spirit o r i g i n a t e d are still a u t h o r i t a t i v e , i t is i m p o r t a n t t o evaluate t h e m . T o b e g i n , i t m u s t be a c k n o w l e d g e d that the theorists o f a n i m i s m have rendered an i m p o r t a n t service t o the science o f r e l i g i o n s , a n d i n d e e d t o t h e general h i s t o r y o f ideas, b y a p p l y i n g h i s t o r i c a l analysis t o t h e idea o f soul. I n stead o f t a k i n g i t t o be a s i m p l e a n d i m m e d i a t e g i v e n o f consciousness, as so m a n y philosophers have, t h e y saw i t — f a r m o r e correctly—as a c o m p l e x w h o l e and as a p r o d u c t o f h i s t o r y a n d m y t h o l o g y . I t is b e y o n d d o u b t that, b y its nature, o r i g i n s , and f u n c t i o n s , the idea o f soul is f u n d a m e n t a l l y r e l i g i o u s . Philosophers received i t from r e l i g i o n ; a n d the f o r m i t takes a m o n g

the

t h i n k e r s o f a n t i q u i t y c a n n o t b e u n d e r s t o o d unless t h e m y t h i c a l elements that entered i n t o i t are taken i n t o a c c o u n t . B u t even t h o u g h setting the p r o b l e m is t o Tylor's credit, his s o l u t i o n nonetheless raises serious difficulties. First, there are reservations t o be h a d a b o u t the v e r y p r i n c i p l e o n w h i c h his t h e o r y is based. I t grants as self-evident that t h e soul is altogether d i s t i n c t f r o m the body, that i t is t h e body's d o u b l e , a n d that, w h e t h e r inside o r o u t side the body, i t o r d i n a r i l y lives its o w n a u t o n o m o u s life. N o w , w e w i l l s e e

15

that this c o n c e p t i o n is n o t that o f the p r i m i t i v e or, at least, that i t expresses

15

See below, Bk. II, chap. 8.

Tl\e Leading Conceptions of the Elementary Religion

53

o n l y o n e aspect o f the idea he has o f the soul. T o the p r i m i t i v e , a l t h o u g h the soul is i n c e r t a i n respects i n d e p e n d e n t o f the b o d y i t animates, nevertheless i t is p a r t l y m e r g e d w i t h the body, so m u c h so that i t c a n n o t be radically separated f r o m the b o d y : C e r t a i n organs are n o t o n l y the special seat o f the soul b u t also its o u t w a r d f o r m a n d physical manifestation. T h e n o t i o n is m o r e c o m p l e x t h a n the d o c t r i n e assumes, t h e n , a n d so i t is d o u b t f u l that the e x periences i n v o k e d are sufficient e x p l a n a t i o n . F o r even i f those experiences enabled o n e t o u n d e r s t a n d h o w m a n came t o believe he was d o u b l e , they c o u l d n o t e x p l a i n w h y that d u a l i t y n o t o n l y does n o t exclude, b u t actually entails, a p r o f o u n d u n i t y a n d an i n t i m a t e i n t e r p é n é t r a t i o n o f the t w o beings thus differentiated. H o w e v e r , let us g r a n t that the idea o f soul is r e d u c i b l e to the idea o f d o u ble a n d see h o w , a c c o r d i n g t o T y l o r , that second idea was f o r m e d . Supposedly t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f d r e a m i n g suggested i t t o m a n . T o understand h o w , as his b o d y r e m a i n e d l y i n g o n the g r o u n d , he c o u l d see m o r e o r less distant places as he slept, h e is l e d t o t h i n k o f h i m s e l f as b e i n g made o f t w o beings: o n t h e o n e h a n d , his body, and, o n the other, a second self able t o leave the b o d y i n w h i c h i t lives a n d m o v e a b o u t i n space. B u t , o n the face o f i t , t o have b e e n able t o t h r u s t itself u p o n m e n w i t h a k i n d o f necessity, this idea w o u l d have t o have b e e n the o n l y possible hypothesis, o r at least the simplest. N o w , i n fact, there are s i m p l e r hypotheses, ideas that, i t seems, must have c o m e t o m i n d j u s t as naturally. F o r example, w h y w o u l d the sleeper n o t have i m a g i n e d that he was able t o see at a distance as he slept? I m p u t i n g such a capaci t y t o h i m s e l f w o u l d have taxed his i m a g i n a t i o n less t h a n c o n s t r u c t i n g such a c o m p l i c a t e d idea as that o f a d o u b l e — m a d e o f an ethereal substance, halfinvisible, a n d w i t h n o e x a m p l e f r o m d i r e c t e x p e r i e n c e . I n any case, g r a n t i n g that c e r t a i n dreams call f o r t h the a n i m i s t explanat i o n rather naturally, m a n y others c e r t a i n l y are absolutely resistant t o i t . V e r y often, o u r dreams refer t o past events; w e see again w h a t w e have seen o r d o n e w h i l e awake, yesterday, day before yesterday, d u r i n g o u r y o u t h , and so o n ; such dreams are c o m m o n , h a v i n g a rather large place i n o u r n i g h t t i m e life: B u t t h e idea o f a d o u b l e c a n n o t a c c o u n t f o r t h e m . E v e n i f the d o u b l e can transport itself from o n e p o i n t t o a n o t h e r i n space, i t is n o t clear h o w the d o u b l e c o u l d g o back t h r o u g h t h e stream o f t i m e . H o w c o u l d a m a n , h o w ever p r i m i t i v e his i n t e l l e c t , believe w h e n he awakes that he has j u s t b e e n p r e sent at, o r actually t a k e n p a r t i n , events t h a t he k n o w s h a p p e n e d at a different time? H o w c o u l d he i m a g i n e t h a t he h a d l i v e d a life w h i l e sleeping that he k n e w was l o n g since past? I t w o u l d have b e e n m u c h m o r e natural f o r h i m t o see those r e n e w e d images as w h a t t h e y really are: m e m o r i e s l i k e those he has i n daytime, b u t o f special intensity.

54


Besides, i n the scenes w e take part i n a n d witness w h i l e w e sleep, some c o n t e m p o r a r y is constantly t a k i n g some role at the same t i m e as w e . W e t h i n k w e see and hear h i m i n the same place as w e . A c c o r d i n g t o a n i m i s m , the p r i m i t i v e w i l l e x p l a i n these facts b y i m a g i n i n g that his o w n d o u b l e has been v i s i t e d o r m e t b y the doubles o f c e r t a i n o f his friends. B u t all i t w i l l take for h i m t o n o t i c e that t h e i r experience does n o t c o i n c i d e w i t h his is t o quest i o n t h e m w h e n he awakens. T h e y , t o o , have h a d dreams at t h e same t i m e , but

e n t i r e l y different ones. T h e y d i d n o t see themselves t a k i n g part i n the

same scene b u t believe they v i s i t e d e n t i r e l y different places. A n d since, i n that case, c o n t r a d i c t i o n s m u s t be the r u l e , h o w w o u l d those c o n t r a d i c t i o n s n o t lead m e n t o t h i n k that there was apparendy an error, that t h e y i m a g i n e d i t , that they w e r e taken i n b y some illusion? F o r there is a c e r t a i n o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n i n the b l i n d c r e d u l i t y that is ascribed t o t h e p r i m i t i v e . H e is far f r o m f i n d i n g i t necessary t o objectify all his sensations. H e is n o t incapable o f n o t i c i n g that his senses sometimes t r i c k h i m , even w h e n he is awake. W h y w o u l d he believe t h e m t o be m o r e i n f a l l i b l e at n i g h t t h a n i n daytime? H e n c e , a g o o d m a n y reasons stand i n the w a y o f his t a k i n g dreams f o r realities t o o easily and i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e m b y a d o u b l i n g o f his b e i n g . F u r t h e r m o r e , even i f the hypothesis o f the d o u b l e c o u l d satisfactorily e x p l a i n all d r e a m i n g , a n d all d r e a m i n g c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d i n n o o t h e r way, o n e w o u l d still have t o say w h y m a n t r i e d t o e x p l a i n i t at all. N o d o u b t , the d r e a m has the m a k i n g s o f a possible p r o b l e m . B u t w e c o n t i n u a l l y bypass problems that w e d o n o t see as such, w h o s e existence w e d o n o t even suspect so l o n g as n o t h i n g has m a d e us feel any n e e d t o see t h e m as problems. E v e n w h e n the taste f o r p u r e speculation is w i d e awake, i t is far f r o m t r u e that r e flection

raises all the questions t o w h i c h i t c o u l d possibly apply itself; o n l y

those that are o f p a r t i c u l a r interest attract i t . Especially w h e n the p h e n o m e n a i n q u e s t i o n always recur i n the same manner, h a b i t easily puts c u r i o s i t y t o sleep and w e n o l o n g e r even i m a g i n e q u e r y i n g ourselves. T o shake o f f that t o r p o r , practical needs, o r at least v e r y pressing t h e o r e t i c a l interest, m u s t attract o u r a t t e n t i o n and t u r n i t i n that d i r e c t i o n . A n d so i t happens that, at every m o m e n t o f history, there are a great m a n y things that w e give u p t r y i n g t o understand, w i t h o u t even n o t i c i n g that w e are so d o i n g . U n t i l n o t v e r y l o n g ago, t h e sun was b e l i e v e d t o b e o n l y several feet i n diameter. T h e r e was s o m e t h i n g i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e i n t h e fact that a l u m i n o u s disc o f such small d i a m e t e r c o u l d be adequate t o l i g h t the E a r t h — a n d yet centuries w e n t by before h u m a n i t y t h o u g h t o f r e s o l v i n g that c o n t r a d i c t i o n . H e r e d i t y is a p h e n o m e n o n that has b e e n k n o w n f o r a l o n g t i m e , b u t o n l y v e r y r e c e n t l y has anyone t r i e d t o c o n s t r u c t a t h e o r y o f i t . I n d e e d , the acceptance o f c e r t a i n beliefs made i t c o m p l e t e l y u n i n t e l l i g i b l e . T h u s , i n c e r t a i n

55

Tlie Leading Conceptions of the Elementary Religion

Australian societies t o be discussed, the c h i l d is n o t p h y s i o l o g i c a l l y the p r o d uct o f its p a r e n t s .

16

Inevitably, such i n t e l l e c t u a l laziness is greatest i n the

p r i m i t i v e . T h i s frail b e i n g , w h o m u s t struggle so h a r d f o r his life against the forces that assail i t , lacks the w h e r e w i t h a l f o r the l u x u r y o f speculation. H e p r o b a b l y does n o t reflect unless he has t o . I t is therefore n o t easy t o see w h a t c o u l d have l e d h i m t o m a k e d r e a m i n g t h e t o p i c o f his meditations. W h a t is d r e a m i n g i n o u r life? W h a t a small place i t has, especially since i t leaves v e r y vague impressions i n m e m o r y a n d is q u i c k l y erased; a n d h o w surprising, t h e n , that a m a n o f such c r u d e i n t e l l e c t s h o u l d have p u t so m u c h effort i n t o t r y i n g t o e x p l a i n i t ! O f t h e t w o existences that he leads o n e after the other, d a y t i m e a n d n i g h t t i m e , i t is the first, his d a y t i m e existence, that s h o u l d i n terest h i m m o r e . Is i t n o t strange that the n i g h t t i m e existence s h o u l d have so captivated his a t t e n t i o n that he m a d e i t t h e basis o f a w h o l e system o f c o m p l i c a t e d ideas destined t o have such p r o f o u n d i n f l u e n c e o n his t h o u g h t and conduct? E v e r y t h i n g tends t o prove, therefore, that the animist t h e o r y o f the soul m u s t be reassessed, despite its c o n t i n u i n g a u t h o r i t y . Today, the p r i m i t i v e p r o b a b l y does a t t r i b u t e his dreams, o r c e r t a i n o f t h e m , t o the m o v e m e n t s o f . his d o u b l e . B u t this is n o t the same as saying that dreams actually p r o v i d e d the r a w m a t e r i a l f r o m w h i c h the idea o f d o u b l e o r soul was made. Instead o f b e i n g d e r i v e d f r o m the p h e n o m e n a o f dreams, ecstasy, a n d possession, i t c o u l d have b e e n a p p l i e d t o t h e m after the fact. As o f t e n happens, once an idea is f o r m e d , i t is used t o organize o r t o shed l i g h t ( w i t h l i g h t that is s o m e times m o r e apparent t h a n real) o n facts w i t h w h i c h the idea was u n c o n n e c t e d at first, a n d that, i n themselves, c o u l d n o t have suggested i t . Today, G o d a n d the i m m o r t a l i t y o f t h e soul are o f t e n p r o v e d w i t h a s h o w i n g that those beliefs are i m p l i e d i n the basic p r i n c i p l e s o f m o r a l i t y . I n reality, those beliefs are o f a c o m p l e t e l y different o r i g i n . T h e h i s t o r y o f religious t h o u g h t c o u l d p r o v i d e n u m e r o u s examples o f these retrospective justifications that can teach us n o t h i n g a b o u t e i t h e r the m a n n e r i n w h i c h those ideas t o o k f o r m o r a b o u t the elements o f w h i c h t h e y are made. I t is likely, f u r t h e r m o r e ,

that the p r i m i t i v e distinguishes

among

his

dreams a n d does n o t e x p l a i n t h e m all i n t h e same way. H e r e i n E u r o p e , there are still m a n y p e o p l e f o r w h o m t h e state o f sleep is a sort o f m a g i c o - r e l i g i o u s state i n w h i c h t h e m i n d , p a r t i a l l y u n b u r d e n e d o f t h e body, has an acuteness

16

See [Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [Francis James] Gillen, The Native Tribes of Central Australia [London, Macmillan, 1889], pp. 123—127; [Carl] Strehlow, Die Aranda- und Loritja-Stämme in Zentral-Australien [2 vols., Frankfurt, J. Baer, 1907], pp. 52ff.


56

o f v i s i o n that i t does n o t enjoy i n wakefulness. S t i l l t h e y d o n o t g o so far as t o consider all t h e i r dreams t o be so m a n y mystic i n t u i t i o n s . Instead, l i k e everyone else, t h e y see the m a j o r i t y o f t h e i r dreams o n l y as profane states a n d e m p t y plays o f images, m e r e h a l l u c i n a t i o n s . T h e p r i m i t i v e can be t h o u g h t o f as always h a v i n g made s i m i l a r d i s t i n c t i o n s . C o d r i n g t o n states e m p h a t i c a l l y that the Melanesians d o n o t i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y e x p l a i n all t h e i r dreams as m i grations o f souls, b u t o n l y those that strike t h e i r i m a g i n a t i o n v i v i d l y .

1 7

We

s h o u l d p r o b a b l y u n d e r s t a n d that t o m e a n those dreams i n w h i c h t h e sleeper believes he is i n t o u c h w i t h r e l i g i o u s beings, g o o d o r e v i l genies, souls o f t h e dead, a n d so o n . L i k e w i s e , the D i e r i m a k e a v e r y clear d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n o r d i n a r y dreams a n d those n i g h t t i m e visions i n w h i c h some deceased f r i e n d o r relative appears t o t h e m . T h e y give different names t o those t w o sorts o f state. T h e y see the first as a m e r e f l i g h t o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n , b u t t h e y ascribe the second t o the w o r k o f an e v i l s p i r i t .

18

A l l t h e facts H o w i t t offers as e x -

amples, s h o w i n g that the A u s t r a l i a n ascribes t o the soul t h e p o w e r t o leave the body, also have a m y s t i c a l character: T h e sleeper believes h i m s e l f t r a n s p o r t e d i n t o the l a n d o f the dead, o r else that he is t a l k i n g w i t h a deceased f r i e n d . These dreams are c o m m o n a m o n g p r i m i t i v e s .

2 0

1 9

I t is p r o b a b l y i n c o n n e c t i o n

w i t h such facts that the t h e o r y t o o k f o r m . T o a c c o u n t f o r t h e m , t h e n o t i o n that the souls o f the dead c o m e b a c k t o be w i t h the l i v i n g as t h e y sleep is accepted. A c c e p t a n c e o f this e x p l a n a t i o n was all t h e easier because n o fact o f experience c o u l d d i s c o n f i r m i t . B u t such dreams w e r e possible o n l y w h e r e people already had the ideas o f spirits, souls, a n d lands o f t h e dead—that is, o n l y w h e r e r e l i g i o u s e v o l u t i o n was relatively advanced. Far from h a v i n g b e e n able t o p r o v i d e r e l i g i o n w i t h the f u n d a m e n t a l idea o n w h i c h i t rests, t h e y presupposed a n d w e r e the result o f a r e l i g i o u s system already c o n s t i t u t e d .

21

"[Robert Henry Codrington],The Melanesians [Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1891], pp. 249-250. 18

[Alfred William] Howitt, The Native Tribes of South-East Australia [London, Macmillan, 1904], p. 358 (following Gason). 19

Ibid„ pp. 434-442.

20

The Negroes of southern Guinea, says Tylor, have "during their sleep almost as many relations with the dead as they have during the day with the living" (Primitive Culture, vol. I, p. 443). Of these peoples, the same author cites this remark by an observer: "They regard all their dreams as visits by spirits of their dead friends" (ibid., vol. I, p. 514 ). The statement is surely exaggerated, but it is further proof that mystical dreams are common among primitives. This tends as well to confirm the etymology Strehlow offers for the Arunta word altjirerama, which means "to dream." It is composed of altjira, which Strehlow translates as "god," and rama, which means "see." So the dream would be the moment when the man is in relation with the sacred beings (Aranda, vol. I, p. 2). 21

Andrew Lang (who also refuses to concede that the idea of the soul was suggested to man by the experience of dreaming) believed he could derive it from other experiential data: the facts of spiritism (telepathy, seeing at a distance, etc.). I do not think it necessary to discuss his theory, as set forth in his


57

III B u t let us c o m e t o t h e v e r y heart o f the d o c t r i n e . W h e r e v e r t h e idea o f a d o u b l e m a y c o m e f r o m ,

that idea is n o t

e n o u g h — o n t h e animists' o w n a d m i s s i o n — t o e x p l a i n h o w the ancestor c u l t was f o r m e d , the c u l t that is regarded as t h e o r i g i n a l t y p e o f all r e l i g i o n s . T o have b e c o m e the o b j e c t o f a c u l t , t h e d o u b l e h a d t o cease b e i n g a m e r e replica o f the i n d i v i d u a l . I t h a d t o take o n t h e characteristics r e q u i r e d f o r p l a c e m e n t o n a par w i t h the sacred beings. D e a t h is said t o b r i n g a b o u t this t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . B u t w h e r e w o u l d the special p r o p e r t y that people i m p u t e t o death c o m e from? E v e n i f t h e analogy b e t w e e n sleep a n d death m i g h t have b e e n e n o u g h t o m a k e p e o p l e believe that the s o u l survives the b o d y (and o n this p o i n t , there are reservations t o be had), w h y w o u l d this soul c o m p l e t e l y change its nature s i m p l y as a result o f b e i n g n o w detached f r o m the b o d y ? I f , w h i l e i t l i v e d , i t was o n l y a profane t h i n g , a w a l k i n g l i f e - p r i n c i p l e , h o w w o u l d i t suddenly b e c o m e a sacred t h i n g a n d the o b j e c t o f religious feelings? A p a r t f r o m greater f r e e d o m o f m o v e m e n t , death adds n o t h i n g essential t o i t . B e i n g attached t o n o regular residence f r o m t h e n o n , i t can d o at any t i m e the things i t o n c e d i d o n l y at n i g h t ; b u t t h e things i t can d o are still o f the same nature. So w h y w o u l d the l i v i n g have seen this u p r o o t e d a n d v a g a b o n d d o u b l e o f yesterday's f r i e n d as a n y t h i n g b u t a f e l l o w h u m a n ? I t was a f e l l o w h u m a n w h o s e nearness m i g h t i n d e e d have b e e n i n o p p o r t u n e , b u t i t was n o t a deity.

22

I n fact, i t seems that, far f r o m t e n d i n g t o increase the v i t a l energies, death s h o u l d actually have sapped t h e m . I t is a w i d e s p r e a d b e l i e f i n the l o w e r societies that t h e s o u l shares i n t i m a t e l y i n the body's life. I f t h e b o d y is i n j u r e d , the s o u l i t s e l f is i n j u r e d i n t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g place. H e n c e , i t s h o u l d

book The Making of Religion. In fact, it rests on the hypothesis that spiritism is a constant fact of observation, that seeing at a distance is a real faculty of man or, at least, of certain men—and we know the extent to which this postulate is disputed. What is still more disputable is that the facts of spiritism should be sufficiently apparent and sufficiendy common to have been able to serve as the basis of all the religious beliefs and practices that bear upon souls and spirits. Examination of these questions would take me too far awayfromthe object of my study. Furthermore, since Lang's theory remains open to several of the objections that I will address to Tylor's, my engaging in such an examination is still less necessary. ^[Frank Byron] Jevons makes a similar observation. Along with Tylor, he accepts that the idea of the soul comes from dreaming and that, once this idea was created, man projected it into things. But, he adds, the fact that nature has been conceived of as animate in the way man is does not explain why it should have become the object of a cult. "From the fact that man sees a tree that bends and aflamethat comes and goes as a living being like himself, it does not at all follow that either is considered a supernatural being; on the contrary, to the extent that they resemble him, they can do nothing that in his eyes is supernatural" (An Introduction to the History of Religion [London, Methuen, 1896], p. 55).


58

age a l o n g w i t h the body. I n fact, there are peoples a m o n g w h o m funeral r e spects are n o t p a i d t o m e n w h o have reached senility; they are treated as i f t h e i r souls had b e c o m e senile as w e l l .

2 3

T h e r e are even cases i n w h i c h c e r t a i n

p r i v i l e g e d i n d i v i d u a l s are l a w f u l l y p u t t o death before t h e y arrive at o l d age—for example, kings o r priests t h o u g h t t o be vessels o f some p o w e r f u l spirit w h o s e p r o t e c t i o n society is anxious t o keep. T h e o b j e c t i n this is t o prevent the spirit f r o m b e i n g s t r i c k e n w i t h the physical degeneration o f those w h o are its t e m p o r a r y trustees. T h u s , the spirit is r e m o v e d before age w e a k ens the b o d y i n w h i c h i t is residing; since i t has lost n o n e o f its strength, the spirit is transferred i n t o a y o u n g e r b o d y i n w h i c h i t w i l l be able t o keep its vitality intact.

24

B u t i n that case, w h e n death results f r o m sickness o r o l d age,

it w o u l d seem that the s o u l c o u l d retain o n l y d i m i n i s h e d p o w e r . A n d i n d e e d , i f the soul is o n l y the d o u b l e o f the b o d y , i t is unclear h o w i t c o u l d survive at all once the b o d y has f i n a l l y disintegrated. F r o m this p o i n t o f view, t h e idea o f its survival becomes barely i n t e l l i g i b l e . H e n c e , here is a gap—a l o g i c a l a n d psychological v o i d — b e t w e e n the idea o f a d o u b l e at l i b e r t y a n d that o f a spirit t o w h i c h a c u l t is addressed. T h a t v o i d seems all t h e greater w h e n w e realize h o w w i d e an abyss separates the sacred w o r l d f r o m the profane one. I t is o b v i o u s that a mere change o f degree c o u l d n o t possibly be e n o u g h t o m a k e a t h i n g pass f r o m one categ o r y t o the other. Sacred beings are n o t d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m profane ones m e r e l y b y the strange o r u n s e t t l i n g f o r m s t h e y take o n o r b y t h e w i d e r p o w ers they enjoy. T h e r e is n o c o m m o n measure b e t w e e n t h e m . N o w , there is n o t h i n g i n the idea o f a d o u b l e that c o u l d a c c o u n t f o r such a radical h e t e r o geneity. I t is said that, o n c e freed f r o m the body, t h e d o u b l e can d o e i t h e r great g o o d o r great h a r m t o the l i v i n g , d e p e n d i n g o n the m a n n e r i n w h i c h i t regards t h e m . B u t u p s e t t i n g those a r o u n d h i m is n o t e n o u g h t o make a b e i n g appear t o be o f a different nature f r o m those w h o s e peace i t threatens. T o be sure, some fear and restraint always enter i n t o the feelings the faithful have for the things t h e y reverence; b u t i t is a fear sui generis, made o f respect m o r e t h a n fear, a n d made m a i n l y o f that v e r y special e m o t i o n that majesty elicits i n m a n . T h e idea o f majesty is essentially r e l i g i o u s . I n a sense, therefore, w e have e x p l a i n e d n o t h i n g a b o u t r e l i g i o n so l o n g as w e have n o t discovered w h e r e that idea comes f r o m , w h a t i t corresponds t o , a n d w h a t c o u l d have 23

See [Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [Francis James] Gillen, Northern Tribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1904], p. 506; and Native Tribes, p. 512. [Reference is to the relationship of soul and life; it is not about funeral practices. Therefore the footnote is probably to the sentence ". . . the soul participates actively in the life of the body." Trans.] 24

This is the ritual and mythical theme that [Sir James George] Frazer studies in his The Golden Bough [a Study in Magk and Religion, London, Macmillan, 1890].

59


awakened i t i n consciousnesses. M e r e h u m a n souls c o u l d n o t possibly be i n vested w i t h this trait f o r t h e simple reason that t h e y are d i s e m b o d i e d . A n e x a m p l e from Melanesia b r i n g s this o u t . T h e Melanesians believe that m a n possesses a soul t h a t leaves the b o d y at death, w h e n i t changes names a n d becomes w h a t t h e y call a tindalo, a natmat, etc. A t the same t i m e , t h e y also have a c u l t t o the souls o f the dead: T h e s e souls are prayed t o and i n v o k e d . O f f e r i n g s a n d sacrifices are m a d e t o t h e m . B u t n o t every t i n d a l o * is the o b j e c t o f those r i t u a l practices. T h a t h o n o r goes o n l y t o those that e m anate from m e n w h o , d u r i n g t h e i r lifetimes, w e r e c r e d i t e d b y p u b l i c o p i n i o n w i t h the v e r y special v i r t u e that the Melanesians call mana. Later, I e x p l a i n the idea that this w o r d expresses. F o r the t i m e b e i n g , suffice i t t o say t h a t i t is the d i s t i n g u i s h i n g characteristic o f any sacred b e i n g . M a n a , says C o d r i n g ¬ t o n , "is that w h i c h p e r m i t s t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f effects that are outside t h e o r d i n a r y p o w e r o f m e n , a n d outside the o r d i n a r y processes o f n a t u r e . "

25

A

priest, a sorcerer, o r a r i t u a l f o r m u l a has mana, as does a sacred stone o r a spirit. T h u s , t h e o n l y tindalos g i v e n r e l i g i o u s h o n o r s are those that w e r e a l ready sacred beings w h i l e t h e i r o w n e r s w e r e alive. As t o o t h e r souls, those that c o m e from o r d i n a r y m e n , from t h e c o m m o n h e r d o f the profane, t h e y are " n o t h i n g s after death, as before," a c c o r d i n g t o t h e same a u t h o r .

26

Since i t

consummates t h e separation from profane things m o r e f u l l y a n d finally, death m a y v e r y w e l l reinforce t h e sacredness o f t h e soul, i f t h e soul already has this quality, b u t death does n o t create i t . F u r t h e r m o r e i f , as the a n i m i s t hypothesis assumes, t h e first sacred beings t r u l y h a d b e e n the souls o f the dead, a n d t h e first c u l t h a d b e e n that o f the ancestors, o n e s h o u l d n o t i c e that t h e l o w e r the type o f society is, the m o r e p r e d o m i n a n t this c u l t is i n r e l i g i o u s life. Instead, the t r u t h is t h e o t h e r w a y a r o u n d . T h e ancestral c u l t develops and appears i n its characteristic

form

o n l y i n advanced societies such as C h i n a , E g y p t , and the GreeTc and R o m a n cities? o n the o t h e r h a n d , i t is l a c k i n g i n the A u s t r a l i a n societies, w h i c h .represent, as w e w i l l see, t h e lowest a n d simplest f o r m u p f social o r g a n i z a t i o n w e kacjw. T o be sure, funeral a n d m o u r n i n g rites are t o be f o u n d i n those s o c i eties, b u t even t h o u g h the n a m e " c u l t " has sometimes b e e n g i v e n t o practices o f this sort, t h e y d o n o t c o n s t i t u t e a c u l t . I n fact, a c u l t is n o t a m e r e c o l l e c t i o n o f r i t u a l precautions that m a n is responsible f o r t a k i n g i n c e r t a i n

*The French text sometimes takes these foreign terms out of italics once they have been explained. I have done this consistendy throughout. 25

Codrington, The Melanesians, p. 119.

26

Ibid., p. 125. [Although the passage Durkheim cites is indeed a discussion of mana, the quotation does not appear there. Trans.]

60


circumstances. I t is a system o f rites, feasts, a n d v a r i o u s ceremonies all having the characteristic that they recur periodically. T h e y m e e t t h e n e e d that the faithful feel p e r i o d i c a l l y t o t i g h t e n a n d strengthen t h e b o n d b e t w e e n t h e m a n d the sacred beings o n w h i c h t h e y d e p e n d . * T h i s is w h y o n e speaks o f n u p t i a l rites and n o t o f a n u p t i a l cult, o f b i r t h rites b u t n o t a c u l t o f t h e n e w b o r n : T h e events that occasion these rites i m p l y n o p e r i o d i c i t y . I n t h e same way, there is an ancestor c u l t o n l y i f sacrifices are made o n t h e t o m b s f r o m t i m e t o t i m e , i f l i b a t i o n s are p o u r e d there m o r e o r less frequendy, o r i f regular feasts are celebrated i n h o n o r o f the dead person. B u t the A u s t r a l i a n does n o t have any dealings o f this sort w i t h his dead. C e r t a i n l y he m u s t r i t u a l l y b u r y t h e i r r e mains, m o u r n t h e m f o r a p e r i o d a n d i n a m a n n e r p r e s c r i b e d and, i f n e e d be, avenge t h e m .

2 7

B u t o n c e he has c a r r i e d o u t these pious duties, o n c e t h e

bones are d r y and the m o u r n i n g has e n d e d , t h e n all is said a n d done, a n d t h e survivors have n o f u r t h e r o b l i g a t i o n s t o w a r d those o f t h e i r relatives w h o are n o m o r e . T r u e , there is i n d e e d a f o r m i n w h i c h the dead c o n t i n u e t o keep a certain place i n t h e lives o f t h e i r k i n , even after the m o u r n i n g is over. T h e i r hair o r certain o f t h e i r b o n e s

28

are sometimes k e p t because o f special v i r t u e s

attached t o t h e m . S t i l l , they have ceased t o be l i k e persons, and have d r o p p e d t o the r a n k o f a n o n y m o u s a n d i m p e r s o n a l amulets. I n that state, they are the object o f n o cult, a n d the o n l y purposes t h e y still have are m a g i c a l . -""

H o w e v e r , some A u s t r a l i a n tribes p e r i o d i c a l l y celebrate rites i n h o n o r o f

fabled ancestors that t r a d i t i o n places at the o r i g i n o f t i m e . G e n e r a l l y these ceremonies consist i n a sort o f dramatic p e r f o r m a n c e , i n w h i c h are m i m e d the deeds a t t r i b u t e d i n m y t h t o those l e g e n d a r y h e r o e s .

29

S t i l l , t h e personages

thus d e p i c t e d are n o t m e n w h o , after h a v i n g e x p e r i e n c e d t h e life o f m e n , w e r e t r a n s f o r m e d b y death i n t o s o m e t h i n g l i k e gods. Instead t h e y

are

t h o u g h t t o have enjoyed s u p e r h u m a n p o w e r s t h r o u g h o u t t h e i r lives. E v e r y t h i n g great that was d o n e i n t h e h i s t o r y o f the t r i b e , a n d even i n the h i s t o r y o f the w o r l d , is a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e m . I n large part, i t is t h e y w h o have made the earth as i t is and m e n as t h e y are. T h u s the aura that continues t o surr o u n d t h e m does n o t c o m e m e r e l y from t h e fact that t h e y are

ancestors—

*In nearly all contexts, the word "depend" seems to mean both "counting upon" and "being subjects of." 27

Apparendy sometimes there are even funeral offerings (see [Walter E.] Roth, "Superstition, Magic and Medicine," in North Queensland Ethnography, Bulletin, no. 5, sec. 69 [Brisbane, G. A. Vaughn, 1903]; and "Burial [Ceremonies and the Disposal of the Dead"] in North Queensland Ethnography, Bulletin, no. 10, in RAM, vol. VI, part 1907, 5, p. 395). But these offerings are not periodic. 28

See Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 538, 553; and Northern Tribes, pp. 463, 543, 547.

29

See especially Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, chaps. 6, 7, 9.

61

Tlie Leading Conceptions of the Elementary Religion

w h i c h is t o say, i n s u m , from t h e fact that t h e y are d e a d — b u t from the fact that a d i v i n e characteristic is a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e m , a n d has b e e n d o w n the ages. To repeat the M e l a n e s i a n expression, t h e y are b y nature e n d o w e d w i t h mana. C o n s e q u e n t l y , n o t h i n g i n any o f this demonstrates that death s h o u l d have the least p o w e r t o d e i f y I n d e e d , o n e c a n n o t say w i t h o u t i m p r o p r i e t y that these rites c o n s t i t u t e an ancestor c u l t , since t h e y are n o t addressed to ancestors as such. F o r a t r u e c u l t o f t h e dead t o b e possible, t h e real ancestors—the relatives that m e n really lose each d a y — m u s t b e c o m e the o b j e c t o f a c u l t after they die. O n c e again, n o traces o f a c u l t o f this t y p e exist i n Australia. T h u s t h e c u l t that s h o u l d have b e e n d o m i n a n t i n the l o w e r societies, acc o r d i n g t o the hypothesis, is n o n e x i s t e n t i n t h e m , a c c o r d i n g t o reality. I n the final analysis, t h e A u s t r a l i a n is c o n c e r n e d w i t h his dead o n l y at the v e r y m o m e n t o f death a n d i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g . Nevertheless, as w e w i l l see, i n r e gard t o sacred beings o f an altogether different nature, these same peoples practice a c o m p l e x c u l t made u p o f m u l t i p l e ceremonies that sometimes o c c u p y weeks a n d even m o n t h s . I t is u n t h i n k a b l e that t h e f e w rites the A u s tralian p e r f o r m s w h e n he happens t o lose o n e o f his relatives s h o u l d have b e e n t h e o r i g i n o f those p e r m a n e n t cults that r e t u r n r e g u l a r l y every year a n d take u p a significant p a r t o f his life. T h e contrast is so great, i n fact, that o n e m i g h t w e l l ask w h e t h e r i t is n o t t h e first that derives from the

second—

w h e t h e r t h e souls o f m e n , far from b e i n g t h e m o d e l o n w h i c h the gods w e r e i m a g i n e d , w e r e from the b e g i n n i n g c o n c e i v e d o f as emanations o f the deity.

IV I f the c u l t o f t h e dead is n o t p r i m i t i v e , a n i m i s m has n o basis. I t m i g h t t h e r e fore seem pointless t o e x a m i n e the t h i r d thesis o f the system, c o n c e r n i n g t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f t h e c u l t o f t h e dead i n t o a c u l t o f nature. B u t its e x a m i n a t i o n is necessary, since the postulate o n w h i c h i t rests is f o u n d even a m o n g historians o f r e l i g i o n w h o d o n o t accept a n i m i s m p r o p e r l y so-called, such as Brinton,

3 0

Lang,

3 1

Réville,

3 2

and R o b e r t s o n S m i t h himself.

33

-"•[Daniel Garrison Brinton], The Religions of Primitive Peoples [New York, G. P. Putnam's, 1897], pp. 478". 31

[Andrew Lang], Mythes, cultes et religions [ Paris, F. Alcan, 1896], p. 50.

32

[Albert Réville], Les Religions des peuples non civilisés, vol. II [Paris, Fischbacher, 1883], Conclusion.

33

[William Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religions] of the Semites, 2d ed. [London, A & C Black, 1894], pp. 126, 132.

62


T h i s e x t e n s i o n o f the c u l t o f the dead t o the w h o l e o f nature is t h o u g h t t o arise f r o m the fact that w e t e n d i n s t i n c t i v e l y t o conceive all things i n o u r o w n image, that is, as l i v i n g a n d t h i n k i n g beings. W e saw that Spencer has a l ready disputed the reality o f this so-called i n s t i n c t . Since an a n i m a l clearly distinguishes l i v i n g bodies f r o m n a t u r a l objects, i t seemed t o h i m impossible that m a n , as h e i r o f the a n i m a l , s h o u l d n o t have had this same faculty o f disc r i m i n a t i o n f r o m the start. B u t as sure as m a y be t h e facts that Spencer cites, i n this particular case t h e y d o n o t have the character o f p r o o f that he believes they have. I n d e e d , his a r g u m e n t assumes t h a t all t h e faculties, instincts, and abilities o f the a n i m a l have passed t o m a n i n t h e i r entirety. B u t a great m a n y errors o r i g i n a t e i n this p r i n c i p l e , w h i c h is w r o n g l y taken as self-evident t r u t h . For example, f r o m the fact that sexual j e a l o u s y is generally v e r y s t r o n g a m o n g the h i g h e r animals, i t has b e e n c o n c l u d e d that this same jealousy m u s t be f o u n d i n m a n , from the b e g i n n i n g o f h i s t o r y a n d w i t h the same i n t e n sity.

34

Today i t c a n n o t be d o u b t e d that m a n is able t o practice a sexual c o m -

m u n i s m that w o u l d be impossible i f that j e a l o u s y c o u l d n o t w e a k e n o r even disappear w h e n necessary.

35

T h i s is so because m a n is n o t s i m p l y an a n i m a l ,

plus c e r t a i n qualities: H e is s o m e t h i n g different. H u m a n nature is the p r o d u c t o f a recasting, so t o speak, o f a n i m a l nature. T h e r e have b e e n gains as w e l l as losses i n the course o f the i n t r i c a t e operations o f w h i c h this recasting is the result. H o w m a n y instincts have w e n o t lost! W e have lost t h e m because m a n is i n relationship n o t o n l y w i t h a physical m i l i e u , b u t also w i t h a social m i l i e u that is i n f i n i t e l y m o r e extensive, stable, a n d p o w e r f u l t h a n those t o w h o s e influence animals are subject. I n o r d e r t o live, t h e n , he must adapt to i t . N o w , t o m a i n t a i n itself, society often needs us t o see things f r o m a c e r t a i n standpoint a n d feel t h e m i n a c e r t a i n way. I t therefore m o d i f i e s the ideas w e w o u l d be i n c l i n e d t o have a b o u t t h e m , a n d the feelings t o w h i c h w e w o u l d be i n c l i n e d i f w e o b e y e d o n l y o u r a n i m a l n a t u r e — e v e n t o the e x t e n t o f r e p l a c i n g t h e m w i t h q u i t e opposite feelings. D o e s society n o t g o so far as t o make us see o u r o w n life as a t h i n g o f l i t t l e value, w h i l e f o r animals life is p r o p e r t y par e x c e l l e n c e ?

36

T h u s t o t r y t o i n f e r the m e n t a l m a k e u p o f the

p r i m i t i v e m a n from that o f the h i g h e r animals is a v a i n quest.

34

Such, for example, is the reasoning of [Edward Alexander] Westermarck (Origine du marriage dans l'espèce humaine [Paris, Guillaumain, 1895], p.6). 33

By sexual communism, I do not mean that state of promiscuity in which man supposedly recognized no matrimonial rules. I believe that such a state has never existed. But it has often happened that a group of men have regularly united with one or several women. 36

See my [Le] Suicide, [Paris, F. Alcan, 1897], pp. 233ff.


63

B u t w h i l e the o b j e c t i o n raised b y Spencer does n o t have the force its a u t h o r t h o u g h t i t d i d , n e i t h e r can the a n i m i s t postulate draw any a u t h o r i t y f r o m the confusions c h i l d r e n seem t o make. W h e n w e hear a c h i l d a n g r i l y abusing an o b j e c t that has h i t h i m , w e c o n c l u d e that he sees the object as a conscious b e i n g l i k e himself; b u t this is a p o o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f his speech a n d gestures. I n reality, he is a stranger t o the v e r y c o m p l e x reasoning that is i m p u t e d t o h i m . H e blames the table that has h u r t h i m n o t because he supposes i t t o b e animate a n d i n t e l l i g e n t , b u t because i t has h u r t h i m . O n c e anger is aroused b y the p a i n , i t seeks s o m e t h i n g o n w h i c h t o discharge itself; the anger n a t u r a l l y goes t o the v e r y same t h i n g that p r o v o k e d i t , even t h o u g h that t h i n g can d o n o t h i n g . T h e b e h a v i o r o f t h e adult i n a similar case is o f t e n j u s t as unreasonable. W h e n w e are intensely angry, w e feel the need t o abuse a n d destroy, b u t w i t h o u t i m p u t i n g any sort o f conscious i l l w i l l t o the objects o n w h i c h w e v e n t o u r anger. T h e r e is so l i t t l e c o n f u s i o n that, w h e n the e m o t i o n o f the c h i l d has c o o l e d , he k n o w s v e r y w e l l h o w to distinguish a chair f r o m a person: H e does n o t treat b o t h i n the same way. H i s t e n d e n c y t o treat his toys as i f t h e y w e r e h u m a n beings is e x p l a i n e d similarly. H i s v e r y intense n e e d t o play creates suitable m a t e r i a l f o r itself, j u s t as, i n the p r e c e d i n g case, t h e s t r o n g feelings that p a i n had unleashed created t h e i r o w n , o u t o f n o t h i n g . T h u s , t o be able t o play c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y w i t h his p u p p e t , he i m a g ines i t as a l i v i n g p e r s o n . T h e i l l u s i o n is the easier f o r h i m , moreover, because i m a g i n a t i o n is his sovereign mistress; he scarcely t h i n k s i n a n y t h i n g b u t i m ages, and w e k n o w t o w h a t e x t e n t images are pliable things that b e n d i n o b e dience t o all that desire c o m m a n d s . B u t so l i t t l e is he the d u p e o f his o w n f i c t i o n that i f i t s u d d e n l y became reality a n d his p u p p e t b i t h i m , he w o u l d be the first a s t o n i s h e d .

37

L e t us therefore p u t aside these d u b i o u s analogies. T o k n o w i f m a n was o r i g i n a l l y i n c l i n e d t o w a r d the confusions that are ascribed t o h i m , i t is n o t the a n i m a l o r the c h i l d o f today that m u s t be considered, b u t the p r i m i t i v e beliefs themselves. I f t h e spirits a n d gods o f nature really are c o n s t r u c t e d i n the image o f the h u m a n s o u l , t h e y m u s t bear the m a r k o f t h e i r o r i g i n and the essential traits o f t h e i r m o d e l . T o be c o n c e i v e d o f as the i n w a r d p r i n c i p l e that animates the b o d y is the t r a i t par excellence o f the soul. I t is the soul that moves t h e b o d y a n d makes i t live, such that life ends o r is suspended w h e n the s o u l leaves. I t is i n t h e b o d y that the s o u l has its natural residence—so l o n g as the b o d y exists, at least. S u c h is n o t the case f o r the spirits i n charge o f the various n a t u r a l p h e n o m e n a . T h e g o d o f the sun is n o t necessarily i n

Spencer, Principles of Sociology, p. 188.

37

64


the sun, o r the spirit o f a c e r t a i n r o c k i n the r o c k that serves as its p r i m a r y residence. A spirit u n d o u b t e d l y has close relations w i t h the b o d y t o w h i c h i t is attached, b u t t o call that s p i r i t its soul is t o use a v e r y inaccurate phrase. " I n Melanesia," says C o d r i n g t o n , " i t does n o t seem that p e o p l e believe i n t h e e x istence o f spirits that animate a n a t u r a l object, such as a tree, a waterfall, a s t o r m o r a r o c k , i n such a w a y as t o be f o r that o b j e c t w h a t the soul is b e l i e v e d t o be f o r the h u m a n b o d y . I t is t r u e that Europeans talk about spirits o f the sea, the s t o r m , o r t h e forest; b u t t h e idea o f the natives that is translated i n this w a y is altogether different. T h e natives t h i n k that the spirit frequents the forest o r the sea a n d has t h e p o w e r t o raise storms and m a k e travelers s i c k e n . "

38

Whereas the soul is basically t h e inside o f the body, the

spirit pursues the greater part o f its existence outside the object that serves as its base. H e r e , t h e n , is a difference t h a t does n o t seem t o s h o w t h a t t h e idea o f spirit came f r o m t h e idea o f soul. F r o m another p o i n t o f v i e w , i f m a n really h a d b e e n d r i v e n t o project his image i n t o things, the first sacred beings w o u l d have b e e n c o n c e i v e d o f i n his image. N o w , far from b e i n g p r i m i t i v e , a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m is the m a r k o f a relatively advanced c i v i l i z a t i o n . A t t h e b e g i n n i n g , sacred beings are c o n ceived o f i n the f o r m o f animals o r plants, f r o m w h i c h h u m a n f o r m

has

s l o w l y emerged. I t w i l l be seen b e l o w that i n Australia, animals a n d plants are i n the highest r a n k o f sacred things. E v e n a m o n g t h e Indians o f N o r t h A m e r ica, the great cosmic deities that are b e g i n n i n g t o be t h e object o f a c u l t are v e r y o f t e n c o n c e i v e d o f i n the f o r m o f a n i m a l s .

39

" A c c o r d i n g t o this t u r n o f

m i n d , " says R e v i l l e , n o t w i t h o u t surprise, " n o d i s t i n c t i o n is m a d e b e t w e e n a n i m a l , m a n , a n d d i v i n e b e i n g , " " a n d , m o s t o f t e n , one would say that the animal form is the fundamental

40

form."

T o f i n d a g o d c o n s t r u c t e d e n t i r e l y o u t o f h u m a n elements, o n e m u s t c o m e almost t o C h r i s t i a n i t y . I n C h r i s t i a n i t y , t h e G o d is a m a n , n o t o n l y i n the physical aspect i n w h i c h he t e m p o r a r i l y manifested h i m s e l f b u t also i n the ideas and feelings he expresses. B u t even t h o u g h t h e gods i n R o m e a n d Greece w e r e generally represented w i t h h u m a n traits, several m y t h i c a l p e r sonages nonetheless c a r r i e d the m a r k o f an a n i m a l o r i g i n . T h e r e is D i o n y s u s , w h o m o n e o f t e n meets i n the f o r m o f a b u l l o r at least w i t h t h e h o r n s o f a b u l l ; there is D e m e t e r , represented w i t h the m a n e o f a horse; there are Pan,

38

Codringcon, The Meianesians, p. 123.

39

[}ames Owen] Dorsey, "A Study of Siouan Cults," in Xlth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology [Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1894], pp. 431ff. 40

Réville, La Religion des peuples non civilisés, vol. I, p. 248.


Silenus, the Fauns, e t c .

41

65

T h u s , i t is far f r o m t r u e that m a n was strongly i n -

c l i n e d t o i m p o s e his f o r m u p o n things. W h a t is m o r e , he began t o i m a g i n e h i m s e l f as a close p a r t i c i p a n t i n a n i m a l nature. I n d e e d , there is a b e l i e f that is nearly universal i n Australia, a n d also v e r y w i d e s p r e a d a m o n g the Indians o f N o r t h A m e r i c a , that the ancestors o f m e n w e r e animals o r plants, o r at least that, w h o l l y o r i n part, t h e first m e n h a d t h e d i s t i n g u i s h i n g characteristics o f c e r t a i n a n i m a l o r p l a n t species. T h u s , m a n d i d n o t see beings like h i m s e l f e v e r y w h e r e — f a r f r o m i t . H e started o u t t h i n k i n g o f h i m s e l f i n the image o f beings f r o m w h i c h he specifically differed.

V F u r t h e r , the a n i m i s t t h e o r y i m p l i e s a consequence that is perhaps its o w n best refutation. I f that t h e o r y was t r u e , o n e w o u l d have t o accept the n o t i o n that r e l i gious beliefs are so m a n y h a l l u c i n a t o r y representations, w i t h o u t any objective basis. T h e assumption is that all those beliefs are d e r i v e d from the idea o f soul, since spirits a n d gods are seen as n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n p u r i f i e d souls. B u t , acc o r d i n g t o T y l o r a n d his followers, the v e r y n o t i o n o f soul itself is made o f the vague a n d variable images that f i l l o u r m i n d s d u r i n g sleep—for the soul is the d o u b l e , a n d the d o u b l e is n o t h i n g b u t the m a n as he appears to h i m s e l f w h e n he is asleep. F r o m this p o i n t o f v i e w , sacred beings w o u l d be mere i m a g i n i n g s that m a n created i n a sort o f d e l i r i u m that seizes h i m regularly each day; and, from

this p o i n t o f v i e w , i t is impossible t o see w h a t useful ends t h e y serve o r

t o w h a t t h e y c o r r e s p o n d i n reality. I f he prays, i f he makes sacrifices and o f ferings, i f he binds h i m s e l f t o the m u l t i p l e p r i v a t i o n s that r i t u a l prescribes t o h i m , that is o n l y because some k i n d o f i n b o r n a b e r r a t i o n has made h i m take dreams f o r perceptions, death f o r a p r o l o n g e d sleep, a n d i n a n i m a t e objects f o r l i v i n g , t h i n k i n g beings. I n this w a y (as m a n y have b e e n l e d to concede), n o t o n l y does the f o r m i n w h i c h religious forces are o r have been c o n c e i v e d o f fail t o express t h e m accurately, a n d n o t o n l y d o t h e symbols w i t h w h o s e help t h e y have b e e n t h o u g h t a b o u t partially mask t h e i r nature, b u t , m o r e even t h a n that, there w o u l d be n o t h i n g b e h i n d these images and f o r m s b u t the nightmares o f u n c u l t i v a t e d m i n d s . I n the end, r e l i g i o n w o u l d be o n l y a dream,

""[Marinus Willem] de Visser, De Graecorum diis non referentibus speciem humanam, Lugduni-Batavorum,

apud G. Los, 1900; Cf. [Paul] Perdrizet, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique [Athens, Ecole française d'Athènes], 1889, p. 635.

66


systematized a n d l i v e d , b u t w i t h o u t f o u n d a t i o n i n the r e a l .

42

A n d this is w h y ,

w h e n the theorists o f a n i m i s m seek the o r i g i n s o f religious t h o u g h t , they d o n o t o v e r l y exert themselves. W h e n they t h i n k they have managed to e x p l a i n w h a t c o u l d have l e d t o i m a g i n e beings o f strange a n d vaporous f o r m , such as those w e see i n dreams, the p r o b l e m appears solved. I n reality, the p r o b l e m has n o t even b e e n t o u c h e d . I t is u n t h i n k a b l e that systems o f ideas l i k e r e l i g i o n s , w h i c h have h e l d such a large place i n h i s t o r y — t h e w e l l t o w h i c h peoples i n all the ages have c o m e t o d r a w the energy they h a d t o have i n order t o l i v e — c o u l d be m e r e fabrics o f i l l u s i o n . Today w e agree t o recognize that law, morals, a n d scientific t h o u g h t itself were b o r n i n r e l i g i o n , were l o n g c o n f o u n d e d w i t h i t , and have r e m a i n e d i m b u e d w i t h its spirit. H o w c o u l d a h o l l o w phantasmagoria have b e e n able t o m o l d h u m a n consciousnesses so p o w e r f u l l y a n d so lastingly? Surely, i t o u g h t t o be a p r i n ciple f o r the science o f r e l i g i o n s that r e l i g i o n expresses n o t h i n g that is n o t i n nature: T h e r e is n o science except science o f n a t u r a l p h e n o m e n a . T o w h i c h r e a l m o f nature these realities b e l o n g , and w h a t has m a d e m e n conceive o f t h e m i n the singular f o r m that is p e c u l i a r t o religious t h o u g h t , is the w h o l e question. B u t t o m a k e t h e p o s i n g o f that q u e s t i o n even possible, w e m u s t first a l l o w that real things are c o n c e i v e d o f i n that way. W h e n the philosophers o f the e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y treated r e l i g i o n as a vast e r r o r i n v e n t e d b y priests, they c o u l d at least e x p l a i n its persistence b y the interest o f the priestly caste i n d u p i n g the masses. B u t i f the p e o p l e themselves created those systems o f mistaken ideas, and at the same t i m e w e r e d u p e d b y t h e m , h o w c o u l d this a m a z i n g d u p e r y have p e r p e t u a t e d itself t h r o u g h t h e w h o l e course o f history? I n d e e d , w h e t h e r the t e r m "science o f r e l i g i o n s " can be used w i t h o u t i m p r o p r i e t y i n those circumstances, is questionable. A science is a discipline that, h o w e v e r c o n c e i v e d , always applies t o a reality that is g i v e n . Physics a n d c h e m i s t r y are sciences because p h y s i c o c h e m i c a l p h e n o m e n a are real, and o f a reality that is i n d e p e n d e n t o f the t r u t h s those sciences demonstrate.

42

There

According to Spencer, however, the belief in spirits has a grain of truth: the idea "that the power that is manifested in consciousness is another form of the power that is manifested outside of consciousness" ([Herbert Spencer], "Ecclesiastical Institutions" [part VI, sec. 659], in Principles of Sociology, vol. Ill, p. 169]). By this, Spencer means that the notion of force in general is the feeling of the force that we have, spread to the entire universe. Animism implicidy concedes this when it populates nature with spirits analogous to our own. But even if this hypothesis was true—and it calls forth serious reservations that I will state (Bk. Ill, chap. 3, §3)—it is not in any way religious; and it calls for no cult. Thus it would still be the case that the system of religious symbols and rites, the classification of things as sacred and profane—all that is properly religious in religion—does not correspond to anything in reality. Moreover, this grain of truth is also, and even more, a grain of error: For if it is true that the forces of nature and those of consciousness are akin, they are also profoundly different, and to treat them as identical is to open oneself to strange errors.


67

is a p s y c h o l o g i c a l science because there really are consciousnesses, w h i c h d o n o t acquire f r o m t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t t h e i r r i g h t t o exist. B u t r e l i g i o n c o u l d n o t possibly survive t h e a n i m i s t t h e o r y i f o n e day i t was r e c o g n i z e d as t r u e b y all m e n : M e n c o u l d n o t fail t o free themselves f r o m errors w h o s e nature a n d o r i g i n w o u l d thus stand revealed. W h a t sort o f science is i t w h o s e p r i n c i p a l discovery is t o m a k e the v e r y o b j e c t i t treats disappear?

CHAPTER. T H R E E

THE LEADING CONCEPTIONS OF THE ELEMENTARY RELIGION (CONTINUATION) II. Naturism

T

he o u t l o o k o f t h e naturist s c h o o l has an e n t i r e l y different i n s p i r a t i o n . I t

is also r e c r u i t e d from different m i l i e u x . T h e animists are ethnographers

o r anthropologists, f o r the m o s t part. T h e r e l i g i o n s t h e y have studied are a m o n g t h e crudest that h u m a n i t y has p r a c t i c e d . H e n c e the p r i m a r y i m p o r tance these theorists give t o the souls o f t h e dead, spirits, a n d d e m o n s , that is, t o s p i r i t u a l beings o f t h e second o r d e r : S p i r i t u a l beings o f a h i g h e r o r d e r 1

are v i r t u a l l y u n k n o w n i n those r e l i g i o n s . B y contrast, t h e theories I w i l l n o w present are the w o r k o f scholars w h o have b e e n m a i n l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h the great civilizations o f E u r o p e and Asia. As s o o n as researchers, f o l l o w i n g the brothers G r i m m , saw the f r u i t f u l ness o f c o m p a r i n g the different m y t h o l o g i e s o f the I n d o - E u r o p e a n peoples, t h e y w e r e s t r u c k b y t h e remarkable similarities these m y t h o l o g i e s displayed. M y t h i c a l personages w e r e i d e n t i f i e d that, a l t h o u g h h a v i n g different names, s y m b o l i z e d t h e same ideas a n d h a d t h e same f u n c t i o n s . T h e names t h e m selves w e r e c o m p a r e d , a n d researchers b e l i e v e d i t c o u l d sometimes be s h o w n t h a t they w e r e n o t u n r e l a t e d . I t appeared t h a t such similarities c o u l d b e e x p l a i n e d o n l y b y c o m m o n o r i g i n . So researchers w e r e l e d t o suppose that, d i f ferent as these ideas w e r e i n appearance, t h e y w e r e i n reality different f o r m s

'This no doubt explains as well the sympathy that folklorists like [Wilhelm] Mannhardt [1831-1880] have felt for animist ideas. In popular religions, as in the lower religions, spiritual beings of the second order have prominence. [Friedrich L. W. Schwartz] Der Ursprung der Mythologie, Berlin [W. Herzt], 1860. 68

69

The Leading Conceptions of the Elementary Religion (Continuation)

o r i g i n a t i n g f r o m a c o m m o n source that m i g h t b e discoverable. T h e y p o s t u lated that, b y u s i n g t h e c o m p a r a t i v e m e t h o d , i t s h o u l d b e possible t o g o back, b e y o n d t h e great r e l i g i o n s , t o a far m o r e a n c i e n t system o f ideas, a t r u l y p r i m i t i v e r e l i g i o n f r o m w h i c h t h e others d e r i v e d . W h a t c o n t r i b u t e d m o s t t o arousing these a m b i t i o n s was the discovery o f the Vedas, a w r i t t e n t e x t w h o s e a n t i q u i t y m a y w e l l have b e e n exaggerated at the m o m e n t i t was discovered, b u t that nevertheless is o n e o f t h e m o s t a n c i e n t w e have i n a n I n d o - E u r o p e a n language. T h u s , b y using t h e o r d i n a r y m e t h o d s o f p h i l o l o g y , t h e y w e r e i n a p o s i t i o n t o study a literature as o l d as o r o l d e r t h a n that o f H o m e r a n d a r e l i g i o n t h o u g h t t o b e m o r e p r i m i t i v e t h a n that o f t h e ancient G e r m a n s . Clearly, a d o c u m e n t o f such value was b o u n d t o shed n e w l i g h t o n t h e r e l i g i o u s b e g i n n i n g s o f h u m a n i t y , a n d t h e science o f r e l i g i o n s c o u l d n o t fail t o b e r e v o l u t i o n i z e d b y i t . So m u c h was t h e c o n c e p t i o n thus b o r n called f o r b y t h e state o f science a n d b y t h e general c u r r e n t o f ideas t h a t i t e m e r g e d at almost t h e same t i m e i n t w o different c o u n t r i e s . I n 1856, M a x M u l l e r set f o r t h t h e p r i n c i p l e s i n his 2

Oxford Essays.

C l e a r l y i n t h e same s p i r i t , A d a l b e r t K u h n ' s b o o k , Origine du 3

feu et de la boisson divine, appeared three years later. O n c e advanced, t h e idea spread v e r y r a p i d l y i n scientific circles. K u h n ' s n a m e is closely associated w i t h that o f his b r o t h e r - i n - l a w [ F r i e d r i c h ] S c h w a r t z , w h o s e b o o k L'Origine de la 4

mythologie appeared s h o r d y after K u h n ' s . [ H y m a n n ] S t e i n t h a l a n d t h e w h o l e G e r m a n s c h o o l o f Voelkerpsychologie* b e l o n g t o t h e same m o v e m e n t . T h e 5

t h e o r y was i m p o r t e d i n t o France i n 1863 b y M . M i c h e l B r e a l . I t m e t so l i t de resistance that, a c c o r d i n g t o [ O t t o ] G r u p p e ,

6

" t h e r e came a t i m e w h e n ,

apart f r o m a f e w classical p h i l o l o g i s t s w o r k i n g outside Vedic studies, a l l t h e

*Folk Psychology, the title of a ten-volume work by Wilhelm Wundt (1832—1920). The founder of experimental psychology, Wundt envisaged a comparative social psychology to supplement individual experimental psychology with research into the data of anthropology, history, and linguistics. 2

In an essay tided Comparative Mythology [New York, Arno Press, 1977], pp. 47ff. [The French translation was titled, Essai de mythologie comparée, Paris-London, 1859]. 3

[Adalbert, Kuhn], Herabkunft des Feuers und Göttertranks, Berlin [F. Dummler], 1859 (a new edition of it was done by Ernst Kuhn in 1886). Cf. Der Schuss des Wilden Jägers auf den Sonnenhirsch, ZDP, vol. I (1869), pp. 89-169; Entwicklungsstufen des Mythus, Berlin Academy, 1873. 4

[Schwartz], Der Ursprung der Mythologie, Fl.

5

In his book Hercule et Cocus, Etude de mythologie comparée [Paris, A. Durand, 1863, p. 12]. L'Essaie de

mythologie comparée by Max Muller is cited there as a work "that marks a new era in the history of Mythology- (p. 12). 6

[Otto Gruppe], Die griechischen Kulte und Mythen [Ihren Beziehungen zu der orientalischen Religionen,

Leipzig, B. G. Teubner, 1887].

70


m y t h o l o g i s t s t o o k the p r i n c i p l e s o f M a x M u l l e r o r o f K u h n as the starting 7

p o i n t o f t h e i r explanations." I t is i m p o r t a n t , therefore, t o e x a m i n e w h a t t h e y are a n d w h a t t h e y are w o r t h . Since n o o n e has presented those p r i n c i p l e s m o r e systematically t h a n M a x M u l l e r , I take f r o m h i m the elements o f t h e e x p o s i t i o n t o f o l l o w .

8

I W e have seen that the u n d e r l y i n g a s s u m p t i o n o f a n i m i s m is that r e l i g i o n , at least at its o r i g i n , does n o t express any e x p e r i e n t i a l reality. M a x M u l l e r sets o u t f r o m the opposite p r i n c i p l e . F o r h i m , i t is a x i o m a t i c that r e l i g i o n rests o n an e x p e r i e n c e f r o m w h i c h i t draws its entire a u t h o r i t y . " T o h o l d its p r o p e r place as a l e g i t i m a t e e l e m e n t o f o u r consciousnesses," he says, " r e l i g i o n m u s t 9

b e g i n , as does all o u r k n o w l e d g e , w i t h sense e x p e r i e n c e . " T a k i n g u p the o l d e m p i r i c i s t adage Nihil est in intellectu quod non antefuerit in sensu, * h e applies i t t o r e l i g i o n a n d asserts that there can be n o t h i n g i n t h e f a i t h that was n o t first i n the senses. H e r e is a d o c t r i n e that s e e m i n g l y o u g h t t o escape the ser i o u s o b j e c t i o n I raised t o a n i m i s m . I n d e e d , i t seems that r e l i g i o n must o f n e cessity appear, from this p o i n t o f v i e w , n o t as a k i n d o f vague and confused d r e a m i n g b u t as a system o f ideas a n d practices w e l l g r o u n d e d i n reality. B u t w h a t are the sense experiences that give rise t o religious t h o u g h t ? T h i s is the q u e s t i o n the study o f the Vedas s h o u l d have h e l p e d t o resolve. T h e names o f its gods are generally e i t h e r c o m m o n n o u n s still used as such o r archaic c o m m o n n o u n s w h o s e o r i g i n a l m e a n i n g can be recovered. B o t h designate the p r i n c i p a l p h e n o m e n a o f nature. T h u s at first Agni,

the

""Nothing is in the mind that was not first in the senses. 7

[Ernest] Renan must be counted among the writers who adopted that conception. See his Nouvelles études d'histoire religieuse [Paris, Caiman Lévy], 1884, p. 31. 8

Apart from his Comparative Mythology, the works of Max Muller in which his general theories of re-

ligion are presented are the following: The Hibbert Lectures [Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as

Illustrated by the Religions of India, London, Longmans, Green & Co.] (1878), translated into French under the title Origine et développement de la religion [étudiés à la lumière des religions de l'Inde, Paris, C. Reinwald,

1879] ; Natural Religion [London, Longmans, 1889]; Physical Religion [London, Longmans, 1891]; Anthropological Religion [London, Longmans, \S92];Theosophy or Psychological Religion [London, Longmans,

1895]; Contributions to the Science of Mythology [London, Longmans, 1897]. Because of the relationships between the mythological theories of Max Muller and his linguistic philosophy, the foregoing works must be compared with those of his books that are devoted to language or to logic, in particular, Lectures on the Science of Language [London, Longmans, 1873], translated into French as Nouvelles leçons sur la science du langage], and The Science of Thought [London, Longmans, 1878]. 9

Mùller, Natural Religion, p. 114.

71


name o f o n e o f India's p r i n c i p a l deities, m e a n t o n l y the natural p h e n o m e n o n o f fire as the senses perceive i t , w i t h o u t any m y t h o l o g i c a l a d d i t i o n . I n the Vedas themselves, i t is still used i n that m e a n i n g ; i n any case, the fact o f its preservation i n o t h e r I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages clearly shows that this m e a n i n g was p r i m i t i v e : T h e L a t i n ignis, t h e L i t h u a n i a n ugnis, and the ancient Slav ogny are close relatives o f Agni. Similarly, the k i n s h i p o f the Sanskrit Dyaus, the G r e e k Zeus, the L a t i n Jovis, a n d the H i g h G e r m a n Zio is u n d i s p u t e d t o day. T h a t k i n s h i p proves that these different w o r d s d e n o t e o n e and the same deity, r e c o g n i z e d as such b y different I n d o - E u r o p e a n peoples before t h e i r separation. N o w , Dyaus means " t h e b r i g h t sky." These facts and others like t h e m t e n d t o demonstrate that, a m o n g these peoples, t h e bodies a n d forces o f nature w e r e the first objects t o w h i c h r e l i g i o u s feeling became attached. T h e y w e r e the first things t o be deified. T a k i n g a f u r t h e r step a l o n g the r o a d t o g e n eralization, M a x M u l l e r b e l i e v e d he h a d v a l i d g r o u n d s f o r c o n c l u d i n g that the religious e v o l u t i o n o f h u m a n i t y i n general h a d t h e same starting p o i n t . H e justifies that inference almost exclusively w i t h p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s i d erations. T o h i m , t h e v a r i e d spectacles that nature offers t o m a n seem t o m e e t all the necessary c o n d i t i o n s f o r arousing t h e r e l i g i o u s idea i n the m i n d d i rectly. I n fact, he says, "at the first glance m e n cast u p o n the w o r l d , n o t h i n g appeared less n a t u r a l t o t h e m t h a n nature. N a t u r e was f o r t h e m t h e great surprise a n d the great fear; i t was a p e r m a n e n t m a r v e l a n d a p e r m a n e n t miracle. I t was o n l y later, w h e n m e n discovered t h e i r constancy, t h e i r invariance, and t h e i r regular recurrence, that c e r t a i n aspects o f that m i r a c l e w e r e called n a t u r a l , i n the sense that t h e y w e r e foreseen, o r d i n a r y , a n d i n t e l l i g i b l e . . . . I t is this vast d o m a i n o p e n t o feelings o f surprise a n d fear, this m a r v e l , this m i r a cle, this i m m e n s e u n k n o w n o p p o s e d t o w h a t is k n o w n . . . that p r o v i d e d the first i m p u l s e t o r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t a n d r e l i g i o u s l a n g u a g e . "

10

A n d , t o illustrate

his t h o u g h t , he applies i t t o a n a t u r a l force that has a large place i n Vedic r e l i g i o n : fire. " T r y , " he says, " t o transport y o u r s e l f b a c k w a r d i n t h o u g h t t o that stage i n p r i m i t i v e life w h e r e , o f necessity, o n e m u s t place the o r i g i n a n d even the first phases o f the r e l i g i o n o f nature; y o u w i l l find i t easy t o i m a g i n e w h a t i m p r e s s i o n the first appearance o f fire m u s t have made o n the h u m a n m i n d . N o matter h o w i t first appeared—whether i t came from lightning, whether it was obtained by rubbing tree branches against one another, or whether i t sprang forth as sparks from rocks—it was something that moved, that progressed, from w h i c h one had to protect oneself, that carried destruction w i t h i t ; but at the same time, i t was something that made life possible i n

'"Müller, Physical Religion, pp. 119-120.

72


winter, gave protection at night, and served as b o t h an offensive and a defensive weapon. Thanks to fire, man ceased to be a devourer o f raw meat and became an eater o f cooked foods. Later, i t was also by means o f fire that metals were worked, and tools and weapons made; i t thus became an indispensable factor i n all technical and artistic progress. Where w o u l d we be, even now, w i t h o u t fire?" 11

M a n c a n n o t enter i n t o relations w i t h nature w i t h o u t g a i n i n g a sense o f its i n f i n i t y and its i m m e n s i t y , as the same a u t h o r says i n a n o t h e r w o r k . I t surpasses h i m i n every d i r e c t i o n . B e y o n d t h e spaces he sees, there are others that stretch o u t limitlessly; each m o m e n t o f d u r a t i o n is preceded a n d f o l l o w e d b y a t i m e t o w h i c h n o l i m i t can be set; the force, since n o t h i n g exhausts i t .

1 2

flowing

r i v e r manifests an i n f i n i t e

T h e r e is n o aspect o f nature that is n o t

e q u i p p e d t o awaken i n us the o v e r w h e l m i n g sensation o f an i n f i n i t e that e n velops a n d dominates u s . are d e r i v e d .

13

F o r M i i l l e r , i t is from this sensation that r e l i g i o n s

1 4

H o w e v e r , o n l y t h e i r seed was present i n the sensation.

15

R e l i g i o n is t r u l y

f o r m e d o n l y w h e n these n a t u r a l forces are n o l o n g e r c o n c e i v e d o f abstractly. T h e y must be t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o personal agents, l i v i n g a n d t h i n k i n g beings, s p i r i t u a l powers, gods; f o r the c u l t is usually addressed t o beings o f this sort. W e have seen that a n i m i s m , t o o , m u s t pose this q u e s t i o n , a n d h o w i t answers: M a n supposedly h a d some c e r t a i n i n b o r n i n a b i l i t y t o d i s t i n g u i s h the animate from

the i n a n i m a t e , t o g e t h e r w i t h an irresistible urge t o conceive o f the

i n a n i m a t e i n animate f o r m . T h i s s o l u t i o n , M a x M i i l l e r rejects.

16

According

t o h i m , i t is language that b r o u g h t a b o u t t h e m e t a m o r p h o s i s , t h r o u g h its i n fluence

over t h o u g h t .

T h a t m e t a m o r p h o s i s is easily u n d e r s t o o d i n the f o l l o w i n g w a y : P u z z l e d b y these marvelous forces o n w h i c h t h e y felt d e p e n d e n t , m e n w e r e roused t o t h i n k a b o u t t h e m ; t h e y asked themselves w h a t those forces consisted o f and t r i e d t o replace the vague awareness t h e y o r i g i n a l l y h a d o f t h e m w i t h a clearer idea, a b e t t e r - d e f i n e d c o n c e p t . B u t as o u r a u t h o r q u i t e r i g h t l y says,

17

"Ibid., p. 121; cf. p. 304. 12

Muller, Natural Religion, pp. 121ff., 149-155.

,3

"The overwhelming pressure of the infinite" (ibid., p. 138).

"Ibid., pp. 195-196. 15

Max Miiller goes so far as to say that, when thought has not gone beyond that phase, it has only a very few of the features that we now impute to religion (Physical Religion, p. 120). 16

Ibid., p. 128.

"See Miiller, The Science of Thought, p. 30.


73

ideas a n d concepts are impossible w i t h o u t w o r d s . Language is n o t o n l y the o u t w a r d c l o t h i n g o f o u r t h o u g h t ; i t is t h o u g h t ' s i n t e r n a l skeleton. Language does n o t m e r e l y stand outside t h o u g h t , translating s o m e t h i n g that is already f o r m e d , b u t i n actuality serves t o f o r m t h o u g h t . H o w e v e r , since language has its o w n nature, its laws are n o t the same as those o f t h o u g h t . T h u s since l a n guage helps t o fashion t h o u g h t , i t is b o u n d t o d o a c e r t a i n measure o f v i o lence t o t h o u g h t a n d t o d i s t o r t i t . D i s t o r t i o n o f this k i n d supposedly gave rise t o t h e p e c u l i a r i t y o f o u r r e l i g i o u s representations. T o t h i n k is actually t o o r d e r a n d thus t o classify o u r ideas. T o t h i n k o f fire, f o r example, is t o place i t i n t o such a n d such category o f things, so as t o be able t o say i t is this o r that, this a n d n o t that. A t the same t i m e , t o classify is t o name, f o r a general idea has n o existence a n d n o reality except i n a n d t h r o u g h the w o r d that expresses i t , a n d t h a t alone makes i t w h a t i t is. So the language o f a p e o p l e always influences t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h the n e w things that p e o p l e c o m e t o k n o w are classified i n t h e i r m i n d s — t h o s e things m u s t f i t i n t o p r e e x i s t i n g f r a m e w o r k s . F o r this reason, w h e n m e n set o u t t o m a k e a c o m p r e h e n s i v e representation o f the universe, t h e language they spoke i n d e l i b l y m a r k e d the system o f ideas that was t h e n b o r n . W e still k n o w some p a r t o f that language—at least t h e I n d o - E u r o p e a n peoples do. D e s p i t e its remoteness, o u r languages still c o n t a i n relics that e n able us t o i m a g i n e w h a t i t m u s t have been. These relics are the roots. M a x M u l l e r considers these r o o t w o r d s — t h e s e w o r d s from w h i c h the o t h e r w o r d s w e use are d e r i v e d a n d w h i c h are f o u n d as t h e basis o f all t h e I n d o - E u r o p e a n i d i o m s — a s so m a n y echoes o f the language s p o k e n b y t h e ancient p e o p l e b e fore t h e i r separation: that is, as t h e m o m e n t w h e n that r e l i g i o n o f nature, the object o f e x p l a n a t i o n , was b e i n g f o r m e d . N o w , the roots display t w o r e m a r k a b l e characteristics that, a l t h o u g h as yet w e l l d o c u m e n t e d f o r this particular g r o u p o f languages only, o u r a u t h o r believes t o be equally verifiable i n the o t h e r l i n g u i s t i c f a m i l i e s .

18

First, t h e roots are t y p i f i e d . T h a t is, t h e y express n o t p a r t i c u l a r things o r i n d i v i d u a l s b u t t y p e s — a n d i n d e e d types h a v i n g v e r y w i d e a p p l i c a t i o n . T h e y represent t h e m o s t general themes o f t h o u g h t . T h e f u n d a m e n t a l categories o f t h e m i n d that g o v e r n t h e w h o l e o f m e n t a l life at each h i s t o r i c a l m o m e n t — a n d w h o s e o r d e r p h i l o s o p h e r s have o f t e n t r i e d t o reconstruct—are f o u n d i n t h e m fixed a n d crystallized, as i t w e r e .

1 9

!8

Muller, Natural Religion, pp. 393ff.

"Muller, Physical Religion, p. 133; The Science ofThought, p. 219, Nouvelles leçons sut la science du langage,

vol. II, pp. Iff.


74

Second, the types t o w h i c h t h e y c o r r e s p o n d are types o f a c t i o n , n o t types o f objects. W h a t they express are t h e m o s t general ways o f a c t i n g that can be observed a m o n g l i v i n g things, p a r t i c u l a r l y a m o n g humans: t h e acts o f s t r i k i n g , p u s h i n g , r u b b i n g , t y i n g , l i f t i n g , pressing, c l i m b i n g , descending, w a l k i n g , a n d so o n . I n o t h e r w o r d s , m a n generalized a n d n a m e d his p r i n c i p a l modes o f a c t i o n before g e n e r a l i z i n g a n d n a m i n g the p h e n o m e n a o f n a t u r e .

20

B y v i r t u e o f t h e i r e x t r e m e generality, these w o r d s c o u l d easily be a p p l i e d t o all sorts o f objects that t h e y d i d n o t o r i g i n a l l y i n c l u d e . M o r e o v e r , this e x t r e m e suppleness enabled t h e m t o give b i r t h t o the m a n y w o r d s that are d e r i v e d from t h e m . So w h e n m a n , t u r n i n g t o things, set o u t t o name t h e m i n order t o be able t o t h i n k a b o u t t h e m , he a p p l i e d those w o r d s t o things even t h o u g h they had n o t been meant for things. B y v i r t u e o f their o r i g i n , they c o u l d designate the various forces o f nature o n l y b y those manifestations that m o s t resembled h u m a n actions: T h e t h u n d e r b o l t was called that thing that digs u p t h e g r o u n d w h e n i t descends o r spreads fire, t h e w i n d that thing that moans o r b l o w s , the sun that thing that hurls g o l d e n arrows t h o u g h space, the r i v e r that thing that runs, a n d so o n . B u t because n a t u r a l p h e n o m e n a b e came assimilated t o h u m a n actions i n this way, this s o m e t h i n g t o w h i c h t h e y w e r e j o i n e d was o f necessity i m a g i n e d i n t h e f o r m o f personal agents m o r e o r less l i k e m a n . T h i s was o n l y a m e t a p h o r , b u t o n e that was taken literally. T h e e r r o r was i n e v i t a b l e because the science that alone c o u l d have swept away t h e i l l u s i o n d i d n o t yet exist. I n s u m , because i t was m a d e u p o f h u m a n elements that translated h u m a n states, language c o u l d n o t be a p p l i e d t o n a ture w i t h o u t transfiguring i t .

2 1

E v e n today, remarks M . B r e a l , i t s o m e h o w

slants the m a n n e r i n w h i c h w e i m a g i n e t h i n g s . " W e d o n o t express an idea, even w h e n i t m e r e l y denotes a quality, w i t h o u t g i v i n g i t a gender, that is t o say, a sex. W e c a n n o t speak o f an object, even i f i t is considered i n a general way, w i t h o u t specifying i t w i t h an article. E v e r y subject o f a sentence is p r e sented as an a c t i n g b e i n g , every idea as an a c t i o n , a n d the d u r a t i o n o f each a c t i o n , passing o r p e r m a n e n t , as d e l i m i t e d b y t h e tense i n w h i c h w e p u t the verb."

22

O f course, o u r scientific c u l t u r e makes i t easy f o r us t o c o r r e c t the

errors that language m i g h t t h e r e b y suggest t o us, b u t the i n f l u e n c e o f w o r d s m u s t have b e e n all p o w e r f u l w h e n t h e y h a d n o c o u n t e r w e i g h t . T h u s , u p o n the physical w o r l d , as i t is revealed t o o u r senses, language s u p e r i m p o s e d a

20

Muller, The Science of Thought, p. 272.

21

Ibid., vol. I, p. 327; Physical Religion, pp. 125ff.

2 2

[Michel Jules Alfred Bréal], Mélanges de mythologie et de linguistique [Paris, Hachette, 1877], p. 8.

75


n e w w o r l d , a w o r l d c o m p r i s i n g o n l y s p i r i t u a l beings that i t h a d created o u t o f n o t h i n g a n d that w e r e f r o m t h e n o n regarded as t h e d e t e r m i n i n g causes o f physical p h e n o m e n a . M o r e o v e r , the w o r k i n g s o f language d i d n o t stop there. O n c e w o r d s h a d b e e n f o r g e d t o designate these personalities, w h i c h p o p u l a r i m a g i n a t i o n had p u t b e h i n d things, the personalities reacted u p o n the words

themselves,

thereby creating the riddles o f all k i n d s that the m y t h s w e r e i n v e n t e d t o solve. Sometimes a single object received several names c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o the several aspects i n w h i c h i t presented itself t o experience. So i t came about that there are m o r e t h a n t w e n t y w o r d s i n the Vedas t o denote the sky. B e i n g different, the w o r d s w e r e believed t o c o r r e s p o n d t o as m a n y distinct personalities. B u t at the same t i m e , these personalities w e r e strongly felt t o have an air o f kinship. T o account f o r that kinship, they were i m a g i n e d as f o r m i n g one family; g e nealogies, a m a r i t a l status, a n d a h i s t o r y w e r e i n v e n t e d f o r t h e m . I n o t h e r cases, different things were designated b y a single t e r m . T o e x p l a i n h o w different things came t o have the same name, i t was a l l o w e d that the c o r r e s p o n d i n g things w e r e really transformations o f o n e another; a n d n e w

fictions

were

f o r g e d t o m a k e these metamorphoses i n t e l l i g i b l e . O r again, a w o r d that h a d ceased t o be u n d e r s t o o d was the o r i g i n o f fables i n t e n d e d t o give i t a m e a n i n g . T h u s the creative w o r k o f language c o n t i n u e d , i n ever m o r e c o m p l e x constructions. A n d as m y t h o l o g y came t o e n d o w each g o d w i t h an ever m o r e extensive a n d c o m p l e t e biography, the d i v i n e personalities, at first u n d i s t i n guished from things, n o w separated f r o m things and s t o o d o n t h e i r o w n . T h u s , supposedly, t h e n o t i o n o f t h e d i v i n e was f o r m e d . T h e r e l i g i o n o f the ancestors? O n l y an echo o f the earlier r e l i g i o n .

2 3

A c c o r d i n g t o this t h e -

ory, the idea o f the s o u l was f o r m e d f o r reasons rather similar t o those T y l o r gave, except that, f o r M a x M i i l l e r , the p u r p o s e o f that idea was t o a c c o u n t f o r death, n o t f o r d r e a m s . cidental) c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,

25

24

T h e n , u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f various ( i n part, act h e souls o f m e n , o n c e separated from t h e body,

w e r e d r a w n l i t d e b y l i t t l e i n t o t h e circle o f d i v i n e beings, a n d thus w e r e u l timately

d e i f i e d as w e l l . B u t this n e w c u l t was m e r e l y t h e p r o d u c t o f a sec-

ondary formation.

23

Further proof: Deified

men

have

very often

been

Müller, Anthropological Religion, pp. 128—130.

24

This explanation, however, is no better than [Edward Burnett] Tylor's. According to Max Müller, man was unable to accept that life ended with death. For that reason, he concluded that there are two beings in him, one of which survives the body. It is hard to see what could have made people believe that life continues, when the body is in full decomposition. 25

See for details, Müller, Anthropological Religion, pp. 35Iff.

76


i m p e r f e c t gods, o r d e m i g o d s , w h i c h all peoples have always k n o w n h o w t o distinguish f r o m deities p r o p e r .

26

II T h i s d o c t r i n e rests i n p a r t o n v a r i o u s l i n g u i s t i c postulates that w e r e t h e n a n d still are v e r y m u c h i n dispute. Scholars have q u e s t i o n e d t h e reality o f m a n y concordances that M a x M i i l l e r t h o u g h t h e saw a m o n g t h e names o f gods i n the various E u r o p e a n languages. T h e y have especially cast d o u b t o n his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e m : T h e y have q u e s t i o n e d w h e t h e r , far f r o m b e i n g t h e m a r k o f a v e r y p r i m i t i v e r e l i g i o n , t h e concordances m i g h t n o t be t h e late r e sult o f e i t h e r d i r e c t b o r r o w i n g s o r n a t u r a l interchange a m o n g

peoples.

27

M o r e o v e r , i t is n o l o n g e r accepted t o d a y that roots c o u l d have existed i n i s o l a t i o n as a u t o n o m o u s realities—or, consequently, that t h e y enable us even h y p o t h e t i c a l l y t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h e p r i m i t i v e language o f t h e I n d o - E u r o p e a n peoples.

28

Finally, recent studies w o u l d t e n d t o p r o v e that n o t all t h e V e d i c

deities h a d t h e exclusively naturist q u a l i t y that M a x M i i l l e r a n d his s c h o o l attributed to t h e m .

2 9

B u t I w i l l leave aside questions w h o s e e x a m i n a t i o n p r e -

supposes the linguist's v e r y specialized c o m p e t e n c e , i n o r d e r t o take u p t h e general p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e system. Besides, t h e n a t u r i s t idea s h o u l d n o t be t o o closely m i n g l e d w i t h t h e d i s p u t e d postulates, f o r that idea is accepted b y a n u m b e r o f scholars w h o d o n o t ascribe t o language t h e d o m i n a n t role M a x Miiller did. T h a t m a n has an interest i n k n o w i n g t h e w o r l d a r o u n d h i m a n d that, consequendy, his r e f l e c t i o n was q u i c k l y a p p l i e d t o i t , everyone w i l l readily accept. T h e h e l p o f the things w i t h w h i c h h e was i n i m m e d i a t e c o n t a c t was so necessary t h a t h e i n e v i t a b l y t r i e d t o investigate t h e i r nature. B u t i f , as n a -

26

Ibid., p. 130. This does not stop Max Miiller from seeing Christianity as the high point of this entire development. The religion of the ancestors, he says, assumes there is something divine in man. Is that not the idea that is at the basis of the teaching of Christ (ibid., pp. 3788)? There is no need to emphasize what is odd about a conception that makes Christianity the culmination of the cult of the dead. 27

On this same point, see the critique to which Gruppe subjects the hypotheses of Max Miiller in

Crieschischen Kulte und Mythen, pp. 79—184. ^See [Antoine] Meillet, Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indo-européennes [Paris, Hachette,

1903], p. 119. 29

[Herman] Oldenberg, Die Religion des Veda [Berlin, W. Hertz, 1844], pp. 59ff.; [Antoine] Meillet, "Le Dieu Iranien Mithra,"J/4, vol. X, no. 1 (July-August 1907), pp. 143ff.


77

t u r i s m contends, r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t was b o r n from these p a r t i c u l a r reflections, t h e n i t becomes i n e x p l i c a b l e that r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t s h o u l d have surv i v e d t h e first tests made, a n d u n i n t e l l i g i b l e that religious t h o u g h t has b e e n m a i n t a i n e d . I f , i n fact, w e have a n e e d t o k n o w things, i t is i n o r d e r t o act i n a m a n n e r appropriate t o t h e m . B u t the representation o f the universe that r e l i g i o n gives us, especially at the b e g i n n i n g , is t o o grossly i n c o m p l e t e t o have b e e n able t o b r i n g a b o u t practices that h a d secular u t i l i t y . A c c o r d i n g t o that representation o f the universe, things are n o t h i n g less t h a n l i v i n g , t h i n k i n g beings—consciousnesses a n d personalities l i k e those the religious i m a g i n a t i o n has m a d e i n t o the agents o f cosmic p h e n o m e n a . So i t is n o t b y c o n c e i v i n g o f t h e m i n that f o r m a n d t r e a t i n g t h e m a c c o r d i n g t o that n o t i o n that m a n c o u l d have m a d e t h e m h e l p f u l t o h i m . I t is n o t b y p r a y i n g t o t h e m , celebrati n g t h e m i n feasts a n d sacrifices, a n d i m p o s i n g fasts a n d p r i v a t i o n s o n h i m s e l f that he c o u l d have p r e v e n t e d t h e m from h a r m i n g h i m o r o b l i g e d t h e m t o serve his purposes. S u c h procedures c o u l d have succeeded o n l y o n v e r y rare occasions—miraculously, so t o speak. I f the p o i n t o f r e l i g i o n was t o give us a representation o f the w o r l d that w o u l d g u i d e us i n o u r dealings w i t h i t , t h e n r e l i g i o n was i n n o p o s i t i o n t o c a r r y o u t its f u n c t i o n , a n d h u m a n i t y w o u l d n o t have b e e n s l o w t o n o t i c e that fact: Failures, i n f i n i t e l y m o r e c o m m o n t h a n successes, w o u l d have n o t i f i e d t h e m v e r y q u i c k l y that they w e r e o n the w r o n g p a t h ; a n d r e l i g i o n , constantly shaken b y these constant d i s a p p o i n t ments, w o u l d have b e e n unable t o last. N o d o u b t , sometimes an e r r o r does i n d e e d perpetuate itself i n history. B u t b a r r i n g an altogether unusual c o n j u n c t i o n o f circumstances, i t c a n n o t m a i n t a i n itself this w a y unless i t proves t o be practically true—that

is t o say, i f ,

w h i l e n o t g i v i n g us a c o r r e c t t h e o r e t i c a l idea o f the things t o w h i c h i t is r e lated, i t expresses c o r r e c t l y e n o u g h the m a n n e r i n w h i c h those things affect us, f o r better o r f o r worse. U n d e r those c o n d i t i o n s , b e h a v i o r d e c i d e d u p o n f o r the w r o n g reasons has every chance o f b e i n g the r i g h t behavior, at least overall; a n d so w h y t h e e r r o r c o u l d have s u r v i v e d the test o f experience b e comes u n d e r s t a n d a b l e .

30

O n the o t h e r h a n d , an error, and especially an o r -

ganized system o f errors that leads a n d can o n l y lead t o practical setbacks, is n o t viable. W h a t is there i n c o m m o n b e t w e e n t h e rites b y w h i c h the faithful have t r i e d t o act o n nature a n d the procedures that t h e sciences have t a u g h t us t o use a n d that w e n o w k n o w t o be the o n l y effective ones? I f that is w h a t m e n asked o f r e l i g i o n , w e c a n n o t u n d e r s t a n d w h y r e l i g i o n s h o u l d have b e e n able t o survive, unless clever t r i c k s p r e v e n t e d t h e m from n o t i c i n g that i t d i d

30

This is applicable to numerous maxims of popular wisdom.

78


n o t give t h e m w h a t t h e y e x p e c t e d o f i t . I t w o u l d therefore b e j u s t as w e l l t o go back once m o r e t o t h e simplistic explanations o f the e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y .

31

O n l y i n appearance, therefore, does n a t u r i s m escape the o b j e c t i o n I made against a n i m i s m a short w h i l e ago. Since n a t u r i s m reduces r e l i g i o n t o n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n an i m m e n s e m e t a p h o r w i t h o u t objective f o u n d a t i o n , * i t t o o makes r e l i g i o n o u t t o be a system o f h a l l u c i n a t o r y images. I t does, o f course, assign r e l i g i o n a p o i n t o f departure i n r e a l i t y — n a m e l y , the sensations that the p h e n o m e n a o f nature i n d u c e i n us; b u t b y t h e m a g i c a l w o r k i n g s o f language, this sensation is t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o bizarre ideas. R e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t comes i n t o contact w i t h reality o n l y t o s h r o u d i t straightaway w i t h a t h i c k veil that hides its t r u e f o r m s , this v e i l b e i n g the fabric o f fabulous beliefs s p u n by m y t h o l o g y . T h u s , h k e the d e l i r i o u s i n d i v i d u a l , the believer lives i n a w o r l d p o p u l a t e d w i t h beings a n d things that have o n l y a verbal existence. W h a t is m o r e , M a x M i l l i e r h i m s e l f recognizes this, since f o r h i m m y t h s arise f r o m a malady o f t h o u g h t . A t first, he ascribed t h e m t o a m a l a d y o f language, b u t since language a n d t h o u g h t are inseparable t o h i m , w h a t is t r u e o f one is t r u e o f the other. " W h e n I t r i e d b r i e f l y t o characterize

the i n n e r nature o f

m y t h o l o g y , " he says, " I called i t a malady o f language m o r e t h a n a o n e o f t h o u g h t . B u t after all I h a d said i n m y b o o k The Science of Thought about the inseparability o f t h o u g h t a n d language, a n d therefore a b o u t the absolute i d e n tity b e t w e e n a malady o f language a n d o n e o f t h o u g h t , n o f u r t h e r e q u i v o c a tion

seemed possible. . . . D e p i c t i n g the h i g h G o d as g u i l t y o f every c r i m e ,

t r i c k e d b y m e n , o u t o f sorts w i t h his w i f e , a n d b e a t i n g his c h i l d r e n , is surely s y m p t o m a t i c o f an a b n o r m a l c o n d i t i o n o r a malady o f t h o u g h t , o r better, o f madness o u t r i g h t . "

3 2

T h i s a r g u m e n t is v a l i d n o t o n l y against M a x M i l l i e r a n d

* Valeur objective. Compare the similar passage on p. 80. 31

It is true that this argument does not change the minds of those who see religion as a technique (especially a hygienic technique), the rules of which were well founded, even if sanctioned by imaginary beings. But I will not tarry here to criticize an idea that is so untenable and that, in fact, has never been argued systematically by minds that were even minimally well informed in the history of religions. It is difficult to show in what way the terrible practices of initiation sustain the health that they place in jeopardy; in what way the dietary prohibitions, which very commonly apply to perfecdy wholesome animals, are hygienic; in what way sacrifices, which took place during the building of a house, made the house more solid, and so forth. No doubt, there are religious precepts that turn out to have technical utility at the same time, but they disappear in the mass of others. And indeed, very often the services that they do render have their opposites. If there is a religious prophylaxis, there is also a religiousfilthderiving from the same principles. The commandment to take the deceased person awayfromthe camp because he is the seat of a dreaded spirit has practical utility. But the same belief has the relatives anointing themselves with the liquids that comefromthe body as it rots, because they are thought to have exceptional virtues. In matters technical, magic has served more often than religion. 32

Mùller, [Etudes de mythologie comparée, pp. 51—52].

79


his t h e o r y b u t against the v e r y p r i n c i p l e o f n a t u r i s m , h o w e v e r applied. D o w h a t w e may, i f expressing the forces o f nature is m a d e o u t t o be the p r i n c i pal object o f r e l i g i o n , i t is impossible t o see r e l i g i o n as a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n a system o f d e c e i v i n g fictions, the survival o f w h i c h is i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e . T r u e , M a x M u l l e r t h o u g h t he escaped that o b j e c t i o n , t h e seriousness o f w h i c h he sensed, b y radically d i s t i n g u i s h i n g m y t h o l o g y f r o m r e l i g i o n a n d e x c l u d i n g i t f r o m r e l i g i o n . H e claims the r i g h t t o reserve the name " r e l i g i o n " o n l y f o r beliefs that c o n f o r m t o the prescriptions o f w h o l e s o m e m o r a l i t y and t o t h e teachings o f a r a t i o n a l t h e o l o g y . H e considered m y t h s , o n the o t h e r h a n d , t o have b e e n parasitic developments that, u n d e r the i n f l u e n c e o f l a n guage, came t o graft themselves o n t o t h e f u n d a m e n t a l representations

and

p e r v e r t t h e m . T h u s , f o r h i m , t h e b e l i e f i n Zeus was r e l i g i o u s t o the e x t e n t that the Greeks saw Z e u s as a supreme G o d , father o f h u m a n i t y , p r o t e c t o r o f laws, avenger o f c r i m e s , a n d so f o r t h . B u t e v e r y t h i n g a b o u t t h e b i o g r a p h y o f Zeus, his marriages a n d his adventures, was o n l y m y t h o l o g y .

3 3

B u t this d i s t i n c t i o n is arbitrary. W h i l e there is n o d o u b t that m y t h o l o g y is i m p o r t a n t t o aesthetics as w e l l as t o the science o f religions, i t is n o n e t h e less o n e o f the essential elements o f r e l i g i o u s life. I f m y t h is w i t h d r a w n f r o m r e l i g i o n , r i t u a l m u s t also be w i t h d r a w n : R i t e s are m o s t c o m m o n l y addressed t o d e f i n i t e personalities that have a name, a character, d e f i n i t e attributes, a n d a h i s t o r y ; a n d those v a r y a c c o r d i n g t o t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e personalities are c o n c e i v e d . T h e c u l t o n e renders t o t h e d e i t y depends o n the f o r m ascribed t o that deity. I n d e e d the r i t e is often n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e m y t h i n a c t i o n . T h e C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i o n is inseparable f r o m t h e paschal m y t h f r o m w h i c h i t takes its entire m e a n i n g . T h u s i f all m y t h o l o g y results from a sort o f verbal d e l u s i o n , t h e q u e s t i o n I posed remains intact: T h e existence and, above all, the persistence o f t h e c u l t b e c o m e i n e x p l i c a b l e . I t does n o t m a k e sense that m e n c o u l d g o o n d o i n g things f o r centuries, poindessly. Besides, i t is n o t o n l y t h e p a r t i c u l a r traits o f d i v i n e figures t h a t are specified b y the m y t h s . T h e v e r y idea that there are gods, s p i r i t u a l beings, a n d custodians assigned t o v a r ious departments o f nature is essentially m y t h i c a l , n o m a t t e r h o w those b e ings are d e p i c t e d .

34

W h a t remains i f o n e takes away from t h e religions o f the

33

See Miiller, Science du langage [vol. II, p. 147]; and Physical Religion, pp. 276ff. In the same vein is Bréal, Mélanges de mythologie et de linguistique, p. 6: "To bring to the question of the origin of mythology the necessary clarity, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the gods, who are a direct product of human intellect, from the legends, which are only its indirect and involuntary product." 34

Max Muller recognizes this. See Physical Religion, p. 132, and Mythologie Comparée, p. 58. "The gods," he says, "are nomina [names] and not numina [shades], names without being and not beings without name."


80

past e v e r y t h i n g that rests o n the n o t i o n o f gods c o n c e i v e d as cosmic agents? T h e idea o f d i v i n i t y i n itself, o f a transcendent p o w e r t o w h i c h m a n is subo r d i n a t e a n d o n w h i c h he leans? B u t t h a t is a p h i l o s o p h i c a l and abstract c o n c e p t i o n that has never b e e n realized as such i n any h i s t o r i c a l r e l i g i o n ; i t is w i t h o u t interest f o r the science o f r e l i g i o n s .

35

L e t us therefore guard against

differentiating a m o n g r e l i g i o u s beliefs, k e e p i n g some because they seem j u s t and w h o l e s o m e , t o us, a n d r e j e c t i n g others as u n w o r t h y o f b e i n g called r e l i gious because t h e y o f f e n d a n d unsetde us. A l l m y t h s , even those w e f i n d m o s t unreasonable, have b e e n objects o f f a i t h .

3 6

M a n b e l i e v e d i n t h e m n o less

t h a n i n his o w n sensations; he regulated his c o n d u c t i n accordance

with

t h e m . Despite appearances, therefore, t h e y c a n n o t be w i t h o u t objective f o u n d a t i o n [fondement objectif]. Nevertheless, i t w i l l be said, n o m a t t e r h o w r e l i g i o n s are e x p l a i n e d , they have c e r t a i n l y e r r e d a b o u t t h e t r u e nature o f things: T h e sciences have d e m o n s t r a t e d that. So the modes o f a c t i o n t h e y e n c o u r a g e d o r i m p o s e d u p o n m a n c o u l d o n l y rarely have h a d useful effects: I t is n o t w i t h p u r i f i c a tions that sicknesses are c u r e d , o r w i t h sacrifices o r songs that t h e c r o p is made t o g r o w . I n this way, the o b j e c t i o n that I have made against n a t u r i s m seems applicable t o all possible systems o f e x p l a n a t i o n . B u t there is o n e that escapes i t . L e t us suppose that r e l i g i o n answers a n e e d q u i t e different from adapting us t o tangible things^ T h e r e w i l l be n o risk o f its b e i n g w e a k e n e d solely because i t satisfies this n e e d p o o r l y o r n o t at all. I f religious faith was n o t b o r n t o place m a n i n h a r m o n y w i t h the physical w o r l d , the errors i t m i g h t have caused h i m t o m a k e i n his struggle w i t h the w o r l d w o u l d n o t h a r m i t at its source, since i t is fed f r o m another. I f i t was n o t for such reasons that people w e r e l e d t o believe, t h e y must have g o n e o n b e l i e v i n g even w h e n those reasons w e r e c o n t r a d i c t e d b y the facts. O n e even imagines that faith c o u l d have b e e n rather strong, strong e n o u g h n o t o n l y t o

35

Granted, Max Miiller holds that,forthe Greeks, "Zeus was and remained the name of the supreme deity despite all the mythological obscurities" (Science du Langage [vol. II, p. 173]). I will not dispute that assertion, which in historical terms is quite disputable; but in any case, that conception of Zeus could never be other than a glimmering amid the totality of the Greeks' religious beliefs. Moreover, in a later work, Max Miiller goes as far as to make the very idea of god in general the product of a wholly verbal process and, in consequence, a mythological elaboration (Physical Religion, p. 138). 36

Apart from myths proper, there certainly have always been fables that were not believed or, at least, were not believed to the same degree and in the same manner and that for this reason were not religious in character. The line of demarcation between fables and myths is certainlyfluidand hard to determine. But this is no reason to make all the myths into fables, any more than we would dream of making all the fables into myths. There is at least one characteristic that is sufficient in many cases to differentiate the religious myth, and that is its relationship to the cult.


81

endure such c o n t r a d i c t i o n s b u t also t o d e n y t h e m a n d i n h i b i t the believer f r o m p e r c e i v i n g t h e i r i m p o r t — t h u s m a k i n g t h e m harmless t o r e l i g i o n . W h e n a religious feeling is strong, i t does n o t accept that r e l i g i o n c o u l d be guilty, a n d i t readily p r o m p t s explanations that acquit r e l i g i o n : I f the r i t e does n o t p r o duce the e x p e c t e d results, the failure is i m p u t e d either t o some flaw o f e x e c u t i o n o r t o the i n t e r v e n t i o n o f a c o n t r a r y deity. B u t for that t o occur, religious ideas must n o t d r a w t h e i r o r i g i n from a feeling that is disturbed b y the setbacks o f experience, f o r o t h e r w i s e , w h e r e w o u l d t h e i r resilience c o m e from?

Ill W h a t is m o r e , even t h o u g h m a n m i g h t have h a d reason t o go o n e x p l a i n i n g the cosmic p h e n o m e n a w i t h r e l i g i o u s symbols, despite every setback, still those symbols w o u l d have t o have b e e n t h e k i n d that suggest such i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . W h e r e w o u l d t h e y have a c q u i r e d such a p r o p e r t y ? H e r e again, w e c o m e face t o face w i t h o n e o f those postulates that seem o b v i o u s o n l y b e cause t h e y have n o t b e e n e x a m i n e d critically. I t is set u p as a x i o m a t i c that the natural play o f physical forces has all i t takes t o arouse t h e idea o f the sacred i n us. B u t w h e n the evidence (sketchy, b y the w a y ) that has b e e n a d d u c e d t o s u p p o r t this p r o p o s i t i o n is e x a m i n e d m o r e closely, w e n o t i c e that i t boils d o w n t o a p r e c o n c e i v e d idea. W e talk a b o u t t h e a m a z e m e n t that m e n m u s t have felt as t h e y discovered the w o r l d . B u t i t is a r e g u l a r i t y shading o f f i n t o m o n o t o n y that above all characterizes t h e life o f nature. E v e r y m o r n i n g , the sun c l i m b s t h e h o r i z o n , a n d every e v e n i n g i t sets; every m o n t h , t h e m o o n completes t h e same cycle; t h e r i v e r flows u n i n t e r r u p t e d l y i n its b e d ; the same seasons p e r i o d i c a l l y b r i n g b a c k t h e same sensory experiences. S o m e u n e x p e c t e d event occurs here a n d there, n o d o u b t : T h e sun is eclipsed, t h e m o o n disappears b e h i n d t h e clouds, the r i v e r floods. B u t these passing disturbances can never give b i r t h t o a n y t h i n g b u t e q u a l l y passing impressions, the m e m o r y o f w h i c h is erased after a t i m e ; so t h e y c o u l d n o t possibly serve as t h e basis o f those stable a n d p e r m a n e n t systems o f ideas a n d practices that c o n s t i t u t e religions. O r d i n a r i l y , the course o f nature is u n i f o r m , a n d u n i f o r m i t y c a n n o t p r o d u c e s t r o n g e m o tions. T o c o n c e i v e the savage as b e i n g f u l l o f a d m i r a t i o n before these marvels is t o transfer t o the o r i g i n o f h i s t o r y feelings that are m u c h m o r e m o d e r n . H e is t o o used t o those marvels t o be p o w e r f u l l y surprised. I t takes i n t e l l e c t u a l c u l t i v a t i o n a n d r e f l e c t i o n t o shake o f f this y o k e o f h a b i t a n d discover all that is a m a z i n g even i n that v e r y regularity. F u r t h e r m o r e , as I observed e a r l i e r ,

37

See above p. 25.

37

82


i t is n o t e n o u g h that w e a d m i r e an o b j e c t f o r i t t o appear t o us as sacred— that is, f o r i t t o be m a r k e d w i t h the q u a l i t y that makes all d i r e c t contact w i t h i t seem a p r o f a n a t i o n a n d a sacrilege. W e m i s u n d e r s t a n d w h a t is specific t o religious feeling i f w e confuse i t w i t h every i m p r e s s i o n o f a d m i r i n g surprise. B u t f a d i n g a d m i r a t i o n , some say, there is o n e i m p r e s s i o n that m a n c a n n o t help b u t feel i n the presence o f nature. H e c a n n o t enter i n t o relations w i t h nature w i t h o u t r e a l i z i n g that i t goes as far as he can be, o r see, and t h e n b e y o n d that. Its i m m e n s i t y o v e r w h e l m s h i m . T h a t sensation o f an i n f i n i t e space s u r r o u n d i n g h i m , o f an i n f i n i t e t i m e p r e c e d i n g a n d t o f o l l o w the present m o m e n t , o f forces i n f i n i t e l y s u p e r i o r t o those at his disposal, cannot fail t o arouse the idea inside h i m that there is an i n f i n i t e p o w e r outside h i m t o w h i c h h e is subject. T h i s idea t h e n enters i n t o o u r c o n c e p t i o n o f the d i v i n e as an essential e l e m e n t . B u t let us r e m e m b e r w h a t is at issue. T h e q u e s t i o n is h o w m a n c o u l d have a r r i v e d at t h i n k i n g that there are, i n reality, t w o categories o f radically heterogeneous a n d i n c o m p a r a b l e things. H o w c o u l d the p a n o r a m a o f nature have g i v e n us the idea o f that duality? N a t u r e is always a n d e v e r y w h e r e i d e n tical t o itself. I t does n o t m a t t e r that nature extends t o the i n f i n i t e : B e y o n d the farthest l i m i t o f m y gaze, i t does n o t differ f r o m w h a t i t is this side. T h e space that I conceive b e y o n d the h o r i z o n is still space, i d e n t i c a l t o the space I see. T h e t i m e that passes endlessly is m a d e u p o f m o m e n t s i d e n t i c a l t o those I have l i v e d t h r o u g h . Space, l i k e t i m e , repeats itself i n d e f i n i t e l y ; i f t h e p o r tions o f i t that I reach have n o sacredness i n themselves, h o w c o u l d the o t h ers have any? T h e fact that I d o n o t perceive t h e m d i r e c d y is n o t sufficient t o transform t h e m .

3 8

I t makes n o difference f o r a w o r l d o f profane things t o be

limitless; i t remains a profane w o r l d . D o e s o n e say that the physical forces w i t h w h i c h w e i n t e r a c t exceed o u r o w n ? B u t the sacred forces are n o t dist i n g u i s h e d f r o m the profane m e r e l y b y t h e i r greater i n t e n s i t y ; t h e y are different; t h e y have special qualities that the profane have n o t . O n the o t h e r h a n d , all those forces manifest i n the u n i v e r s e — b o t h those i n us a n d those outside us—are o f the same nature. M o s t o f all, w h a t c o u l d have enabled us t o l e n d any sort o f p r e e m i n e n c e t o some, as c o m p a r e d t o others? N o t h i n g . So i f r e l i g i o n was really b o r n o u t o f the n e e d t o assign causes t o physical p h e n o m -

38

Furthermore, there is actual twisting of words in Max Miiller's language. Sense experience, he says, implies, at least in certain cases, "that beyond the known there is something unknown, something that I ask permission to call infinite" (Natural Religion, p. 195. Cf. p. 218). The unknown is no more necessarily the in-

finite than the infinite is necessarily the unknown—if it is totally identical to itself and, thus, to what we do know about it. It would have to be shown that what we perceive of the infinite is different in nature from what we do not.

83

Tlie Leading Conceptions of the Elementary Religion (Continuation)

ena, the forces i m a g i n e d i n this w a y w o u l d n o t be m o r e sacred t h a n those that the scientist o f t o d a y conceives o f i n a c c o u n t i n g f o r the same facts.

39

T h e r e w o u l d n o t have b e e n sacred b e i n g s — o r , consequently, r e l i g i o n . Furthermore,

even

supposing

that

this sensation

o f "being

over-

w h e l m e d " really c o u l d suggest t h e idea o f r e l i g i o n , i t w o u l d n o t have had that effect o n the p r i m i t i v e — f o r that sensation he does n o t have. H e has absolutely n o awareness that cosmic forces are so far s u p e r i o r t o his o w n . B e cause science has n o t yet c o m e t o teach h i m modesty, he ascribes t o h i m s e l f a d o m i n i o n over things that h e does n o t have, b u t the i l l u s i o n o f i t is e n o u g h t o p r e v e n t h i m f r o m f e e l i n g d o m i n a t e d b y t h e m . A s I have said, he believes he can t e l l t h e elements w h a t t o d o : u n c h a i n t h e w i n d , force the r a i n t o fall, stop the sun w i t h a wave o f t h e h a n d , e t c .

40

R e l i g i o n itself helps t o give h i m

that security, f o r i t is b e l i e v e d t o a r m h i m w i t h b r o a d p o w e r s over nature. I n part, the rites are m e a n t t o enable h i m t o i m p o s e his wishes o n the w o r l d . T h u s , far from b e i n g i n s p i r e d b y a sense m a n has o f his smallness before the universe, r e l i g i o n s have t h e opposite i n s p i r a t i o n . T h e effect o f even the m o s t elevated and idealistic is o n e o f reassuring m a n i n his struggle w i t h things. I t professes that f a i t h , b y itself, is able " t o m o v e m o u n t a i n s " — t h a t is, t o d o m i nate the forces o f nature. H o w c o u l d t h e y p r o v i d e this c o n f i d e n c e i f t h e i r o r i g i n really was a sensation o f weakness a n d powerlessness? F u r t h e r m o r e , i f n a t u r a l things t r u l y h a d b e c o m e sacred beings b y v i r t u e o f t h e i r i m p o s i n g f o r m s o r t h e force t h e y display, w e w o u l d observe that the sun, t h e m o o n , t h e sky, the m o u n t a i n s , the sea, the w i n d s — i n short, the great cosmic phenomena—-were the first t o be l i f t e d t o that status; n o n e are better e q u i p p e d t o dazzle the senses a n d the i m a g i n a t i o n . B u t i n fact, the great cosmic p h e n o m e n a w e r e n o t d e i f i e d u n t i l fairly recent times. T h e first beings t o w h i c h the c u l t was addressed—the p r o o f o f this w i l l be g i v e n i n the chapters t o f o l l o w — a r e h u m b l e plants a n d animals i n r e l a t i o n t o w h i c h m a n f o u n d h i m s e l f o n an equal f o o t i n g at the v e r y least: t h e d u c k , the hare, the kangaroo, t h e e m u , the lizard, the caterpillar, t h e frog, a n d so f o r t h . T h e i r objective qualities surely c o u l d n o t have b e e n the o r i g i n o f the r e l i g i o u s feelings t h e y i n s p i r e d . 39

This Max Miiller unintentionally acknowledges in certain places. He admits seeing little difference between the notion of Agni, the god of fire, and the notion of ether by which the modern physicist explains light and heat (Physical Religion, pp. 126-127). Besides, he connects the idea of divinity to that of agency (p. 138), to an idea of causality that is in no way natural and profane. The fact that religion depicts the causes thus conceived in the form of personal agents is insufficient to explain why those causes should have sacredness. A personal agent can be profane, and, besides, many religious forces are essentially impersonal. 40

When I come to speak about rites and about faith in their efficacy, we will see how these illusions can be understood (Bk. Ill, chap. 2).

CHAPTER FOUR

TOTEMISM AS ELEMENTARY RELIGION Review of the Question—Method of Treating It

A

l t h o u g h seemingly q u i t e opposed i n t h e i r conclusions, the t w o systems I have j u s t e x a m i n e d are nonetheless i n agreement

o n a fundamental

p o i n t : T h e y frame the p r o b l e m i n i d e n t i c a l terms. B o t h set o u t t o c o n s t r u c t the n o t i o n o f the d i v i n e o u t o f the sensations that c e r t a i n natural p h e n o m e n a , either physical o r b i o l o g i c a l , arouse i n us. A c c o r d i n g t o the animists, dreams w e r e t h e starting p o i n t o f r e l i g i o u s e v o l u t i o n ; a c c o r d i n g t o the naturists, cert a i n cosmic manifestations w e r e . A c c o r d i n g t o b o t h , however, the seed o f the great o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n the sacred a n d the profane is t o be f o u n d i n nature. B u t such an enterprise is impossible. I t assumes a veritable c r e a t i o n o u t o f n o t h i n g . N o fact o f o r d i n a r y e x p e r i e n c e can give us t h e idea o f s o m e t h i n g w h o s e d e f i n i n g t r a i t is t o be outside t h e w o r l d o f o r d i n a r y experience. A m a n as he appears t o h i m s e l f i n his dreams is o n l y a m a n . T h e natural forces that o u r senses perceive are o n l y n a t u r a l forces, h o w e v e r intense they m a y be. H e n c e m y c r i t i c i s m o f b o t h d o c t r i n e s . T o e x p l a i n h o w these supposed data o f r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t c o u l d take o n a sacredness that has n o objective basis, they h a d t o a d o p t t h e n o t i o n that a w h o l e w o r l d * o f h a l l u c i n a t o r y representations s u p e r i m p o s e d themselves u p o n those data o f e x p e r i e n c e , d i s t o r t i n g t h e m t o t h e p o i n t o f m a k i n g t h e m unrecognizable, a n d r e p l a c i n g reality w i t h m e r e figments o f the i m a g i n a t i o n . I n o n e case, i t is t h e illusions o f d r e a m i n g that supposedly b r o u g h t a b o u t such a t r a n s f i g u r a t i o n ; i n t h e other, i t is the b r i l l i a n t b u t vacant m a r c h o f images e v o k e d b y w o r d s . B u t i n e i t h e r case, o n e a r r i v e d necessarily at r e l i g i o n as the p r o d u c t o f d e l i r i o u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . T h u s o n e positive c o n c l u s i o n arises from this c r i t i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n . Since, i n themselves, n e i t h e r m a n n o r nature is i n h e r e n t l y sacred, b o t h acquire sa-

* Thefirstedition says monde, or "world"; the second says mode. 84

85

Totemism as Elementary Religion

credness elsewhere. B e y o n d the h u m a n i n d i v i d u a l a n d the n a t u r a l w o r l d , t h e n , there m u s t b e some o t h e r reality i n r e l a t i o n t o w h i c h this species o f d e l i r i u m that every r e l i g i o n is, i n some sense, takes o n m e a n i n g a n d o b j e c tive significance. I n o t h e r w o r d s , b e y o n d w h a t has b e e n called n a t u r i s m a n d a n i m i s m , there m u s t be a n o t h e r m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l a n d m o r e p r i m i t i v e c u l t , o f w h i c h a n i m i s m a n d n a t u r i s m are d e r i v a t i v e f o r m s o r particular aspects. T h a t c u l t exists. I t is the o n e t o w h i c h t h e ethnographers have g i v e n the name " t o t e m i s m . "

I T h e w o r d " t o t e m " appeared i n the e t h n o g r a p h i c l i t e r a t u r e o n l y at the e n d o f the e i g h t e e n t h century. I t crops u p first i n the b o o k o f an I n d i a n interpreter, 1

J. L o n g , w h i c h was p u b l i s h e d i n L o n d o n i n 1 7 9 1 . F o r nearly h a l f a century, 2

t o t e m i s m was k n o w n exclusively as an A m e r i c a n i n s t i t u t i o n . I t was o n l y i n 3

1841 that Grey, i n a passage that is still c e l e b r a t e d , d r e w a t t e n t i o n t o the e x istence o f similar practices i n A u s t r a l i a . F r o m t h e n o n , scholars began t o r e alize that t h e y w e r e i n the presence o f a system that has a c e r t a i n generality. r B u t t h e y saw i t as b e i n g essentially an archaic i n s t i t u t i o n , an e t h n o graphic c u r i o s i t y w i t h o u t m u c h interest f o r t h e h i s t o r i a n . M c L e n n a n was the first t o t r y t o c o n n e c t t o t e m i s m w i t h general h u m a n history. I n a series o f ar4

ticles p u b l i s h e d i n t h e Fortnightly Review,

h e set o u t t o s h o w n o t o n l y that

t o t e m i s m was a r e l i g i o n b u t also that a m u l t i p l i c i t y o f beliefs a n d practices that recur i n m u c h m o r e advanced r e l i g i o u s systems w e r e d e r i v e d f r o m i t . H e even w e n t so far as t o m a k e i t the source o f all t h e a n i m a l - a n d p l a n t w o r s h i p p i n g cults that can be observed a m o n g ancient peoples. T h a t e x t e n sion o f t o t e m i s m was surely overstated. T h e c u l t o f animals a n d plants has m u l t i p l e causes that c a n n o t be r e d u c e d t o o n l y o n e w i t h o u t v e r y great o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n . Yet b y its overstatements, this s i m p l i f i c a t i o n had the advantage o f d r a w i n g a t t e n t i o n t o the h i s t o r i c a l i m p o r t a n c e o f t o t e m i s m . F o r t h e i r part, the A m e r i c a n i s t s h a d l o n g since n o t i c e d that t o t e m i s m was l i n k e d w i t h a d e f i n i t e social o r g a n i z a t i o n , o n e based o n the d i v i s i o n o f '[John Long], Voyages and Travels of an Indian Interpreter and Trader, [Cleveland, A. H. Clark, 1904]. 2

This idea was so widespread that M. [Albert] Reville still treated America as the classical locale of totemism ([Les] Religions des peuples non civilises, vol. I [Paris, Fishbacher, 1883], p. 242). 3

[George Grey,] Journals oflwo Expeditions in North- West and Western Australia, vol. II [London, T. & W.

Boone, 1841], p. 228. 4

[James Ferguson McLennan] "The Worship of Animals and Plants" ["Totems and Totemism"—apparendy Durkheim's expansion of the title. Trans.], [FR, vol. XII old series, vol. VI new series (1869), pp. 407-427, 562-582], [vol. XIII old series, vol. VII new series (1870), pp. 194-200].

86


5

6

society i n t o clans. I n 1877, i n his Ancient Society, L e w i s H . M o r g a n u n d e r t o o k t h e study o f this social o r g a n i z a t i o n i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e its d i s t i n g u i s h i n g features and, at the same t i m e , t o s h o w its prevalence a m o n g the I n d i a n tribes o f N o r t h and C e n t r a l A m e r i c a . A t almost the same t i m e , a n d m o r e o v e r at M o r g a n ' s suggestion, F i s o n a n d H o w i t t

7

d o c u m e n t e d the exis-

tence o f the same social system i n Australia, as w e l l as its relations w i t h totemism. U n d e r the i n f l u e n c e o f these l e a d i n g ideas, studies c o u l d be d o n e m o r e m e t h o d i c a l l y . Research e n c o u r a g e d b y t h e B u r e a u o f A m e r i c a n E t h n o l o g y 8

c o n t r i b u t e d greatly t o t h e progress o f these studies. B y 1887, the d o c u m e n t s w e r e o f sufficient n u m b e r a n d significance f o r Frazer t o have j u d g e d i t o p p o r t u n e t o c o l l e c t a n d present t h e m t o us i n a systematic overview. S u c h is the object o f his small b o o k t i d e d Totemism,

9

i n w h i c h t o t e m i s m is studied as

b o t h r e l i g i o n a n d legal i n s t i t u t i o n . B u t this study was p u r e l y descriptive, 1 0

m a k i n g n o effort either t o e x p l a i n t o t e m i s m o r t o delve i n t o its f u n d a m e n tal ideas. R o b e r t s o n S m i t h was t h e first t o take u p the task o f e l a b o r a t i o n . H e r e alized m o r e k e e n l y t h a n his predecessors h o w r i c h i n seeds f o x i h e future this

5

This idea is clearly expressed in a study by [Albert] Gallatin, "A Synopsis of the Indian Tribes" (Archaeologia Americana vol. II, pp. 109ff. [also New York, AMS Press, 1973.]), and in a circular letter of Morgan [an article under the name A. P. Morris. Trans.], reproduced in CJ (1860), p. 149. 6

[Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery, through

Barbarism to Civilisation, London, Macmillan, 1887.] This work had been prepared for and preceded by two others by the same author: [Lewis Henry Morgan, The League of the [Hodenosaunee or] Iroquois, New York, M. H. Newman, 1851; and Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family, Washington,

D.C., Smithsonian Institution, 1870]. '[Lorimer Fison and Alfred Howitt], Kamilaroi and Kurnai [Group Marriage and Relationship, and Marriage by Element, Draum Chiefly from the Usage of the Australian Aborigines, Melbourne, G. Robertson, 1880].

"Beginning with the first volumes of the Annual Report of the Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology [First Annual Report, 1879—1881, Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, 1881. Trans.], we find the study of [John Wesley] Powell, "Wyandot Government" (vol. I, p. 59), those of [Frank Hamilton] Cushing, "Zuiii Fetishes" (vol. II, p. 9), [Erminnie Adele] Smith, "Myths of the Iroquois" (vol. II, p. 76), and the important work of [J. Owen] Dorsey "Omaha Sociology" (vol. Ill, p. 211), which are all contributions to the study of totemism. 9

It [James George Frazer, "Totemism"]firstappeared, abridged, in the Encyclopedia Britannica [9th ed., Edinburgh, Adam & Charles Black, 1887]. 10

In his Primitive Culture [New York, Henry Holt, 1871], Tylor [Edward Burnett] had already attempted an explanation of totemism, to which I will return later but do not recount here; by reducing totemism to no more than a special case of the ancestor cult, that explanation completely misunderstands the importance of totemism. I mention in this chapter only the observations or theories that have led to important advances in the study of totemism.

87

Totetnism as Elementary Religion

crude a n d confused r e l i g i o n was. T o be sure, M c L e n n a n h a d already c o m pared t o t e m i s m w i t h the great r e l i g i o n s o f a n t i q u i t y , b u t that was o n l y b e cause he t h o u g h t he h a d f o u n d a c u l t o f animals a n d plants i n b o t h . B u t t o reduce t o t e m i s m t o a k i n d o f a n i m a l o r p l a n t w o r s h i p was t o see o n l y w h a t was m o s t superficial and, even at that, t o m i s u n d e r s t a n d its t r u e nature. S m i t h set o u t t o m o v e b e y o n d the letter o f t o t e m i c beliefs i n o r d e r t o f i n d t h e f u n damental p r i n c i p l e s g o v e r n i n g t h e m . I n his b o o k Kinship Early Arabia,

11

and Marriage in

he h a d already s h o w n that t o t e m i s m presupposes a c o n s u b -

stantiality o f m a n a n d a n i m a l ( o r p l a n t ) , w h e t h e r natural o r acquired. I n his 12

Religion of the Semites,

he m a d e this same idea the o r i g i n o f the w h o l e sac-

r i f i c i a l system. H e c o n t e n d e d that h u m a n i t y owes the p r i n c i p l e o f a l i m e n t a r y c o m m u n i o n t o t o t e m i s m . C e r t a i n l y w e m a y find Smith's t h e o r y one-sided, and i t is n o l o n g e r adequate t o the facts w e n o w have. Nonetheless, i t c o n tains an i n g e n i o u s i n s i g h t a n d i t has h a d a f r u i t f u l i n f l u e n c e o n the science o f 13

religions. Frazer draws u p o n these same ideas i n The Golden Bough.

I n i t he

relates t o E u r o p e a n f o l k l o r e the t o t e m i s m that M c L e n n a n h a d related t o the religions o f classical a n t i q u i t y a n d S m i t h t o those o f t h e S e m i t i c peoples. M c L e n n a n ' s s c h o o l a n d M o r g a n ' s thus came t o j o i n that o f M a n n h a r d t .

1 4

D u r i n g this t i m e , the A m e r i c a n t r a d i t i o n c o n t i n u e d t o develop, a n d w i t h an independence, moreover, that i t has k e p t u n t i l q u i t e recently. T h r e e groups o f societies i n p a r t i c u l a r w e r e t h e object o f research o n t o t e m i s m : the tribes o f the N o r t h w e s t — t h e T l i n g i t , the H a i d a , the Salish, a n d the T s h i m s h i a n ; the great S i o u x n a t i o n ; and finally, i n America's center, the Pueblo Indians. T h e first w e r e s t u d i e d p r i n c i p a l l y b y D a l l , Krause, Boas, S w a n t o n , and H i l l T o u t ; the second b y D o r s e y ; the last b y M i n d e l e f f , M r s . Stevenson, and C u s h i n g .

1 5

B u t h o w e v e r r i c h the harvest o f facts c o l l e c t e d , the available d o c u m e n t s r e m a i n e d fragmentary. A l t h o u g h t h e A m e r i c a n religions c o n t a i n m a n y traces o f t o t e m i s m , t h e y have nevertheless g o n e b e y o n d the t o t e m i c phase proper. O n the o t h e r hand, d o c u m e n t a t i o n o n Australia scarcely w e n t b e y o n d isolated "[William Robertson Smith], Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, Cambridge [Cambridge University Press], 1885. 12

[William Robertson Smith], Leaures on the Religion of the Semites [London, A & C Black, 1889]. This is the published version of a course taught at the University of Aberdeen in 1888. Cf. the article "Sacrifice" in the Encyclopedia Britannica [9th ed., Edinburgh, Adam & Charles Black, 1887]. 13

[James George] Frazer, The Golden Bough [A Study in Magic and Religion], London [and New York, Macmillan], 1890. Since then, a three-volume second edition has appeared (1900), and the third of five volumes is in the process of publication. [This text was reissued by St. Martin's Press in 1990. Trans.] 14

It is well to cite the interesting work of [Edwin] Sidney Hardand, The Legend of Perseus, 3 vols. [London, D. Nutt, 1894-1896] in this connection. 15

Here I confine myself to giving the authors' names; the books will be indicated below, as I use them.


88

beliefs a n d rites, rites o f i n i t i a t i o n a n d p r o h i b i t i o n s relative t o the t o t e m . T h u s i t is w i t h facts taken f r o m h i t h e r a n d y o n that Frazer t r i e d t o sketch an overall p i c t u r e o f t o t e m i s m . W h a t e v e r its o b v i o u s m e r i t , a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n u n d e r t a k e n i n these c o n d i t i o n s c o u l d o n l y be i n c o m p l e t e and h y p o t h e t i c a l . A l l things considered, a f u l l y f u n c t i o n i n g t o t e m i c system h a d n o t yet b e e n seen. T h i s gap has b e e n f i l l e d o n l y i n recent years. T w o r e m a r k a b l y astute o b servers, Messieurs B a l d w i n Spencer a n d F. J. G i l l e n , have d i s c o v e r e d ,

16

i n the

i n t e r i o r o f t h e A u s t r a l i a n c o n t i n e n t , a rather large n u m b e r o f tribes i n w h i c h they saw i n o p e r a t i o n a f u l l religious system w h o s e basis a n d coherence w e r e p r o v i d e d b y t o t e m i c beliefs. T h e results o f t h e i r i n q u i r y w e r e set f o r t h i n t w o w o r k s that have g i v e n n e w life t o the study o f t o t e m i s m . T h e first, The Na17

tive Tribes of Central Australia,

treats t h e m o s t central o f those tribes, t h e

A r u n t a , the L u r i t c h a , * and, a l i t d e farther s o u t h , o n t h e w e s t e r n shore o f Lake E y r e , the U r a b u n n a . T h e second, 18

Australia,

titled

The Northern Tribes of Central

treats the societies t o the n o r t h o f the U r a b u n n a : T h e y o c c u p y

the t e r r i t o r y that extends f r o m t h e M a c d o n n e l l R a n g e s t o the

Carpenter

G u l f . T o cite o n l y the m a i n groups, these are the U n m a t j e r a , the K a i t i s h , the W a r r a m u n g a , the T j i n g i l l i , the B i n b i n g a , the W a l p a r i , the G n a n j i a n d o n the v e r y shores o f the gulf, the M a r a and the A n u l a .

finally,

1 9

*The spelling "Loritja" is used elsewhere. ''Although Spencer and Gillen were thefirstto study these tribes thoroughly they were not the first to speak about them. Howitt had drawn attention to the social organization of the Wuaramongo (Warramunga of Spencer and Gillen) as long ago as 1888 in "Further Notes on the Australian Class [Systems]," JAI, [vol. XVIII (1889)], pp. 44—45. The Arunta had already been studied in summary fashion by [Reverend Louis] Schulze ("The Aborigines of the Upper and Middle Finke River" [RSSv4, vol. XIV, pp. 210-246], 2d installment]; the organization of the Chingalee (the Tjingilli of Spencer and Gillen), the Wombya, etc., by [R. H.] Mathews, "Wombya Organization of the Australian Aborigines, " AA, vol. II new series [1900], p. 494; "Divisions of Some West Australian Tribes, ibid., p. 185; ["Divisions of Australian Tribes"], APS, vol. XXXVII [1898], pp. 151-152 and ["Australian Divisional Systems"] JRS, vol. XXXII, p. 71, vol. XXXIII, p. 111). In addition, hefirstcites results of the study conducted on the Arunta that had already been published in [Baldwin Spencer], Report on the Work of the Horn Scientific Expedition to Central Australia, part IV [London, Dulau], 1896. Thefirstpart of this Report is by [Edward] Stirling, the second is Gillen's; and the entire publication was directed by Baldwin Spencer. 17

[Sir Baldwin Spencer and Francis James Gillen], The Native Tribes of Central Australia [London, Macmillan, 1899], hereafter abbreviated, Native Tribes or Nat. Tr. [I have used Native Tribes. Trans.] I8

[Sir Baldwin Spencer and Francis James Gillen], The Northern Tribes of Central Australia [London, Macmillan, 1904], hereafter Northern Tribes or North. Tr. [I have used Northern Tribes. Trans.] 19

I write "the Arunta," "the Anula," "the Tjingilli," etc. without adding an "s" to these names to mark the plural. It seems illogical to incorporate into words that are not French a grammatical sign that has its meaning only in our language. I will make exception to this rule only when the tribal name has obviously been gallicized (les Hurons, for example). [I have followed Durkheim in not adding "s" to proper nouns, but to avoid the confusion that can arise because English articles do not indicate plurals, I have made common nouns plural by adding "s." Trans.]

89


M o r e recently, C a r l Strehlow, a G e r m a n missionary w h o also spent m a n y years i n these same societies o f central A u s t r a l i a ,

20

has b e g u n t o p u b l i s h his

o w n studies o n t w o o f these tribes, the A r a n d a a n d the L o r i t j a ( A r u n t a a n d L u r i t c h a o f Spencer a n d G i l l e n ) . these p e o p l e s ,

22

2 1

H a v i n g mastered the language spoken b y

S t r e h l o w was able t o r e p o r t m a n y t o t e m i c m y t h s a n d r e l i -

gious songs, m o s t o f w h i c h are g i v e n t o us i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l texts. N o t w i t h standing variations o f d e t a i l that are easily e x p l a i n e d a n d w h o s e i m p o r t a n c e has b e e n gready e x a g g e r a t e d , while

complementing,

23

w e w i l l see that Strehlow's

specifying, a n d

sometimes

observations,

c o r r e c t i n g those

of

Spencer a n d G i l l e n , o n t h e w h o l e c o n f i r m t h e m . These discoveries gave rise t o an abundant literature, t o w h i c h I w i l l have occasion t o r e t u r n . T h e w o r k s o f Spencer a n d G i l l e n especially have h a d great i n f l u e n c e , n o t o n l y because t h e y w e r e t h e oldest b u t because the data w e r e presented i n a systematic f o r m that enabled t h e m t o g u i d e later studies

24

a n d also t o p r o v o k e speculation. T h e results w e r e c o m m e n t e d u p o n , d e bated, a n d i n t e r p r e t e d i n all k i n d s o f ways. A t t h e same t i m e H o w i t t , w h o s e fragmentary studies w e r e scattered t h r o u g h m a n y different p u b l i c a t i o n s ,

25

20

[Carl] Strehlow has been in Australia since 1892. He livedfirstamong the Dieri and moved from there to live among the Arunta. 21

Strehlow, DieAranda-und Loritja-Stämme in Zentral-Australien [Frankfurt, Joseph Baer, 1907]. To date, four volumes have been published; thefirstappeared when this book had just been completed. I was unable to evaluate it. Thefirsttwo volumes deal with myth and legend, the third with the cult. It is proper to add to Strehlow's name that of [Gustav] von Leonhardi, who played an important role in the publication. Not only was he responsible for editing Strehlow's manuscripts, but also, by judicious questions on more than one point, he led Strehlow to specify some of his observations. By the way, an article that Leonhardi gave to Globus [Hildbringhausen, Brunswick, 1861—1910] may profitably be consulted; and one will find many extracts from his correspondence with Strehlow ("Ueber einige religiöse und totemistische Vorstellungen der Aranda und Loritja in Zentral-Australien," Globus vol. XCI, p. 285). Cf. on the same subject an article of Northcote W. Thomas ["Religious Ideas of the Arunta"], Folklore vol. XVI [1905], pp. 428ff. 22

While not ignorant of the language, Spencer and Gillen know it far less well than Strehlow.

23

Notably by [Hermann] Klaatsch, "Schlussbericht über meine Reise nach Australien in den jähren 1904-1907," ZE, vol. XXIX [1907], pp. 635ff. 24

The book of K. Langloh Parker [Catherine Somerville Parker], The EuahlayiTribe [London, A. Constable, 1905]; that of [Erhard] Eylmann, Die Eingeborenen der Kolonie Südaustralien [Berlin, D. Reimer, 1908]; that ofJohn Mathew, Two Representative Tribes of Queensland [London, T. F. Urwin, 1910]; and certain recent articles by Mathew show the influence of Spencer and Gillen. 25

The list of these publications is to be found in the preface of [Alfred William] Howitt [Native Tribes of South-East Australia, New York, Macmillan, 1904], pp. 8-9.


90

u n d e r t o o k t o d o for the s o u t h e r n tribes w h a t Spencer a n d G i l l e n h a d d o n e 26

for those o f the center. I n his Native Tribes of South-East Australia,

he gives

us an o v e r v i e w o f social o r g a n i z a t i o n a m o n g t h e peoples w h o o c c u p y s o u t h e r n Australia, N e w S o u t h Wales, a n d a large p a r t o f Q u e e n s l a n d . T h e a d vances thus achieved p r o m p t e d Frazer t o s u p p l e m e n t his Totemism w i t h a sort of compendium

2 7

that b r i n g s t o g e t h e r all the i m p o r t a n t d o c u m e n t s that c o n -

c e r n e i t h e r t o t e m i c r e l i g i o n o r t h e k i n s h i p a n d m a r r i a g e o r g a n i z a t i o n that is t h o u g h t , r i g h t l y o r w r o n g l y , t o be c o n n e c t e d w i t h i t . T h e a i m o f this w o r k is n o t t o give us a general a n d systematic v i e w o f t o t e m i s m b u t rather t o m a k e available t o researchers the materials necessary f o r c o n s t r u c t i n g o n e .

2 8

I n it

the facts are arranged i n a s t r i c d y e t h n o g r a p h i c a n d geographical order: E a c h c o n t i n e n t and, w i t h i n each c o n t i n e n t , each t r i b e o r e t h n i c g r o u p is s t u d i e d separately. A study as b r o a d as this, passing so m a n y different peoples i n r e v i e w o n e after t h e other, c e r t a i n l y c o u l d n o t be equally detailed t h r o u g h o u t ; b u t i t is still a useful reference t h a t can facilitate research.

II I t emerges f r o m this b r i e f a c c o u n t that Australia is the m o s t favorable t e r r a i n for the study o f t o t e m i s m . F o r this reason, I w i l l m a k e i t the p r i n c i p a l area o f m y observation. I n Totemism, Frazer was interested p r i m a r i l y i n c o l l e c t i n g every trace o f t o t e m i s m that can be f o u n d i n h i s t o r y a n d ethnography. T h i s l e d h i m t o i n clude i n his study societies w h o s e k i n d a n d degree o f c u l t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t are q u i t e disparate: A n c i e n t E g y p t ,

2 9

Arabia, Greece,

30

a n d the

southern

26

Ibid. From now on, I will cite this book with the abbreviation Nat. Tr. [Native Tribes. Trans.], but always preceded by the name "Howitt" to distinguish it from the first book of Spencer and Gillen, whose title I abridge in the same way. [To avoid the confusion that can arise from these abbreviations, I precede every short citation by the author's surname. Trans.] 27

[James George Frazer], Totemism and Exogamy, 4 vols., London [Macmillan], 1910. This work begins with a republication of the little book Totemism, reproduced without fundamental changes. [This republication is found in vol. I. Trans.] 28

It is true that, at the beginning and end, we find general theories of totemism that will be set forth and discussed further on. But these theories are relatively independent of the collected facts accompanying them, for they had already been published in various review articles well before this work appeared. Those articles were reproduced in the first volume (pp. 89—172). 29

Ibid., p. 12.

30

Ibid., p. 15.

Tolemism as Elementary Religion

Slavs

31

91

figure alongside the tribes o f Australia a n d A m e r i c a . T h i s procedure

was u n s u r p r i s i n g i n a disciple o f t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l s c h o o l . T h e a i m o f that school is n o t t o situate r e l i g i o n s i n t h e social m i l i e u x o f w h i c h t h e y are p a r t

3 2

and t o differentiate a m o n g t h e m o n that basis. Instead, as the name indicates, the a i m is t o g o b e y o n d n a t i o n a l a n d h i s t o r i c a l differences i n o r d e r t o arrive at the universal a n d t r u l y h u m a n basis o f r e l i g i o u s life. T h e y assume that m a n possesses a r e l i g i o u s nature i n a n d o f himself, b y v i r t u e o f his o w n c o n s t i t u t i o n a n d i n d e p e n d e n t o f all social c o n d i t i o n s , a n d t h e y propose t o determ i n e * w h a t that nature i s .

3 3

I n research o f this sort, all peoples can be d r a w n

u p o n . N o d o u b t , i t w o u l d be preferable t o i n q u i r e m o s t o f the m o s t p r i m i tive, because a m o n g p r i m i t i v e s that o r i g i n a l nature is m o r e l i k e l y t o be i n the o p e n ; b u t since i t can also be f o u n d a m o n g t h e m o r e c i v i l i z e d , they t o o are naturally called u p o n t o testify. E v e n m o r e w i l l all those t h o u g h t «-o be n o t v e r y distant f r o m t h e o r i g i n s (all those assembled haphazardly u n d e r the i m precise r u b r i c o f savages) be p u t o n t h e same plane a n d consulted i n t e r changeably. M o r e o v e r , since f r o m this p o i n t o f v i e w t h e facts are o f interest o n l y i n p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e i r degree o f universality, researchers feel o b l i g e d t o amass the largest possible n u m b e r o f t h e m . I t is n o t t h o u g h t possible t o m a k e the scope o f c o m p a r i s o n t o o b r o a d . S u c h c a n n o t be m y m e t h o d , a n d f o r several reasons. First, f o r the sociologist as f o r the h i s t o r i a n , social facts exist i n r e l a t i o n ship w i t h t h e social system t o w h i c h t h e y b e l o n g ^ ; hence they c a n n o t be u n d e r s t o o d apart f r o m i t . T h i s is w h y t w o facts b e l o n g i n g t o t w o different societies c a n n o t be f r u i t f u l l y c o m p a r e d s i m p l y because t h e y resemble o n e a n other. T h o s e societies m u s t also resemble o n e a n o t h e r — w h i c h is t o say that the societies themselves m u s t b e varieties o f the same species. T h e c o m p a r a tive m e t h o d w o u l d be impossible i f social types d i d n o t exist, a n d i t c a n n o t

""The typo-ridden French second edition says terminer ("to finish" or "finish off"), instead of déterminer.

tThe term "function," in one of the senses associated with functionalism, appears in the French text: Les faits sociaux sont fonction du système social dont ils font partie. 31

Ibid., p. 32. [Frazer's actual reference is to Transylvania, not to the southern Slavs. Trans.]

32

In this regard, it should be noted that the more recent work, Totemism and Exogamy, marks an important advance in Frazer's thought and method. Whenever he describes the religious or household institutions of a tribe, he makes an effort to determine the geographical and social conditions in which that tribe is found. As sketchy as these analyses may be, they still suggest a break with the old methods of the anthropological school. 33

Of course, I, too, consider that the principal object of the science of religions is to arrive at an understanding of the religious nature of man. But since I see it not as an innate given but a product of social causes, there can be no question of determining it wholly apart from the social milieu.

92


be usefully a p p l i e d except w i t h i n t h e same t y p e . W h a t mistakes have b e e n left u n m a d e t h r o u g h failure t o u n d e r s t a n d this r u l e ! So i t is that scholars have i m p r o p e r l y c o m p a r e d facts that, despite e x t e r n a l resemblances, had n e i t h e r the same m e a n i n g n o r the same i m p o r t : p r i m i t i v e d e m o c r a c y a n d that o f t o day, the c o l l e c t i v i s m o f l o w e r societies a n d t h e socialist tendencies o f today, the m o n o g a m y that is prevalent a m o n g the A u s t r a l i a n tribes a n d that sanct i o n e d b y o u r codes, etc. C o n f u s i o n s o f this sort are f o u n d even i n Frazer's b o o k . H e o f t e n j u m b l e s t o g e t h e r m e r e a n i m a l - w o r s h i p a n d practices that are specifically t o t e m i c , even t h o u g h t h e sometimes e n o r m o u s distance b e t w e e n the c o r r e s p o n d i n g social m i l i e u x precludes any n o t i o n o f assimilating the t w o . T h u s , i f w e d o n o t w i s h t o fall i n t o the same mistakes, w e m u s t c o n centrate o u r research o n a clearly d e f i n e d t y p e o f society rather t h a n e x t e n d o u r research over all possible societies. I n d e e d , i t is i m p o r t a n t t o focus as n a r r o w l y as possible. W e can usefully c o m p a r e o n l y facts that w e k n o w w e l l . W h e n w e u n d e r t a k e t o encompass all sorts o f societies a n d civilizations, w e c a n n o t k n o w any w i t h the requisite c o m p e t e n c e ; w h e n w e p u t t o g e t h e r facts f r o m e v e r y w h e r e t o c o m p a r e t h e m , w e are f o r c e d t o take t h e m i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y , h a v i n g n e i t h e r t h e means n o r , for that matter, the t i m e t o treat t h e m critically. T h e s e chaotic and sketchy comparisons have discredited t h e c o m p a r a t i v e m e t h o d a m o n g a c e r t a i n n u m b e r o f g o o d m i n d s . T h a t m e t h o d can y i e l d serious results o n l y i f i t is app l i e d t o a rather l i m i t e d n u m b e r o f societies, so that each o f t h e m can be studied w i t h adequate p r e c i s i o n . T h e k e y is t o choose those i n w h i c h t h e i n vestigation has t h e greatest chance o f b e i n g

fruitful.

I n any event, the q u a l i t y o f the facts is m u c h m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e i r n u m b e r . Q u i t e secondary, i n m y v i e w ,

3 4

is the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t o t e m i s m

was m o r e w i d e s p r e a d o r less so. I f t o t e m i s m interests m e , that is m a i n l y b e cause, t h r o u g h s t u d y i n g i t , I h o p e j t o discover relationships t h a t j w i l l h e l p us understand w h a t r e l i g i o n

isrTo establish

relationships, i t is n e i t h e r necessary

n o r always useful t o stack e x p e r i m e n t s o n e u p o n t h e other. I t is far m o r e i m p o r t a n t t o have w e l l - d o n e e x p e r i m e n t s that are t r u l y significant. A solitary fact can shed l i g h t o n a law, w h i l e a m u l t i t u d e o f vague a n d imprecise observations can lead o n l y t o c o n f u s i o n . I n every k i n d o f science, the scientist w o u l d be s u b m e r g e d b y the facts that present themselves i f he d i d n o t m a k e a c h o i c e a m o n g t h e m . H e m u s t perceive w h i c h ones p r o m i s e t o be t h e m o s t i n s t r u c t i v e a n d t u r n his a t t e n t i o n t o those, w h i l e t u r n i n g aside from t h e o t h ers t e m p o r a r i l y .

34

Hence the importance I ascribe to totemism is entirely independent of the question whether it was universal, a point that cannot be repeated too many times.

93


T h i s is w h y , w i t h o n e e x c e p t i o n that w i l l be i n d i c a t e d later, I propose t o l i m i t m y research t o the A u s t r a l i a n societies. T h e y f u l f i l l all the c o n d i t i o n s that have j u s t b e e n listed. T h e y are c o m p l e t e l y h o m o g e n e o u s ; and w h i l e o n e can discern varieties a m o n g t h e m , t h e y b e l o n g t o t h e same type. I n d e e d , t h e i r h o m o g e n e i t y is so great that the f r a m e w o r k o f social o r g a n i z a t i o n is n o t o n l y the same b u t designated b y names that are e i t h e r i d e n t i c a l o r equivalent i n m a n y tribes that are sometimes v e r y far f r o m o n e a n o t h e r .

35

I n addition,

the m o s t t h o r o u g h d o c u m e n t a t i o n w e have concerns A u s t r a l i a n t o t e m i s m . Finally, w h a t I propose above all t o study i n this w o r k is t h e m o s t p r i m i t i v e and the simplest r e l i g i o n t h a t can b e f o u n d . T o discover that r e l i g i o n , t h e r e fore, i t is n a t u r a l f o r m e t o address m y s e l f t o societies that stand as close as possible t o the o r i g i n s o f e v o l u t i o n . I t is o b v i o u s l y there that I have the greatest chance o f d i s c o v e r i n g that r e l i g i o n a n d s t u d y i n g i t properly. N o w , there are n o societies that e x h i b i t this characteristic m o r e f u l l y t h a n d o the A u s tralian tribes. N o t o n l y is t h e i r t e c h n o l o g y q u i t e r u d i m e n t a r y — t h e house and even t h e h u t are still u n k n o w n a m o n g t h e m — b u t t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n is the m o s t p r i m i t i v e a n d t h e simplest k n o w n . I t is the o r g a n i z a t i o n that I have called e l s e w h e r e

36

" o r g a n i z a t i o n based u p o n clans." B e g i n n i n g i n t h e n e x t

chapter, I w i l l set o u t its basic traits. S t i l l , w h i l e m a k i n g A u s t r a l i a the m a i n object o f m y research, I t h i n k i t useful n o t t o disregard c o m p l e t e l y t h e societies i n w h i c h t o t e m i s m was

first

discovered: t h e I n d i a n tribes o f N o r t h A m e r i c a . T h e r e is n o t h i n g i l l f o u n d e d a b o u t e x p a n d i n g the field o f c o m p a r i s o n i n this way. G r a n t e d , the A m e r i c a n peoples are m o r e advanced than those o f A u s tralia. T h e t e c h n o l o g y has b e c o m e m o r e developed, the people live i n houses o r tents, and there are even f o r t i f i e d villages. T h e social density is greater, and centralization, w h i c h is altogether absent i n Australia, begins t o appear: T h e r e are vast confederations u n d e r a central authority, such as that o f the I r o q u o i s . Sometimes there is a c o m p l e x system o f differentiated a n d hierarchically o r dered classes. Nonetheless, the basic lines o f societal structure r e m a i n w h a t they are i n Australia; i t is still o r g a n i z a t i o n based o n clans. T h u s w e d o n o t have t w o different types b u t t w o varieties o f the same type, w h i c h are rather close

35

This is the case of the phratries and the marriage classes; on this point, see Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, chap. Ill; Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 109, 137-142; [Northcote Whitridge] Thomas, Kinship [Organizations] and [Croup] Marriage in Australia [Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1906], chaps. VI, VII. 3 6

Emile Dürkheim, Division du travail social, 3d ed. [Paris, F. Mean, (1893) 1902], p. 150. [Also in

Emile Dürkheim on the Division of Labor in Society, New York, Macmillan, 1933, p. 175. Trans.].


94

to one another. T h e y are t w o successive m o m e n t s i n a single e v o l u t i o n ; i n consequence, they are similar e n o u g h t o make comparisons possible. Besides, such comparisons can have t h e i r uses. Precisely because t h e t e c h n o l o g y o f the Indians is m u c h m o r e advanced t h a n that o f t h e A u s tralians, c e r t a i n aspects o f the social o r g a n i z a t i o n c o m m o n t o b o t h are m o r e easily s t u d i e d a m o n g t h e Indians. A s l o n g as m e n are still m a k i n g t h e i r first steps i n the art o f expressing t h e i r t h o u g h t , i t is n o t easy f o r the observer t o perceive w h a t moves t h e m ; f o r n o t h i n g translates i n an o b v i o u s w a y w h a t happens i n these obscure m i n d s t h a t have o n l y a confused a n d fleeting selfawareness. F o r example, r e l i g i o u s symbols are at that p o i n t o n l y formless c o m b i n a t i o n s o f lines a n d colors, t h e m e a n i n g o f w h i c h is n o t easy t o guess, as w e w i l l see. T h e r e are i n d e e d m a n y actions a n d m o v e m e n t s b y w h i c h i n w a r d states are expressed; b u t since those states are b y nature q u i c k l y disappear

from

fleeting,

they

v i e w . T h e reason t o t e m i s m was n o t i c e d earlier i n

N o r t h A m e r i c a t h a n i n A u s t r a l i a is this: i t was m o r e readily seen—even t h o u g h i n A m e r i c a i t h a d a relatively smaller place i n t h e t o t a l i t y o f r e l i g i o u s life. Besides, w h e r e the beliefs a n d i n s t i t u t i o n s are n o t captured i n a rather d e f i n i t e m a t e r i a l f o r m , t h e y are m o r e l i k e l y t o change u n d e r the i n f l u e n c e o f the slightest circumstance, o r t o be erased from m e m o r y altogether. T h u s , there is s o m e t h i n g changeable

a n d p r o t e a n a b o u t the A u s t r a l i a n clans,

whereas the c o r r e s p o n d i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n i n A m e r i c a m o s t o f t e n has greater stability a n d m o r e

clearly d e f i n e d c o n t o u r s . T h u s , a l t h o u g h A m e r i c a n

t o t e m i s m is f u r t h e r from the o r i g i n s t h a n Australia's, there are i m p o r t a n t features w h o s e remnants i t has better preserved f o r us. I n t h e second place, t o u n d e r s t a n d an i n s t i t u t i o n p r o p e r l y , i t is o f t e n w e l l to f o l l o w i t i n t o advanced phases o f its e v o l u t i o n ,

3 7

f o r sometimes i t is o n l y

w h e n t h e i n s t i t u t i o n is f u l l y d e v e l o p e d that its t r u e m e a n i n g appears w i t h greatest clarity. O n those g r o u n d s as w e l l , since A m e r i c a n t o t e m i s m has a l o n g e r history, i t can h e l p clarify c e r t a i n aspects o f A u s t r a l i a n t o t e m i s m .

3 8

At

the same time, i t w i l l p u t us i n a better p o s i t i o n t o see h o w t o t e m i s m is c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e r e l i g i o u s f o r m s that have c o m e later a n d t o place i t w i t h i n the c o n t e x t o f h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t .

37

Of course, things do not always work in this fashion. As I have said, the simplest forms frequently help us better understand the more complex. On this point, no rule of method is automatically applicable to all possible cases. 38

It is in this way that individual totemism in America will help us understand its role and importance in Australia. Since individual totemism is very rudimentary in Australia, it probably would have passed unnoticed.

95


I n the analyses t o f o l l o w , I w i l l n o t bar m y s e l f f r o m u s i n g certain data d r a w n f r o m the I n d i a n societies o f N o r t h A m e r i c a . I use i t n o t because there c o u l d be any q u e s t i o n o f s t u d y i n g A m e r i c a n t o t e m i s m h e r e .

39

S u c h a study

must be d o n e direcdy, i n a n d o f itself, a n d n o t b u r i e d i n the study I w i l l u n dertake: I t w o u l d pose different problems a n d w o u l d i n v o l v e a w h o l e set o f specific investigations. I use A m e r i c a n data o n l y as a s u p p l e m e n t a n d o n l y w h e n i t appears w e l l suited t o h e l p i n g us understand the A u s t r a l i a n data b e t ter. T h e latter are the real a n d i m m e d i a t e o b j e c t o f m y research.

40

"Moreover, in America there is not one type of totemism but different types that would have to be distinguished. '"I will depart from that circle of facts quite rarely, when a particularly instructive comparison seems essential.

BOOK

TWO

"HE ELEMENTARY B ELIEFS

CHAPTER ONE

THE PRINCIPAL TOTEMIC BELIEFS The Totem as Name and as Emblem

O

w i n g t o its nature, m y study w i l l be i n t w o parts. Since every r e l i g i o n is m a d e u p o f i n t e l l e c t u a l c o n c e p t i o n s a n d r i t u a l practices, I m u s t treat i n

succession the beliefs a n d rites that m a k e u p t o t e m i c r e l i g i o n . Nevertheless, these t w o elements o f religious life are t o o closely allied f o r any radical separ a t i o n t o be possible. A l t h o u g h i n p r i n c i p l e d e r i v e d f r o m t h e beliefs, t h e c u l t nevertheless reacts u p o n t h e m , a n d the m y t h is o f t e n m o d e l e d o n the r i t e so as t o a c c o u n t f o r i t , especially w h e n the m e a n i n g o f the r i t e is n o t , o r is n o longer, apparent. Conversely, there are beliefs that d o n o t clearly manifest themselves except t h r o u g h rites that translate t h e m . T h u s , the t w o parts o f the analysis c a n n o t fail t o i n t e r p e n e t r a t e . S t i l l , t h e y are o f such a different o r der that separate study o f t h e m is indispensable. A n d since i t is impossible t o understand a n y t h i n g a b o u t a r e l i g i o n w i t h o u t k n o w i n g the ideas o n w h i c h i t rests, w e m u s t first b e c o m e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h those ideas. M y i n t e n t i o n is n o t t o retrace here all the speculative byways o f r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t , even a m o n g the Australians. I w i s h t o get d o w n t o the e l e m e n t a r y ideas at the basis o f r e l i g i o n , b u t the p o i n t is n o t t o f o l l o w speculative t h o u g h t t h r o u g h all the sometimes q u i t e l u x u r i a n t detail that the m y t h o l o g ical i m a g i n a t i o n has g i v e n t h e m i n these societies. W h e n m y t h s can a i d i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e f u n d a m e n t a l n o t i o n s better, I w i l l c e r t a i n l y use those, b u t w i t h o u t m a k i n g m y t h o l o g y itself t h e o b j e c t o f study. Besides, insofar as m y t h o l o g y is a w o r k o f art, i t does n o t b e l o n g solely t o the science o f r e l i gions. I n a d d i t i o n , the m e n t a l processes o f w h i c h i t is the o u t c o m e are far t o o c o m p l e x t o a l l o w t h e m t o be s t u d i e d i n d i r e c t l y a n d obliquely. M y t h o l o g y is a d i f f i c u l t p r o b l e m i n its o w n r i g h t , o n e t h a t m u s t be treated i n a n d o f itself and a c c o r d i n g t o its o w n specialized m e t h o d .

99

100

THE ELEMENTARY BELIEFS

A m o n g the beliefs o n w h i c h t o t e m i c r e l i g i o n rests, the m o s t i m p o r t a n t are those that c o n c e r n the t o t e m , and so w e m u s t b e g i n w i t h those beliefs.

I A t the basis o f m o s t Australian tribes, w e f i n d a g r o u p that has a d o m i n a n t place i n collective life: T h a t g r o u p is the clan. T w o essential traits characterize i t . First, the i n d i v i d u a l s w h o c o m p r i s e i t consider themselves j o i n e d b y a b o n d o f k i n s h i p b u t a b o n d o f a particular sort. T h i s k i n s h i p does n o t arise f r o m the fact that they have w e l l - d e f i n e d relations o f c o m m o n b l o o d ; t h e y are k i n solely because t h e y bear the same name. T h e y are n o t fathers, m o t h e r s , sons o r daughters, uncles o r n e p h e w s o f o n e a n o t h e r i n the sense w e n o w give those terms; nevertheless t h e y regard themselves as f o r m i n g a single f a m ily, w h i c h is b r o a d o r n a r r o w d e p e n d i n g o n the size o f the clan, solely because they are c o l l e c t i v e l y designated b y the same w o r d . A n d i f w e say they regard o n e a n o t h e r as b e i n g o f the same family, i t is because t h e y a c k n o w l e d g e r e ciprocal obligations i d e n t i c a l t o those that have b e e n i n c u m b e n t o n k i n i n all ages: obligations o f help, vengeance, n o t m a r r y i n g o n e another, and so f o r t h . I n this first characteristic, the c l a n is n o t different f r o m t h e R o m a n gens a n d the G r e e k yevos, f o r k i n s h i p a m o n g the gentiles arose exclusively f r o m t h e fact that a l l t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e gens c a r r i e d t h e same n a m e ,

1

the nomen gen-

tilicium. A n d o f course theêns is i n sense a clan, b u t i t is a v a r i e t y o f the genus 2

that m u s t n o t be confused w i t h the A u s t r a l i a n c l a n . W h a x d j i t i i i g u i s l i g s - t l i e Australianjclan is t h a t t h e n a m e i t bears is also thatôf a d e f i n i t e species o f m a terial things w i t h w h i c h i t t h i n k s i t has special relations w h o s e nature I w i l l address b e l o w , i n particular, relations o f k i n s h i p . T h e species o f things that serves t o designate t h e clan c o l l e c t i v e l y is called its totem. T h e clan's t o t e m is also that o f each clan m e m b e r . E v e r y clan has a t o t e m that belongs t o i t alone; t w o different clans o f t h e same t r i b e c a n n o t have t h e same o n e . I n d e e d , o n e is p a r t o f a clan o n l y b y v i r t u e o f h a v i n g a c e r t a i n name. So all w h o bear this n a m e are m e m b e r s o f i t i n the same r i g h t ; h o w e v e r scattered across t h e t r i b a l t e r r i t o r y they m a y be, t h e y all have the same k i n relations w i t h o n e a n o t h e r .

3

I n consequence, t w o

'Here is the definition Cicero gave to gentility. Gentiles sunt qui inter se eodem nomine sunt (Top. 6). [Members of a gens are those who have the same family name. Trans.] 2

In general, a clan is a family group in which kinship results onlyfromhaving the same name. It is in this sense that the gens is a clan. The totemic clan is a particular species within the genus thus constituted. 3

To a certain extent, the ties of solidarity extend even beyond the limits of the tribe. When individuals of different tribes have the same totem, they have special duties toward one another. This fact is explicidy stated for certain tribes of North America. (See [James George] Frazer, Totemism and Exogamy, vol.

101

The Principal Totemic Beliefs

groups that have t h e same t o t e m can o n l y be t w o sections o f the same clan. I t is c o m m o n f o r a clan n o t t o reside i n t h e same place, b u t to have m e m b e r s i n different places. E v e n so, t h e clan's u n i t y is felt, t h o u g h i t has n o g e o graphical basis. R e g a r d i n g the w o r d " t o t e m " : T h e O j i b w a y , an A l g o n q u i n t r i b e , use this 4

w o r d t o d e n o t e the species o f things w h o s e n a m e a clan bears. A l t h o u g h the 5

t e r m is n o t A u s t r a l i a n , a n d i n fact is f o u n d i n o n l y o n e society o f A m e r i c a , ethnographers have a d o p t e d i t a n d use i t generally t o d e n o t e the i n s t i t u t i o n I a m d e s c r i b i n g . Schoolcraft, the first t o e x t e n d t h e m e a n i n g i n this sense, 6

spoke o f a " t o t e m i c system." T h i s e x t e n s i o n , o f w h i c h there are n u m e r o u s examples i n ethnography, does have drawbacks. I t is n o t q u i t e r i g h t f o r an i n s t i t u t i o n o f such i m p o r t a n c e t o bear a n a m e that is g i v e n haphazardly, taken from

a s t r i c t l y l o c a l dialect, a n d i n n o w a y r e f l e c t i n g t h e distinctive traits o f

the t h i n g i t expresses. B u t t o d a y this usage o f t h e w o r d is so universally accepted that i t w o u l d be an excess o f p u r i s m t o rebel against i t .

7

I n t h e great m a j o r i t y o f cases, t h e objects t h a t serve as t o t e m s * b e l o n g t o

III [4 vols., London, Macmillan, 1910], pp. 57, 81, 299, 356-357. The texts on Australia are less explicit. Still, the prohibition of marriage between members of the same totem is probably international. *In this chapter, Durkheim applies the adjective "totemic" (totemique) to "system," "group," "belief," "mark," "representation," "significance," "coat of arms," "symbol," and "decoration"—indeed, to everything except the animal or plant that serves as the totem of some group. I believe he intends to keep reminding the reader that while an animal or plant is the totem of some group, in itself it is not the totem; hence his careful locution, "the animal that serves as totem," which weighs down English sentences. Having stated this reminder, I simplify with "totemic animal" from now on. 4

[Lewis Henry] Morgan, Ancient Society [or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery

through Barbarism to Civilization, London, Macmillan, 1877], p. 165. 5

In Australia, the words used vary by tribe. In the regions observed by Grey, people said Kobong; the Dieri say Murdu ([Alfred William] Howitt, The Native Tribes of South-East Australia [New York, Macmillan, 1904], p. 91), the Narrinyeri, Ngaitye ([Rev. George] Taplin, in [Edward] Micklethwaite Curr, [The

Australian Race; Its Origin, Languages, Customs, Place of Landing in Australia, and the Routes by Which It Sprea Itself over That Continent], vol. II ([Melbourne, J. Ferres, 1886-87], p. 244), the Warramunga, Mungai or

Mungaii [Sir Baldwin Spencer and Francis James Gillen] Northern Tribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1904], p. 754), etc. 6

[Henry Rowe] Schoolcraft, [Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the History, Condition, and Prospects of the] Indian Tribes of the United States, IV [Philadelphia, Lippincott Grambo, 1851—1857], p. 86.

[The phrase "totemic element" appears on this page, but the passage is not about a "totemic system." Trans.] 'And yet the fate of this word is all the more regrettable, since we do not even know exacdy how it is spelled. Some spell it totam, others toodaim or dodaim or ododam. See Frazer, Totemism qnd Exogamy, vol. I, p. 1. Even the meaning of the word is not exactly defined. If we rely on thefirstobserver of the Ojibway, J. Long, the word totem designates the protective genie, the individual totem (to be discussed later, Bk. II, chap. 4), and not the totem of the clan. But the reports of other explorers say exacdy the opposite (see on this point Frazer, Totemism and Exogamy, vol. Ill, pp. 49—52).

102

T H E ELEMENTARY BELIEFS

e i t h e r the p l a n t o r a n i m a l k i n g d o m b u t m a i n l y t o the latter. I n a n i m a t e things are used m u c h m o r e rarely. O f m o r e t h a n 5 0 0 t o t e m i c names listed b y H o w i t t f r o m a m o n g the tribes o f the A u s t r a l i a n Southwest, barely f o r t y are n o t names o f e i t h e r plants o r animals: T h e y are clouds, r a i n , h a i l ,

frost,

m o o n , sun, w i n d , a u t u m n , s u m m e r , w i n t e r , c e r t a i n stars, t h u n d e r ,

fire,

smoke, water, r e d ochre, a n d sea. T o be n o t e d is the v e r y l i m i t e d place g i v e n t o heavenly bodies and, m o r e generally, t o the great cosmic p h e n o m e n a that nonetheless w e r e t o have a great future i n the course o f r e l i g i o u s d e v e l o p m e n t . A m o n g all t h e clans o f w h i c h H o w i t t speaks, there are o n l y t w o w i t h 8

9

the m o o n as t o t e m , t w o w i t h the s u n , three w i t h a star, thunder,

11

and t w o w i t h l i g h t n i n g .

the others, r a i n is v e r y c o m m o n .

1 2

10

three w i t h the

O n l y the r a i n is an e x c e p t i o n ; u n l i k e

1 3

Such are t h e t o t e m s that m a y be called n o r m a l , b u t t o t e m i s m has its abn o r m a l i t i e s as w e l l . S o m e t i m e s t h e t o t e m is n o t a w h o l e o b j e c t b u t p a r t o f 14

one. T h i s seems t o be rather u n c o m m o n i n A u s t r a l i a ; H o w i t t cites o n l y a single e x a m p l e .

15

H o w e v e r , i t m i g h t w e l l t u r n o u t t o be a rather frequent o c -

c u r r e n c e i n tribes i n w h i c h t h e t o t e m i c groups have b e e n excessively s u b d i v i d e d , i n w h i c h o n e c o u l d say that t h e totems themselves m u s t have b e e n b r o k e n i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e names f o r t h e m a n y divisions. T h i s seems t o have happened

a m o n g the

A r u n t a a n d the

Loritja.

I n those t w o

societies,

S t r e h l o w lists as m a n y as 4 4 2 t o t e m s , several o f w h i c h designate n o t an a n i m a l species b u t a p a r t i c u l a r p a r t o f such a n i m a l s — f o r example, t h e tail o r t h e s t o m a c h o f the o p o s s u m , o r the fat o f t h e k a n g a r o o .

16

"The Wotjobaluk (p. 121) and the Buandik (p. 123). 'Ibid. 10

The Wolgal (p. 102), the Wotjobaluk, and the Buandik.

"The Muruburra (p. 117), the Wotjobaluk, and the Buandik. 12

The Buandik and the Kaiabara (p. 116). Note that all these examples are taken from onlyfivetribes.

"Similarly, of 204 kinds of totems collected by Spencer and Gillen in a large number of tribes, 188 are animals or plants. Inanimate objects are the boomerang, cold water, darkness,fire,lightning, the moon, red ochre, resin, salt water, the evening star, a stone, the sun, water, the whirlwind, the wind, and hailstones (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 773. Cf. Frazer, Totemism and Exogamy, vol. I, pp. 253-254). ,4

Frazer (Totemism and Exogamy, pp. 10, 13) cites numerous cases and even makes them a genus apart, which he calls split-totems. But these examples are taken from tribes in which totemism is profoundly altered, as in Samoa and in the tribes of Bengal. "Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 107. 16

See the tables compiled by [Carl] Strehlow, Die Aranda- und Loritja-Stdmme in Zentral-Australien, Frankfurt, J. Baer, 1907, vol. II, pp. 61—72 (cf. Ill, xiii—xvii). It is worth noting that these fragmentary totems are exclusively animal totems.

103


T h e t o t e m is o r d i n a r i l y n o t an i n d i v i d u a l b u t a species o r a v a r i e t y : I t is n o t such a n d such kangaroo o r c r o w b u t the kangaroo o r the c r o w i n g e n eral. Nonetheless, i t is sometimes a p a r t i c u l a r object. T h i s is u n a v o i d a b l y the case w h e n a t h i n g that is u n i q u e o f its k i n d serves as t o t e m : the sun, the m o o n , such a n d such c o n s t e l l a t i o n , a n d so f o r t h . B u t sometimes, as w e l l , clans d r a w t h e i r names f r o m this f o l d , that g e o l o g i c a l l y caused depression i n the t e r r a i n , that a n t h i l l , a n d so f o r t h . W h i l e i t is t r u e that w e have o n l y a small n u m b e r o f examples i n Australia, S t r e h l o w m e n t i o n s s o m e .

17

B u t the

v e r y causes that have g i v e n rise t o these a b n o r m a l totems s h o w that they are o f relatively recent o r i g i n . W h a t actually has caused the e r e c t i o n o f c e r t a i n sites i n t o t o t e m s is that a m y t h i c a l b e i n g is t h o u g h t t o have stopped there a n d t o have d o n e some deed o f his l e g e n d a r y l i f e .

1 8

T h e s e ancestors are at the

same time presented t o us i n the m y t h s as themselves b e l o n g i n g t o clans that o n c e h a d p e r f e c d y n o r m a l t o t e m s , that is, taken f r o m a n i m a l o r p l a n t species. So the t o t e m i c names that c o m m e m o r a t e the e x p l o i t s o f these heroes c a n n o t be p r i m i t i v e , b u t instead are l i n k e d w i t h a f o r m o f t o t e m i s m that is already derivative a n d altered. T h e q u e s t i o n arises w h e t h e r the m e t e o r o l o g i c a l t o tems are n o t o f the same o r i g i n , since the sun, m o o n , and stars are o f t e n i d e n t i f i e d w i t h ancestors o f t h e m y t h i c a l a g e .

19

S o m e t i m e s — t h o u g h r a r e l y — a g r o u p o f ancestors o r a single ancestor is used as a t o t e m . T h e t o t e m i n this case is n o t n a m e d after a real t h i n g o r a species o f real things b u t after a p u r e l y m y t h i c a l b e i n g . Spencer a n d G i l l e n l o n g ago n o t e d t w o o r three t o t e m s o f this sort. A m o n g the W a r r a m u n g a and a m o n g t h e T j i n g i l l i is a^ cjan that bears t h e n a m e o f an ancestor called T h a balla, w h o seems t o incarnate g a i e t y .

20

A n o t h e r W a r r a m u n g a clan bears the

n a m e o f a fabulous g i a n t snake n a m e d W o l l u n q u a , from w h o m the clan is h e l d t o be d e s c e n d e d .

17

21

W e are i n d e b t e d t o S t r e h l o w f o r several examples o f

Ibid., pp. 52, 72.

18

For example, one of those totems is a depression in which an ancestor of the wildcat totem rested; another is an underground gallery dug by an ancestor of the Mouse clan (ibid., p. 72). l9

[Sir Baldwin Spencer and Francis James Gillen], NativeTribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1899], pp. 561ff. Strehlow [Aranda], vol. II, p. 71 n. 2. [Alfred William] Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 426ff.; "On Australian Medicine Men," JA1, vol. XVI (1887), p. 53; "Further Notes on the Australian Class Systems," _/,4/, vol. XVIII [1899], pp. 63ff. 20

According to the translation of Spencer and Gillen, "Thaballa" means "the boy who laughs." The members of the clan that bears his name believe they hear him laugh in the rocks that serve as his residence (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 207, 215 [227 n.]). According to the myth reported on p. 422, there was an initial group of mythical Thaballas (cf. p. 208). The clan of the Kati, fully developed men ("full-grown men" as Spencer and Gillen say) seems to be of the same sort (p. 207). 21

Ibid„ pp. 226ff.


104

this s o r t .

22

I n all these cases, i t is rather easy t o see w h a t m u s t have happened.

U n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f v a r i o u s causes, and t h r o u g h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t

of

m y t h o l o g i c a l t h o u g h t itself, the collective a n d i m p e r s o n a l t o t e m gave w a y t o certain m y t h i c a l personages w h o m o v e d t o the first r a n k a n d became t o t e m s themselves. T h u s , as i n t e r e s t i n g as these various irregularities m a y be, n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e m s h o u l d require us t o m o d i f y o u r d e f i n i t i o n o f the t o t e m . T h e y d o n o t , as was once b e l i e v e d ,

23

c o n s t i t u t e so m a n y k i n d s o f t o t e m s m o r e o r less i r r e -

d u c i b l e t o one a n o t h e r a n d t o the n o r m a l t o t e m , as I have d e f i n e d i t . T h e y are o n l y secondary a n d sometimes m u t a n t f o r m s o f one a n d the same n o t i o n that is b y far t h e m o s t c o m m o n a n d that there is every reason t o regard also as the m o s t p r i m i t i v e . How

the t o t e m i c n a m e is a c q u i r e d bears m o r e o n the r e c r u i t m e n t a n d

o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the clan t h a n o n r e l i g i o n ; i t thus belongs m o r e t o the s o c i o l o g y o f the f a m i l y t h a n t o r e l i g i o u s s o c i o l o g y .

24

Therefore, I w i l l not go be-

y o n d a s u m m a r y sketch o f t h e m o s t basic g o v e r n i n g p r i n c i p l e s . D e p e n d i n g o n t h e t r i b e , three different rules are i n use. I n m a n y societies, i n fact i n m o s t , the c h i l d has the t o t e m o f its m o t h e r , by b i r t h : T h i s is the case a m o n g the D i e r i a n d t h e U r a b u n n a o f s o u t h - c e n t r a l Australia; the W o t j o b a l u k and the G o u r n d i t c h - M a r a o f V i c t o r i a ; the K a m i ¬ l a r o i , the W i r a d j u r i , the W o n g h i b o n , a n d t h e E u a h l a y i o f N e w S o u t h Wales; the W a k e l b u r a , the P i t t a - P i t t a , a n d t h e K u r n a n d a b u r i o f Q u e e n s l a n d , t o cite o n l y the m o s t i m p o r t a n t names. Since i n this case the m o t h e r must be o f a different t o t e m from her husband, g i v e n t h e r u l e o f exogamy, a n d yet lives at her husband's place o f o r i g i n , t h e m e m b e r s o f a single t o t e m are o f necessity dispersed a m o n g different places, d e p e n d i n g o n marriages. As a result, the t o t e m i c g r o u p has n o t e r r i t o r i a l base. Elsewhere, the t o t e m is t r a n s m i t t e d i n the paternal line. I n that case, the c h i l d remains near its father, a n d the l o c a l g r o u p is essentially m a d e u p o f p e o ple w h o b e l o n g t o the same t o t e m , w i t h o n l y the m a r r i e d w o m e n i n t h e m

22

Strehlow [Aranda], vol. II, pp. 71-72. Strehlow reports from among the Loritja and the Arunta the totem of a mythical water snake, which is very like that of the serpent Wollunqua. 23

This is true of Klaatsch, in his article previously cited (see [Hermann Klaatsch, "Schlussbericht iiber meine Reise nach Australien in den Jahren 1904-1907"], ZE, vol. XXXIX ([1907], above, p. 89, n. 23). 24

As I indicated in the preceding chapter, totemism concerns both religion and the family. In lower societies, these problems are closely interrelated, but both are so complex that they must be dealt with separately. Moreover, familial organization cannot be understood in advance of knowing primitive religious ideas, for those ideas serve as principles of the family. This is why it was necessary to study totemism as religion before studying the totemic clan as family grouping.

105


representing f o r e i g n totems. I n o t h e r w o r d s , each l o c a l i t y has its o w n t o t e m . I n Australia u n t i l recent times, this m o d e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n had o n l y b e e n m e t w i t h i n some tribes w h e r e t o t e m i s m is i n decay—for example, a m o n g the N a r r i n y e r i , w h e r e t h e t o t e m has v i r t u a l l y n o religious character a n y m o r e .

25

T h u s there was g o o d reason t o believe that a close c o n n e c t i o n existed b e t w e e n the t o t e m i c system a n d descent i n the m a t e r n a l l i n e . B u t Spencer a n d G i l l e n have observed, i n the n o r t h e r n part o f central Australia, a w h o l e g r o u p o f tribes i n w h i c h the t o t e m i c r e l i g i o n is still p r a c t i c e d a n d yet the transmission o f the t o t e m moves t h r o u g h the paternal l i n e : These are the W a r r a m u n g a , the G n a n j i , the U m b a i a , the B i n b i n g a , the M a r a , and the A n u l a .

2 6

Finally, a t h i r d c o m b i n a t i o n is observed a m o n g t h e A r u n t a a n d the L o r i t j a . H e r e t h e t o t e m o f the c h i l d is n o t necessarily that o f either its m o t h e r o r its father b u t that o f the m y t h i c a l ancestor w h o m y s t i c a l l y i m p r e g n a t e d t h e m o t h e r at the t i m e o f c o n c e p t i o n , b y procedures that the observers r e p o r t i n different w a y s .

27

A d e f i n i t e t e c h n i q u e p e r m i t s r e c o g n i t i o n o f w h i c h ancestor

it is a n d t o w h i c h t o t e m i c g r o u p he b e l o n g s .

28

B u t because chance places o n e

ancestor a n d n o t a n o t h e r close t o t h e m o t h e r , t h e t o t e m o f t h e c h i l d t u r n s o u t t o b e subject t o f o r t u i t o u s c i r c u m s t a n c e s .

29

A b o v e a n d b e y o n d the totems o f clans are t h e t o t e m s o f phratries. A l t h o u g h n o t different i n nature f r o m clan t o t e m s , t h e y m u s t nevertheless be distinguished. A g r o u p o f clans u n i t e d b y p a r t i c u l a r b o n d s o f f r a t e r n i t y is called a p h r a t r y . N o r m a l l y , a n A u s t r a l i a n t r i b e is d i v i d e d i n t o t w o p h r a t r i e s , w i t h t h e v a r i o u s clans d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h e m . A l t h o u g h there are societies f r o m

25

See Taplin, "The Narrinyeri Tribe," in Curr, The Australian Race, vol. II, pp. 244—245; Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 131. 26

Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 163, 169, 170, 172. Still, it should be noted that in all these tribes except the Mara and the Anula, the transmission of the totem in the paternal line is apparently the most widespread rule, but there are exceptions. 27

According to Spencer and Gillen (Native Tribes, pp. 123ff.), the ancestor's soul is incarnated in the body of the mother and then becomes the soul of the child. According to Strehlow (Aranda, vol. II, pp. 51ff.), although conception is the work of the ancestor, it does not involve a reincarnation. But in both interpretations, the totem specific to the child does not necessarily depend on that of its parents. 28

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 133; Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, p. 53.

29

For the most part, it is the locality where the mother thinks she conceived that determines the totem of the child. As we will see, each totem has its center, and the ancestors prefer to frequent the places that serve as the centers of their respective totems. The totem of the child is thus that of the locality where the mother thinks she conceived. Further, as the mother must be most often in the environs of the place that is the totemic center of her husband, the child usually has the same totem as the father. This doubdess explains why most of the inhabitants in each locality belong to the same totem ([Spencer and Gillen] Native Tribes, p. 9).

106


w h i c h t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n has disappeared, t h e r e is e v e r y reason t o b e l i e v e t h a t i t was o n c e w i d e s p r e a d . I n A u s t r a l i a , at any rate, n o t r i b e has m o r e than t w o phratries. I n almost a l l cases i n w h i c h the phratries have a name w h o s e m e a n i n g c o u l d be d e t e r m i n e d , t h e n a m e t u r n e d o u t t o be that o f an a n i m a l ; i t t h e r e fore seems t o be a t o t e m . A . L a n g has s h o w n this clearly i n a recent b o o k .

3 0

A c c o r d i n g l y , a m o n g the G o u r n d i t c h - M a r a ( V i c t o r i a ) , o n e o f the phratries is called K r o k i t c h a n d the o t h e r K a p u t c h ; the first o f these means " w h i t e c o c k a t o o " a n d t h e second " b l a c k c o c k a t o o . "

31

T h e same terms are f o u n d , w h o l l y

o r i n part, a m o n g the B u a n d i k a n d t h e W o t j o b a l u k .

3 2

A m o n g the W a r r a -

m u n g a , t h e names used, B u n j i l a n d W a a n g q u i , m e a n eaglehawk and c r o w .

3 3

T h e w o r d s " M u k w a r a " a n d " K i l p a r a " are used f o r t h e same objects i n a large n u m b e r o f tribes i n N e w S o u t h W a l e s ;

34

t h e y designate the same a n i m a l s .

35

T h e eaglehawk a n d the c r o w have also g i v e n t h e i r names to the t w o phratries o f t h e N g a r i g o a n d the W o l g a l . c o c k a t o o a n d the c r o w .

3 7

3 6

A m o n g t h e K u i n m u r b u r a , i t is t h e w h i t e

O t h e r examples c o u l d b e c i t e d . T h u s w e c o m e t o

see the p h r a t r y as an a n c i e n t clan that was b r o k e n u p , the present clans as the result o f this d i s m e m b e r m e n t , a n d the s o l i d a r i t y that j o i n s t h e m as a relic o f their original u n i t y .

3 8

I t is t r u e that the phratries i n c e r t a i n tribes seem n o

l o n g e r t o have d e f i n i t e names; i n others, w h e r e names exist, t h e m e a n i n g is n o l o n g e r k n o w n even t o the natives. T h i s is i n n o w a y s u r p r i s i n g . T h e p h r a tries are doubtless a p r i m i t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n , since t h e y are r e c e d i n g e v e r y w h e r e ;

30

[Andrew Lang], The Secret of theTotem [London, Longmans, 1905], pp. 159ff. Cf. [Lorimer] Fison

and [Alfred William] Howitt, Kamilaroi and Kurnai [Group Marriage by Elopement Drawn Chiefly from the Usage ofAustralian Aborigines; also The Kurnai Tribe, Their Customs in Peace and War, Melbourne, G. Robertson,

1880], pp. 40-41; John Mathew, Eaglehawk and Crow [London, D. Nutt, 1899]; [Northcote Whitridge] Thomas, Kinship [Organization] and [Group] Marriage in Australia [Cambridge, Cambridge University

Press, 1906], pp. 52ff. 31

Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 124.

32

Ibid., pp. 121, 123, 124; Curr [TheAustralian Race], vol. Ill, p. 461.

33

Ho,witt, Native Tribes, p. 126.

M

Ibid., pp. 98ff.

35

Curr [The Australian Race], vol. II, p. 165; [Robert] Brough Smyth, [The Aborigines ofVictoria, vol. I, Melbourne, J. Ferres, Government Printer, 1878], p. 423; Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 429. ^Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 101-102. 37

[John] Mathew, Two Representative Tribes of Queensland [London, T. F. Unwin, 1910], p. 139.

38

Other support for this hypothesis could be adduced, but that would make it necessary to bring in considerations relative to familial organization, and I am trying to keep the two matters separate. Moreover, that question is of only secondary relevance to my subject.

107


i t is the clans, t h e i r offspring, that have c o m e t o the fore. So i t is natural that the names the phratries b o r e s h o u l d gradually have b e e n erased f r o m m e m o r y o r that p e o p l e s h o u l d have ceased t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e m , f o r they m u s t have b e l o n g e d t o a v e r y archaic language t h a t is n o l o n g e r used. A s p r o o f o f this, i n several cases i n w h i c h w e k n o w w h a t animal's n a m e i t bears, the w o r d that designates that a n i m a l i n everyday language is e n t i r e l y different f r o m t h e o n e that designates the p h r a t r y .

39

T h e r e is a k i n d o f s u b o r d i n a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p h r a t r y t o t e m and the clan totems. E a c h clan i n p r i n c i p l e belongs t o o n e a n d o n l y o n e phratry. I t is v e r y unusual f o r a clan t o have m e m b e r s i n t h e o t h e r phratry, a case that is almost never seen outside c e r t a i n tribes o f t h e center, especially the A r u n t a .

4 0

Still,

even w h e r e d i s r u p t i v e influences have p r o d u c e d overlappings o f that k i n d , the m a j o r i t y o f clan m e m b e r s are e n t i r e l y c o n t a i n e d i n o n e o f t h e tribe's t w o halves; o n l y a m i n o r i t y are f o u n d o n t h e o t h e r s i d e .

41

Hence, the t w o phra-

tries d o n o t as a r u l e interpenetrate; hence, the possible totems an i n d i v i d u a l can have are d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e p h r a t r y t o w h i c h h e belongs. I n o t h e r w o r d s , the p h r a t r y t o t e m is l i k e a genus o f w h i c h t h e clan totems are species. W e w i l l see that this c o m p a r i s o n is n o t p u r e l y m e t a p h o r i c a l . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e phratries a n d clans, w e o f t e n f i n d i n A u s t r a l i a n s o c i eties a secondary g r o u p that is n o t w i t h o u t a c e r t a i n distinctiveness: the m a r riage class. Subdivisions o f t h e phratry, w h o s e n u m b e r m a y v a r y f r o m t r i b e t o t r i b e , are called m a r r i a g e classes; sometimes w e f i n d t w o p e r p h r a t r y a n d s o m e times f o u r .

4 2

T h e i r r e c r u i t m e n t a n d f u n c t i o n i n g are regulated b y t w o p r i n c i -

ples. First, i n each phratry, each g e n e r a t i o n belongs t o a different class f r o m the g e n e r a t i o n d i r e c t l y p r e c e d i n g i t , so w h e n there are t w o classes per p h r a try, t h e y necessarily alternate i n each g e n e r a t i o n . T h e c h i l d r e n b e l o n g t o the 39

For example, Mukwara, which designates a phratry among the Barkinji, the Paruinji, and the Milpulko, means "eaglehawk," according to Brough Smyth; among the clans included in that phratry, there is one that has the eaglehawk as its totem, but here that animal is designated by the word Bilyara. The reader will find several cases of this sort cited by Lang, Secret of the Totem, p. 162. """Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 115. According to Howitt (Native Tribes pp. 121, 454), among the Wotjobaluk, the Pelican clan is also represented in both phratries. This seems to me doubtful. Possibly the two clans had two different species of pelicans as their totems. This is what seems to emerge from the information given by [R. H.] Mathews on the same tribe ("[Ethnological Notes on the] Aboriginal Tribes of New South Wales and Victoria," in RSNSW [vol. XXXVIII], 1904, pp. 287-288). 41

On this question, see my article [with Marcel Mauss] "[Sur] le Totémisme," in AS, vol. V [1902], pp. 82ff. 42

On the question of Australian classes in general, see my article "La Prohibition de l'inceste," in AS, vol. I [1898], pp. 9fF., and specifically on the tribes having eight classes, "L'Organisation matrimoniale des sociétés australiennes," in AS, vol. VIII [1905], pp. 118-147.

108


class t o w h i c h t h e i r parents d o n o t b e l o n g , a n d the g r a n d c h i l d r e n are o f the same class as t h e i r grandparents. T h u s , a m o n g t h e K a m i l a r o i , the K u p a t h i n p h r a t r y comprises t w o classes, I p p a i and K u m b o ; the D i l b i p h r a t r y comprises t w o others, called M u r r i a n d K u b b i . Since f i l i a t i o n goes i n the m a t e r n a l l i n e , the c h i l d is o f its mother's p h r a t r y ; i f the m o t h e r is K u p a t h i n , the c h i l d w i l l also be a K u p a t h i n . B u t i f she is o f the I p p a i class, he w i l l be a K u m b o ; t h e n , i f female, that child's c h i l d r e n w i l l again c o u n t w i t h i n t h e I p p a i class. L i k e wise, t h e c h i l d r e n o f w o m e n o f the M u r r i class w i l l be o f t h e K u b b i class, a n d the c h i l d r e n o f the K u b b i w o m e n w i l l again be M u r r i . * W h e n there are f o u r classes p e r p h r a t r y instead o f t w o , the system is m o r e c o m p l e x , b u t t h e p r i n ciple is the same. T h e f o u r classes basically f o r m t w o pairs o f t w o classes each, a n d these t w o classes alternate i n each g e n e r a t i o n i n the m a n n e r j u s t i n d i cated. Second, i n p r i n c i p l e , the m e m b e r s o f a class can c o n t r a c t m a r r i a g e i n o n l y o n e class o f t h e o t h e r p h r a t r y .

43

T h e I p p a i m u s t m a r r y i n the K u b b i

class; the M u r r i , i n the K u m b o class. Because this o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o f o u n d l y affects m a r r i a g e relations, these g r o u p i n g s have b e e n g i v e n the name " m a r riage classes." Scholars have asked w h e t h e r these classes sometimes h a d totems, as t h e phratries a n d the clans d o . T h i s q u e s t i o n arose because, i n c e r t a i n Q u e e n s l a n d tribes, each m a r r i a g e class is subject t o d i e t a r y restrictions peculiar t o i t . T h e individuals w h o c o m p r i s e i t m u s t abstain from the flesh o f certain animals that the o t h e r classes m a y freely e a t .

44

W o u l d these animals n o t be totems?

T h e d i e t a r y r e s t r i c t i o n , however, is n o t the characteristic m a r k o f t o t e m ism.

T h e t o t e m is, first a n d foremost, a n a m e and, as w e w i l l see, an e m -

b l e m . ^ I n the societies j u s t e x a m i n e d , n o m a r r i a g e class bears the name o f an a n i m a l o r p l a n t o r has an e m b l e m .

4 5

I t is possible, o f course, that these r e -

*The children of the Kubbi men will take their classfromtheir mother. Trans. ^That is, a stylized representation of the group designated—flags, coats of arms, and distinctive painting on people and things are examples. ,3

This principle is not upheld everywhere with equal rigor. In the tribes of the center that have eight classes, in particular, beyond the class with which marriage is regularly permitted, there is another with which people have a kind of secondary connubium (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 126). The same is true of certain tribes with four classes. Each class has the choice between two classes of the other phratry. This is true of the Kabi (see Mathew, in Curr, vol. Ill, p. 162 [This reference remains obscure. Trans.]). 44

See [Walter Edmund] Roth, Ethnological Studies among the North-West-Central Queensland Aborigines

(Brisbane, E. Gregory, Government Printer, 1897), pp. 56ff.; [Edward] Palmer, "Notes on Some Australian Tribes," JAI, vol. XIII (1894), [pp. 302ff.]. 45

Still, a few tribes are cited in which marriage classes have the names of animals or plants. This is the case of the Kabi (Mathew, Two Representative Tribes, p. 150), tribes observed by Mrs. [Daisy M.] Bates ("The Marriage Laws and Customs of the W. Australian Aborigines," in VGJ, vols. XXIII—XXIV, p. 47) and perhaps of two tribes observed by Palmer. But these phenomena are very rare and their significance

109


strictions derive f r o m t o t e m i s m indirectly. C o n c e i v a b l y the animals p r o t e c t e d b y t h e m o r i g i n a l l y served as t o t e m s f o r clans that have since

disappeared,

w h i l e the m a r r i a g e classes have r e m a i n e d . S o m e t i m e s i n d e e d t h e y d o have a staying p o w e r that clans d o n o t have. A s a result, t h e restrictions n o w adrift f r o m t h e i r o r i g i n a l supports m a y have spread t h r o u g h o u t each class, since there w e r e n o l o n g e r any o t h e r g r o u p i n g s t o w h i c h t h e y c o u l d b e c o m e attached. B u t even i f that r u l e was b o r n o f t o t e m i s m , clearly i t n o l o n g e r r e p resents a n y t h i n g m o r e t h a n a w e a k e n e d a n d d i l u t e d f o r m o f t o t e m i s m .

4 6

A l l that has j u s t b e e n said o f t h e t o t e m i n the A u s t r a l i a n societies is applicable t o the I n d i a n tribes o f N o r t h A m e r i c a . T h e o n l y difference is that t o t e m i c o r g a n i z a t i o n a m o n g the Indians has a boundedness a n d a stability that i t lacks i n A u s t r a l i a . T h e A u s t r a l i a n clans are n o t s i m p l y v e r y n u m e r o u s b u t o f almost u n l i m i t e d n u m b e r i n a single t r i b e . T h e observers cite some o f t h e m b y w a y o f e x a m p l e b u t never succeed i n g i v i n g us a full list. T h e reason is that t h e list is never d e f i n i t i v e l y closed. T h e same process o f segmentat i o n that o r i g i n a l l y d i s m e m b e r e d the p h r a t r y a n d gave rise t o clans p r o p e r goes o n endlessly w i t h i n the clans; as a consequence o f that progressive c r u m b l i n g , a clan o f t e n has o n l y a v e r y small m e m b e r s h i p .

47

I n America, by

contrast, the f o r m o f t h e t o t e m i c system is b e t t e r d e f i n e d . I n A m e r i c a the

poorly established. Moreover, it is not surprising that the classes, as well as the sexual groups, have sometimes adopted the names of animals. This unusual extension of totemic names in no way modifies my conception of totemism. [The ethnographer Durkheim identified simply as "Mrs. Bates" is the subject of a full-scale biography: Julia Blackburn, Daisy Bates in the Desert, New York, Pantheon, 1994. Trans.) "^The same explanation perhaps applies to certain other tribes of the Southeast and East in which, if Howitt's informants are to be believed, one wouldfindtotems specifically assigned to each marriage class as well. This presumably would be the case among the Wiradjuri, the Wakelbura, and the Bunta-Murra of the River Bulloo (Howitt, NativeTribes pp. 210, 221, 226). However, by his own admission, the testimonies he gathered are suspect. In fact, it emerges from the lists he compiled that several totems are found in both classes of the same phratry. The explanation I propose, after Frazer (Totemism and Exogamy, pp. 531fE), raises another difficulty. In principle, each clan, hence each totem, is represented indiscriminately in both classes of a single phratry, since one of those classes is that of children and the other that of the parents from whom the children get their totems. Thus, when the clans disappeared, the totemic prohibitions that survived must have remained common to the two marriage classes, since, in the cases cited, each class has its own. Whence that differentiation? The example of the Kaiabara (a tribe of the south of Queensland) enables us, perhaps, to visualize how this differentiation occurred. In that tribe, the children have their mother's totem, but it is individualized by a distinctive mark. If the mother has the black eaglehawk totem, the child's is the white eaglehawk (Howitt, NativeTribes, p. 229). Here, apparendy, are beginnings of a tendency for totems to differentiate according to marriage class. 47

A tribe of a few hundred people sometimes has as many asfiftyor sixty clans and even many more. See on this point Durkheim and Mauss, "De Quelques formes primitives de classification," in AS, vol. VI (1903), p. 28, n.l.

110


tribes are, o n the average, m a r k e d l y b i g g e r t h a n i n A u s t r a l i a b u t there are fewer clans. Since a single t r i b e rarely has m o r e t h a n a b o u t t e n ,

4 8

and o f t e n

fewer, each clan is a m u c h larger g r o u p . M o s t o f all, t h e i r n u m b e r is better defined: People k n o w h o w m a n y there are a n d t e l l u s .

49

T h i s difference is d u e t o t h e i r m o r e advanced social o r g a n i z a t i o n . F r o m the first t i m e those tribes w e r e observed, the social groups were deeply r o o t e d i n the soil and c o n s e q u e n t l y better able t o w i t h s t a n d the forces t o w a r d dispersion that assailed t h e m . A t t h e same t i m e , the society already h a d t o o strong a sense o f its u n i t y t o r e m a i n u n c o n s c i o u s o f itself a n d t h e parts c o m p r i s i n g i t . T h u s , the A m e r i c a n e x a m p l e gives us a b e t t e r grasp o f organizat i o n based o n clans. T o j u d g e that o r g a n i z a t i o n b y the w a y i t n o w appears i n Australia w o u l d b £ m i s l e a d i n g . T h e r e , i n fact, i t is i n a state o f disorder a n d d i s s o l u t i o n that is b y n o means n o r m a l ; i t o u g h t t o be seen instead as t h e p r o d u c t o f a decay that is a t t r i b u t a b l e as m u c h t o t h e n a t u r a l w e a r and tear o f t i m e as t o the d i s o r g a n i z i n g i n f l u e n c e o f the w h i t e s . T o be sure, i t is u n l i k e l y that the A u s t r a l i a n clans w e r e ever as large o r as s t r u c t u r a l l y durable as the A m e r i c a n clans. S t i l l , there m u s t have b e e n a t i m e w h e n the distance b e t w e e n t h e t w o was n o t so great as i t is today. T h e societies o f A m e r i c a w o u l d never have managed t o e q u i p themselves w i t h t h e substantial skeleton t h e y d i d i f the clan h a d always b e e n so fluid a n d insubstantial. I n d e e d , that greater stability has enabled t h e archaic system o f phratries t o persist i n A m e r i c a w i t h a c l a r i t y a n d r e l i e f that i t n o l o n g e r has i n Australia. I n Australia, t h e p h r a t r y is e v e r y w h e r e i n decline; i t is o f t e n n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n a g r o u p w i t h o u t a name. W h e n i t does have a name, that name is taken from a f o r e i g n language o r f r o m o n e that is n o l o n g e r spoken a n d is n o l o n g e r u n d e r s t o o d o r n o l o n g e r means m u c h t o the native. W e have b e e n able t o i n fer the existence o f p h r a t r y totems from a f e w survivals* that are, f o r the m o s t part, so i n c o n s p i c u o u s that they have escaped a n u m b e r o f observers. B y c o n trast, i n c e r t a i n parts o f A m e r i c a , this system o f phratries has r e m a i n e d at the fore. T h e tribes o f the n o r t h w e s t coast, i n p a r t i c u l a r the T l i n g i t a n d the H a i d a , have attained a relatively advanced level o f c i v i l i z a t i o n , a n d yet t h e y

"•Rendered here as "survivals," which is seldom used today, Durkheim's term survivances belongs to evolutionary theories of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It refers to traits thought of as vestiges from an earlier stage and, consequendy without present meaning or function. 48

Except among the Pueblo Indians of the Southwest, where they are more numerous. See [Frederick Webb] Hodge, "Pueblo Indian Clans," in AA, 1st ser., vol. IX (October 1895), pp. 345ff. Even so, we can ask whether the groups having those totems are clans or subclans. 49

See the tables compiled by Morgan in Ancient Society, pp. 153—185.

111


are d i v i d e d i n t o t w o phratries that are s u b d i v i d e d i n t o a n u m b e r o f clans: phratries o f t h e C r o w and t h e W o l f a m o n g the T l i n g i t , the C r o w a m o n g t h e H a i d a .

5 1

5 0

a n d o f the Eagle a n d

T h a t d i v i s i o n is n o t m e r e l y n o m i n a l ; i t c o r r e -

sponds t o e x i s t i n g c u s t o m a n d p r o f o u n d l y marks life. C o m p a r e d t o the distance b e t w e e n the phratries, t h e m o r a l distance b e t w e e n clans is s m a l l .

52

The

n a m e each o f t h e m bears is n o t a m e r e w o r d w h o s e m e a n i n g has b e e n f o r g o t t e n o r is k n o w n b u t vaguely. I t is a t o t e m i n t h e f u l l sense o f the w o r d , a n d i t has all the essential attributes o f the t o t e m , such as t h e y w i l l be described below.

53

So o n this p o i n t as w e l l , there was g o o d reason n o t t o disregard t h e

tribes o f A m e r i c a , because there w e can d i r e c t l y observe examples o f p h r a t r y totems, whereas Australia o n l y offers us a f e w d i m vestiges o f t h e m .

II T h e t o t e m is n o t s i m p l y a n a m e ; i t is an e m b l e m , a t r u e coat o f arms, and its resemblance t o the heraldic coat o f arms has o f t e n b e e n c o m m e n t e d u p o n . " E v e r y family," says G r e y o f the Australians, "adopts an a n i m a l o r a p l a n t as 5 4

t h e i r crest a n d s i g n " — a n d w h a t G r e y calls a f a m i l y is i n d i s p u t a b l y a clan. As Fison a n d H o w i t t also say, " T h e A u s t r a l i a n o r g a n i z a t i o n shows that the t o t e m is, first o f all, the badge o f a g r o u p . "

55

Schoolcraft speaks i n the same terms

about t h e t o t e m s o f N o r t h A m e r i c a : " T h e t o t e m is i n fact a design that c o r responds t o the heraldic e m b l e m s o f t h e c i v i l i z e d nations, a n d each person is a u t h o r i z e d t o w e a r i t as p r o o f o f the i d e n t i t y o f the f a m i l y t o w h i c h he b e longs. T h i s is s h o w n b y t h e real e t y m o l o g y o f t h e w o r d f r o m w h i c h dodaim

50

[Avrel] Krause, Die Tlinkit-Indianer [Jena, H. Constenoble, 1885], p. 112; [John Reed] Swanton, "Social Condition, Beliefs and Linguistic Relationship of the Tlingit Indians," BAE, XKVIth Report [1908], p. 398. 51

[John Reed] Swanton, Contributions to the Ethnology of the Haida [Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1905], p. 62.

52

"The distinction between the two clans is absolute in every respect," says Swanton, p. 68; he calls "clans" what I call "phratries." The two phratries, he says elsewhere, are like two peoples foreign to one another. 53

Among the Haida at least, the totem of the clans proper is even more altered than the totem of the phratries. The custom that permits a clan to give or to sell the right to wear its totem arises from the fact that each clan has a number of totems, some of them shared with other clans (see Swanton, pp. 107, 268). Because Swanton calls clans phratries, he is obliged to give the name "family" to clans proper, and the name "household" to real families. But the actual meaning of the terminology he adopts is not in doubt. ^[George Grey],_foMmais ofTwo Expeditions in Northwestern and Western Australia, II [London, T. and W.

Boone, 1841], p. 228. 55

[Fison and Howitt], Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 165.


112

is d e r i v e d , w h i c h means village o r residence o f a f a m i l y g r o u p . "

56

Therefore,

w h e n the Indians entered i n t o relations w i t h the Europeans a n d made c o n tracts w i t h t h e m , each clan sealed t h e treaties thus c o n c l u d e d w i t h its totem.

5 7

T h e nobles o f the feudal age sculpted, engraved, a n d i n every w a y displayed t h e i r coats o f arms o n the walls o f t h e i r castles, o n t h e i r weapons, and o n all k i n d s o f o t h e r objects b e l o n g i n g t o t h e m . T h e blacks o f Australia a n d the Indians o f N o r t h A m e r i c a d o t h e same w i t h t h e i r totems. T h e Indians w h o a c c o m p a n i e d Samuel H e a r n e p a i n t e d t h e i r t o t e m s o n t h e i r shields b e fore g o i n g i n t o b a t t l e .

58

I n t i m e o f war, a c c o r d i n g t o C h a r l e v o i x , c e r t a i n I n -

d i a n tribes h a d banners, m a d e o f bits o f b a r k attached t o the e n d o f a p o l e o n w h i c h the totems w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d .

59

A m o n g the T l i n g i t , w h e n a c o n f l i c t

breaks o u t b e t w e e n t w o clans, t h e c h a m p i o n s o f the t w o e n e m y groups wear helmets o n w h i c h t h e i r respective t o t e m s are p a i n t e d .

6 0

A m o n g the I r o q u o i s ,

the s k i n o f t h e t o t e m i c a n i m a l was placed o n each w i g w a m , as a m a r k o f the clan.

61

A c c o r d i n g t o a n o t h e r observer, the a n i m a l was stuffed w i t h straw a n d

placed i n front o f t h e d o o r .

6 2

A m o n g the W y a n d o t , each c l a n has its o w n o r -

naments a n d d i s t i n c t i v e p a i n t i n g .

6 3

A m o n g the Omaha,

S i o u x m o r e generally, the t o t e m is p a i n t e d o n the t e n t .

and among

the

6 4

W h e r e v e r t h e society has b e c o m e sedentary, w h e r e the house has r e placed t h e t e n t a n d t h e plastic arts are m o r e developed, the t o t e m is carved ^[Schoolcraft], Indian Tribes, vol. I, p. 420. [The quoted material is not on this page, nor is the discussion relevant. Trans.] Cf. vol. I, p. 52. This etymology is, by the way, very disputable. Cf. [Frederick Webb Hodge], Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico (Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of Ethnology, lid part [Washington, Government Printing Office, 1907-1910], p. 787. 57

[Schoolcraft] Indian Tribes, vol. Ill, p. 184. Garrick Mallery, Picture-Writing of the American Indians, BAE, Xth Report, 1893, p. 377. 58

[Samuel] Hearne, [A] Journey [from Prince of Wale's Fort in Hudson's Bay] to the Northern Ocean

[Dublin, Printed for P. Byrne and J. Rice, 1796], p. 148 (cited in [James George] Frazer, "Totemism" ([Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th ed. (Edinburgh, Adam and Charles Black, 1887)], p. 30). 59

[Pierre François Xavier de] Charlevoix, Histoire et description de la Nouvelle France, vol. V [Paris, Chez la Veuve Ganeau, 1744], p. 329. 60

Krause, Tlinkit-Indianer, p. 248.

6

'Erminnie A. Smith, "Myths of the Iroquois," BAE Second [Annual] Report [Washington, Government Printing Office, 1883], p. 78. 62

[Richard Irving] Dodge, Our Wild Indians [Hartford, A. D. Washington and Co., 1882], p. 225.

63

[John Wesley] Powell, "Wyandot Government," First Annual Report, BAE, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1881), p. 64. "[James Owen] Dorsey, "Omaha Sociology," Third [Annual] Report, [BAE, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1884], pp. 229, 240, 248.

113


o n the w o o d a n d o n t h e walls. T h i s occurs, for e x a m p l e , a m o n g the H a i d a , the T s h i m s h i a n , t h e Salish, a n d t h e T l i n g i t . Krause says, " T h e t o t e m i c arms are a v e r y special house d e c o r a t i o n a m o n g the T l i n g i t . " These are a n i m a l forms c o m b i n e d i n c e r t a i n cases w i t h h u m a n forms a n d sculpted o n poles that rise beside the d o o r as h i g h as fifteen meters; t h e y are usually p a i n t e d i n very flashy c o l o r s .

65

Yet t o t e m i c representations are n o t v e r y n u m e r o u s i n a

T l i n g i t village; there are o n l y a few, a n d those are f o u n d i n f r o n t o f the houses o f chiefs a n d t h e r i c h . T h e y are m u c h m o r e c o m m o n , o f t e n several per house, i n t h e n e i g h b o r i n g t r i b e o f t h e H a i d a .

6 6

W i t h its m a n y sculpted

poles standing o n a l l sides a n d sometimes v e r y tall, a H a i d a village gives the impression o f a h o l y c i t y b r i s t l i n g w i t h t i n y b e l l t o w e r s and m i n a r e t s .

67

A m o n g the Salish, the t o t e m is o f t e n d r a w n o n t h e i n t e r i o r walls o f the house.

68

Elsewhere i t is f o u n d o n canoes, utensils o f all k i n d s , a n d funeral

monuments.

6 9

T h e p r e c e d i n g examples are taken exclusively from a m o n g the Indians o f N o r t h A m e r i c a because such sculptures, engravings, a n d p e r m a n e n t r e p r e sentations are possible o n l y w h e r e the t e c h n o l o g y o f t h e arts already has a degree o f r e f i n e m e n t that t h e A u s t r a l i a n tribes have n o t yet attained. I n consequence, t h e t o t e m i c representations

o f t h e k i n d j u s t m e n t i o n e d are

rarer a n d less apparent i n A u s t r a l i a t h a n i n A m e r i c a . Nonetheless, there are some examples. A m o n g t h e W a r r a m u n g a , at t h e e n d o f the funeral cerem o n i e s , the bones o f the deceased are b u r i e d after h a v i n g b e e n d r i e d a n d r e d u c e d t o p o w d e r ; a figure representing t h e t o t e m is traced o n t h e g r o u n d beside t h e place w h e r e t h e y are d e p o s i t e d .

70

A m o n g t h e M a r a a n d the A n ¬

ula, t h e b o d y is p l a c e d i n a piece o f h o l l o w e d - o u t w o o d t h a t is also decorated w i t h the i d e n t i f y i n g designs o f t h e t o t e m .

7 1

I n N e w S o u t h Wales, O x l e y

65

Krause, Tlinkit-Indianer, pp. 130-131.

"•Ibid., p. 308. 67

See the photograph of a Haida village in Swanton, Haida, PI. IX. Cf. [Edward] Tylor, "Totem Post of the Haida Village of Masset," JAI, New Series, vol. I [1907], p. 133. ^Charles Hill Tout, "Report on the Ethnology of the Stadumh of British Columbia," JAI, vol. XXXV, 1905, p. 155. 69

Krause, Tlinkit-Indianer, p. 230; Swanton, Haida, pp. 129, 135ff.; Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes, vol. I, pp. 52—53, 337, 356. In this last case, the totem is represented upside down as a sign of mourning. Similar customs are found among the Creek (C. Swan, in Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes of the United States, vol. V, p. 265), among the Delaware ([John Gottlieb Ernestus] Heckwelder, An Account of the History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Nations Who Once Inhabited Pennsylvania [Philadelphia, A. Small, 1818], pp. 246—247). 70

Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 168, 537, 540.

71

Ibid., p. 174.

114


f o u n d carvings o n trees near the t o m b w h e r e a native was b u r i e d , t o w h i c h B r o u g h S m y t h ascribes t o t e m i c s i g n i f i c a n c e . engrave t h e i r shields w i t h t o t e m i c i m a g e s .

73

72

T h e natives o f U p p e r D a r l i n g

A c c o r d i n g t o C o l l i n s , almost all

the utensils are covered w i t h o r n a m e n t s that p r o b a b l y have the same m e a n i n g ; figures o f this sort are also f o u n d o n r o c k s .

74

Since, f o r reasons t o be set

f o r t h b e l o w , i t is n o t always easy t o i n t e r p r e t these t o t e m i c designs, t h e y m a y w e l l be m o r e c o m m o n t h a n t h e y seem. These v a r i e d facts p r o v i d e a sense o f the large place h e l d b y the t o t e m i n the social life o f p r i m i t i v e s . T h u s far, however, i t has appeared t o us m o r e o r less as apart from m a n himself; w e have seen i t represented o n l y o n things. B u t t o t e m i c images are n o t o n l y r e p r o d u c e d o n the outsides o f houses and canoes, o n weapons, instruments, a n d t o m b s ; they recur o n men's bodies. M e n d o n o t s i m p l y place t h e i r e m b l e m o n the objects they possess b u t also w e a r i t o n t h e i r persons; they i m p r i n t i t i n t h e i r flesh, a n d i t becomes part o f t h e m . T h i s m o d e o f representation is i n fact, a n d b y far, the m o s t i m p o r t a n t one. I n d e e d , generally the m e m b e r s o f each clan seek t o give themselves t h e o u t w a r d appearance o f t h e i r t o t e m . A t certain r e l i g i o u s festivals a m o n g the T l i n g i t , the person w h o c o n d u c t s the c e r e m o n y wears a c o s t u m e that w h o l l y o r i n p a r t represents t h e b o d y o f t h e a n i m a l w h o s e n a m e the clan b e a r s .

75

Special masks are used f o r this purpose. T h e same practices crop u p again t h r o u g h o u t the A m e r i c a n N o r t h w e s t . Minnitaree w h e n they go i n t o battle

7 6

77

T h e y are also f o u n d a m o n g and a m o n g the Pueblo

the

Indians.

78

Elsewhere, w h e n the t o t e m is a b i r d , the i n d i v i d u a l s w e a r its feathers o n t h e i r heads.

79

A m o n g t h e I o w a , each clan has a special w a y o f c u t t i n g the hair. I n

the Eagle clan, t w o large tufts are arranged at the front o f the head, w h i l e a n -

72

Brough Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria, vol. I, p. 99n.

"Ibid., p. 284. Strehlow cites an example of the same sort among the Arunta, Aranda, vol. Ill, p. 68. 74

[David Collins], An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales, vol. II [London, Printed for T.

Cadell and W. Davies, 1804], p. 381. 75

Krause, Ttinkit-Indiana, p. 327.

76

Swanton, "Social Conditions," pp. 435£F.; [Franz] Boas, "The Social Organization and the Secret

Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians," in Report of the United States National Museum for 1895, Washington,

Government Printing Office, 1897, p. 358. 77

Frazer, Totemism and Exogamy, vol. I, p. 26.

78

[John Gregory] Bourke, The Snake Dance of the Moquis of Arizona [Chicago, Rio Grande Press, 1962], p. 229; J. W. Fewkes, "The Group of Tusayan Ceremonials Called Katcinas," in XVth Report [BAE, Washington, Government Printing Office], 1897, pp. 251-263. 79

[Johann Georg] Miiller, Geschichte der amerikanischen Urreligionen [Basel, Schewighauser, 1855], p.

327.

115


other hangs b e h i n d ; i n the B u f f a l o clan, the hair is arranged i n the shape o f horns.

80

S i m i l a r arrangements are f o u n d a m o n g t h e O m a h a : E a c h clan has its

o w n hairstyle. I n the T o r t o i s e clan, f o r e x a m p l e , the head is shaved, l e a v i n g six c u r l s — t w o o n each side, o n e i n f r o n t a n d o n e b e h i n d — s o as t o i m i t a t e the feet, head, a n d tail o f t h e a n i m a l .

8 1

B u t i t is m o s t o f t e n o n t h e b o d y itself that the t o t e m i c m a r k is i m p r i n t e d , for this is a m o d e o f representation that is w i t h i n t h e reach o f less advanced societies. I t has sometimes b e e n asked w h e t h e r t h e c o m m o n r i t e o f e x t r a c t i n g a y o u n g man's t w o u p p e r incisors w h e n he reaches p u b e r t y m i g h t n o t have the p u r p o s e o f i m i t a t i n g t h e f o r m o f t h e t o t e m . T h i s has n o t b e e n established as fact, b u t i t is w o r t h n o t i n g that the natives themselves sometimes e x p l a i n the c u s t o m i n that way. F o r example, a m o n g t h e A r u n t a , the e x t r a c t i o n o f t e e t h is p r a c t i c e d o n l y i n the clan o f r a i n a n d water. A c c o r d i n g t o t r a d i t i o n , that o p e r a t i o n is p e r f o r m e d t o m a k e t h e m resemble c e r t a i n b l a c k clouds w i t h l i g h t edges that are h e l d t o a n n o u n c e the speedy c o m i n g o f r a i n — t h e clouds b e i n g considered as things o f t h e same f a m i l y .

82

T h i s is e v -

idence that the native h i m s e l f realizes that the p u r p o s e o f these d e f o r m a t i o n s is t o give h i m the appearance o f his t o t e m , at least c o n v e n t i o n a l l y . A l s o a m o n g the A r u n t a , d u r i n g the rites o f s u b i n c i s i o n , * specific k i n d s o f gashes are made o n the sisters a n d t h e f u t u r e w i f e o f t h e n o v i c e ; t h e f o r m o f the r e s u l t i n g scars appears as w e l l o n a sacred o b j e c t called t h e churinga J o f w h i c h I w i l l presendy speak. T h e lines d r a w n o n t h e c h u r i n g a are e m b l e m a t i c o f the t o t e m . the r a i n ; teeth.

85

8 4

8 3

A m o n g the K a i t i s h , the euro is considered t o be closely a k i n t o

the p e o p l e o f the r a i n clan w e a r small earrings made o f euro

A m o n g the Yerkla, a c e r t a i n n u m b e r o f gashes t h a t leave scars are i n -

flicted o n the y o u n g m a n d u r i n g i n i t i a t i o n ; the n u m b e r a n d f o r m o f these *A form of genital mutilation that involves a cut made along the underside of the penis, and that in some traditions is accompanied by circumcision as well. ^Dürkheims convention of not pluralizing words that are not pluralized in their original languages by the addition of "s" (like "churinga," "waninga," and "nurtunja") can lead to confusion in English, in which articles do not have plurals. For that reason where he says les churinga, I say "the churingas." Also, I have followed his tendency to remove Australian terms from italics, once they have been explained. ""Schoolcraft, Indian Tribe^ vol. Ill, p. 269. 81

Dorsey, "Omaha Sociology," pp. 229, 238, 240, 245.

82

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 451.

83


84

What these relations of kinship signify will be seen below (Bk. II, chap. 4).

85

Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 296.


116

scars v a r y a c c o r d i n g t o t o t e m .

8 6

O n e o f Fison's i n f o r m a n t s notes t h e same

sort o f t h i n g i n the tribes he s t u d i e d .

87

A c c o r d i n g t o H o w i t t , the same sort

o f relationship b e t w e e n c e r t a i n scarifications a n d the w a t e r t o t e m exists a m o n g the D i e r i .

8 8

Finally, a m o n g the Indians o f t h e N o r t h w e s t , the c u s t o m

o f t a t t o o i n g the t o t e m o n the b o d y is v e r y w i d e s p r e a d .

89

T h e tattoos m a d e b y m u t i l a t i o n o r scarification d o n o t always have t o t emic significance;

90

b u t t h e case is o t h e r w i s e f o r simple designs p a i n t e d o n

the b o d y : T h o s e usually represent t h e t o t e m . T r u e , the native does n o t w e a r t h e m every day. W h e n he engages i n p u r e l y e c o n o m i c occupations, as w h e n the small f a m i l y groups disperse f o r h u n t i n g a n d

fishing,

they do n o t e n -

c u m b e r themselves w i t h this paraphernalia, w h i c h can be q u i t e elaborate. B u t w h e n t h e clans c o m e t o g e t h e r t o share a c o m m o n life a n d devote t h e m selves t o religious ceremonies, w e a r i n g i t is o b l i g a t o r y . As w e w i l l see, each o f those ceremonies is t h e affair o f a specific t o t e m , and, i n p r i n c i p l e , t h e rites that are addressed t o a t o t e m can be p e r f o r m e d o n l y b y the p e o p l e o f that t o t e m . T h o s e w h o c o n d u c t t h e m ,

9 1

p l a y i n g t h e r o l e o f celebrants—and

sometimes even those w h o are present as spectators—always w e a r designs o n t h e i r bodies t h a t represent t h e t o t e m .

9 2

O n e o f the p r i n c i p a l rites o f i n i t i a -

t i o n , the o n e that initiates t h e y o u n g m a n i n t o the r e l i g i o u s life o f the t r i b e , is the p a i n t i n g o f the t o t e m i c s y m b o l u p o n his b o d y .

9 3

I t is t r u e that, a m o n g

^Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 744-746; cf. p. 129. s7

Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 66 n. It is true that this is disputed by other informants.

88


89

Swanton, Haida, pp. 41£f. See plates X X and XXI; Boas, The Social Organization of the Kwakiutl, p.

318; Swanton, Tlinkit, Plates xviff. In one case outside the two ethnographic regions we are specifically studying, such tattoos are placed on the animals that belong to the clan. The Bechuana of southern Africa are divided into a certain number of clans: the people of the crocodile, the buffalo, the monkey, etc. The people of the crocodile, for example, make an incision on the ears of their beasts, the shape of which resembles the face of the animal ([Eugene Arnaud] Casalis, Les Bassoutos [English trans., The Basutos, Capetown, C. Struik, 1965], p. 221). According to [William] Robertson Smith, the same custom existed among the ancient Arabs (Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia [Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1885], pp. 212-214). '"According to Spencer and Gillen, there are some that have no religious meaning (see Native Tribes, pp. 41-42; Northern Tribes, pp. 45, 54-56). 9!

Among the Arunta, this rule has exceptions that will be explained below.

92

Spencer and Gillen, NativeTribes, p. 162; Northern Tribes, pp. 179, 259, 292, 295-296; Schulze, [Reverend Louis, "Aborigines of the Upper and Middle Finke River," RSSA, vol. XIV, 1891], p. 221. What is represented in this way is not always the totem itself but one of those objects that, being associated with the totem, are regarded as things of the same family. [The reference states that bodies are painted; it does not mention painting as a religious rite. Trans.] "This is the case, for example, among the Warramunga, the Walpari, the Wulmala, the TjingiUi, the Umbaia, and the Unmatjera (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 339, 348). Among the Warramunga,

117

Tlie Principal Totemic Beliefs

the A r u n t a , the design thus m a d e does n o t always a n d necessarily represent the t o t e m o f the n o v i c e ;

9 4

b u t this is an e x c e p t i o n , n o d o u b t a result o f the

disturbed state i n t o w h i c h the t o t e m i c o r g a n i z a t i o n o f that t r i b e has f a l l e n .

95

W h a t is m o r e , even a m o n g t h e A r u n t a , at the m o s t s o l e m n m o m e n t o f the i n i t i a t i o n (its h i g h p o i n t a n d consecration b e i n g t h e m o m e n t w h e n the novice is a d m i t t e d t o t h e sanctuary w h e r e t h e sacred objects o f the clan are kept), an e m b l e m a t i c p a i n t i n g is d r a w n o n h i m . T h i s time i t is i n d e e d the t o t e m o f t h e y o u n g m a n that is r e p r e s e n t e d .

96

T h e ties that b i n d the i n d i v i d -

ual t o his t o t e m are so close that, i n the tribes o f the N o r t h A m e r i c a n n o r t h west coast, the e m b l e m o f t h e clan is p a i n t e d n o t o n l y o n t h e l i v i n g b u t even o n the dead: A t o t e m i c m a r k is placed o n the corpse before b u r i a l .

9 7

at the moment the design is made, the officiants say the following words to the novice: "This mark belongs to your place: Do not turn your eyes to another place." According to Spencer and Gillen, "This language means that the young man must not involve himself in any ceremonies but those that concern his totem; they also testify to the close association that is held to exist between a man, his totem, and the place especially consecrated to that totem." (Northern Tribes, p. 584.) Among the Warramunga, the totem is transmitted from father to children; consequendy each locality has its own. 94

Spencer and Gillen, NativeTribes, pp. 215, 241, 376.

95

It will be recalled (see p. 105 above) that in this tribe, the child can have a different totem from his father or his mother and, more generally, of his kin. The relatives of both sides are the designated celebrants of the initiation ceremonies. As a result, since a man in principle is qualified as operator or celebrant only for ceremonies of his own totem, it follows that in certain cases, the rites at which the child is initiated necessarily concern a totem other than his own. This is how it comes about that the paintings made on the body of the novice do not necessarily represent his totem. Cases of this kind are to be found in Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 229. This shows, moreover, that if there is an anomaly, it is because the ceremonies of circumcision nevertheless belong essentially to the totem that would be the totem of the novice himself if the totemic organization was not disturbed—if the totemic organization was among the Arunta what it is among the Warramunga (ibid., p. 219). The same disruption has had another consequence. Its effect everywhere has been to loosen somewhat the bonds that unite each totem with a definite group, since the same totem can include members in all the possible local groups, and even in the two phratries indiscriminately. The idea that ceremonies of a totem could be conducted by an individual of a different totem—an idea that is contrary to the very principles of totemism, as we will see better below—has thus been able to establish itself without excessive resistance. It is conceded that a man to whom a spirit has revealed the formula of a ceremony is qualified to preside in it, even though he was not of the totem concerned (ibid., p. 519). Proof that this is an exception to the rule, and the result of a kind of toleration, is that the beneficiary of the formula thus revealed cannot do with it as he pleases. If he transmits the formula, and such transmissions are common, it can only be to a member of the totem to which the rite refers (ibid.). %

Ibid., p. 140. In this case, the novice keeps the decoration in which he was dressed until it goes away by itself with the passage of time. 97

Franz Boas, "First General Report on the Indians of British Columbia," in BAAS, Fifth Report of the

Committee on the North-Westem Tribes of the Dominion of Canada [London, Offices of the Association, 1890],

p. 41.

118


III These t o t e m i c decorations suggest that t h e t o t e m is n o t m e r e l y a n a m e a n d an e m b l e m . T h e y are used d u r i n g religious ceremonies a n d are part o f the l i t u r g y : T h u s , w h i l e the t o t e m is a collective label, i t also has a religious character. I n fact, things are classified as sacred a n d profane b y reference t o the t o t e m . I t is t h e v e r y archetype o f sacred things. T h e tribes o f central Australia, p r i n c i p a l l y t h e A r u n t a , the L o r i t j a , t h e K a i t i s h , the U n m a t j e r a , a n d the I l p i r r a ,

9 8

use c e r t a i n i n s t r u m e n t s i n t h e i r

rites that, a m o n g the A r u n t a , are called churingas, a c c o r d i n g t o Spencer a n d G i l l e n and, a c c o r d i n g t o Strehlow, Tjurunga."

T h e y are pieces o f w o o d o r

bits o f p o l i s h e d stone o f various shapes b u t generally oval o r o b l o n g .

1 0 0

Each

t o t e m i c g r o u p has a m o r e o r less sizable c o l l e c t i o n o f t h e m . Upon each of them 101

is engraved a design representing the totem of this group.

S o m e churingas are

p i e r c e d at o n e e n d , w i t h a s t r i n g m a d e from h u m a n hair o r opossum fur passed t h r o u g h the h o l e . T h o s e that are m a d e o f w o o d a n d p i e r c e d i n this w a y serve the same p u r p o s e as those c u l t i n s t r u m e n t s * t o w h i c h the E n g l i s h ethnographers have g i v e n the n a m e " b u l l roarers." H e l d b y t h e s t r i n g

from

w h i c h t h e y are suspended, t h e y are r a p i d l y w h i r l e d i n the air so as t o p r o d u c e the same sort o f h u m m i n g that is m a d e b y t h e " d e v i l s " that o u r c h i l d r e n use as toys today; this deafening noise has r i t u a l m e a n i n g a n d accompanies all r e l i g i o u s ceremonies o f any i m p o r t a n c e . T h u s , churingas o f this k i n d are a c t u ally b u l l roarers. O t h e r s , w h i c h are n o t w o o d e n o r are n o t p i e r c e d , c a n n o t be used i n this m a n n e r . Nevertheless, t h e y evoke the same feelings o f r e l i g i o u s respect. I n d e e d every c h u r i n g a , h o w e v e r used, counts a m o n g the m o s t p r e e m i n e n t l y sacred things. N o t h i n g has surpassed i t i n r e l i g i o u s d i g n i t y . T h e w o r d that designates i t makes this i m m e d i a t e l y clear. A t the same t i m e that " c h u r i n g a " is a n o u n , i t is also an a d j e c t i v e — m e a n i n g "sacred." T h u s , a m o n g

This term applies to special containers, knives, coverings, bells, and other objects used in the course of religious rites. 98

There are some among the Warramunga as well, but fewer than among the Arunta, and although they have a certain place in the myths, they do notfigurein the totemic ceremonies (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 163).

"Other names are used in other tribes. I give the Arunta term a generic sense, because it is in that tribe that the churingas have greatest importance and are the best studied. 100

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, p. 81.

""There are some, but not many, that do not bear any obvious design (see Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 144).

119


the names that each A r u n t a has, there is o n e so sacred that i t must n o t be r e vealed t o a stranger; i t is p r o n o u n c e d b u t rarely a n d i n a l o w v o i c e , a sort o f mysterious m u r m u r . T h a t n a m e is called aritna churinga (aritna means "name").

1 0 2

M o r e generally, t h e w o r d " c h u r i n g a " designates a l l r i t u a l acts;

for example, ilia churinga means t h e c u l t o f the E m u .

1 0 3

Thus, churinga, pe-

r i o d , used as a n o u n , is t h e t h i n g w h o s e quintessential feature is t o be sacred. T h e profane, t h e r e f o r e — w o m e n a n d - y o u n g m e n n o t y e t i n i t i a t e d i n t o r e l i gious l i f e — m a y n o t t o u c h o r see t h e churingas; t h e y are o n l y p e r m i t t e d t o l o o k f r o m afar a n d even t h e n r a r e l y .

104

T h e churingas are p i o u s l y k e p t i n a special place t h e A r u n t a call the ertnatulunga—a sort o f small cave h i d d e n i n a deserted p l a c e .

105

T h e entrance is

carefully closed w i t h rocks placed so skillfully that a passing stranger never suspects that t h e r e l i g i o u s treasury o f the clan is nearby. S u c h is t h e churingas' sacredness that i t is passed o n t o t h e place w h e r e t h e y are deposited; w o m e n and t h e u n i n i t i a t e d m a y n o t c o m e near i t . Y o u n g m e n m a y d o so o n l y w h e n t h e i r i n i t i a t i o n is c o m p l e t e l y over, a n d even t h e n , some are j u d g e d t o m e r i t that p r i v i l e g e o n l y after several years o f t r i a l .

1 0 6

T h e religiousness o f t h e place

radiates b e y o n d a n d is transfused i n t o all that surrounds i t : E v e r y t h i n g p a r t i c ipates i n t h e same q u a l i t y a n d is f o r that reason insulated f r o m profane c o n tact. Is a m a n chased b y another? H e is safe i f h e reaches t h e ertnatulunga; h e cannot be captured t h e r e .

102

107

E v e n a w o u n d e d a n i m a l that takes refuge there

Ibid„ pp. 139, 648; Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, p. 75.

103

Strehlow, who spells it Tjurunga, translates the word a little differently. "This word," he says, "means all that is secret and personal" (der eigene geheime). Tju is an old word that means hidden, secret, and runga means that which is personal to me." But Kempe, who has more authority than Strehlow in the matter, translates tju as "great," "powerful," or "sacred" ([Reverend H.[ Kempe, "Vocabulary of the Tribes Inhabiting the MacdonnellvRanges," in RSSA, vol. XIV (1890-1891, 1898), pp. 1-54], under "Tju." Moreover, Strehlows translation is basically not so far from the preceding as one might think at first glance, for what is secret is that which is taken away from the knowledge of the profane, in other words, that which is sacred. As concerns the meaning of the word runga, that seems very doubtful. The ceremonies of the emu belong to all the members of the Emu clan; all can participate in them; they are not the personal property of any member. 104

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 130-132; Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, p. 78. A woman who has seen the churinga and the man who has shown it to her are both put to death. 105

Strehlow calls that place, defined exacdy in the same terms Spencer and Gillen use, arknanuaua instead of ertnatulunga (Aranda, vol. II, p. 78). 106

[Spencer and Gillen], Northern Tribes, p. 270, and Native Tribes, p. 140.

I07

Ibid., p. 135.

120


m u s t be r e s p e c t e d .

108

Q u a r r e l s are p r o h i b i t e d . I t is a place o f peace, as is said

i n the G e r m a n i c societies; i t is the sanctuary o f the t o t e m i c g r o u p ; i t is a t r u e asylum. T h e churinga's v i r t u e s are manifested n o t o n l y b y t h e w a y i t keeps the profane at a distance. I t is isolated i n this w a y because i t is a t h i n g o f great r e l i g i o u s value, a n d its loss w o u l d tragically i n j u r e the g r o u p a n d the i n d i v i d u als. T h e c h u r i n g a has all sorts o f m i r a c u l o u s qualities. B y its t o u c h , w o u n d s are healed, especially those r e s u l t i n g f r o m c i r c u m c i s i o n ; fective against i l l n e s s ;

110

i t makes the beard g r o w ;

1 1 1

1 0 9

i t is similarly ef-

i t conveys i m p o r t a n t

powers over t h e t o t e m i c species, w h o s e n o r m a l r e p r o d u c t i o n i t ensures;

112

it

gives m e n strength, courage, a n d perseverance, w h i l e depressing a n d w e a k e n i n g t h e i r enemies. I n d e e d , this last b e l i e f is so d e e p - r o o t e d that w h e n t w o fighters

are b a t t l i n g , i f o n e happens t o glimpse that his o p p o n e n t is w e a r i n g

churingas, he i n s t a n d y loses c o n f i d e n c e a n d his defeat is c e r t a i n . r i t u a l i n s t r u m e n t s have a m o r e i m p o r t a n t place i n r e l i g i o u s

1 1 3

Thus, no

ceremonies.

114

T h e i r powers are passed o n t o t h e celebrants o r t o t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n b y a k i n d o f a n o i n t i n g ; the faithful are smeared w i t h fat a n d t h e n t h e churingas are r u b b e d against t h e i r arms, legs, a n d s t o m a c h .

1 1 5

O r t h e churingas are covered

w i t h d o w n that flies away i n all directions w h e n t h e y are w h i r l e d , this b e i n g o n e w a y t o spread t h e v i r t u e s t h e y c o n t a i n .

1 1 6

C h u r i n g a s are n o t m e r e l y useful t o i n d i v i d u a l s ; t h e collective fate o f the entire clan is b o u n d u p w i t h theirs. L o s i n g t h e m is a disaster, the greatest m i s f o r t u n e that can befall t h e g r o u p .

1 1 7

S o m e t i m e s churingas leave the e r t n a t u -

l08

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, p. 78. However, Strehlow says that a murderer who takes refuge near an ertnatulunga is mercilessly pursued there and put to death. I have some difficulty reconciling that fact with the privilege the animal enjoys and wonder if the greater rigor with which the criminal is treated is not recent and if it should not be ascribed to a weakening of the taboo that originally protected the ertnatulunga. 109

[Spencer and Gillen], Native Tribes, p. 248.

110

Ibid., pp. 545-546; Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, p. 79. For example, the dust scraped from a stone churinga and dissolved in water makes a potion that heals the sick. "'Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 545—546; Strehlow, Aranda vol. II, p. 79 disputes that. 2

" For example, a churinga of the Yam totem that is placed in the ground makes yams grow at that spot (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 275). It has the same power over the animals (Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, pp. 76, 78; vol. Ill, pp. 3, 7). 3

" [Spencer and Gillen], Native Tribes, p. 135; Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, p. 79. 114

[Spencer and Gillen], Northern Tribes p. 278. 5

" Ibid.,p. 180. 6

" Ibid., pp. 272-273. 117

Spencer and Gillen, NativeTribes, p. 135.

121


l u n g a — f o r example, w h e n t h e y are l e n t t o some f o r e i g n g r o u p . "

8

T h e r e is

real p u b l i c m o u r n i n g w h e n this happens. F o r t w o weeks, the people o f the t o t e m c r y a n d l a m e n t , c o v e r i n g t h e i r bodies w i t h w h i t e clay as t h e y d o w h e n they have lost o n e o f t h e i r k i n .

1 1 9

T h e churingas are n o t left f o r i n d i v i d u a l s

t o d o w i t h as t h e y please; t h e e r t n a t u l u n g a w h e r e t h e y are kept is u n d e r the c o n t r o l o f the group's chief. T o be sure, each i n d i v i d u a l has special rights over certain o f t h e m ;

1 2 0

b u t even i f he is t o some e x t e n t t h e i r o w n e r , he can use

t h e m o n l y w i t h the consent o f the c h i e f a n d u n d e r the chief's guidance. I t is a collective treasury, t h e H o l y A r k * o f the c l a n .

1 2 1

T h e d e v o t i o n they receive

f u r t h e r illustrates the great value t h a t is attached t o t h e m . T h e y are h a n d l e d w i t h a respect that is displayed b y t h e s o l e m n i t y o f t h e m o v e m e n t s .

122

They

are cared for, o i l e d , r u b b e d , a n d p o l i s h e d ; w h e n they are c a r r i e d f r o m o n e place t o another, i t is i n the m i d s t o f ceremonies, p r o o f that this travel is c o n sidered an act o f the v e r y highest i m p o r t a n c e .

1 2 3

I n themselves, the churingas are m e r e l y objects o f w o o d a n d stone l i k e so m a n y others; t h e y are d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m profane things o f the same k i n d b y o n l y o n e p a r t i c u l a r i t y : T h e t o t e m i c m a r k is d r a w n o r engraved

upon

t h e m . T h a t m a r k , a n d o n l y t h a t m a r k , confers sacredness o n t h e m . T o be sure, Spencer a n d G i l l e n believe that the c h u r i n g a serves as the residence o f an ancestral soul a n d that t h e a u t h o r i t y o f that soul gives t h e object its p r o p erties.

124

S t r e h l o w v i e w s that i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as i n c o r r e c t b u t the o n e he p r o -

*Here, Dürkheim shifts from the term sacrée to the term sainte, using the expression l'arche sainte, which is a fixed phrase meaning "something that may not be touched"—quite like the English "sacred cow," which in turn derivesfromritual practice in India. 1 have used the term "holy" not only because "Holy Ark" is the standard expression in American English, but also to let the reader note the shift and reflect on its possible implications (see p. btix). lI8

A group lends its churinga to another with the idea that those latter will pass on to it some of the virtues they have and that their presence will rejuvenate individuals and the collectivity (ibid., pp. 158ff.). I19

Ibid., p. 136.

120

Each individual has a personal bond first of all to one special churinga that serves as a security for his life and then to those he has inheritedfromhis relatives. ,21

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 154; Northern Tribes, p. 193. The churingas are so marked with collective significance that they replace the "message sticks" that envoys carry when they go to summon foreign groups to a ceremony (NativeTribes, pp. 141—142). 122

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 326. [Neither "solemnity" nor other words describing movements appear at this place. Trans.] It should be noted that the bull roarers are treated in the same way (Mathews, "Aboriginal Tribes" pp. 307-308). l23

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 161, 250ff.

I24

Ibid., p. 138.

122


poses does n o t m a r k e d l y differ from i t : H e is o f the o p i n i o n that the c h u r i n g a is regarded as an image o f the ancestors b o d y o r as the b o d y i t s e l f .

125

Thus,

again, i t is feelings i n s p i r e d b y the ancestor a n d p r o j e c t e d o n t o the m a t e r i a l object that m a k e i t i n t o a k i n d o f fetish. Yet b o t h c o n c e p t i o n s — w h i c h barely differ except i n the l i t e r a l d e t a i l o f t h e m y t h — w e r e o b v i o u s l y f o r g e d after the fact t o m a k e the sacredness i m p u t e d t o churingas i n t e l l i g i b l e . T h e r e is n o t h i n g i n t h e m a k e u p o f those pieces o f w o o d a n d stone, a n d i n t h e i r appearance, that predestines t h e m t o b e i n g regarded as the seat o f an ancestral soul o r the image o f t h e ancestor's b o d y . So that respect was n o t caused b y the m y t h ; far from i t . I f m e n c o n c e i v e d this m y t h , i t was t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e r e l i gious respect that those things e l i c i t e d . L i k e so m a n y o t h e r m y t h i c a l e x p l a nations, this o n e resolves t h e q u e s t i o n o n l y b y repeating i t i n slightly different t e r m s , f o r t o say that the c h u r i n g a is sacred, a n d that i t has such and such r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a sacred b e i n g , is n o t t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e fact b u t to state o n e fact i n t w o different ways. Second, as Spencer a n d G i l l e n a d m i t , even a m o n g the A r u n t a , there are churingas that are m a d e b y t h e elders o f t h e g r o u p , w i t h the f u l l k n o w l e d g e o f a n d i n f u l l v i e w o f e v e r y o n e ;

126

those o b v i o u s l y d o n o t

c o m e from the great ancestors. S t i l l , despite a f e w differences, they have t h e same p o w e r as t h e others a n d are k e p t i n t h e same way. Finally, there are w h o l e tribes i n w h i c h a c h u r i n g a is n o t at all t h o u g h t o f as b e i n g associated with a spirit.

1 2 7

Its r e l i g i o u s nature comes t o i t f r o m a n o t h e r source; a n d w h a t

w o u l d be t h e source i f n o t the t o t e m i c i m p r i n t i t bears? T h u s , the o u t w a r d displays o f the r i t e are addressed t o that image, a n d that image sanctifies* t h e object o n w h i c h i t is engraved. A m o n g the A r u n t a a n d i n the n e i g h b o r i n g tribes, there exist t w o o t h e r l i t u r g i c a l i n s t r u m e n t s that are clearly attached t o the t o t e m and t o

the

*To express the idea "to make something sacred," Durkheim uses the word sanctifier. That idea should be kept distinctfromother meanings of the verb "to sanctify." 125

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, pp. 76, 77, 82. For the Arunta, it is the actual body of the ancestor; for the Loritja, it is only the body's image. 126

Just after the birth of a child, the mother shows the father where she believes the soul of the ancestor entered her. Accompanied by several relatives, the father goes to that place, and they look for the churinga that they believe the ancestor dropped at the moment of reincarnating himself. If one is found, it is probably because some elder of the totemic group put it there (the hypothesis of Spencer and Gillen). If they do not find it, they make a new churinga according to a prescribed technique (Spencer and Gillen, NativeTribes, p. 132; cf. Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, p. 80). 127

This is true of the Warramunga, the Urabunna, the Worgaia, the Umbaia, the Tjingilli, and the Gnanji (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 258, 275—276). Then, say Spencer and Gillen, "they were regarded as having especial value because of their association with a totem" (ibid., p. 276). There are examples of the same sort among the Arunta (NativeTribes, p. 156).

123


c h u r i n g a itself, w h i c h o r d i n a r i l y enters i n t o t h e i r m a k i n g : the nurtunja a n d the waninga. 128

T h e nurtunja,

w h i c h is f o u n d a m o n g the A r u n t a o f the n o r t h a n d t h e i r

immediate neighbors,

1 2 9

is a v e r t i c a l s u p p o r t consisting o f e i t h e r a lance, sev-

eral lances t i e d t o g e t h e r i n a b u n d l e , o r s i m p l y a p o l e .

1 3 0

B u n c h e s o f plants

are fastened a l l a r o u n d i t w i t h belts o r bands made o f hair. D o w n , arranged either i n circles o r i n parallel lines r u n n i n g from t o p t o b o t t o m o f the supp o r t , is attached t o the u p p e r e n d . T h e t o p is decorated w i t h feathers o f t h e eaglehawk. ( T h i s is t h e c o m m o n e s t a n d m o s t t y p i c a l f o r m ; there are m a n y variations i n p a r t i c u l a r cases.)

131

T h e waninga, w h i c h is f o u n d o n l y a m o n g the s o u t h e r n A r u n t a , the U r a b u n n a , a n d the L o r i t j a , has n o o n e m o d e l either. R e d u c e d t o its m o s t b a sic c o m p o n e n t s , i t also has a v e r t i c a l s u p p o r t m a d e w i t h a stick a b o u t a f o o t l o n g o r w i t h a lance several meters h i g h that is cross-cut, sometimes b y o n e o r sometimes b y t w o p i e c e s .

132

I n the first case, i t resembles a cross. D i a g o -

nally crossing the space b e t w e e n t h e arms o f the cross a n d the ends o f the central axis are ties m a d e w i t h e i t h e r h u m a n h a i r o r the f u r o f an o p o s s u m o r a b a n d i c o o t ; t h e y are pressed t i g h d y together, f o r m i n g a d i a m o n d - s h a p e d w e b . W h e n there are t w o cross-bars, the belts g o from o n e t o the other, a n d from there t o the t o p a n d b o t t o m o f t h e s u p p o r t . T h e y are sometimes c o v ered w i t h a coat o f d o w n t h i c k e n o u g h t o h i d e t h e m f r o m v i e w . T h e w a n i n g a thus l o o k s q u i t e l i k e a

133

flag.

H a v i n g t h e i r o w n role i n m a n y rites, nurtunjas a n d waningas are objects o f religious respect e n t i r e l y l i k e t h e respect e v o k e d b y t h e churingas. M a k i n g and e r e c t i n g t h e m is c a r r i e d o u t w i t h t h e greatest s o l e m n i t y . W h e t h e r

fixed

128

Strehlow says Tnatanja (Aranda, vol. I, pp. 4—5).

129

The Kaitish, the Ilpirra, and the Unmatjera, but it is rare among the last group.

""Sometimes the pole is replaced with very long churingas placed end to end. "'Sometimes a smaller nurtunja is suspended at the top of the main one. In other cases, the nurtunja is given the form of a cross or a T. More rarely, the central support is absent (Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 298-300, 360-364, 627). 132

Sometimes there are three such transverse ban.

133

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 231-234, 306-310, 627. In addition to the nurtunja and the waninga, Spencer and Gillen distinguish a third sort of sacred pole or flag, the kauaua (Native Tribes, pp. 364, 370, 629), whose functions they admit not having been able to determine exacdy. They note only that the kauaua "is regarded as something common to the members of all the totems." But according to Strehlow (Aranda, vol. Ill, p. 23, n.2), the kauaua of which Spencer and Gillen speak is merely the nurtunja of the Wild Cat totem. Since that animal is the object of a tribal cult, it is understandable that the veneration its nurtunja receives should be common to all the clans.

124


o n the g r o u n d o r c a r r i e d b y a celebrant, t h e y m a r k t h e central p o i n t o f the c e r e m o n y ; the dances take place a n d t h e rites u n f o l d a r o u n d t h e m . D u r i n g i n i t i a t i o n , the n o v i c e is l e d t o the f o o t o f a n u r t u n j a that has b e e n erected f o r the occasion. " H e r e , " he is t o l d , "is the n u r t u n j a o f y o u r father; i t has already served t o make m a n y y o u n g m e n . " A f t e r this, t h e n e o p h y t e m u s t kiss the n u r tunja.

1 3 4

W i t h this kiss, he enters i n t o relations w i t h t h e r e l i g i o u s p r i n c i p l e

that is h e l d t o reside i n i t ; i t is a g e n u i n e c o m m u n i o n that is t o give the y o u n g m a n the strength h e m u s t have t o e n d u r e the t e r r i b l e o p e r a t i o n o f s u b i n c i sion.

1 3 5

I n a d d i t i o n , t h e n u r t u n j a plays an i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n t h e m y t h o l o g y o f

these societies. T h e m y t h s r e p o r t that, i n t h e m y t h i c a l age o f t h e great a n cestors, t h e t e r r i t o r y o f t h e t r i b e was crisscrossed i n all d i r e c t i o n s b y c o m p a nies m a d e u p exclusively o f i n d i v i d u a l s h a v i n g t h e same t o t e m .

1 3 6

Each o f

those bands c a r r i e d a n u r t u n j a . W h e n a c o m p a n y stopped t o m a k e c a m p a n d before t h e y dispersed t o h u n t , t h e p e o p l e set t h e i r n u r t u n j a i n t o the g r o u n d a n d suspended the churingas f r o m the t o p .

1 3 7

I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e y entrusted

i t w i t h t h e i r m o s t valuable possessions. A t t h e same t i m e , i t was a sort o f flag that served as the r a l l y i n g p o i n t o f t h e g r o u p . O n e c a n n o t fail t o b e s t r u c k b y t h e similarities o f the n u r t u n j a t o the sacred poles o f the O m a h a .

1 3 8

T h i s sacredness stems from o n e cause: I t is a m a t e r i a l representation o f the clan. I n fact, the v e r t i c a l lines o r rings o f d o w n that cover i t , o r i n d e e d the belts that j o i n the arms o f the w a n i n g a t o the central axis ( o f different colors, as w e l l ) , are n o t arranged arbitrarily, at the w h i m o f those officiating. T h e y must affect a f o r m that is s t r i c d y i m p o s e d b y t r a d i t i o n a n d that, i n the m i n d s o f the natives, represents the t o t e m .

1 3 9

H e r e w e n e e d w o n d e r n o longer, as i n

the case o f the churingas, i f the v e n e r a t i o n this c u l t i n s t r u m e n t

receives

m e r e l y reflects that inspired b y the ancestors: I t is a r u l e that each n u r t u n j a o r w a n i n g a lasts o n l y d u r i n g the c e r e m o n y i n w h i c h i t is used. A n entirely n e w one is made each t i m e o n e is needed; w h e n the r i t e is finished, i t is s t r i p p e d o f its ornaments, a n d the elements from w h i c h i t is made are

scattered.

140

134

Spencer and Gülen, Northern Tribes, p. 342; NativeTribes, p. 309.

135


136

I37

Ibid., chaps. 10 and 11.

Ibid., pp. 138-144.

138

See [James Owen] Dorsey, "[A Study of] Siouan Cults," BAE, Eleventh Report [Washington, Government Printing Office, 1894], p. 413, and "Omaha Sociology," p. 234. While it is true that there is only one sacred pole for the tribe, and yet one nurtunja for each clan, the principle is the same. 139

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 232, 308, 313, 334, etc.; Northern Tribes, pp. 182, 186, etc.

140

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 346. They do say, it is true, that the nurtunja represents the lance of the ancestor who, in Alcheringatimes,was the head of each clan. But it is only a symbolic rep-

125


Thus i t is n o m o r e t h a n an i m a g e o f the t o t e m — i n d e e d a t e m p o r a r y i m a g e — and therefore plays its religious role i n this r i g h t and i n this r i g h t only. T h e c h u r i n g a , the n u r t u n j a , a n d the w a n i n g a o w e t h e i r religious nature solely t o t h e fact that t h e y bear t h e t o t e m i c e m b l e m . W h a t is sacred is the e m b l e m . I t retains this sacredness w h a t e v e r t h e o b j e c t o n w h i c h i t is r e p r e sented.

I t is sometimes p a i n t e d o n rocks—these

churinga ilkinia, sacred d e s i g n s .

141

paintings b e i n g called

T h e decorations i n w h i c h the celebrants

and the c o n g r e g a t i o n a d o r n themselves d u r i n g r e l i g i o u s ceremonies have the same name, a n d i t is f o r b i d d e n f o r c h i l d r e n a n d w o m e n t o see t h e m .

1 4 2

In

certain rites, t h e t o t e m is sometimes d r a w n o n t h e g r o u n d . T h e v e r y t e c h n i q u e o f d o i n g so testifies t o t h e feelings that the design elicits and t o t h e h i g h value that is i m p u t e d t o i t . T h e d r a w i n g is d o n e o n g r o u n d that has been s p r i n k l e d a n d saturated b e f o r e h a n d w i t h h u m a n b l o o d ;

1 4 3

w e w i l l see

b e l o w that t h e b l o o d itself is a sacred l i q u i d that is reserved exclusively f o r p i ous use. O n c e the i m a g e has b e e n made, the faithful r e m a i n seated o n the g r o u n d i n f r o n t o f i t , i n an a t t i t u d e o f p u r e d e v o t i o n .

1 4 4

P r o v i d e d w e assign a

sense a p p r o p r i a t e t o the m e n t a l i t y o f t h e p r i m i t i v e , o n e can say that they w o r s h i p a n d g l o r i f y i t . * T h i s enables us t o u n d e r s t a n d w h y the t o t e m i c e m b l e m has r e m a i n e d a v e r y precious t h i n g t o the Indians o f N o r t h A m e r i c a : I t is always s u r r o u n d e d b y a sort o f r e l i g i o u s aura. I t is n o t w i t h o u t interest t o k n o w w h a t t o t e m i c representations are made of, i n a d d i t i o n t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g h o w i t happens that t h e y are so sacred. A m o n g the Indians o f N o r t h

A m e r i c a , t o t e m i c representations

are

painted, engraved, o r sculpted images that a t t e m p t t o reproduce the o u t w a r d appearance o f t h e t o t e m i c a n i m a l as faithfully as possible. T h e techniques are those that w e use today i n similar cases, except that i n general they are c r u d e r t h a n o u r o w n . B u t i t is n o t the same i n Australia, a n d o f course i t is i n the Australian societies that w e m u s t seek the o r i g i n o f these representations. A l t h o u g h the A u s t r a l i a n m a y s h o w h i m s e l f t o be fairly capable o f i m i t a t i n g the

réservation of that; it is not a sort of relic, like the churinga, which is thought to emanate from the ancestor himself. Here the secondary character of the interpretation is especially apparent. *A condition de donner au mot un sense approprié à la mentalité du primitif, on peut dire qu'ils l'adorent. What

it is about the verb adorer that must be specially understood is not made explicit. 141

u2

Ibid., pp. 614ff., esp. p. 617; Northern Tribes, p. 749.

NativeTribes, p. 624.

143

Ibid., p. 179.

144

Ibid., p. 181. [The reference does not describe their demeanor; it says that they chant. Trans.]

126


forms o f things, at least i n a r u d i m e n t a r y w a y ,

1 4 5

the sacred decorations seem

t o e x h i b i t n o preoccupations o f this k i n d : T h e y consist chiefly o f g e o m e t r i c designs made o n the churingas o r o n men's bodies. T h e y are straight o r c u r v e d lines p a i n t e d i n various w a y s ,

146

together h a v i n g and o n l y capable o f

h a v i n g a c o n v e n t i o n a l m e a n i n g . T h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n the d r a w i n g and the t h i n g d r a w n is so r e m o t e a n d i n d i r e c t that the u n i n f o r m e d cannot see i t . p n l y clan m e m b e r s can say w h a t m e a n i n g t h e y attach t o this o r that c o m b i n a t i o n o f lines.

147

I n general, m e n a n d w o m e n are represented b y semicircles; a n i -

mals, b y c o m p l e t e circles o r b y spirals;

148

the tracks o f a m a n o r an a n i m a l , b y

lines o f points. T h e meanings o f the drawings thus p r o d u c e d are i n d e e d so arb i t r a r y that the same d r a w i n g can have t w o different meanings f o r the people o f t w o totems—representing a certain a n i m a l i n o n e place a n d another a n i m a l o r a plant elsewhere. T h i s is perhaps even m o r e apparent i n the case o f the nurtunjas and waningas; each o f w h i c h represents a different t o t e m . B u t the f e w v e r y simple elements that enter i n t o t h e i r c o m p o s i t i o n cannot l e n d t h e m selves t o v e r y diverse c o m b i n a t i o n s . As a result, t w o nurtunjas can l o o k e x actly the same a n d yet convey t w o things as different as a g u m tree a n d an emu.

1 4 9

W h e n the n U r t u n j a is made, i t is g i v e n a m e a n i n g that i t retains d u r -

i n g the w h o l e ceremony, b u t a m e a n i n g that u l t i m a t e l y is set b y c o n v e n t i o n . As these facts prove, w h i l e the Australian has q u i t e a strong i n c l i n a t i o n t o represent his t o t e m , he does n o t d o so i n order t o have a p o r t r a i t before his eyes that perpetually renews the sensation o f it; he does so s i m p l y because he feels the need t o represent the idea he has b y means o f an o u t w a r d and physical sign, n o matter w h a t that sign may be. W e cannot go further t o w a r d understanding w h a t made the p r i m i t i v e w r i t e the idea he had o f his t o t e m o n his person and o n various objects, b u t i t has been i m p o r t a n t t o note straightaway the nature o f the need that has g i v e n b i r t h t o these numerous

representations.

150

U3

See some examples in Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes,fig.131. Among the designs there, several are obviously intended to represent animals, plants, the heads of men, etc.—very schematically, of course. 146

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 617; Northern Tribes, pp. 716ÎF.

147

[Spencer and Gillen], Native Tribes, p. 145; Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, p. 80.

148

[Spencer and Gillen], NativeTribes, p. 151.

,49

Ibid., p. 346.

1S0

Moreover, these designs and paintings undoubtedly have an aesthetic quality as well; they are an early form of art. Since they are also, and even most of all, a written language, itfollowsthat the origins of drawing and those of writing merge into one another. Indeed, it seems that man must have begun to draw less to fix onto wood or stone beautifulformsthat charmed the senses than to express his thought materially (cf. Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes, vol. I, p. 405; Dorsey, Siouan Cults, pp. 394ff.).

CHAPTER TWO

THE PRINCIPAL TOTEMIC BELIEFS (CONTINUED) The Totemic Animal and Man

B

u t t o t e m i c images are n o t the o n l y sacred things. T h e r e are real beings that are also t h e o b j e c t o f rites, because o f t h e i r relationship w i t h the

t o t e m . T h e y are, first a n d foremost, t h e creatures o f t h e t o t e m i c species a n d the m e m b e r s o f t h e clan.

I Since t h e designs that represent the t o t e m stir r e l i g i o u s feelings, i t is n a t u r a l that the things represented s h o u l d have the same p r o p e r t y t o some degree. T h e things represented are m a i n l y animals a n d plants. Since the profane role o f plants a n d c e r t a i n l y that o f animals o r d i n a r i l y is t o serve as f o o d , the sacredness o f the t o t e m i c a n i m a l o r p l a n t is signified b y the p r o h i b i t i o n against e a t i n g i t . O f course, because t h e y are h o l y t h i n g s , * they can enter i n t o the c o m p o s i t i o n o f c e r t a i n m y s t i c meals, a n d w e w i l l see i n fact that t h e y sometimes serve as t r u e sacraments; i n general, however, t h e y cannot be used for o r d i n a r y eating. A n y o n e w h o violates that p r o h i b i t i o n exposes h i m s e l f t o e x t r e m e l y grave danger. T h i s is n o t t o say that the g r o u p always intervenes t o p u n i s h every such i n f r a c t i o n artificially; the sacrilege is t h o u g h t t o b r i n g about death automatically. A dreaded p r i n c i p l e that c a n n o t enter i n t o a p r o fane b o d y w i t h o u t d i s r u p t i n g o r d e s t r o y i n g i t is t h o u g h t t o reside w i t h i n the

* Choses saintes. I indicate Durkheim's alternation between sacré and saint. On these terms, see above p. bdx, n. 101, and p. 121n. 127

128


1

t o t e m i c p l a n t o r a n i m a l . I n c e r t a i n tribes at least, o l d m e n are e x e m p t e d 2

f r o m that p r o h i b i t i o n ; later, w e w i l l see w h y . 3

B u t a l t h o u g h t h e p r o h i b i t i o n is absolute i n a great m a n y t r i b e s ( w i t h e x ceptions that w i l l be p o i n t e d o u t ) , u n q u e s t i o n a b l y i t tends t o w e a k e n as t h e o l d t o t e m i c o r g a n i z a t i o n breaks d o w n . B u t t h e v e r y restrictions that persist even t h e n s h o w that these attenuations have n o t b e e n easily accepted. F o r e x ample, w h e r e eating the t o t e m i c a n i m a l o r p l a n t is p e r m i t t e d , the eating is still n o t e n t i r e l y free b u t is l i m i t e d t o small a m o u n t s at a time. T o exceed this 4

l i m i t is a r i t u a l offense and has grave consequences. Elsewhere, the restrict i o n remains i n t a c t f o r the parts that are considered t h e m o s t precious, that is, 5

the m o s t sacred—for example, the eggs o r t h e f a t . I n yet o t h e r places, u n r e stricted eating is t o l e r a t e d o n l y i f t h e a n i m a l eaten has n o t yet reached f u l l 6

m a t u r i t y . I n this case, the animal's sacredness is p r o b a b l y assumed t o be as yet i n c o m p l e t e . T h u s , the b a r r i e r that isolates a n d protects t h e t o t e m i c b e i n g gives w a y b u t slowly, a n d n o t w i t h o u t s t r o n g r e s i s t a n c e — w h i c h is evidence o f w h a t i t m u s t o r i g i n a l l y have been. I t is t r u e that Spencer a n d G i l l e n d o n o t believe such restrictions are survivals o f a o n c e - r i g o r o u s p r o h i b i t i o n that is g r a d u a l l y w e a k e n i n g , b u t instead that t h e y are the p r e l u d e t o o n e j u s t b e g i n n i n g t o establish itself. O n c e u p o n

'See the example in [Rev. George] Taplin, "The Narrinyeri Tribe" [in James Dominick Woods, The Native Tribes of South Australia, Adelaide, E. S. Wigg & Son, 1879], p. 63; [Alfred William] Howitt, Native Tribes [of South-East Australia, London, Macmillan, 1904], pp. 146, 769; [Lorimer] Fison and [Alfred William] Howitt, Kamilaroi and Kumai [Melbourne, G. Robertson, 1880], p. 169; [Walter Edmund] Roth, Superstition, Magic and Medicine [in North Queensland Ethnography, Bulletin, no. 5, Brisbane, G. A.

Vaughn, 1903], §150; [W.] Wyatt, "Adelaide and Encounter Bay Tribes" [in Woods, The NativeTribes of South Australia], p. 168 [H. E. A.] Meyer, "Manners and Customs of the Aborigines of Encounter Bay," [in Woods, The Native Tribes of South Australia], p. 186. 2

This is the case among the Warramunga. [Sir Baldwin Spencer and Francis James Gillen, Northern Tribes of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1904], p. 168. [That discussion does not concern dietary practices. Trans.] 3

For example, among the Warramunga, the Urabunna, the Wonghibon, the Yuin, the Wotjobaluk, the Buandik, the Ngeumba, and others. 4

Among the Kaitish, if a member of the clan eats too much of his totem, the members of the other phratry have recourse to a magical procedure that is thought to kill (ibid., p. 294; cf. [Sir Baldwin Spencer and Francis James Gillen], Northern Tribes, p. 294, and NativeTribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1899], p. 204 [The discussion does not concern dietary practices. Trans.]; Langloh Parker [Catherine Sommerville Field Parker], The Euahlayi Tribe, [London, A. Constable, 1905], p. 20). 5

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 202n.; [Carl] Strehlow, DieAranda- und Loritja-Stamme in Zentral¬ Australien, vol. II [Frankfurt, J. Baer, 1907], p. 58. 6

[Spencer and Gillen], Northern Tribes, p. 173.

129

The Principal Totemic Beliefs (Continued)

7

a t i m e , a c c o r d i n g t o these w r i t e r s , there was t o t a l f r e e d o m o f c o n s u m p t i o n , and the restrictions a p p l i e d today are fairly recent. T h e y believe t h e y have found p r o o f o f t h e i r thesis i n the t w o f o l l o w i n g facts. First, there are s o l e m n occasions w h e n t h e m e n o f t h e clan o r t h e i r c h i e f n o t o n l y m a y b u t m u s t eat the t o t e m i c a n i m a l a n d p l a n t , as I have j u s t n o t e d . Second, the m y t h s r e p o r t that the great f o u n d i n g ancestors o f the clans r e g u l a r l y ate t h e i r t o t e m . These stories c a n n o t be u n d e r s t o o d , say they, except as t h e e c h o o f a t i m e w h e n r e strictions d i d n o t exist. T h e fact that i t is r i t u a l l y o b l i g a t o r y t o partake o f the t o t e m d u r i n g certain r e l i g i o u s ceremonies (moderately, at that) i n n o w a y i m p l i e s that i t ever served as o r d i n a r y f o o d . Q u i t e the contrary, t h e f o o d eaten d u r i n g m y s t i c a l meals is sacred i n its essence a n d hence f o r b i d d e n t o t h e profane. As t o t h e m y t h s , t o i m p u t e t o t h e m the value o f h i s t o r i c a l d o c u m e n t s so easily is t o f o l l o w a rather slipshod c r i t i c a l m e t h o d . As a r u l e , t h e o b j e c t o f m y t h s is t o i n terpret t h e e x i s t i n g rites rather t h a n t o c o m m e m o r a t e past events; t h e y are m o r e an e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e present t h a n t h e y are a history. I n this case, those traditions i n w h i c h t h e legendary ancestors ate t h e i r t o t e m are i n perfect acc o r d w i t h beliefs a n d rites that are still i n force. T h e o l d m e n , a n d others w h o have attained h i g h r e l i g i o u s status, are n o t b o u n d b y t h e p r o h i b i t i o n s as are 8

o r d i n a r y m e n . T h e y m a y eat o f t h e h o l y t h i n g * because they are h o l y t h e m selves; m o r e o v e r , this r u l e is n o t p e c u l i a r t o t o t e m i s m alone b u t is f o u n d i n the m o s t disparate r e l i g i o n s . Since t h e ancestral heroes w e r e v i r t u a l l y gods, i t must have seemed all t h e m o r e n a t u r a l that t h e y s h o u l d have b e e n able t o eat the sacred* f o o d ,

9

b u t that is n o reason f o r the same p r i v i l e g e t o have b e e n

c o n f e r r e d u p o n m e r e profane b e i n g s .

10

* Chose sainte. Âliment sacre. 7

Ibid., pp. 207ff.

"See above p. 128. 9

It should also be borne in mind that in the myths, the ancestors are never represented as feeding on their totem routinely. Quite the contrary; this sort of consumption is the exception. According to Strehlow, their everyday fare was the same as that of the corresponding animal (Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, p. 4). '"Furthermore, this whole theory rests on a completely arbitrary hypothesis; Spencer and Gillen, like [James George] Frazer, concede that the tribes of Central Australia, including the Arunta, represent the most archaic and, consequendy, the purest form of totemism. I will say below why this conjecture seems to me to be contrary to all likelihood. It is in fact probable that these authors would not so easily have accepted the thesis they defend if they had not refused to see totemism as a religion and thus had not failed to recognize the sacredness of the totem.

130


H o w e v e r , i t is n e i t h e r c e r t a i n n o r even l i k e l y that the p r o h i b i t i o n was ever absolute. I t seems always t o have b e e n superseded b y necessity—for e x ample, w h e n the native is s t a r v i n g a n d has n o t h i n g else t o eat.

11

A l l the m o r e

is this the case w h e n the t o t e m is a k i n d o f f o o d that m a n cannot d o w i t h o u t . F o r example, m a n y tribes have a w a t e r t o t e m — a case i n p o i n t i n w h i c h strict p r o h i b i t i o n clearly is impossible. B u t even i n this case, the concession is subject t o restrictions, w h i c h goes t o s h o w that the concession

deviates

f r o m an accepted p r i n c i p l e . A m o n g t h e K a i t i s h a n d the W a r r a m u n g a , a m a n o f this t o t e m c a n n o t d r i n k w a t e r freely, is p r o h i b i t e d f r o m d r a w i n g i t himself, a n d can receive i t o n l y f r o m t h e hands o f a t h i r d p e r s o n , w h o m u s t b e l o n g t o the p h r a t r y o f w h i c h he is n o t a m e m b e r .

1 2

T h e c o m p l e x i t y and inconve-

nience o f this p r o c e d u r e are y e t o t h e r ways o f r e c o g n i z i n g that access t o the sacred t h i n g is n o t free. I n c e r t a i n tribes o f the center, the same r u l e applies w h e n e v e r the t o t e m is eaten, w h e t h e r o u t o f necessity o r f o r any o t h e r reason. I t s h o u l d be reiterated that w h e n this f o r m a l i t y itself c a n n o t be exec u t e d — t h a t is, w h e n an i n d i v i d u a l is b y h i m s e l f o r is s u r r o u n d e d b y m e m bers o f his o w n p h r a t r y — h e m a y d o w i t h o u t any i n t e r m e d i a r y i f there is u r g e n t need. I t is clear that the p r o h i b i t i o n can be m i t i g a t e d i n various ways. S t i l l , t h e p r o h i b i t i o n rests o n ideas that are so deeply r o o t e d i n t h e m i n d that i t o f t e n outlives its o r i g i n a l reasons f o r b e i n g . W e have seen that, i n all p r o b a b i l i t y , the various clans o f a p h r a t r y are subdivisions o f an o r i g i n a l clan that b r o k e up. T h u s there was a t i m e w h e n all the clans w e r e b u t one a n d h a d the same t o t e m ; therefore, w h e n e v e r t h e m e m o r y o f that c o m m o n o r i g i n is n o t c o m p l e t e l y erased, each clan c o n t i n u e s t o feel s o l i d a r i t y w i t h the others a n d t o consider t h e i r totems as n o t f o r e i g n t o i t . F o r this reason, an i n d i v i d ual is n o t e n t i r e l y free t o eat the t o t e m s assigned t o the various clans o f the p h r a t r y t o w h i c h h e belongs; h e m a y t o u c h the f o r b i d d e n p l a n t o r a n i m a l o n l y i f i t has b e e n presented t o h i m b y a m e m b e r o f t h e o t h e r p h r a t r y .

13

"Taplin, 'The Narrinyeri," p. 64; Howitt, NativeTribes, pp. 145, 147; Spencer and Gillen, NativeTribes, p. 202; [George] Grey, Journals of Two Expeditions in North-West and Western Australia, vol. II, London, T.

and W. Boone, 1841; Curr, The Australian Race, vol. Ill, p. 462. 12

[Spencer and Gillen], Northern Tribes, pp. 160, 167. It is not enough for the intermediary to be of another totem. As we will see, to some extent, any totem of a phratry is forbidden to other members of that phratry who are of different totems. 13

Ibid., p. 167. We can better understand now how it happens that, when the prohibition is not observed, it is the other phratry that carries out punishment for the sacrilege (see p. 128, n. 4 above). It is because that phratry has the greatest interest in seeing that the rule is respected. It is believed likely, in fact, that when the rule is violated, the totemic species will not reproduce abundandy. Since the members of the other phratry are the ones who regularly eat it, they are the ones affected. This is why they avenge themselves.

131


A n o t h e r s u r v i v a l o f the same k i n d relates t o the m a t e r n a l t o t e m . T h e r e are g o o d reasons f o r b e l i e v i n g that t o t e m s w e r e at first t r a n s m i t t e d t h r o u g h the m a t e r n a l l i n e . A n d so, w h e r e v e r descent t h r o u g h the paternal l i n e has b e c o m e t h e c u s t o m , this m o s t l i k e l y has o c c u r r e d o n l y after a l o n g p e r i o d d u r i n g w h i c h the opposite p r i n c i p l e was i n use; h e n c e the c h i l d h a d the t o t e m o f its m o t h e r a n d was subject t o all the p r o h i b i t i o n s attached thereto. N o w a l t h o u g h i n c e r t a i n tribes today, the c h i l d i n h e r i t s the t o t e m o f its father, s o m e t h i n g remains o f the p r o h i b i t i o n s that o r i g i n a l l y p r o t e c t e d the mother's 14

t o t e m : I t c a n n o t be p a r t a k e n o f freely.

Y e t n o t h i n g else i n the present state

o f things corresponds t o that p r o h i b i t i o n . A p r o h i b i t i o n against k i l l i n g t h e t o t e m ( o r p i c k i n g i t , i f i t is a plant) is often added t o the p r o h i b i t i o n against e a t i n g .

15

B u t , here again, there are

m a n y exceptions a n d m i t i g a t i o n s . F o r instance, there is the case o f necess i t y — w h e n , f o r e x a m p l e , the t o t e m is a dangerous a n i m a l

1 6

o r w h e n one

has n o t h i n g t o eat. T h e r e are even tribes that p r o h i b i t h u n t i n g the a n i m a l w h o s e n a m e o n e bears f o r oneself, b u t nevertheless p e r m i t its k i l l i n g f o r someone else.

17

I n general, t h o u g h , the m a n n e r i n w h i c h the act is car-

r i e d o u t clearly indicates that there is s o m e t h i n g i l l i c i t a b o u t i t . O n e says "excuse m e " as i f f o r an offense, displays sadness a n d r e p u g n a n c e ,

18

and

14

This is the case among the Loritja (Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, pp. 60, 61), the Worgaia, the Warramunga, the Walpari, the Mara, the Anula, the Binbinga (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 166, 171, 173). Among the Warramunga and the Walpari, it may be eaten but only if it is offered by a member of the other phratry. Spencer and Gillen point out (p. 167 n.) that, in this respect, the paternal and maternal totems are apparently subject to different rules. It is true that, in either case, the offer must come from the other phratry. But when the totem in question is that of the father, the totem proper, that other phratry is the one to which the totem does not belong; the inverse applies when it is the totem of the mother. This is the case, most likely, because the principle was atfirstestablished for the father's, then extended automatically to the mother's, even though the situation was different. Once it was instituted, the rule that one could avoid the restriction protecting the totem only when the offer was made by someone of the other phratry was applied without modification to the mother's totem. 15

For example, among the Warramunga (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 166), the Wotjobaluk, the Buandik, and the Kurnai (Howitt, NativeTribes, pp. 146-147), and the Narrinyeri (Taplin, "The Narrinyeri," p. 63). 16

And still not in all cases. The Arunta of the Mosquito totem must not kill that insect, even when it is inconvenient not to, but must settle for flicking it away (Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, p. 58. Cf. [Rev. George] Taplin, "The Narrinyeri," p. 63). [It is possible that, in certain of his footnotes, Dürkheim conflated two articles by Taplin, one in Curr and the other in Woods. Trans.] ,7

Among the Kaitish and the Unmafjera (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 160). Indeed sometimes an elder gives one of his churingas to a young man of a different totem, to enable the young man to hunt the givers totemic animal more easily (ibid., p. 272). 18

Howitt, NativeTribes, p. 146; Grey,Journals ofTwo Expeditions, vol. II, p. 228. [Rev. Eugene Arnaud] Casalis, The Bassutos [Capetown, C. Struik, 1965], p. 211. Among these latter, "one must be purified after committing such a sacrilege."


132

takes the necessary t o ensure that the a n i m a l suffers as l i t t l e as possible.

19

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e basic p r o h i b i t i o n s , there are examples o f a p r o h i b i t i o n against c o n t a c t b e t w e e n a m a n a n d his t o t e m . T h u s , a m o n g the O m a h a , n o o n e o f t h e E l k clan m a y t o u c h any p a r t o f the male elk; a n d i n a subclan o f the Buffalo, n o o n e m a y t o u c h this animal's h e a d .

20

A m o n g the B e c h u a n a ,

n o o n e w o u l d dare t o wear t h e s k i n o f t h e a n i m a l that is his t o t e m .

2 1

But

these cases are rare; a n d i t is n a t u r a l that t h e y s h o u l d be, since, n o r m a l l y a m a n m u s t wear t h e image o f his t o t e m o r s o m e t h i n g r e m i n i s c e n t o f i t . T a t t o o i n g and t o t e m i c costumes w o u l d be i m p r a c t i c a l i f c o n t a c t was p r o h i b i t e d altogether. I t s h o u l d be n o t i c e d , f u r t h e r m o r e , that this p r o h i b i t i o n is f o l l o w e d n o t i n A u s t r a l i a b u t o n l y i n societies w h e r e t o t e m i s m is already far from its o r i g i n a l f o r m ; apparendy, t h e n , i t is o f recent o r i g i n a n d due perhaps t o the i n f l u e n c e o f ideas that are n o t specifically t o t e m i c at a l l .

2 2

I f w e n o w c o m p a r e these various p r o h i b i t i o n s w i t h those a p p l i e d t o t h e t o t e m i c e m b l e m , i t seems—contrary t o w h a t m i g h t be p r e d i c t e d — t h a t those applied t o t h e t o t e m i c e m b l e m are t h e m o r e n u m e r o u s , strict, and r i g o r o u s l y i m p e r a t i v e . A l l k i n d s o f figures representing the t o t e m are s u r r o u n d e d w i t h a m a r k e d l y greater respect t h a n the b e i n g itself, w h o s e f o r m t h e figures i m i tate. C h u r i n g a s , nurtunjas, a n d waningas m u s t never be h a n d l e d b y w o m e n o r u n i n i t i a t e d m e n , w h o are n o t p e r m i t t e d even t o g l i m p s e t h e m except from

a respectful distance and, at that, o n l y o n rare occasions. O n t h e o t h e r

h a n d , the p l a n t o r a n i m a l w h o s e name the c l a n bears m a y be seen a n d "Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, pp. 58, 59, 61. 20

[James Owen] Dorsey, "Omaha Sociology," in Third Annual Report, BAE [Washington, Government Printing Office, 1881-1882], pp. 225, 231. 21

Casalis [The Bassutos, p. 211].

22

Even among the Omaha, it is not certain that the prohibitions against contact, some examples of which I have just reported, are specifically totemic in nature. Several of them have no direct relations with the animal that serves as the clan's totem. Thus, in a subclan of the Eagle, the characteristic prohibition is that against touching the head of a buffalo (Dorsey, "Omaha Sociology," p. 239); in another subclan of the same totem, verdigris, charcoal, or something else must not be touched (p. 245). I do not mention other prohibitions noted by Frazer, such as naming or looking at an animal or plant, for those are even less clearly of totemic origin, except perhaps in the case of certain instances observed among the Bechuana ([James George] Frazer, Totemism and Exogamy, [London, Macmillan, 1910], pp. 12—13). Frazer once accepted too easily (and on this point he has had imitators) that every prohibition against eating or touching an animal necessarily arisesfromtotemic beliefs. However, there is one case in Australia in which the sight of the totem appears to be forbidden. According to Strehlow (Aranda, vol. II, p. 59), among the Arunta and the Loritja, a man whose totem is the moon must not look at it very long; to do so would be to expose himself to death at the hands of an enemy. I believe this is a unique case. Moreover we should bear in mind that the astronomical totems are probably not primitive in Australia, so this prohibition might be the outcome of a complex elaboration. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that, among the Euahlayi, the prohibition against looking at the moon applies to all mothers and children, whatever their totems (Parker, Euahlayi, p. 53).

133

The Priticipal Totemic Beliefs (Continued)

t o u c h e d b y everyone. C h u r i n g a s are k e p t i n a sort o f t e m p l e , at t h e t h r e s h o l d o f w h i c h the d i n o f profane life settles i n t o silence; i t is the d o m a i n o f sacred things. U n l i k e the churingas, t o t e m i c animals a n d plants live o n profane g r o u n d and are p a r t a n d parcel o f everyday life. A n d since t h e n u m b e r a n d i m p o r tance o f the restrictions that isolate a sacred t h i n g , w i t h d r a w i n g i t from c i r c u l a t i o n , c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e degree o f sacredness w i t h w h i c h i t is invested, w e arrive at the remarkable result that the images of the totemic being are more sacred than the totemic being itself M o r e o v e r , i t is the c h u r u n g a and the n u r t u n j a that h o l d t h e highest r a n k i n the ceremonies o f the c u l t ; o n l y o n e x t r e m e l y rare occasions does t h e a n i m a l appear i n t h e m . I n o n e r i t e , o f w h i c h I w i l l have occasion t o s p e a k ,

23

i t is the basis o f a r e l i g i o u s m e a l b u t has n o active role.

T h e A r u n t a dance a r o u n d t h e n u r t u n j a , g a t h e r i n g before the image o f t h e i r t o t e m a n d w o r s h i p i n g i t ; never is there a similar display before t h e t o t e m i c b e i n g itself. I f this b e i n g was t h e h o l y t h i n g * par excellence, t h e n that b e i n g , the sacred plant o r a n i m a l , w o u l d be the o n e the y o u n g n o v i c e m u s t c o m m u n e w i t h w h e n b r o u g h t i n t o t h e sphere o f r e l i g i o u s life; w e have seen i n stead that the m o m e n t w h e n the n o v i c e enters the sanctuary o f the churingas is the m o s t s o l e m n o f t h e i n i t i a t i o n . I t is w i t h t h e m a n d w i t h t h e n u r t u n j a that he c o m m u n e s . So the representations o f the t o t e m are m o r e efficacious t h a n the t o t e m itself.

II W e m u s t n o w d e t e r m i n e the place o f m a n i n the system o f r e l i g i o u s things. A w h o l e set o f received n o t i o n s a n d the p o w e r o f language itself i n c l i n e us t o t h i n k o f o r d i n a r y m e n , the o r d i n a r y faithful, as essentially profane b e ings. T h i s c o n c e p t i o n m a y w e l l n o t be l i t e r a l l y t r u e o f any r e l i g i o n ;

2 4

i t cer-

tainly does n o t a p p l y t o t o t e m i s m . E a c h m e m b e r o f the clan is invested w i t h a sacredness that is n o t s i g n i f i c a n d y less t h a n the sacredness w e j u s t r e c o g n i z e d i n the a n i m a l . T h e reason f o r this personal sacredness is that the m a n believes he is b o t h a m a n i n t h e usual sense o f the w o r d and an a n i m a l o r plant o f the t o t e m i c species.

* Chose sainte.

^See Bk. Ill, chap. 2, §2. 24

There is perhaps no religion that regards man as an exclusively profane being. For the Christian, there is something sacred about the soul that each of us carries within, and that constitutes the very essence of our personality. As we will see, this idea of the soul is as old as religious thinking. But man's own place in the hierarchy of sacred things is rather high.

134


I n fact, he bears its name. A t that stage, i d e n t i t y i n n a m e is presumed t o entail an i d e n t i t y i n nature. H a v i n g the same n a m e is n o t t h o u g h t o f m e r e l y as an o u t w a r d sign o f h a v i n g the same nature b u t as l o g i c a l l y presupposing i t . F o r t h e p r i m i t i v e , the n a m e is n o t s i m p l y a w o r d , a m e r e c o m b i n a t i o n o f sounds; i t is p a r t o f t h e b e i n g and, i n d e e d , an essential part. W h e n a m e m b e r o f the K a n g a r o o clan calls h i m s e l f a kangaroo, he is i n a sense an a n i m a l o f that species. " A m a n , " say Spencer a n d G i l l e n , "regards the b e i n g that is his t o t e m as t h e same t h i n g as himself. A native w i t h w h o m w e w e r e discussing the m a t t e r responded b y s h o w i n g us a p h o t o g r a p h w e h a d j u s t taken o f h i m : ' L o o k w h o is exacdy the same t h i n g as I . W e l l ! I t is the same w i t h t h e k a n garoo.' T h e kangaroo was his t o t e m . "

2 5

T h u s , each i n d i v i d u a l has a d u a l n a -

ture: T w o beings coexist i n h i m , a m a n a n d an a n i m a l . T o give a semblance o f i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y t o this duality, w h i c h t o us is so strange, the p r i m i t i v e has c o n c e i v e d m y t h s that o f course e x p l a i n n o t h i n g and o n l y displace the difficulty, b u t that, i n displacing i t , seem at least t o d i m i n i s h the l o g i c a l shock. W i t h variations o f detail, t h e y are all c o n s t r u c t e d o n the same p l a n . T h e i r o b j e c t is t o establish genealogical relations b e t w e e n the m a n a n d t h e t o t e m i c a n i m a l that m a k e the m a n t h e animal's k i n . B y that shared (and v a r i o u s l y i m a g i n e d ) o r i g i n , p e o p l e believe t h e y are a c c o u n t i n g for t h e i r shared nature. T h e N a r r i n y e r i , f o r example, have c o n c e i v e d the idea that c e r t a i n o f the first m e n h a d t h e p o w e r t o t r a n s f o r m themselves i n t o a n imals.

26

O t h e r A u s t r a l i a n societies place strange animals at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f

h u m a n i t y , animals f r o m w h i c h m e n descended i n some w a y o r o t h e r , t h e y place m i x e d beings i n t e r m e d i a t e b e t w e e n the t w o realms t h e r e ,

28

27

or

o r else

formless, barely representable creatures w i t h o u t d e f i n e d organs o r a p p e n d ages, a n d w h o s e various b o d y parts are barely d r a w n .

2 9

M y t h i c a l powers,

sometimes c o n c e i v e d i n t h e f o r m o f animals, i n t e r v e n e d at that p o i n t , trans-

25


26

Taplin, "The Narrinyeri," pp. 59—61.

27

Among certain Warramunga clans, for example (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 162).

28

Among the Urabunna (ibid., p. 147). Even when we are told that thosefirstbeings were men, in reality they are only semihumans and participate in an animal nature at the same time. This is the case of certain Unmatjera (ibid., pp. 153—154). Here are ways of thinking whose blurred distinctions [confusions] unsettle us, but that must be accepted as they are. [Here and elsewhere in this text, the noun confusion and the corresponding verb, confondre, convey blending. They express a form of conceptual practice, not a state of mental disorder. See below, p. 241. Trans.] If we tried to introduce a tidiness that is alien to them, we would distort them (cf. Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 119). 29

Among certain Arunta (Spencer and Gillen, NativeTribes, pp. 388ff.); and among certain Unmatjera (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 153).

135


forming

i n t o m e n these a m b i g u o u s a n d unnameable beings that represent, as

Spencer a n d G i l l e n say, "a t r a n s i t i o n a l phase b e t w e e n m a n a n d a n i m a l . "

30

These transformations are presented t o us as t h e o u t c o m e o f v i o l e n t and quasi-surgical operations. I t is w i t h b l o w s o f an axe or, w h e n the o p e r a t o r is a b i r d , w i t h pecks o f the beak t h a t t h e h u m a n is t h o u g h t t o have b e e n sculpted i n t h a t a m o r p h o u s mass, the arms a n d legs separated f r o m o n e a n other, the m o u t h a n d nostrils o p e n e d .

31

S i m i l a r legends c r o p u p i n A m e r i c a ,

b u t because o f the m o r e d e v e l o p e d m e n t a l i t y o f those peoples, the representations they use are n o t confused a n d c o n f u s i n g i n the same way. H e r e , i t is a legendary personage w h o , a c t i n g o n his o w n , m e t a m o r p h o s e d eponymous animal i n t o m a n .

3 2

the clan's

T h e r e , the m y t h tries t o e x p l a i n h o w , b y a se-

ries o f m o r e o r less n a t u r a l events a n d a sort o f spontaneous e v o l u t i o n , the a n i m a l t r a n s f o r m e d itself l i t t l e b y l i t t l e , f i n a l l y t a k i n g o n h u m a n f o r m .

3 3

, T r u e , there are societies ( H a i d a , T l i n g i t , T s h i m s h i a n ) i n w h i c h t h e idea that m a n was b o r n o f an a n i m a l o r p l a n t is n o l o n g e r accepted. Yet, t h e idea o f an affinity b e t w e e n the animals o f the t o t e m i c species a n d the m e m b e r s o f the clan has s u r v i v e d , a n d i t is e x p l a i n e d i n m y t h s that differ from the p r e c e d i n g b u t are basically r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e m . H e r e , t h e n , is one o f t h e i r f u n damental themes. T h e e p o n y m o u s ancestor is represented as a h u m a n b e i n g b u t o n e w h o , f o l l o w i n g v a r i o u s ups a n d d o w n s , was i n d u c e d t o live f o r a m o r e o r less l o n g t i m e a m o n g legendary animals o f the same species that gave 30

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 389. Cf. Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, pp. 2-7.

•"Spencer and Gillen, NativeTribes, p. 389. Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, pp. 2ff. This mythical theme is undoubtedly an echo of the initiation rites. The purpose of the initiation is to make of the young man a complete man, and it also implies surgical operations (circumcision, subincision, extraction of teeth, etc.). It must have been natural for them to conceive the processes used to make thefirstmen according to the same model. 32

This is true for the nine clans of the Moqui ([Henry Rowe] Schoolcraft, [Historical and Statistical In-

formation Respecting the History, Condition, and Prospects of the] Indian Tribes [of the United States, vol. IV,

Philadelphia, Lippincott, Grambo, 1851—1857], p. 86), the Crane clan of the Ojibway ([Lewis Henry] Morgan, Ancient Society [London, Macmillan, 1877], p. 180), and the clans of the Nootka ([Franz] Boas, "Second General Report on the Indians of British Columbia," in, BAAS, Vlth Rep. on the North-Western Tribes of Canada [London, Offices of the Association, 1891], p. 43), etc. 33

Thus did the Turtle clan of the Iroquois take form. A group of tortoises had to leave the lake where they lived andfindanother habitat. The heat made it difficult for one of them, who was larger than the others, to endure the exercise. It struggled so violendy that it came out of its shell. Once begun, the process of transformation continued by itself, and the turtle became a man who was the ancestor of the clan (Erminnie A. Smith, "The Myths of the Iroquois," in Second Annual Report [BAE, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1883], p. 77). The Crawfish [Ecrevisse] clan of the Choctaw is said to have been formed in a similar way. Some men surprised a certain number of crawfish that lived in their vicinity, took the crawfish home with them, taught them to speak and walk, and finally adopted them into their society ([George] Catlin, [Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs and Condition of the] North Amer-

ican Indians, vol. II [London, Tosswil and Myers, 1841], p. 128.

136


the clan its name. As a result o f these i n t i m a t e a n d p r o l o n g e d dealings, he b e came so l i k e his n e w c o m p a n i o n s that w h e n he r e t u r n e d t o the c o m m u n i t y o f m e n , t h e y n o l o n g e r r e c o g n i z e d h i m . H e was therefore g i v e n the n a m e o f the a n i m a l he resembled. F r o m his s o j o u r n i n t h e m y t h i c a l l a n d , he b r o u g h t back t h e t o t e m i c e m b l e m , t o g e t h e r w i t h the p o w e r s a n d v i r t u e s t h o u g h t t o be attached t o i t .

3 4

I n this case as i n t h e p r e c e d i n g , t h e n , the m a n is t h o u g h t

t o participate i n the nature o f the a n i m a l , even t h o u g h that p a r t i c i p a t i o n is imagined somewhat differendy

3 5

T h u s he t o o has s o m e t h i n g sacred a b o u t h i m . D i f f u s e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e body, this q u a l i t y is especially e v i d e n t at c e r t a i n sites. S o m e organs and tissues are especially i d e n t i f i e d w i t h i t : m o s t o f all, the b l o o d a n d the hair. T o b e g i n w i t h , h u m a n b l o o d is such a h o l y * t h i n g that, a m o n g t h e tribes o f central Australia, i t is v e r y o f t e n used t o consecrate the m o s t respected i n struments o f the c u l t . I n some cases, f o r example, the n u r t u n j a is r e l i g i o u s l y a n o i n t e d from t o p t o b o t t o m w i t h h u m a n b l o o d .

3 6

A m o n g the A r u n t a , the

m e n o f the E m u d r a w t h e sacred e m b l e m o n g r o u n d that is t h o r o u g h l y soaked w i t h b l o o d .

3 7

W e w i l l see f u r t h e r o n h o w streams o f b l o o d are p o u r e d

* Chose sainte. 34

Here, for example, is a legend of the Tsimshian. During a hunt, an Indian met a black bear who took him home and taught him to catch salmon and build canoes. The man stayed with the bear for two years, after which he returned to his native village. But because he was just like a bear, the people were afraid of him. He could not talk and could eat only raw foods. Then he was rubbed with magical herbs, after which he gradually regained his original form. Later, when he was in need, he called his friends the bears, who came to his aid. He built a house and painted a bear on its facade. His sister made a blanket for the dance, on which a bear was drawn. This is why the descendants of that sister had the bear as their emblem ([Franz] Boas, ["The Social Organization and Secret Societies of the] Kwakiutl [Indians," in RNM for 1895, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1897], p. 323. Cf. Boas, "First General Report on the Indians of British Columbia," in BAAS [Fifth] Report [of the Committee] on the North Western Tribes of [the

Dominion of] Canada [London, Offices of the Association, 1890], pp. 23, 29ff.; [Charles] Hill Tout, "Report on the Ethnology of the Stadumh of British Columbia," in JAI, vol. XXXV (1905), p. 150. From this, we see the drawback of making mystic kinship between man and animal the distinguishing feature of totemism, as M. Van Germep proposes ([A. Van Gennep], "Totémisme et méthode comparative," RHR, vol. LVIII [juillet 1908], p. 55). Since this kinship is a mythical expression of facts that are deeply rooted for other reasons, the essential traits of totemism do not disappear in its absence. Doubtless, there are always close ties between the people of the clan and the totemic animal, but they are not necessarily ties of blood, although they most commonly are conceived as such. 35

In some Tlingit myths, moreover, the relationship of descent between the man and the animal is affirmed more specifically. The clan is said to be the offspring of a mixed marriage, if such terms can be used—that is, one in which either the man or the woman was an animal of the species whose name the clan bears ([John Reed] Swanton, "Social Condition, Beliefs, [and Linguistic Relationship] of the Tlingit Indians," Twenty-Sixth Annual Report, BAE, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1908], pp. 415^118. •^Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 284. 37

Ibid., p. 179.

137


o n the rocks that represent t h e t o t e m i c plants o r a n i m a l s .

38

T h e r e is n o r e l i -

gious c e r e m o n y i n w h i c h b l o o d does n o t have some role t o p l a y .

39

Some-

times i n the course o f i n i t i a t i o n , adults o p e n t h e i r veins and s p r i n k l e the novice w i t h t h e i r b l o o d , this b l o o d b e i n g such a sacred* t h i n g that w o m e n are f o r b i d d e n t o be present w h i l e i t is flowing. L i k e the sight o f a c h u r i n g a ,

40

the sight o f this b l o o d is f o r b i d d e n t o t h e m . T h e b l o o d that the y o u n g n e o p h y t e loses d u r i n g the v i o l e n t operations he has t o u n d e r g o has altogether e x c e p t i o n a l properties: I t is used i n v a r i o u s c o m m u n i o n s . A r u n t a , the b l o o d that

flows

4 1

A m o n g the

d u r i n g s u b i n c i s i o n is p i o u s l y c o l l e c t e d a n d

b u r i e d i n a place o n w h i c h a piece o f w o o d is set t o i n d i c a t e t o passersby the sacredness o f the spot; n o w o m a n m u s t approach i t .

4 2

I n the second place, the

religious nature o f b l o o d also explains w h y r e d ochre has a religious role a n d is f r e q u e n t l y used i n ceremonies. T h e churingas are r u b b e d w i t h i t , a n d i t is used i n r i t u a l d e c o r a t i o n s .

43

T h i s is because o c h r e is regarded as a substance

a k i n t o b l o o d , b y v i r t u e o f its c o l o r . I n d e e d , several deposits o f o c h r e that are f o u n d at different sites o n the t e r r i t o r y o f t h e A r u n t a are t h o u g h t t o be c o agulated b l o o d that c e r t a i n heroines o f t h e m y t h i c a l e p o c h a l l o w e d t o onto the g r o u n d .

flow

4 4

H a i r has similar properties. T h e natives o f central Australia w e a r sashes made o f h u m a n hair. T h e r e l i g i o u s f u n c t i o n o f those n a r r o w bands, as already n o t e d , is t o w r a p c e r t a i n c u l t o b j e c t s .

45

Has a m a n l e n t o n e o f his churingas

t o another? As a s h o w o f g r a t i t u d e , the b o r r o w e r makes a present o f hair t o the lender; t h e t w o sorts o f things are considered t o be o f t h e same o r d e r a n d o f equivalent v a l u e .

46

A c c o r d i n g l y , the o p e r a t i o n o f hair c u t t i n g is a r i t u a l act

* Chose sacrée. 38

See Bk. Ill, chap. 2. Cf. Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 184, 201.

39

Ibid., pp. 204, 262, 284.

""Among the Dieri and the Parnkalla. See Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 658, 661, 668, 669-671. ""Among the Warramunga, the blood of circumcision is drunk by the mother (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 352). Among the Binbinga, the blood that soils the knife used in the subincision must be licked by the initiate (p. 368). In general, the blood that comes from the genitals is deemed to be exceptionally sacred (Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 464; Northern Tribes, p. 598). 42


43

Ibid„ pp. 144, 568.

44

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 442, 464. And this myth is common in Australia.

45

Ibid., p. 627.

46

Ibid., p. 466.

138


that is a c c o m p a n i e d b y special ceremonies. T h e i n d i v i d u a l h a v i n g his hair c u t m u s t c r o u c h o n the g r o u n d w i t h his face t u r n e d i n the d i r e c t i o n o f the place w h e r e m y t h i c a l ancestors f r o m his mother's side are t h o u g h t t o have camped.

47

F o r the same reason, as s o o n as a m a n dies, his hair is c u t a n d p u t i n a sec l u d e d place, f o r n e i t h e r w o m e n n o r u n i n i t i a t e d m e n s h o u l d see i t ; a n d i t is there, far f r o m profane eyes, that the sashes are m a d e .

48

O n e c o u l d p o i n t o u t o t h e r organic tissues that, t o v a r y i n g degrees, d i s play similar p r o p e r t i e s — t h e sideburns, the f o r e s k i n , t h e fat o f t h e liver, and others.

49

B u t there is n o p o i n t i n p i l i n g u p examples. T h e f o r e g o i n g are suf-

f i c i e n t t o prove the existence i n m a n o f s o m e t h i n g that keeps the profane at a distance a n d has r e l i g i o u s efficacy. I n o t h e r w o r d s , the h u m a n b o d y c o n ceals i n its depths a sacred p r i n c i p l e that erupts o n t o the surface i n p a r t i c u l a r circumstances. T h i s p r i n c i p l e is n o t different i n k i n d f r o m the o n e that gives the t o t e m its religious character. W e have j u s t seen, i n fact, that the various substances i n w h i c h i t is i n c a r n a t e d t o t h e highest degree enter i n t o the r i t ual c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t s o f the c u l t (nurtunjas, t o t e m i c designs), o r are used i n a n o i n t i n g s f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f increasing t h e virtues o f either the churingas o r the sacred rocks. T h e s e are things o f t h e same k i n d . T h e r e l i g i o u s d i g n i t y that, i n this sense, is i n h e r e n t i n each m e m b e r o f the clan is n o t equal i n all. M e n possess i t t o a h i g h e r degree t h a n w o m e n , w h o are l i k e profane beings i n c o m p a r i s o n t o m e n .

5 0

T h u s , w h e n e v e r there

is an assembly o f e i t h e r t h e t o t e m i c g r o u p o r t h e t r i b e , the m e n f o r m a camp distinct from t h e w o m e n ' s c a m p a n d closed t o t h e m : T h e m e n are set a p a r t .

51

47

Ibid. It is believed that if all these formalities are not stricdy observed, grave calamities for the individual will result. ""Ibid., p. 538; Northern Tribes, p. 604. 49

Once detached by circumcision, the foreskin is sometimes hidden from sight, like the blood, and it has special virtues—for example, ensuring the fertility of certain plant and animal species (Northern Tribes, pp. 353—354). The sideburns are assimilated to the hair and treated like it (pp. 544, 604). Moreover, they play a role in the myths (p. 158). The sacred character of fat arises from the use made of it in certain funeral rites. 50

This is not to say that the woman is absolutely profane. In the myths, at least among the Arunta, she plays a far more important religious role than is hers in reality (Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes [pp. 195—196]). Even now, she takes part in certain initiation rites. Finally, her blood has religious virtues (see NativeTribes, p. 464; cf. [Emile Durkheim], "La Prohibition de l'inceste et ses origines," AS, vol. I [1898], pp. 51ff.). The exogamic prohibitions derive from this complex situation of the woman. I will not speak of those here, because they are more direcdy relevant to the subject of family organization and marriage. 51


139


B u t m e n differ t o o i n the w a y the r e l i g i o u s q u a l i t y stands o u t . Since y o u n g , u n i n i t i a t e d m e n are t o t a l l y w i t h o u t i t , t h e y are n o t a d m i t t e d t o the ceremonies. I t reaches m a x i m u m i n t e n s i t y a m o n g o l d m e n . O l d m e n are so sacred that t h e y are p e r m i t t e d c e r t a i n things that are f o r b i d d e n t o o r d i n a r y m e n : T h e y can eat the t o t e m i c a n i m a l m o r e freely, and, as w e have seen, there are even tribes i n w h i c h t h e y are e x e m p t from all dietary restrictions. T h e r e f o r e w e m u s t b e careful n o t t o see t o t e m i s m as a k i n d o f zoolatry. Since m a n belongs t o t h e sacred w o r l d , his a t t i t u d e t o w a r d the animals o r plants w h o s e n a m e he bears is b y n o means the a t t i t u d e a believer has t o w a r d his g o d . R a t h e r , t h e i r relations are those o f t w o beings w h o are basically at the same level a n d o f equal value. T h e m o s t o n e can say, at least i n some cases, is that the a n i m a l seems t o o c c u p y a s l i g h d y h i g h e r rank a m o n g sacred things. T h u s , t h e t o t e m is sometimes called the father o r grandfather o f the m e n o f the clan, w h i c h seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e y feel t h e y are i n a state o f moral dependency u p o n i t .

5 2

Y e t as o f t e n h a p p e n s — a n d perhaps m o s t often

o f a l l — t h e phrases used d e n o t e a f e e l i n g o f e q u a l i t y instead. T h e t o t e m i c a n i m a l is called t h e friend o r the elder b r o t h e r o f its h u m a n k i n .

5 3

To sum up,

the ties b e t w e e n t h e m a n d h i m far m o r e closely resemble those that b i n d m e m b e r s o f the same f a m i l y : A n i m a l s a n d m e n are m a d e o f the same flesh, as the B u a n d i k say.

54

B y reason o f that k i n s h i p , m a n sees t h e animals o f t h e

t o t e m i c species as k i n d l y associates, w h o s e h e l p he believes he can c o u n t o n . H e calls t h e m t o his a i d ,

5 5

a n d t h e y c o m e t o g u i d e his h a n d i n t h e h u n t a n d

t o avert dangers that h e m a y e n c o u n t e r . siderately a n d does n o t b r u t a l i z e t h e m ,

56

5 7

I n exchange, he treats t h e m c o n b u t t h e care w i t h w h i c h he treats

t h e m i n n o w a y resembles a c u l t .

52

Among the Wakelbura, according to Howitt, NatiueTrihes, pp. [147—148]; among the Bechuana, according to Casalis, The Basutos, p. [211]. "Among the Buandik and the Kurnai, Howitt, ibid., pp. 147-148; among the Arunta, Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, p. 58. 54

Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. [147-148].

55

On the Tully River, according to [Walter Edmund] Roth (Superstition, Magic and Medicine [Brisbane, G. A. Vaughn, Government Printer, 1903], North Queensland Ethnography [Bulletin] no. 5, §74), when a native goes to bed or rises in the morning, he pronounces the name of the animal after whom he himself is named in a rather soft voice. The aim of this practice is to make the man skillful or lucky in the hunt or to avoid the dangers associated with that animal. For example, a man who has a species of snake as his totem is protectedfrombites if this invocation has been consistendy done. 56

Taplin, "The Narrinyeri," p. 64; Howitt, NatiueTrihes, p. 147; Roth, "Superstition, Magic and Medicine," no. 5, §74. "Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, p. 58.


140

Sometimes m a n even appears t o have a sort o f m y s t i c a l p r o p e r t y r i g h t over his t o t e m . T h e p r o h i b i t i o n against k i l l i n g a n d eating i t o f necessity applies o n l y t o t h e m e m b e r s o f the clan; i t c a n n o t e x t e n d t o outsiders w i t h o u t m a k i n g life impossible as a practical matter. I n a t r i b e such as the A r u n t a , w h e r e there are a great m a n y different totems, i f i t was f o r b i d d e n t o eat n o t o n l y t h e a n i m a l o r p l a n t w h o s e n a m e o n e bears, b u t also all t h e animals and all the plants that serve o t h e r clans as t o t e m s , t h e f o o d resources w o u l d be r e d u c e d t o n o n e . S t i l l , there are tribes i n w h i c h u n r e s t r i c t e d eating o f the t o t e m i c a n i m a l o r p l a n t is n o t a l l o w e d , even b y outsiders. A m o n g the W a k e l bura, this eating s h o u l d n o t o c c u r i n the presence o f p e o p l e b e l o n g i n g t o the totem.

5 8

Elsewhere, t h e i r p e r m i s s i o n is r e q u i r e d . F o r example, a m o n g the

K a i t i s h a n d the U n m a t j e r a , w h e n a m a n o f t h e E m u clan, f i n d i n g h i m s e l f i n a l o c a l i t y o c c u p i e d b y a grass-seed clan, gathers some o f these seeds, h e m u s t go f i n d the c h i e f before e a t i n g any, a n d say t o h i m : " I have gathered these seeds i n y o u r l a n d . " T o w h i c h t h e c h i e f replies: " I t is g o o d ; y o u m a y eat t h e m . " B u t i f t h e E m u m a n ate before asking p e r m i s s i o n , i t is believed that he w o u l d fall i l l a n d possibly even d i e .

5 9

I n some cases, the c h i e f o f t h e g r o u p

must take a small part o f the f o o d and eat i t himself: I t is a k i n d o f tax that m u s t be p a i d .

6 0

F o r the same reason, the c h u r i n g a confers u p o n the h u n t e r a

c e r t a i n p o w e r over t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g a n i m a l . B y r u b b i n g his b o d y w i t h a euro c h u r i n g a , f o r example, h e has a b e t t e r chance o f b a g g i n g e u r o s .

61

This

proves that p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e nature o f a t o t e m i c b e i n g confers a sort o f e m i n e n t d o m a i n over i t . Finally, there is a t r i b e i n N o r t h Q u e e n s l a n d ,

the

K a r i n g b o o l , i n w h i c h the p e o p l e o f the t o t e m have the exclusive r i g h t t o k i l l t h e t o t e m i c a n i m a l or, i f the t o t e m is a tree, t o strip its b a r k . T h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n is indispensable t o any outsider w h o wants t o use the flesh o f that a n i m a l o r the w o o d o f that tree f o r personal e n d s .

62

T h u s , they play the role o f

o w n e r s , t h o u g h , as is o b v i o u s , the p r o p e r t y is o f a v e r y p a r t i c u l a r sort, w h i c h w e have d i f f i c u l t y i m a g i n i n g .

^Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 148.

"[Spencer and Gillen], Northern Tribes, pp. 159-160. M

Ibid.

61

Ibid., p. 255, and Native Tribes, pp. 202-203.

62

A. L. P. Cameron, "On Two Queensland Tribes," in Science of Man, Australasian Anthropological Journal, vol. VII, 1904, p. 28, col. 1.

CHAPTER THREE

THE PRINCIPAL TOTEMIC BELIEFS (CONTINUED) The Cosmological System of Totemism and the Notion of Kind*

e are b e g i n n i n g t o see that t o t e m i s m is a far m o r e c o m p l e x r e l i g i o n W

t h a n i t appeared at first glance t o be. W e have already distinguished

three categories o f things that i t recognizes as sacred i n v a r y i n g degrees: t h e t o t e m i c e m b l e m , t h e p l a n t o r a n i m a l w h o s e appearance that e m b l e m i m i tates, a n d the m e m b e r s o f t h e clan. B u t this list is n o t yet c o m p l e t e . A r e l i g i o n is n o t m e r e l y a c o l l e c t i o n o f d i s c o n n e c t e d beliefs a b o u t v e r y special objects such as those j u s t m e n t i o n e d . T o a greater o r lesser degree, a l l k n o w n religions have b e e n systems o f ideas that t e n d t o embrace the universality o f things a n d t o g i v e us a representation o f the w o r l d as a w h o l e . I f t o t e m i s m is t o be o p e n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n as a r e l i g i o n comparable t o others, i t t o o m u s t offer a c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e universe. I t meets this c r i t e r i o n .

I T h e reason this aspect o f t o t e m i s m has b e e n w i d e l y neglected is that the clan has b e e n t o o n a r r o w l y c o n c e i v e d . I n general, the clan has b e e n v i e w e d as m e r e l y a g r o u p o f h u m a n beings, m e r e l y a s u b d i v i s i o n o f the t r i b e . As such, i t seems, the clan c o u l d o n l y be m a d e u p o f m e n . B u t w h e n w e reason this way, w e substitute o u r E u r o p e a n ideas f o r those t h e p r i m i t i v e has a b o u t t h e w o r l d a n d society. F o r t h e A u s t r a l i a n , things themselves—all o f the things that m a k e u p the universe—are p a r t o f t h e t r i b e . Since t h e y are constituents o f i t and, i n a sense, f u l l - f l e d g e d m e m b e r s , t h e y have a d e f i n i t e place i n the scheme o f society, j u s t as m e n do. " T h e savage o f S o u t h Australia," M . F i s o n * Genre is here rendered as "kind" or "genus," according to context, but usually not as "class," so as to avoid confusion with other uses of that term, in biology and sociology. 141

142


says, "considers the universe as a large t r i b e t o o n e o f w h o s e divisions he b e longs; a n d all things that are classified i n the same g r o u p as he, b o t h animate 1

a n d i n a n i m a t e , are parts o f the b o d y o f w h i c h he h i m s e l f is a p a r t . " B y v i r t u e o f this p r i n c i p l e , w h e n t h e t r i b e is d i v i d e d i n t o t w o phratries, all k n o w n b e ings are d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h e m . " A l l o f nature," says Palmer o f the tribes o f the B e l l i n g e r R i v e r , "is d i v i d e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e names o f phratries. . . . T h e sun, the m o o n a n d the stars. . . b e l o n g t o this o r that p h r a t r y j u s t as t h e 2

Blacks themselves d o . " T h e P o r t M a c K a y t r i b e i n Q u e e n s l a n d is made u p o f two

phratries that c a r r y the names Y u n g a r o o a n d W o o t a r o o , and i t is the

same i n t h e n e i g h b o r i n g tribes. A c c o r d i n g t o B r i d g m a n n , " A l l animate a n d i n a n i m a t e things are d i v i d e d b y these tribes i n t o t w o classes called Y u n g a r o o 3

and W o o t a r o o . " B u t t h e classification does n o t stop there. T h e m e n o f each p h r a t r y are d i v i d e d a m o n g a c e r t a i n n u m b e r o f clans; similarly, the things assigned t o each p h r a t r y are d i v i d e d i n t u r n a m o n g t h e clans that c o m p r i s e i t . S u c h a n d such tree, f o r example, w i l l be ascribed t o the K a n g a r o o clan a n d to i t alone, a n d thus, l i k e t h e h u m a n m e m b e r s o f that clan, w i l l have the K a n g a r o o t o t e m ; such a n d such o t h e r w i l l b e l o n g t o t h e Snake clan; the clouds w i l l b e classified i n a p a r t i c u l a r t o t e m , t h e sun i n another, and so o n . T h u s , the k n o w n beings w i l l be f o u n d t o have t h e i r places o n a k i n d o f table, a systematic classification, that includes the w h o l e o f nature. I have r e p r o d u c e d a c e r t a i n n u m b e r o f these classification systems elsewhere;

4

here I w i l l repeat o n l y some o f those examples. O n e o f the best

k n o w n is t h e system that has b e e n s t u d i e d i n the M o u n t G a m b i e r t r i b e . T h i s t r i b e has t w o phratries, o n e called K u m i t e a n d t h e o t h e r K r o k i , each d i v i d e d i n t o five clans. N o w , " E v e r y t h i n g i n nature belongs t o o n e o r the o t h e r o f 5

those t e n clans." F i s o n a n d H o w i t t say that all those things are " i n c l u d e d " i n one. I n fact, t h e y are classified u n d e r t e n t o t e m s , l i k e species o f the respec-

'[Lorimer Fison and Alfred William Howitt], Kamilaroi and Kurnai: [Group Marriage and Relationship, and Marriage by Elopement; Drawn Chiefly from the Usage of the Australian Aborigines; also The Kurnai Tribe;

Their Customs in Peace and War, Melbourne, G. Robertson, 1880], p. 170. 2

[Edward Palmer], "Notes on Some Australian Tribes" [JAI], vol. XIII [1884], p. 300.

3

[Edward Micklethwaite] Curr, The Australian Race: [Its Origin, Languages, Customs, Place of Landing in Australia and the Routes by Which It Spread Itself over Tiiat Continent, vol. Ill, Melbourne, J. Ferres,

1886-1887], p. 45; [Robert] Brough Smyth, The Aborigines of Victoria, vol. I [Melbourne, J. Ferres, 1878], p. 91 [The quoted material is not verbatim. The text reads this way: "Blacks seem to have an idea that these classes are universal laws of nature, so they divide everything among them." Trans.]; Fison and Howitt, Kamilaroi and Kumai, p. 168. 4

[Emile] Durkheim and [Marcel] Mauss, "De Quelques formes primitives de classification. [Contribution a l'etude des representations collectives]" in AS, vol. VI [1903], pp. Iff. 5

Curr, The Australian Race, vol. Ill, p. 461.

143


PHRATRIES

CLANS ^Fish-hawk

/

,-Pelican

THINGS CLASSIFIED IN E A C H CLAN Smoke, honeysuckle, certain trees, etc. Blackwood trees, dogs, fire, frost, etc.

Kumitei' \\

"Crow

\\

etc. s

\ Black cockatoo V

A nonvenomous snake

^Tea tree ^ ' _ _ - - An edible root Kroki^

Rain, thunder, lightning, clouds, hail, winter,

Stars, moon, etc. Fish, seal, conger eel, stringy-bark tree, etc. Duck, crawfish, owl, etc. -Bustard, quail, a sort of kangaroo, etc.

^ crestless white cockatoo- -Kangaroo, summer, sun, wind, autumn, etc. " - There are no details about the fourth and fifth Kroki clans.

tive genera. T h i s is s h o w n b y the above chart, c o n s t r u c t e d f r o m data c o l lected by C u r r , and by Fison and H o w i t t .

6

T h e list o f things attached t o each clan is, q u i t e i n c o m p l e t e ; C u r r h i m self w a r n s us that he has c o n f i n e d h i m s e l f t o e n u m e r a t i n g o n l y some o f t h e m . 7

Today, however, thanks t o the w o r k o f M a t h e w s a n d H o w i t t , w e have m o r e extensive i n f o r m a t i o n o n the classification a d o p t e d b y the W o t j o b a l u k t r i b e , and that i n f o r m a t i o n enables us t o u n d e r s t a n d b e t t e r h o w a system o f this k i n d can embrace the w h o l e universe k n o w n t o t h e natives. T h e W o t j o b a l u k themselves

are d i v i d e d i n t o t w o phratries, called G u r o g i t y a n d

Gumaty

8

( K r o k i t c h a n d G a m u t c h , a c c o r d i n g t o H o w i t t ) . T o a v o i d an o v e r l y l o n g list, I w i l l e n u m e r a t e (after M a t h e w s ) o n l y the things classified i n each clan o f the G u r o g i t y phratry.

6

Curr and Fison got their information from the same person, D. S. Stewart.

'[Robert Hamilton] Mathews, ["Ethnological Notes on the] Aboriginal Tribes of New South Wales and Victoria," in RSNSW vol. XXXVIII (1904) [pp. 287-288]. [Alfred William] Howitt, Hie Native Tribes [of South-East Australia, New York, Macmillan, 1904], p. 121. 8

The feminine form of nouns given by Mathews is Gurogigurk and Gamatykurk. These are the forms that Howitt has rendered with a slighdy different spelling. Also, these names are equivalent to those in use in the Mount Gambier tribe (Kumite and Kroki).

144


Classified i n t h e Y a m clan are t h e plains turkey, t h e native cat,

the

mopoke, the dyim-dyim o w l , t h e mallee c h i c k e n , t h e rosella p a r r o t , and the pee9

wee. I n the M u s s e l clan: the gray e m u , t h e p o r c u p i n e , t h e c u r l e w , the w h i t e c o c k a t o o , t h e w o o d d u c k , the mallee lizard, t h e s t i n k i n g t u r d e , t h e

flying

squirrel, t h e r i n g - t a i l e d opossum, t h e b r o n z e - w i n g p i g e o n , a n d the wijuggia. I n the S u n clan: t h e b a n d i c o o t , the m o o n , the rat kangaroo, t h e black a n d w h i t e magpies, the ngurt h a w k , the g u m tree g r u b , the u mimoisa (wattle tree) g r u b , and the planet Venus. I n the W a r m W i n d c l a n :

1 0

the gray-headed ea-

g l e h a w k , the carpet snake, t h e s m o k e r p a r r o t , t h e shell parakeet, the murrakan h a w k , the dikkomur

snake, the r i n g - n e c k p a r r o t , t h e mirudai snake,

the

shingle-back lizard. I f w e i m a g i n e that there are m a n y o t h e r clans ( H o w i t t names a d o z e n o f t h e m , w h i l e M a t h e w s names f o u r t e e n a n d w a r n s that his list is v e r y i n c o m plete),

11

w e w i l l see h o w all the things t h a t interest t h e native as a m a t t e r o f

course find a place i n these classifications. S i m i l a r arrangements have b e e n observed i n the m o s t dissimilar parts o f the A u s t r a l i a n c o n t i n e n t : i n s o u t h e r n Australia, i n t h e state o f V i c t o r i a , a n d 12

i n N e w S o u t h Wales ( a m o n g the E u a h l a y i ) ; v e r y o b v i o u s traces o f t h e m are f o u n d a m o n g the tribes o f t h e c e n t e r .

13

I n Q u e e n s l a n d , w h e r e t h e clans seem

t o have disappeared a n d w h e r e the m a r r i a g e classes are t h e o n l y subdivisions o f the phratry, t h i n g s are d i s t r i b u t e d b e t w e e n t h e classes. H e n c e , the W a k e l b u r a are d i v i d e d i n t o t w o phratries, M a l l e r a a n d W u t a r u . T h e classes o f t h e first are called K u r g i l l a a n d B a n b e ; those o f the second, W u n g o and O b u . T o the B a n b e b e l o n g the opossum, t h e kangaroo, t h e d o g , the h o n e y o f the small bee, etc. T o t h e W u n g o are ascribed t h e e m u , t h e b a n d i c o o t , t h e black d u c k , the black snake, t h e b r o w n snake; t o the O b u , t h e carpet snake, the

9

The indigenous name of this clan is Dyalup, which Mathews does not translate. This word seems to be identical to "Jallup," by which Howitt designates a subclan of that same tribe and which he translates as "mussel." For this reason, I think I can chance this translation. 10

This is Howitt s translation; Mathews translates this word (Wartwuri) as "heat of the midday sun."

"Mathews's table and Howitt s disagree on more than one important point. It even appears that the clans ascribed by Howitt to the Kroki phratry are counted by Mathews in the Gamutch phratry, and vice versa. This is evidence of the very great difficulties that such studies present. However these discrepancies have no import for the question being treated. 12

Mrs. Langloh Parker [Catherine Sommerville Field Parker], 77ie Euahlayi Tribe [London, A. Constable, 1905], pp. 12ff. "These facts are to be found below.

145


h o n e y o f s t i n g i n g bees, etc.; t o the K u r g i l l a , the p o r c u p i n e , the plains turkey, water, r a i n , fire, t h u n d e r , e t c .

14

T h e same o r g a n i z a t i o n is f o u n d a m o n g the Indians o f N o r t h A m e r i c a . T h e Z u n i have a system o f classification w h o s e basic o u t l i n e is comparable i n every respect t o those j u s t described. T h a t o f the O m a h a rests o n the same 1 5

principles as that o f the W o t i o b a l u k . Echoes o f t h e same ideas persist even i n the m o r e advanced societies. A m o n g the H a i d a , all the gods and m y t h i c a l b e ings that g o v e r n the various p h e n o m e n a o f nature are also classified i n o n e o f the tribe's t w o phratries, j u s t as m e n are. S o m e are Eagles and the others, Crows.

1 6

govern.

17

T h e gods that g o v e r n things are b u t a n o t h e r aspect o f t h e things they T h i s m y t h o l o g i c a l classification, t h e n , is b u t a different f o r m o f

the p r e c e d i n g ones. H e n c e , w e can be c o n f i d e n t that this w a y o f c o n c e i v i n g the w o r l d is q u i t e i n d e p e n d e n t o f e t h n i c o r geographical particularity. A t the same time, however, i t emerges q u i t e clearly that this w a y o f c o n c e i v i n g the w o r l d is tightly b o u n d u p w i t h the w h o l e system o f t o t e m i c beliefs.

II I n the w o r k t o w h i c h I have already a l l u d e d several times, I s h o w e d h o w these facts i l l u m i n a t e the m a n n e r i n w h i c h t h e idea o f genus o r class t o o k f o r m a m o n g h u m a n s . T h e s e classifications are i n d e e d the first that w e m e e t i n history. W e j u s t saw that t h e y are m o d e l e d o n social o r g a n i z a t i o n , o r rather that t h e y have t a k e n the actual f r a m e w o r k o f society as t h e i r o w n . I t was the phratries that served as genera a n d t h e clans as species. I t is because m e n f o r m e d groups that t h e y w e r e able t o g r o u p things: A l l t h e y d i d was m a k e r o o m f o r things i n the groups t h e y themselves already f o r m e d . A n d i f these various classes o f things w e r e n o t s i m p l y j u x t a p o s e d t o o n e another,

but

arranged instead a c c o r d i n g t o a u n i f i e d p l a n , that is because t h e same social groups t o w h i c h t h e y are assimilated are themselves u n i f i e d and, t h r o u g h that

14

Curr [Australian Race], vol. Ill, p. 27. Howitt, NatiueTribes, p. 112.1 confine myself to citing the most characteristic facts. The paper already mentioned, "Classification primitive," can be referred to for details. 15

Durkheim and Mauss, "Classification primitive," pp. 34ff.

16

[John Reed] Swanton, [Contributions to the Ethnology of] the Haida [Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1905], pp. 13—14, 17, 22. [Actually, this English text says "raven." Since all ravens are crows but not all crows are ravens, I have rendered Durkheim's corbeau as "crow" throughout. Trans.] 17

This is particularly evident among the Haida. According to Swanton, every animal has two aspects. From one point of view, it is an ordinary creature that can be hunted and eaten, but at the same time, it is a supernatural being with the outward form of an animal, and to which man is subject. The mythical beings that correspond to various cosmic phenomena have the same ambiguity (ibid., pp. 14, 16, 25).

146


u n i o n , f o r m an organic w h o l e : t h e t r i b e . T h e u n i t y o f these first l o g i c a l systems m e r e l y reproduces that o f society. T h u s w e have o u r first o p p o r t u n i t y t o test the p r o p o s i t i o n p u t f o r w a r d at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f this w o r k a n d t o assure ourselves that the f u n d a m e n t a l n o t i o n s o f t h e i n t e l l e c t , the basic categories o f t h o u g h t , can be t h e p r o d u c t o f social factors. T h e p r e c e d i n g shows that this is i n d e e d the case f o r the n o t i o n o f category itself. I d o n o t m e a n t o d e n y that the i n d i v i d u a l consciousness, even o n its o w n , has the capacity t o perceive resemblances b e t w e e n t h e particular things i t conceives of. T o the contrary, i t is clear that even the m o s t p r i m i t i v e a n d s i m ple classifications already presuppose that faculty. T h e Australian does n o t place things at r a n d o m i n the same o r different clans. I n h i m as i n us, similar images attract a n d opposite ones repel o n e another, and h e classifies the c o r r e s p o n d i n g things i n o n e o r the o t h e r a c c o r d i n g t o his sense o f these affinities. M o r e o v e r , w e can see i n some cases t h e reasoning that inspires t h e m . I t is q u i t e probable that the i n i t i a l , a n d f u n d a m e n t a l , f r a m e w o r k s f o r these classification systems w e r e c o n s t i t u t e d b y t h e t w o phratries and that c o n sequently t h e y began as d i c h o t o m o u s . W h e n a classification has o n l y t w o genera, they are almost necessarily c o n c e i v e d as a n t i t h e t i c a l . T h e y are used first as a means o f clearly separating those things b e t w e e n w h i c h the contrast is m o s t p r o n o u n c e d . S o m e are placed t o the r i g h t , t h e others t o the left. T h e A u s t r a l i a n classifications are o f this k i n d . I f t h e w h i t e c o c k a t o o is classified i n o n e phratry, t h e black c o c k a t o o is i n the o t h e r ; i f the sun is t o o n e side, the m o o n a n d stars are o n the opposite s i d e .

18

V e r y o f t e n , the beings that serve

the t w o phratries as totems have opposite c o l o r s .

19

S o m e o f these oppositions

are f o u n d even outside Australia. W h e r e o n e o f the phratries is i n charge o f peace, the o t h e r is i n charge o f w a r ; has l a n d .

2 1

2 0

i f o n e has w a t e r as its t o t e m , t h e o t h e r

T h i s is p r o b a b l y w h y t h e t w o phratries have o f t e n been c o n s i d -

ered n a t u r a l l y antagonistic. I t is accepted that a rivalry, even an innate h o s t i l -

18

See p. 142 above. This is the case among the Gournditch-mara (Howitt, NativeTribes, p. 124), among the tribes observed by Cameron near Mordake, and among the Wotjobaluk (Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 125, 250). ,9

J[ohn] Mathew, Two Representative Tribes [of Queensland], London, T. F. Unwin, 1910, p. 139;

[Northcote Whitridge] Thomas, Kinship [Organizations] and [Group] Marriage in [Australia], Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press, 1906, pp. 53—54. 20

For example, among the Osage, see [James Owens] Dorsey, "Siouan Sociology," in XVth Annual Rep. [BAE, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1897], pp. 2332". 21

At Mabuiag, an island in the Torres Strait ([Alfred C ] Haddon, Head Hunters [Black, White, and Brown, London, Methuen, 1901], p. 132). The same opposition is also to be found between the two phratries of the Arunta: One comprises people of water, the other people of land ([Carl] Strehlow, [Die Aranda- und Loritja-Stamme in Zentral-Australien], vol. I [Frankfurt, J. Baer, 1907], p. 6).

147

Tlie Principal Totemic Beliefs (Continued)

ity, exists b e t w e e n t h e m . k i n d o f social c o n f l i c t ,

23

2 2

O n c e the l o g i c a l contrast has replicated itself as a

t h e o p p o s i t i o n o f things is e x t e n d e d t o persons.

Inside each phratry, o n the o t h e r h a n d , the things that seem t o have the greatest affinity w i t h the t h i n g s e r v i n g as the t o t e m have b e e n classified w i t h it i n the same clan. F o r e x a m p l e , the m o o n has b e e n placed w i t h the b l a c k c o c k a t o o ; the sun, b y contrast, w i t h the w h i t e c o c k a t o o , a l o n g w i t h the atmosphere a n d the w i n d . H e r e is a n o t h e r example: T h e t o t e m i c a n i m a l is g r o u p e d w i t h e v e r y t h i n g that serves as its f o o d , w h i c h i t is m o s t closely associated.

25

2 4

plus the animals w i t h

O f course, w e c a n n o t always u n d e r s t a n d

the obscure p s y c h o l o g y that has presided over m a n y o f these j o i n i n g s a n d separations. B u t t h e p r e c e d i n g examples are sufficient t o s h o w that a c e r t a i n i n t u i t i o n o f the similarities a n d differences presented b y things has played a role i n creating these classifications. B u t a f e e l i n g o f s i m i l a r i t y is o n e t h i n g ; the n o t i o n o f k i n d is another. K i n d is the e x t e r n a l f r a m e w o r k w h o s e c o n t e n t is f o r m e d , i n part, b y objects perceived t o be l i k e o n e another. T h e c o n t e n t c a n n o t itself p r o v i d e the f r a m e w o r k i n w h i c h i t is placed. T h e c o n t e n t is m a d e u p o f vague and fluctuating images caused b y t h e s u p e r i m p o s i t i o n a n d p a r t i a l fusion o f a definite number of individual images that are f o u n d t o have elements i n c o m m o n . B y 22

Among the Iroquois, the two phratries hold tournaments of a sort ([Lewis Henry] Morgan, Ancient Society [London, Macmillan, 1877], p. 94). Among the Haida, Swanton says, the members of the two phratries of the Eagle and the Crow "are often regarded as avowed enemies. Husbands and wives (who must be of different phratries) do not hesitate to betray one another" (Swanton, The Haida, p. 62). In Australia, this hostility is expressed in the myths. The two animals that serve as the totems of the two phratries are often represented as being perpetually at war with one another (see J[ohn] Mathew, Eaglehawk and Crow: [A Study ofAustralian Aborigines, London, D. Nutt. 1899], pp. 14ff.). In games, each phratry is the natural competitor of the other (Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 770). 23

Thus, Mr. Thomas mistakenly criticized my theory on the origin of phratries as unable to explain their opposition (Kinship and Marriage in Australia, p. 69). Still, I do not think it necessary to relate that opposition to the opposition between the profane and the sacred (see [Robert] Hertz, "La Prééminence de la main droite," in RP, vol. LXVIII (December 1909), p. 559). The things that belong to one phratry are not profane for the other; both are part of the same religious system (see p. 156 below). 24

For example, the Tea Tree clan includes the vegetation and consequendy herbivorous animals (see Fison and Howitt, Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 169). Such, probably, is the explanation of a particularity that Boas notes in the totemic emblems of North America. "Among the Tlinkit," he says, "and in all the other tribes of the coast, the emblem of a group includes the animals that are food for the one whose name the group bears." ([Franz] Boas, ["First General Report on the Indians of British Columbia," in BA45], Fifth Report of the Committee [on the North-Westem Tribes of the Dominion of Canada, London, Offices of the As-

sociation, 1890], p. 25). 25

Thus, among the Arunta, the frogs are associated with the Gum Tree totem, because they are often found in the cavities of that tree; the water is connected with the water fowl; the kangaroo with a sort of parakeet that is commonly seenflyingaround it ([Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [Francis James] Gillen, The NativeTribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1899], pp. 146-147, 448).

148


contrast, the framework is a d e f i n i t e f o r m h a v i n g fixed c o n t o u r s , b u t can be applied t o an i n d e f i n i t e n u m b e r o f t h i n g s , w h e t h e r perceived o r n o t a n d w h e t h e r e x i s t i n g o r possible. I n d e e d , the p o t e n t i a l scope o f every genus is i n finitely

greater t h a n the circle o f objects w h o s e resemblance w e have b e c o m e

aware o f t h r o u g h d i r e c t experience. T h i s is w h y a w h o l e s c h o o l o f t h i n k e r s refuse t o i d e n t i f y t h e idea o f k i n d w i t h that o f generic image, a n d n o t w i t h o u t reason. A g e n e r i c i m a g e is o n l y the residual representation that similar representations leave i n us w h e n t h e y present themselves i n consciousness at the same t i m e , a n d its b o u n d a r i e s are i n d e t e r m i n a t e ; b u t a genus is a l o g i c a l s y m b o l b y means o f w h i c h w e t h i n k clearly a b o u t these similarities a n d o t h ers l i k e t h e m . Besides, o u r best evidence o f the g u l f b e t w e e n those n o t i o n s is that t h e a n i m a l is capable o f f o r m i n g g e n e r i c images, whereas i t does n o t k n o w the art o f t h i n k i n g i n t e r m s o f genera a n d species. T h e idea o f genus is a t o o l o f t h o u g h t that o b v i o u s l y was c o n s t r u c t e d b y m e n . B u t t o c o n s t r u c t i t , w e h a d t o have at least a m o d e l , f o r h o w c o u l d that idea have b e e n b o r n i f there h a d b e e n n o t h i n g w i t h i n us o r outside us that c o u l d have suggested it? T o answer that i t is g i v e n t o us a p r i o r i is n o t t o a n swer; as has b e e n said, that lazy s o l u t i o n is the death o f analysis. I t is n o t clear w h e r e w e w o u l d have f o u n d that indispensable m o d e l i f n o t i n the p a n o r a m a o f collective life. A genus is i n fact an ideal, y e t clearly d e f i n e d , g r o u p i n g o f things w i t h i n t e r n a l b o n d s a m o n g t h e m that are analogous t o the bonds o f kinship. T h e o n l y g r o u p i n g s o f that k i n d w i t h w h i c h e x p e r i e n c e acquaints us are those that m e n f o r m b y c o m i n g together. M a t e r i a l things can f o r m c o l lections, heaps, o r m e c h a n i c a l assemblages w i t h o u t i n t e r n a l unity, b u t n o t groups i n the sense I have j u s t g i v e n t h e w o r d . A heap o f sand o r a p i l e o f stones is i n n o w a y comparable t o the sort o f w e l l - d e f i n e d a n d o r g a n i z e d society that is a genus. I n all probability, t h e n , w e w o u l d never have t h o u g h t o f g a t h e r i n g the beings o f t h e universe i n t o h o m o g e n e o u s groups, called genera, i f w e h a d n o t h a d the e x a m p l e o f h u m a n societies before o u r eyes—if, i n d e e d , w e h a d n o t at first g o n e so far i n m a k i n g things m e m b e r s o f the society o f m e n , that h u m a n a n d l o g i c a l g r o u p i n g s w e r e n o t at first d i s t i n guished.

26

26

One sign of that original distinction is the fact that, like the social divisions with which they were originally merged, genera sometimes have a territorial base assigned to them. Thus, among the Wotjobaluk in Australia, and among the Zufii in America, things are thought of as being distributed among the different regions of space, as are the clans. The regional division of things and that of clans coincide (see Durkheim and Mauss, "Classification primitive," pp. 34ff). Even up to and including relatively advanced peoples, for example in China, the classifications retain something of this spatial character (pp. 55ff).

149


F r o m a n o t h e r standpoint, a classification is also a system w h o s e parts are arranged i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l order. S o m e are d o m i n a n t features, a n d others are subordinated t o those. T h e species a n d t h e i r distinctive properties are subs u m e d u n d e r genera h a v i n g t h e i r o w n d i s t i n c t i v e properties; a n d t h e different species o f t h e same genus are c o n c e i v e d as b e i n g o n a par w i t h another. Is the s t a n d p o i n t o f comprehensiveness

one

the preferred one? I n that

case, things are represented i n an inverse order, t h e m o s t p a r t i c u l a r species and the richest i n r e a l i t y b e i n g placed at the t o p , a n d at t h e b o t t o m the m o s t general ones a n d t h e poorest i n detail. B u t c o n c e i v i n g o f t h e m h i e r a r c h i c a l l y is unavoidable e i t h e r way. A n d w e m u s t g u a r d against t h i n k i n g that the w o r d has o n l y m e t a p h o r i c a l m e a n i n g here. T h e p u r p o s e o f a classification is t o establish relations o f s u b o r d i n a t i o n a n d c o o r d i n a t i o n , a n d m a n w o u l d n o t even have t h o u g h t o f o r d e r i n g his k n o w l e d g e i n that w a y i f he had n o t already , k n o w n w h a t a h i e r a r c h y is. N e i t h e r t h e p a n o r a m a o f physical nature n o r the mechanisms o f m e n t a l association c o u l d possibly g i v e us t h e idea o f i t . H i e r archy is exclusively a social t h i n g . O n l y i n society d o superiors, subordinates, and equals exist. T h e r e f o r e , even i f t h e facts w e r e n o t sufficiendy conclusive, the analysis o f those n o t i o n s w o u l d b e sufficient i n i t s e l f t o reveal t h e i r o r i g i n . W e have taken t h e m from society a n d p r o j e c t e d t h e m i n t o o u r r e p resentation o f the w o r l d . Society f u r n i s h e d the canvas o n w h i c h l o g i c a l t h o u g h t has w o r k e d .

Ill T h e relevance o f these p r i m i t i v e classifications t o t h e o r i g i n o f religious t h o u g h t is n o less direct. T h e y i n fact i m p l y that all t h e t h i n g s t h e r e b y classified i n t h e same clan o r t h e same p h r a t r y are closely a k i n t o o n e a n o t h e r a n d to that w h i c h serves as the t o t e m o f the clan o r o f t h e phratry. W h e n the Australian o f t h e P o r t M a c K a y t r i b e says that t h e sun, snakes, etc. are o f the Y u n g a r o o p h r a t r y , he does n o t s i m p l y m e a n t o apply t o a l l those disparate b e ings a c o m m o n , b u t p u r e l y c o n v e n t i o n a l , label; t h e w o r d has an objective m e a n i n g f o r h i m . H e believes that, really, " t h e alligators are Y u n g a r o o , the m o o n W o o t a r o o a n d so o n f o r t h e constellations, t h e trees, the plants, a n d so forth.

2 7

A n i n t e r n a l tie binds t h e m t o t h e g r o u p i n w h i c h they are classified,

and they are regular m e m b e r s o f i t . T h e y are said t o b e l o n g t o that g r o u p ,

2 8

27

[George] Bridgmann, in Brough Smyth, The Aborigines ofVictoria, vol. I, p. 91.

28

Fison and Howitt, Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 168; Howitt, "Further Notes on the Australian Class Systems,"^/, vol. XVIII (1889), p. 60.

150


j u s t as d o the h u m a n i n d i v i d u a l s w h o are p a r t o f i t , a n d so a relationship o f the same k i n d j o i n s the h u m a n i n d i v i d u a l s . M a n sees the things o f his clan as relatives a n d associates; he calls t h e m friends a n d considers t h e m t o be m a d e o f the same flesh as h e .

2 9

H e n c e , there are elective affinities a n d q u i t e special

relations o f c o m p a t i b i l i t y b e t w e e n t h e m a n d h i m . T h i n g s a n d m e n attract one another, i n some sense understand one another, a n d are naturally att u n e d . F o r example, w h e n a W a k e l b u r a o f t h e M a l l e r a p h r a t r y is b u r i e d , the scaffold o n w h i c h the b o d y is exposed " m u s t be m a d e f r o m the w o o d o f any tree b e l o n g i n g t o the M a l l e r a p h r a t r y . "

30

T h e same applies t o the branches

that cover the corpse. I f t h e deceased is o f the B a n b e class, a B a n b e tree must be used. I n the same t r i b e , a m a g i c i a n can use i n his art o n l y things that b e l o n g t o his p h r a t r y .

31

Because the others are f o r e i g n t o h i m , he c a n n o t m a k e

t h e m obey. I n this way, a b o n d o f mystical s y m p a t h y j o i n s each i n d i v i d u a l t o o t h e r beings that are associated w i t h h i m , l i v i n g o r n o t . F r o m this arises the b e l i e f that he can i n f e r w h a t he w i l l d o o r is d o i n g f r o m w h a t t h e y do. A m o n g this same g r o u p , t h e W a k e l b u r a , w h e n an i n d i v i d u a l dreams that he has k i l l e d an a n i m a l b e l o n g i n g t o such a n d such a social d i v i s i o n , he expects t o m e e t a m a n o f that same d i v i s i o n the n e x t day.

32

Conversely, the things as-

signed t o a clan o r a p h r a t r y c a n n o t be used against m e m b e r s o f that clan o r phratry. A m o n g the W o t j o b a l u k , each p h r a t r y has its o w n trees. T o h u n t an a n i m a l o f t h e G u r o g i t y , t h e y can o n l y use weapons m a d e o f w o o d taken f r o m trees o f the o t h e r phratry, a n d v i c e versa; o t h e r w i s e the h u n t e r is sure t o miss his m a r k .

3 3

T h e native is c o n v i n c e d that the a r r o w w o u l d t u r n away f r o m the

target b y itself and, i n a m a n n e r o f speaking, refuse t o t o u c h an a n i m a l w h o is a relative a n d a f r i e n d . B y t h e i r j o i n i n g , t h e n , the p e o p l e o f the clan a n d the things classified i n i t f o r m a u n i f i e d system, w i t h all its parts a l l i e d a n d v i b r a t i n g sympathetically. T h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n , w h i c h m i g h t at first have seemed t o us p u r e l y l o g i c a l , is m o r a l at t h e same t i m e . T h e same p r i n c i p l e b o t h animates i t a n d makes i t c o here: T h a t p r i n c i p l e is t h e t o t e m . Just as a m a n w h o belongs t o the C r o w clan has s o m e t h i n g o f that a n i m a l i n h i m , so t o o the r a i n . Since r a i n is o f t h e same clan and belongs t o the same t o t e m , i t is also a n d necessarily considered as " b e i n g the same t h i n g as a crow." F o r the same reason, the m o o n is a black 29

Curr, Australian Race, vol. Ill, p. 461, concerning the Mount Gambier tribe.

^[Alfred William] Howitt, "On Some Australian Beliefs," JAI, vol. XIII [1884], p. 191 n. 1. 31

[Alfred William] Howitt, "Notes on Australian Message-Sticks and Messengers," JAI, vol. XVIII (1889), p. 326; "Further Notes," p. 61 n. 3. 32

33

Curr, Australian Race, vol. Ill, p. 28.

Mathews, "Aboriginal Tribes," p. 294.

151


cockatoo, the sun a w h i t e c o c k a t o o , a n d every b l a c k w o o d tree a pelican, and so f o r t h . T h u s , all t h e beings classified i n a single c l a n — m e n , animals, plants, i n a n i m a t e objects—are o n l y m o d a l i t i e s o f t h e t o t e m i c b e i n g . T h i s is the m e a n i n g o f the f o r m u l a I have already r e p o r t e d . W h a t makes t h e m g e n u i n e k i n is this: A l l really are o f the same flesh, i n the sense that they all participate i n t h e nature o f the t o t e m i c a n i m a l . M o r e o v e r , t h e adjectives applied t o t h e m are the same as those a p p l i e d t o t h e t o t e m .

3 4

T h e W o t j o b a l u k call b o t h the

t o t e m a n d the things subsumed u n d e r i t b y the same name, M i r .

3 5

A m o n g the

A r u n t a , w h e r e , as w e w i l l see, there are still traces o f classification, i t is t r u e that different w o r d s designate the t o t e m a n d t h e beings attached t o i t ; h o w ever, the n a m e g i v e n t o these latter bespeaks the close relations that j o i n t h e m t o t h e t o t e m i c a n i m a l . T h e y are said t o be its intimates, its associates, and its friends; t h e y are t h o u g h t t o be inseparable f r o m i t .

3 6

T h e s e things are felt t o

be closely a k i n . A t t h e same t i m e , w e k n o w that the t o t e m i c a n i m a l is a sacred b e i n g . T h e r e f o r e , because t h e y are i n a sense animals o f the same species, j u s t as m a n is, so all t h e things that are classified i n the clan o f w h i c h i t is the e m b l e m are o f t h e same character. T h e y themselves are also sacred, and t h e classifications that situate t h e m i n r e l a t i o n t o the o t h e r things o f the universe at the same t i m e assign t h e m a place w i t h i n t h e r e l i g i o u s system as a w h o l e . T h i s is w h y t h e animals o r plants a m o n g t h e m c a n n o t be freely eaten b y the h u m a n m e m b e r s o f t h e clan. T h u s , i n the M o u n t G a m b i e r t r i b e , the people w h o s e t o t e m is the n o n v e n o m o u s snake m u s t abstain n o t o n l y f r o m the flesh o f that snake; t h e m e a t o f seals, c o n g e r eels, etc. is also p r o h i b i t e d t o t h e m .

3 7

If, d r i v e n b y necessity, t h e y p e r m i t themselves t o partake o f those things, they m u s t at least d i m i n i s h the sacrilege b y e x p i a t o r y rites, j u s t as i f those things w e r e the t o t e m , p r o p e r .

38

A m o n g the E u a h l a y i ,

39

w h e r e use b u t n o t

abuse o f the t o t e m is p e r m i t t e d , t h e same r u l e applies t o t h e o t h e r things o f the clan. A m o n g the A r u n t a , t h e p r o h i b i t i o n that protects the t o t e m i c a n i m a l extends t o o t h e r animals associated w i t h i t ; 34

4 0

a n d i n any case, the latter

Cf. Curr, Australian Race, vol. Ill, p. 461, and Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 146. The terms Tooman and

Wingo are applicable to both. 35


-^Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 447ff.; cf. Strehlow, Aranda, vol. Ill, p. xiiff. 37

Fison and Howitt, Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 169.

38

Curr, Australian Race, vol. Ill, p. 462.

39

Parker, Euahlayi, p. 20.

40

[Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [Francis James] Gillen, Northern Tribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1904], p. 151; Native Tribes, p. 447; Strehlow, Aranda, vol. Ill, p. xii.

152


are o w e d special c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

41

T h e feelings i n s p i r e d b y b o t h are i d e n t i -

42

cal.

B u t the fact that o n occasion t h e y play the same r o l e is even better e v i dence that all the things w e see attached t o a t o t e m are n o t f u n d a m e n t a l l y different f r o m i t and, i n consequence, have a r e l i g i o u s nature. T h e s e are accessory a n d secondary t o t e m s , o r subtotems, t o use a w o r d that t o d a y is consecrated b y usage.

43

W i t h i n a clan, smaller groups constandy f o r m u n d e r

the i n f l u e n c e o f friendships a n d personal affinities. W i t h t h e i r m o r e l i m i t e d m e m b e r s h i p , these smaller groups t e n d t o live i n relative a u t o n o m y a n d t o f o r m w h a t a m o u n t s t o a n e w s u b d i v i s i o n o r subclan w i t h i n t h e clan. T o dist i n g u i s h a n d i n d i v i d u a l i z e itself, this subclan has n e e d o f its o w n t o t e m — v o i l a , the s u b t o t e m .

4 4

T h e totems o f these secondary groups are chosen

from

a m o n g those various things that are classified u n d e r the p r i n c i p a l t o t e m , so they are v i r t u a l t o t e m s — l i t e r a l l y , f o r t h e least circumstance is all i t takes t o m a k e t h e m b e c o m e actual ones. T h e y have a latent t o t e m i c nature that b e comes manifest as s o o n as circumstances p e r m i t o r r e q u i r e i t . I n this way, o n e i n d i v i d u a l sometimes has t w o totems: a p r i n c i p a l t o t e m that is shared b y the w h o l e clan a n d a s u b t o t e m that is specific t o the subclan o f w h i c h he is part. These are s o m e w h a t analogous t o the nomen a n d t h e cognomen o f the R o 45 mans. 3

•"Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 449. 42

However, there are certain tribes of Queensland in which the things thus assigned to a social group are not forbidden to the members of that group. Such, for example, is the case of the Wakelbura. It should be borne in mind that the marriage classes serve in this society as frameworks for classification (see p. 144 above). Not only can the people of a class eat the animals ascribed to that class, but they cannot eat others. All other food is forbidden to them (Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 113; Curr, Australian Race, vol. Ill, p. 27). Nonetheless, we must take care not to conclude that these animals are considered profane. To be noted is that the individual not only may but must eat them, since he is forbidden to eat anything else. This imperativeness of the prescription is a sure sign that we are in the presence of things that are religious in nature. But the religiousness that marks them has given birth to a positive obligation rather than to that negative obligation which is the prohibition. Perhaps, indeed, it is not impossible to see how that deviation could have happened. We have seen above (see p. 140) that every individual is thought to have a sort of property right over his totem and, in consequence, over the things that come under it. If special circumstances influenced the development of that aspect of the totemic relation, then people would come naturally to believe that only the members of a clan could use their totem and all that is assimilated to it; that the others, by contrast, did not have the right to touch it. Under these circumstances, a clan could feed itself only with things ascribed to the clan. 43

Mrs. Parker uses the expression "multiplex totems."

44

As examples, see the Euahlayi tribe in the book of Mrs. Parker (pp. 15ff.) and the Worjobaluk (Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 121ff.); cf. the previously cited article of Mathews. 45

See examples in Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 122.


153

Sometimes, i n d e e d , w e see that a subclan emancipates itself c o m p l e t e l y and becomes an a u t o n o m o u s g r o u p , an i n d e p e n d e n t clan. T h e s u b t o t e m t h e n becomes a t o t e m i n the f u l l sense. O n e t r i b e i n w h i c h this process o f segmentation has b e e n taken v i r t u a l l y t o its o u t e r m o s t l i m i t is the A r u n t a tribe. T h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n the first b o o k o f Spencer a n d G ü l e n i n dicated b a c k t h e n that there w e r e some 6 0 t o t e m s a m o n g the A r u n t a ,

4 6

but

the m o r e recent research o f S t r e h l o w has established that the n u m b e r is m u c h larger. H e counts n o t less t h a n 4 4 2 t o t e m s .

47

Spencer a n d G ü l e n w e r e i n n o

way exaggerating w h e n t h e y said that " i n t h e l a n d o c c u p i e d b y the natives, there is n o object, animate o r i n a n i m a t e , that does n o t give its n a m e t o some totemic group o f individuals."

48

T h a t m u l t i t u d e o f t o t e m s , w h i c h is p r o d i -

gious w h e n c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e size o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n , comes o f the fact that, u n d e r the i n f l u e n c e o f p a r t i c u l a r circumstances, the o r i g i n a l clans have d i v i d e d a n d s u b d i v i d e d i n f i n i t e l y ; as a result, almost all t h e subtotems

have

gained t h e status o f t o t e m s . Strehlow's studies have d e f i n i t i v e l y s h o w n this. Spencer and G ü l e n c i t e d o n l y a f e w isolated cases o f allied t o t e m s .

49

S t r e h l o w established that this was

actually a universal f o r m o f o r g a n i z a t i o n . H e d r e w u p a table o n w h i c h a l most aU the t o t e m s o f the A r u n t a are classified a c c o r d i n g t o this p r i n c i p l e . A l l are attached t o some sixty p r i n c i p a l totems as e i t h e r allies o r a u x d i a r i e s . T h e allied t o t e m s are h e l d t o be at the service o f t h e p r i n c i p a l o n e .

51

50

This

state o f relative s u b o r d i n a t i o n is p r o b a b l y t h e echo o f a t i m e w h e n today's "aUies" w e r e o n l y subtotems, a n d therefore a t i m e w h e n t h e t r i b e h a d o n l y a

*See Durkheim and Mauss, "Classification primitive," p. 28 n. 2. "Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, pp. 61-72. 48


49

See especially ibid., p. 447, and Northern Tribes, p. 151.

3

°Strehlow, Aranda, vol. Ill, pp. xiii-[xvii]. Sometimes the same secondary totems are attached to two or three principal totems at once. This is probably because Strehlow could not establish with certainty which of those totems was truly the main one. Two interesting facts, which emerge from this table, confirm certain propositions I have already set forth. First, with very few exceptions, almost all the principal totems are animals. Next, the stars are never anything but secondary or allied totems. This is further evidence that originally the preference was to choose totems from the animal kingdom, and that the allied totems were not promoted to the status of totems until later. 51

According to myth, in legendary times the allied totems served as food for the people of the principal totem and, if they were trees, provided shelter (Strehlow, Aranda, vol. Ill, p. xii; Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 403). However, the fact that the allied totem is thought to have been eaten does not imply that it is considered profane. It is believed that, in mythical times, the principal totem was eaten by the ancestors who founded the clan.

154


small n u m b e r o f clans s u b d i v i d e d i n t o subclans. N u m e r o u s survivals c o n f i r m that hypothesis. T h e t w o groups that are allied i n this w a y often have the same t o t e m i c e m b l e m . T h e oneness o f that e m b l e m is i n e x p l i c a b l e unless the t w o groups w e r e o r i g i n a l l y o n e .

5 2

Elsewhere, the k i n s h i p o f the t w o clans is

s h o w n b y the role a n d interest that each o f t h e m takes i n the rites o f the other. T h e t w o cults are still n o t c o m p l e t e l y separate, m o s t l i k e l y because i n i tially t h e y w e r e c o m p l e t e l y m e r g e d .

5 3

T r a d i t i o n explains t h e tie that binds

t h e m b y i m a g i n i n g h o w , l o n g ago, the t w o clans l i v e d v e r y near each o t h e r .

54

I n o t h e r cases, m y t h even states e x p l i c i t l y that t h e o n e was d e r i v e d f r o m t h e other. T h e y say that the allied a n i m a l o n c e u p o n a t i m e b e l o n g e d t o the species that is still the p r i n c i p a l t o t e m a n d was n o t differentiated u n t i l a later e p o c h . I n this way, the c h a n t u n g a birds, w h i c h n o w are associated w i t h t h e w i t c h e t t y g r u b , w e r e w i t c h e t t y grubs i n legendary times a n d later transf o r m e d themselves i n t o birds. T w o species that are n o w attached t o the t o t e m o f the h o n e y ant w e r e h o n e y ants i n the past, a n d so f o r t h .

5 5

F u r t h e r , that

t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f a s u b t o t e m i n t o a t o t e m happens i m p e r c e p t i b l y , w i t h the result that the status is i l l d e f i n e d i n some cases, a n d i t is n o t easy t o say w h e t h e r o n e is d e a l i n g w i t h a p r i n c i p a l o r a secondary t o t e m .

5 6

As H o w i t t

says r e g a r d i n g t h e W o t j o b a l u k , there are subtotems that are totems i n the process o f f o r m a t i o n .

5 7

I n this way, t h e various things classified i n a t o t e m are

l i k e m a n y n u c l e i a r o u n d w h i c h n e w t o t e m i c cults can f o r m . T h i s is the best evidence o f the r e l i g i o u s feelings t h e y inspire. I f t h e y d i d n o t have this sacredness, they c o u l d n o t so easily be p r o m o t e d t o t h e same status as those sac r e d things par excellence, t h e totems proper. T h u s , the circle o f r e l i g i o u s things extends w e l l b e y o n d w h a t at first seemed t o be its b o u n d a r i e s . N o t o n l y are the t o t e m i c animals and t h e m e m bers o f t h e clan enclosed w i t h i n that circle; b u t since there is n o t h i n g k n o w n that is n o t classified w i t h i n a clan a n d u n d e r a t o t e m , there is also n o t h i n g that does n o t receive a r e f l e c t i o n o f that religiousness, t o some degree. W h e n

a2

Thus, in the Wild Cat clan, the designs carved on the churinga represent thefloweringtree called hakea, which today is a distinct totem (Spencer and Gillen, NativeTribes [pp. 147—148]). Strehlow (Aranda, vol. Ill, p. xii n. 4) says that this is common. "Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 182; Native Tribes, pp. 151, 297. 54

Native Tribes, pp. 151, 158.

55

Ibid„ pp. 447-449.

56

lt is in this way that Spencer and Gillen speak to us of the pigeon called Inturita sometimes as a principal totem (NativeTribes [p. 410]), and sometimes as an allied totem (p. 448). "Howitt, "Further Notes," pp. 63-64.

155


actual gods appear i n the r e l i g i o n s that f o r m later, each o f t h e m w i l l be set over a p a r t i c u l a r category o f n a t u r a l p h e n o m e n a — t h i s o n e the sea, that o n e the air, a n o t h e r the fruit harvest, a n d so o n , a n d each o f those provinces o f nature w i l l be t h o u g h t o f as d r a w i n g t h e life that is w i t h i n i t from the g o d t o w h i c h i t is subject. S u c h a d i s t r i b u t i o n o f nature a m o n g various deities is p r e cisely w h a t constitutes the representation o f t h e universe that r e l i g i o n s give us. So l o n g as h u m a n i t y has n o t m o v e d b e y o n d the phase o f t o t e m i s m , the role the v a r i o u s totems o f t h e t r i b e play is precisely t h e o n e that w i l l later b e l o n g t o d i v i n e personalities. I n the M o u n t G a m b i e r t r i b e , w h i c h I have taken as the m a i n example, there are t e n clans, a n d so the w h o l e w o r l d is d i v i d e d i n t o t e n classes, o r rather i n t o t e n families, each o r i g i n a t i n g i n a special t o t e m . T h e things classified i n a clan take t h e i r reality from that o r i g i n , f o r they are c o n c e i v e d o f as various modes o f the t o t e m i c b e i n g — a c c o r d i n g t o our e x a m p l e , r a i n , t h u n d e r , l i g h t n i n g , clouds, h a i l , a n d w i n t e r are regarded as various k i n d s o f crow. T a k e n together, these t e n families o f things c o n s t i tute a systematic a n d c o m p l e t e representation o f t h e w o r l d , and that representation is r e l i g i o u s , since r e l i g i o u s n o t i o n s f u r n i s h t h e p r i n c i p l e o f i t . Far from b e i n g restricted t o o n e o r t w o categories o f beings, t h e n , t h e d o m a i n o f t o t e m i c r e l i g i o n extends t o t h e farthest l i m i t s o f the k n o w n universe. L i k e the r e l i g i o n o f Greece, i t places t h e d i v i n e e v e r y w h e r e . T h e w e l l - k n o w n f o r m u l a I l a v T a TrXirjpTi 8eiov* can serve as its m o t t o as w e l l . To be i n a p o s i t i o n t o conceive t o t e m i s m i n this way, w e must m o d i f y the l o n g s t a n d i n g n o t i o n o f i t o n o n e f u n d a m e n t a l p o i n t . U n t i l the discoveries o f recent years, t o t e m i s m was d e f i n e d as the r e l i g i o n o f the clan and was t h o u g h t to consist e n t i r e l y i n t h e c u l t o f a p a r t i c u l a r t o t e m . F r o m this p o i n t o f v i e w , i t seemed that there w e r e as m a n y i n d e p e n d e n t t o t e m i c religions as there w e r e different clans. M o r e o v e r , that n o t i o n was i n h a r m o n y w i t h the c o m m o n l y h e l d n o t i o n o f the clan: I t is seen as an a u t o n o m o u s s o c i e t y ,

58

m o r e o r less

closed t o similar societies o r h a v i n g o n l y e x t e r n a l a n d superficial relations w i t h t h e m . B u t the reality is m o r e c o m p l e x . C e r t a i n l y the c u l t o f each t o t e m has its h o m e i n t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g clan; i t is celebrated there and o n l y there; the m e m b e r s o f t h e clan are responsible f o r i t ; i t is t r a n s m i t t e d b y t h e m

from

one g e n e r a t i o n t o another, a l o n g w i t h the beliefs o n w h i c h i t is based. O n the o t h e r h a n d , t h e various t o t e m i c cults that are p r a c t i c e d w i t h i n a single t r i b e d o n o t develop i n parallel a n d i n i g n o r a n c e o f one another, as

*Everything is full of gods. Trans. 58

Thus it happens that the clan has often been confounded with the tribe. Curr especially has been guilty of this confusion, which often imports problems into ethnographers' descriptions ([The Australian Race], vol. I, pp. 61ff.).

156


t h o u g h each was a c o m p l e t e r e l i g i o n a n d sufficient u n t o itself. Instead, t h e y i m p l y o n e another. E a c h is o n l y o n e p a r t o f the same w h o l e , an e l e m e n t o f the same r e l i g i o n . T h e m e n o f a clan i n n o w a y regard the beliefs o f the n e i g h b o r i n g clans w i t h the indifference, skepticism, o r h o s t i l i t y that is o r d i n a r i l y i n s p i r e d b y a r e l i g i o n t o w h i c h o n e is a stranger; t h e y themselves share the beliefs. T h e C r o w p e o p l e are also c o n v i n c e d that t h e Snake people have a m y t h i c a l snake as t h e i r ancestor a n d o w e special qualities a n d capacities t o that o r i g i n . H a v e w e n o t seen that, u n d e r c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s at least, a m a n eats a t o t e m that is n o t his o w n o n l y after h a v i n g observed r i t u a l formalities? F o r example, he requests p e r m i s s i o n f r o m the i n d i v i d u a l s o f that t o t e m , i f there are any present. T h i s is so because that f o o d is n o t m e r e l y profane f o r h i m either. H e , t o o , accepts that there are affinities b e t w e e n the m e m b e r s o f a clan he is n o t p a r t o f a n d t h e a n i m a l w h o s e n a m e t h e y bear. M o r e o v e r , that c o m m o n a l i t y o f b e l i e f is sometimes manifested i n t h e c u l t . A l t h o u g h , i n p r i n c i p l e , the rites that c o n c e r n a t o t e m can be p e r f o r m e d o n l y b y p e o p l e o f that t o t e m , i t is nonetheless v e r y c o m m o n f o r representatives o f different clans t o be present. I n d e e d , sometimes t h e i r role is n o t o n e o f mere spectat¬ i n g . A l t h o u g h o f course t h e y are n o t t h e celebrants, t h e y decorate those w h o are, a n d t h e y prepare the service. T h e y , t o o , have an interest i n the rite's b e i n g c o n d u c t e d ; hence, i n c e r t a i n tribes i t is t h e y w h o i n v i t e the p r o p e r clan t o c o n d u c t the c e r e m o n y .

59

I n d e e d , there is a w h o l e cycle o f rites that m u s t

take place i n the presence o f t h e assembled t r i b e : the t o t e m i c ceremonies o f initiation.

6 0

I n s u m , t o t e m i c o r g a n i z a t i o n as j u s t described clearly m u s t result f r o m a sort o f consensus a m o n g all the m e m b e r s o f the t r i b e , w i t h o u t d i s t i n c t i o n . Each clan c a n n o t possibly have d e v e l o p e d its beliefs i n an absolutely i n d e p e n d e n t m a n n e r ; t h e cults o f t h e various t o t e m s c o m p l e m e n t one a n o t h e r exactly, a n d so t h e y m u s t necessarily have b e e n i n some sense adjusted t o o n e another. I n fact, as w e have seen, a single t o t e m d i d n o t o r d i n a r i l y repeat i t self i n the same t r i b e , a n d the w h o l e universe was d i v i d e d a m o n g the totems thus c o n s t i t u t e d i n such a w a y that t h e same o b j e c t s h o u l d n o t be f o u n d i n t w o different clans. So systematic a d i v i s i o n w o u l d have b e e n impossible t o achieve w i t h o u t a tacit o r c o n c e r t e d agreement i n w h i c h the w h o l e t r i b e w o u l d have had t o participate. T h e w h o l e set o f beliefs t h a t was b o r n i n this w a y is i n part (but o n l y i n part) an affair o f the t r i b e . 59

6 1

This is the case,forexample, of the Warramunga (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 298).

'"See, for example, Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 380 et passim. 61

One could even ask whether tribal totems do not sometimes exist. Thus, among the Arunta, the wild cat is the totem of a particular clan and yet is forbidden to the whole tribe; even the people of other


157

T o summarize: I n d e v e l o p i n g an adequate c o n c e p t i o n o f t o t e m i s m , w e must n o t enclose ourselves w i t h i n the boundaries o f the clan b u t consider the tribe as a w h o l e . Each clan's o w n c u l t enjoys great a u t o n o m y . Indeed, w e can anticipate even n o w that the active f e r m e n t o f religious life w i l l be f o u n d i n the clan. O n the o t h e r h a n d , all these cults are u n i f i e d , a n d t o t e m i c r e l i g i o n is the c o m p l e x system f o r m e d b y that u n i o n , j u s t as G r e e k p o l y t h e i s m was f o r m e d b y the u n i o n o f all the cults that w e r e addressed t o the various deities. I have s h o w n that w h e n t o t e m i s m is u n d e r s t o o d i n this way, i t t o o has a cosmology.

clans may eat it only in moderation (Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 168). But I believe it would be an exaggeration to speak of a tribal totem in that instance, for it does not followfromthe prohibition against eating it freely that the animal is a totem. A prohibition may have other causes. Undoubtedly, the religious unity of the tribe is real, but that unity is affirmed with the aid of other symbols. Further on, I will show what those symbols are (Bk. II, chap. 9).

CHAPTER FOUR

THE PRINCIPAL TOTEMIC BELIEFS (END) The Individual Totem and the Sexual Totem

T

hus far, I have e x a m i n e d t o t e m i s m solely as a p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n . T h e o n l y totems discussed have b e e n those shared b y a clan, a phratry, or, i n a sense, 1

the t r i b e . T h e i n d i v i d u a l h a d a part i n t h e m o n l y as a m e m b e r o f the g r o u p . B u t w e understand that there is n o r e l i g i o n w i t h o u t an i n d i v i d u a l aspect. T h i s general observation applies t o t o t e m i s m . A p a r t from the i m p e r s o n a l a n d c o l lective totems that are foremost, there are others that b e l o n g t o each i n d i v i d ual, that express his personality, a n d w h o s e c u l t he celebrates privately.

I I n some A u s t r a l i a n tribes a n d i n m o s t o f t h e I n d i a n societies o f N o r t h A m e r 2

i c a , each i n d i v i d u a l maintains a personal relationship w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t , w h i c h is comparable t o the relationship that each clan maintains w i t h its t o t e m . T h a t object is sometimes an i n a n i m a t e b e i n g o r s o m e t h i n g m a n made, b u t i t is o f t e n an a n i m a l . I n some cases, o n l y a p a r t i c u l a r part o f the body, such as the head, the feet, o r the liver, has the same f u n c t i o n .

3

T h e n a m e o f the t h i n g also serves as the n a m e o f the i n d i v i d u a l . I t is his personal name, a first n a m e that is added t o his collective t o t e m , j u s t as the 'The totems are the tribe's property in the sense that the tribe as a whole has an interest in the cult each clan owes to its totem. 2

Frazer has made a full compilation of the texts about individual totemism in North America ([James George Frazer], Totemism and Exogamy, vol. Ill [London, Macmillan, 1910], pp. 370—456). 3

For example, among the Hurons, the Iroquois, and the Algonquins ([Pierre François Xavier de] Charlevoix, Histoire [et description générale de la Nouvelle Frame], vol. VI [Paris, Chez la Veuve Ganeau, 1744], pp. 67—70; [Gabriel] Sagard, Le Grand voyage au pays des Hurons [Paris, Tross, 1865], p. 160), and among the Thompson Indians ([James Alexander] Teit, "The Thompson Indians of British Columbia," AMNH, vol. II (1900), p. 355). 158

159

The Principal Totemic Beliefs (End)

praenomen o f t h e R o m a n s is added t o the nomen gentilicium. I t is t r u e that this is d o c u m e n t e d f o r o n l y a c e r t a i n n u m b e r o f societies,

4

b u t i t is p r o b a b l y

widespread. I n d e e d , I w i l l presently s h o w that the t h i n g a n d the i n d i v i d u a l are o f the same k i n d . I d e n t i t y o f k i n d entails i d e n t i t y o f name. B e i n g g i v e n i n the course o f especially i m p o r t a n t r e l i g i o u s ceremonies, this forename has a q u a l i t y o f sacredness. I t is n o t p r o n o u n c e d i n the o r d i n a r y circumstances o f profane life. S o m e t i m e s , i n d e e d , the w o r d used i n everyday language t o des5

ignate t h e t h i n g is s o m e w h a t m o d i f i e d f o r that special use —this, because the w o r d s o f everyday language are e x c l u d e d f r o m r e l i g i o u s life. I n t h e A m e r i c a n tribes, at least, an e m b l e m is added t o this name, w h i c h belongs t o each i n d i v i d u a l a n d i n various ways represents the t h i n g designated by the name. F o r example, each M a n d a n wears the skin o f the a n i m a l w h o s e 6

namesake he i s . I f i t is a b i r d , he adorns h i m s e l f w i t h the bird's feathers.

7

The

8

H u r o n s and the A l g o n q u i n s t a t t o o its image o n t h e i r b o d i e s . I t is represented 9

o n his w e a p o n s . A m o n g the tribes o f the N o r t h w e s t , the i n d i v i d u a l e m b l e m is carved o r sculpted o n utensils, houses, a n d so f o r t h , as is the collective e m b l e m o f the c l a n . erty.

11

1 0

T h e i n d i v i d u a l e m b l e m serves as a m a r k o f personal p r o p -

O f t e n the t w o coats o f arms are c o m b i n e d , w h i c h p a r t l y explains w h y

the t o t e m i c escutcheons s h o w such v a r i e t y a m o n g these p e o p l e s .

12

T h e r e are the closest o f b o n d s b e t w e e n the i n d i v i d u a l a n d t h e a n i m a l 4

This is the case for the Yuin ([Alfred William] Howitt, The Native Tribes [of South-East Australia, New York, Macmillan, 1904], p. 133); the Kurnai (Native Tribes, p. 135); several tribes of Queensland ([Walter Edmund] Roth, Superstition, Magic and Medicine, North Queensland Ethnography, Bulletin no. 5 [Brisbane,

G. A. Vaughn, 1903], p. 19; [Alfred C ] Haddon, Head-Hunters, [Black, White, and Brown, London, Methuen, 1901], p. 193); among the Delaware ([John Gottlieb Ernestus] Heckewelder, "An Account of the History [Manners and Customs] of the Indian Nations [Who Once Inhabited Pennsylvania"], HLCAPS, vol. I [1819], p. 238); among the Thompson Indians (Teit, "Thompson Indians," p. 355); and among the Salish Stadumh ([Charles] Hill Tout, "Report on the Ethnology of the Stadumh of British Columbia," _//17, vol. XXXV [1905], pp. 147ÎF.). 5

Hill Tout, "Ethnology of the Stadumh," p. 154.

6

[George] Cadin, Illustration of the Manners, Customs [and Condition of the North American Indians, 2

vols.], London [H. G. Bohn], 1876, vol. I, p. 36. 7

[George] Cadin, [Nouvelles des missions dAmérique, extraits des] lettres édifiantes et curieuses, 6th ed.

[Paris, Martial, 1883], pp. 172ff. 8

Charlevoix, Histoire de la nouvelle France, vol. VI, p. 69.

'[James Owen] Dorsey, "A Study of Siouan Cults," in XIth Annual Report [BAE, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1894], p. 443. "'[Franz] Boas, ["The Social Organization and Secret Societies of the] Kwakiud [Indians," in RNMfor 1895, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1897], p. 323. "Hill Tout, "Ethnology of the Stadumh," p. 154. 12

Boas, "Kwakiutl," p. 323.

160


w h o s e n a m e he bears. T h e nature o f the a n i m a l is p a r t a n d parcel o f the m a n , w h o has its qualities as w e l l as its faults. F o r example, i t is t h o u g h t that a m a n w i t h t h e eagle as his i n d i v i d u a l e m b l e m possesses t h e gift o f seeing t h e future; i f he carries t h e n a m e o f the bear, i t is said t h a k h e is l i k e l y t o be w o u n d e d i n fights, t h e bear b e i n g slow, heavy, a n d easily t r a p p e d ; spised, t h e m a n is t h e o b j e c t o f the same c o n t e m p t .

1 4

13

i f t h e a n i m a l is d e -

Indeed, the kinship be-

t w e e n t h e t w o is so great that i n c e r t a i n circumstances, especially danger, t h e m a n is t h o u g h t capable o f assuming t h e animal's f o r m . is regarded as t h e man's d o u b l e , his alter e g o .

16

1 5

Inversely, t h e a n i m a l

T h e association b e t w e e n t h e

t w o is so close that t h e i r destinies are o f t e n considered t o be i n t e r d e p e n d e n t : N o t h i n g can h a p p e n t o o n e w i t h o u t repercussions felt b y t h e o t h e r .

17

I f the

a n i m a l dies, t h e life o f t h e m a n is threatened. H e n c e a v e r y c o m m o n r u l e is that o n e m u s t n e i t h e r k i l l t h e a n i m a l n o r , especially, eat its flesh. W h e n a p p l i e d t o t h e clan, this p r o h i b i t i o n carries w i t h i t a l l sorts o f allowances a n d c o m p r o m i s e s , b u t i n this case i t is far m o r e categorical a n d a b s o l u t e .

18

F o r its part, t h e a n i m a l protects t h e m a n a n d is a k i n d o f p a t r o n . I t alerts h i m t o possible dangers a n d t o means o f escaping t h e m ; man's

20

friend.

1 9

i t is said t o be t h e

I n fact, since i t is o f t e n p r e s u m e d t o have m i r a c u l o u s powers,

u

Miss [Alice C ] Fletcher, "The Import of the Totem, A Studyfromthe Omaha Tribe, RSI [Washington, Government Printing Office], 1897, p. 583. Similar facts will be found in Teit, "Thompson Indians," pp. 354, 356; Peter Jones, History of the Ojibway Indians: [With Especial Reference to Their Conversion

to Christianity, London, A. W. Bennet, 1869], p. 87. 14

This is, for example, the case of the dog among the Salish Stadumh because of the servile state in which he lives (Hill Tout, "Ethnology of the Stadumh," p. 153). 15

Langloh Parker [Catherine Sommerville Field Parker], [The] Euahlayi [Tribe] [London, A. Constable, 1905], p. 21. 16

"The spirit of a man," says Mrs. Parker (ibid.), "is in his Yunbeai (individual totem) and his Yunbeai is in him." "Parker, Euahlayi, p. 20. It is the same among certain Salish ([Charles] Hill Tout, "Ethnological Report on the Stseelis and Skaulits Tribes [of the Halokmelem Division of the Salish of British Columbia]," JAI, vol. XXXIV [1904], p. 324). This is common among the Indians of Central America ([Daniel G.] Brinton, "Nagualism: A Study in Native American Folk-lore and History," APS, vol. XXXIII [1894], p. 32). 18

Parker, Euahlayi, p. 20; Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 147; Dorsey, "Siouan Cults," p. 443. Incidentally, Frazer has surveyed the American cases and has established the universality of this prohibition (Totemism and Exogamy, vol. Ill, p. 450). True, we have seen that in America the individual had to begin by killing the animal whose skin was used to make what the ethnographers call his "medicine bag." But this custom has been found only infivetribes; it is probably a late and altered form of the institution. 19

Howitt, NativeTribes, pp. 135, 147, 387, and "On Australian Medicine Men,"J,4i, vol. XVI (1887), p. 34; [James Alexander] Teit, "The Shuswap" [AMNH, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1908], p. 607. 20

[Rev. A.] Meyer, "Manners and Customs of the Aborigines of the Encounter Bay Tribe," in [James Dominick] Woods [The Native Tribes of South Australia, Adelaide, E. S. Wigg. 1879], p. 197.

161


i t passes those o n t o its h u m a n partner, w h o believes t h e m t o be p r o o f against bullets, arrows, a n d every sort o f b l o w .

2 1

T h e i n d i v i d u a l has such confidence

i n the efficacy o f his p r o t e c t o r that he braves t h e greatest dangers a n d p e r f o r m s the m o s t b r e a t h t a k i n g feats o f prowess w i t h serene fearlessness. F a i t h gives h i m the necessary courage a n d s t r e n g t h .

22

Nevertheless, the man's ties

w i t h his p a t r o n are n o t ones o f dependency, p u r e a n d simple. T h e m a n , for his part, can act u p o n t h e a n i m a l . H e gives i t orders a n d has p o w e r over i t . A K u r n a i w h o s e f r i e n d a n d ally is the shark believes that, w i t h an i n c a n t a t i o n , he can disperse sharks that threaten a b o a t .

23

I n o t h e r cases, the tie c o n t r a c t e d

i n this w a y is t h o u g h t t o b e s t o w u p o n t h e m a n a special capacity f o r success i n h u n t i n g the a n i m a l .

2 4

B y t h e i r v e r y nature, these relations seem strongly t o i m p l y that the b e i n g w i t h w h i c h each i n d i v i d u a l is thus associated can itself be o n l y an i n d i v i d u a l , n o t a species. N o o n e has a species as alter ego. I n some cases, i n fact i t q u i t e clearly is such a n d such a d e f i n i t e tree, r o c k , o r stone that plays this r o l e .

2 5

W h e n e v e r i t is an a n i m a l , o r w h e n e v e r the lives o f the a n i m a l and the m a n are considered t o be b o u n d u p together, such is necessarily the case. I t is n o t possible t o be j o i n e d w i t h a w h o l e species i n an interdependence o f this k i n d , b e cause there is n o day, o r f o r that m a t t e r n o instant, i n w h i c h the species does n o t lose o n e o f its m e m b e r s . Still, the p r i m i t i v e has a c e r t a i n i n a b i l i t y t o c o n ceive o f the i n d i v i d u a l apart f r o m the species. T h e b o n d that unites h i m w i t h the o n e extends altogether naturally t o the o t h e r ; he has the same feeling f o r b o t h . T h u s i t comes about that the w h o l e species is sacred t o h i m .

2 6

21

[Franz] Boas, "Second General Report on the Indians of British Columbia," in [ByL4S], Vlth Report on the North- WesternTribes of Canada [London, Offices of the Association, 1891], p. 93; Teit, "Thompson Indians," p. 336; Boas, "Kwakiud," p. 394. ^Corroborating evidence is to be found in Hill Tout, "Ethnology of the Stadumh," pp. 144—145. Cf. Parker, Euahlayi, p. 29. "According to information given Frazer by Howitt in a personal letter (Totemism and Exogamy, vol. I, p. 495, n.2). 24

Hill Tout, "Stseelis and Skaulits Tribes," p. 324.

25

Howitt, "Australian Medicine Men," JAI, vol. XVI, p. 34; [Joseph François] Lafitau, Moeurs des sauvages américains, vol. I [Paris, Saugrain l'ainé, 1724], p. 370; Charlevoix, Histoire de la Nouvelle France, vol. VI, p. 68. The same is true of the atai and the tamaniu at Mota ([Robert Henry] Codrington, The Melanesians, [Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1891], pp. 250-251). 26

Consequendy, the line of demarcation that Frazer thought he could establish between these animal protectors and the fetishes does not exist. He thought fetishism would begin where the protector being is an individual object and not a class (Frazer, Totemism and Exogamy, p. 56); as we know from as early as the tribes of Australia, however, a specific animal sometimes plays this role (see Howitt, "[On] Australian Medicine Men; [or Doctors and Wizards of Some Australian Tribes], JAI, vol. XVI, [1887], p. 34). The truth is that the notions of fetish and fetishism do not correspond to anything definite.

162


T h i s p r o t e c t o r b e i n g is called b y different names i n different societies: nagual a m o n g the Indians o f M e x i c o , a m o n g the H u r o n s ,

2 8

2 7

manitou a m o n g the A l g o n q u i n s , okki

snam a m o n g c e r t a i n S a l i s h

budjan a m o n g the Y u i n ,

3 1

29

a n d sulia a m o n g o t h e r s ,

30

3 2

yunbeai a m o n g t h e E u a h l a y i , a n d so o n . Because

o f the i m p o r t a n c e these beliefs a n d practices have a m o n g the Indians o f N o r t h A m e r i c a , some have p r o p o s e d t o create the w o r d nagualism o r manitouism t o designate t h e m .

3 3

B u t b y g i v i n g t h e m a special a n d distinctive

name, w e m a y w e l l m i s c o n s t r u e t h e i r relationship w i t h t o t e m i s m . I n fact, the same p r i n c i p l e s are a p p l i e d , i n o n e case t o the clan, i n t h e o t h e r t o the i n d i v i d u a l . I n b o t h , the b e l i e f is the same: T h e r e are l i v i n g ties b e t w e e n things a n d m e n , a n d the things are e n d o w e d w i t h special powers f r o m w h i c h the h u m a n allies b e n e f i t . T h e c u s t o m is also t h e same: G i v i n g t h e m a n the n a m e o f the t h i n g w i t h w h i c h he is associated, a n d a d d i n g an e m b l e m t o this name. T h e t o t e m is the p a t r o n o f the clan, j u s t as t h e p a t r o n o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l is a personal t o t e m . So there is g o o d reason f o r the t e r m i n o l o g y t o make this k i n s h i p b e t w e e n the t w o systems visible. T h i s is w h y , w i t h Frazer, I w i l l call the c u l t that each i n d i v i d u a l renders t o his p a t r o n individual totemism. Use o f this t e r m i n o l o g y is f u r t h e r j u s t i f i e d b y t h e fact that i n some cases the p r i m i tive h i m s e l f uses t h e same w o r d t o designate t h e t o t e m o f the clan a n d the a n imal protector o f the i n d i v i d u a l .

3 4

T y l o r and P o w e l l have rejected i t a n d

called f o r different t e r m s f o r the t w o sorts o f r e l i g i o u s i n s t i t u t i o n s because, i n t h e i r v i e w , the c o l l e c t i v e t o t e m is o n l y a n a m e , a shared label w i t h o u t r e -

27

Brinton, "Nagualism," APS, vol. XXXIII [1894], p. 32.

28

Charlevoix, Histoire de la Nouvelle France, p. 67.

29

Hill Tout, "Ethnology of the Statlumh," p. 142.

30

Hill Tout, "Stseelis and Skaulits Tribes," pp. 31 Iff.

31


32

Parker, Euahlayi, p. 20.

33

[Edwin Sidney Hardand], "An American View of Totemism, [A Note on Major Powell's Article] in Man, vol. II (1902), 84, pp. 113—115 [This does not mention "nagualism," and says "manitu," not "manituism." Trans.]; [Edward Burnett] Tylor, "Note on the Haida Totem-Post Lately Erected in the Pitt River Museum at Oxford," Man, vol. II, (1902), pp. 1—3, [Again, there is no mention of "nagualism." Trans.]; [Andrew] Lang expressed similar ideas in Social Origins [London, Longmans, 1903], pp. 133—135. Finally, in a revision of his earlier view, Frazer himself now believes that it is best to designate collective totems and guardian spirits by different names until the relationship that exists between them is better known (Totemism and Exogamy, vol. Ill, p. 456). 34

This is the case in Australia among the Yuin (Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 81) and among the Narrinyeri (Meyer, "The Encounter Bay Tribe," in Woods, Native Tribes of South Australia, pp. 197ff.).

163


ligious characteristics.

35

B u t to the contrary, w e k n o w that i t is a sacred t h i n g

to an even greater degree t h a n the a n i m a l p r o t e c t o r . As this study develops, the e x t e n t t o w h i c h the t w o sorts o f t o t e m i s m are inseparable shown.

will

be

3 6

Nonetheless, h o w e v e r great the k i n s h i p b e t w e e n these t w o institutions, there are i m p o r t a n t differences b e t w e e n t h e m . Whereas the clan considers i t self t o be the offspring o f the t o t e m i c a n i m a l o r plant, the i n d i v i d u a l does n o t believe he has any relation o f descent w i t h his personal t o t e m . I t is a f r i e n d , a partner, and a protector, b u t i t is n o t a relative. T h e i n d i v i d u a l makes use o f the virtues i t is h e l d to possess, b u t he is n o t o f the same b l o o d . Second, the m e m bers o f a clan p e r m i t n e i g h b o r i n g clans t o eat the a n i m a l w h o s e name they c o l lectively bear, p r o v i d e d that the necessary formalities are observed. B y contrast, the i n d i v i d u a l n o t o n l y respects the species t o w h i c h his personal t o t e m b e longs b u t also does his u t m o s t t o defend i t against strangers, at least wherever the destinies o f the m a n and the a n i m a l are t h o u g h t t o be b o u n d u p together. These t w o k i n d s o f totems differ m o s t i n the m a n n e r b y w h i c h t h e y are acquired. T h e c o l l e c t i v e t o t e m belongs t o the legal status o f every i n d i v i d u a l . G e n erally speaking, i t is hereditary; at any rate, i t is b i r t h that designates i t and men's w i l l has n o role. T h e c h i l d sometimes has t h e t o t e m o f its m o t h e r ( K a m i l a r o i , D i e r i , U r a b u n n a , etc.), sometimes that o f its father ( N a r r i n y e r i , Warramunga,

etc.), a n d sometimes

the t o t e m t h a t is m o s t i m p o r t a n t at

the place w h e r e his m o t h e r c o n c e i v e d ( A r u n t a , L o r i t j a ) . B u t the i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m is a c q u i r e d b y a deliberate a c t :

37

D e t e r m i n i n g i t requires a series o f

rites. T h e m e t h o d m o s t w i d e l y used a m o n g the Indians o f A m e r i c a is the f o l l o w i n g : T o w a r d p u b e r t y , as the t i m e o f i n i t i a t i o n approaches, the y o u n g

35

"The totem no more resembles the patron of the individual," says Tylor, "than an escutcheon resembles an image of a saint." ("The Haida Totem-Post," p. 2.) Likewise, today Frazer rallies to Tylor's opinion, because he now denies that the totem of the clan is in any way religious (Totemism and Exogamy, vol. HI, p. 452). 36

See below, Bk. 2, chap. 9.

"However, according to a passage in Mathews, the individual totem is hereditary among the Wotjobaluk. "Each individual," he says, "lays claim to an animal, a plant, or an inanimate object as its special and personal totem, which he inherits from his mother" ([Robert Hamilton] Mathews, ["Ethnological Notes on the Aboriginal Tribes of New South Wales and Victoria"], RSNSW, vol. XXXVIII (1904), p. 291). But it is obvious that if all the children of the same family had the totem of their mother as their personal totem, neither they nor their mother would have personal totems. Mathews probably means that each individual chooses his individual totem from among a group of things attributed to the mother's clan. We will see, in fact, that each clan has its own individual totems that are its exclusive property and that the members of other clans cannot use them. In this sense, birth in some measure (but in that measure only) defines the personal totem.

164


m a n w i t h d r a w s t o a place apart—a forest, f o r example. T h e r e , d u r i n g a p e r i o d that varies f r o m a f e w days t o several years, he submits t o all k i n d s o f e x ercises that are e x h a u s t i n g a n d c o n t r a r y t o his nature. H e fasts, m o r t i f i e s himself, a n d mutilates himself. S o m e t i m e s he wanders, u t t e r i n g t e r r i b l e screams a n d h o w l s ; sometimes he stays still, stretched o u t o n the g r o u n d , g r o a n i n g . H e dances sometimes, prays sometimes, a n d sometimes calls o u t t o his o r d i n a r y deities. P r o c e e d i n g i n this way, h e f i n a l l y w o r k s h i m s e l f i n t o a state o f intense s u p e r - e x c i t e m e n t that is v e r y close t o d e l i r i u m . W h e n he has reached this p a r o x y s m , his m e n t a l representations easily take o n a h a l l u c i n a t o r y character. " W h e n , " says H e c k e w e l d e r , "a b o y is o n the eve o f b e i n g i n i tiated,

he is subjected

t o an a l t e r n a t i n g r e g i m e o f fasting and m e d i c a l

treatment; he abstains from all f o o d , h e swallows the m o s t p o w e r f u l a n d r e pulsive drugs; o n occasion, h e d r i n k s i n t o x i c a t i n g c o n c o c t i o n s u n t i l his m i n d is g e n u i n e l y i n a state o f c o n f u s i o n . A t that m o m e n t , he has o r believes he has visions, e x t r a o r d i n a r y dreams t o w h i c h the entire exercise has n a t u r a l l y p r e disposed h i m . H e imagines h i m s e l f flying t h r o u g h the air, m o v i n g u n d e r the g r o u n d , j u m p i n g over valleys f r o m o n e s u m m i t t o the other, f i g h t i n g a n d d e feating giants a n d m o n s t e r s . "

38

U n d e r these c o n d i t i o n s , i f w h i l e d r e a m i n g o r

awake h e sees ( o r t h i n k s he sees, w h i c h a m o u n t s t o t h e same t h i n g ) an a n i m a l appearing t o h i m that seems t o s h o w f r i e n d l y i n t e n t i o n s , h e w i l l i m a g i n e he has discovered the p a t r o n that he has b e e n w a i t i n g f o r .

3 9

40

T h i s process is rarely used i n A u s t r a l i a . T h e r e , the personal t o t e m seems instead t o be i m p o s e d b y a t h i r d person, either at b i r t h

4 1

o r at i n i t i a t i o n .

4 2

I t is

usually a relative w h o plays this role, o r i t can be a person w i t h special powers, such as an o l d m a n o r a m a g i c i a n . D i v i n a t i o n is sometimes used for this p u r pose. A t C h a r l o t t e Bay, at C a p e B e d f o r d , o r o n the Proserpine R i v e r , f o r example, the g r a n d m o t h e r o r another o l d w o m a n takes a small part o f the

38

Heckewelder, "Manners and Customs of the Indian Nations," HLCAPS, vol. I, p. 238.

39

See Dorsey, "Siouan Cults," p. 507; Catlin, North American Indians, vol. I, p. 37; Fletcher, "The Import of the Totem," in Smithsonian Rep. for 1897, p. 580; Teit, "Thompson Indians," pp. 317—320; Hill Tout, "Ethnology of the Stadumh," p. 144. 40

Still, one finds examples. The Kurnai magicians see their personal totems revealed in dreams (Howitt, NativeTribes, p. 387, and "Australian Medicine Men," p. 34). The men of Cape Bedford believe that when an old man dreams of something during the night, that thing is the personal totem of the first person he will meet the next day (Roth, Superstition, Magic, and Medicine, p. 19). But it is probable that only complementary and accessory personal totems are acquired by this method; for, as I say in the text, within that same tribe, a different process is used at initiation. 41

In certain tribes about which Roth speaks (Superstition, Magic and Medicine); and in certain tribes in the vicinity of Maryborough (Howitt, NativeTribes, p. 147). 42

Among the Wiradjuri (Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 406, and "Australian Medicine Men," p. 50).

165


u m b i l i c a l c o r d attached t o the placenta a n d w h i r l s i t q u i t e forcefully. D u r i n g this t i m e , o t h e r o l d w o m e n seated i n a circle propose different names, o n e after the other. T h e n a m e that is p r o n o u n c e d j u s t at the m o m e n t the c o r d breaks is a d o p t e d .

43

A m o n g t h e Yaraikanna o f Cape Y o r k , the y o u n g n o v i c e is

given a h t t l e w a t e r t o rinse his m o u t h after his t o o t h has b e e n p u l l e d , a n d he is asked t o spit i n t o a b u c k e t f i l l e d w i t h water. T h e o l d m e n carefully e x a m i n e the k i n d o f c l o t that is f o r m e d b y the b l o o d a n d saliva he has spat o u t , a n d the natural object o f w h i c h its shape r e m i n d s t h e m becomes the personal t o t e m o f the y o u n g m a n .

4 4

I n o t h e r cases, the t o t e m is t r a n s m i t t e d d i r e c d y from o n e i n -

d i v i d u a l t o another, f o r example, from father t o son o r uncle t o n e p h e w .

45

T h i s m e t h o d is also used i n A m e r i c a . I n an example that H i l l T o u t reports, the operator was a s h a m a n

46

w h o w a n t e d t o transmit his t o t e m to his n e p h e w :

The uncle took the symbolic emblem o f his snam (personal totem), w h i c h i n this case was the dried skin o f a bird. H e asked his nephew to blow o n i t , then he himself d i d likewise and pronounced some secret words. I t then seemed to Paul (which was the nephew's name) that the skin became a l i v ing bird that began to fly around them for several moments before disappearing. Paul received instructions to procure the skin o f a bird o f the same species that very day, and to wear i t ; this he did. T h e following night, he had a dream i n w h i c h the snam appeared to h i m i n the f o r m o f a human being w h o revealed to h i m the secret name by w h i c h i t might be summoned, and w h o promised h i m its protection. 47

N o t o n l y is t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m a c q u i r e d , n o t g i v e n , b u t m o r e t h a n that, the a c q u i s i t i o n o f o n e is n o t o b l i g a t o r y e v e r y w h e r e . T h e r e are m a n y A u s tralian tribes i n w h i c h that c u s t o m seems t o be c o m p l e t e l y u n k n o w n .

4 8

And

"Ibid. 44

Haddon, Head Hunters, pp. 193ff.

45

Among the Wiradjuri, [Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 406, and "On Australian Medicine Men," in JAI, vol. XVI, p. 50], •"In general, it seems clear that these transmissions from father to son occur only when the father is a shaman or a magician. This is also the case among the Thompson Indians (Teit, "The Thompson Indians," p. 320) and among the Wiradjuri, to whom reference has been made. 47

Hill Tout ("Ethnology of the Stadumh," pp. 146—147). The basic rite is the one that consists of blowing on the skin. If it had not been done correcdy, the transmission would not have occurred because the breath is the soul. When both blow on the skin of the animal, the magician and the recipient exhale parts of their souls, and these parts interpenetrate one another while communing with the nature of the animal, which is also (in the form of its symbol) a participant in the ceremony. 48

[Northcote Whitridge] Thomas, "Further Remarks on Mr. Hill Tout's Views on Totemism," in Man, vol. IV (1904), 53, p. 85.

166


even w h e r e i t does exist, i t is o f t e n o p t i o n a l . A m o n g t h e E u a h l a y i , all the m a gicians have i n d i v i d u a l totems f r o m w h i c h t h e y get t h e i r p o w e r s , b u t a great m a n y l a y m e n have n o n e at all. I t is a favor t h e m a g i c i a n can dispense b u t o n e he reserves f o r his friends a n d favorites a n d f o r those w h o aspire t o b e c o m e his colleagues.

49

L i k e w i s e , a m o n g c e r t a i n Salish, o n l y i n d i v i d u a l s w h o w a n t

t o excel i n w a r o r h u n t i n g , o r w h o aspire t o b e c o m e shamans, e q u i p t h e m selves w i t h protectors o f this s o r t .

50

T h u s , at least a m o n g c e r t a i n peoples, the

i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m seems t o be regarded m o r e as an advantage o r a c o n v e nience t h a n as a necessity. I t is g o o d t o o b t a i n one, b u t there is n o o b l i g a t i o n t o d o so. O n the o t h e r h a n d , there is n o o b l i g a t i o n t o settle f o r o n l y one. I f o n e wants t o be better p r o t e c t e d , n o t h i n g stands i n the w a y o f t r y i n g t o o b t a i n several;

51

a n d inversely, i f the p r o t e c t o r o n e has played its role p o o r l y , i t

can be r e p l a c e d .

52

B u t w h i l e there is s o m e t h i n g m o r e o p t i o n a l a n d free a b o u t i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m i s m , i t has staying p o w e r that t h e t o t e m i s m o f t h e clan c a n n o t m a t c h . O n e o f H i l l Tout's m a i n i n f o r m a n t s was a b a p t i z e d Salish. A l t h o u g h he h a d sincerely a b a n d o n e d all the beliefs o f his ancestors a n d h a d b e c o m e a m o d e l catechist, his f a i t h i n the efficacy o f personal totems r e m a i n e d u n s h a k a b l e .

53

Similarly, a l t h o u g h n o visible traces o f collective t o t e m i s m are left i n the c i v i l i z e d c o u n t r i e s , a n o t i o n o f s o l i d a r i t y b e t w e e n each i n d i v i d u a l and an a n i m a l , p l a n t , o r some o t h e r e x t e r n a l o b j e c t is t h e basis o f customs that can still be observed i n several E u r o p e a n c o u n t r i e s .

54

II B e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l a n d c o l l e c t i v e t o t e m i s m , there is an i n t e r m e d i a t e f o r m that has s o m e t h i n g o f b o t h : sexual t o t e m i s m . F o u n d o n l y i n Australia a n d i n a small n u m b e r o f tribes, i t has b e e n r e p o r t e d m a i n l y i n V i c t o r i a and i n N e w

49

Langloh Parker, Euahlayi, pp. 20, 29.

50

Hill Tout, "Ethnology of the Statlumh," pp. 143, 146; "Stseelis and Skaulits Tribes," p. 324.

51

Parker, Euahlayi, p. 30; Teit, "The Thompson Indians," p. 320; Hill Tout, "Ethnology of the Statlumh," p. 144. "Charlevoix, Histoire de la Nouvelle France, vol. VI, p. 69.

"Hill Tout, "Ethnology of the Stadumh," p. 145. 54

Thus, at the birth of a child, people plant a tree on which they lavish pious care, for they believe that its fate and the infant's are conjoined. In his Golden Bough, Frazer reported numerous customs or beliefs that express the same idea in various ways (Cf. [Edwin Sidney] Hartland, Legend of Perseus, vol. II [London, D. Nutt, 1894-1896], pp. 1-55).

167


South Wales.

55

T r u e , M a t h e w s claims t o have observed i t i n every p a r t o f

Australia he v i s i t e d b u t w i t h o u t p r o v i d i n g specifics t o s u p p o r t his c l a i m .

5 6

A m o n g these different peoples, all the m e n o f t h e t r i b e , o n the o n e h a n d , and, o n t h e other, all t h e w o m e n f o r m w h a t a m o u n t s t o t w o d i s t i n c t and even antagonistic societies, n o m a t t e r w h a t clan t h e y b e l o n g to. E a c h o f these t w o sexual c o r p o r a t i o n s believes itself t o be j o i n e d b y mystical ties t o a specific a n i m a l . A m o n g the K u r n a i , all the m e n consider themselves as brothers o f the e m u - w r e n (Yeerung), all the w o m e n as sisters o f t h e l i n n e t ( D j e e t g u n ) ; all the m e n are Y e e r u n g a n d all t h e w o m e n D j e e t g u n . A m o n g t h e W o t j o b a l u k a n d the W i r a d j u r i , respectively, this r o l e is played b y t h e bat a n d t h e n i g h t j a r (a sort o f screech o w l ) . I n o t h e r tribes, the w o o d p e c k e r replaces the nightjar. E a c h sex sees t h e a n i m a l t o w h i c h i t is k i n as a p r o t e c t o r that m u s t be treated w i t h great respect. T o k i l l o r eat i t is therefore f o r b i d d e n .

5 7

T h i s a n i m a l p r o t e c t o r plays the same r o l e w i t h respect t o each sexual soc i e t y that t h e t o t e m o f the clan plays w i t h respect t o t h e clan. H e n c e the phrase "sexual t o t e m i s m , " w h i c h I take f r o m F r a z e r ,

58

is w a r r a n t e d . I n par-

ticular, this n e w sort o f t o t e m resembles that o f the clan as w e l l , i n t h e sense that i t t o o is collective. I t belongs w i t h o u t d i s t i n c t i o n t o all i n d i v i d u a l s o f t h e same sex. I t resembles t h e clan t o t e m also i n t h a t i t i m p l i e s a relationship o f descent a n d c o m m o n b l o o d b e t w e e n t h e a n i m a l p a t r o n a n d the c o r r e s p o n d i n g sex. A m o n g the K u r n a i , all t h e m e n are said t o be descended Y e e r u n g a n d all t h e w o m e n from D j e e t g u n .

5 9

from

T h e first observer t o have d e -

scribed that c u r i o u s i n s t i t u t i o n , as early as 1834, used the f o l l o w i n g terms: " T i l m u n , a small b i r d the size o f a t h r u s h (a sort o f w o o d p e c k e r ) , is c o n s i d ered b y the w o m e n as h a v i n g b e e n the first t o m a k e w o m e n . T h e s e birds are

55

Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 148ff. [Lorimer] Fison and [Alfred William] Howitt, Kamilaroi and Kurnai [Melbourne, G. Robertson, 1880], pp. 194, 201ff. [James] Dawson, Australian Aborigines [Melbourne, G. Robertson, 1881], p. 52. Petrie reports it also in Queensland ([Constance Campbell Petrie], Tom Petrie's Reminiscences of Early Queensland [Ferguson, Watson, 1904], pp. 62, 118). 56

Mathews, "Aboriginal Tribes," p. 339. Should one see a trace of sexual totemism in the following custom of the Warramunga? Before a dead person is buried, a bone from the arm is kept. If it is a woman's, feathers of the emu are added to the bark in which it is shrouded; if a man's, the feathers of an owl ([Sir Baldwin Spencer and F.James Gillen, Northern Tribes of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1904], p. 169). "There is even a case cited in which each sexual group Has two sexual totems; in this way would the Wiradjuri have joined the sexual totems of the Kurnai (emu-wren and linnet) with those of the Wotjobaluk (bat and nightjar wood owl). See Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 150. 58

Frazer, Totemism and Exogamy, p. 51.

59

Fison and Howitt, Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 215.

168


held i n veneration by w o m e n only."

60

T h u s i t was a great ancestor. Seen

from

a n o t h e r p o i n t o f v i e w , this t o t e m resembles the i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m , i n that each m e m b e r o f the sexual g r o u p is b e l i e v e d t o be personally allied w i t h a d e f i n i t e i n d i v i d u a l o f the c o r r e s p o n d i n g a n i m a l species. T h e t w o lives are so closely l i n k e d that the death o f the a n i m a l b r i n g s a b o u t that o f t h e h u m a n . " T h e life o f a bat," say the W o t j o b a l u k , "is t h e life o f a m a n . "

6 1

T h i s is w h y each sex

n o t o n l y h o n o r s its t o t e m b u t also forces the m e m b e r s o f t h e o t h e r sex t o d o so as w e l l . A n y v i o l a t i o n o f this p r o h i b i t i o n gives rise t o real a n d b l o o d y b a t des b e t w e e n m e n a n d w o m e n .

6 2

I n s u m , w h a t is t r u l y u n i q u e a b o u t these totems is that, i n a sense, t h e y a m o u n t t o t r i b a l t o t e m s . I n d e e d , t h e y arise f r o m t h e fact that people c o n ceive o f the w h o l e t r i b e as b e i n g t h e o f f s p r i n g o f a legendary c o u p l e . S u c h a b e l i e f seems t o i m p l y that the sense o f t r i b e has b e c o m e s t r o n g e n o u g h t o o v e r c o m e t h e p a r t i c u l a r i s m o f the clans t o some e x t e n t . A s t o t h e reasons that separate o r i g i n s are assigned t o m e n a n d w o m e n , o n e m u s t p r o b a b l y l o o k t o the fact that the sexes live a p a r t .

63

I t w o u l d b e i n t e r e s t i n g t o k n o w h o w , i n the m i n d o f an A u s t r a l i a n , sexu a l totems are related t o clan t o t e m s — w h a t relations there are b e t w e e n the t w o ancestors that are placed at t h e o r i g i n o f the t r i b e a n d those from w h i c h each p a r t i c u l a r clan is t h o u g h t t o descend. B u t t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c data w e have at present d o n o t p e r m i t us t o resolve that q u e s t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , the natives m a y never have asked that q u e s t i o n o f themselves, h o w e v e r natural a n d even necessary i t m a y seem t o us, f o r t h e y d o n o t feel t h e n e e d t o c o o r dinate a n d systematize t h e i r beliefs t o t h e same e x t e n t w e d o .

6 4

^hrelkeld, cited by Mathews, "The Aboriginal Tribes," p. 339. "Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 148, 151. 62

Fison and Howitt, Kamilaroi and Kurnai, pp. 200-203; Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 149; Petrie, Reminiscences, p. 62. Among the Kurnai, these bloody struggles often end in marriages, to which they are a kind of ritual prologue. Sometimes the battles become mere games (Tom Petrie's Reminiscences). 63

On this point, see my study [Emile Durkheim] "La Prohibition de l'inceste et ses origines," in AS, vol. I (1898), pp. 44ff. "However we will see below (Chap. 9) that there is a relationship between sexual totems and the high gods.

C H A P T E R FIVE

ORIGINS OF THESE BELIEFS Critical Examination of the Theories

T

he beliefs I have j u s t r e v i e w e d are clearly r e l i g i o u s i n nature, f o r t h e y i n -

v o l v e a classification o f things as sacred a n d profane. S p i r i t u a l beings are

doubdess n o t at issue. I n the course o f m y e x p o s i t i o n , I have h a d n o n e e d even t o say the w o r d s "spirits," "genies," o r " d i v i n e personages." H o w e v e r , i f , f o r this reason, some w r i t e r s (about w h o m I shall have m o r e t o say) have r e fused t o see t o t e m i s m as a r e l i g i o n , i t is because t h e y have b e e n o p e r a t i n g w i t h a m i s t a k e n idea o f the religious p h e n o m e n o n . A t t h e same t i m e , r e l i g i o n is guaranteed t o be the m o s t p r i m i t i v e that can be observed n o w a n d i n all p r o b a b i l i t y the m o s t p r i m i t i v e that has ever e x isted, f o r i t is inseparable f r o m social o r g a n i z a t i o n based u p o n clans. I have s h o w n that t o t e m i s m can o n l y be d e f i n e d i n t e r m s o f that social o r g a n i z a t i o n and, f u r t h e r m o r e , that clans, i n the f o r m t h e y take i n a great m a n y A u s t r a l i a n societies, c o u l d n o t have c o m e i n t o b e i n g w i t h o u t t h e t o t e m . T h e m e m b e r s o f a single clan are j o i n e d t o one a n o t h e r b y n e i t h e r c o m m o n residence n o r c o m m o n b l o o d , since t h e y are n o t necessarily consanguineous a n d are o f t e n scattered t h r o u g h o u t the t r i b a l t e r r i t o r y . T h e i r u n i t y arises solely f r o m h a v i n g the same n a m e a n d the same e m b l e m , from b e l i e v i n g they have the same relations w i t h the same categories o f things, a n d from p r a c t i c i n g the same r i t e s — i n o t h e r w o r d s , from t h e fact that t h e y c o m m u n e i n the same t o t e m i c c u l t . T h u s , at least insofar as t h e clan is n o t i d e n t i c a l w i t h the l o c a l g r o u p , t o t e m i s m a n d the clan i m p l y o n e another. O r g a n i z a t i o n based o n clans is t h e simplest w e k n o w , f o r i t exists i n a l l its essentials the m o m e n t a society has t w o p r i m a r y clans. I t f o l l o w s that there c a n n o t be a s i m p l e r society, so l o n g as n o n e w i t h o n l y a single clan has yet b e e n f o u n d — a n d I believe n o trace o f that has b e e n u p t o n o w . A r e l i g i o n so closely allied w i t h the social system that is s i m p l e r t h a n all others can be regarded as t h e m o s t elementary w e can k n o w . I f w e can f i n d o u t the o r i g i n o f t h e beliefs j u s t analyzed, w e m a y w e l l discover b y t h e same stroke w h a t k i n d l e d r e l i g i o u s f e e l i n g i n h u m a n i t y .

169

170


I t is useful, before addressing this p r o b l e m , t o e x a m i n e the m o s t a u t h o r itative solutions t h a t have b e e n offered.

I W e start w i t h a g r o u p o f scholars w h o believe t h e y can e x p l a i n t o t e m i s m by 1

d e r i v i n g i t from an earlier r e l i g i o n . F o r T y l o r a n d f o r W i l k e n ,

2

t o t e m i s m is

a special f o r m o f t h e ancestor c u l t . F o r t h e m , t r a n s m i g r a t i o n o f s o u l s — w i d e spread, t o be sure—is the d o c t r i n e that served as a t r a n s i t i o n b e t w e e n these t w o r e l i g i o u s systems. A great m a n y peoples believe that the s o u l does n o t rem a i n eternally d i s e m b o d i e d after death b u t comes again t o animate some l i v i n g b o d y . Besides, "as t h e p s y c h o l o g y o f the i n f e r i o r races establishes

no

clear-cut l i n e o f d e m a r c a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e souls o f m e n a n d those o f animals, i t has n o t r o u b l e a c c e p t i n g the t r a n s m i g r a t i o n o f h u m a n souls i n t o t h e b o d 3

4

ies o f animals." T y l o r cites a n u m b e r o f such cases. U n d e r these c i r c u m stances, the r e l i g i o u s respect

i n s p i r e d b y t h e ancestor

is q u i t e naturally

transferred t o the a n i m a l w i t h w h i c h i t is t h e n c e f o r t h assimilated. T h e a n i m a l thus s e r v i n g all that ancestor's descendants as t h e vessel o f a revered b e i n g becomes a sacred t h i n g a n d the o b j e c t o f a c u l t — i n short, a t o t e m f o r the clan that is t h e ancestor's issue. Facts r e p o r t e d b y W i l k e n a b o u t the societies o f t h e M a l a y A r c h i p e l a g o w o u l d t e n d t o prove t h a t this is i n d e e d t h e w a y i n w h i c h t o t e m i c beliefs dev e l o p e d there. I n Java a n d Sumatra, crocodiles are especially h o n o r e d ; people v i e w t h e m as b e n e v o l e n t p r o t e c t o r s a n d m a k e offerings t o t h e m . T h e cult that is also rendered t o t h e m stems from the b e l i e f that t h e y incarnate the souls o f ancestors. T h e Malays o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s consider the c r o c o d i l e t o be t h e i r grandfather. T h e t i g e r is treated i n the same way, f o r the same reasons. 5

S i m i l a r beliefs have b e e n f o u n d a m o n g the B a n t u peoples. I n Melanesia, an

'[Edward Burnett Tylor], Primitive Culture, vol. I [New York, Henry Holt, 1874], [vol. I,] p. 402, vol. II, p. 237, and "Remarks on Totemism, with Special Reference to Some Modern Theories [Respecting] It," in JAI, vol. XXVIII [1899, pp. 133-148], and vol. I, new series, p. 138. 2

[Albertus Christian Kruijt Wilken], HetAnimisme bij den Volken van den indischen Archipel ['s Gravenhage, M. Nijhoff, 1906], pp. 69-75. 3

Tylor, Primitive Culture [vol. II, p. 6].

"Ibid. [vol. II, pp. 6-18]. 5

G. McCall Theal, Records of South-Eastern Africa, vol. VII. I know this work only through an article by James George] Frazer, "South African Totemism," which appeared in Man [vol. I], 1901, no. I l l [pp. 135-136].

171

Origins of These Beliefs

i n f l u e n t i a l m a n w h o is at the p o i n t o f death sometimes announces his desire to be r e i n c a r n a t e d i n such a n d such an a n i m a l o r plant. I t is easy t o see that some p a r t i c u l a r object chosen f o r his p o s t h u m o u s residence thereafter

be-

6

comes sacred f o r his w h o l e f a m i l y . Far i n d e e d f r o m b e i n g a p r i m i t i v e fact, t h e n , t o t e m i s m w o u l d t h e n be m e r e l y the p r o d u c t o f a m o r e c o m p l e x p r e decessor r e l i g i o n .

7

T h e societies f r o m w h i c h these examples are d r a w n have already attained a relatively h i g h level o f c u l t u r e ; at any rate, t h e y have g o n e b e y o n d the phase o f p u r e t o t e m i s m . I n those societies, there are families, n o t t o t e m i c clans.

8

I n d e e d , the m a j o r i t y o f the animals that are g i v e n religious h o n o r s are v e n erated n o t b y specific f a m i l y groups b u t b y entire tribes. T h u s , even i f these beliefs a n d practices m a y be related t o the ancient t o t e m i c cults, t h e y are hardly w e l l suited t o revealing the o r i g i n s o f those cults t o us,

9

since n o w

they represent those cults o n l y i n altered f o r m s . I t is n o t b y c o n s i d e r i n g an i n s t i t u t i o n w h e n i t is i n f u l l decline that w e can g a i n an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h o w i t was f o r m e d . I f w e w i s h t o k n o w h o w t o t e m i s m was b o r n , i t m u s t be observed n e i t h e r i n Java n o r i n Sumatra n o r i n Melanesia, b u t i n Australia. H e r e w e find n e i t h e r t h e c u l t o f t h e d e a d

10

n o r the d o c t r i n e o f t r a n s m i g r a -

t i o n . O f course, the m y t h i c a l heroes w h o f o u n d e d t h e c l a n are b e l i e v e d t o be regularly reincarnated—but in human bodies only. As w e w i l l see, each b i r t h is the result o f such a r e i n c a r n a t i o n . T h u s , i f the animals o f t h e t o t e m i c species are the objects o f rites, i t is n o t because ancestral spirits are h e l d t o reside i n t h e m . W h i l e i t is t r u e that these first ancestors are o f t e n d e p i c t e d i n a n i m a l f o r m (and this representation, w h i c h is v e r y c o m m o n , is an i m p o r t a n t fact that w i l l have t o be e x p l a i n e d ) , b e l i e f i n metempsychosis c o u l d n o t have g i v e n rise t o i t i n t h e societies o f Australia, since t h a t b e l i e f is u n k n o w n there. M o r e o v e r , far f r o m b e i n g able t o e x p l a i n t o t e m i s m , the b e l i e f itself p r e supposes o n e o f the f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e s o n w h i c h t o t e m i s m rests; that is,

6

[Robert Henry] Codrington, The Melanesians [Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1891], pp. 32-[33], and a personal letter of the same author cited by Tylor in "Remarks on Totemism," p. 147. 7

Such also, with minor differences, is the solution adopted by [Wilhelm] Wundt (Mythus und Religion

[3 vols., as vol. II, parts 1-3 of Völkerpsychologie, Eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache,

Mythus und Sitte, Leipzig, W. Englemann, 1900-1909], vol. II, p. 269). 8

It is true that, for Tylor, the clan is but an enlarged family, so in his way of thinking, what can be said of the one group applies to the other ("Remarks on Totemism," p. 157). But this idea is highly questionable. Only the clan presupposes the totem, which has its full meaning only in and through the clan. 9

In the same vein, [Andrew] Lang, Social Origins [London, Longmans, 1903], p. 150.

10

See above, p. 59.


172

i t assumes the v e r y t h i n g that m u s t be e x p l a i n e d . I n fact, i t i m p l i e s , j u s t as t o t e m i s m i m p l i e s , a c o n c e p t o f m e n as b e i n g closely a k i n t o animals. I f these t w o realms w e r e clearly d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n people's m i n d s , the s o u l w o u l d n o t be t h o u g h t capable o f passing so easily f r o m o n e i n t o the other. I n d e e d , the b o d y o f the a n i m a l w o u l d have t o be considered its t r u e h o m e l a n d , because the h u m a n s o u l is p r e s u m e d t o g o there t h e m o m e n t i t regains its f r e e d o m . T h e d o c t r i n e o f t r a n s m i g r a t i o n i n d e e d postulates this singular affinity b u t b y n o means explains i t . T h e o n l y e x p l a n a t i o n T y l o r offers is that o n occasion c e r t a i n traits o f the man's a n a t o m y a n d p s y c h o l o g y r e m i n d p e o p l e o f the a n i m a l . " T h e savage," he says, "observes the h a l f - h u m a n traits, actions, a n d characteristics o f animals w i t h sympathetic w o n d e r m e n t . Is t h e a n i m a l n o t the v e r y i n c a r n a t i o n , w e m i g h t say, o f qualities that are f a m i l i a r t o m a n ; a n d w h e n w e a p p l y epithets l i k e l i o n , bear, f o x , o w l , p a r r o t , v i p e r , a n d w o r m t o certain m e n , are w e n o t e p i t o m i z i n g i n a w o r d c e r t a i n traits characteristic o f a human life?"

11

B u t i f o n e does c o m e u p o n any o f these resemblances, they

are a m b i g u o u s a n d rare. M a n l o o k s l i k e his relatives a n d his friends m o s t o f all, n o t l i k e plants o r animals. S u c h rare a n d d u b i o u s similarities c o u l d n o t defeat such consistent and o b v i o u s ones, n o r c o u l d t h e y encourage m a n t o i m a g i n e h i m s e l f a n d his ancestors i n f o r m s that f l y i n the face o f all his e v e r y day experience. So t h e q u e s t i o n remains, a n d since i t is n o t solved, t o t e m i s m c a n n o t be said t o have b e e n e x p l a i n e d .

12

Finally, this w h o l e t h e o r y rests o n a f u n d a m e n t a l m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . F o r T y l o r as f o r W u n d t , t o t e m i s m is n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n a special case o f a n i m a l "Tylor, Primitive Culture, vol. II, p. 17. [Cf. Tylor's English text: "The half-human features and actions and characters of animals are watched with wondering sympathy by the savage, as by the child. The beast is the very incarnation of familiar qualities of man: and such names as lion, bear, fox, owl, parrot, viper, worm, when we apply them as epithets to men, condense into a word some leading features of a human life." Trans.] 12

[Wilhelm] Wundt, who took up Tylor's theory in its basic outlines, tried to explain this mysterious relation of man and animal otherwise—with sight of the decomposing corpse supposedly suggesting the idea of it. Having seen the worms that come out of the body, they believed that the soul was incarnated in them and departed with them. So the worms and by extension the reptiles (snakes, lizards, etc.) would be the first animals to have served as vessels for the souls of the dead; consequendy, they would also have been the first to be venerated and to play the role of totems. Only later would other animals, and even plants and inanimate objects, have been elevated to the same rank. But this hypothesis does not rest on even the beginnings of a proof. Wundt claims (Mythus und Religion, vol. II, p. 269) that the reptiles are much more common totems than the other animals, from which he concludes that they are the most primitive. But it is impossible for me to see what can justify that assertion, in support of which the author does not adduce a single fact. It in no way emergesfromthe lists of totems collected, whether in Australia or in America, that any animal species, anywhere, has had a preponderant role. Totems varyfromone region to another with the state of thefloraand fauna. Moreover, if the original set of totems had been so narrowly restricted, it is not clear how totemism would have been able to satisfy the fundamental principle that two clans or subclans of a single tribe must have different totems.


worship.

1 3

173

W e k n o w , q u i t e t o the contrary, that i t m u s t be seen as s o m e t h i n g

e n t i r e l y different from a sort o f z o o l a t r y .

14

T h e a n i m a l is n o t w o r s h i p p e d .

A n d far from b e i n g s u b o r d i n a t e d t o i t as a believer is t o his g o d , t h e m a n is almost its equal a n d sometimes even treats i t as his p r o p e r t y . I f the animals o f the t o t e m i c species really w e r e t h o u g h t o f as i n c a r n a t i n g t h e ancestors, m e m bers o f o t h e r clans w o u l d n o t be a l l o w e d t o eat t h e i r flesh freely. I n reality, the c u l t is n o t addressed t o t h e a n i m a l itself b u t t o the e m b l e m , that is, t o t h e image o f t h e t o t e m . I n fact, there is n o c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n this r e l i g i o n o f the e m b l e m a n d t h e c u l t o f t h e ancestors. Whereas T y l o r reduces t o t e m i s m t o the c u l t o f t h e ancestors, Jevons ties i t t o the c u l t o f n a t u r e .

15

T h i s is h o w he does so.

I n the g r i p o f c o n f u s i o n b r o u g h t u p o n h i m b y irregularities i n t h e course o f n a t u r a l p h e n o m e n a , m a n supposedly p o p u l a t e d t h e w o r l d w i t h supernatural beings.

16

H a v i n g d o n e this, he felt the n e e d t o c o m e t o t e r m s w i t h the

awesome forces w i t h w h i c h he h a d s u r r o u n d e d himself. H e u n d e r s t o o d that the best w a y t o a v o i d b e i n g c r u s h e d b y t h e m was t o ally h i m s e l f w i t h c e r t a i n o f t h e m , thereby g a r n e r i n g t h e i r help. A t that m o m e n t i n history, he k n e w n o o t h e r f o r m o f alliance a n d association t h a n that created b y k i n s h i p . A l l the m e m b e r s o f the same clan h e l p o n e a n o t h e r because t h e y are k i n o r ( w h a t a m o u n t s t o the same t h i n g ) because t h e y consider o n e a n o t h e r as k i n ; o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , different clans treat o n e a n o t h e r as enemies because t h e y are o f different b l o o d . So the o n l y w a y t o arrange t h e s u p p o r t o f supernatural b e ings was t o adopt t h e m a n d t o have oneself a d o p t e d b y t h e m as k i n . T h e w e l l - k n o w n procedures o f b l o o d covenant enabled m a n t o o b t a i n this result easily. B u t since, at that m o m e n t , t h e i n d i v i d u a l d i d n o t yet have his o w n p e r sonality, because he was v i e w e d o n l y as a c e r t a i n p a r t o f his g r o u p — t h a t is, his c l a n — i t was n o t the i n d i v i d u a l b u t t h e clan as a u n i t that c o n t r a c t e d t h e k i n s h i p j o i n t l y . F o r the same reason, the i n d i v i d u a l d i d n o t contract i t w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t b u t w i t h t h e n a t u r a l g r o u p , that is, w i t h t h e species t o w h i c h the o b j e c t b e l o n g e d . M a n t h i n k s o f t h e w o r l d as he t h i n k s o f h i m s e l f and, j u s t as he does n o t t h i n k o f h i m s e l f as b e i n g separate f r o m his clan, so h e c a n n o t

""Certain animals are sometimes worshipped," says Tylor, "because they are regarded as the incarnation of the divine soul of the ancestors; this belief constitutes a sort of common denominator between the cult rendered to the shades and the cult rendered to the animals" (Primitive Culture, vol. II, p. 305; cf. 309 in fine). Similarly, Wundt presents totemism as a branch of animalism (Mythus und Religion, vol. II, p. 234). 14

See above, p. 139.

15

[Frank Byron] Jevons, Introduction to the History of Religion [London, Methuen, 1902, pp. 96ff.].

16

See above, p. 25.


174

t h i n k o f a t h i n g as b e i n g separate f r o m t h e species t o w h i c h i t belongs. A c c o r d i n g t o Jevons, a species o f things that is u n i t e d w i t h a clan b y ties o f k i n ship is a t o t e m . I t is c e r t a i n that t o t e m i s m involves a close association b e t w e e n a clan a n d a d e f i n i t e category o f objects. B u t t h e n o t i o n Jevons puts f o r w a r d — t h a t such an association was c o n t r a c t e d deliberately, i n f u l l awareness o f the goal sought—seems i n l i t t l e a c c o r d w i t h w h a t h i s t o r y teaches us. R e l i g i o n s are c o m p l e x things, a n d the needs t h e y satisfy are so n u m e r o u s a n d so obscure that t h e y c a n n o t possibly have o r i g i n a t e d i n a w e l l - c o n s i d e r e d act o f w i l l . M o r e o v e r , this hypothesis b o t h sins b y o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n a n d abounds i n u n l i k e l i h o o d s . M a n is said t o have t r i e d t o garner the help o f the supernatural beings t o w h i c h things are subordinate. B u t i n that case, he o u g h t t o have a d dressed h i m s e l f t o t h e m o s t p o w e r f u l a m o n g t h e m , t o those w h o s e p r o t e c t i o n was l i k e l y t o p r o d u c e the m a x i m u m r e s u l t .

17

Instead, the beings w i t h

w h i c h he has c e m e n t e d this m y s t i c a l k i n s h i p m o s t often i n c l u d e the h u m blest that exist. F u r t h e r m o r e , i f i t t r u l y was o n l y a m a t t e r o f creating allies a n d defenders, m a n w o u l d have t r i e d t o have as m a n y as possible; there is n o such t h i n g as b e i n g t o o w e l l p r o t e c t e d . Yet each clan r o u t i n e l y contents itself w i t h a single t o t e m — t h a t is, w i t h a single p r o t e c t o r — l e a v i n g t h e o t h e r clans to enjoy t h e i r o w n i n perfect f r e e d o m . E a c h g r o u p s t r i c d y encloses itself w i t h i n its o w n r e l i g i o u s d o m a i n , never t r y i n g t o encroach u p o n that o f its n e i g h b o r s . W i t h i n t h e t e r m s o f t h e hypothesis w e are e x a m i n i n g , such disc r e t i o n a n d restraint are u n i n t e l l i g i b l e .

II F u r t h e r , all o f these theories w r o n g l y o m i t a q u e s t i o n that is central t o the subject as a w h o l e . W e have seen that there are t w o sorts o f t o t e m i s m : that o f the i n d i v i d u a l a n d that o f the clan. T h e close links b e t w e e n t h e m are t o o o b vious f o r t h e m t o be unrelated. So, i t is appropriate t o ask w h e t h e r the o n e is n o t d e r i v e d from the o t h e r and, i f the answer is yes, t o ask w h i c h is the m o r e p r i m i t i v e . A c c o r d i n g t o the s o l u t i o n adopted, the p r o b l e m o f h o w t o t e m i s m o r i g i n a t e d w i l l be framed i n different terms. T h i s q u e s t i o n is all the m o r e pressing since i t is o f v e r y general interest. I n d i v i d u a l t o t e m i s m is the i n d i v i d ual aspect o f the t o t e m i c c u l t . T h u s , i f i t came first, w e m u s t say that r e l i g i o n

17

Jevons himself recognizes this. "There is good reason to presume," he says, "that in the choice of an ally, man would have preferred . . . the species that possessed the greatest power" (History of Religions, p. 101).


175

was b o r n i n the i n d i v i d u a l consciousness, that i t responds above all t o i n d i v i d u a l aspirations, a n d that i t has taken a collective f o r m o n l y secondarily. T h e simplistic reasoning that still t o o o f t e n guides ethnographers a n d sociologists, i n this case as i n others, was b o u n d t o lead a n u m b e r o f scholars t o e x p l a i n the c o m p l e x b y the simple a n d the t o t e m o f the g r o u p b y that o f the i n d i v i d u a l . A n d i n d e e d , the t h e o r y argued b y Frazer i n his Golden by H i l l T o u t ,

1 9

Miss Fletcher,

20

Boas,

21

and Swanton,

2 2

18

Bough,

is o f this k i n d . M o r e -

over, since r e l i g i o n is w i d e l y v i e w e d as an altogether private a n d personal t h i n g , this t h e o r y has t h e advantage o f b e i n g i n accord w i t h the idea m a n y p e o p l e have o f r e l i g i o n . W i t h i n this perspective, the t o t e m o f t h e clan can o n l y be an i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m that has spread. A p r o m i n e n t m a n w h o has e x p e r i e n c e d the value o f a t o t e m he freely chose f o r h i m s e l f transmits i t t o his descendants. M u l t i p l y i n g as t i m e goes o n , these descendants eventually f o r m t h e e x t e n d e d f a m i l y that is the clan; thus does t h e t o t e m b e c o m e collective. H i l l T o u t t h o u g h t he f o u n d s u p p o r t f o r t h a t t h e o r y i n the w a y t o t e m i s m is u n d e r s t o o d i n c e r t a i n societies o f t h e A m e r i c a n N o r t h w e s t , n o t a b l y b y the Salish a n d the T h o m p s o n R i v e r Indians. B o t h i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m i s m a n d the t o t e m i s m o f t h e clan are f o u n d a m o n g these peoples, b u t they either d o n o t coexist i n the same t r i b e o r are u n e q u a l l y d e v e l o p e d w h e n t h e y do. T h e y v a r y i n inverse p r o p o r t i o n w i t h o n e another. W h e r e the clan t o t e m tends t o be t h e general r u l e , i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m tends t o disappear, a n d v i c e versa. Is this n o t t o say that the first is a m o r e recent f o r m o f t h e second, w h i c h replaces a n d thus excludes i t ?

2 3

M y t h o l o g y appears t o c o n f i r m this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I n

t h e same societies, i t t u r n s o u t , the ancestor o f the clan is n o t a t o t e m i c a n i mal, b u t the f o u n d e r o f the g r o u p is usually d e p i c t e d as a h u m a n b e i n g w h o

18

Qames George Frazer, The Golden Bough:A Study in Magic and Religion, 2d ed., vol. Ill, New York,

Macmillan, 1894], pp. 416ff.; see esp. p. 419 n. 5. In more recent articles, to be analyzed below, Frazer has put forward a different theory that nevertheless does not completely exclude from his thinking the one presented in the Golden Bough.

"[Charles Hill Tout], "The Origin of the Totemism of the Aborigines of British Columbia," RSC, vol. VII, §2 (2d series), (1901) pp. 3ff. Similarly, "Report on the Ethnology of the Statlumh," JAI, vol. XXXV (1905), p. 141. Hill Tout has answered various objections that have been made against his theory in volume IX of the RSC, pp. 61-99. 20

Alice C. Fletcher, "The Import of the Totem: [A Study from the Omaha Tribe]," RSI for 1897 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1898), pp.- 577-586. 21

Franz Boas, "The Social Organization and Secret Societies of the Kwakiud Indians" [in RNMfor 1895, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1897], pp. 323ff., 336-338, 393. 22

[John Reed Swanton], "The Development of the Clan System [and of Secret Societies among the North-Western Tribes]," in AA, vol. VI (new ser., 1904), pp. 477-864. 23


176


at some p o i n t entered i n t o relations a n d close dealings w i t h a m y t h i c a l a n i mal,

f r o m w h i c h he is h e l d t o have a c q u i r e d his t o t e m i c e m b l e m . T h i s

e m b l e m , w i t h the special p o w e r s that are attached t o i t , is t h e n passed b y i n h e r i t a n c e t o the descendants o f t h e m y t h i c a l hero. H e n c e these peoples themselves appear t o see the c o l l e c t i v e t o t e m as an i n d i v i d u a l o n e that was passed o n i n a single f a m i l y .

24

F u r t h e r m o r e , even t o d a y a father sometimes

transmits his o w n t o t e m t o his c h i l d r e n . So t o i m a g i n e that t h e collective t o t e m has h a d this same o r i g i n universally is n o m o r e t h a n t o state that s o m e t h i n g still observable i n t h e present was the same i n t h e p a s t .

25

Still t o be e x p l a i n e d is t h e o r i g i n o f i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m i s m . T h e response t o this q u e s t i o n varies a m o n g authors. H i l l T o u t v i e w s i t as a special case o f fetishism. F o r h i m , i t is the i n d i v i d ual w h o , f e e l i n g h i m s e l f s u r r o u n d e d b y dreaded spirits, feels t h e same e m o t i o n that Jevons a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e clan: T o sustain himself, h e seeks some p o w e r f u l p r o t e c t o r i n t h e h i d d e n w o r l d . T h u s is the c u s t o m o f the personal t o t e m established.

26

F o r Frazer, this same i n s t i t u t i o n is a subterfuge, a m i l i -

t a r y ruse m e n i n v e n t t o escape c e r t a i n dangers. W e k n o w that, a c c o r d i n g t o a v e r y c o m m o n b e l i e f i n a great m a n y l o w e r societies, t h e h u m a n s o u l can t e m p o r a r i l y leave the b o d y i n w h i c h i t lives, w i t h o u t i l l effects; n o m a t t e r h o w far away f r o m the b o d y i t m a y go, i t goes o n a n i m a t i n g t h a t b o d y b y a k i n d o f a c t i o n at a distance. B u t at c e r t a i n c r i t i c a l m o m e n t s w h e n life is t h o u g h t t o be p a r t i c u l a r l y threatened, there m a y be s o m e t h i n g t o g a i n b y w i t h d r a w i n g t h e s o u l from t h e b o d y a n d d e p o s i t i n g i t i n a place o r t h i n g w h e r e i t w o u l d be safer. T h e r e are, i n fact, various m e t h o d s o f e x t r a c t i n g the soul, t h e r e b y r e m o v i n g i t from some real o r i m a g i n a r y danger. For example, w h e n p e o p l e are o n t h e p o i n t o f e n t e r i n g a n e w l y b u i l t house, a m a g i c i a n extracts t h e i r souls a n d places t h e m i n a bag, f o r r e t u r n t o the o w n e r s o n c e t h e t h r e s h o l d has b e e n crossed. T h i s is d o n e because the m o m e n t o f e n t e r i n g a n e w house is e x c e p t i o n a l l y c r i t i c a l . T h e r e is a r i s k o f d i s t u r b i n g a n d thus o f f e n d i n g t h e spirits that live i n the g r o u n d , especially u n d e r t h e d o o r sill, a n d i f a m a n d i d n o t take precautions, t h e y c o u l d m a k e h i m pay dearly f o r his boldness. O n c e the danger is past, o n c e he has b e e n able t o prevent t h e i r anger, a n d even garner t h e i r s u p p o r t b y c o n d u c t i n g cer-

24

Ibid., p. 150. Cf. [Franz Boas, "First General Report on the Indians of British Columbia," in BAAS,

Fifth Report of the Committee on the North-Western Tribes of the Dominion of Canada (London, Offices of the

Association, 1890),] p. 24. I have reported a myth of this sort above. 25


26

Hill Tout, "Totemism of the Aborigines," p. 12.


177

t a i n rites, the souls can safely r e t u r n t o t h e i r usual p l a c e .

27

T h i s same belief,

H i l l T o u t t h i n k s , gave rise t o the i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m . T o p r o t e c t themselves f r o m m a g i c a l charms, m e n t h o u g h t i t p r u d e n t t o h i d e t h e i r souls i n the a n o n y m o u s c r o w d o f an a n i m a l o r p l a n t species. B u t h a v i n g set u p such dealings, each i n d i v i d u a l f o u n d h i m s e l f closely j o i n e d w i t h the a n i m a l o r p l a n t i n w h i c h his l i f e - p r i n c i p l e presumably resided. T w o beings so closely j o i n e d e n d e d u p b y b e i n g considered m o r e o r less indistinguishable: T h e y w e r e t h o u g h t t o participate i n o n e another's nature. O n c e accepted, this b e l i e f eased a n d activated the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f the personal t o t e m i n t o a h e r e d i tary t o t e m and, thereafter, i n t o a collective one, f o r i t seemed altogether o b v i o u s that this k i n s h i p o f nature m u s t be t r a n s m i t t e d b y h e r e d i t y f r o m father to c h i l d r e n . I w i l l n o t t a r r y l o n g i n discussing these t w o explanations o f the i n d i v i d ual t o t e m . T h e y are i n g e n i o u s i n t e l l e c t u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s , b u t t h e y are t o t a l l y w i t h o u t e m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t . F o r t o t e m i s m t o be r e d u c i b l e t o fetishism, i t w o u l d have t o be established that fetishism preceded t o t e m i s m . N o t o n l y is n o evidence g i v e n t o prove this hypothesis, b u t i t is also c o n t r a d i c t e d b y all w e k n o w . T h e i l l - d e f i n e d c o l l e c t i o n o f rites that are g i v e n t h e n a m e fetishism seems t o appear o n l y a m o n g peoples w h o have already a r r i v e d at a c e r t a i n level o f c i v i l i z a t i o n ; i t is a k i n d o f c u l t that is u n k n o w n i n Australia. T h e c h u r i n g a has b e e n called a f e t i s h ,

28

t r u e e n o u g h , b u t even i f that character-

i z a t i o n was w a r r a n t e d , i t c o u l d n o t demonstrate the p r i o r i t y that is assumed. Q u i t e t o the contrary, the c h u r i n g a presupposes t o t e m i s m , since i n its v e r y essence i t is an i n s t r u m e n t o f the t o t e m i c c u l t a n d since i t owes the v i r t u e s ascribed t o i t t o t o t e m i c beliefs alone. T u r n i n g n o w t o Frazer's theory, this a u t h o r assumes a k i n d o f t h o r o u g h g o i n g i d i o c y o n t h e part o f the p r i m i t i v e that t h e facts d o n o t a l l o w us t o asc r i b e t o h i m . H e does have a l o g i c , strange t h o u g h i t m a y sometimes seem t o us. S h o r t o f b e i n g u t t e r l y w i t h o u t l o g i c , he c o u l d n o t be g u i l t y o f t h e reas o n i n g that is i m p u t e d t o h i m . N o t h i n g was m o r e natural t h a n f o r h i m t o have b e l i e v e d that he c o u l d ensure t h e survival o f his soul b y h i d i n g i t i n a secret a n d inaccessible place, as so m a n y heroes o f m y t h s a n d legends are said to have d o n e . B u t h o w c o u l d he have j u d g e d his soul t o be safer i n an a n i mal's b o d y t h a n i n his o w n ? O f course, the chances are that i t c o u l d m o r e

27

Frazer, The Golden Bough vol. Ill, pp. 351fF. Wilken had already noted similar facts in "De Simonsage," in De Gids, 1890; "De Betrekking tusschen Menschen-Dieren en Plantenleve," in Indische Gids, 1884, 1888; Ueber das Haaropfer, in Revue coloniale Internationale, pp. 1886-1887. 28

For example, [Erhard] Eylmann in Die Eingeborenen der Kolonie Sudaustralien [Berlin, D. Reimer, 1908], p. 199.

178


easily have escaped the spells o f the m a g i c i a n b y b e i n g lost i n the species, b u t i t thereby f o u n d itself at the same t i m e a s i t t i n g d u c k f o r hunters. H i d i n g i t i n a physical f o r m that exposed i t t o danger at all times was an o d d w a y to shelter i t .

2 9

M o s t o f all, i t is i n c o n c e i v a b l e that w h o l e peoples s h o u l d have

b e e n able t o give themselves over t o such an e c c e n t r i c i t y .

30

Finally, i n a great

m a n y cases, the f u n c t i o n o f the i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m is manifesdy v e r y different f r o m the f u n c t i o n Frazer ascribes t o i t . First a n d foremost, i t is a means o f c o n f e r r i n g unusual powers u p o n magicians, hunters, a n d w a r r i o r s .

3 1

So far as

the s o l i d a r i t y o f t h e m a n w i t h t h e t h i n g is c o n c e r n e d (given all the drawbacks o f s o l i d a r i t y ) , i t is accepted as an unavoidable consequence o f t h e r i t e , b u t is n o t desired i n a n d o f itself. A n o t h e r reason n o t t o t a r r y over this controversy is that i t is beside the p o i n t . W h a t is i m p o r t a n t t o k n o w , above a l l , is w h e t h e r the i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m really is t h e p r i m i t i v e fact from w h i c h the c o l l e c t i v e t o t e m derives. D e p e n d i n g u p o n o u r answer, w e w i l l have t o l o o k i n t w o opposite directions f o r the seat o f religious life. T h e r e is such a c o n f l u e n c e o f decisive facts against the hypothesis o f H i l l T o u t , M i s s Fletcher, Boas, a n d Frazer that o n e w o n d e r s h o w i t c o u l d have b e e n accepted so easily a n d so w i d e l y . First, w e k n o w that m a n o f t e n has a pressing interest n o t o n l y i n respecting t h e animals o f the species that serves as his personal t o t e m b u t also i n h a v i n g i t respected b y his f e l l o w m e n : H i s o w n life is at stake. T h u s , even

29

Mrs. Parker says of the Euahlayi that if the Yunbeai "confers exceptional power, it also exposes one to exceptional dangers, for all that injures the animal injures the man" ([Catherine Somerville Field Parker, The Euahlayi Tribe, London, A. Constable, 1905], p. 29). În an earlier work ("The Origin of Totemism," in FR (May, 1899), pp. 844—845), Frazer raises the objection himself. He says, "If I left my soul in the body of a rabbit, and if my brother John (member of a different clan) kills, roasts, and eats that rabbit, what happens to my soul? To prevent this danger, my brother John has to know this situation of my soul, and in consequence, when he kills a rabbit, he must be careful to take that soul out of it and give it back to me before cooking the animal and making it his dinner." Frazer believes he finds this practice customary in the tribes of central Australia. Each year, during a rite that I will describe below, when the animals of the new generation reach maturity, the first game killed is presented to the men of the totem, who eat a little; and it is only afterward that the men of the other clans may eat it freely. This, says Frazer, is a means of returning to the men of the totem the soul that they may have entrusted to those animals. But apart from the fact that this interpretation of the rite is completely arbitrary, it is difficult not to find this method of protection extraordinary. The ceremony is annual, allowing many days to pass after the moment the animal was killed. During thistime,what has become of the soul it guarded and of the individual whose life-principle of life that soul is? But it is pointless to emphasize all that is unlikely about that explanation. 31

Parker, Euahlayi, p. 20; [Alfred William] Howitt, "Australian Medicine Men," in JAI, vol. XVI (1887), 34, [49-50]; Hill Tout, "Ethnology of the Statlumh," p. 146.


179

i f collective t o t e m i s m was n o t the generalized f o r m o f the i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m , i t s h o u l d rest o n t h e same p r i n c i p l e . N o t o n l y s h o u l d the people o f a clan abstain f r o m k i l l i n g a n d e a t i n g t h e i r t o t e m i c a n i m a l themselves, b u t t h e y s h o u l d also d o e v e r y t h i n g i n t h e i r p o w e r t o i m p o s e this same r e s t r i c t i o n u p o n o t h ers. A s i t t u r n s o u t , far f r o m i m p o s i n g any such p r i v a t i o n o n the w h o l e t r i b e , each clan (by means o f t h e rites t h a t I w i l l later describe) takes steps t o ensure that the p l a n t o r a n i m a l w h o s e n a m e i t bears increases a n d prospers, so as t o p r o v i d e abundant f o o d t o t h e o t h e r clans. T h u s i t s h o u l d at least be g r a n t e d that i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m i s m p r o f o u n d l y t r a n s f o r m e d itself i n b e c o m i n g c o l l e c tive a n d that this t r a n s f o r m a t i o n m u s t be e x p l a i n e d . Second, h o w can this hypothesis e x p l a i n w h y , except w h e r e t o t e m i s m is i n decline, t w o clans o f t h e same t r i b e always have different totems? N o t h i n g w o u l d seem t o prevent t w o o r several m e m b e r s o f a single t r i b e f r o m c h o o s i n g personal totems f r o m t h e same a n i m a l species, despite t h e i r h a v i n g n o tie o f k i n s h i p , a n d t h e n passing i t o n t o t h e i r descendants. D o e s i t n o t h a p p e n today that t w o d i s t i n c t families bear the same name? T h e strictly regulated m a n n e r i n w h i c h totems a n d subtotems are d i s t r i b u t e d b e t w e e n the t w o phratries first, a n d t h e n a m o n g t h e v a r i o u s clans o f each phratry, o b v i o u s l y presupposes a societal consensus a n d a c o l l e c t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t o t e m i s m is s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n an i n d i v i d u a l practice that has spontaneously generalized itself. F u r t h e r m o r e , c o l l e c t i v e t o t e m i s m can be r e d u c e d t o i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m i s m o n l y i f the differences b e t w e e n t h e m are m i s c o n s t r u e d . T h e one is assigned t o the c h i l d b y b i r t h a n d is an e l e m e n t o f his c i v i l status. T h e o t h e r is acq u i r e d i n the course o f life a n d presupposes t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f a specific r i t e as w e l l as a change o f state. S o m e t h i n k t h e y are lessening this distance b y i n serting b e t w e e n t h e m , as a k i n d o f m i d d l e t e r m , the r i g h t that anyone w h o has a t o t e m supposedly has t o t r a n s m i t i t t o w h o m e v e r he pleases. B u t w h e r ever o n e observes t h e m , such transfers are rare a n d relatively e x c e p t i o n a l ; they can be d o n e o n l y b y magicians o r o t h e r persons gifted w i t h special powers,

32

and, i n any event, t h e y can take place o n l y b y means o f r i t u a l cer-

emonies t h a t effect the change. So i t w o u l d t h e n b e necessary t o e x p l a i n h o w s o m e t h i n g that was the prerogative o f c e r t a i n p e o p l e later became the r i g h t o f all; h o w s o m e t h i n g that i m p l i e d a p r o f o u n d change i n the r e l i g i o u s and m o r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l c o u l d have b e c o m e an e l e m e n t o f that

32

According to Hill Tout himself, "The gift or transmission (of a personal totem) can only be effectuated by certain persons like shamans or men who possess great mystical power" ("Ethnology of the Statlumh," p. 146). Cf. Parker, Euahlayi, pp. 29-30.


180

c o n s t i t u t i o n ; and, finally, h o w a transmission that at first was the o u t c o m e o f a r i t e , was considered thereafter t o p r o d u c e itself, inescapably a n d w i t h o u t the i n t e r v e n t i o n o f any h u m a n w i l l . I n s u p p o r t o f his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , H i l l T o u t alleges that c e r t a i n m y t h s i m p u t e an i n d i v i d u a l o r i g i n t o the t o t e m o f t h e clan. T h e y t e l l h o w the t o t e m i c e m b l e m was a c q u i r e d b y a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l w h o t h e n t r a n s m i t t e d i t t o his descendants. T h e s e m y t h s , however, are t a k e n f r o m I n d i a n tribes i n N o r t h A m e r i c a , that is, f r o m societies that have attained a rather h i g h level o f c u l t u r e . H o w c o u l d a m y t h o l o g y so far r e m o v e d from its o r i g i n s enable us to reconstruct the o r i g i n a l f o r m o f an i n s t i t u t i o n w i t h any confidence? T h e l i k e l i h o o d is that i n t e r v e n i n g causes gready d i s t o r t e d t h e m e m o r y that these m e n c o u l d have k e p t . M o r e t h a n that, i t is v e r y easy t o set against these m y t h s o t h e r m y t h s t h a t seem m o r e p r i m i t i v e a n d w h o s e m e a n i n g is e n t i r e l y different. I n t h e m y t h s , t h e t o t e m is represented as t h e v e r y b e i n g from w h i c h the clan is descended. H e n c e i t constitutes the substance o f the clan; i n d i v i d u a l s c a r r y i t from b i r t h , and, far from h a v i n g c o m e t o t h e m from outside t h e m selves, i t is part o f t h e i r flesh a n d b l o o d .

3 3

Furthermore, the very myths o n

w h i c h H i l l T o u t relies themselves e c h o that a n c i e n t idea. T h e

eponymous

f o u n d e r o f t h e clan does i n d e e d have the f o r m o f a m a n , b u t i t is a m a n t h o u g h t t o have e n d e d u p r e s e m b l i n g a d e f i n i t e species o f animals after h a v i n g l i v e d a m o n g t h e m . T h i s p r o b a b l y h a p p e n e d because there came a t i m e w h e n m i n d s became t o o sophisticated t o g o o n accepting, as t h e y h a d i n the past, that m e n c o u l d be an animal's offspring. T h e y therefore substituted a h u m a n b e i n g f o r the a n i m a l ancestor, t h e idea o f w h i c h h a d b e c o m e u n t e n able; b u t t h e y i m a g i n e d t h e m a n as h a v i n g a c q u i r e d c e r t a i n a n i m a l features b y i m i t a t i o n o r b y o t h e r means. T h u s , even this recent m y t h o l o g y bears the m a r k o f a m o r e distant e p o c h w h e n t h e t o t e m o f the clan was n o t at a l l c o n ceived o f as a sort o f i n d i v i d u a l c r e a t i o n . B u t this hypothesis does n o t m e r e l y raise serious l o g i c a l difficulties; i t is also d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t e d b y t h e facts that f o l l o w . I f i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m i s m was t h e p r i m i t i v e fact, t h e n the m o r e p r i m i t i v e the societies, t h e m o r e d e v e l o p e d a n d m o r e apparent i t s h o u l d be; a n d i n versely, w e w o u l d expect t o see i t lose g r o u n d t o t h e c o l l e c t i v e t o t e m a m o n g the m o r e advanced peoples a n d t h e n disappear. T h e o p p o s i t e is t r u e . T h e A u s t r a l i a n tribes are far m o r e b a c k w a r d t h a n those o f N o r t h A m e r i c a , b u t Australia is the classic locale o f collective t o t e m i s m . In the great majority of

33

Cf. [Edwin Sidney] Hardand, "Totemism and Some Recent Discoveries," Folklore, vol. XI [1900], pp. 59ff.

181


tribes, it reigns alone, whereas there is none, to my knowledge, in which individual 34

totemism is practiced alone. found

I n d i v i d u a l t o t e m i s m i n its characteristic

i n an i n f i n i t e s i m a l n u m b e r o f t r i b e s .

35

form

is

A n d w h e r e i t is f o u n d , i t is m o s t

o f t e n i n o n l y a r u d i m e n t a r y state, consisting o f i n d i v i d u a l and o p t i o n a l practices w i t h o u t w i d e r scope. O n l y magicians k n o w the art o f creating mystical relationships w i t h the a n i m a l species t o w h i c h t h e y are n o t naturally related. O r d i n a r y folk d o n o t enjoy this p r i v i l e g e .

3 6

I n A m e r i c a , o n the o t h e r h a n d ,

the collective t o t e m is i n f u l l decline, a n d i n t h e societies o f t h e N o r t h w e s t particularly, i t n o l o n g e r has a n y t h i n g m o r e t h a n a rather u n o b t r u s i v e r e l i gious character. Inversely, the i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m plays a large role a m o n g these same peoples, w h e r e i t is c r e d i t e d w i t h great efficacy a n d has b e c o m e an a u t h e n t i c a l l y p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n . T h i s is so because i t is characteristic o f a m o r e advanced c i v i l i z a t i o n . T h i s , n o d o u b t , is h o w t h e i n v e r s i o n b e t w e e n these t w o f o r m s o f t o t e m i s m that H i l l T o u t t h o u g h t he saw is t o be u n d e r s t o o d . I f i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m i s m is almost e n t i r e l y absent w h e r e collective t o t e m i s m is f u l l y developed, i t is n o t because t h e second gave w a y t o the first b u t the o t h e r w a y a r o u n d : because n o t all the c o n d i t i o n s necessary t o its existence have b e e n m e t . Still m o r e conclusive is the fact that i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m i s m , far f r o m h a v i n g g i v e n rise t o the t o t e m i s m o f the clan, presupposes t h e clan. I n d i v i d u a l t o t e m i s m was b o r n i n a n d moves w i t h i n the f r a m e w o r k o f collective t o t e m i s m , f o r m i n g an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f i t . I n fact, i n t h e v e r y societies w h e r e i t is p r e p o n d e r a n t , t h e novices m a y n o t take j u s t any a n i m a l as t h e i r personal t o t e m ; t h e y are n o t p e r m i t t e d t o m a k e t h e i r choices outside a c e r t a i n n u m ber o f p a r t i c u l a r species assigned t o each clan. O n the o t h e r h a n d , the species that b e l o n g t o each clan thus b e c o m e its exclusive p r o p e r t y ; the m e m b e r s o f a f o r e i g n clan m a y n o t u s u r p t h e m .

3 7

T h o s e species are t h o u g h t o f as h a v i n g

close ties o f dependence w i t h t h e one that serves as the t o t e m o f the entire clan. I n d e e d , i n some cases, these relationships are detectable, such as those

M

Except perhaps among the Kurnai, but in that tribe, there are sexual as well as personal totems.

55

Among the Wotjobaluk, the Buandik, the Wiradjuri, the Yuin and the tribes neighboring Maryborough (Queensland). See [Alfred William] Howitt, Native Tribes [of South-East Australia, New York, Macmillan, 1904], pp. 114-147; [Robert Hamilton] Mathews, "Ethnological Notes on the Aboriginal Tribes of New South Wales and Victoria", RSNSW vol. XXXVIII (1904), p. 291. Cf. [Northcote Whitridge] Thomas, "Further Notes on Mr. Hill Tout's Views of Totemism," in Man [vol. IV], 1904, 53, p. 85. ''This is true for the Euahlayi and for phenomena of personal totemism noted by Howitt in "Australian Medicine Men," pp. 34, 45, 49—50. "Fletcher, "The Import of the Totem," p. 586; Boas, "The Kwakiud Indians," p. 322. Similarly, Boas, "First Report on the Indians of British Columbia," p. 25; Hill Tout, "Ethnology of the Stadumh," p. 148.

182


i n w h i c h the i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m represents a part o r a p a r t i c u l a r aspect o f the collective t o t e m .

3 8

A m o n g the W o t j o b a l u k , each m e m b e r o f the clan c o n -

siders the personal totems o f his fellows as b e i n g s o m e w h a t his o w n ;

3 9

hence

these are m o s t p r o b a b l y subtotems. Just as the species presupposes t h e genus, so the s u b t o t e m presupposes t h e t o t e m . T h e r e f o r e , t h e first f o r m o f i n d i v i d ual r e l i g i o n that w e m e e t i n h i s t o r y appears t o us n o t as t h e active p r i n c i p l e o f the p u b l i c r e l i g i o n b u t as m e r e l y an aspect o f i t . Far f r o m b e i n g t h e seed o f the collective c u l t , t h e c u l t that the i n d i v i d u a l organizes f o r himself, a n d w i t h i n his i n n e r self, is i n a sense t h e c o l l e c t i v e c u l t adapted t o the needs o f the i n d i v i d u a l .

Ill I n a m o r e recent b o o k ,

4 0

w h i c h was suggested t o h i m b y the b o o k s o f

Spencer a n d G i l l e n , Frazer t r i e d t o replace the e x p l a n a t i o n o f t o t e m i s m that he o r i g i n a l l y proposed (and that I have j u s t discussed) w i t h a n e w one. T h i s n e w e x p l a n a t i o n rests o n the postulate that the t o t e m i s m o f the A r u n t a is the

38

The proper names of different gentes, says Boas of the Tlinkit, are derived from their respective totems, each .gens having its special names. The connection between the name and the totem (collective) is sometimes not very apparent, but it always exists (Boas, "First Report on the Indians of British Columbia," p. 25). The phenomenon of individual names' being the property of the clan, and distinctive to it as surely as its totem, is also observed among the Iroquois ([Lewis Henry] Morgan, Ancient Society: [Or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization, London, Macmillan,

1877], p. 78); among the Wyandot ([John Wesley] Powell, "Wyandot Government," First Annual Report, [1879-1880], BAE, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1881], p. 59); among the Shawnee, the Sauk, the Fox (Morgan, Ancient Society, pp. 72, 76—77); among the Omaha ([James Owen] Dorsey, "Omaha Sociology," in Third Annual Report [(1881-1882)] [BAE, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1884] pp. 227ff.). We know what relation exists between given names and personal totems (see above, p. 159.) L

39

"For example," says Mathews, "if you ask a Wartwurt man what his totem is, he willfirsttell you his personal totem, but, most likely, he will then enumerate the other personal totems of his clan" ("The Aboriginal Tribes," p. 291). "•"[James George] Frazer, "The Beginnings of Religion and Totemism among the Australian Aborigines," in FR [vol. LXXXIV, old series, vol. LXVIII, new series] (July 1905), pp. 162ff., and (September 1905), p. 452. Cf. Frazer "The Origin of Totemism," FR, vol. LXXI, old series, vol. LXV, new series (April 1899), pp. 648ff. and (May 1899), pp. 835ff. These latter articles, which are a little older, differ from the more recent on one point, but the core is not fundamentally different. Both are reproduced in Totemism and Exogamy, vol. I [London, Macmillan, 1910], pp. 89—172. See, in the same vein, [Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [Francis James] Gillen, "Some Remarks on Totemism as Applied to Australian Tribes," JAI, vol. XXVIII (1899), pp. 275—280, and the comments of Frazer on the same subject, Totemism and Exogamy, London, Macmillan, 1910, pp. 281—286.

183


m o s t p r i m i t i v e w e k n o w . Frazer even goes so far as t o say that i t barely differs f r o m t h e t r u l y and absolutely o r i g i n a l t y p e .

4 1

W h a t is n o t e w o r t h y a b o u t this e x p l a n a t i o n is that the totems are attached n e i t h e r t o persons n o r t o d e f i n i t e groups o f persons b u t t o places. E a c h t o t e m does i n d e e d have its center i n a p a r t i c u l a r place. I t is there that the souls o f t h e first ancestors w h o f o r m e d t h e t o t e m i c g r o u p at the b e g i n n i n g o f time are t h o u g h t t o have t h e i r p r e f e r r e d residence. T h e r e is t h e sanctuary w h e r e the churingas are k e p t ; there, t h e c u l t is celebrated. T h i s geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t o t e m s also d e t e r m i n e s the m a n n e r i n w h i c h the clans r e c r u i t t h e i r m e m b e r s . T h e child's t o t e m is thus n e i t h e r its father's n o r its mother's b u t the o n e w h o s e center is at the place w h e r e its m o t h e r believes she felt the first s y m p t o m s o f h e r c o m i n g m o t h e r h o o d . T h e A r u n t a does n o t k n o w the p r e cise relations that c o n n e c t the fact o f b e g e t t i n g t o t h e sexual a c t ,

42

i t is said,

b u t attributes every c o n c e p t i o n t o a k i n d o f mystic i m p r e g n a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g t o h i m , c o n c e p t i o n i m p l i e s that an ancestral s o u l has g o n e i n t o the b o d y o f a w o m a n , there t o b e c o m e t h e p r i n c i p l e o f a n e w life. T h u s , w h e n the w o m a n feels t h e first stirrings o f t h e i n f a n t , she i m a g i n e s that she has j u s t b e e n e n t e r e d b y o n e o f t h e souls w h o s e p r i m a r y residence is at t h e place w h e r e she finds herself. A n d since t h e c h i l d b o r n thereafter is n o n e o t h e r t h a n that a n cestor reincarnate, i t necessarily has the same t o t e m , w h i c h is t o say that its clan is d e t e r m i n e d b y the l o c a l i t y w h e r e he is h e l d t o have b e e n mystically conceived. T h i s l o c a l t o t e m i s m w o u l d t h e n be t h e o r i g i n a l f o r m o f t o t e m i s m , o r at m o s t b u t a v e r y s h o r t step away from i t . Frazer explains its o r i g i n thus. A t the precise instant w h e n the w o m a n feels she is pregnant, she m u s t be t h i n k i n g that t h e s p i r i t w i t h w h i c h she believes herself possessed has c o m e t o h e r from the objects s u r r o u n d i n g her, a n d i n p a r t i c u l a r from one t h a t was att r a c t i n g h e r a t t e n t i o n at that instant. I f she has b e e n busy c o l l e c t i n g some p l a n t o r l o o k i n g after an a n i m a l , she w i l l believe that t h e soul o f this a n i m a l o r that p l a n t has passed i n t o her. First a m o n g t h e things t o w h i c h she w o u l d be especially i n c l i n e d t o a t t r i b u t e h e r p r e g n a n c y are the foods she has j u s t eaten. I f she has r e c e n d y h a d e m u o r y a m , she w i l l be i n n o d o u b t that an e m u o r a y a m has b e e n b o r n a n d is d e v e l o p i n g i n her. T h a t b e i n g t h e case,

•""Perhaps we may... say that it is but one removefromthe original pattern, the absolutely primitive type of totemism" (Frazer, "The Beginnings," p. 455). 42

On this point, the testimony of [Carl] Strehlow confirms that of Spencer and Gillen ([Die Arandaund Loritja-Stamme in Zentral-Australien], vol. 11 [New York, Dover, 1968], p. 52). In the opposite vein, see [Andrew] Lang, The Secret of the Totem [London, Longmans, 1905], p. 190.

184


o n e understands w h y , i n t u r n , the baby s h o u l d be considered a k i n d o f y a m or e m u , w h y he s h o u l d regard h i m s e l f as a k i n s m a n o f animals o r plants o f the same species, w h y he s h o u l d s h o w t h e m f r i e n d s h i p a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n , w h y he s h o u l d bar h i m s e l f f r o m eating t h e m , a n d so f o r t h .

4 3

From then on,

t o t e m i s m exists i n its f u n d a m e n t a l features. Since, supposedly, the native's idea o f c o n c e p t i o n gave b i r t h t o t o t e m i s m , Frazer calls this p r i m e v a l t o t e m ism " c o n c e p t i o n a l . " A l l the o t h e r f o r m s o f t o t e m i s m w o u l d t h e n d e r i v e from this first type. " I f several w o m e n , o n e after another, perceive t h e first signs o f m a t e r n i t y i n the same place a n d the same circumstances, that place w i l l be regarded as b e i n g h a u n t e d b y spirits o f a p a r t i c u l a r sort; a n d so, i n time, t h e r e g i o n w i l l be e n d o w e d w i t h t o t e m i c centers a n d d i v i d e d i n t o t o t e m i c d i s t r i c t s . "

44

T h i s is

how, o n Frazer's a c c o u n t , the l o c a l t o t e m i s m o f t h e A r u n t a was b o r n . F o r the totems t o b e c o m e detached from t h e i r t e r r i t o r i a l base, all i t w i l l take is to i m a g i n e that instead o f r e m a i n i n g i m m u t a b l y f i x e d i n o n e place, t h e ancestral souls can m o v e freely over the w h o l e t e r r i t o r y a n d f o l l o w the travels o f the m e n a n d w o m e n w h o are o f t h e same t o t e m as they. I n that fashion, i t w i l l be possible f o r a w o m a n t o be i m p r e g n a t e d b y a s p i r i t o f her o w n t o t e m or her husband's, even t h o u g h she is l i v i n g i n a different t o t e m i c d i s t r i c t . D e p e n d i n g o n w h e t h e r i t is t h e husband's t o t e m o r the wife's that is i m a g i n e d to be t r a d i n g the y o u n g c o u p l e , o n the l o o k o u t f o r o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o reincarnate itself, the child's t o t e m w i l l be t h a t o f its father o r m o t h e r . I n fact, the G n a n j i a n d t h e U m b a i a , o n the o n e h a n d , a n d t h e U r a b u n n a , o n the other, d o i n d e e d e x p l a i n t h e i r systems o f descent i n this way. B u t l i k e Tylor's, this t h e o r y begs t h e q u e s t i o n . I f i t is t o be i m a g i n a b l e that h u m a n souls are the souls o f animals o r plants, i t m u s t already be believed that m a n takes w h a t is m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l t o h i m from e i t h e r the a n i m a l o r p l a n t w o r l d . T h i s b e l i e f is precisely o n e o f those o n w h i c h t o t e m i s m is based, so t o p u t i t f o r w a r d as self-evident is t o assume w h a t m u s t be e x p l a i n e d . M o r e o v e r , the religious character o f the t o t e m is w h o l l y unexplainable i n terms o f this v i e w , f o r the vague b e l i e f i n an obscure k i n s h i p o f m a n and a n i m a l is n o t e n o u g h t o f o u n d a c u l t . T h i s m e r g i n g o f d i s t i n c t realms c a n n o t lead t o d i v i d i n g t h e w o r l d b e t w e e n t h e sacred a n d the profane. I t is t r u e that

43

A closely related idea had already been expressed by [Alfred C ] Haddon in his "Address to the Anthropological Section" (BAAS, 1902, 8ff.). He assumes that each local group originally had a food that was especially its own. The plant or animal that thus served as the principal item of consumption would have become the totem of the group. All these explanations imply that the prohibitions against eating the totemic animal were not original and were even preceded by the opposite prescription. 44

Frazer, "The Beginnings," p. 458.

185


Frazer is self-consistent a n d refuses t o see t o t e m i s m as a r e l i g i o n — o n the g r o u n d s that there are n e i t h e r s p i r i t u a l beings n o r prayers n o r i n v o c a t i o n s n o r offerings, a n d so o n . A c c o r d i n g t o h i m , i t is o n l y a system o f m a g i c , b y w h i c h he means a c r u d e a n d erroneous sort o f science, a first t r y at d i s c o v e r i n g the laws o f t h i n g s .

45

B u t w e k n o w w h a t is w r o n g w i t h this idea o f r e l i g i o n a n d

m a g i c . T h e r e is r e l i g i o n as s o o n as t h e sacred is d i s t i n g u i s h e d from the p r o fane, a n d w e have seen t h a t t o t e m i s m is a vast system o f sacred t h i n g s . So t o e x p l a i n i t is t o s h o w h o w those things came t o acquire that t r a i t .

46

T y l o r does

n o t even set this p r o b l e m . W h a t b r i n g s a b o u t the d o w n f a l l o f this system is that the postulate o n w h i c h i t rests is untenable. A l l o f Frazers a r g u m e n t a t i o n assumes that the l o cal t o t e m i s m o f t h e A r u n t a is t h e m o s t p r i m i t i v e k n o w n , a n d i n p a r t i c u l a r that i t is d i s t i n c t l y p r i o r t o h e r e d i t a r y t o t e m i s m , w h e t h e r m a t r i l i n e a l o r p a t r i l i n e a l . B y f o l l o w i n g o n l y the facts available i n the first w o r k o f Spencer a n d G i l l e n , I have b e e n able t o c o n j e c t u r e that there m u s t have b e e n a m o m e n t i n the h i s t o r y o f t h e A r u n t a p e o p l e w h e n the totems w e r e t r a n s m i t t e d b y i n h e r i t a n c e f r o m t h e m o t h e r t o the c h i l d r e n instead o f b e i n g attached t o l o c a l ities.

47

T h i s c o n j e c t u r e is d e f i n i t i v e l y p r o v e d b y the n e w facts t h a t S t r e h l o w

discovered a n d t h a t c o n f i r m p r e v i o u s observations b y S c h u l z e .

49

4 8

I n fact, these

t w o authors i n f o r m us that, even n o w , i n a d d i t i o n t o his l o c a l t o t e m , each A r u n t a has a n o t h e r that is i n d e p e n d e n t o f any geographic c o n d i t i o n a n d b e longs t o h i m b y b i r t h : that o f his m o t h e r . L i k e the first, this second t o t e m is considered b y t h e natives as a f r i e n d l y a n d p r o t e c t i v e p o w e r that provides f o r t h e i r f o o d , w a r n s t h e m o f possible dangers, a n d so f o r t h . T h e y are p e r m i t t e d t o take part i n its c u l t . W h e n t h e y are b u r i e d , the b o d y is so arranged that the

45

Frazer, "The Origin of Totemism," p. 835, and "The Beginnings," pp. 162ff.

46

All the while seeing totemism as nothing but a system of magic, Frazer recognizes that one sometimes finds in magic the first seeds of religion properly so called ("The Beginnings," p. 163). On the way in which he thinks religion developed out of magic, see Golden Bough, 2d ed., vol. I, pp. 75-78 n. 2. 47

[Emile Durkheim], "Sur le totémisme," AS, vol. V (1902), pp. 82—121. Cf. on this same question, [Edwin Sidney] Hartland, "Presidential Address [Totemism and Some Recent Discoveries,]" Folklore, vol. XI [(1900)] p. 75; [Andrew] Lang, "A Theory of Arunta Totemism," Man [vol. IV] (1904), no. 44, [pp. 67-69]; Lang, "Conceptional Totemism and Exogamy," Man, vol. VII, 1907, 55, pp. 88—90; Lang, The Secret of the Totem, ch. IV; [Northcote W.] Thomas, "Arunta Totemism [a Note on Mr. Lang's Theory]," Man, vol. IV, (1904), 68, pp. 99—101; P. W. Schmidt, "Die Stellung der Aranda unter den australischen Stammen, in ZE, vol. XL (1908), pp. 866ff. 48

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, pp. 57-58.

49

[Rev. Louis] Schulze, "Aborigines of the Upper and Middle Finke River," RSSA, vol. XVI, 1891, pp. 238-239.


186

face is t u r n e d t o w a r d t h e r e g i o n w h e r e t h e mother's t o t e m i c center is this, because the center is also i n some respect that o f the deceased. A n d thus, i t is g i v e n the n a m e tmara altjira, w h i c h means, " c a m p o f the t o t e m that is associated w i t h me." H e n c e i t is c e r t a i n that, a m o n g the A r u n t a , h e r e d i t a r y t o t e m i s m i n t h e m a t e r n a l l i n e d i d n o t c o m e later t h a n l o c a l t o t e m i s m b u t , q u i t e the contrary, m u s t have preceded i t . T o d a y t h e m a t e r n a l t o t e m has n o m o r e t h a n an accessory a n d c o m p l e m e n t a r y r o l e ; i t is a second t o t e m , a n d this explains w h y i t c o u l d have escaped such careful a n d w e l l - i n f o r m e d o b servers as Spencer a n d G i l l e n . B u t f o r that t o t e m t o have b e e n able t o m a i n t a i n itself i n this second r a n k , used side b y side w i t h t h e l o c a l t o t e m , there must have b e e n a t i m e w h e n i t o c c u p i e d t h e first r a n k i n r e l i g i o u s life. I t is i n p a r t a t o t e m that has lapsed, b u t o n e that harks b a c k t o an era w h e n the t o t e m i c o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e A r u n t a was v e r y different f r o m today's. T h u s is Frazer's entire c o n s t r u c t i o n u n d e r m i n e d at its f o u n d a t i o n .

5 0

IV A l t h o u g h A n d r e w L a n g has v i g o r o u s l y attacked Frazer's t h e o r y , his o w n , as p r o p o s e d i n recent w o r k s ,

5 1

is close t o i t o n m o r e t h a n o n e p o i n t . I n d e e d ,

l i k e Frazer, he takes the w h o l e o f t o t e m i s m t o consist o f b e l i e f i n a sort o f consubstantiality b e t w e e n m a n a n d a n i m a l , b u t h e explains i t differently. H e derives i t e n t i r e l y from t h e fact that t h e t o t e m is a name. A c c o r d i n g t o h i m , from the m o m e n t o r g a n i z e d h u m a n groups c o m e i n t o e x i s t e n c e ,

52

each feels the n e e d t o d i s t i n g u i s h itself f r o m the n e i g h b o r i n g groups w i t h w h i c h i t is i n c o n t a c t and, t o this end, gives t h e m different names. N a m e s taken f r o m t h e e n v i r o n i n g flora a n d fauna are preferred, because animals a n d plants can easily be designated b y means o f gestures o r represented b y d r a w -

50

It is true that Frazer says, in the conclusion of Totemism and Exogamy (vol. IV, pp. 58—59), that there exists a soil more ancient totemism than that of the Arunta. It is that which [W. H. R.] Rivers observed on the Banks Islands ("Totemism in Polynesia and Melanesia," JAI vol. XXXIX [1909], p. 172. Among the Arunta, it is an ancestor spirit that is held to impregnate the mother; on the Banks Islands, it is an animal or plant spirit, as the theory supposes. But as the ancestral spirits of the Arunta have an animal or plant form, the difference is upheld. Hence, I have not treated it in my exposition. 51

Lang, Social Origins, esp. chap. 8, "The Origin of Totem Names and Beliefs"; and The Secret of the

Totem.

"Especially in his Social Origins, Lang uses conjecture to try to reconstruct the form these original groups must have had. It seems unnecessary to restate those hypotheses, which do not affect his theory of totemism.

187


ings.

53

T h e m o r e o r less exact resemblances that m e n can have w i t h o n e o r

a n o t h e r o f those objects defines t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h these collective n a m ings are d i s t r i b u t e d a m o n g t h e g r o u p s .

54

I t is w e l l k n o w n that " f o r p r i m i t i v e m i n d s , names a n d the things designated b y those names are j o i n e d i n a m y s t i c a n d transcendental r e l a t i o n ship."

55

F o r e x a m p l e , t h e n a m e an i n d i v i d u a l bears is n o t regarded s i m p l y as

a w o r d o r a c o n v e n t i o n a l sign b u t as an essential p a r t o f the i n d i v i d u a l h i m self. T h u s , w h e n i t is the n a m e o f an a n i m a l , t h e m a n w h o bears i t must n e c essarily believe that he possesses the m o s t characteristic traits o f that a n i m a l . T h i s idea g a i n e d credence t h e m o r e easily as the h i s t o r i c a l o r i g i n s o f these namings receded i n t o the past a n d gradually disappeared f r o m people's m e m ories. M y t h s f o r m e d t o m a k e this strange a m b i g u i t y o f h u m a n nature easier t o envisage. T o e x p l a i n i t , p e o p l e t h o u g h t o f t h e a n i m a l as the man's ancest o r o r o f b o t h as descendants o f a c o m m o n ancestor. T h u s w e r e c o n c e i v e d t h e b o n d s o f k i n s h i p that are said t o j o i n each clan w i t h the species w h o s e n a m e i t bears. O n c e the o r i g i n s o f that m y t h i c a l k i n s h i p are e x p l a i n e d , i t seems t o o u r a u t h o r that t h e m y s t e r y o f t o t e m i s m is g o n e . B u t , t h e n , f r o m w h a t does t h e r e l i g i o u s character o f t o t e m i c beliefs a n d practices arise? M a n ' s b e l i e f that h e is an a n i m a l o f some species does n o t e x p l a i n w h y he i m p u t e s a m a z i n g v i r t u e s t o that species or, m o s t o f all, w h y he renders a g e n u i n e c u l t t o t h e images that s y m b o l i z e i t . T o this q u e s t i o n L a n g offers the same response as Frazer: H e denies that t o t e m i s m is a r e l i g i o n . " I f i n d i n Australia," h e says, " n o e x a m p l e o f r e l i g i o u s practices such as p r a y i n g to, feeding, o r b u r y i n g t h e t o t e m . "

5 6

O n l y i n a later age and after i t was a l -

ready o r g a n i z e d was t o t e m i s m , so t o speak, attracted t o and absorbed i n t o a system o f p r o p e r l y r e l i g i o u s ideas. A c c o r d i n g t o an o b s e r v a t i o n b y H o w i t t ,

5 7

w h e n t h e natives set o u t t o e x p l a i n the t o t e m i c i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e y a t t r i b u t e t h e m n e i t h e r t o the t o t e m s themselves, n o r t o a m a n , b u t t o some supernatu r a l b e i n g such as B u n j i l o r B a i a m e . " I f , " says L a n g , " w e accept this testim o n y , o n e source o f t h e r e l i g i o u s character o f t o t e m i s m stands revealed t o us.

53

On this point, Lang is close to the theory ofJulius Pikler (see [Julius] Pikler and [Felix] Szomlo, Der

Urspmng des Totemismus. Ein Beitrag zur materialistischen Geschichtstheorie [Berlin, K. Hoffmann, 1900], p.

36). The difference between the two hypotheses is that Pikler ascribes greater importance to the pictographic representation of the name than to the name itself. 54

Lang, Social Origins, p. 166.

55

Lang, The Secret of the Totem, pp. 116-117, 121.

56

Ibid., p. 136.

"Howitt, "Further Notes on the Australian Class Systems," JAI [vol. XVIII, 1889], pp. 53-54; cf. Native Tribes, pp. 89, 488, 498.

188


T o t e m i s m obeys t h e decrees o f B u n j i l , as t h e Cretans o b e y e d the decrees o f Zeus at M i n o s . " A c c o r d i n g t o L a n g , the n o t i o n o f h i g h gods was f o r m e d outside the t o t e m i c system. T h e r e f o r e this system is n o t i n i t s e l f a r e l i g i o n ; i t became c o l o r e d w i t h religiousness o n l y t h r o u g h contact w i t h a r e l i g i o n , p r o p e r l y so called. B u t those v e r y m y t h s are i n c o n f l i c t w i t h Lang's idea o f t o t e m i s m . I f the Australians h a d seen t h e t o t e m as n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n a h u m a n and profane t h i n g , t h e y w o u l d n o t have i m a g i n e d m a k i n g a d i v i n e i n s t i t u t i o n o u t o f i t . I f , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e y felt the n e e d t o relate the t o t e m t o a deity, t h e y d i d so because t h e y a c k n o w l e d g e d its sacredness. T h e s e m y t h o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a tions thus display, b u t d o n o t e x p l a i n , the r e l i g i o u s nature o f t o t e m i s m . Besides, L a n g h i m s e l f realizes that this s o l u t i o n c a n n o t possibly d o . H e admits that t o t e m i c things are treated w i t h r e l i g i o u s r e s p e c t

58

and that, i n

particular, the b l o o d o f the a n i m a l (like t h a t o f the m a n , i n c i d e n t a l l y ) is the object o f m u l t i p l e p r o h i b i t i o n s o r o f taboos, as he says, that this m o r e o r less late m y t h o l o g y c a n n o t e x p l a i n .

5 9

W h e r e , t h e n , d o t h e y c o m e from? L a n g a n -

swers the q u e s t i o n i n these terms: " A s s o o n as t h e groups w i t h names o f a n imals h a d d e v e l o p e d universally h e l d beliefs a b o u t w a k a n a n d mana, o r a b o u t the mystical and sacred q u a l i t y o f t h e b l o o d , the various t o t e m i c taboos must also have m a d e t h e i r appearance."

60

As w e w i l l see i n the n e x t chapter, t h e

w o r d s wakan a n d mana i m p l y the idea o f sacred i t s e l f (the first is taken

from

the language o f t h e S i o u x , t h e second from that o f t h e M e l a n e s i a n peoples). T o e x p l a i n this sacredness o f t o t e m i c things b y p o s t u l a t i n g i t is t o answer the q u e s t i o n w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n . W h a t s h o u l d be s h o w n is w h e r e this n o t i o n o f w a k a n comes from, a n d h o w i t is a p p l i e d t o t h e t o t e m a n d t o a l l that derives f r o m the t o t e m . So l o n g as these t w o p r o b l e m s g o u n s o l v e d , n o t h i n g is e x plained.

V I have r e v i e w e d these p r i n c i p a l explanations o f t o t e m i c b e l i e f s ,

61

trying to do

j u s t i c e t o each o n e i n d i v i d u a l l y . N o w that this e x a m i n a t i o n is c o m p l e t e d , I can n o t e that all are subject t o the same c r i t i c i s m .

58

"With reverence," as Lang says (The Secret of the Totem, p. 111).

59

To these taboos, Lang adds those that are at the basis of the practices of exogamy.

60

Lang, ibid., pp. 136-137.

61

I have not spoken about Spencer's theory. This is because it is only a special case of the general theory by which he explains the transformation of the cult of the dead into a cult of nature. Having already set it forth, I would be repeating myself here.

189


I f w e restrict o u r i n q u i r y t o w h a t these formulas literally say, they seem t o fall i n t o t w o categories. S o m e (Frazer's a n d L a n g s ) deny the religious character o f t o t e m i s m , b u t that a m o u n t s t o d e n y i n g the facts. O t h e r s ack n o w l e d g e this r e l i g i o u s character b u t believe t h e y can e x p l a i n i t b y d e r i v i n g i t f r o m an earlier r e l i g i o n , t r e a t i n g t o t e m i s m as its offspring. I n reality, this d i s t i n c t i o n is m o r e apparent t h a n real, the first category b e i n g c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n the second. N e i t h e r Frazer n o r L a n g has b e e n able t o h o l d o n t o his p r i n c i p l e e n t i r e l y a n d e x p l a i n t o t e m i s m as i f i t was n o t a r e l i g i o n . T h e nature o f the facts f o r c e d t h e m t o slide n o t i o n s o f a r e l i g i o u s nature i n t o t h e i r e x planations. W e have j u s t seen h o w L a n g h a d t o b r i n g i n the idea o f the sacred, the b e d r o c k idea o f any r e l i g i o n . F o r his part, Frazer o v e r d y calls o n the ideas o f s o u l a n d s p i r i t i n t h e t w o theories he proposed, o n e after the other. I n his v i e w , t o t e m i s m arises e i t h e r f r o m t h e fact that m e n b e l i e v e d t h e y c o u l d safely place t h e i r souls i n e x t e r n a l objects o r f r o m the fact that they a t t r i b u t e d c o n c e p t i o n t o a k i n d o f d i s e m b o d i e d i m p r e g n a t i o n , the agent o f w h i c h is a spirit. Since the s o u l and, even m o r e , t h e s p i r i t are sacred things a n d objects o f rites, t h e ideas that express t h e m are f u n d a m e n t a l l y r e l i g i o u s . I n consequence, i t is i n v a i n t h a t Frazer makes t o t e m i s m o u t t o be m e r e l y a system o f m a g i c , f o r he t o o manages t o e x p l a i n i t o n l y i n terms o f a n o t h e r r e l i g i o n . B u t I have s h o w n t h e inadequacies o f n a t u r i s m a n d a n i m i s m . O n e c a n n o t use t h e m , as T y l o r a n d Jevons d i d , w i t h o u t e x p o s i n g oneself t o t h e same objections. A n d yet n e i t h e r Frazer n o r L a n g seems even t o glimpse t h e p o s sibility o f another hypothesis.

62

F r o m a n o t h e r standpoint, w e see that t o -

t e m i s m is closely allied w i t h the m o s t p r i m i t i v e social o r g a n i z a t i o n that is k n o w n a n d even, i n all p r o b a b i l i t y , that is conceivable. T h e r e f o r e , t o assume i t t o have b e e n preceded b y a n o t h e r r e l i g i o n different f r o m i t o n l y i n degree is t o leave b e h i n d t h e data o f o b s e r v a t i o n a n d enter t h e d o m a i n o f arbitrary a n d u n v e r i f i a b l e conjectures. I f w e w i s h t o stay i n a c c o r d w i t h the results p r e v i o u s l y o b t a i n e d , w e m u s t , w h i l e a f f i r m i n g t h e r e l i g i o u s nature o f t o t e m i s m , refrain f r o m r e d u c i n g i t t o a r e l i g i o n different from i t . T h i s is n o t because there c o u l d be any q u e s t i o n o f designating n o n r e l i g i o u s ideas as its causes. B u t a m o n g t h e representations that are p a r t o f its o r i g i n , and o f w h i c h i t is t h e result, there m a y be some that b y themselves i n v o k e its r e l i g i o u s character, a n d i n v o k e i t direcdy. T h e s e are the ones w e m u s t l o o k for.

62

Except that Lang derives the idea of high gods from another source. It is supposedly due, as I have said, to a sort of primitive revelation. But Lang does not include this idea in his explanation of totemism.

C H A P T E R SIX

ORIGINS OF THESE BELIEFS (CONTINUED) The Notion of Totemic Principle, or Mana, and the Idea of Force*

S

i n c e i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m i s m comes after that o f the clan a n d i n fact seems t o be d e r i v e d f r o m i t , clan t o t e m i s m m u s t be taken u p first. Before g o i n g

further, however, since m y analysis thus far has b r o k e n i t d o w n i n t o a m u l t i p l i c i t y o f beliefs that m a y appear disparate, I m u s t t r y t o visualize its i n t e r n a l coherence.

I W e have seen that t o t e m i s m places figurative representations o f the t o t e m i n the first rank o f t h e things i t considers sacred; t h e n c o m e t h e animals o r plants w h o s e n a m e the c l a n bears, a n d finally the m e m b e r s o f t h e clan. Since all these things are sacred i n the same r i g h t , albeit u n e q u a l l y so, t h e i r r e l i giousness c a n n o t arise f r o m any o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r traits t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h t h e m f r o m o n e another. I f a g i v e n a n i m a l o r p l a n t is the object o f reverent fear, that reverence is n o t e v o k e d b y its p a r t i c u l a r traits. T h e m e m b e r s o f the clan have the same status, albeit t o a s l i g h d y lesser degree, a n d the m e r e image o f this same p l a n t o r a n i m a l evokes even m o r e m a r k e d respect. O b v i o u s l y the s i m i lar feelings that these dissimilar k i n d s o f t h i n g s evoke i n t h e consciousness o f the faithful, a n d t h a t c o n s t i t u t e t h e i r sacredness, can derive o n l y f r o m a p r i n ciple that is shared b y all a l i k e — t o t e m i c e m b l e m s , p e o p l e o f t h e clan, and i n dividuals o f the t o t e m i c species. T h i s is t h e c o m m o n p r i n c i p l e t o w h i c h t h e *It may be that, here, the shiftfromnotion to idée connotes a difference in clarity and distinctness. It may also be that Dürkheims shifts among those terms, plus conception and concept, sometimes amount to no more than stylistic variation. I have left the question open in this chapter by rendering each with its English counterpart. 190

Origins of These Beliefs (Continued)

191

c u l t is i n reality addressed. I n o t h e r w o r d s , t o t e m i s m is n o t t h e r e l i g i o n o f c e r t a i n animals, c e r t a i n m e n , o r c e r t a i n images; i t is the r e l i g i o n o f a k i n d o f a n o n y m o u s a n d i m p e r s o n a l force that is i d e n t i f i a b l e i n each o f these beings b u t i d e n t i c a l t o n o n e o f t h e m . N o n e possesses i t entirely, and all participate i n i t . S u c h is its i n d e p e n d e n c e f r o m the p a r t i c u l a r subjects i n w h i c h i t is i n carnated that i t b o t h precedes a n d outlives t h e m . T h e i n d i v i d u a l s die; the generations pass o n a n d are replaced b y others; b u t this force remains always present, alive, a n d t h e same. I t animates the generations o f today as i t a n i m a t e d those o f yesterday a n d w i l l animate those o f t o m o r r o w . T a k i n g the w o r d " g o d " i n a v e r y b r o a d sense, o n e c o u l d say that i t is the g o d that each t o t e m i c c u l t w o r s h i p s . B u t i t is an i m p e r s o n a l g o d , w i t h o u t name, w i t h o u t history, i m m a n e n t i n t h e w o r l d , diffused i n a numberless m u l t i t u d e o f things. A n d yet w e still have o n l y an i n c o m p l e t e idea o f the true u b i q u i t y that quasi-divine e n t i t y has. I t does n o t m e r e l y pervade the w h o l e t o t e m i c species, the w h o l e clan, a n d all the objects that symbolize the t o t e m ; the scope o f its influence is w i d e r still. W e have seen that, above and b e y o n d those e m i n e n t l y sacred things, all the things that are ascribed t o the clan as dependents o f the p r i n c i p a l t o t e m have some measure o f the same sacredness. Because certain o f t h e m are protected b y restrictions a n d others have definite functions i n the c u l t ceremonies, they t o o are t o some degree religious. T h i s q u a l i t y o f religiousness does n o t differ i n k i n d from that o f the t o t e m u n d e r w h i c h they are classified; i t necessarily derives from the same p r i n c i p l e . T h i s is so because—to repeat the m e t a p h o r i c a l expression I j u s t used—the t o t e m i c g o d is i n t h e m , j u s t as i t is i n the t o t e m i c species a n d i n the people o f the clan. T h a t i t is the soul o f so m a n y different beings shows h o w different i t is from the beings i n w h i c h i t resides. B u t the A u s t r a l i a n does n o t conceive o f this i m p e r s o n a l force abstractly. Influences that w e w i l l have t o seek o u t l e d h i m t o conceive o f i t i n the f o r m o f an a n i m a l o r p l a n t , that is, i n the f o r m o f a m a t e r i a l t h i n g . H e r e , i n reality, is w h a t the t o t e m a m o u n t s t o : I t is the tangible f o r m i n w h i c h that i n t a n g i ble substance is represented i n the i m a g i n a t i o n ; diffused t h r o u g h all sorts o f disparate beings, that energy alone is the real o b j e c t o f t h e c u l t . W e are n o w i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o c o m p r e h e n d w h a t the native means w h e n he affirms, for example, that t h e p e o p l e o f t h e C r o w p h r a t r y are crows. H e does n o t e x actly m e a n that t h e y are crows i n the everyday e m p i r i c a l sense o f t h e w o r d , b u t that the same p r i n c i p l e is f o u n d i n all o f t h e m . T h a t p r i n c i p l e constitutes w h a t they all m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l l y are, is shared b e t w e e n p e o p l e a n d animals o f t h e same name, a n d is c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as h a v i n g the o u t w a r d f o r m o f the crow. I n this w a y the universe, as t o t e m i s m conceives i t , is pervaded a n d e n l i v e n e d b y a n u m b e r o f forces that the i m a g i n a t i o n represents i n f o r m s that, w i t h o n l y a f e w exceptions, are b o r r o w e d f r o m either the a n i m a l o r the p l a n t

192


k i n g d o m . T h e r e are as m a n y o f these forces as there are clans i n the t r i b e , a n d each o f t h e m pervades c e r t a i n categories o f things o f w h i c h i t is the essence a n d the l i f e - p r i n c i p l e . W h e n I speak o f these p r i n c i p l e s as forces, I d o n o t use the w o r d i n a m e t a p h o r i c a l sense; t h e y behave l i k e real forces. I n a sense, t h e y are even physical forces that b r i n g a b o u t physical effects mechanically. D o e s an i n d i v i d u a l c o m e i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h t h e m w i t h o u t h a v i n g taken p r o p e r p r e c a u tions? H e receives a s h o c k that has b e e n c o m p a r e d w i t h the effect o f an electrical charge. T h e y sometimes appear t o be c o n c e i v e d o f m o r e o r less as fluids

1

t h a t escape v i a t h e e x t r e m i t i e s . W h e n t h e y enter i n t o a b o d y that is

n o t m e a n t t o receive t h e m , t h e y cause sickness a n d death b y a w h o l l y m e 2

chanical r e a c t i o n . O u t s i d e m a n , t h e y play t h e role o f l i f e - p r i n c i p l e ; as w e 3

w i l l see, b y a c t i n g u p o n t h e m , the r e p r o d u c t i o n o f species is ensured. A l l life is based o n t h e m . A n d i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e i r physical nature, t h e y have a m o r a l nature. W h e n a native is asked w h y he follows his rites, he replies that ancestors have always 4

d o n e so and that he must f o l l o w t h e i r e x a m p l e . I f he conducts h i m s e l f w i t h t o t e m i c beings i n this o r that way, i t is n o t o n l y because t h e forces that reside i n t h e m are inaccessible a n d f o r b i d d i n g i n a physical sense, b u t also because h e feels m o r a l l y obligated so t o c o n d u c t himself; he feels h e is o b e y i n g a sort o f imperative, f m f i l l i n g a duty. H e n o t o n l y fears b u t also respects t h e sacred b e ings. M o r e o v e r , the t o t e m is a source o f the clan's m o r a l life. A l l the beings that participate i n the same t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e consider themselves, b y that v e r y fact, t o be m o r a l l y b o u n d t o o n e another; they have d e f i n i t e obligations o f assistance, vengeance, a n d so o n , t o w a r d each other, a n d i t is these that c o n stitute k i n s h i p . T h u s , the t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e is at o n c e a physical force a n d a m o r a l p o w e r , a n d w e w i l l see that i t is easily t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o d i v i n i t y proper. T h i s is b y n o means specific t o t o t e m i s m . E v e n i n the m o s t advanced r e l i g i o n s , there is perhaps n o g o d that has failed t o r e t a i n some o f this a m b i g u i t y a n d that does n o t p e r f o r m b o t h cosmic a n d m o r a l f u n c t i o n s . A t the same t i m e as i t is a s p i r i t u a l d i s c i p l i n e , every r e l i g i o n is a sort o f t e c h n i q u e that 'In a Kwakiutl myth, for example, an ancestor hero pierces the head of an enemy by stretching forth hisfingers([Franz] Boas, ["First General Report on the Indians of British Columbia,"] in BAAS, Vth Report of the Committee on the Northern Tribes of the Dominion of Canada [London, Offices of the Association,

1890], p. 30). 2

References in support of this assertion will be found on p. 128, n. 1, and p. 325, n. 98.

3

See Bk III, chap. 2.

4

See, for example, [Alfred William] Howitt, Native Tribes, [of South-East Australia, New York, Macmillan, 1904], p. 482; [C. W.] Schvirmann, "The Aboriginal Tribes of Port Lincoln," in [James Dominick] Woods, [The] NativeTribes of S.Australia [Adelaide, E. S. Wigg, 1879], p. 231.

193


helps m a n t o c o n f r o n t t h e w o r l d m o r e c o n f i d e n t l y . E v e n f o r the C h r i s t i a n , is G o d the Father n o t the guardian o f physical order, as w e l l as the legislator a n d j u d g e o f h u m a n conduct?

II Perhaps some w i l l ask w h e t h e r , b y i n t e r p r e t i n g t o t e m i s m i n this way, I a m n o t i m p u t i n g ideas t o t h e p r i m i t i v e that are b e y o n d his i n t e l l e c t . I n t r u t h , I a m n o t i n a p o s i t i o n t o state p o s i t i v e l y that he i m a g i n e s these forces w i t h the relative c l a r i t y that I have h a d t o give t h e m i n m y analysis. I can s h o w q u i t e clearly that this idea is i m p l i c i t i n t h e beliefs t a k e n as a w h o l e a n d that i t is central t o t h e m , b u t I c a n n o t say t o w h a t e x t e n t i t is e x p l i c i t l y conscious or, o n the o t h e r h a n d , o n l y i m p l i c i t a n d vaguely felt. T h e r e is n o w a y t o specify the degree o f c l a r i t y that an idea such as this o n e can have i n consciousnesses obscure* t o us. A t any rate, w h a t shows q u i t e w e l l that the idea is i n n o w a y b e y o n d t h e p r i m i t i v e , a n d even c o n f i r m s t h e result I have j u s t a r r i v e d at, is this: W h e t h e r i n societies a k i n t o the A u s t r a l i a n tribes o r i n those v e r y tribes, w e f i n d — a n d i n e x p l i c i t f o r m — c o n c e p t i o n s that differ o n l y i n degree a n d nuance f r o m t h e f o r e g o i n g . T h e native r e l i g i o n s o f Samoa have c e r t a i n l y passed the t o t e m i c phase. T h e y have g e n u i n e gods w i t h names o f t h e i r o w n and, t o some degree, distinctive

personal traits. Yet the relics o f t o t e m i s m are h a r d t o dispute. I n fact,

each g o d is attached t o a t e r r i t o r i a l o r f a m i l i a l g r o u p , j u s t as the t o t e m has its 5

c l a n . E a c h o f these gods is c o n c e i v e d o f as i m m a n e n t i n a d e f i n i t e a n i m a l species. I t c e r t a i n l y does n o t reside i n any p a r t i c u l a r subject. I t is i n all at the same t i m e , pervasive t h r o u g h o u t the species. W h e n an a n i m a l dies, t h e p e o ple o f t h e g r o u p t h a t venerate i t m o u r n a n d render i t t h e i r pious respects b e cause a g o d inhabits i t , b u t the g o d has n o t d i e d . L i k e the species, i t is eternal. N o r , i n d e e d , is t h e g o d confused w i t h t h e p r e c e d i n g g e n e r a t i o n , f o r i t was already the s o u l o f t h e o n e t h a t preceded, j u s t as as i t w i l l be the s o u l o f t h e 6

o n e t o f o l l o w . T h u s , i t has a l l t h e characteristics o f t h e t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e b u t

* Consciences obscures. Whether the obscurity is in the mind of the observed or the observer is ambiguous. Swain, who says "obscure minds" (p. 219), seems to have opted for the mind of the observed. I opted for the observer's, in light of the next sentence and the general context provided by the chapter. 5

[James George] Frazer even takes upfromSamoa many facts that he presents as characteristically totemic (see Totemism [and Exogamy, London, Macmillan, 1910], pp. 6, 12—15, 24, etc.). True enough, I have said that Frazer was not always sufEciendy critical in his choice of examples. But obviously such numerous borrowings would have been impossible if in Samoa there really had not been important survivals from totemism. 6

See [George] Turner, Samoa [London, Macmillan, 1884], p. 21, and chaps. IV and V.

194


a t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e that t h e i m a g i n a t i o n has d e v e l o p e d i n s o m e w h a t personal f o r m s . E v e n so, this personal q u a l i t y s h o u l d n o t be o v e r b l o w n , as i t is hardly c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the qualities o f pervasiveness a n d u b i q u i t y . I f the c o n t o u r s o f the t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e w e r e clearly d e f i n e d , i t w o u l d n o t be able to spread as i t does a n d infuse a m u l t i t u d e o f things. I n this case, the n o t i o n o f i m p e r s o n a l religious force is u n q u e s t i o n a b l y b e g i n n i n g t o change. I n o t h e r cases, however, i t is m a i n t a i n e d i n its abstract p u r i t y a n d even achieves d i s t i n c d y greater generality t h a n i n Australia. A l t h o u g h the t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e s t o w h i c h the various clans o f the same t r i b e address themselves are d i s t i n c t f r o m o n e another, t h e y r e m a i n f u n d a m e n t a l l y comparable t o o n e another, f o r t h e y all play the same role i n t h e i r respective domains. T h e r e are societies that attained the sense o f this shared nature and t h e n advanced t o the idea o f a single religious force that unifies t h e universe, all that is; all t h e o t h e r sacred p r i n c i p l e s are b u t modalities o f that force. A n d since those societies are still t h o r o u g h l y i m b u e d w i t h t o t e m i s m a n d b o u n d t o a social o r g a n i z a t i o n i d e n t i c a l t o that o f the A u s t r a l i a n peoples, t o t e m i s m m a y be said t o have c a r r i e d that idea i n its w o m b . T h i s can be observed i n m a n y A m e r i c a n tribes, especially i n those b e l o n g i n g t o the great f a m i l y o f the S i o u x : O m a h a , P o n k a , Kansas, Osage, A s s i n i b o i n , D a k o t a , I o w a , W i n n e b a g o , M a n d a n , Hidatsa, a n d the Several o f these societies, such as the O m a h a

7

others.

8

a n d t h e I o w a , are still o r g a -

n i z e d i n clans; others w e r e n o t l o n g ago and, D o r s e y says, " a l l the foundations 9

o f the t o t e m i c system, j u s t as i n o t h e r societies o f the S i o u x , " are still i d e n t i fiable i n t h e m . A m o n g these peoples, there is a p r e e m i n e n t p o w e r above all w

the p a r t i c u l a r gods m e n w o r s h i p , w h i c h t h e y call wakan —all

the rest b e i n g ,

i n a sense, derivations o f i t . Because o f the p r e e m i n e n t status assigned t o this p r i n c i p l e i n t h e S i o u x p a n t h e o n , i t has sometimes b e e n seen as a k i n d o f sovereign g o d , a J u p i t e r o r a Y a h w e h , and travelers have o f t e n translated wakan as "great spirit." T h i s was a p r o f o u n d m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f its t r u e nature. W a k a n is n o t i n any w a y a personal b e i n g ; t h e natives d o n o t i m a g i n e i t i n d e f i n i t e f o r m s . " T h e y say," reports an observer c i t e d b y Dorsey, " t h a t they

7

Alice [C] Fletcher, "A Study of the Omaha Tribe: [The Import of the Totem"], in RSI for 1897 [Washington, Government Printing Office, 1898], pp. [582-583]. 8

[James Owen] Dorsey, "Siouan Sociology," in Fifteenth Annual Report, BAE [Washington, Government Printing Office, 1897], p. 238. 9

Ibid., p. 221.

10

P>jggs and [James Owen] Dorsey, Dakota English Dictionary, in CNAE, vol. VII [Washington, Government Printing Office, 1890], p. 508. Several observers cited by Dorsey identify the word wakan with the words wakanda and wakanta, which are derived from it but have a more precise meaning.

195


have never seen wakanda, so t h e y c a n n o t p r e t e n d t o personify i t . "

1 1

I t cannot

even be d e f i n e d b y specific attributes a n d qualities. " N o t e r m , " says R i g g s , " c a n express t h e m e a n i n g o f the w o r d a m o n g the D a k o t a . I t embraces all mystery, all secret p o w e r , all d i v i n i t y . "

12

A l l the beings that the D a k o t a revere,

" t h e earth, the f o u r w i n d s , t h e sun, t h e m o o n , t h e stars, are manifestations o f that m y s t e r i o u s life a n d p o w e r " that circulates t h r o u g h all things. I t is i m a g i n e d as t h e w i n d , as a b r e a t h that has its seat at t h e f o u r cardinal p o i n t s a n d moves e v e r y t h i n g .

1 3

I t is t h e v o i c e that is heard w h e n t h e t h u n d e r r e s o u n d s ;

the sun, m o o n , a n d stars are w a k a n .

1 5

14

B u t e n u m e r a t i o n cannot exhaust this

i n f i n i t e l y c o m p l e x n o t i o n . I t is n o t a d e f i n e d o r definable p o w e r , t h e p o w e r t o d o this o r that; i t is P o w e r i n t h e absolute, w i t h o u t q u a l i f i c a t i o n o r l i m i t a t i o n o f any k i n d . T h e various d i v i n e p o w e r s are o n l y p a r t i c u l a r manifestat i o n s a n d personifications; each o f t h e m is this p o w e r seen i n o n e o f its m a n y aspects.

16

T h i s l e d o n e observer t o say t h a t " i t is basically a p r o t e a n g o d ,

c h a n g i n g its attributes a n d f u n c t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o c i r c u m s t a n c e . "

17

A n d the

gods are n o t the o n l y beings i t animates. I t is t h e p r i n c i p l e o f all that lives, all that acts, all that moves. " A l l life is w a k a n . A n d so i t is f o r all that manifests any p o w e r — w h e t h e r i t be positive a c t i o n , l i k e t h e w i n d s a n d the clouds gathering i n the sky, o r passive resistance, l i k e the r o c k at the side o f the p a t h . "

18

T h e same idea is f o u n d a m o n g t h e I r o q u o i s , w h o s e social o r g a n i z a t i o n is still m o r e m a r k e d l y t o t e m i c . T h e w o r d orenda that is used t o express i t is e x acdy equivalent t o t h e w a k a n o f t h e S i o u x . " I t is a m y s t i c power," says H e w i t t , " t h a t t h e savage conceives o f as i n h e r e n t i n all t h e objects that m a k e u p the e n v i r o n m e n t i n w h i c h he l i v e s . . . , i n rocks, streams, plants and trees,

"[James Owen] Dorsey, "A Study of Siouan Cults," in Eleventh Annual Report, [vol. XI], §21, BAE [Washington, Government Printing Office, 1893], p. 372. Miss Fletcher, while no less clearly recognizing the impersonal character of wakanda, adds that a certain anthropomorphism has slowly become grafted on to this idea. But this anthropomorphism concerns the various manifestations of wakanda. The rock or tree where they think they feel the presence of wakanda are addressed as if they were personal beings, but the wakanda itself is not personified (RSI for 1897, p. 579). 12

[Stephen Return] Riggs, Tah-Koo Wah-Kon [or the Gospel among the Dakotas, Boston, Congregational Publishing Society, 1869], pp. 56—57, cited after Dorsey "Siouan Cults," §95, p. 433. 13

Dorsey, "Siouan Cults," §33, p. 380.

14

Ibid„ §35 [p. 381].

15

Ibid., §28, p. 376; §30, p. 378; cf. §138, p. 449.

16

Ibid., §95, p. 432.

17

Ibid., §92, p. 431.

18

Ibid., §95, p. 433.

196


animals a n d m a n , w i n d s a n d storms, clouds, t h u n d e r , flashes o f l i g h t n i n g , etc."

19

T h i s p o w e r is "regarded b y the u n d e v e l o p e d i n t e l l e c t o f m a n as the ef-

f i c i e n t cause o f all the p h e n o m e n a a n d o f all the activities that are o c c u r r i n g around h i m . "

2 0

A sorcerer o r a shaman has orenda, as does a m a n w h o is suc-

cessful i n his affairs. Basically n o t h i n g i n the w o r l d is w i t h o u t its o w n share o f orenda, b u t the shares are u n e q u a l . S o m e b e i n g s — m e n o r things—are f a v o r e d , a n d others are relatively disadvantaged; all o f life is made u p o f s t r u g gles a m o n g these o r e n d a o f u n e q u a l intensity. T h e m o s t intense subjugate t h e weakest. D o e s a m a n w i n o u t over his c o m p e t i t o r s i n t h e h u n t o r i n war? I t is because he has m o r e orenda. I f an a n i m a l escapes t h e h u n t e r w h o chases h i m , i t is because t h e animal's orenda was greater t h a n t h e hunter's. T h e same idea is f o u n d a m o n g the Shoshone, w i t h t h e name 21

a m o n g the A l g o n q u i n s , manitou; the T l i n g i t ;

2 3

mauala a m o n g t h e K w a k i u d ;

a n d sgdna a m o n g t h e H a i d a .

2 4

2 2

pokunt;

yek a m o n g

B u t i t is n o t peculiar t o the I n -

dians o f A m e r i c a ; i t was first s t u d i e d i n Melanesia. O n c e r t a i n M e l a n e s i a n islands, i t is t r u e , t h e social o r g a n i z a t i o n is n o l o n g e r based o n t o t e m i s m , b u t 2 5

t o t e m i s m is still visible o n all o f t h e m — n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g w h a t C o d r i n g t o n has said o n the subject. W e

find

a m o n g these peoples, u n d e r the

name

"mana," a n o t i o n that is exacdy equivalent t o t h e w a k a n o f the S i o u x a n d t h e o r e n d a o f the I r o q u o i s . H e r e is C o d r i n g t o n ' s d e f i n i t i o n o f i t : The Melanesians believe i n the existence o f a force absolutely distinct from any physical force, that works i n all kinds o f ways, for good or evil, and that it is i n man's best interest to take i n hand and control: That force is mana. I

19

[J. N. B. Hewitt], "Orenda and a Definition of Religion," in AA, vol. IV (1903), p. 33.

20

lbid., p. 36.

21

Tesa, Studi delThavenet,p. 17.

22

[Franz] Boas, ["The Social Organization and Secret Societies of the] Kwakiud [Indians," in RNMfor 1895, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1897], p. 695. 23

[John Reed] Swanton, "Social Condition, Beliefs [and Linguistic Relationship] of the Tlingit Indians," Twenty-Sixth Report BAE [Washington, Government Printing Office, 1905], p. 451 n. 3. 24

[John Reed] Swanton, Contributions to the Ethnology of the Haida [Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1905], p. 14. Cf.

Tlingit Indians, p. 479. 25

In certain Melanesian societies (Banks Islands, northern New Hebrides), the two exogamic phratries that characterize Australian organization crop up again ([R. H. Codrington, 77ie Melanesians [Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1891], pp. 23ff.). In Florida, there are true totems, called butos (p. 31). An interesting discussion on this point is to be found in A. Lang, Social Origins [London, Longmans, 1903], pp. 176ff. Cf. on the same subject, and in the same vein, W. H. R. Rivers, "Totemism in Polynesia and Melanesia," in JAI, vol. XXXIX [1909], pp. 156ff.

197


believe I understand the meaning this t e r m has for the natives. . . . I t is a force, a nonmaterial and, i n a sense, supernatural influence; but i t reveals i t self by physical force, or else by any k i n d o f power and superiority that man possesses. Mana is by no means fixed o n a definite object; i t can be carried by any sort o f thing. . . . The whole religion o f the Melanesian consists i n procuring mana for himself, for his o w n benefit or someone else's. 26

Is this n o t t h e same n o t i o n o f a diffuse a n d a n o n y m o u s force w h o s e seed i n A u s t r a l i a n t o t e m i s m w e w e r e u n c o v e r i n g a m o m e n t ago? T h e i m p e r s o n a l i t y is t h e same. As C o d r i n g t o n says, w e m u s t a v o i d seeing i t as a k i n d o f supreme b e i n g ; such an idea "is absolutely a l i e n " t o M e l a n e s i a n t h o u g h t . T h e u b i q u i t y is t h e same. M a n a has n o d e f i n i t e l o c a t i o n a n d is e v e r y w h e r e . A l l f o r m s o f life, a n d all the active potencies o f m e n , l i v i n g things, o r m e r e minerals are ascribed t o its i n f l u e n c e .

27

T h e r e f o r e , i t is b y n o means reckless t o i m p u t e t o the A u s t r a l i a n societies an idea such as the o n e I have d r a w n from m y analysis o f t o t e m i c beliefs: T h e same idea is t o be f o u n d , t h o u g h at a h i g h e r level o f generalization a n d abstraction, i n r e l i g i o n s w h o s e roots g o back t o A u s t r a l i a n t h o u g h t a n d t h a t v i s i b l y bear its m a r k . T h e t w o c o n c e p t i o n s are o b v i o u s l y a k i n , d i f f e r i n g o n l y i n scale. W h e r e a s m a n a is diffused t h r o u g h o u t t h e w h o l e universe, w h a t I have called the g o d ( o r m o r e accurately, t h e t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e ) is l o c a l i z e d i n a b r o a d b u t nonetheless m o r e l i m i t e d circle o f creatures a n d things o f various species. I t is mana, b u t a rather m o r e specialized m a n a — e v e n t h o u g h , i n the e n d , this specialization m a y o n l y be q u i t e relative. T h e r e are cases, m o r e o v e r , i n w h i c h this k i n r e l a t i o n becomes especially apparent. A m o n g t h e O m a h a , all k i n d s o f i n d i v i d u a l a n d collective totems exist;

28

b o t h are f o r m s o f w a k a n . " T h e Indian's f a i t h i n t h e efficacy o f the

t o t e m , " says M i s s Fletcher, "was based o n his c o n c e p t i o n o f nature a n d life. T h a t c o n c e p t i o n was c o m p l e x a n d i n v o l v e d t w o k e y ideas. First, all things, animate a n d i n a n i m a t e , are i m b u e d w i t h a c o m m o n l i f e - p r i n c i p l e ; a n d seco n d , this life is c o n t i n u o u s . "

29

T h i s c o m m o n l i f e - p r i n c i p l e is w a k a n . T h e

t o t e m is the means b y w h i c h t h e i n d i v i d u a l is p u t i n t o u c h w i t h that source o f energy. I f the t o t e m has p o w e r s , i t has t h e m because i t incarnates w a k a n . 26

Codrington, The Melanesians, p. 118 n. 1; [Richard Heinrich Robert] Parkinson, Dreissigjahre in der Siidsee [Stuttgart, Strecker und Schroeder, 1907], pp. 178, 392, 394, etc. 27

An analysis of this idea is to be found in [Henri] Hubert and [Marcel] Mauss, ["Esquisse d'une] théorie générale de la magie," AS, vol. VII [1904], p. 108. 28

There are totems not only of clans but also of brotherhoods (Fletcher, "Import of the Totem," pp. 581ff.). 29

Ibid. [pp. 578-579].

198


I f the m a n w h o has v i o l a t e d the p r o h i b i t i o n s that p r o t e c t his t o t e m is s t r i c k e n b y illness o r death, i t is because the m y s t e r i o u s force that he r a n afoul of, w a k a n , reacted against h i m w i t h an i n t e n s i t y p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o the shock i t suffered.

30

Inversely, j u s t as the t o t e m is w a k a n , so t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h

w a k a n is c o n c e i v e d sometimes recalls its t o t e m i c o r i g i n s . As Say tells us, a m o n g the D a k o t a , t h e wahconda is manifested sometimes i n the f o r m o f a gray bear, sometimes a b i s o n , a beaver, o r o t h e r a n i m a l .

3 1

This formulation

cannot, o f course, be unreservedly accepted. Since w a k a n resists all p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n , i t is u n l i k e l y t o have b e e n c o n c e i v e d o f i n its abstract generality b y means o f precise symbols. H o w e v e r , Say's o b s e r v a t i o n p r o b a b l y is applicable t o the p a r t i c u l a r f o r m s i t takes as i t becomes specialized a m i d the concrete reality o f life. I f there t r u l y was a t i m e w h e n those specializations o f w a k a n e v i d e n c e d such a m a r k e d affinity w i t h a n i m a l f o r m , that w o u l d be f u r t h e r p r o o f o f the close ties b e t w e e n that n o t i o n a n d t o t e m i c b e l i e f s .

32

Besides, o n e can e x p l a i n w h y the idea o f m a n a c o u l d n o t attain the d e gree o f abstraction a n d generalization i n Australia that i t d i d i n m o r e a d vanced societies. T h e reason is n o t m e r e l y some insufficient capacity o f the A u s t r a l i a n t o t h i n k abstractly a n d generalize; i t is above all t h e nature o f the social m i l i e u that i m p o s e d this p a r t i c u l a r i s m . As l o n g as t o t e m i s m remains t h e basis o f c u l t o r g a n i z a t i o n , the clan maintains an a u t o n o m y w i t h i n the r e l i g i o u s society that, a l t h o u g h n o t absolute, nonetheless remains v e r y p r o n o u n c e d . U n d o u b t e d l y , o n e can say i n a sense that each t o t e m i c g r o u p is o n l y a chapel o f the t r i b a l C h u r c h , * b u t a chapel t h a t enjoys b r o a d i n d e p e n dence. A l t h o u g h t h e c u l t that is celebrated w i t h i n the clan does n o t f o r m a w h o l e sufficient u n t o itself, the relations i t has w i t h the others are m e r e l y e x ternal. T h e cults are j u x t a p o s e d b u t n o t i n t e r p e n e t r a t i n g . T h e t o t e m o f a clan is f u l l y sacred o n l y f o r that clan. As a result, t h e g r o u p o f things assigned t o each clan, a n d that are p a r t o f the clan i n t h e same r i g h t as t h e m e n , has the same i n d i v i d u a l i t y a n d t h e same a u t o n o m y . E a c h o f t h e m is i m a g i n e d as b e i n g i r r e d u c i b l e t o similar groups that are radically d i s c o n t i n u o u s w i t h i t and as c o n s t i t u t i n g w h a t a m o u n t s t o a d i s t i n c t r e a l m . U n d e r these c o n d i t i o n s , i t w o u l d o c c u r t o n o o n e that these heterogeneous w o r l d s w e r e o n l y different *Here again, Dürkheim capitalizes. '"Ibid., p. 583. Among the Dakota, the totem is called wakan. See Riggs and Dorsey, Dakota Texts and Grammar, in CNAE [vol. IX, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1893], p. 219. '"'James's Account of Long's Expedition in the Rocky Mountains," vol. I, p. 268 (cited by Dorsey in "Siouan Cults," §92, p. 431). 32

I do not mean to argue that in principle every theriomorphic representation of religious forces is the mark of a preexisting totemism. But in terms of societies where totemism is still apparent, as in the case of the Dakota, it is natural to think that these conceptions are not unknown to it.

199


manifestations o f o n e a n d the same f u n d a m e n t a l force. I t must have b e e n ass u m e d instead that a specifically different m a n a c o r r e s p o n d e d t o each o f t h e m , the p o w e r o f w h i c h c o u l d n o t e x t e n d b e y o n d the clan a n d t h e things assigned t o i t . T h e n o t i o n o f o n e universal m a n a c o u l d be b o r n o n l y w h e n a r e l i g i o n o f the t r i b e d e v e l o p e d above the clan cults a n d absorbed t h e m m o r e o r less c o m p l e t e l y . I t is o n l y w i t h the sense o f t r i b a l u n i t y that a sense o f the w o r l d ' s u n i t y arose. I w i l l s h o w later o n

3 3

that the societies o f Australia w e r e

already a c q u a i n t e d w i t h a c u l t shared b y t h e entire t r i b e . B u t a l t h o u g h that c u l t represents the highest f o r m o f the A u s t r a l i a n r e l i g i o n s , i t d i d n o t succeed i n r u p t u r i n g the p r i n c i p l e s o n w h i c h t h e y rest a n d t r a n s f o r m i n g t h e m . T o t e m i s m is basically a federative r e l i g i o n that c a n n o t g o b e y o n d a c e r t a i n level o f c e n t r a l i z a t i o n w i t h o u t ceasing t o be itself. O n e characteristic fact i l l u m i n a t e s t h e p r o f o u n d reason w h y the n o t i o n o f m a n a has b e e n k e p t so specialized i n Australia. T h e religious forces p r o p e r — t h o s e t h o u g h t o f as totems—are n o t the o n l y ones the A u s t r a l i a n believes he m u s t r e c k o n w i t h . T h e r e are also the forces t h a t the m a g i c i a n especially has at his disposal. Whereas the r e l i g i o u s forces are considered t o be salutary a n d b e n e f i c e n t i n p r i n c i p l e , t h e f u n c t i o n o f m a g i c forces is above all t o cause death a n d illness. T h e y differ b o t h i n t h e nature o f t h e i r effects a n d i n the relations t h e y have w i t h social o r g a n i z a t i o n . A t o t e m always belongs t o a clan; m a g i c , o n the o t h e r h a n d , is a t r i b a l a n d even an i n t e r t r i b a l i n s t i t u t i o n . M a g i c a l forces d o n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y b e l o n g t o any d e f i n i t e g r o u p o f t h e t r i b e . T o use those forces, i t is e n o u g h t o have the efficacious recipes. Similarly, everyone is v u l n e r a b l e t o t h e i r effects a n d so m u s t t r y t o guard against t h e m . These are nebulous forces that are n o t attached t o any definite social d i v i s i o n a n d can even e x t e n d t h e i r i n f l u e n c e b e y o n d the t r i b e . I t is n o t e w o r t h y that, a m o n g t h e A r u n t a a n d t h e L o r i t j a , t h e y are c o n c e i v e d o f s i m p l y as aspects a n d p a r t i c u l a r f o r m s o f o n e a n d t h e same force, called i n A r u n t a Amngquiltha o r Arunkulta.

34

" I t is," say Spencer a n d G i l l e n , "a t e r m o f rather vague m e a n -

i n g ; b u t , basically, o n e always finds t h e idea o f a supernatural p o w e r e n d o w e d w i t h an e v i l nature. . . . T h i s w o r d is a p p l i e d i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y e i t h e r t o the e v i l i n f l u e n c e that comes from an o b j e c t o r t o t h e v e r y o b j e c t i n w h i c h i t t e m p o r a r i l y o r p e r m a n e n d y resides."

35

" B y A r u n k u l t a , " says Strehlow, " t h e

"See Bk. II, chap. 9 §4, pp. 288-298. 34

The first spelling is that of [Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [Francis James] Gillen; the second, [Carl] Strehlow's. 35

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1899], p. 548, n. 1. Granted, Spencer and Gillen add, "The best way of rendering the idea would be to say that the arungquiltha object is possessed by an evil spirit." But thatfreetranslation is an unwarranted interpretation by them. The notion of arungquiltha in no way implies the existence of spiritual beings. This point emergesfromStrehlow's context and definition.

200


native means a force w h o m e v e r i t enters."

36

that

suddenly

suspends life a n d b r i n g s death

to

T h i s t e r m is a p p l i e d t o bones, t o the pieces o f w o o d

that give o f f e v i l spells, a n d t o a n i m a l o r p l a n t poisons. I t is v e r y d e f i n i t e l y a h a r m f u l mana. G r e y m e n t i o n s a c o m p l e t e l y i d e n t i c a l n o t i o n i n the tribes he has o b s e r v e d .

37

A m o n g these dissimilar peoples, t h e n , t h e p r o p e r l y religious

forces d o n o t manage t o break free o f a c e r t a i n heterogeneity, b u t the m a g i cal forces are c o n c e i v e d o f as b e i n g all o f the same nature; t h e y are c o n c e i v e d o f generically. T h e reason is this: Since the m a g i c a l forces h o v e r above the d i visions and subdivisions o f t h e social o r g a n i z a t i o n , they m o v e i n a h o m o g e neous a n d c o n t i n u o u s space w h e r e t h e y d o n o t e n c o u n t e r

anything to

differentiate t h e m . O n the o t h e r h a n d , since r e l i g i o u s forces are localized w i t h i n d e f i n i t e a n d d i s t i n c t social settings, they b e c o m e differentiated a n d specialized a c c o r d i n g t o the setting i n w h i c h t h e y h a p p e n t o be. F r o m this w e see t o w h a t e x t e n t the n o t i o n o f i m p e r s o n a l religious force is i n the letter a n d spirit o f A u s t r a l i a n t o t e m i s m , f o r i t constitutes itself distincdy

as s o o n as n o c o n t r a r y cause opposes i t . G r a n t e d , the a r u n g q u i l t h a is

a p u r e l y m a g i c a l force. B u t m a g i c forces a n d r e l i g i o u s forces are n o t different i n t h e i r essence.

38

I n d e e d , they are sometimes designated b y the same w o r d .

I n Melanesia, the m a g i c i a n a n d his c h a r m s have m a n a j u s t as d o the agents a n d rites o f the regular c u l t .

3 9

A m o n g the I r o q u o i s ,

4 0

the w o r d " o r e n d a " is

used i n the same way. T h e r e f o r e , w e can l e g i t i m a t e l y i n f e r t h e nature o f each from

that o f the o t h e r .

41

36

Strehlow, Die Aranda- [und Loritja-Stamme in Zentral-Australien], vol. II [Frankfurt, J. Baer, 1907], p. 76n. 37

With the name Boyl-ya ([George] Grey, Journals of Two Expeditions [in North- West and Western Australia], vol. II [London, T. W. Boone, 1841], pp. 337-338). 38

See above, p. 400. Moreover, Spencer and Gillen implicidy recognize this when they say that the arungquiltha is "a supernatural force." Cf. Hubert and Mauss, "Théorie générale," p. 119. 39

Codrington, The Melanesians, pp. 191ff.

""Hewitt, "Orenda," p. 38. 41

One may even ask whether a concept analogous to wakan or mana is altogether lacking in Australia. As it happens, the word "churinga" (or Tjurunga, in Strehlow's spelling) has closely related meaning among the Arunta. Spencer and Gillen say that this term designates "all that is secret or sacred. It is applied as much to an object as to the quality it possesses" (Native Tribes, p. 648). This is almost the definition of mana. Sometimes, indeed, Spencer and Gillen use that word to designate religious power or force in general. In describing a ceremony among the Kaitish, they say that the celebrant is "full of churinga," that is, they continue, full of "the magical power that emanates from the objects called churingas." However, it does not seem that the notion of churinga is constituted in Australia with the clarity and precision that the notion of mana has in Melanesia or that wakan has among the Sioux.

201


III T h e result t o w h i c h the p r e c e d i n g analysis has l e d us is relevant n o t o n l y t o the h i s t o r y o f t o t e m i s m b u t also t o the f o r m a t i o n o f religious t h o u g h t generally. O n the g r o u n d s that m a n is at first r u l e d m a i n l y b y his senses a n d b y sensuous representations, i t has o f t e n b e e n a r g u e d that he began b y i m a g i n i n g the d i v i n e i n the concrete f o r m o f d e f i n i t e a n d personal beings. T h e facts d o n o t c o n f i r m that p r e s u m p t i o n . I have j u s t described a l o g i c a l l y u n i f i e d set o f r e l i g i o u s beliefs that I have g o o d reason t o consider v e r y p r i m i t i v e , a n d yet I have n o t e n c o u n t e r e d personalities o f this k i n d . T h e t o t e m i c c u l t p r o p e r is addressed n e i t h e r t o such a n d such d e f i n i t e animals n o r t o such a n d such defi n i t e plants b u t t o a sort o f diffuse p o w e r that permeates t h i n g s .

42

E v e n i n the

advanced r e l i g i o n s that have arisen o u t o f t o t e m i s m , l i k e those w e see app e a r i n g a m o n g t h e Indians o f N o r t h A m e r i c a , that idea, far f r o m b e i n g effaced, becomes m o r e conscious o f itself, expressing i t s e l f w i t h a c l a r i t y i t d i d n o t p r e v i o u s l y have, a n d at the same t i m e t a k i n g o n greater generality. T h a t idea dominates t h e w h o l e r e l i g i o u s system. S u c h is the basic m a t e r i a l from w h i c h w e r e made the various beings that r e l i g i o n s o f all times have w o r s h i p p e d a n d sanctified. T h e spirits, d e m o n s , genies, a n d gods o f every degree are o n l y the c o n c r e t e f o r m s t a k e n b y this 4 3

energy (this " p o t e n t i a l i t y , " as H e w i t t calls i t ) as i t became i n d i v i d u a l i z e d a n d f i x e d u p o n some d e f i n i t e o b j e c t o r p o i n t i n space, a n d condensed a r o u n d some b e i n g t h a t is ideal o r legendary, yet c o n c e i v e d o f as real i n p o p u l a r i m a g i n a t i o n . A D a k o t a i n t e r v i e w e d b y M i s s Fletcher described this essential consubstantiality i n language f u l l o f b o l d images: A l l that moves stops at one place or another, at one moment or another. T h e bird that flies stops somewhere to make its nest, somewhere else to rest from flight. T h e man w h o walks stops w h e n he pleases. The same is true for the deity. T h e sun, so bright and magnificent, is one place where the deity has stopped. T h e trees and the animals are others. T h e Indian thinks o f these places and sends his prayers there, that they may reach the place where god has stopped and thus obtain succor and benediction. 44

I n o t h e r w o r d s , w a k a n (for that is w h a t he was t a l k i n g about) goes a n d comes t h r o u g h the w o r l d , a n d the sacred t h i n g s are the places w h e r e i t has a l i g h t e d . 42

Certainly, we will see below (Bk. II, chaps. 8 and 9) that the idea of mythic personality is not altogether foreign to totemism. But I will show that these conceptions result from secondary formations. Far from being the basis of the beliefs just analyzed, they derive from those beliefs. "Hewitt, "Orenda," p. 38. 44

"Report of the Peabody Museum," vol. Ill, p. 276n. (cited by Dorsey, "Siouan Cults," p. 435).

202


H e r e w e f i n d ourselves far f r o m n a t u r i s m a n d a n i m i s m alike. I f the sun, m o o n , a n d stars have b e e n w o r s h i p p e d , t h e y have n o t o w e d this h o n o r t o t h e i r i n h e r e n t nature o r d i s t i n c t i v e properties b u t t o the fact that t h e y w e r e c o n c e i v e d o f as p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n that force w h i c h alone gives things t h e i r sacredness a n d is f o u n d i n m a n y o t h e r beings, even the v e r y smallest. T h e souls o f t h e dead have b e e n objects o f rites n o t because t h e y are considered t o be made o f some f l u i d a n d ethereal substance a n d n o t because t h e y resemble the shadow o f a b o d y o r its r e f l e c t i o n o n t h e face o f the deep. Lightness and

flu-

i d i t y are n o t e n o u g h t o confer sacredness o n t h e m ; t h e y have b e e n invested w i t h that h o n o r o n l y insofar as t h e y possessed some o f t h a t v e r y force, the f o u n t o f all that is r e l i g i o u s . W h y w e c o u l d n o t define r e l i g i o n b y the idea o f m y t h i c a l personalities, gods, o r spirits n o w becomes clearer. T h a t w a y o f i m a g i n i n g religious t h i n g s is b y n o means i n h e r e n t i n t h e i r nature. A t the o r i g i n a n d basis o f r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t , w e f i n d n o t d e f i n i t e a n d d i s t i n c t objects o r beings t h a t i n themselves possess sacredness b u t i n d e f i n i t e p o w e r s a n d a n o n y m o u s forces. T h e y are m o r e o r less n u m e r o u s i n different societies (sometimes, i n d e e d , t h e y are o n l y o n e force), a n d t h e i r i m p e r s o n a l i t y is exactly comparable t o that o f t h e physical forces w h o s e manifestations are s t u d i e d b y the sciences o f nature. T u r n i n g t o p a r t i c u l a r sacred t h i n g s , those are b u t i n d i v i d u a l i z e d f o r m s o f this basic p r i n c i p l e . T h u s , i t is n o t s u r p r i s i n g that even i n r e l i g i o n s i n w h i c h gods i n d i s p u t a b l y exist, there are rites that are efficacious b y themselves, i n d e p e n d e n t o f d i v i n e a c t i o n . T h i s is so because that force can attach t o w o r d s s p o k e n a n d gestures made, as w e l l as t o m a t e r i a l substances. V o i c e a n d m o v e m e n t can serve as its vehicle, a n d i t can p r o d u c e its effects t h r o u g h t h e m w i t h o u t h e l p from

any g o d o r spirit. I n d e e d , let t h a t force b e c o m e p r i m a r i l y c o n c e n t r a t e d

i n a r i t e , a n d t h r o u g h i t that r i t e w i l l b e c o m e t h e creator o f d e i t i e s .

45

T h i s is

also w h y there is perhaps n o d i v i n e personality w i t h o u t an i m p e r s o n a l elem e n t . E v e n those w h o m o s t clearly i m a g i n e d i v i n e p e r s o n a l i t y i n a concrete a n d t a n g i b l e f o r m i m a g i n e i t at t h e same t i m e as an abstract p o w e r that can be d e f i n e d o n l y b y the nature o f its effects, as a force that deploys i t s e l f i n space a n d that is i n each o f its effects, at least i n part. I t is t h e p o w e r t o p r o duce the r a i n o r the w i n d , the harvest o r t h e l i g h t o f day; Z e u s is i n each d r o p o f r a i n that falls, j u s t as Ceres is i n each sheaf o f the h a r v e s t .

46

Indeed, more

o f t e n t h a n n o t , this efficacy is so i n c o m p l e t e l y d e f i n e d t h a t the believer can 45

See above, p. 33.

"'Expressions such as Zeus uei, or Ceres succiditur, show that this conception lived on in Greece and in Rome. Moreover [Hermann] Usener, in his Gottemamen: [Versuch einer Lehre von der religiosen De-

briffebildung, Bonn, F. Cohen, 1896], has clearly shown that the gods of Greece, as of Rome, were originally impersonal forces that were only thought of in terms of their attributes.

203


have o n l y a v e r y vague n o t i o n o f i t . M o r e o v e r , this vagueness has made p o s sible t h e u n i o n s a n d divisions i n t h e course o f w h i c h t h e gods w e r e fragm e n t e d , d i s m e m b e r e d , a n d c o m b i n e d i n all sorts o f ways. T h e r e is perhaps not

a single r e l i g i o n i n w h i c h the o r i g i n a l mana, w h e t h e r u n i t a r y o r c o m -

p o u n d , has f u l l y e v o l v e d i n t o a w e l l - d e f i n e d n u m b e r o f discrete beings that are sealed o f f from o n e another. E a c h o f those beings retains a nebulous sort o f i m p e r s o n a l i t y that enables i t t o enter i n t o n e w c o m b i n a t i o n s — i t has t h a t capacity n o t s i m p l y because i t remains as a relic b u t because i t is i n t h e nature o f religious forces t o be incapable o f f u l l i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n . T h i s c o n c e p t i o n , w h i c h t h e study o f t o t e m i s m alone suggested t o m e , is f u r t h e r r e c o m m e n d e d b y the fact that, o f late, several scholars have b e e n l e d to i t i n d e p e n d e n t l y , i n the course o f q u i t e different research. T h e r e is an e m e r g i n g t e n d e n c y t o w a r d spontaneous agreement o n this p o i n t , w h i c h is w o r t h n o t i n g f o r i t creates a p r e s u m p t i o n o f o b j e c t i v i t y . As early as 1 8 9 9 , 1 was a r g u i n g the necessity o f n o t p u t t i n g any n o t i o n o f mythical personality i n t o the definition o f r e l i g i o n .

4 7

I n 1900, M a r r e t t called

a t t e n t i o n t o the existence o f a phase i n r e l i g i o n that he called preanimist, i n w h i c h t h e rites w e r e addressed t o i m p e r s o n a l forces, such as M e l a n e s i a n m a n a o r t h e w a k a n o f the O m a h a a n d the D a k o t a .

4 8

Nevertheless, M a r r e t t

d i d n o t g o so far as t o h o l d that, always a n d i n all cases, the n o t i o n o f spirit l o g i c a l l y o r c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y comes after that o f m a n a o r is d e r i v e d from i t . I n d e e d , h e seemed disposed t o a l l o w that i t is sometimes f o r m e d i n d e p e n dently, a n d hence that r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t flows from a d o u b l e s o u r c e .

49

On

the o t h e r h a n d , he c o n c e i v e d m a n a as a p r o p e r t y i n h e r e n t i n t h i n g s , as an e l e m e n t o f t h e i r specific character. A c c o r d i n g t o h i m , m a n a is s i m p l y the trait we

i m p u t e t o a n y t h i n g that departs from the o r d i n a r y , t o e v e r y t h i n g that

makes us feel a d m i r a t i o n o r f e a r . naturist t h e o r y .

50

T h i s was t a n t a m o u n t t o r e h a b i l i t a t i n g t h e

51

A s h o r t t i m e later, H u b e r t a n d Mauss, setting o u t t o devise a general t h e -

47

[Emile Durkheim, "De la] Définition des phénomènes religieux," AS, vol. II [1897-1898], pp. 14-16. 48

[R. R. Marrett], "Preanimistic Religion," in Folk-lore, vol. XI (1900), pp. 162-182.

49

Ibid., p. 179. In a more recent work, "The Conception of Mana" (in TICHR, vol. II [Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1908], pp. 54£F), Marrett tends even more to subordinate the animist conception to the notion of mana. However, his thought remains hesitant and reserved on this point. 50

51

Ibid„ p. 168.

This return of preanimism to naturism is still more marked in a communication by Clodd at the Third Congress on the History of Religions ("Preanimistic Stages in Religion," in TICHR, vol. I, pp. 33).

204


o r y o f m a g i c , established that m a g i c as a w h o l e is based o n the n o t i o n o f mana.

52

G i v e n the close k i n s h i p o f m a g i c a l rites w i t h r e l i g i o u s ones, w e

m i g h t expect t h e same t h e o r y t o be applicable t o r e l i g i o n . Preuss argued this i n a series o f articles that appeared i n Globus

53

t h e same year. R e l y i n g o n facts

he h a d d r a w n m a i n l y from A m e r i c a n c i v i l i z a t i o n s , Preuss set o u t t o s h o w that t h e ideas o f soul a n d s p i r i t w e r e f o r m e d o n l y after those o f i m p e r s o n a l p o w e r a n d force, that soul a n d s p i r i t are o n l y transformations o f i m p e r s o n a l p o w e r a n d force, a n d that u n t i l fairly recent times, those latter r e t a i n e d the m a r k o f t h e i r o r i g i n a l i m p e r s o n a l i t y . H e d i d i n d e e d s h o w that, even i n the advanced religions, s p i r i t a n d s o u l are c o n c e i v e d o f i n t h e f o r m o f vague

discharges

spontaneously e m i t t e d from the t h i n g s i n w h i c h t h e m a n a resides, and s o m e times t e n d i n g t o escape u s i n g all available routes: m o u t h , nose, and every o t h e r b o d y o p e n i n g , breath, gaze, speech, a n d so o n . A t t h e same t i m e , Preuss s h o w e d t h e i r p r o t e a n quality, t h e e x t r e m e plasticity that enables t h e m t o serve t h e m o s t v a r i e d uses, i n succession a n d almost s i m u l t a n e o u s l y .

54

True

e n o u g h , i f that author's t e r m i n o l o g y was taken literally, o n e m i g h t t h i n k those forces are, f o r h i m , o f a m a g i c a l a n d n o t a r e l i g i o u s nature. H e calls t h e m charms (Zauber, Zauberkräfte).

B u t since he shows t h e m t o be active i n

rites that are f u n d a m e n t a l l y r e l i g i o u s , f o r e x a m p l e , the great M e x i c a n cere5 5

m o n i e s , i t is e v i d e n t that, b y u s i n g such t e r m s , h e does n o t m e a n t o place those forces outside r e l i g i o n . I f he uses t h e m , i t is p r o b a b l y f o r w a n t o f o t h ers that better i n d i c a t e t h e i r i m p e r s o n a l i t y a n d the sort o f m e c h a n i s m b y w h i c h they operate. T h u s , the same idea is t e n d i n g t o appear f r o m all q u a r t e r s .

56

The i m -

pression increasingly is that t h e m y t h o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s , even t h e m o s t e l e m e n t a r y ones, are s e c o n d a r y

57

p r o d u c t s o v e r g r o w i n g a substratum o f b e -

liefs—simpler a n d m o r e obscure, vaguer a n d m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l — t h a t c o n 52

Hubert and Mauss, "Théorie générale de la magie," pp. 108ff.

53

[Konrad Theodor] Preuss, "Der Ursprung der Religion und Kunst," in Globus, vol. LXXXVI (1904), pp. 321, 355, 376, 389; vol. LXXXVII, pp. 333, 347, 380, 394, [419]. 54

Ibid., vol. LXXXVII, p. 381.

55

He clearly opposes them to all influences that are profane in nature (ibid., vol. LXXXVI, p. 379a).

''They are found even in the recent theories of Frazer. If this scholar refuses to ascribe a religious character to totemism so as to make it a kind of magic, he does so precisely because the forces that the totemic cult puts into operation are impersonal, like those the magician manipulates. Frazer recognizes the fundamental fact I have just established, but he draws a different conclusion from it than I do, because, according to him, there is religion only if there are mythical personalities. "However, I do not take this word in the same sense as Preuss and Marrett. According to them, there was a definite moment in religious evolution when men knew neither souls nor spirits, a preanimist phase. This hypothesis is highly questionable. I will offer further explanation on this point below (Bk. II, chaps. 8 and 9).

205


stitute t h e firm f o u n d a t i o n s o n w h i c h the r e l i g i o u s systems w e r e b u i l t . T h i s is the p r i m i t i v e s t r a t u m that t h e analysis o f t o t e m i s m has enabled us t o reach. T h e v a r i o u s w r i t e r s w h o s e research I have j u s t m e n t i o n e d a r r i v e d at that c o n c e p t i o n u s i n g facts taken f r o m q u i t e disparate r e l i g i o n s , some o f w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d t o an already w e l l - a d v a n c e d c i v i l i z a t i o n — t h e religions o f M e x i c o , f o r example, w h i c h Preuss used a great deal. I t m i g h t t h e n be asked w h e t h e r the t h e o r y was applicable t o the simplest r e l i g i o n s as w e l l . B u t since o n e can descend n o f u r t h e r t h a n t o t e m i s m , w e r u n n o risk o f error. A t the same t i m e , w e m a y possibly have f o u n d the o r i g i n a l n o t i o n f r o m w h i c h the ideas o f w a k a n a n d m a n a are d e r i v e d : t h e n o t i o n o f t h e t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e .

5 8

IV T h e role that n o t i o n has played i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f religious ideas is n o t the o n l y reason f o r its p r i m a r y i m p o r t a n c e . I t has a secular aspect that gives i t relevance f o r t h e h i s t o r y o f scientific t h o u g h t as w e l l . I t is the n o t i o n o f force i n its earliest f o r m . I n t h e w o r l d as t h e S i o u x conceive i t , w a k a n plays the same role as t h e forces b y w h i c h science explains the v a r i e d p h e n o m e n a o f nature. T h i s is n o t t o say that i t is t h o u g h t o f i n the f o r m o f an exclusively physical energy; w e w i l l see i n the n e x t chapter that, instead, the elements used t o f o r m an idea o f i t are taken from the m o s t disparate realms. B u t precisely that c o m p o s i t e nature enables i t t o b e used as a p r i n c i p l e o f universal e x p l a n a t i o n . T h e w h o l e o f life comes from i t ;

5 9

" a l l life is w a k a n " ; and b y the w o r d " l i f e " m u s t be u n -

d e r s t o o d all that acts a n d reacts a n d all that moves a n d is m o v e d , as m u c h i n the m i n e r a l k i n g d o m as i n the b i o l o g i c a l one. W a k a n is the cause o f all the m o v e m e n t that takes place i n t h e universe. W e have also seen that the orenda o f t h e I r o q u o i s is " t h e efficient cause o f all t h e p h e n o m e n a , and all t h e a c t i v ities, that manifest themselves a r o u n d m a n . " I t is a p o w e r " i n h e r e n t i n all bodies a n d all t h i n g s . "

60

I t is orenda that makes t h e w i n d b l o w , the sun shine

a n d w a r m the earth, t h e plants g r o w , the animals m u l t i p l y , and that makes

58

On this same question, see the article of Alessandro Bruno, "Sui fenomeni magico-religiosi delle comunita primitive," in Rivista italiana di Sociotogia, vol. XII, fasc. IV-V, pp. 568ff., and an unpublished paper by W. Bogoras at the XlVth Congress of Americanists, held at Stuttgart in 1904. This paper is analyzed by Preuss in Globus, vol. LXXXVI, p. 201. 59

"A11 things," says Miss Fletcher, "are pervaded by a common principle of life." "Import of the Totem," p. 579. ""Hewitt, "Orenda," p. 36.

206


man

strong, skillful, and i n t e l l i g e n t . W h e n the I r o q u o i s says that the life o f all

nature is the p r o d u c t o f conflicts b e t w e e n the u n e q u a l l y intense orenda o f different beings, he is expressing i n his language t h e m o d e r n idea that the w o r l d is a system o f forces that l i m i t , c o n t a i n , a n d e q u i l i b r a t e o n e another. T h e M e l a n e s i a n i m p u t e s t h e same sort o f efficacy t o mana. I t is thanks t o his mana that a m a n succeeds i n h u n t i n g o r i n war, t h a t his gardens p r o d u c e a g o o d y i e l d , that his herds prosper. Because i t is f u l l o f mana, the a r r o w reaches its m a r k , a net takes m a n y fish, a canoe holds t h e sea w e l l ,

6 1

a n d so

o n . I t is t r u e that i f c e r t a i n o f C o d r i n g t o n ' s phrases w e r e taken literally, m a n a w o u l d be the cause t o w h i c h p e o p l e specifically ascribe " a l l that exceeds the p o w e r o f m a n , all that is outside the o r d i n a r y course o f n a t u r e . "

62

But it

emerges f r o m the v e r y examples he cites that the sphere o f m a n a is a g o o d deal broader t h a n that. I n reality, i t serves t o e x p l a i n usual a n d everyday p h e n o m e n a . T h e r e is n o t h i n g s u p e r h u m a n o r supernatural i n t h e fact that a b o a t sails o r a h u n t e r takes game. A m o n g those events o f everyday life, there are some so insignificant a n d so f a m i l i a r that t h e y g o b y u n p e r c e i v e d : N o o n e takes n o t e o f t h e m , and, consequendy, n o o n e feels a n e e d t o e x p l a i n t h e m . T h e c o n c e p t o f mana is a p p l i e d o n l y t o those that are i m p o r t a n t e n o u g h t o p r o v o k e reflection, t o a w a k e n a m o d i c u m o f interest a n d curiosity. F o r all that, however, they are n o t m i r a c u l o u s . A n d w h a t is t r u e o f m a n a as w e l l as orenda o r w a k a n is equally t r u e o f the t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e . B y that p r i n c i p l e are m a i n t a i n e d the lives o f the clan's p e o p l e , the lives o f t h e animals o r plants o f the t o t e m i c species, the lives o f a l l things that are classified u n d e r the t o t e m a n d participate i n its nature. T h u s the idea o f force is o f r e l i g i o u s o r i g i n . F r o m r e l i g i o n , p h i l o s o p h y first a n d later the sciences b o r r o w e d i t . S u c h is the i n t u i t i o n C o m t e already h a d w h e n he called metaphysics t h e h e i r o f " t h e o l o g y . " B u t his c o n c l u s i o n was that, because o f its metaphysical o r i g i n s , the idea o f force was fated t o disappear from science, a n d he d e n i e d i t any objective m e a n i n g . I w i l l show, to the contrary, that r e l i g i o u s forces are real, n o m a t t e r h o w i m p e r f e c t t h e symbols w i t h w h o s e h e l p t h e y w e r e c o n c e i v e d of. F r o m this i t w i l l f o l l o w that the same is t r u e f o r t h e c o n c e p t o f force i n general.

61

Codrington, The Melanestans, pp. 118—120.

62

Ibid., p. 119.

CHAPTER SEVEN

ORIGINS OF THESE BELIEFS (CONCLUSION) Origin of the Notion of Totemic Principle, or Mana

T

he p r o p o s i t i o n established i n the p r e c e d i n g chapter defines the terms i n w h i c h t h e p r o b l e m o f h o w t o t e m i s m o r i g i n a t e d m u s t be posed. T h e

central n o t i o n o f t o t e m i s m is that o f a q u a s i - d i v i n e p r i n c i p l e that is i m m a n e n t i n c e r t a i n categories o f m e n a n d things a n d t h o u g h t o f i n the f o r m o f an a n i m a l o r plant. I n essence, therefore, t o e x p l a i n this r e l i g i o n is t o e x p l a i n this belief-—that is, t o discover w h a t c o u l d have l e d m e n t o construct i t a n d w i t h w h a t b u i l d i n g blocks.

I I t is manifestly n o t w i t h the feelings t h e things that serve as totems are capable o f arousing i n men's m i n d s . I have s h o w n that these are o f t e n i n s i g n i f i cant. I n the sort o f i m p r e s s i o n lizards, caterpillars, rats, ants, frogs, turkeys, breams, p l u m trees, cockatoos, a n d so f o r t h m a k e u p o n m a n (to cite o n l y the names that c o m e u p f r e q u e n t l y o n lists o f A u s t r a l i a n totems), there is n o t h i n g that i n any w a y resembles g r a n d a n d p o w e r f u l religious e m o t i o n s

or

c o u l d stamp u p o n t h e m a q u a l i t y o f sacredness. T h e same cannot be said o f stars and great a t m o s p h e r i c p h e n o m e n a , w h i c h d o have all that is r e q u i r e d t o seize men's i m a g i n a t i o n s . A s i t happens, however, these serve v e r y rarely as totems; i n d e e d , t h e i r use f o r this p u r p o s e was p r o b a b l y a late d e v e l o p m e n t .

1

T h u s i t was n o t the i n t r i n s i c nature o f t h e t h i n g w h o s e n a m e t h e clan b o r e that set i t apart as t h e object o f w o r s h i p . F u r t h e r m o r e , i f the e m o t i o n e l i c i t e d b y the t h i n g itself really was t h e d e t e r m i n i n g cause o f t o t e m i c rites a n d b e liefs, t h e n this t h i n g w o u l d also be the sacred b e i n g par excellence, a n d the 'See above, p. 102. 207

208


animals a n d plants used as t o t e m s w o u l d play the l e a d i n g r o l e i n religious life. B u t w e k n o w that the focus o f t h e c u l t is elsewhere. I t is s y m b o l i c representations o f this o r that p l a n t o r a n i m a l . I t is t o t e m i c emblems a n d symbols o f all k i n d s that possess the greatest sanctity. A n d so i t is i n t o t e m i c emblems a n d symbols that the r e l i g i o u s source is t o be f o u n d , w h i l e the real objects represented b y those e m b l e m s receive o n l y a r e f l e c t i o n . T h e t o t e m is above all a s y m b o l , a tangible expression o f s o m e t h i n g else.

2

B u t o f what? I t f o l l o w s f r o m t h e same analysis that t h e t o t e m expresses a n d symbolizes t w o different k i n d s o f things. F r o m o n e p o i n t o f v i e w , i t is t h e o u t w a r d a n d visible f o r m o f w h a t I have called t h e t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e o r g o d ; and f r o m a n other, i t is also the s y m b o l o f a p a r t i c u l a r society that is called t h e clan. I t is the flag o f the clan, the sign b y w h i c h each clan is d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m the others, the visible m a r k o f its distinctiveness, a n d a m a r k that is b o r n e b y e v e r y t h i n g that i n any w a y belongs t o t h e clan: m e n , animals, a n d things. T h u s , i f the t o t e m is t h e s y m b o l o f b o t h t h e g o d a n d t h e society, is this n o t because the g o d a n d t h e society are o n e a n d t h e same? H o w c o u l d the e m b l e m o f t h e g r o u p have taken t h e f o r m o f that q u a s i - d i v i n i t y i f t h e g r o u p and t h e d i v i n i t y w e r e t w o d i s t i n c t realities? T h u s t h e g o d o f t h e clan, the t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e , can be n o n e o t h e r t h a n the clan itself, b u t t h e clan transfigured and i m a g i n e d i n t h e physical f o r m o f t h e p l a n t o r a n i m a l that serves as t o t e m . H o w c o u l d that apotheosis have c o m e a b o u t , a n d w h y s h o u l d i t have c o m e a b o u t i n that fashion?

II Society i n general, s i m p l y b y its effect o n men's m i n d s , u n d o u b t e d l y has all that is r e q u i r e d t o arouse the sensation o f t h e d i v i n e . A society is t o its m e m bers w h a t a g o d is t o its faithful. * A g o d is first o f all a b e i n g that m a n c o n ceives o f as s u p e r i o r t o h i m s e l f i n some respects a n d o n e o n w h o m he believes he depends. W h e t h e r that b e i n g is a conscious personality, l i k e Zeus o r Y a h w e h , o r a play o f abstract forces as i n t o t e m i s m , the faithful believe

*Le fidèle. To avoid translating this term, which connotes loyal adherence, as "the believer," thereby leaving no room for a contrast with le croyant, which connotes belief, I have usually rendered it as "the faithful." Durkheim analyzes the stance of what one might call the "unbelieving faithful." See Bk. Ill, chap. 3, §2. 2

In the small book cited above, [Julius] Pikler, [Der Ursprung der Totemismus. Ein Beitrag zur materialis¬ chen Geschichtheorie, Berlin, K. Hoffmann, 1900] has already expressed, in a somewhat dialectical fashion, the belief that this fundamentally is what the totem is.

Origins of These Beliefs (Conclusion)

209

t h e y are b o u n d t o c e r t a i n ways o f a c t i n g that t h e nature o f the sacred p r i n c i ple t h e y are d e a l i n g w i t h has i m p o s e d u p o n t h e m . S o c i e t y also fosters i n us the sense o f p e r p e t u a l dependence. Precisely because society has its o w n specific nature that is different f r o m o u r nature as i n d i v i d u a l s , i t pursues ends that are also specifically its o w n ; b u t because i t can achieve those ends o n l y b y w o r k i n g t h r o u g h us, i t categorically demands o u r c o o p e r a t i o n . Society requires us t o m a k e ourselves its servants, f o r g e t f u l o f o u r o w n interests. A n d i t subjects us t o all sorts o f restraints, p r i v a t i o n s , a n d sacrifices w i t h o u t w h i c h social life w o u l d be impossible. A n d so, at every instant, w e m u s t s u b m i t t o rules o f a c t i o n a n d t h o u g h t that w e have n e i t h e r m a d e n o r w a n t e d a n d that sometimes are c o n t r a r y t o o u r i n c l i n a t i o n s a n d t o o u r m o s t basic instincts. I f society c o u l d exact those concessions a n d sacrifices o n l y b y physical constraint, i t c o u l d arouse i n us o n l y t h e sense o f a physical force t o w h i c h w e have n o c h o i c e b u t t o y i e l d , a n d n o t that o f a m o r a l p o w e r such as r e l i g i o n s venerate. I n reality, h o w e v e r , the h o l d society has over consciousness owes far less t o t h e prerogative its physical s u p e r i o r i t y gives i t t h a n t o the m o r a l a u t h o r i t y w i t h w h i c h i t is invested. ,We defer t o society's orders n o t s i m p l y because i t is e q u i p p e d t o o v e r c o m e o u r resistance b u t , first a n d f o r e m o s t , because i t is t h e object o f g e n u i n e respect. A n i n d i v i d u a l o r collective subject is said t o inspire respect w h e n the r e p resentation that expresses i t i n consciousness has such p o w e r that i t calls f o r t h o r i n h i b i t s c o n d u c t automatically, irrespective of any utilitarian calculation of helpful or harmful results. W h e n w e o b e y s o m e o n e o u t o f respect f o r the m o r a l a u t h o r i t y that w e have accorded t o h i m , w e d o n o t f o l l o w his instructions because t h e y seem wise b u t because a c e r t a i n psychic energy i n t r i n s i c t o t h e idea w e have o f that person bends o u r w i l l a n d t u r n s i t i n t h e d i r e c t i o n i n d i cated. W h e n that i n w a r d a n d w h o l l y m e n t a l pressure moves w i t h i n us, respect is the e m o t i o n w e feel. W e are t h e n m o v e d n o t b y the advantages o r disadvantages o f t h e c o n d u c t that is r e c o m m e n d e d t o us o r d e m a n d e d o f us b u t b y the w a y w e conceive o f the o n e w h o r e c o m m e n d s o r demands that c o n d u c t . T h i s is w h y a c o m m a n d generally takes o n short, sharp f o r m s o f address that leave n o r o o m f o r hesitation. I t is also w h y , t o the e x t e n t that c o m m a n d is c o m m a n d a n d w o r k s b y its o w n strength, i t precludes any idea o f d e l i b e r a t i o n o r c a l c u l a t i o n , b u t instead is m a d e effective b y the v e r y i n t e n s i t y o f the m e n tal state i n w h i c h i t is g i v e n . T h a t i n t e n s i t y is w h a t w e call m o r a l influence. T h e ways o f a c t i n g t o w h i c h society is s t r o n g l y e n o u g h attached t o i m pose t h e m o n its m e m b e r s are f o r that reason m a r k e d w i t h a d i s t i n g u i s h i n g sign that calls f o r t h respect. Because these ways o f a c t i n g have b e e n w o r k e d o u t i n c o m m o n , the i n t e n s i t y w i t h w h i c h t h e y are t h o u g h t i n each i n d i v i d ual m i n d finds resonance i n all t h e others, a n d v i c e versa. T h e representations


210

that translate t h e m w i t h i n each o f us thereby g a i n an i n t e n s i t y that m e r e p r i vate states o f consciousness can i n n o w a y m a t c h . T h o s e ways o f a c t i n g gather strength f r o m t h e countless i n d i v i d u a l representations that have served t o f o r m each o f t h e m . I t is society that speaks t h r o u g h the m o u t h s o f those w h o a f f i r m t h e m i n o u r presence; i t is society that w e hear w h e n w e hear t h e m ; 3

a n d t h e v o i c e o f all itself has a t o n e that an i n d i v i d u a l v o i c e c a n n o t have. T h e v e r y forcefulness w i t h w h i c h society acts against dissidence, w h e t h e r b y m o r a l censure o r physical repression, helps t o strengthen this d o m i n a n c e ,

4

a n d at t h e same time forcefully p r o c l a i m s t h e ardor o f the shared c o n v i c t i o n . I n short, w h e n s o m e t h i n g is the o b j e c t o f a state o f o p i n i o n , the representat i o n o f the t h i n g that each i n d i v i d u a l has draws such p o w e r f r o m its o r i g i n s , from

the c o n d i t i o n s i n w h i c h i t o r i g i n a t e d , that i t is felt even b y those w h o

d o n o t y i e l d t o i t . * T h e m e n t a l representation o f a t h i n g that is t h e o b j e c t o f a state o f o p i n i o n has a t e n d e n c y t o repress a n d h o l d at bay those representat i o n s that c o n t r a d i c t i t ; i t c o m m a n d s instead those actions that f u l f i l l i t . I t accomplishes this n o t b y the reality o r threat o f physical c o e r c i o n b u t b y the r a d i a t i o n o f the m e n t a l energy i t contains. T h e h a l l m a r k o f m o r a l a u t h o r i t y is that its psychic properties alone give i t p o w e r . O p i n i o n , e m i n e n d y a social t h i n g , is o n e source o f a u t h o r i t y . I n d e e d , the q u e s t i o n arises w h e t h e r a u 5

t h o r i t y is n o t the daughter o f o p i n i o n . S o m e w i l l o b j e c t that science is o f ten

the antagonist o f o p i n i o n , t h e errors o f w h i c h i t combats a n d corrects.

B u t science can succeed i n this task o n l y i f i t has sufficient a u t h o r i t y , a n d i t can g a i n such a u t h o r i t y o n l y from o p i n i o n itself. A l l the scientific d e m o n strations i n the w o r l d w o u l d have n o i n f l u e n c e i f a p e o p l e h a d n o faith i n science. E v e n today, i f i t s h o u l d h a p p e n t h a t science resisted a v e r y p o w e r f u l c u r r e n t o f p u b l i c o p i n i o n , i t w o u l d r u n the r i s k o f seeing its c r e d i b i l i t y eroded.

6

Tor example, the thief acknowledges a "state of opinion" by taking precautions not to be discovered. As this example suggests, once upon a time Durkheim's term opinion could have been translated as "public opinion" without confusion, but not in America today. Our present usage connotes the discrete bits of "opinion" that pollsters elicit through replies to questionnaires. Trans. 3

See my [De la] Division du travail social: Etude sur l'organisation de sociétés supérieures, 3d ed. [Paris, F. Al-

can, 1902], pp. 64ff. 4

Ibid., p. 76.

5

This is the case at least for all moral authority that is recognized as such by a group.

6

1 hope this analysis and those that follow will put an end to an erroneous interpretation of my ideas, which has more than once led to misunderstanding. Because I have made constraint the external feature by which social facts can be most easily recognized and distinguishedfromindividual psychological ones, some have believed that I consider physical constraint to be the entire essence of social life. In reality, I have never regarded constraint as anything more than the visible, tangible expression of an underlying, inner fact that is wholly ideal: moral authority. The question for sociology—if there can be said to be one so-


211

Because social pressure makes itself felt t h r o u g h m e n t a l channels, i t was b o u n d t o give m a n the idea that outside h i m there are o n e o r several powers, m o r a l yet m i g h t y , t o w h i c h h e is subject. Since they speak t o h i m i n a t o n e o f c o m m a n d , a n d sometimes even t e l l h i m t o v i o l a t e his m o s t natural i n c h nations, m a n was b o u n d t o i m a g i n e t h e m as b e i n g e x t e r n a l t o h i m . T h e m y t h o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s w o u l d doubdess n o t have b e e n b o r n i f m a n c o u l d easily see that those influences u p o n h i m c o m e from society. B u t the o r d i n a r y observer c a n n o t see w h e r e t h e i n f l u e n c e o f society comes from. I t moves a l o n g channels t h a t are t o o obscure a n d c i r c u i t o u s , and uses psychic mechanisms that are t o o c o m p l e x , t o be easily traced t o t h e source. So l o n g as scientific analysis has n o t yet t a u g h t h i m , m a n is w e l l aware that he is acted u p o n b u t n o t b y w h o m . T h u s he h a d t o b u i l d o u t o f n o t h i n g the idea o f those powers w i t h w h i c h he feels c o n n e c t e d . F r o m this w e can b e g i n t o p e r ceive h o w he was l e d t o i m a g i n e those powers i n f o r m s that are n o t t h e i r o w n a n d t o transfigure t h e m i n t h o u g h t . A g o d is n o t o n l y an a u t h o r i t y t o w h i c h w e are subject b u t also a force t h a t buttresses o u r o w n . T h e m a n w h o has o b e y e d his g o d , and w h o f o r this reason t h i n k s he has his g o d w i t h h i m , approaches t h e w o r l d w i t h confidence a n d a sense o f h e i g h t e n e d energy. I n t h e same way, society's w o r k i n g s d o n o t stop at d e m a n d i n g sacrifices, p r i v a t i o n s , a n d efforts from us. T h e force o f the c o l l e c t i v i t y is n o t w h o l l y e x t e r n a l ; i t does n o t m o v e us e n t i r e l y from outside. I n d e e d , because society can exist o n l y i n a n d b y means o f i n d i v i d u a l m i n d s ,

7

i t m u s t enter i n t o us a n d b e c o m e o r g a n i z e d w i t h i n us. T h a t force thus b e comes an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f o u r b e i n g and, b y the same stroke, uplifts i t and brings i t to maturity. * T h i s s t i m u l a t i n g a n d i n v i g o r a t i n g effect o f society is p a r t i c u l a r l y apparent i n c e r t a i n circumstances. I n the m i d s t o f an assembly that becomes w o r k e d

ciological question—is to seek, throughout the variousformsof external constraint, the correspondingly various kinds of moral authority and to discover what causes have given rise to the latter. Specifically, the main object of the question treated in the present work is to discover in what form the particular kind of moral authority that is inherent in all that is religious was born, and what it is made of. Further, it will be seen below that in making social pressure one of the distinguishing features of sociological phenomena, I do not mean to say that this is the only one. I will exhibit another aspect of collective life, virtually the opposite of this one, but no less real. (See p. 213.) * L'élève et le grandit. This phrase can also mean "uplifts and enlarges" it. Swain chose the verbs "elevate" and "magnify." Dürkheim may have intended both the physical and the moral meanings: "to lift" as well as "to bring up" or "rear"; to "enlarge" as well as to "raise in stature" or "bring to maturity." 7

Which does not mean, of course, that collective consciousness does not have specific traits (Dürkheim, "Représentations individuelles et représentations collectives," RMM, vol. VI ([1898]), pp. 273ff.).


212

up, w e b e c o m e capable o f feelings a n d c o n d u c t o f w h i c h w e are incapable w h e n left t o o u r i n d i v i d u a l resources. W h e n i t is dissolved a n d w e are again o n o u r o w n , w e fall b a c k t o o u r o r d i n a r y level a n d can t h e n take t h e f u l l measure o f h o w far above ourselves w e w e r e . H i s t o r y abounds w i t h e x a m ples. Suffice i t t o t h i n k a b o u t the n i g h t o f A u g u s t 4 * , w h e n an assembly was suddenly c a r r i e d away i n an act o f sacrifice a n d a b n e g a t i o n that each o f its m e m b e r s h a d refused t o m a k e t h e n i g h t before a n d b y w h i c h all w e r e sur8

p r i s e d the m o r n i n g after. F o r this reason all parties—be t h e y p o l i t i c a l , e c o n o m i c , o r d e n o m i n a t i o n a l — s e e t o i t that p e r i o d i c c o n v e n t i o n s are h e l d , at w h i c h t h e i r followers can r e n e w t h e i r c o m m o n f a i t h b y m a k i n g a p u b l i c d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f i t together. T o strengthen e m o t i o n s that w o u l d dissipate i f left alone, t h e o n e t h i n g needful is t o b r i n g all those w h o share t h e m i n t o m o r e i n t i m a t e a n d m o r e d y n a m i c relationship. I n the same way, w è can also e x p l a i n the c u r i o u s posture that is so characteristic o f a m a n w h o is speaking t o a c r o w d — i f h e has achieved c o m m u n i o n w i t h i t . H i s language becomes h i g h - f l o w n i n a w a y that w o u l d b e r i d i c u l o u s i n o r d i n a r y circumstances; his gestures take o n an o v e r b e a r i n g quality; his v e r y t h o u g h t becomes i m p a t i e n t o f l i m i t s a n d slips easily i n t o every k i n d o f extreme. T h i s is because he feels f i l l e d t o o v e r f l o w i n g , as t h o u g h w i t h a p h e n o m e n a l oversupply o f forces that spill over a n d t e n d t o spread a r o u n d h i m . Sometimes he even feels possessed b y a m o r a l force greater t h a n he, o f w h i c h he is o n l y the interpreter. T h i s is t h e h a l l m a r k o f w h a t has o f t e n b e e n called the d e m o n o f o r a t o r i c a l i n s p i r a t i o n . T h i s e x t r a o r d i n a r y surplus o f forces is q u i t e real and comes t o h i m f r o m t h e v e r y g r o u p he is addressing. T h e feelings he arouses as he speaks r e t u r n t o h i m enlarged a n d a m p l i f i e d , r e i n f o r c i n g his o w n t o the same degree. T h e passionate energies that he arouses reecho i n t u r n w i t h i n h i m , a n d t h e y increase his d y n a m i s m . I t is t h e n n o l o n g e r a m e r e i n d i v i d u a l w h o speaks b u t a g r o u p i n c a r n a t e d a n d personified. A p a r t from these passing o r i n t e r m i t t e n t states, there are m o r e lasting ones i n w h i c h the f o r t i f y i n g a c t i o n o f society makes itself felt w i t h l o n g e r t e r m consequences a n d o f t e n w i t h m o r e s t r i k i n g effect. U n d e r the i n f l u e n c e 'Dürkheim is probably alluding to the night of 4 August 1789, when Frances new National Assembly ratified the total destruction of the feudal regime. 8

The proof of this is the length and passion of the debates at which legal form was given to the resolutions in principle that were taken in a moment of collective enthusiasm. More than one, among clergy and nobility alike, called that famous night "dupes' night," or, with Rivarol, the "Saint Bartholomew's of the landed estates." [This apparendy alludes to two events. The Journée des Dupes was the day, not the night, of 30 November 1630, when Cardinal Richelieu's enemies came to believe the cardinal had lost the king's ear for good and had fallen in disgrace; they were proved wrong. La St. Barthélémy was a massacre of Protestants 23-24 August 1527, which led to civil war. Trans.] See [Otto] Stoll, Suggestion und Hypnotismus in der Völkerpsychologie, 2d ed. [Leipzig, Veit, 1904], p. 618 n. 2.

213


o f some great collective s h o c k i n c e r t a i n h i s t o r i c a l p e r i o d s , social interactions b e c o m e m u c h m o r e frequent a n d active. I n d i v i d u a l s seek o n e a n o t h e r o u t a n d c o m e t o g e t h e r m o r e . T h e result is t h e general effervescence that is characteristic o f r e v o l u t i o n a r y o r creative epochs. T h e result o f that h e i g h t e n e d a c t i v i t y is a general s t i m u l a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l energies. People live differently a n d m o r e intensely t h a n i n n o r m a l t i m e s . * T h e changes are n o t s i m p l y o f nuance a n d degree; m a n h i m s e l f becomes s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n w h a t he was. H e is s t i r r e d b y passions so intense that t h e y can be satisfied o n l y b y v i o l e n t a n d e x t r e m e acts: b y acts o f s u p e r h u m a n h e r o i s m o r b l o o d y barbarism. 9

T h i s explains t h e Crusades, f o r example, as w e l l as so m a n y s u b l i m e o r savage m o m e n t s i n the F r e n c h R e v o l u t i o n .

1 0

W e see t h e m o s t m e d i o c r e o r

harmless b o u r g e o i s t r a n s f o r m e d b y t h e general e x a l t a t i o n i n t o a hero o r an executioner.

11

A n d t h e m e n t a l processes are so clearly t h e same as those at t h e

r o o t o f r e l i g i o n that the i n d i v i d u a l s themselves c o n c e i v e d the pressure t h e y y i e l d e d t o i n e x p l i c i d y r e l i g i o u s t e r m s . T h e Crusaders believed t h e y felt G o d present a m o n g t h e m , c a l l i n g o n t h e m t o g o f o r t h a n d c o n q u e r the H o l y L a n d , a n d J o a n o f A r c b e l i e v e d she was o b e y i n g celestial v o i c e s .

12

T h i s s t i m u l a t i n g a c t i o n o f society is n o t felt i n e x c e p t i o n a l circumstances alone. T h e r e is v i r t u a l l y n o instant o f o u r lives i n w h i c h a c e r t a i n r u s h o f e n ergy fails t o c o m e t o us from outside ourselves. I n all k i n d s o f acts that ex¬ - press the u n d e r s t a n d i n g , esteem, a n d affection o f his n e i g h b o r , there is a lift that the m a n w h o does his d u t y feels, usually w i t h o u t b e i n g aware o f i t . B u t that lift sustains h i m ; t h e f e e l i n g society has f o r h i m uplifts the f e e l i n g he has for himself. Because he is i n m o r a l h a r m o n y w i t h his n e i g h b o r , he gains n e w confidence, courage, a n d boldness i n a c t i o n — q u i t e l i k e the m a n o f f a i t h who

believes h e feels t h e eyes o f his g o d t u r n e d b e n e v o l e n d y t o w a r d h i m .

T h u s is p r o d u c e d w h a t a m o u n t s t o a p e r p e t u a l u p l i f t o f o u r m o r a l b e i n g . Since i t varies a c c o r d i n g t o a m u l t i t u d e o f e x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n s — w h e t h e r o u r relations w i t h t h e social groups t h a t s u r r o u n d us are m o r e o r less active a n d w h a t those groups a r e — w e c a n n o t h e l p b u t feel that this m o r a l t o n i n g u p has an e x t e r n a l cause, t h o u g h w e d o n o t see w h e r e t h a t cause is o r w h a t i t is. So w e readily conceive o f i t i n t h e f o r m o f a m o r a l p o w e r that, w h i l e i m m a n e n t i n us, also represents s o m e t h i n g i n us t h a t is o t h e r t h a n ourselves. T h i s is *On vitplus et autrement qu'en temps normal.

'Ibid., pp. 353ff. '"Ibid., pp. 619, 635. "Ibid., pp. 622S". 12

Feelings of fear or sadness can also develop and intensify under the same influences. As we will see, those feelings correspond to a whole aspect ofreligiouslife (Bk. Ill, chap. 5).


214

man's m o r a l consciousness a n d his conscience.* A n d i t is o n l y w i t h the a i d o f religious symbols that m o s t have ever m a n a g e d t o conceive o f i t w i t h any c l a r i t y at a l l . I n a d d i t i o n t o those free forces that c o n t i n u o u s l y r e n e w o u r o w n , there are o t h e r forces congealed i n the techniques w e use a n d i n traditions o f all k i n d s . W e speak a language w e d i d n o t create; w e use i n s t r u m e n t s w e d i d n o t i n v e n t ; w e c l a i m r i g h t s w e d i d n o t establish; each g e n e r a t i o n i n h e r i t s a treasury o f k n o w l e d g e that i t d i d n o t i t s e l f amass; a n d so o n . W e o w e these v a r i e d benefits o f c i v i l i z a t i o n t o society, a n d a l t h o u g h i n general w e d o n o t see w h e r e t h e y c o m e f r o m , w e k n o w at least that t h e y are n o t o f o u r o w n m a k i n g . I t is these things that g i v e m a n his distinctiveness a m o n g all creatures, f o r m a n is m a n o n l y because he is c i v i l i z e d . T h u s he c o u l d n o t escape the sense o f m i g h t y causes e x i s t i n g outside h i m , w h i c h are the source o f his characteristic nature a n d w h i c h , l i k e b e n e v o l e n t forces, h e l p a n d p r o t e c t h i m a n d guarantee h i m a p r i v i l e g e d fate. H e n a t u r a l l y a c c o r d e d t o those powers a r e spect c o m m e n s u r a t e w i t h the great value o f the benefits that he a t t r i b u t e d t o them.

1 3

T h u s t h e e n v i r o n m e n t i n w h i c h w e live seems p o p u l a t e d w i t h forces at once d e m a n d i n g a n d h e l p f u l , majestic a n d k i n d , a n d w i t h w h i c h w e are i n t o u c h . Because w e feel the w e i g h t o f t h e m , w e have n o c h o i c e b u t t o locate t h e m outside ourselves, as w e d o f o r the objective causes o f o u r sensations. B u t from a n o t h e r p o i n t o f v i e w , the feelings t h e y p r o v o k e i n us are q u a l i t a tively different from those w e have f o r m e r e l y physical things. So l o n g as these perceptions are n o m o r e t h a n the e m p i r i c a l characteristics that o r d i n a r y e x p e r i e n c e makes manifest, a n d so l o n g as the r e l i g i o u s i m a g i n a t i o n has n o t yet transfigured t h e m , w e feel n o t h i n g l i k e respect f o r t h e m , a n d t h e y have n o t h i n g o f w h a t i t takes t o lift us above ourselves. T h e r e f o r e t h e representations that express t h e m seem t o us v e r y different f r o m those that collective i n f l u ences awaken i n us. T h e t w o sorts o f representation f o r m t w o k i n d s o f m e n tal state, a n d t h e y are as separate a n d d i s t i n c t as the t w o f o r m s o f life t o w h i c h they c o r r e s p o n d . A s a result, w e feel as t h o u g h w e are i n t o u c h w i t h t w o dist i n c t sorts o f reality w i t h a clear l i n e o f d e m a r c a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e m : the w o r l d o f profane things o n o n e side, the w o r l d o f sacred things o n t h e other. * Conscience. To bring out that the French conscience refers simultaneously to intellectual cognition and moral obligation, I have used both "conscience" and "consciousness." "Such is the other aspect of society, which seems to us demanding as well as good and kindly. It dominates us; it helps us. If I have defined social fact more by thefirstcharacteristic than by the second, it is because the dominance is more easily observable and because it is expressed by external and visible signs; but I am far from ever having intended to deny the reality of the second. ([Emile Durkheim,] Les Règles de la méthode sociologique, 2d ed. [Paris, Alcan, 1901], preface, p. xx n.l).


215

F u r t h e r m o r e , n o w as i n the past, w e see that society never stops creating n e w sacred things. I f society s h o u l d h a p p e n t o b e c o m e infatuated w i t h a m a n , b e l i e v i n g i t has f o u n d i n h i m its deepest aspirations as w e l l as the means o f f u l f i l l i n g t h e m , t h e n that m a n w i l l be p u t i n a class b y h i m s e l f and v i r t u a l l y d e i f i e d . O p i n i o n w i l l confer o n h i m a g r a n d e u r that is similar i n every w a y t o the g r a n d e u r that protects the gods. T h i s has h a p p e n e d t o m a n y sovereigns i n w h o m t h e i r epochs h a d f a i t h a n d w h o , i f n o t d e i f i e d o u t r i g h t , w e r e l o o k e d u p o n as d i r e c t representatives o f the godhead. A clear i n d i c a t i o n that this apotheosis is the w o r k o f society alone is that society has often consecrated m e n w h o s e personal w o r t h d i d n o t w a r r a n t i t . M o r e o v e r , the r o u t i n e deference that m e n invested w i t h h i g h social positions receive is n o t qualitatively different f r o m r e l i g i o u s respect. T h e same m o v e m e n t s express i t : standing at a distance from a h i g h personage; t a k i n g special precautions i n a p p r o a c h i n g h i m ; u s i n g a different language t o speak w i t h h i m a n d gestures o t h e r t h a n those that w i l l d o f o r o r d i n a r y m o r t a l s . One's feeling i n these circumstances is so closely a k i n t o r e l i g i o u s feeling that m a n y d o n o t distinguish b e t w e e n t h e m . Sacredness is ascribed t o princes, nobles, a n d p o l i t i c a l leaders i n order t o a c c o u n t f o r the special regard t h e y enjoy. I n Melanesia and Polynesia, f o r example, p e o p l e say that a m a n o f i n f l u e n c e possesses m a n a and i m p u t e his i n f l u e n c e t o this m a n a .

14

I t is clear, nonetheless, that his p o s i t i o n comes t o

h i m o n l y from the i m p o r t a n c e that o p i n i o n gives h i m . T h u s , b o t h the m o r a l p o w e r c o n f e r r e d b y o p i n i o n a n d t h e m o r a l p o w e r w i t h w h i c h sacred beings are invested are o f f u n d a m e n t a l l y the same o r i g i n a n d c o m p o s e d o f the same elements. F o r this reason, o n e w o r d can be used t o designate b o t h . Just as society consecrates m e n , so i t also consecrates things, i n c l u d i n g ideas. W h e n a b e l i e f is shared u n a n i m o u s l y b y a p e o p l e , t o t o u c h i t — t h a t is, t o d e n y o r q u e s t i o n i t — i s f o r b i d d e n , f o r the reasons already stated. T h e p r o h i b i t i o n against c r i t i q u e is a p r o h i b i t i o n l i k e any o t h e r a n d proves that o n e is face t o face w i t h a sacred t h i n g . E v e n today, great t h o u g h t h e freedom w e a l l o w o n e a n o t h e r m a y be, i t w o u l d be t a n t a m o u n t t o sacrilege f o r a m a n w h o l l y t o d e n y progress o r t o reject the h u m a n ideal t o w h i c h m o d e r n s o c i eties are attached. E v e n the peoples m o s t e n a m o r e d o f free t h i n k i n g t e n d t o place o n e p r i n c i p l e above discussion a n d regard i t as u n t o u c h a b l e , i n o t h e r w o r d s , sacred: t h e p r i n c i p l e o f free discussion itself. N o w h e r e has society's a b i l i t y t o m a k e itself a g o d o r t o create gods b e e n m o r e i n evidence t h a n d u r i n g the first years o f the R e v o l u t i o n . I n the g e n eral enthusiasm o f that t i m e , things that w e r e b y nature p u r e l y secular w e r e 14

[Robert Henry] Codrington, The Melanesians [Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1891], pp. 50, 103, 120. Moreover, it is generally believed that in the Polynesian languages, the word mana originally meant "authority." (See [Edward] Tregear, Maori Polynesian Comparative Dictionary, s.v. [Wellington, Lyon and Blair, 1891].)

216


t r a n s f o r m e d b y p u b l i c o p i n i o n i n t o sacred things: Fatherland, L i b e r t y , R e a son.

15

A religion tended

dogma,

1 6

symbols,

17

altars,

t o establish itself spontaneously, 18

a n d feast days.

19

w i t h its o w n

I t was t o these spontaneous

hopes that the C u l t o f R e a s o n a n d the S u p r e m e B e i n g t r i e d t o give a k i n d o f a u t h o r i t a t i v e f u l f i l l m e n t . G r a n t e d , this r e l i g i o u s n o v e l t y d i d n o t last. T h e p a t r i o t i c enthusiasm that o r i g i n a l l y s t i r r e d the masses d i e d away,

20

a n d t h e cause

h a v i n g departed, the effect c o u l d n o t h o l d . B u t b r i e f t h o u g h i t was, this e x p e r i m e n t loses n o n e o f its s o c i o l o g i c a l interest. I n a specific case, w e saw society a n d its f u n d a m e n t a l

ideas b e c o m i n g the object o f a g e n u i n e

cult

d i r e c t l y — a n d w i t h o u t t r a n s f i g u r a t i o n o f any k i n d . A l l these facts enable us t o grasp h o w i t is possible f o r t h e clan t o awaken i n its m e m b e r s the idea o f forces e x i s t i n g outside t h e m , b o t h d o m i n a t i n g a n d s u p p o r t i n g t h e m — i n s u m , r e l i g i o u s forces. T h e r e is n o o t h e r social g r o u p t o w h i c h the p r i m i t i v e is m o r e d i r e c d y o r t i g h d y b o u n d . T h e ties that b i n d h i m t o the t r i b e are looser a n d less s t r o n g l y felt. A l t h o u g h t h e t r i b e is c e r t a i n l y n o t f o r e i g n t o h i m , i t is w i t h the p e o p l e o f his clan that he has m o s t i n c o m m o n , a n d i t is the i n f l u e n c e o f this g r o u p that he feels m o s t i m m e d i a t e l y , a n d so i t is also this i n f l u e n c e , m o r e t h a n any other, that was b o u n d t o f i n d e x pression i n religious symbols. T h i s first e x p l a n a t i o n is t o o general, t h o u g h , since i t can be a p p l i e d i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y t o any k i n d o f society a n d hence t o any k i n d o f r e l i g i o n . L e t us t r y t o specify w h a t p a r t i c u l a r f o r m collective a c t i o n takes i n the clan a n d h o w i n the clan i t b r i n g s a b o u t t h e sense o f t h e sacred, f o r collective a c t i o n is n o w h e r e m o r e easily observable o r m o r e o b v i o u s t h a n i n its results.

Ill L i f e i n A u s t r a l i a n societies alternates b e t w e e n t w o different phases.

21

I n one

phase, the p o p u l a t i o n is scattered i n small groups that a t t e n d t o t h e i r o c c u p a -

15

See Albert Mathiez, Les Origines des cultes révolutionnaires 1789-1792 [Paris, G. Bellais, 1904].

16

Ibid., p. 24.

"Ibid., pp. 29, 32. 18

,9

Ibid., p. 30.

Ibid, p. 46.

20

See [Albert] Mathiez, La Théophilanthropie et le culte décadaire [Paris, F. Alcan, 1903], p. 36.

21

See [Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [Francis James] Gillen, Northern Tribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1904], p. 33.

217


tions i n d e p e n d e n t l y . E a c h f a m i l y lives t o itself, h u n t i n g , f i s h i n g — i n short, s t r i v i n g b y all possible means t o get the f o o d i t requires. I n the o t h e r phase, b y contrast, the p o p u l a t i o n comes together, c o n c e n t r a t i n g itself at specified places f o r a p e r i o d that varies f r o m several days t o several m o n t h s . T h i s c o n c e n t r a t i o n takes place w h e n a clan o r a p o r t i o n o f the t r i b e

2 2

is s u m m o n e d t o

c o m e t o g e t h e r a n d o n that occasion e i t h e r conducts a religious c e r e m o n y o r holds w h a t i n t h e usual e t h n o g r a p h i c t e r m i n o l o g y is called a corroboree.

23

These t w o phases stand i n the sharpest possible contrast. T h e first phase, i n w h i c h e c o n o m i c a c t i v i t y p r e d o m i n a t e s , is generally o f rather l o w intensity. G a t h e r i n g seeds o r plants necessary f o r f o o d , h u n t i n g , a n d f i s h i n g are n o t o c cupations that can stir t r u l y s t r o n g passions.

24

T h e dispersed state i n w h i c h

the society finds itself makes life m o n o t o n o u s , slack, a n d h u m d r u m .

2 5

Every-

t h i n g changes w h e n a c o r r o b o r e e takes place. Since t h e e m o t i o n a l a n d passionate faculties o f t h e p r i m i t i v e are n o t f u l l y s u b o r d i n a t e d to his reason a n d w i l l , h e easily loses his s e l f - c o n t r o l . A n event o f any i m p o r t a n c e i m m e d i a t e l y puts h i m outside himself. D o e s he receive happy news? T h e r e are transports o f enthusiasm. I f t h e o p p o s i t e happens, h e is seen r u n n i n g h i t h e r a n d y o n l i k e a m a d m a n , g i v i n g w a y t o all sorts o f c h a o t i c m o v e m e n t s : s h o u t i n g , screami n g , g a t h e r i n g dust a n d t h r o w i n g i t i n all d i r e c t i o n s , b i t i n g himself, b r a n d i s h i n g his weapons furiously, a n d so o n .

2 6

T h e v e r y act o f c o n g r e g a t i n g is an

e x c e p t i o n a l l y p o w e r f u l s t i m u l a n t . O n c e the i n d i v i d u a l s are gathered t o gether, a sort o f e l e c t r i c i t y is generated

from

t h e i r closeness a n d q u i c k l y

launches t h e m t o an e x t r a o r d i n a r y h e i g h t o f e x a l t a t i o n . E v e r y e m o t i o n e x pressed resonates w i t h o u t interference i n consciousnesses that are w i d e o p e n

22

Indeed there are ceremonies, notably those that take place for initiation, to which members of foreign tribes are summoned. A system of messages and messengers is organized for the purpose of giving the notice that is indispensable for the grand ceremonies. (See [Alfred William] Howitt, "Notes on Australian Message-Sticks and Messengers," JAI, vol. XVIII (1889) [pp. 314-334]; Howitt, Native Tribes [of South-East Australia, New York, Macmillan, 1904], pp. 83, 678-691; Spencer and Gillen, NativeTribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1899], p. 159; Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 551. 23

The corroboree is distinguished from a religious rite proper in that it is accessible to women and the uninitiated. But although these two sorts of collective celebrations must be distinguished, they are closely related. I will return to and explain this relationship. 24

Except in the case of the large bush-beating hunts.

25

"The peaceful monotony of this part of his life," say Spencer and Gillen (Northern Tribes, p. 33).

^Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 683. Here it is the demonstrations that take place when an embassy sent to a foreign group returns to camp with news of a favorable result. [Durkheim will not be the one to report that the embassy in question had been entrusted to women. Howitt does not say what the women's mission was about. Trans.] Cf. [Robert] Brough Smyth, [The Aborigines of Victoria], vol. 1 [Melbourne, J. Fer¬ res, 1878], p. 138; [Reverend Louis] Schulze, "Aborigines of the Upper and Middle Finke River," RSSA, vol. XVI [1891], p. 222.

218


t o e x t e r n a l impressions, each o n e e c h o i n g t h e others. T h e i n i t i a l i m p u l s e is thereby a m p l i f i e d each t i m e i t is e c h o e d , l i k e an avalanche that grows as i t goes a l o n g . A n d since passions so heated a n d so free f r o m all c o n t r o l c a n n o t help b u t spill over, f r o m every side there are n o t h i n g b u t w i l d m o v e m e n t s , shouts, d o w n r i g h t h o w l s , a n d deafening noises o f all k i n d s that f u r t h e r i n tensify the state t h e y are expressing. P r o b a b l y because a collective e m o t i o n c a n n o t be expressed c o l l e c t i v e l y w i t h o u t some o r d e r that p e r m i t s h a r m o n y and u n i s o n o f m o v e m e n t , these gestures a n d cries t e n d t o fall i n t o r h y t h m and regularity, a n d from there i n t o songs a n d dances. B u t i n t a k i n g o n a m o r e regular f o r m , t h e y lose n o n e o f t h e i r n a t u r a l fury. A regulated c o m m o t i o n is still a c o m m o t i o n . T h e h u m a n v o i c e is inadequate t o t h e task a n d is g i v e n artificial r e i n f o r c e m e n t : B o o m e r a n g s are k n o c k e d against o n e another; b u l l roarers are w h i r l e d . T h e o r i g i n a l f u n c t i o n o f these i n s t r u m e n t s , used w i d e l y i n the r e l i g i o u s ceremonies o f Australia, p r o b a b l y was t o give m o r e satisfying expression t o the e x c i t e m e n t felt. A n d b y expressing this e x c i t e m e n t , t h e y also reinforce i t . T h e effervescence o f t e n becomes so intense that i t leads t o o u d a n d i s h b e h a v i o r ; t h e passions unleashed are so t o r r e n t i a l that n o t h i n g can h o l d t h e m . People are so far outside t h e o r d i n a r y c o n d i t i o n s o f life, a n d so conscious o f the fact, that t h e y feel a c e r t a i n n e e d t o set themselves above a n d b e y o n d o r d i n a r y m o r a l i t y . T h e sexes c o m e t o g e t h e r i n v i o l a t i o n o f the rules g o v e r n i n g sexual relations. M e n exchange w i v e s . I n d e e d , sometimes incestuous u n i o n s , i n n o r m a l times j u d g e d l o a t h s o m e a n d harshly c o n d e m n e d , are c o n t r a c t e d i n the o p e n a n d w i t h i m p u n i t y .

2 7

I f i t is added that the ceremonies

are generally h e l d at n i g h t , i n t h e m i d s t o f shadows p i e r c e d here and there b y f i r e l i g h t , w e can easily i m a g i n e the effect that scenes l i k e these are b o u n d t o have o n the m i n d s o f all those w h o take part. T h e y b r i n g a b o u t such an i n tense h y p e r e x c i t e m e n t o f physical a n d m e n t a l life as a w h o l e that t h e y c a n n o t be b o r n e f o r v e r y l o n g . T h e celebrant w h o takes the l e a d i n g role eventually falls exhausted t o the g r o u n d .

2 8

T o illustrate a n d flesh o u t this u n a v o i d a b l y sketchy tableau, here is an acc o u n t o f scenes taken f r o m Spencer a n d G i l l e n . O n e o f the m o s t i m p o r t a n t r e l i g i o u s celebrations a m o n g the W a r r a -

27

See Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 96—97, Northern Tribes, p. 137; Brough Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria, vol. II, p. 319. This ritual promiscuity is practiced especially during initiation ceremonies (Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 267, 381; Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 657) and in totemic ceremonies (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 214, 237, 298). The ordinary rules of exogamy are violated during totemic ceremonies. Nevertheless, among the Arunta, unions between father and daughter, son and mother, brothers and sisters (all cases of blood kinship) remain forbidden (Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes [pp. 96-97]). 2s

Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 535, 545. This is extremely common.

219


m u n g a concerns t h e snake W o l l u n q u a . I t is a series o f rites that u n f o l d over several days. W h a t I w i l l describe takes place o n t h e f o u r t h day. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r o t o c o l i n use a m o n g t h e W a r r a m u n g a ,

representa-

tives o f t h e t w o phratries take part, some as celebrants a n d others as o r g a n i z ers a n d participants. A l t h o u g h o n l y the p e o p l e o f t h e U l u u r u p h r a t r y are a u t h o r i z e d t o c o n d u c t the ceremony, t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e K i n g i l h p h r a t r y must decorate the participants, prepare the site a n d the i n s t r u m e n t s , a n d serve as t h e audience. I n this capacity, t h e y are responsible f o r m o u n d i n g d a m p sand ahead o f time, o n w h i c h t h e y use r e d d o w n t o m a k e a d r a w i n g that represents the snake W o l l u n q u a . T h e c e r e m o n y proper, w h i c h Spencer a n d G i l l e n attended, d i d n o t b e g i n u n t i l n i g h t f a l l . A r o u n d t e n o r eleven o ' c l o c k , U l u u r u a n d K i n g i l l i a r r i v e d o n t h e scene, sat o n t h e m o u n d , and b e gan t o sing. A l l w e r e i n a state o f o b v i o u s e x c i t e m e n t ("every one was evidently very excited"). A s h o r t t i m e later i n the e v e n i n g , t h e U l u u r u b r o u g h t t h e i r wives a n d h a n d e d t h e m over t o the K i n g i l l i ,

2 9

w h o h a d sexual relations w i t h

t h e m . T h e r e c e n t l y i n i t i a t e d y o u n g m e n w e r e b r o u g h t i n , and t h e c e r e m o n y was e x p l a i n e d t o t h e m , after w h i c h there was u n i n t e r r u p t e d s i n g i n g u n t i l three i n t h e m o r n i n g . T h e n came a scene o f t r u l y w i l d frenzy ("a scene of the wildest excitement"). W i t h fires

flickering

o n all sides, b r i n g i n g o u t starkly the

whiteness o f the g u m trees against t h e s u r r o u n d i n g n i g h t , the U l u u r u k n e l t i n single file beside the m o u n d , t h e n m o v e d a r o u n d i t , r i s i n g i n u n i s o n w i t h b o t h hands o n t h e i r thighs, k n e e l i n g again a l i t t l e farther a l o n g , a n d so o n . A t the same t i m e , t h e y m o v e d t h e i r bodies left a n d t h e n right, at each m o v e m e n t l e t t i n g o u t an e c h o i n g scream—actually a h o w l — a t the t o p o f t h e i r voices, Yrrsh! Yrrsh! Yrrsh! M e a n w h i l e the K i n g i l h , i n a h i g h state o f e x c i t e m e n t , s o u n d e d t h e i r b o o m e r a n g s , t h e i r c h i e f a p p e a r i n g t o be even m o r e e x c i t e d t h a n his c o m p a n i o n s . W h e n t h e procession o f the U l u u r u h a d c i r c l e d the m o u n d t w i c e , t h e y rose from t h e i r k n e e l i n g p o s i t i o n , seated themselves, a n d t o o k t o s i n g i n g again. F r o m t i m e t o t i m e , the s i n g i n g w o u l d flag and a l m o s t die, t h e n break o u t suddenly again. A t t h e first sign o f day, everyone j u m p e d t o t h e i r feet; the fires that h a d g o n e o u t w e r e relit; u r g e d o n b y the K i n g i l h , the U l u u r u f u r i o u s l y attacked the m o u n d w i t h b o o m e r a n g s , lances, a n d sticks, a n d i n a f e w m i n u t e s i t was i n pieces. T h e fires d i e d a n d there was profound silence.

30

T h e same observers w e r e present at a yet w i l d e r scene a m o n g t h e W a r r a m u n g a d u r i n g the fire rituals. A l l sorts o f processions, dances, a n d songs h a d b e e n u n d e r w a y b y t o r c h l i g h t since n i g h t f a l l , a n d t h e general efferves29

Since the women were also Kingilli, these unions violated the rule of exogamy.

'"Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 237. [This account begins at p. 231. Trans.]


220

cence was increasingly intense. A t a c e r t a i n m o m e n t , t w e l v e o f those present each t o o k i n h a n d a large l i g h t e d t o r c h ; and, h o l d i n g his o w n t o r c h l i k e a bayonette, o n e o f t h e m charged a g r o u p o f natives. T h e b l o w s w e r e p a r r i e d w i t h staves a n d lances. A general m ê l é e f o l l o w e d . M e n j u m p e d , k i c k e d , reared, a n d l e t o u t w i l d screams. T h e torches blazed a n d c r a c k l e d as t h e y h i t heads a n d bodies, s h o w e r i n g sparks i n all d i r e c t i o n s . " T h e smoke, t h e

flam-

i n g torches, the r a i n o f sparks, t h e mass o f m e n d a n c i n g a n d s c r e a m i n g — a l l that, say Spencer a n d G i l l e n , created a scene w h o s e wildness c a n n o t be c o n veyed i n w o r d s . "

31

I t is n o t d i f f i c u l t t o i m a g i n e that a m a n i n such a state o f e x a l t a t i o n s h o u l d n o l o n g e r k n o w h i m s e l f . F e e l i n g possessed a n d l e d o n b y some sort o f e x t e r n a l p o w e r that makes h i m t h i n k a n d act d i f f e r e n d y t h a n h e n o r m a l l y does, he n a t u r a l l y feels he is n o l o n g e r h i m s e l f . I t seems t o h i m that he has b e c o m e a n e w b e i n g . T h e decorations w i t h w h i c h he is d e c k e d o u t , a n d t h e masklike decorations that cover his face, represent this i n w a r d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n even m o r e t h a n t h e y h e l p b r i n g i t a b o u t . A n d because his c o m p a n i o n s feel t r a n s f o r m e d i n t h e same w a y at the same m o m e n t , a n d express this feeling b y t h e i r shouts, m o v e m e n t s , a n d b e a r i n g , i t is as i f he was i n reality t r a n s p o r t e d i n t o a special w o r l d e n t i r e l y different f r o m t h e o n e i n w h i c h he o r d i n a r i l y lives, a special w o r l d i n h a b i t e d b y e x c e p t i o n a l l y intense forces t h a t invade a n d t r a n s f o r m h i m . Especially w h e n repeated f o r weeks, day after day, h o w w o u l d experiences l i k e these n o t leave h i m w i t h t h e c o n v i c t i o n that t w o h e t erogeneous a n d i n c o m m e n s u r a b l e w o r l d s exist i n fact? I n o n e w o r l d he l a n g u i d l y carries o n his d a i l y life; the o t h e r is o n e t h a t h e c a n n o t enter w i t h o u t a b r u p d y e n t e r i n g i n t o relations w i t h e x t r a o r d i n a r y p o w e r s that excite h i m t o the p o i n t o f frenzy. T h e first is the profane w o r l d a n d t h e second, the w o r l d o f sacred t h i n g s . I t is i n these effervescent social m i l i e u x , a n d i n d e e d from that v e r y effervescence, that the r e l i g i o u s idea seems t o have b e e n b o r n . T h a t such is i n deed the o r i g i n tends t o be c o n f i r m e d b y the fact t h a t w h a t is p r o p e r l y called religious a c t i v i t y i n A u s t r a l i a is almost e n t i r e l y c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n the p e r i o d s w h e n these gatherings are h e l d . T o be sure, there is n o p e o p l e a m o n g w h o m the great c u l t ceremonies are n o t m o r e o r less p e r i o d i c a l , b u t i n the m o r e a d vanced societies, there is v i r t u a l l y n o day o n w h i c h some prayer o r o f f e r i n g is n o t offered t o the gods o r o n w h i c h some r i t u a l o b l i g a t i o n is n o t f u l f i l l e d . I n Australia, b y contrast, t h e t i m e apart from the feasts o f t h e clan a n d t h e

31

Ibid., p. 391. Other examples of collective effervescence during religious ceremonies are found in Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 244-246, 356-366, 374, 509-510. (The last occurs during a funeral rite.) Cf. Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 213, 351.


221

t r i b e is taken u p almost e n t i r e l y w i t h secular a n d profane activities. G r a n t e d , even d u r i n g the p e r i o d s o f secular activity, there are p r o h i b i t i o n s that m u s t be and are observed. Freely k i l l i n g o r e a t i n g the t o t e m i c a n i m a l is never p e r m i t t e d , at least w h e r e t h e p r o h i b i t i o n has k e p t its o r i g i n a l strictness, b u t hardly any positive r i t e o r c e r e m o n y o f any i m p o r t a n c e is c o n d u c t e d . T h e positive rites a n d ceremonies take place o n l y a m o n g assembled groups. T h u s , the pious life o f t h e A u s t r a l i a n moves b e t w e e n successive phases—one o f u t ter colorlessness, o n e o f h y p e r e x c i t e m e n t — a n d social life oscillates t o the same r h y t h m . T h i s b r i n g s o u t t h e l i n k b e t w e e n t h e t w o phases. A m o n g the peoples called c i v i l i z e d , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , the relative c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n t h e m p a r t i a l l y masks t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s . I n d e e d , w e m a y w e l l ask w h e t h e r this starkness o f contrast m a y have b e e n necessary t o release the experience o f the sacred i n its first f o r m . B y compressing itself almost e n t i r e l y i n t o c i r c u m s c r i b e d p e r i o d s , c o l l e c t i v e life c o u l d attain its m a x i m u m i n t e n s i t y a n d p o w e r , t h e r e b y g i v i n g m a n a m o r e v i v i d sense o f the t w o f o l d existence he leads a n d t h e t w o f o l d nature i n w h i c h h e participates. B u t this e x p l a n a t i o n is still i n c o m p l e t e . I have s h o w n h o w the clan a w a k ens i n its m e m b e r s the idea o f e x t e r n a l forces t h a t d o m i n a t e a n d exalt i t b y the w a y i n w h i c h i t acts u p o n its m e m b e r s . B u t I still m u s t ask h o w i t h a p pens that those forces w e r e c o n c e i v e d o f i n the f o r m o f t h e t o t e m , that is, i n the f o r m o f an a n i m a l o r p l a n t . T h e reason is that some a n i m a l o r p l a n t has g i v e n its name t o the clan and serves as the clan's e m b l e m . I t is, i n fact, a w e l l - k n o w n l a w that the f e e l ings a t h i n g arouses i n us are spontaneously t r a n s m i t t e d t o the s y m b o l that represents i t . B l a c k is f o r us a sign o f m o u r n i n g ; therefore i t evokes sad t h o u g h t s a n d impressions. T h i s transfer o f feelings takes place because the idea o f the t h i n g a n d the idea o f its s y m b o l are closely c o n n e c t e d i n o u r m i n d s . A s a result, the feelings e v o k e d b y o n e spread c o n t a g i o u s l y t o the other. T h i s c o n t a g i o n , w h i c h occurs i n all cases t o some extent, is m u c h m o r e c o m p l e t e a n d m o r e p r o n o u n c e d w h e n e v e r the s y m b o l is s o m e t h i n g simple, w e l l d e f i n e d , a n d easily i m a g i n e d . B u t t h e t h i n g itself is d i f f i c u l t f o r the m i n d t o c o m p r e h e n d — g i v e n its d i m e n s i o n s , the n u m b e r o f its parts, a n d the c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n . W e c a n n o t detect the source o f the strong feelings w e have i n an abstract e n t i t y that w e can i m a g i n e o n l y w i t h d i f f i c u l t y a n d i n a j u m b l e d way. W e can c o m p r e h e n d those feelings o n l y i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a concrete o b j e c t w h o s e reality w e feel intensely. T h u s i f the t h i n g itself does n o t m e e t this r e q u i r e m e n t , i t c a n n o t serve as a m o o r i n g for the impressions felt, even f o r those impressions i t has itself aroused. T h e s y m b o l thus takes t h e place o f t h e t h i n g , a n d t h e e m o t i o n s aroused are transferred t o the s y m b o l . I t is the s y m b o l that is l o v e d , feared, and respected. I t

222


is t o the s y m b o l that o n e is grateful. A n d i t is t o t h e s y m b o l that o n e sacrifices oneself. T h e soldier w h o dies f o r his flag dies f o r his c o u n t r y , b u t the idea o f t h e flag is actually i n the f o r e g r o u n d o f his consciousness. I n d e e d , the flag sometimes causes a c t i o n directly. A l t h o u g h the c o u n t r y w i l l n o t be lost i f a solitary flag remains i n the hands o f t h e e n e m y o r w o n i f i t is regained, the soldier is k i l l e d r e t a k i n g i t . H e forgets that the flag is o n l y a s y m b o l that has n o value i n itself b u t o n l y b r i n g s t o m i n d the reality i t represents. T h e flag itself is treated as i f i t was that reality. T h e t o t e m is the flag o f the clan, so i t is n a t u r a l that the impressions t h e clan arouses i n i n d i v i d u a l consciousness—impressions

o f dependence a n d o f

h e i g h t e n e d e n e r g y — s h o u l d b e c o m e m o r e closely attached t o the idea o f the t o t e m t h a n t o that o f the clan. T h e clan is t o o c o m p l e x a reality f o r such u n f o r m e d m i n d s t o be able t o b r i n g its concrete u n i t y i n t o clear focus. Besides, the p r i m i t i v e does n o t see that these impressions c o m e t o h i m f r o m

the

g r o u p . H e does n o t even see that the c o m i n g t o g e t h e r o f a c e r t a i n n u m b e r o f men

p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the same life releases n e w energies that t r a n s f o r m each

o n e o f t h e m . A l l he feels is that he is l i f t e d above h i m s e l f a n d that he is p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a life different f r o m t h e o n e he lives o r d i n a r i l y . H e m u s t still c o n n e c t those experiences t o some e x t e r n a l o b j e c t i n a causal r e l a t i o n . N o w w h a t does he see a r o u n d h i m ? W h a t is avadable t o his senses, and w h a t attracts his a t t e n t i o n , is the m u l t i t u d e o f t o t e m i c images s u r r o u n d i n g h i m . H e sees t h e w a n i n g a a n d t h e n u r t u n j a , symbols o f the sacred b e i n g . H e sees t h e b u l l roarers a n d the churingas, o n w h i c h c o m b i n a t i o n s o f lines that have t h e same m e a n i n g are usually engraved. T h e decorations o n v a r i o u s parts o f his b o d y are so m a n y t o t e m i c m a r k s . R e p e a t e d e v e r y w h e r e a n d i n every f o r m , how

c o u l d t h a t i m a g e n o t fail t o stand o u t i n t h e m i n d w i t h e x c e p t i o n a l l y

sharp relief? T h u s p l a c e d at center stage, i t becomes representative. T o that image the felt e m o t i o n s attach themselves, f o r i t is the o n l y concrete o b j e c t to w h i c h t h e y can attach themselves. T h e i m a g e goes o n c a l l i n g f o r t h a n d r e c a l l i n g those e m o t i o n s even after the assembly is over. E n g r a v e d o n the c u l t i m p l e m e n t s , o n t h e sides o f rocks, o n shields, a n d so f o r t h , i t lives b e y o n d the g a t h e r i n g . B y means o f i t , the e m o t i o n s felt are k e p t p e r p e t u a l l y alive a n d fresh. I t is as t h o u g h the i m a g e p r o v o k e d t h e m directly. I m p u t i n g t h e e m o t i o n s t o t h e i m a g e is all t h e m o r e natural because, b e i n g c o m m o n t o the g r o u p , t h e y can o n l y be related t o a t h i n g that is equally c o m m o n t o a l l . O n l y the t o t e m i c e m b l e m meets this c o n d i t i o n . B y d e f i n i t i o n , i t is c o m m o n t o a l l . D u r i n g t h e ceremony, all eyes are u p o n i t . A l t h o u g h t h e generations change, t h e i m a g e remains t h e same. I t is t h e a b i d i n g e l e m e n t o f social life. So t h e m y s t e r i o u s forces w i t h w h i c h men

feel i n t o u c h seem t o emanate from i t , a n d thus w e u n d e r s t a n d h o w


223

m e n w e r e l e d t o conceive t h e m i n t h e f o r m o f the animate or i n a n i m a t e b e i n g that gives the clan its n a m e . H a v i n g l a i d this f o u n d a t i o n , w e are i n a p o s i t i o n t o grasp the essence o f t o t e m i c beliefs. Because r e l i g i o u s force is n o n e o t h e r t h a n the collective a n d a n o n y m o u s force o f the clan a n d because that force can o n l y be c o n c e i v e d o f i n the f o r m o f t h e t o t e m , t h e t o t e m i c e m b l e m is, so t o speak, the visible b o d y o f the g o d . F r o m t h e t o t e m , therefore, the b e n e f i c i a l o r fearsome actions that the c u l t is i n t e n d e d t o p r o v o k e o r p r e v e n t w i l l seem t o emanate. So i t is t o the t o t e m that the rites are specifically addressed. T h i s is w h y the t o t e m stands foremost i n the ranks o f sacred things. L i k e any o t h e r society, t h e clan can o n l y live i n a n d b y means o f the i n d i v i d u a l consciousnesses o f w h i c h i t is made. T h u s , insofar as religious force is c o n c e i v e d o f as e m b o d i e d i n the t o t e m i c e m b l e m , i t seems t o be e x t e r n a l t o i n d i v i d u a l s a n d e n d o w e d w i t h a k i n d o f transcendence; a n d yet, f r o m a n o t h e r standpoint, a n d l i k e t h e clan i t symbolizes, i t can be m a d e real o n l y w i t h i n a n d b y t h e m . So i n this sense, i t is i m m a n e n t i n i n d i v i d u a l m e m b e r s a n d t h e y o f necessity i m a g i n e i t t o be. T h e y feel w i t h i n themselves the active presence o f the r e l i g i o u s force, because i t is this force that lifts t h e m u p to a h i g h e r life. T h i s is h o w m a n came t o believe that he h a d w i t h i n h i m a p r i n c i p l e comparable t o the o n e r e s i d i n g i n the t o t e m , a n d thus h o w he came t o i m p u t e sacredness t o himself-—albeit a sacredness less p r o n o u n c e d t h a n that o f the e m b l e m . T h i s happens because the e m b l e m is the p r e e m i n e n t source o f r e l i g i o u s life. M a n participates i n i t o n l y i n d i r e c d y , a n d he is aware o f that; he realizes that t h e force c a r r y i n g h i m i n t o the r e a l m o f sacred things is n o t i n h e r e n t i n h i m s e l f b u t comes t o h i m f r o m outside. F o r a n o t h e r reason, the animals o r plants o f t h e t o t e m i c species h a d t o have the same q u a l i t y t o an even greater degree. F o r i f t h e t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e is n o n e o t h e r t h a n t h e clan, i t is the clan t h o u g h t o f i n t h e physical f o r m d e p i c t e d b y the e m b l e m . N o w , this is also the f o r m o f the real beings w h o s e n a m e t h e clan bears. Because o f this resemblance, t h e y c o u l d n o t fail t o arouse feelings similar t o those aroused b y the e m b l e m itself. Because this e m b l e m is the o b j e c t o f r e l i g i o u s respect, t h e y t o o s h o u l d inspire respect o f the same k i n d a n d appear as sacred. G i v e n f o r m s so perfecdy i d e n t i c a l , the faithful w e r e b o u n d t o i m p u t e forces o f t h e same k i n d t o b o t h . T h i s is w h y it is f o r b i d d e n t o k i l l o r eat the t o t e m i c a n i m a l a n d w h y t h e flesh is d e e m e d to have positive v i r t u e s that the rites p u t t o use. T h e a n i m a l l o o k s l i k e the e m b l e m o f t h e c l a n — l i k e its o w n image, i n o t h e r w o r d s . A n d since i t l o o k s m o r e l i k e t h e e m b l e m t h a n t h e m a n does, its place i n the hierarchy o f sacred things is s u p e r i o r t o man's. C l e a r l y there is a close k i n s h i p b e t w e e n these t w o beings; b o t h share t h e same essence, a n d b o t h incarnate s o m e t h i n g o f the

224


t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e . B u t because t h e p r i n c i p l e i t s e l f is c o n c e i v e d o f i n a n i m a l f o r m , the a n i m a l seems t o incarnate i t m o r e c o n s p i c u o u s l y t h a n the m a n does. T h i s is w h y , i f t h e m a n respects the a n i m a l a n d treats i t as a b r o t h e r , he gives i t at least the respect d u e an o l d e r b r o t h e r .

32

B u t a l t h o u g h t h e t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e has its c h i e f residence i n a specific a n i m a l o r p l a n t species, i t c a n n o t possibly r e m a i n l o c a l i z e d there. Sacredness is h i g h l y c o n t a g i o u s ,

33

and i t spreads from t h e t o t e m i c b e i n g t o e v e r y t h i n g

that d i r e c d y o r r e m o t e l y has t o d o w i t h i t . T h e r e l i g i o u s feelings inspired b y t h e a n i m a l passed i n t o the substances i t ate, t h e r e b y m a k i n g o r r e m a k i n g its flesh a n d b l o o d ; those feelings passed i n t o the things that resemble i t a n d i n t o the various creatures w i t h w h i c h i t is i n constant contact. T h u s , h t t l e b y l i t de, subtotems attached themselves t o t o t e m s , a n d t h e c o s m o l o g i c a l systems expressed b y t h e p r i m i t i v e classifications came i n t o b e i n g . I n the e n d , t h e w h o l e w o r l d was d i v i d e d u p a m o n g t h e t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e same t r i b e . W e n o w understand the source o f the a m b i g u i t y that r e l i g i o u s forces display w h e n t h e y appear i n h i s t o r y — h o w t h e y c o m e t o b e n a t u r a l as w e l l as h u m a n a n d m a t e r i a l as w e l l as m o r a l . T h e y are m o r a l p o w e r s , since t h e y are m a d e e n t i r e l y from the impressions that m o r a l c o l l e c t i v i t y as a m o r a l b e i n g makes o n o t h e r m o r a l beings, t h e i n d i v i d u a l s . S u c h m o r a l p o w e r s d o n o t e x press the m a n n e r i n w h i c h n a t u r a l things affect o u r senses b u t t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h the collective consciousness affects i n d i v i d u a l consciousnesses. T h e i r a u t h o r i t y is b u t o n e aspect o f t h e m o r a l i n f l u e n c e that society exerts o n its m e m b e r s . F r o m a n o t h e r standpoint, t h e y are b o u n d t o be regarded as closely akin to material t h i n g s

3 4

because t h e y are c o n c e i v e d o f i n t a n g i b l e f o r m s .

T h u s t h e y bestride the t w o w o r l d s . T h e y reside i n m e n b u t are at t h e same time t h e l i f e - p r i n c i p l e s o f things. I t is t h e y that e n l i v e n a n d discipline c o n sciences; i t is also t h e y that m a k e t h e plants g r o w a n d t h e animals m u l t i p l y . Because o f its d o u b l e nature, r e l i g i o n was able t o b e the w o m b i n w h i c h t h e

32

It can be seen that this brotherhood, far from being the premise of totemism, is its logical consequence. Men did not come to believe they had duties toward the animals of the totemic species because they believed them to be kin; instead, they imagined that kinship in order to explain the nature of the beliefs and rites of which the animals were the object. The animal was considered man's relative because it was a sacred being like man; it was not treated like a sacred being because people saw him as a relative. 33

See below, Bk. Ill, chap. 1, §3.

34

Furthermore, at the basis of this idea is a well-founded and lasting awareness. Modern science also tends more and more to allow that the duality of man and nature does not preclude their unity, and that, while distinct, physical forces and moral ones are closely akin. We certainly have a different idea of this unity and kinship than the primitive's, but beneath the different symbols, the fact affirmed is the same for both.

225


p r i n c i p a l seeds o f h u m a n c i v i l i z a t i o n have developed. Because r e l i g i o n has b o r n e reality as a w h o l e w i t h i n itself, the m a t e r i a l w o r l d as w e l l as the m o r a l w o r l d , t h e forces t h a t m o v e b o t h bodies a n d m i n d s have b e e n c o n c e i v e d o f i n r e l i g i o u s f o r m . T h u s i t is that the m o s t disparate techniques a n d practices—those that ensure the c o n t i n u i t y o f m o r a l life (law, morals, fine arts) a n d those that are useful t o m a t e r i a l life (natural sciences, i n d u s t r i a l t e c h niques)—sprang f r o m r e l i g i o n , d i r e c d y o r i n d i r e c d y .

35

IV T h e first r e l i g i o u s ideas have o f t e n b e e n a t t r i b u t e d t o feelings o f weakness a n d s u b j e c t i o n o r fear a n d m i s g i v i n g , w h i c h supposedly g r i p p e d m a n w h e n he came i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h t h e w o r l d . T h e v i c t i m o f a sort o f n i g h t m a r e f a b r i c a t e d b y n o n e o t h e r t h a n himself, m a n imagines h i m s e l f s u r r o u n d e d b y those same hostile a n d fearsome p o w e r s , a n d appeasing t h e m is t h e p o i n t o f the rites. I have j u s t s h o w n that t h e first r e l i g i o n s have an altogether different o r i g i n . T h e famous f o r m u l a Primus in orbe deos fecit timor* is i n n o w a y w a r r a n t e d b y the facts. T h e p r i m i t i v e d i d n o t see his gods as strangers, enemies, o r beings w h o w e r e f u n d a m e n t a l l y o r necessarily e v i l - m i n d e d o r w h o s e fav o r h e h a d t o w i n at all costs. Q u i t e t h e contrary, t o h i m t h e gods are friends, relatives, a n d n a t u r a l p r o t e c t o r s . A r e these n o t the names he gives t o the b e ings o f t h e t o t e m i c species? A s he i m a g i n e s i t , the p o w e r t o w h i c h the c u l t is addressed does n o t l o o m far above, c r u s h i n g h i m w i t h its s u p e r i o r i t y ; instead, i t is v e r y near a n d bestows u p o n h i m useful abilities that he is n o t b o r n w i t h . N e v e r , perhaps, has d i v i n i t y b e e n closer t o m a n t h a n at this m o m e n t i n h i s tory, w h e n i t is present i n the things that i n h a b i t his i m m e d i a t e s u r r o u n d i n g s and, i n part, is i m m a n e n t i n m a n h i m s e l f . I n s u m , j o y f u l confidence, rather t h a n t e r r o r o r constraint, is at t h e r o o t o f t o t e m i s m . I f w e set aside funeral rites, t h e m e l a n c h o l y aspect o f any r e l i g i o n , the t o t e m i c c u l t is celebrated w i t h songs, dances, a n d dramatic performances. C r u e l expiations are relatively rare i n i t , as w e w i l l see; even the p a i n f u l a n d o b l i g a t o r y m a n n i n g s t h a t a t t e n d i n i t i a t i o n are n o t o f this character. T h e j e a l ous a n d t e r r i b l e gods d o n o t m a k e t h e i r appearance u n t i l later i n religious

* First in the world, fear created the gods. 35

I say that this derivation is sometimes indirect, because of techniques that, in the great majority of cases, seem to be derived from religion only via magic (see [Henri] Hubert and [Marcel] Mauss, [Esquisse d'une] Théorie générale de la magie,AS, vol. VII [1904], pp. 144ff; magie forces are, I think, only a special form of religious forces. I will have occasion to return more than once to this point.

226


e v o l u t i o n . T h i s is so because p r i m i t i v e societies are n o t Leviathans that o v e r w h e l m m a n w i t h the e n o r m i t y o f t h e i r p o w e r a n d subject h i m t o harsh d i s cipline;

3 6

he surrenders t o t h e m spontaneously a n d w i t h o u t resistance. Since

the social s o u l is at that t i m e m a d e u p o f o n l y a small n u m b e r o f ideas a n d feelings, the w h o l e o f i t is i n c a r n a t e d w i t h o u t d i f f i c u l t y i n each individual's consciousness. E a c h i n d i v i d u a l carries t h e w h o l e i n himself. I t is part o f h i m , so w h e n he yields t o its p r o m p t i n g s , he does n o t t h i n k he is y i e l d i n g t o c o e r c i o n b u t instead d o i n g w h a t his o w n nature tells h i m t o d o .

3 7

T h i s w a y o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g the o r i g i n o f r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t escapes t h e objections that the m o s t respected classical theories are o p e n t o . W e have seen that t h e naturists a n d the animists p u r p o r t e d t o c o n s t r u c t t h e n o t i o n o f sacred beings f r o m t h e sensations that v a r i o u s physical o r b i o l o g i c a l p h e n o m e n a evoke i n us. I have s h o w n w h a t was impossible a n d even c o n t r a d i c t o r y a b o u t this enterprise. N o t h i n g comes o u t o f n o t h i n g . T h e sensations that t h e physical w o r l d evokes i n us c a n n o t , b y d e f i n i t i o n , c o n t a i n a n y t h i n g that goes b e y o n d that w o r l d . F r o m s o m e t h i n g tangible o n e can o n l y m a k e s o m e t h i n g tangible; f r o m e x t e n d e d substance o n e c a n n o t m a k e u n e x t e n d e d substance. * So t o be i n a p o s i t i o n t o e x p l a i n h o w , u n d e r those c o n d i t i o n s , the n o t i o n o f the sacred c o u l d have b e e n f o r m e d , m o s t theorists w e r e f o r c e d t o assume that m a n has s u p e r i m p o s e d an u n r e a l w o r l d u p o n r e ality as reality is available t o o b s e r v a t i o n . A n d this unreal w o r l d is c o n s t r u c t e d e n t i r e l y w i t h the phantasms that agitate his spirit d u r i n g dreams, o r w i t h the o f t e n m o n s t r o u s derangements that, supposedly, t h e m y t h o l o g i c a l i m a g i n a t i o n spawned u n d e r the deceptive, i f seductive, i n f l u e n c e o f language. B u t i t t h e n became impossible t o u n d e r s t a n d w h y h u m a n i t y s h o u l d have persisted for centuries i n errors that e x p e r i e n c e w o u l d v e r y q u i c k l y have exposed as such. F r o m m y standpoint, these difficulties disappear. R e l i g i o n ceases t o be an i n e x p l i c a b l e h a l l u c i n a t i o n o f some sort a n d gains a f o o t h o l d i n reality. I n deed, w e can say that the faithful are n o t m i s t a k e n w h e n t h e y believe i n the existence o f a m o r a l p o w e r t o w h i c h t h e y are subject a n d from w h i c h t h e y

* L'étendu and l'inétendu. Literally, "something extended" and "something unextended," which correspond to Descartes' opposition between res externa and res inextensa, classically the opposition between mind (or soul) and body. În any case, once he is adult and fully initiated. The rites of initiation, which introduce the young man into social life, in themselves constitute a harsh discipline. "Concerning the specific nature of primitive societies, see [Dürkheim,] Division du travail social, pp. 123, 149, 173ff.

227


receive w h a t is best i n themselves. T h a t p o w e r exists, a n d i t is society. W h e n the A u s t r a l i a n is c a r r i e d above himself, f e e l i n g inside a life o v e r f l o w i n g w i t h an i n t e n s i t y that surprises h i m , he is n o t t h e d u p e o f an i l l u s i o n . T h a t exaltation

is real a n d really is the p r o d u c t o f forces outside o f a n d s u p e r i o r t o the

i n d i v i d u a l . O f course, he is m i s t a k e n t o believe that a p o w e r i n the f o r m o f an a n i m a l o r p l a n t has b r o u g h t a b o u t this increase i n v i t a l energy. B u t his mistake lies i n t a k i n g l i t e r a l l y the s y m b o l that represents this b e i n g i n the m i n d , o r t h e o u t w a r d appearance i n w h i c h the i m a g i n a t i o n has dressed i t u p , n o t i n the fact o f its v e r y existence. B e h i n d these f o r m s , be t h e y c r u d e r o r m o r e r e f i n e d , there is a concrete a n d l i v i n g reality. I n this way, r e l i g i o n acquires a sense a n d a reasonableness that the m o s t m i l i t a n t rationalist c a n n o t fail t o recognize. T h e m a i n object o f r e l i g i o n is n o t t o give m a n a representation o f the natural universe, f o r i f that had b e e n its essential task, h o w i t c o u l d have h e l d o n w o u l d be i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e . I n this r e spect, i t is barely m o r e t h a n a fabric o f errors. B u t r e l i g i o n is first a n d foremost a system o f ideas b y means o f w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l s i m a g i n e the society o f w h i c h t h e y are m e m b e r s a n d the obscure yet i n t i m a t e relations they have w i t h i t . Such is its p a r a m o u n t role. A n d a l t h o u g h this representation is s y m b o l i c a n d m e t a p h o r i c a l , i t is n o t u n f a i t h f u l . I t f u l l y translates the essence o f the relations t o be a c c o u n t e d for. I t is t r u e w i t h a t r u t h that is eternal that there exists o u t side us s o m e t h i n g greater t h a n w e a n d w i t h w h i c h w e c o m m u n e . T h a t is w h y w e can be c e r t a i n that acts o f w o r s h i p , w h a t e v e r t h e y m a y be, are s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n paralyzed force, gesture w i t h o u t m o t i o n . B y the v e r y act o f s e r v i n g the manifest p u r p o s e o f s t r e n g t h e n i n g the ties b e t w e e n t h e faithful a n d t h e i r g o d — t h e g o d b e i n g o n l y a figurative represent a t i o n o f the s o c i e t y — t h e y at t h e same t i m e strengthen the ties b e t w e e n the i n d i v i d u a l a n d the society o f w h i c h he is a m e m b e r . W e can even u n d e r s t a n d h o w t h e f u n d a m e n t a l t r u t h that r e l i g i o n thus c o n t a i n e d m i g h t have b e e n e n o u g h t o offset t h e secondary errors that i t almost necessarily e n t a i l e d a n d therefore h o w , despite t h e unpleasant surprises those errors caused, t h e f a i t h f u l w e r e p r e v e n t e d f r o m setting r e l i g i o n aside. M o r e o f t e n t h a n n o t , t h e p r e scriptions i t counseled f o r man's use u p o n t h i n g s m u s t surely have p r o v e d ineffective. B u t these setbacks c o u l d n o t have p r o f o u n d influence, because t h e y d i d n o t strike at w h a t is f u n d a m e n t a l t o r e l i g i o n .

3 8

Nonetheless, i t w i l l b e o b j e c t e d t h a t even i n t e r m s o f this hypothesis, r e l i g i o n is still t h e p r o d u c t o f a c e r t a i n d e l u s i o n . B y w h a t o t h e r n a m e can o n e

38

Since I will return to this idea and will argue the case more explicidy in treating the rites (Bk. Ill), for now I confine myself to this general indication.

228

THE ELEMENTARY BELLEFS

call the state i n w h i c h m e n f i n d themselves w h e n , as a result o f collective effervescence, t h e y believe t h e y have b e e n swept u p i n t o a w o r l d e n t i r e l y d i f ferent f r o m t h e o n e t h e y have before t h e i r eyes? I t is q u i t e t r u e that r e l i g i o u s life c a n n o t attain any degree o f i n t e n s i t y a n d n o t c a r r y w i t h i t a psychic e x a l t a t i o n that is c o n n e c t e d t o d e l i r i u m . I t is f o r this reason that m e n o f e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y sensitive r e l i g i o u s consciousness— prophets, founders o f religions, great saints—often s h o w s y m p t o m s o f an e x c i t a b i l i t y that is e x t r e m e a n d even p a t h o l o g i c a l : These p h y s i o l o g i c a l defects predisposed t h e m t o great r e l i g i o u s roles. T h e r i t u a l use o f i n t o x i c a t i n g l i q u o r s is t o be u n d e r s t o o d i n the same w a y . ardent f a i t h is necessarily t h e

fruit

39

T h e reason is c e r t a i n l y n o t that

o f drunkenness a n d m e n t a l disorders.

H o w e v e r , since e x p e r i e n c e q u i c k l y t a u g h t p e o p l e t h e resemblances b e t w e e n t h e mentalities o f t h e delusive a n d o f the seer, t h e y sought t o o p e n a p a t h t o the second b y p r o d u c i n g t h e first artificially. I f , f o r this reason, i t can b e said that r e l i g i o n does n o t d o w i t h o u t a c e r t a i n d e l i r i u m , i t m u s t b e added t h a t a d e l i r i u m w i t h t h e causes I have a t t r i b u t e d t o i t is well founded. T h e images o f w h i c h i t is m a d e are n o t p u r e illusions, a n d u n l i k e those t h e naturists a n d the animists p u t at the basis o f r e l i g i o n , t h e y c o r r e s p o n d t o s o m e t h i n g real. Doubdess, i t is the nature o f m o r a l forces expressed m e r e l y b y images that t h e y c a n n o t affect t h e h u m a n m i n d w i t h any forcefulness w i t h o u t p u t t i n g i t outside itself, a n d p l u n g i n g i t i n t o a state describable as "ecstatic" (so l o n g as t h e w o r d is taken i n its e t y m o l o g i c a l sense [eKo-Totais, " s t a n d " plus " o u t o f " ] ) . B u t i t b y n o means f o l l o w s that these forces are i m a g i n a r y . Q u i t e the contrary, the m e n t a l e x c i t e m e n t t h e y b r i n g a b o u t attests t o t h e i r reality. I t provides f u r t h e r evidence that a v e r y intense social life always does a sort o f v i o l e n c e t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s b o d y a n d m i n d a n d disrupts t h e i r n o r m a l f u n c tioning.

T h i s is w h y i t can last f o r o n l y a l i m i t e d t i m e .

4 0

W h a t is m o r e , i f t h e n a m e " d e l i r i u m " is g i v e n t o any state i n w h i c h t h e m i n d adds t o w h a t e v e r is i m m e d i a t e l y g i v e n t h r o u g h t h e senses, p r o j e c t i n g its o w n impressions o n t o i t , there is perhaps n o collective representation that is n o t i n a sense delusive; r e l i g i o u s beliefs are o n l y a special case o f a v e r y g e n eral law. T h e w h o l e social w o r l d seems p o p u l a t e d w i t h forces t h a t i n reality exist o n l y i n o u r m i n d s . W e k n o w w h a t t h e flag is f o r t h e soldier, b u t i n i t self i t is o n l y a b i t o f c l o t h . H u m a n b l o o d is o n l y an organic l i q u i d , yet even

39

On this point see [Thomas] Achelis, Die Ekstase [in ihrer kulturellen Bedeutung, Berlin, J. Rade, 1902], esp. chap. 1. ""Cf. [Marcel] Mauss, "Essai sur les variations saisonnières des sociétés eskimos," in AS, vol. IX, [1906], p. 127.


229

today w e c a n n o t see i t flow w i t h o u t e x p e r i e n c i n g an acute e m o t i o n that its p h y s i c o c h e m i c a l properties c a n n o t e x p l a i n . F r o m a physical p o i n t o f v i e w , m a n is n o t h i n g b u t a system o f cells, a n d from t h e m e n t a l p o i n t o f v i e w , a syst e m o f representations. F r o m b o t h p o i n t s o f v i e w , h e differs from the a n i m a l o n l y i n degree. A n d yet society conceives h i m a n d requires that w e conceive h i m as b e i n g e n d o w e d w i t h a sui generis character that insulates a n d shields him

f r o m all reckless i n f r i n g e m e n t — i n o t h e r w o r d s , t h a t imposes respect.

T h i s status, w h i c h puts h i m i n a class b y himself, seems t o us t o be o n e o f his distinctive attributes, even t h o u g h n o basis f o r i t can be f o u n d i n the e m p i r ical nature o f m a n . A cancelled postage stamp m a y be w o r t h a f o r t u n e , b u t o b v i o u s l y t h a t value is i n n o w a y e n t a i l e d b y its n a t u r a l properties. T h e r e is a sense, o f course, i n w h i c h o u r representation o f t h e e x t e r n a l w o r l d is itself n o t h i n g b u t a fabric o f h a l l u c i n a t i o n s . T h e o d o r s , tastes, and colors that w e place i n bodies are n o t there, o r at least are n o t there i n the w a y w e perceive t h e m . Nevertheless, o u r sensations o f smell, taste, a n d sight d o c o r r e s p o n d t o c e r t a i n o b j e c t i v e states o f t h e t h i n g s represented. A f t e r a fashion, t h e y d o e x press t h e properties o f p a r t i c u l a r materials o r m o v e m e n t s o f the ether that r e ally d o have t h e i r o r i g i n i n t h e bodies w e perceive as b e i n g fragrant, tasty, o r c o l o r f u l . B u t collective representations o f t e n i m p u t e t o t h e things t o w h i c h t h e y refer properties that d o n o t exist i n t h e m i n any f o r m o r t o any degree whatsoever. F r o m t h e m o s t c o m m o n p l a c e o b j e c t , t h e y can m a k e a sacred a n d very powerful being. H o w e v e r , even t h o u g h p u r e l y ideal, the p o w e r s thereby c o n f e r r e d o n that object behave as i f t h e y w e r e real. T h e y d e t e r m i n e man's c o n d u c t w i t h the same necessity as physical forces. T h e A r u n t a w h o has p r o p e r l y r u b b e d h i m s e l f w i t h his c h u r i n g a feels stronger; h e is stronger. I f he has eaten t h e flesh o f an a n i m a l that is p r o h i b i t e d , even t h r o u g h i t is perfecdy w h o l e s o m e , he w i l l feel i l l from i t a n d m a y die. T h e soldier w h o falls d e f e n d i n g his flag c e r t a i n l y does n o t believe he has sacrificed h i m s e l f t o a piece o f c l o t h . S u c h things h a p p e n because social t h o u g h t , w i t h its i m p e r a t i v e a u t h o r i t y , has a p o w e r that i n d i v i d u a l t h o u g h t c a n n o t possibly have. B y a c t i n g o n o u r m i n d s , i t can m a k e us see things i n the l i g h t that suits i t ; a c c o r d i n g t o circumstances, i t adds t o o r takes away f r o m the real. H e n c e , there is a r e a l m o f nature i n w h i c h the f o r m u l a o f i d e a l i s m is almost l i t e r a l l y applicable; that is t h e social r e a l m . T h e r e , far m o r e t h a n a n y w h e r e else, t h e idea creates the reality. E v e n i n this case, i d e a l i s m is p r o b a b l y n o t t r u e w i t h o u t q u a l i f i c a t i o n . W e can never escape t h e d u a l i t y o f o u r nature a n d w h o l l y emancipate ourselves from p h y s ical necessities. As I w i l l show, t o express o u r o w n ideas even t o ourselves, w e n e e d t o attach those ideas t o m a t e r i a l t h i n g s that s y m b o l i z e t h e m . B u t , here, t h e role o f m a t t e r is at a m i n i m u m . T h e o b j e c t that serves as a p r o p f o r the

230


idea does n o t a m o u n t t o m u c h as c o m p a r e d t o the ideal superstructure u n der w h i c h i t disappears, and, f u r t h e r m o r e , i t has n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h that superstructure. F r o m all that has b e e n said, w e see w h a t t h e p s e u d o - d e l i r i u m m e t w i t h at the basis o f so m a n y collective representations consists of: I t is o n l y a f o r m o f this f u n d a m e n t a l i d e a l i s m .

41

So i t is n o t p r o p e r l y called a d e l u -

sion. T h e ideas thus o b j e c t i f i e d are w e l l f o u n d e d — n o t , t o be sure, i n the n a ture o f the t a n g i b l e things o n t o w h i c h t h e y are grafted b u t i n the nature o f society. W e can u n d e r s t a n d n o w h o w i t happens that t h e t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e and, m o r e generally, h o w any r e l i g i o u s force comes t o be e x t e r n a l t o the things i n 42

w h i c h i t resides: because t h e idea o f i t is n o t at all c o n s t r u c t e d from t h e i m pressions the t h i n g makes d i r e c t l y o n o u r senses and m i n d s . R e l i g i o u s force is n o n e o t h e r t h a n t h e f e e l i n g that the c o l l e c t i v i t y inspires i n its m e m b e r s , b u t p r o j e c t e d outside t h e m i n d s that e x p e r i e n c e t h e m , a n d o b j e c t i f i e d . T o b e c o m e o b j e c t i f i e d , i t fixes o n a t h i n g that t h e r e b y becomes sacred; any object can play this role. I n p r i n c i p l e , n o n e is b y nature predestined t o i t , t o the e x c l u s i o n o f others, any m o r e t h a n others are necessarily p r e c l u d e d f r o m i t .

4 3

W h e r e religious force becomes o b j e c t i f i e d depends e n t i r e l y u p o n w h a t c i r cumstances cause the f e e l i n g that generates r e l i g i o u s ideas t o settle here o r there, i n o n e place rather t h a n another. T h e sacredness e x h i b i t e d b y the t h i n g is n o t i m p l i c a t e d i n t h e i n t r i n s i c properties o f the t h i n g : It is added to them. T h e w o r l d o f the r e l i g i o u s is n o t a special aspect o f e m p i r i c a l nature: It is superimposed upon nature. Finally, this idea o f the r e l i g i o u s enables us t o e x p l a i n an i m p o r t a n t p r i n c i p l e f o u n d at the r o o t o f m a n y m y t h s : W h e n a sacred b e i n g is s u b d i v i d e d , i t remains w h o l l y equal t o itself i n each o f its parts. I n o t h e r w o r d s , f r o m the s t a n d p o i n t o f religious t h o u g h t , the part equals the w h o l e ; the part has the same p o w e r s a n d the same efficacy. A fragment o f a relic has the same virtues

4,

One can see all that is wrong in theories like the geographic materialism of [Friedrich] Ratzel (see especially his "Der Raum im Geist der Völker" in Politische Geographie, [Leipzig, R. Oldenbourg, 1897]), which aim to derive all of social lifefromits material substrate (either economic or territorial). Their mistake is comparable to Maudsley's in individual psychology. Just as Maudsley reduced the psychic life of the individual to a mere epiphenomenon of its physiological base, they want to reduce all of the psychic life of the collectivity to its physical base. This is to forget that ideas are realities—forces—and that collective representations are forces even more dynamic and powerful than individual representations. On this point, see [Dürkheim], "Représentations," RMM, 1898. 42

See pp. 191, 196-197.

43

Even excrement has a religious quality. See [Konrad Theodor] Preuss, "Der Ursprung der Religion und Kunst," esp. chap. 2, "Der Zauber der Defakation, Globus, vol. LXXXVI [1904], pp. 325ff.

231


as the w h o l e relic. T h e smallest d r o p o f b l o o d contains the same active p r i n ciple as all the b l o o d . A s w e w i l l see, the soul can b e b r o k e n u p i n t o almost as m a n y parts as there are organs o r tissues i n t h e b o d y ; each o f these p a r t i a l souls is equivalent t o t h e entire soul. T h i s c o n c e p t i o n w o u l d be i n e x p l i c a b l e i f sacredness d e p e n d e d o n t h e c o n s t i t u t i v e properties o f the t h i n g s e r v i n g as its substrate, f o r sacredness w o u l d have t o change w i t h that t h i n g , increasing a n d decreasing w i t h i t . B u t i f t h e v i r t u e s the t h i n g is d e e m e d t o have are n o t i n t r i n s i c t o i t , i f t h e y c o m e t o i t f r o m c e r t a i n feelings that i t calls t o m i n d a n d symbolizes (even t h o u g h such feelings o r i g i n a t e outside i t ) , i t can play an evocative role w h e t h e r i t is w h o l e o r n o t , since i n that r o l e i t does n o t n e e d specific d i m e n s i o n s . Since t h e part evokes the w h o l e , i t also evokes the same feelings as t h e w h o l e . A m e r e scrap o f t h e flag represents the c o u n t r y as m u c h as the flag itself; m o r e o v e r , i t is sacred i n the same r i g h t a n d t o the same d e 44 gree.

V T h i s t h e o r y o f t o t e m i s m has enabled us t o e x p l a i n the m o s t characteristic b e liefs o f t h e r e l i g i o n , b u t i t rests o n a fact that is n o t yet e x p l a i n e d . G i v e n the idea o f t h e t o t e m , t h e e m b l e m o f t h e clan, all the rest follows, b u t w e must still f i n d o u t h o w that idea was f o r m e d . T h e q u e s t i o n is t w o f o l d a n d can be b r o k e n d o w n i n this w a y : (1) W h a t caused t h e clan t o choose an emblem? (2) W h y w e r e those e m b l e m s t a k e n f r o m the w o r l d o f animals a n d plants, b u t especially f r o m the w o r l d o f animals? T h a t an e m b l e m can be useful as a r a l l y i n g p o i n t f o r any sort o f g r o u p r e quires n o a r g u m e n t . B y expressing t h e social u n i t tangibly, i t makes t h e u n i t itself m o r e t a n g i b l e t o all. A n d f o r that reason, t h e use o f e m b l e m a t i c s y m bols m u s t have spread q u i c k l y , as s o o n as the idea was b o r n . F u r t h e r m o r e , this idea m u s t have arisen spontaneously f r o m the c o n d i t i o n s o f life i n c o m m o n , f o r t h e e m b l e m is n o t o n l y a c o n v e n i e n t m e t h o d o f c l a r i f y i n g the awareness t h e society has o f itself: I t serves t o create—and is a c o n s t i t u t i v e e l e m e n t of-—that awareness. B y themselves,

i n d i v i d u a l consciousnesses are actually closed t o

one

another, a n d t h e y can c o m m u n i c a t e o n l y b y means o f signs i n w h i c h t h e i r i n n e r states c o m e t o express themselves.

F o r t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n that is

o p e n i n g u p b e t w e e n t h e m t o e n d i n a c o m m u n i o n — t h a t is, i n a fusion o f all

""This principle has passed from religion into magic. It is the alchemists' Totum ex parte [the whole from the part. Trans.].

232


the i n d i v i d u a l feelings i n t o a c o m m o n o n e — t h e signs that express those feelings m u s t c o m e t o g e t h e r i n o n e single resultant.* T h e appearance o f this r e sultant notifies i n d i v i d u a l s that t h e y are i n u n i s o n a n d b r i n g s h o m e t o t h e m t h e i r m o r a l u n i t y . I t is b y s h o u t i n g the same cry, saying t h e same w o r d s , a n d p e r f o r m i n g t h e same a c t i o n i n regard t o the same object that they a r r i v e at and experience agreement. G r a n t e d , i n d i v i d u a l representations

also b r i n g

a b o u t repercussions i n t h e b o d y that are n o t u n i m p o r t a n t ; still, these effects can be treated as analytically d i s t i n c t from physical repercussions that c o m e w i t h o r after t h e m b u t that are n o t t h e i r basis. C o l l e c t i v e representations

are q u i t e a n o t h e r matter. T h e y presuppose

that consciousnesses are a c t i n g a n d reacting o n each o t h e r ; t h e y result

from

actions a n d reactions that are possible o n l y w i t h t h e h e l p o f tangible i n t e r mediaries. T h u s t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e i n t e r m e d i a r i e s is n o t m e r e l y t o reveal the m e n t a l state associated w i t h t h e m ; they also c o n t r i b u t e t o its m a k i n g . T h e i n d i v i d u a l m i n d s can m e e t a n d c o m m u n e o n l y i f t h e y c o m e outside themselves, b u t t h e y d o this o n l y b y means o f m o v e m e n t . I t is the h o m o g e n e i t y o f these m o v e m e n t s that makes t h e g r o u p aware o f itself and that, i n consequence, makes i t be. O n c e this h o m o g e n e i t y has b e e n

established

a n d these m o v e m e n t s have taken a d e f i n i t e f o r m a n d b e e n stereotyped, they serve t o s y m b o l i z e t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g representations. B u t these m o v e m e n t s s y m b o l i z e those representations

o n l y because t h e y have h e l p e d t o

form

them. W i t h o u t symbols, m o r e o v e r , social feelings c o u l d have o n l y an unstable existence. T h o s e feelings are v e r y s t r o n g so l o n g as m e n are assembled, m u t u a l l y i n f l u e n c i n g o n e another, b u t w h e n the g a t h e r i n g is over, they survive o n l y i n t h e f o r m o f m e m o r i e s that g r a d u a l l y d i m a n d fade away i f left t o themselves. Since the g r o u p is n o l o n g e r present a n d active, the i n d i v i d u a l temperaments

q u i c k l y take over again. W i l d passions that c o u l d unleash

themselves i n the m i d s t o f a c r o w d c o o l a n d die d o w n o n c e the c r o w d has dispersed,

and i n d i v i d u a l s w o n d e r w i t h amazement

h o w t h e y c o u l d let

themselves be c a r r i e d so far o u t o f character. B u t i f the m o v e m e n t s b y w h i c h these feelings have b e e n expressed eventually b e c o m e i n s c r i b e d o n things that are durable, t h e n t h e y t o o b e c o m e durable. T h e s e things keep b r i n g i n g the feelings t o i n d i v i d u a l m i n d s a n d keep t h e m p e r p e t u a l l y aroused, j u s t as

* Since Dürkheim said "resultant" (résultante) and not "result" (résultat), he may have had in mind the mathematical notion of a vector sum of forces. A resultant may be defined as the single force, measured as velocity or acceleration, to which several forces taken together are equivalent. The term also has an analogous literary sense.


233

w o u l d h a p p e n i f the cause that first called t h e m f o r t h was still acting. T h u s , w h i l e e m b l e m a t i z i n g is necessary i f society is t o b e c o m e conscious o f itself, so is i t n o less indispensable i n p e r p e t u a t i n g that consciousness. H e n c e , w e m u s t g u a r d against seeing those symbols as m e r e artifices—a v a r i e t y o f labels placed o n ready-made representations t o make t h e m easier t o handle. T h e y are i n t e g r a l t o those representations. T h e fact that collective feelings f i n d themselves j o i n e d i n this w a y t o things that are alien t o t h e m is n o t p u r e l y c o n v e n t i o n a l . I t t a n g i b l y portrays a real feature o f social p h e n o m ena: t h e i r transcendence o f i n d i v i d u a l consciousnesses. W e k n o w , i n fact, that social p h e n o m e n a are b o r n n o t i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l b u t i n the g r o u p . N o m a t ter w h a t p a r t w e m a y play i n t h e i r genesis, each o f us receives t h e m without.

4 5

from

T h u s , w h e n w e i m a g i n e t h e m as e m a n a t i n g f r o m a m a t e r i a l o b -

j e c t , w e are n o t e n t i r e l y w r o n g a b o u t t h e i r nature. A l t h o u g h t h e y c e r t a i n l y d o n o t c o m e from t h e specific t h i n g t o w h i c h w e a t t r i b u t e t h e m , still i t is t r u e that t h e y o r i g i n a t e outside us. A n d a l t h o u g h the m o r a l force that sustains the w o r s h i p p e r does n o t c o m e from t h e i d o l he w o r s h i p s o r the e m b l e m he venerates, still i t is e x t e r n a l t o h i m ; a n d he feels this. T h e o b j e c t i v i t y o f the s y m b o l is b u t an expression o f that externality. T h u s , i n all its aspects and at every m o m e n t o f its history, social life is o n l y possible thanks t o a vast s y m b o l i s m . T h e physical emblems a n d f i g u r a tive representations w i t h w h i c h I have b e e n especially c o n c e r n e d i n the p r e sent study are o n e f o r m o f i t , b u t there are a g o o d m a n y others. C o l l e c t i v e feelings can j u s t as w e l l be i n c a r n a t e d i n persons as i n formulas. S o m e f o r mulas are flags; some real o r m y t h i c personages are symbols. B u t there is o n e sort o f e m b l e m that m u s t have appeared v e r y q u i c k l y , q u i t e apart f r o m any r e f l e c t i o n o r c a l c u l a t i o n , a n d i t is this o n e that w e have seen p l a y i n g a c o n siderable role i n t o t e m i s m : t a t t o o i n g . W e l l - k n o w n facts demonstrate, i n fact, that u n d e r c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s , i t is p r o d u c e d b y a sort o f a u t o m a t i c a c t i o n . W h e n m e n o f an i n f e r i o r c u l t u r e share i n a c o m m o n life, they are o f t e n l e d , almost instinctively, t o p a i n t themselves o r t o i m p r i n t images o n t h e i r bodies that r e m i n d t h e m o f t h e i r c o m m o n life. A c c o r d i n g t o a t e x t b y P r o c o p e , the first Christians h a d t h e n a m e o f C h r i s t o r the sign o f the cross i m p r i n t e d o n their s k i n .

4 6

F o r a l o n g t i m e , groups o f p i l g r i m s w h o w e n t t o Palestine also

h a d themselves t a t t o o e d o n t h e i r arms o r w r i s t s w i t h designs representing the

45

On this point, see [Durkheim], Règles de la méthode sociologique, pp. 5ff.

^Procopius of Gaza, Commentarii in Isaiam, p. 496. [It may be that Durkheim drew this fifth-century reference from Procopii Gazaei. . . Opera omnia in unum corpus adunata, Petit Montrouge, J. P. Migne, 1861.

Trans.]

234


cross o r the m o n o g r a m o f C h r i s t .

4 7

T h e same c u s t o m is r e p o r t e d f o r p d -

grimages t o c e r t a i n h o l y places i n I t a l y .

48

Lombroso reported a curious ex-

ample o f spontaneous t a t t o o i n g . W h e n t w e n t y y o u n g m e n f r o m an Italian h i g h s c h o o l w e r e a b o u t t o separate, t h e y h a d themselves decorated w i t h t a t toos that i n various ways r e c o r d e d t h e years t h e y h a d j u s t spent t o g e t h e r .

49

T h e same practice has o f t e n b e e n observed a m o n g soldiers o f the same camp, sailors o n t h e same ship, a n d prisoners i n the same house o f d e t e n t i o n .

5 0

In

fact, i t is understandable, especially w h e r e t e c h n o l o g y is still u n d e v e l o p e d , that t a t t o o i n g is the m o s t d i r e c t a n d expressive means b y w h i c h the c o m m u n i o n o f m i n d s can be a f f i r m e d . T h e best w a y o f testifying t o oneself a n d o t h ers that o n e is p a r t o f t h e same g r o u p is t o place the same distinctive m a r k o n t h e b o d y . P r o o f that such is i n d e e d the raison d'être o f the t o t e m i c i m a g e is that, as I have s h o w n , i t does n o t t r y t o c o p y the appearance o f the t h i n g i t is considered t o represent. I t is made o f lines a n d p o i n t s t h a t are g i v e n an e n tirely conventional m e a n i n g .

5 1

T h e p u r p o s e o f t h e image is n o t t o represent

o r evoke a p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t b u t t o testify that a c e r t a i n n u m b e r o f i n d i v i d u als share the same m o r a l life. T h e c l a n is a society t h a t is less able t h a n any o t h e r t o d o w i t h o u t an e m b l e m a n d a s y m b o l , f o r there are f e w societies so l a c k i n g i n cohesion. T h e clan c a n n o t be d e f i n e d b y its leader, f o r a l t h o u g h n o t absent altogether, c e n tral a u t h o r i t y i n i t is at best s h i f t i n g a n d u n s t a b l e .

52

N o r can i t be any better

d e f i n e d b y the t e r r i t o r y i t occupies for, b e i n g n o m a d i c ,

5 3

the clan's p o p u l a -

tion is n o t closely t i e d t o any d e f i n i t e locality. F u r t h e r m o r e , g i v e n the r u l e o f exogamy, t h e husband a n d w i f e m u s t be o f different t o t e m s . T h u s , w h e r e the t o t e m is t r a n s m i t t e d i n the m a t e r n a l l i n e — a n d t o d a y this descent system is

47

See Thevenot, [Suite de] voyage [de M. de Thévenot] au Levant, Paris, 1689, p. 638. This phenomenon was observed again in 1862: cf. Berchon, "Histoire médicale du tatouage," Archives de Médiane Navale, vol. XI (1869), p. 377 n. •^[Alexandre] Lacassagne, Les Tatouages: [Étude anthropologique et médico légale, Paris, Baillière, 1881], p. 10. 49

[Césare] Lombroso, L'Homme criminel, vol. I [Paris, Alcan, 1885], p. 292.

50

Ibid., vol. I, pp. 268, 285, 291-292; Lacassagne, Tatouages, p. 97.

51

52

See above, p. 126. On the authority of the chiefs, see Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 10; Spencer and Gillen,

Northern Tribes, p. 25; Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 295ff. 53

At least in Australia. In America, the population is most often sedentary, but the clan in America is a relatively advanced form of organization.


235

54

still the m o s t w i d e s p r e a d — t h e c h i l d r e n are o f a different clan f r o m t h e i r father, even w h e n l i v i n g w i t h h i m . F o r all these reasons, w e f i n d all sorts o f d i f ferent clans represented w i t h i n the same f a m i l y a n d even w i t h i n the same locality. T h e u n i t y o f t h e g r o u p can be felt o n l y because o f t h e collective name b o r n e b y all t h e m e m b e r s a n d because o f the equally c o l l e c t i v e e m b l e m representing t h e t h i n g designated b y that name. A clan is essentially a c o m p a n y o f i n d i v i d u a l s w h o have t h e same n a m e a n d rally a r o u n d t h e same s y m b o l . Take away the n a m e a n d t h e s y m b o l that gives i t tangible f o r m , a n d the clan can n o l o n g e r even be i m a g i n e d . Since the clan was possible o n l y o n c o n d i t i o n o f b e i n g i m a g i n a b l e , b o t h the i n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e e m b l e m a n d its place i n the group's life are thus e x p l a i n e d . Still, w e m u s t find o u t w h y these names a n d emblems were taken almost exclusively f r o m the a n i m a l a n d p l a n t k i n g d o m s , t h o u g h m a i n l y f r o m the first. I t seems plausible that t h e e m b l e m has played a m o r e i m p o r t a n t role t h a n the name. I n any event, today t h e w r i t t e n sign still holds a m o r e central place i n the life o f the clan t h a n the spoken one. N o w , the e m b l e m a t i c i m a g e called f o r a subject representable b y a design. A n d besides, the things h a d t o be f r o m a m o n g those w i t h w h i c h the m e n o f the clan w e r e m o s t closely and h a b i t u ally i n contact. A n i m a l s m e t this c o n d i t i o n best. F o r these h u n t i n g a n d

fish-

i n g p o p u l a t i o n s , animals w e r e i n fact the essential e l e m e n t o f the e c o n o m i c e n v i r o n m e n t . I n this respect, plants t o o k second place, f o r they are o f o n l y secondary i m p o r t a n c e as f o o d so l o n g as t h e y are n o t c u l t i v a t e d . Besides, animals have a closer relationship t o man's life t h a n d o plants, i f o n l y because o f the k i n d r e d nature that j o i n s these t w o creatures t o o n e another. B y c o n trast, t h e sun, m o o n , a n d stars w e r e t o o far away a n d seemed t o b e l o n g t o a different w o r l d .

5 5

F u r t h e r , since t h e constellations w e r e n o t differentiated

a n d classified, the starry sky d i d n o t present objects different e n o u g h

from

o n e a n o t h e r t o be serviceable i n designating all t h e clans and subclans o f a t r i b e . O n the o t h e r h a n d , t h e v a r i e t y o f the flora, a n d especially the fauna,

54

To be convinced of this, it is enough to look at the map prepared by [Northcote Whitridge] Thomas in Kinship [Organization and Group] Marriage in Australia [Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1906], p. 40. To evaluate this map properly, we must take into account the fact that, for reasons unknown, the author has extended the system of totemic descent through the paternal Une as far as the west coast of Australia, even though we have virtually no information about the tribes of this region (and which, besides, is mainly desert). 55

As I will show in the next chapter, the stars are often considered, even by the Australians, as countries of souls or mythic personages—that is, they seem to constitute a world very different from that of the living.

236


was almost inexhaustible. F o r these reasons, t h e heavenly bodies w e r e u n suited t o the role o f totems, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e i r b r i l l i a n c e a n d the p o w e r ful impression t h e y m a k e u p o n t h e senses. A n i m a l s and plants were perfect for i t . A n o b s e r v a t i o n b y S t r e h l o w p e r m i t s us t o specify the m a n n e r i n w h i c h these e m b l e m s w e r e p r o b a b l y chosen. H e reports h a v i n g n o t i c e d that the t o t e m i c centers are m o s t o f t e n situated near a m o u n t a i n , s p r i n g , o r gorge w h e r e the animals that serve as t h e g r o u p s t o t e m are f o u n d i n abundance, and he cites various e x a m p l e s .

56

These t o t e m i c centers are c e r t a i n l y t h e c o n -

secrated places w h e r e t h e c l a n h e l d its meetings. I t therefore seems l i k e l y that each g r o u p t o o k as its e m b l e m t h e a n i m a l o r p l a n t that was the m o s t p l e n t i f u l i n the n e i g h b o r h o o d o f the place w h e r e i t usually assembled.

57

VI T h i s t h e o r y o f t o t e m i s m w i l l p r o v i d e us t h e k e y t o a c u r i o u s trait o f t h e h u m a n m i n d that, a l t h o u g h m o r e p r o n o u n c e d l o n g ago t h a n n o w , has n o t disappeared a n d i n any case has played a significant role i n t h e h i s t o r y o f t h o u g h t . T h i s w i l l be yet a n o t h e r o p p o r t u n i t y t o observe that l o g i c a l e v o l u tion

is closely i n t e r c o n n e c t e d w i t h r e l i g i o u s e v o l u t i o n and, l i k e r e l i g i o u s

e v o l u t i o n , depends u p o n social c o n d i t i o n s .

5 8

I f there is a t r u t h that today seems t o us c o m p l e t e l y self-evident, i t is this: Beings that differ n o t o n l y i n o u t w a r d appearance b u t also i n t h e i r m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l p r o p e r t i e s — s u c h as minerals, plants, animals, a n d m e n — c a n n o t be regarded as equivalent a n d interchangeable. L o n g - e s t a b l i s h e d practice, w h i c h scientific c u l t u r e has r o o t e d even m o r e deeply i n o u r m i n d s , taught us t o set u p barriers b e t w e e n realms o f nature, barriers w h o s e existence even trans-

56

[Carl Strehlow, DieAranda- und Loritja-Stamme in Zentral Australien], vol. 1 [Frankfurt, J. Baer, 1907], p. 4. Cf. along the same lines Schulze, "Aborigines of the . .. Finke River," p. 243. 57

Of course, as I have already had occasion to show (see p. 156, above), this choice is not made without a more or less well-thought-out agreement among the different groups, since each of them had to adopt a different emblem from that of its neighbors. 58

The turn of mind treated in this paragraph is identical to the one that [Lucien] Lévy-Bruhl calls the law of participation (Les Fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures [Paris, Alcan, 1910], pp. 76ff.). These pages were already written when that work appeared; I publish them in their original form without any change but confine myself to adding certain explanations that indicate where I differ with Lévy-Bruhl in the evaluation of the evidence.


237

f o r m i s m * does n o t deny. F o r a l t h o u g h t r a n s f o r m i s m grants that life c o u l d have b e e n b o r n f r o m n o n l i v i n g matter, a n d m e n f r o m animals, i t recognizes nonetheless that, o n c e f o r m e d , l i v i n g beings are different from minerals, and m e n from animals. W i t h i n each r e a l m , the same barriers separate different classes. W e c a n n o t i m a g i n e h o w o n e m i n e r a l c o u l d have t h e distinctive characteristics o f a n o t h e r m i n e r a l — o r o n e a n i m a l species, those o f a n o t h e r species. B u t these d i s t i n c t i o n s , w h i c h seem t o us so natural, are n o t at all p r i m i t i v e . O r i g i n a l l y , a l l t h e realms are m e r g e d . T h e rocks have a sex; t h e y have the a b i l i t y t o procreate; the sun, m o o n , a n d stars are m e n and w o m e n , w h o feel a n d express h u m a n feelings, w h i l e h u m a n s are p i c t u r e d as animals o r plants. T h i s m e r g i n g is f o u n d again a n d again at t h e basis o f all m y t h o l o gies. F r o m i t arises the a m b i g u o u s nature o f the beings that figure i n m y t h s . T h o s e beings c a n n o t be placed i n any d e f i n i t e genus because t h e y s i m u l t a n e ously participate i n the m o s t dissimilar ones. M o r e o v e r , i t is c o n c e d e d w i t h o u t d i f f i c u l t y that t h e y can m o v e f r o m o n e i n t o another, and i t is t h r o u g h transmutations o f this k i n d that m e n l o n g b e l i e v e d t h e y c o u l d e x p l a i n the origins o f things. T h a t the a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c i n s t i n c t , w i t h w h i c h the animists have e n d o w e d the p r i m i t i v e , c a n n o t account f o r this t u r n o f m i n d is s h o w n b y the n a ture o f the errors that are t y p i c a l o f i t . These errors arise n o t from man's h a v i n g w i l d l y e x p a n d e d the h u m a n r e a l m t o the p o i n t o f encompassing all the others b u t from his h a v i n g m e r g e d the m o s t disparate realms w i t h one a n other. H e has n o m o r e i m a g i n e d the w o r l d i n his o w n image t h a n he has i m a g i n e d h i m s e l f i n the image o f the w o r l d . H e has d o n e b o t h at once. I n the w a y he t h o u g h t a b o u t things, he o f course i n c l u d e d h u m a n elements, b u t i n the w a y he t h o u g h t a b o u t himself, he i n c l u d e d elements that came t o h i m from

things. H o w e v e r there was n o t h i n g i n e x p e r i e n c e t h a t c o u l d have

suggested

these mergers a n d m i x t u r e s t o h i m . F r o m the s t a n d p o i n t o f o b s e r v a t i o n

*The 1992 Petit Robert dictionary indicates a "scientific" term, transformisme, and a "philosophical" term, evolutionnisme, dating them, respectively, from 1867 and 1878. Both terms come after Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species (1859). According to André Lalande (Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie, Paris, Alcan, 1902, p. 909), the difference between the two terms is as follows. In one sense, transformisme is a more general term in biology than evolutionnisme, because it also includes such notions as Lamarck's inheritance of acquired characteristics. In another sense, it is more specific than evolutionism because it is limited to biology, whereas evolutionism became a far more general philosophical notion considered to be applicable to all phenomena. It is clear from the context of the book as a whole that, in these terms, Durkheim had evolutionnisme in mind. But I have preserved his "transformism" so as not to obliterate the memory of two overlapping terms that had somewhat different, and no doubt contested, meaning in his day.

238


t h r o u g h t h e senses, e v e r y t h i n g is disparate a n d d i s c o n t i n u o u s . N o w h e r e i n reality d o w e observe beings t h a t m e r g e t h e i r natures a n d change i n t o o n e another. A n e x c e p t i o n a l l y p o w e r f u l cause w o u l d have h a d t o i n t e r v e n e a n d so transfigure the real as t o m a k e i t appear i n a f o r m n o t its o w n . I t is r e l i g i o n that c a r r i e d o u t this t r a n s f o r m a t i o n ; i t is r e l i g i o u s beliefs that replaced the w o r l d as t h e senses perceive i t w i t h a different one. T h i s , the case o f t o t e m i s m shows v e r y w e l l . W h a t is f u n d a m e n t a l t o t o t e m i s m is that t h e p e o p l e o f the clan, a n d the various beings w h o s e f o r m t h e t o t e m i c e m b l e m represents, are h e l d t o be made o f t h e same essence. O n c e that b e l i e f was accepted, the disparate realms w e r e b r i d g e d . M a n was c o n c e i v e d o f as a k i n d o f a n i m a l o r p l a n t , a n d the plants a n d animals as man's k i n — o r , rather, all these beings, so different a c c o r d i n g t o t h e senses, w e r e c o n c e i v e d o f as p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e same nature. H e n c e , the o r i g i n o f that remarkable capacity t o c o n f o u n d w h a t seems t o us so o b v i o u s l y d i s t i n c t : T h e first forces w i t h w h i c h the h u m a n i n t e l l e c t p o p u l a t e d t h e universe w e r e elaborated t h r o u g h r e l i g i o n . Since these forces w e r e made o f elements taken f r o m different k i n g d o m s , they became t h e p r i n c i p l e c o m m o n t o t h e m o s t disparate things, w h i c h w e r e t h e r e b y e n d o w e d w i t h o n e a n d t h e same essence. W e k n o w f u r t h e r m o r e that these r e l i g i o u s ideas are the o u t c o m e o f defi n i t e social causes. Because t h e clan c a n n o t exist w i t h o u t a name and an e m b l e m , a n d because that e m b l e m is e v e r y w h e r e before the eyes o f i n d i v i d u a l s , the feelings that society arouses i n its m e m b e r s are d i r e c t e d t o w a r d t h e e m b l e m a n d t o w a r d the objects w h o s e i m a g e i t is. I n this way, m e n h a d n o c h o i c e b u t t o conceive t h e c o l l e c t i v e force, w h o s e w o r k i n g s t h e y felt, i n the f o r m o f the t h i n g that served as t h e flag o f the g r o u p . T h e r e f o r e , t h e m o s t disparate realms f o u n d themselves m e r g e d i n t h e idea o f this force. I n o n e sense, t h e force was f u n d a m e n t a l l y h u m a n , since i t was made o f h u m a n ideas a n d feelings; at the same time, i t c o u l d n o t b u t appear as closely a k i n t o the animate o r i n a n i m a t e b e i n g that gave i t o u t w a r d f o r m . T h e cause w e are capt u r i n g at w o r k is n o t exclusive t o t o t e m i s m ; there is n o society i n w h i c h i t is n o t at w o r k . N o w h e r e can a c o l l e c t i v e f e e l i n g b e c o m e consciousness o f itself w i t h o u t f i x i n g u p o n a tangible object;

59

b u t b y that v e r y fact, i t participates

i n the nature o f that object, a n d v i c e versa. T h u s , i t is social r e q u i r e m e n t s that have fused t o g e t h e r ideas that at first glance seem d i s t i n c t , a n d t h r o u g h the great m e n t a l effervescence that i t b r i n g s about, social life has p r o m o t e d that fusion.

60

T h i s is f u r t h e r evidence that l o g i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g is a f u n c t i o n o f

59

See above, p. 231.

60

Another cause accounts for a large part of this fusion: the extreme contagiousness of religious forces. They invade every object in their reach, whatever it may be. Hence the same religious force can animate


239

society, since l o g i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g adopts the c o n v e n t i o n s and v i e w p o i n t s that society i m p r i n t s u p o n i t . T h i s l o g i c is u n s e t t l i n g , t o be sure. S t i l l , w e m u s t be careful n o t t o d e preciate i t : H o w e v e r c r u d e i t m a y seem t o us, i t was a m o m e n t o u s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the i n t e l l e c t u a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f h u m a n i t y . F o r t h r o u g h that logic, a first e x p l a n a t i o n o f the w o r l d became possible. O f course, the m e n t a l habits i t i m p l i e s p r e v e n t e d m a n from seeing reality as his senses show i t t o h i m ; b u t as t h e senses s h o w i t t o h i m , r e a l i t y has t h e grave disadvantage o f b e i n g resistant t o all e x p l a n a t i o n . F o r t o e x p l a i n is t o c o n n e c t things t o o t h e r things; i t is t o establish relationships b e t w e e n things that m a k e t h e m appear t o us as f u n c t i o n s o f o n e a n o t h e r a n d as v i b r a t i n g sympathetically i n accordance w i t h an i n t e r n a l l a w that is r o o t e d i n t h e i r nature. Sense p e r c e p t i o n , w h i c h sees o n l y from t h e outside, c o u l d n o t possibly cause us t o discover such r e l a t i o n ships a n d i n t e r n a l ties; o n l y t h e i n t e l l e c t can create the n o t i o n o f t h e m . W h e n I l e a r n that A r e g u l a r l y precedes B , m y k n o w l e d g e is e n r i c h e d w i t h a n e w piece o f k n o w l e d g e , b u t m y i n t e l l i g e n c e is i n n o w a y satisfied b y an o b servation that does n o t c a r r y a reason w i t h i t . I b e g i n t o understand o n l y i f i t is possible f o r m e t o conceive o f B i n some w a y that makes i t appear t o m e as n o t f o r e i g n t o A b u t as u n i t e d w i t h A i n some r e l a t i o n o f k i n s h i p . T h e great service that r e l i g i o n s have r e n d e r e d t o t h o u g h t is t o have c o n s t r u c t e d a first representation o f w h a t the relations o f k i n s h i p b e t w e e n things m i g h t be. G i v e n the c o n d i t i o n s i n w h i c h i t was t r i e d , that enterprise c o u l d o b v i o u s l y lead o n l y t o makeshift results. B u t , t h e n , are the results o f any such enterprise ever d e f i n i t i v e , a n d m u s t i t n o t be taken u p again a n d again? F u r t h e r m o r e , i t was less i m p o r t a n t t o succeed t h a n t o dare. W h a t was essential was n o t t o l e t the m i n d be d o m i n a t e d b y w h a t appears t o the senses, b u t instead t o teach the m i n d t o d o m i n a t e i t a n d t o j o i n t o g e t h e r w h a t t h e senses p u t asunder. As s o o n as m a n became aware t h a t i n t e r n a l c o n n e c t i o n s exist b e t w e e n things, science a n d p h i l o s o p h y became possible. R e l i g i o n m a d e a w a y f o r t h e m . I t is because r e l i g i o n is a social t h i n g that i t c o u l d play this role. T o m a k e m e n take c o n t r o l o f sense impressions a n d replace t h e m w i t h a n e w w a y o f i m a g i n i n g t h e real, a n e w k i n d o f t h o u g h t h a d t o be created: collective t h o u g h t . I f collective t h o u g h t alone h a d the p o w e r t o achieve this, here is the reason: C r e a t i n g a w h o l e w o r l d o f ideals, t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e w o r l d o f sensed r e a l i ties seemed transfigured, w o u l d r e q u i r e a h y p e r e x c i t a t i o n o f i n t e l l e c t u a l forces that is possible o n l y i n and t h r o u g h society.

the most dissimilar things, which by that very fact find themselves closely connected and classified in the same genus. I will return to this contagion below, while showing that it is related to the social origins of the idea of the sacred (Bk. Ill, chap. 1, end).

240


H e n c e , that m e n t a l i t y is far f r o m b e i n g u n r e l a t e d t o o u r o w n . O u r o w n l o g i c was b o r n i n that l o g i c . T h e explanations o f c o n t e m p o r a r y science are m o r e c e r t a i n o f b e i n g objective, because t h e y are m o r e systematic and based o n m o r e r i g o r o u s l y c o n t r o l l e d observations, b u t t h e y are n o t different i n n a ture f r o m those that satisfy p r i m i t i v e t h o u g h t . T o d a y as i n t h e past, t o e x p l a i n is t o s h o w h o w a t h i n g participates i n o n e o r several o t h e r t h i n g s . I t has b e e n said that t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n s w h o s e existence m y t h o l o g i e s presuppose v i o l a t e the p r i n c i p l e o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n and, o n those g r o u n d s , are a n t i t h e t i c a l t o t h e participations that scientific explanations i n v o l v e .

61

Is n o t p o s t u l a t i n g that a

m a n is a k a n g a r o o a n d t h e sun a b i r d i d e n t i f y i n g o n e t h i n g w i t h another? W e d o n o t t h i n k any d i f f e r e n d y w h e n w e say o f heat that i t is a m o v e m e n t , a n d o f l i g h t that i t is a v i b r a t i o n o f the ether, a n d so o n . E v e r y t i m e w e j o i n h e t erogeneous terms b y an i n t e r n a l tie, w e o f necessity i d e n t i f y contraries. T h e terms w e j o i n i n this w a y are n o t , o f course, the ones the A u s t r a l i a n j o i n s . W e choose t h e m a c c o r d i n g t o different c r i t e r i a a n d f o r different reasons, b u t t h e p r o c e d u r e b y w h i c h the m i n d places t h e m i n t o r e l a t i o n s h i p is n o t essentially different. G r a n t e d , i f p r i m i t i v e t h o u g h t h a d the sort o f universal a n d a b i d i n g i n d i f ference t o c o n t r a d i c t i o n that has b e e n ascribed t o i t ,

6 2

o n this p o i n t i t w o u l d

c o n t r a s t — a n d contrast v e r y m a r k e d l y — w i t h m o d e r n t h o u g h t , w h i c h is a l ways careful t o r e m a i n i n t e r n a l l y consistent. B u t I d o n o t believe i t possible t o characterize the m e n t a l i t y o f t h e l o w e r societies b y a sort o f o n e - s i d e d a n d exclusive i n c l i n a t i o n n o t t o m a k e d i s t i n c t i o n s . I f the p r i m i t i v e puts t o g e t h e r things that w e keep separate, inversely, h e separates o t h e r things that w e p u t together, a n d h e actually conceives o f those d i s t i n c t i o n s as a b r u p t a n d p r o n o u n c e d o p p o s i t i o n s . B e t w e e n t w o beings t h a t are classified i n t w o different phratries, there is n o t o n l y separation b u t also a n t a g o n i s m .

63

F o r this reason,

the same A u s t r a l i a n w h o puts t h e sun a n d the w h i t e c o c k a t o o t o g e t h e r o p poses t h e b l a c k c o c k a t o o t o t h e w h i t e as t o its opposite. T h e t w o seem t o h i m t o b e l o n g t o t w o separate genera w i t h n o t h i n g i n c o m m o n . T h e r e is an even m o r e p r o n o u n c e d o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n sacred a n d profane things. T h e y repel a n d c o n t r a d i c t o n e a n o t h e r so forcefully that t h e m i n d refuses t o t h i n k o f t h e m at the same t i m e . T h e y e x p e l o n e a n o t h e r f r o m

consciousness.

H e n c e , there is n o g u l f b e t w e e n the l o g i c o f r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t a n d the l o g i c o f scientific t h o u g h t . B o t h are made u p o f the same essential elements,

61

Levy-Bruhl, Les Fonctions mentales, pp. 77fF.

62

Ibid., p. 79.

63

See above, p. 146.


241

although these elements are u n e q u a l l y a n d differendy developed. W h a t appears above all t o t y p i f y t h e l o g i c o f religious t h o u g h t is a natural taste as m u c h for unrestrained assimilations as f o r clashing contrasts. I t is g i v e n t o excess i n b o t h directions. W h e n i t b r i n g s things together, i t mixes t h e m together; w h e n it distinguishes b e t w e e n things, i t makes t h e m opposites. I t k n o w s n e i t h e r m o d e r a t i o n n o r nuance b u t seeks the extremes. As a result, i t employs logical mechanisms w i t h a c e r t a i n gaucheness, b u t n o n e o f t h e m are u n k n o w n t o i t .

CHAPTER EIGHT

THE NOTION OF SOUL*

I

n the p r e c e d i n g chapters, w e have s t u d i e d the f u n d a m e n t a l principles o f t o t e m i c r e l i g i o n . W e have f o u n d that t h e n o t i o n s o f soul, spirit, and

m y t h i c personage are absent f r o m i t . Yet a l t h o u g h t h e n o t i o n o f spiritual beings is n o t f u n d a m e n t a l t o t o t e m i s m or, consequently, t o r e l i g i o n i n general, there is n o r e l i g i o n f r o m w h i c h i t is absent—hence t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t r y i n g t o discover h o w i t came t o be f o r m e d . T o be sure that n o t i o n is i n fact the result o f a secondary f o r m a t i o n , I m u s t s h o w h o w i t is d e r i v e d from t h e m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l ideas I have p r e v i o u s l y set f o r t h a n d e x p l a i n e d . O f all the s p i r i t beings, there is o n e that m u s t c l a i m o u r a t t e n t i o n first a n d foremost, since i t is the p r o t o t y p e from w h i c h t h e others have b e e n b u i l t , a n d that is t h e soul.

I Just as there is n o k n o w n society w i t h o u t r e l i g i o n , there is n o r e l i g i o n , h o w ever c r u d e l y o r g a n i z e d , i n w h i c h w e d o n o t f i n d a system o f collective representations d e a l i n g w i t h s o u l — i t s o r i g i n a n d its destiny. So far as can be j u d g e d from the e t h n o g r a p h i c data, t h e idea o f soul seems t o b e c o n t e m p o raneous w i t h h u m a n i t y . I n d e e d , i t seems t o have h a d all its basic features

from

the b e g i n n i n g , a n d t o such an e x t e n t that the w o r k o f the m o r e advanced r e l i g i o n s a n d p h i l o s o p h y has o n l y b e e n t o refine i t rather t h a n t o add a n y t h i n g t r u l y f u n d a m e n t a l . A l l t h e A u s t r a l i a n societies a l l o w that every h u m a n b o d y harbors an i n t e r i o r b e i n g , a l i f e - p r i n c i p l e that animates i t ; a n d that p r i n c i p l e is the soul. T r u e , w o m e n are sometimes the e x c e p t i o n t o that general r u l e :

*The French reads la notion d'âme but could have read "la notion de l'âme'' Dürkheim treats "soul" as both a thing and a generic substance that becomes thinglike when it becomes part of an individual. Cf. in this chapter, "the idea of mana" and "the idea of personality." 242

243

The Notion of Soul

T h e r e are tribes i n w h i c h t h e y are considered t o have n o such t h i n g as a 1

s o u l . I f D a w s o n is t o be b e l i e v e d o n this subject, the same is t r u e o f y o u n g 2

c h i l d r e n i n the tribes h e o b s e r v e d . B u t such cases are unusual, a n d p r o b a b l y late d e v e l o p m e n t s .

3

I n fact, the latter case seems suspect a n d c o u l d w e l l be

the result o f a m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the facts.

4

T o d e t e r m i n e w h a t idea t h e A u s t r a l i a n has o f t h e s o u l is n o t easy, since his idea is vague a n d variable. B u t this s h o u l d b y n o means surprise us. I f w e asked o u r o w n c o n t e m p o r a r i e s h o w t h e y i m a g i n e the soul, even those w h o believe t h e m o s t f i r m l y i n its existence, t h e responses w e w o u l d get w o u l d n o t have m u c h greater coherence a n d p r e c i s i o n . T h i s is because the idea i n q u e s t i o n is v e r y c o m p l e x , c o n t a i n i n g a m u l t i t u d e o f p o o r l y analyzed i m p r e s sions elaborated over centuries w i t h o u t men's h a v i n g b e e n fully conscious o f that e l a b o r a t i o n . H e r e , nonetheless, are t h e m o s t basic, i f often c o n t r a d i c t o r y , features b y w h i c h i t is d e f i n e d . I n some cases, w e are t o l d t h a t the s o u l has the e x t e r n a l appearance o f t h e 5

b o d y . I n others, i t is i m a g i n e d as b e i n g t h e size o f a g r a i n o f sand, so small 6

that i t can pass t h r o u g h t h e narrowest crevices a n d the tiniest cracks. W e w i l l see that i t is also t h o u g h t o f i n the f o r m o f animals. I n o t h e r w o r d s , its f o r m

'This is the case of the Gnanji; see [Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [Francis James] Gillen, Northern Tribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1904], pp. 170, 546; cf. a similar case, in [Robert] Brough Smyth [The Aborigines of Victoria, Melbourne, J. Ferres, 1878], vol. II, p. 269. 2

[James] Dawson, Australian Aborigines [Melbourne, G. Robertson, 1881], p. 51.

3

Among the Gnanji, there surely was a time when women had souls, for today a large number of women's souls still exist, but they never reincarnate themselves; and since, among this people, the soul that animates a newborn is an old one incarnated, it follows from the fact that the souls of women are not reincarnated that women cannot have souls. Incidentally, we can explain that absence of reincarnation. Descent among the Gnanji, which was once matrilineal, now follows the paternal line. The mother does not transmit her totem to her child. Thus the woman never has descendants who perpetuate her; she is finis familiae suae [the end of her family. Trans], To explain that situation, there are only two possible hypotheses: either women do not have souls, or the souls of women are destroyed after death. The Gnanji have adopted thefirstof those two explanations. Certain peoples of Queensland have preferred the second (see [Walter Edmund] Roth, [Superstition] Magic and Medicine in North Queensland Ethnography, Bulletin no. 5,

§68 [Brisbane, G. A. Vaughn, 1903]). ••"Children below four orfiveyears of age have neither soul nor future life," says Dawson. But what Dawson translates in this way is simply the absence of funeral rites for very young children. We will see the true meaning of this later on. 5

[James] Dawson, "Australian Aborigines," p. 51; [Langloh] Parker, [Catherine Sommerville Field Parker], 77ie Euahlayi [Tribe] [London, A. Constable, 1905], p. 35; [Richard] Eylmann, [Die] Eingeborenen [derKolonie SudAustralien, Berlin, D. Reumer, 1908], p. 188. 6

[Spencer and Gillen], Northern Tribes, p. 542; Schiirmann, "The Aboriginal Tribes of Port Lincoln," in [James Dominick] Woods [The NativeTribes of South Australia Adelaide, E. S. Wigg, 1879], p. 235.


244

7

is essentially unstable a n d i n d e f i n i t e ; i t changes f r o m m o m e n t t o m o m e n t to suit circumstances a n d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e demands o f m y t h a n d r i t e . T h e substance o f w h i c h i t is m a d e is n o less undefinable. Since i t has f o r m , h o w e v e r vague, i t is n o t i m m a t e r i a l . A n d i n fact, d u r i n g this life, i t even has physical needs: I t eats and, inversely, can be eaten. S o m e t i m e s i t leaves the b o d y and 8

feeds o n f o r e i g n souls d u r i n g its travels. O n c e i t has b e c o m e c o m p l e t e l y emancipated from the body, i t is p r e s u m e d t o lead a life w h o l l y similar t o the o n e i t l e d o n this earth: I t d r i n k s , eats, hunts, a n d so f o r t h .

9

W h e n i t flits

a b o u t i n tree branches, i t makes rusdings a n d cracklings that even profane ears can h e a r . son.

11

10

A t the same t i m e , i t is h e l d t o be invisible t o the o r d i n a r y p e r -

T o be sure, magicians o r o l d m e n possess t h e f a c u l t y o f seeing souls,

b u t this is because t h e y see things that escape o u r senses, b y v i r t u e o f special powers t h e y o w e t o e i t h e r age o r special k n o w l e d g e . W h e n i t comes t o o r d i n a r y i n d i v i d u a l s , however, that p r i v i l e g e is enjoyed at o n l y o n e time i n t h e i r lives: w h e n t h e y are o n t h e eve o f p r e m a t u r e

death. T h a t near-

m i r a c u l o u s v i s i o n is therefore regarded as a sinister p o r t e n t . N o w , i n v i s i b i l i t y is w i d e l y regarded as o n e a m o n g t h e signs o f spiritualness. * T h u s , the soul is c o n c e i v e d o f as b e i n g i m m a t e r i a l , t o a c e r t a i n e x t e n t , since i t does n o t affect t h e senses i n the w a y bodies d o ; i t has n o bones, say the tribes o f the T u l l y River.

1 2

T o r e c o n c i l e all these c o n t r a d i c t o r y traits, i t is i m a g i n e d as b e i n g

m a d e o f an i n f i n i t e l y m o r e r a r i f i e d a n d subde m a t e r i a l , as s o m e t h i n g ethereal,

13

comparable t o shadow o r w i n d .

1 4

*Durkheim says de la spiritualité, but the English "spirituality" would mislead. 7

This is the phrase Dawson uses.

8

Strehlow [DieAranda- und Loritja-Stamme in Zentral-Australien], vol. I [Frankfurt, J. Baer, 1907], p. 15 n. 1; [Reverend Louis] Schulze, "Aborigines of the Upper Middle Finke River," RSSA, vol. XVI [1891], p. 246. This is the theme of the vampire myth. 9

[Strehlow], Aranda, vol. I, p. 15; Schulze, "Aborigines," p. 244; Dawson, "Australian Aborigines," p. 51. True, souls are sometimes said to have nothing corporeal about them. According to certain accounts collected by Eylmann (p. 188), they are said to be ohne Fleisch und Blut [without flesh and blood. Trans.]. But these radical negatives leave me skeptical. The fact that offerings are not made to the souls of the dead in no way implies, as Roth thinks (Superstition, Magic, etc., §65), that they do not eat. 10

Roth, Superstition, Magic, §65; Northern Tribes, p. 500. Hence the soul sometimes emits odors (Roth, §68). "Roth, Superstition, Magic, §67; Dawson, p. 51. 12

Roth, Superstition, Magic, §65.

13

Schurmann, "Aborigines," p. 235.

"Parker, The Euahlayi, pp. 29, 35; Roth, Superstition, Magic, §65, 67, 68.

245

The Notion of Soul

T h e soul is d i s t i n c t f r o m a n d i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e b o d y because f r o m the b e g i n n i n g o f life, i t can leave t h e b o d y f o r s h o r t p e r i o d s . I t leaves the b o d y d u r i n g sleep, d u r i n g a f a i n t , a n d so f o r t h .

1 5

I n d e e d , i t can r e m a i n absent f o r

a t i m e w i t h o u t death's r e s u l t i n g . E v e n so, life is lessened d u r i n g those absences, a n d i n fact ends i f the soul does n o t r e t u r n h o m e .

1 6

B u t i t is above all

at death that this distinctness a n d i n d e p e n d e n c e are m o s t manifest. W h e r e a s the b o d y is n o m o r e , w i t h n o visible traces r e m a i n i n g , the soul continues t o live, h a v i n g an a u t o n o m o u s existence i n a w o r l d apart. B u t as real as this d u a l i t y m a y be, i t is i n n o w a y absolute. I t w o u l d be a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g t o conceive the b o d y as a k i n d o f l o d g i n g i n w h i c h the soul resides b u t w i t h w h i c h i t has o n l y e x t e r n a l relations. Q u i t e the contrary, i t is b o u n d t o the b o d y w i t h the closest o f ties; i n d e e d , i t can be separated from

t h e b o d y o n l y w i t h difficulty, a n d i n c o m p l e t e l y . W e have already seen

that i t can take at least its e x t e r n a l appearance from t h e body. T h e r e f o r e , w h a t e v e r h a r m s t h e o n e h a r m s the o t h e r ; every w o u n d o f the b o d y is p r o p agated all t h e w a y t o the s o u l .

1 7

T h e soul is so i n t i m a t e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h the

life o f t h e b o d y t h a t i t matures a n d perishes w i t h i t . T h i s is w h y t h e m a n w h o has reached a c e r t a i n age enjoys privileges d e n i e d t o y o u n g m e n . As he has advanced i n years, the r e l i g i o u s p r i n c i p l e t h a t is i n h i m has gained capacity a n d p o w e r . B u t w h e n there is actual senility, w h e n the o l d m a n has b e c o m e unable t o play a useful role i n the great r e l i g i o u s ceremonies o r i n t h e v i t a l interests o f t h e t r i b e t h a t are at stake, he is n o l o n g e r s h o w n respect. T h e feebleness o f his b o d y is considered t o have spread t o the s o u l . N o l o n g e r h a v i n g the same powers, the subject is n o l o n g e r e n t i d e d t o t h e same status.

18

T h e r e is n o t o n l y close i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e b e t w e e n t h e soul a n d the b o d y b u t also p a r t i a l assimilation. Just as there is s o m e t h i n g o f the b o d y i n the soul, since i t sometimes reproduces the body's f o r m , so there is s o m e t h i n g o f the soul i n t h e body. C e r t a i n regions a n d products o f the b o d y are t h o u g h t t o have a special affinity w i t h t h e soul: t h e heart, t h e breath, t h e p l a c e n t a ,

15

19

the

Roth, Superstition, Magic, §65; Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, p. 15.

16

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, p. 14 n. 1.

17

[James George] Frazer, "On Certain Burial Customs, as Illustrative of the Primitive Theory of the Soul," in JAI, vol. XV [1886], p. 66. 18

This is the case among the Kaitish and the Unmatjera. See Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes,

p. 506, and Native Tribes, p. 512.

"Roth, Superstition, Magic, §65-68.


246

blood,

2 0

the shadow,

21

t h e liver, the fat o f the liver, a n d t h e k i d n e y s ,

22

and so

f o r t h . These various physical substrates are n o t m e r e l o d g i n g s for the soul; they are the soul itself v i e w e d f r o m outside. W h e n the b l o o d flows, the soul escapes w i t h i t . T h e s o u l is n o t i n the breath; i t is t h e breath. I t is inseparable f r o m the b o d y p a r t i n w h i c h i t resides—hence the idea t h a t m a n has m u l t i ple souls. D i f f u s e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e b o d y , the s o u l became differentiated and fragmented. I n a sense, each o r g a n has i n d i v i d u a l i z e d the b i t o f soul i t c o n tains, a n d each b i t o f s o u l has t h e r e b y b e c o m e a d i s t i n c t entity. T h a t o f the heart c o u l d n o t be i d e n t i c a l w i t h that o f the breath, the shadow, o r the p l a centa. A l l are related, yet t h e y m u s t b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d — a n d t h e y have different n a m e s .

23

M o r e o v e r , w h i l e t h e s o u l is m o s t l i k e l y t o be l o c a l i z e d i n c e r t a i n parts o f t h e body, i t is n o t absent f r o m the others. T o v a r y i n g degrees, i t is diffused t h r o u g h o u t t h e w h o l e body. F u n e r a l rites s h o w this q u i t e w e l l . O n c e t h e last breath has b e e n exhaled a n d the s o u l p r e s u m e d t o have departed, i t w o u l d seem that the s o u l s h o u l d m a k e i m m e d i a t e use o f t h e f r e e d o m i t has j u s t r e gained t o m o v e at w i l l a n d r e t u r n as q u i c k l y as possible t o its t r u e h o m e l a n d , w h i c h is elsewhere. A n d yet i t stays near t h e corpse, its b o n d w i t h the corpse h a v i n g stretched b u t n o t b r o k e n . A w h o l e set o f rites is necessary t o m a k e i t g o away o n c e a n d f o r all. B y gestures a n d expressive m o v e m e n t s , i t is i n v i t e d to depart.

24

A w a y is o p e n e d f o r i t , a n d exits are prepared so that i t can fly

away the m o r e easily.

25

T h i s is d o n e because i t has n o t c o m e o u t o f t h e b o d y

i n o n e piece; i t p e r v a d e d t h e b o d y t o o c o m p l e t e l y t o be able t o leave i t all at once. H e r e originates the c o m m o n r i t e o f funeral a n t h r o p o p h a g y : T h e flesh o f the deceased is eaten because a sacred p r i n c i p l e is h e l d t o reside i n i t , that

20

Ibid., §68. This passage says that when there is faintingfromloss of blood, it is because the soul has left. Cf. Parker, The Euahlayi Tribe, p. 38. 21

Parker, The Euahlayi Tribe, pp. 29, 35; Roth, Superstition, Magic, §65.

22

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, pp. 12, 14. These several passages speak of evil spirits that kill small children and eat their souls, livers, and liver fat, or eke their souls, livers, and kidneys. The fact that the soul is thereby placed on the same footing as varioustissuesand viscera, constituting a food of the same sort, clearly shows its close relationship with them. Cf. Schulze, p. 246. 23

For example, among the people of the Pennefather River (Roth, Superstition, Magic, §68), there is one name for the soul that resides in the heart (ngai), another for the one that resides in the placenta (choi), a third for the one that mingles with the breath hvanji). Among the Euahlayi, there are three or even four souls (Parker, The Euahlayi Tribe, p. 35). 2+

See the description of the Urpmilchima rite, among the Arunta (Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 503ff.). 25

Ibid., pp. 497, 508.

247

The Notion of Soul

sacred p r i n c i p l e b e i n g n o n e o t h e r t h a n the s o u l .

2 6

T h e flesh is m e l t e d i n o r -

der t o u p r o o t the s o u l f o r g o o d , b y s u b j e c t i n g i t t o heat, either o f the s u n or o f man-made f i r e .

2 8

2 7

T h e s o u l flows o u t w i t h t h e l i q u i d s that result. B u t

since t h e d r i e d bones r e t a i n some p a r t o f i t still, t h e y are used as sacred o b jects o r as i n s t r u m e n t s o f m a g i c .

2 9

completely, the bones are b r o k e n .

I f t h e p r i n c i p l e t h e y enclose is t o be freed 3 0

A m o m e n t comes w h e n the irrevocable separation has b e e n made, a n d the freed soul takes flight. T h e s o u l is b y nature so i n t i m a t e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h the b o d y that this t e a r i n g away does n o t h a p p e n w i t h o u t a p r o f o u n d transf o r m a t i o n o f its c o n d i t i o n . C o n s e q u e n d y , i t t h e n takes another n a m e .

31

Al-

t h o u g h i t retains all the d i s t i n c t i v e traits o f the i n d i v i d u a l i t a n i m a t e d — h i s 32

h u m o r , his g o o d a n d b a d q u a l i t i e s — s t i l l i t has b e c o m e a n e w b e i n g . F r o m that m o m e n t , its n e w existence begins. T h e soul goes t o the l a n d o f souls. T h i s l a n d is c o n c e i v e d differendy from t r i b e t o t r i b e , a n d sometimes different ideas are f o u n d c o e x i s t i n g i n the same society. F o r some, that l a n d is u n d e r g r o u n d , each t o t e m h a v i n g its o w n . I t is the place w h e r e the first ancestors, the founders o f the clan, at a c e r t a i n m o m e n t vanished deep i n t o the e a r t h a n d w h e r e they w e n t t o live after death. T h u s , i n the subterranean w o r l d , there is a geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the dead c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o that o f t h e l i v i n g . T h e r e shines a p e r p e t u a l sun; there flow

rivers that never r u n dry. S u c h is the c o n c e p t i o n that Spencer a n d 3 3

G ü l e n a t t r i b u t e t o t h e tribes o f the center, A r u n t a , W a r r a m u n g a ,

34

and o t h -

3 5

ers. I t is shared b y t h e W o t j o b a l u k . Elsewhere, all t h e dead, w h a t e v e r t h e i r t o t e m s , are t h o u g h t t o live t o g e t h e r i n t h e same place, w h i c h is rather

26

Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 547, 548.

27

Ibid., pp. 506, 527ff.

28

Meyer, "The Encounter Bay Tribe," in Woods, p. 198.

^Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 551, 463; Native Tribes, p. 553.

•""Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 540. 3,

For example, among the Arunta and the Loritja (Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, p. 15 n. 2; vol. II, p. 77). During life, the soul is called guruna and after death liana. The itana of Strehlow is identical to the ulthana of Spencer and Gillen (Native Tribes, pp. 514ff.). The same is true among the Bloomfield River people (Roth, Superstition, Magic, §66). 32

Eylmann, "Die Eingeborenen," p. 188.

"Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 524, 491, 496. M


35

[Robert Hamilton] Mathews, "Ethnological Notes on the Aboriginal Tribes of N.S. Wales and Victoria," in RSNSW, vol. XXXVIII, 1904, p. 287.


248

vaguely localized: b e y o n d t h e sea, o n a n i s l a n d ,

36

o r o n t h e shores o f a l a k e .

37

Finally, t h e dead are sometimes t h o u g h t t o g o i n t o t h e sky, b e y o n d the clouds. " T h e r e , " says D a w s o n , "is f o u n d a m a g n i f i c e n t c o u n t r y , a b o u n d i n g i n kangaroos a n d i n game o f every k i n d , a n d w h e r e a j o y f u l life is l e d . T h e souls m e e t there a n d recognize o n e a n o t h e r . "

38

C e r t a i n features i n c l u d e d i n

this tableau w e r e p r o b a b l y taken f r o m t h e paradise o f C h r i s t i a n missionaries.

39

H o w e v e r t h e idea that t h e s o u k , o r at least c e r t a i n souls, g o t o the sky

after death w o u l d seem t o be i n d i g e n o u s , f o r i t recurs i n o t h e r parts o f the continent.

4 0

I n general, a l l t h e souls have t h e same fate a n d lead t h e same life. H o w ever, sometimes a different t r e a t m e n t is a p p l i e d t o t h e m a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r c o n d u c t o n earth, a n d o n e can see m a k i n g its appearance s o m e t h i n g that approximates a first sketch o f those d i s t i n c t a n d even opposite

compartments

b e t w e e n w h i c h t h e w o r l d o f t h e b e y o n d w i l l later be d i v i d e d . T h e souls o f those w h o excelled i n life as h u n t e r s , fighters, dancers, a n d so f o r t h d o n o t m e l t i n t o t h e c r o w d o f t h e others. A special place is assigned t o t h e m , sometimes t h e s k y .

42

4 1

I n d e e d , S t r e h l o w reports that, a c c o r d i n g t o o n e m y t h ,

t h e souls o f t h e m e a n are d e v o u r e d b y dreadful spirits a n d a n n i h i l a t e d .

43

44

Nonetheless, these c o n c e p t i o n s are still q u i t e vague i n A u s t r a l i a ; t h e y b e g i n t o acquire a m o d i c u m o f d e f i n i t i o n a n d c l a r i t y o n l y i n m o r e advanced s o c i eties, such as those o f A m e r i c a .

4 5

36

Strehlow, vol. I, pp. 15ff. Thus, according to Strehlow, among the Arunta the dead live on an island—but, according to Spencer and Gillen, in an underground place. It is probable that the two myths coexist and are not the only ones. We will see that there is even a third. On that conception of the island of the dead, cf. Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 498; C. W. Schiirmann, "Aboriginal Tribes of Port Lincoln," in Woods, p. 235; Eylmann, p. 189. 37

Schultze, "Aborigines of. . . Finke River," p. 244.

38

Dawson [The Australian Aborigines], p. 51.

39

Among these same tribes, there are obvious traces of a more ancient myth, according to which the souls lived in an underground place (ibid.). *Taplin, "The Narrinyeri" [in James Dominick Woods, The Native Tribes of South Australia, Adelaide, E. S. Wigg, 1879], pp. 18-19; Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 473; Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, p. 16. 41


42

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, p. 16; Eylmann, "Die Eingeborenen," p. 189; Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 473.

43

These are the spirits of the ancestors of a special clan, the Venom Pouch clan (Gifidrusenmanner).

"Sometimes the missionaries' influence is obvious. Dawson tells us of an authentic hell opposed to the paradise. He himself tends to regard this idea as a European import. 45

See Dorsey, "Siouan Cults," in Xlth Rep., pp. 419—420, 422, 485; cf. Marillier, La Survivance de l'âme

et l'idée de justice chez les peuples non civilisés, Rapport de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes, 1893.

249

The Notion of Soul

II Such, i n t h e i r m o s t e l e m e n t a r y f o r m and s t r i p p e d d o w n t o t h e i r m o s t basic traits, are the beliefs relative t o t h e nature o f the soul a n d its destiny. W e must n o w t r y t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e m . W h a t is i t that c o u l d have l e d m a n t o t h i n k that there w e r e t w o beings i n h i m , o n e h a v i n g characteristics as special as those j u s t enumerated? T o answer this q u e s t i o n , let us b e g i n b y t r y i n g t o find o u t w h a t o r i g i n the p r i m i t i v e ascribes t o the spirit p r i n c i p l e that he t h i n k s he feels w i t h i n h i m s e l f . I f p r o p e r l y analyzed, his o w n idea w i l l set us o n t h e road to the answer. F o l l o w i n g t h e m e t h o d I set o u t t o use, I w i l l study the ideas i n q u e s t i o n i n a g r o u p o f societies w h e r e t h e y have b e e n observed w i t h e x c e p t i o n a l p r e cision: t h e tribes o f central Australia. T h e r e f o r e , a l t h o u g h i t is b r o a d , the area o f o u r o b s e r v a t i o n w i l l be l i m i t e d . S t i l l , there is reason t o believe that the same ideas i n various f o r m s are o r have b e e n widespread, even outside A u s tralia. F u r t h e r m o r e , a n d above a l l , t h e idea o f soul is n o t d i s t i n c d y different i n these central tribes t h a n i n t h e o t h e r A u s t r a l i a n societies, b u t has the same basic features e v e r y w h e r e . Since the same effect always has the same cause, there are g r o u n d s f o r t h i n k i n g that this idea, w h i c h is the same e v e r y w h e r e , does n o t have different causes i n different places. So the o r i g i n that the study o f the tribes specifically i n q u e s t i o n w i l l lead us t o a t t r i b u t e t o i t s h o u l d be regarded as t r u e o f t h e others as w e l l . T h e s e tribes w i l l p r o v i d e the occasion to m a k e a sort o f e x p e r i m e n t , the results o f w h i c h , l i k e those o f any w e l l made e x p e r i m e n t , w i l l be generalizable. T h e h o m o g e n e i t y o f A u s t r a l i a n c i v d i z a t i o n w o u l d suffice i n itself t o w a r r a n t this g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , b u t I w i l l take the p r e c a u t i o n o f testing i t against facts taken f r o m a m o n g o t h e r peoples, i n b o t h Australia and A m e r i c a . Since the ideas that are t o p r o v i d e the basis o f o u r d e m o n s t r a t i o n have b e e n r e p o r t e d d i f f e r e n d y b y Spencer a n d G i l l e n t h a n b y Strehlow, I w i l l set f o r t h these t w o versions, o n e after t h e other. P r o p e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i l l s h o w that t h e y differ m o r e i n f o r m t h a n i n substance a n d i n t h e e n d have t h e same sociological i m p o r t . A c c o r d i n g t o Spencer a n d G i l l e n , the souls that c o m e i n each g e n e r a t i o n to animate t h e bodies o f t h e n e w b o r n d o n o t result from special a n d o r i g i n a l creations. A l l these tribes w o u l d agree that there is a finite stock o f souls that are r e i n c a r n a t e d p e r i o d i c a l l y , the n u m b e r o f w h i c h c a n n o t be increased b y even a single o n e .

4 6

W h e n an i n d i v i d u a l dies, his s o u l leaves the b o d y i n

"They can temporarily duplicate themselves, as we will see in the next chapter, but these doubles do not add even one to the number of souls capable of being reincarnated.

250


w h i c h i t resided and, o n c e the m o u r n i n g is over, goes t o the l a n d o f souls. A f t e r a c e r t a i n p e r i o d , t h e s o u l comes b a c k t o reincarnate itself, and i t is these reincarnations that b r i n g a b o u t c o n c e p t i o n s a n d b i r t h s . T h e s e fundamental souls are the ones that a n i m a t e d the f o u n d i n g ancestors o f t h e clan at the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f t h i n g s . I n a c e r t a i n e p o c h b e y o n d w h i c h the i m a g i n a t i o n does n o t go, a n d w h i c h is considered t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f t i m e , beings existed that w e r e descended f r o m n o n e . F o r this reason, t h e A r u n t a calls these the Al47

tjirangamitjina,

t h e uncreated o n e s — t h e ones that, f r o m all eternity, are. A c -

c o r d i n g t o Spencer a n d G i l l e n , the A r u n t a gives the n a m e Alcheringa

49

t o the

p e r i o d i n w h i c h these m y t h i c beings are t h o u g h t t o have l i v e d . O r g a n i z e d i n t o t e m i c clans l i k e the m e n o f today, t h e y spent t h e i r time traveling, i n the course o f w h i c h t h e y p e r f o r m e d all k i n d s o f p r o d i g i o u s deeds, w h i c h are reco l l e c t e d i n m y t h s . B u t a t i m e came w h e n that terrestrial life ended. Separately o r i n groups, t h e y vanished i n t o t h e g r o u n d . T h e i r bodies changed i n t o trees o r rocks, still seen i n the places w h e r e t h e y are t h o u g h t t o have disappeared. * B u t t h e i r souls endure; t h e y are i m m o r t a l . T h e y even c o n t i n u e to frequent t h e same places w h e r e the existence o f t h e i r first hosts came t o an e n d . Because o f the m e m o r i e s attached t o t h e m , these places t o o have a q u a l i t y o f sacredness; t o be f o u n d there are t h e oknanikilla, those sanctuaries i n w h i c h the churingas o f t h e c l a n are k e p t a n d w h i c h are l i k e centers f o r the various t o t e m i c cults. W h e n o n e o f t h e souls that w a n d e r a b o u t one o f these sanctuaries birth.

4 9

enters t h e b o d y o f a w o m a n , c o n c e p t i o n results and later a

T h u s each i n d i v i d u a l is considered a n e w avatar o f a d e f i n i t e ances-

tor. T h e i n d i v i d u a l is this v e r y ancestor, r e b o r n i n a n e w b o d y a n d w i t h n e w features. B u t w h o w e r e those ancestors? First, t h e y w e r e e n d o w e d w i t h i n f i n i t e l y greater capacities t h a n those possessed b y the m e n o f today, i n c l u d i n g the m o s t respected o l d m e n a n d the m o s t r e n o w n e d magicians. V i r t u e s that m a y be called m i r a c u l o u s are a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e m : " T h e y c o u l d travel o n t h e g r o u n d , u n d e r the g r o u n d , a n d i n the air; b y o p e n i n g a v e i n , each o f t h e m c o u l d f l o o d w h o l e regions or, i n -

*This sentence is absent from Swain's translation. 47

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, p. 2.

^Native Tribes, p. 73 n. 1.

"On that body of ideas, see Spencer and Gillen, NativeTribes, pp. 119, 123-127, 387tT.; Northern Tribes, pp. 145-174. Among the Gnanji, conception does not necessarily occur near the oknanikilla. But they believe that each couple is accompanied on its peregrinations about the continent by a swarm of souls from the husbands totem. When the occasion comes, one of these souls goes into the body of the woman and impregnates her, wherever she may be (Northern Tribes, p. 169).

251

The Notion of Soul

versely, cause n e w lands t o emerge; i n a w a l l o f rocks, t h e y w o u l d cause a lake t o appear, o r o p e n a gorge as a passage-way; w h e r e t h e y p l a n t e d t h e i r n u r tunja, rocks o r trees came o u t o f the g r o u n d . "

5 0

I t is t h e y w h o gave the l a n d

its present f o r m a n d w h o created all sorts o f beings, m e n and animals. T h e y are almost gods. H e n c e t h e i r souls also have a g o d l i k e quality. A n d since the souls o f m e n are these ancestral souls reincarnated i n h u m a n bodies, the souls themselves are sacred beings. Second, these ancestors w e r e n o t m e n i n t h e t r u e sense o f t h e w o r d , b u t animals o r plants, o r else m i x e d beings i n w h i c h t h e a n i m a l o r p l a n t e l e m e n t p r e d o m i n a t e d . " T h e ancestors w h o l i v e d i n those legendary times," say Spencer a n d G i l l e n , " w e r e , i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e natives, so closely allied w i t h the animals a n d plants w h o s e names t h e y b o r e that an A l c h e r i n g a p e r sonage w h o belongs t o the K a n g a r o o t o t e m , f o r e x a m p l e , is o f t e n p o r t r a y e d i n the m y t h s as a m a n - k a n g a r o o o r a k a n g a r o o - m a n . Its h u m a n personality is often absorbed b y that o f the p l a n t o r a n i m a l from w h i c h i t is t h o u g h t t o be descended."

51

T h e i r souls, w h i c h still endure, are necessarily o f t h e same n a -

ture. T h e h u m a n a n d a n i m a l elements are j o i n e d inside t h e m , w i t h t h e a n i m a l h a v i n g a c e r t a i n t e n d e n c y t o p r e d o m i n a t e . So t h e y are made o f t h e same substance as t h e t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e , f o r w e k n o w that the d e f i n i n g characteristic o f t h e t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e is that i t possesses this d u a l aspect, synthesizing and a m a l g a m a t i n g these t w o k i n g d o m s w i t h i n itself. Since n o o t h e r souls b u t these exist, w e a r r i v e at the c o n c l u s i o n that, i n general t e r m s , the s o u l is n o n e o t h e r t h a n t h e t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e i n c a r n a t e d i n each i n d i v i d u a l . N o t h i n g a b o u t this d e r i v a t i o n s h o u l d surprise us. W e a l ready k n o w that this p r i n c i p l e is i m m a n e n t i n each m e m b e r o f the clan, a n d that b y p e r m e a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s , i t i n e v i t a b l y becomes i n d i v i d u a l i z e d . Since consciousnesses ( o f w h i c h i t t h e r e b y becomes an i n t e g r a l e l e m e n t )

differ

f r o m o n e another, t h e p r i n c i p l e becomes differentiated i n t h e i r image. Since each consciousness has its o w n f o r m , the s o u l i n each takes a d i s t i n c t f o r m . I n itself, i t u n d o u b t e d l y remains a force e x t e r n a l t o a n d f o r e i g n t o the m a n , b u t t h e p o r t i o n o f i t t h a t each is t h o u g h t t o possess c a n n o t help b u t develop close affinities w i t h t h e i n d i v i d u a l subject i n w h i c h i t resides. T h e s o u l participates i n the nature o f that subject, b e c o m i n g i n some measure the subject's o w n p r o p e r t y . I n this way, i t comes t o have t w o c o n t r a d i c t o r y features, b u t t h e i r coexistence is a m o n g the d i s t i n g u i s h i n g traits o f the idea o f soul. Today, as at o t h e r times, t h e s o u l is that w h i c h is best a n d m o s t p r o f o u n d i n

50

[Spencer and Gillen], NativeTribes, pp. 512-513; cf. chaps. X andXI.

51

Ibid.,p. 119.

252


us, o n the o n e h a n d , a n d the e m i n e n t p a r t o f o u r b e i n g ; o n the other, i t is a t e m p o r a r y guest that has c o m e t o us f r o m outside, t h a t lives a life inside us that is d i s t i n c t from the body's, a n d that m u s t o n e day regain its c o m p l e t e i n dependence. I n short, j u s t as society exists o n l y t h r o u g h i n d i v i d u a l s , the t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e lives o n l y i n a n d t h r o u g h t h e i n d i v i d u a l consciousnesses w h o s e c o m i n g t o g e t h e r f o r m s t h e clan. I f t h e y d i d n o t feel the t o t e m i c p r i n ciple w i t h i n t h e m , i t w o u l d n o t be; i t is t h e y w h o p u t i t i n t o things. A n d so i t must s u b d i v i d e a n d fragment a m o n g i n d i v i d u a l s . E a c h o f these

fragments

is a soul. A m y t h that is f o u n d i n a rather large n u m b e r o f societies o f t h e center (and that, b y t h e way, is b u t a special f o r m o f the p r e c e d i n g ) shows even b e t ter that the r a w m a t e r i a l from w h i c h the idea o f s o u l is m a d e is o f this k i n d . I n these tribes, t r a d i t i o n places at t h e o r i g i n o f each clan n o t several ancestors b u t o n l y t w o ,

5 2

o r even o n l y o n e .

5 3

So l o n g as i t r e m a i n e d alone, this s i n -

gle b e i n g c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n i t s e l f t h e w h o l e t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e , f o r at that m o m e n t there was as yet n o t h i n g t o w h i c h that p r i n c i p l e c o u l d have been passed o n . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e same t r a d i t i o n , all the h u m a n souls that exist, b o t h those n o w a n i m a t i n g the bodies o f m e n a n d those n o w unused b u t i n reserve f o r the future, issued f r o m that o n e personage and are made f r o m the same substance. I n m o v i n g o n t h e surface o f the earth, i n s t i r r i n g a n d shaki n g itself, i t b r o u g h t t h e m o u t o f its b o d y a n d s o w e d t h e m i n the various places i t is said t o have traversed. Is this n o t t o say, symbolically, that these are p o r t i o n s o f the t o t e m i c deity? S u c h a c o n c l u s i o n , however, presupposes that t h e tribes discussed accept the d o c t r i n e o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n . Yet, a c c o r d i n g t o Strehlow, that d o c t r i n e is u n k n o w n a m o n g the A r u n t a — t h a t is, t h e society that Spencer a n d G i l l e n s t u d i e d longest a n d best. I f i n this case these t w o observers w e r e so mistaken, the w h o l e o f t h e i r study w o u l d have t o b e considered suspect, so i t is i m p o r t a n t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e real scope o f this divergence. O n c e the rites o f m o u r n i n g free i t from t h e b o d y f o r g o o d , the s o u l is n o t reincarnated, a c c o r d i n g t o Strehlow. I t goes t o the island o f t h e dead, w h e r e i t spends its days sleeping a n d its nights d a n c i n g , u n t i l i t rains o n earth. I t returns at that m o m e n t t o the m i l i e u o f t h e l i v i n g a n d plays t h e role o f p r o tective genie f o r y o u n g sons or, i n t h e absence o f t h e sons, a m o n g the g r a n d sons left b e h i n d ; i t enters t h e i r bodies a n d assists t h e i r g r o w t h . So i t remains

52

Among the Kalish (Northern Tribes, pp. 154), and among the Urabunna (Northern Tribes, p. 146).

"This is the case among the Warramunga and related tribes, Walpari, Wulmala, Worgaia, Tjingilli (Northern Tribes, p. 161), and also among the Umbaia and the Gnanji (Northern Tribes, p. 170).

253

The Notion of Soul

i n the m i d s t o f its f o r m e r f a m i l y f o r a year o r t w o , t h e n returns t o the l a n d o f souls. A f t e r a c e r t a i n p e r i o d , i t leaves yet again t o m a k e a n e w s o j o u r n o n e a r t h — m o r e o v e r , its last. T h e t i m e comes w h e n i t m u s t again travel the road t o the island o f t h e dead, this t i m e i r r e v o c a b l y ; a n d there, after various i n c i dents that n e e d n o t b e r e p o r t e d i n detail, a s t o r m occurs d u r i n g w h i c h i t is struck b y l i g h t n i n g . Its career is finally o v e r .

54

T h u s , i t c a n n o t reincarnate itself, a n d thus, c o n c e p t i o n s a n d b i r t h s are n o t d u e t o t h e r e i n c a r n a t i o n o f souls that p e r i o d i c a l l y b e g i n n e w existences i n n e w bodies. T o be sure, Strehlow, l i k e Spencer a n d G i l l e n , declares that, for the A r u n t a , sexual intercourse is b y n o means t h e sufficient c o n d i t i o n o f procreation,

55

w h i c h instead is t h e o u t c o m e o f m y s t i c o p e r a t i o n s — d i f f e r e n t

operations, however, f r o m those Spencer a n d G i l l e n made k n o w n t o us. I t comes a b o u t i n o n e o f t h e t w o f o l l o w i n g ways. E v e r y w h e r e the A l c h e r i n g a a n c e s t o r

56

is t h o u g h t t o have s u n k i n t o the

g r o u n d , there is a r o c k o r a tree representing t h e body. A c c o r d i n g t o Spencer and G i l l e n ,

5 7

the tree o r r o c k that has this m y s t i c r e l a t i o n w i t h the departed

heroes is called nanja and, a c c o r d i n g t o Strehlow, ngarra.

5S

Sometimes i t is a

w a t e r h o l e that is said t o have b e e n f o r m e d i n this way. O n each o f these trees a n d rocks, a n d i n each o f these w a t e r holes, live t h e e m b r y o s o f babies, called ratapa,

59

w h i c h b e l o n g t o the v e r y same t o t e m as the c o r r e s p o n d i n g ancestor.

F o r e x a m p l e , o n a g u m tree that represents an ancestor o f t h e K a n g a r o o clan, there are ratapas that are all o f the K a n g a r o o t o t e m . I f a w o m a n b e l o n g i n g t o the m a r r i a g e class t o w h i c h m o t h e r s o f these ratapas m u s t o r d i n a r i l y b e l o n g

54

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, pp. 15-16. For the Lorirja, see Strehlow, [Aranda], vol. II, p. 7.

55

Strehlow goes so far as to say that sexual relations are not even considered a necessary condition, a sort of preparation for conception (vol. II, p. 52 n. 7). It is true that he adds, a few lines further on, that the old men know perfecdy well the relationship between physical intercourse and procreation—and that, so far as animals are concerned, even children know. This is bound to dilute somewhat the import of the first statement. 56

I generally use the terminology of Spencer and Gillen, rather than that of Strehlow, because it has been sanctioned by long usage. ^Native Tribes, pp. 124, 513. 58

[Strehlow, Aranda], vol. I, p. 5. According to Strehlow, ngarra means "eternal." Among the Loritja, only rocks have this function. ^Strehlow translates it as Kinderkeime ("seeds of children"). However, Spencer and Gillen are far from having ignored the myth of the ratapa and the customs connected to them. They speak of it explicidy in Native Tribes, pp. 366ff. and 552. They note the existence of rocks called Erathipa in various parts of the Arunta territory, from which emanate "spirit children," souls of children, that enter into the bodies of women and impregnate them. According to Spencer and Gillen, Erathipa means "child," although they go on to say that this word is rarely used in this sense in everyday conversation (ibid., p. 338).

254


s h o u l d h a p p e n t o pass b y ,

6 0

o n e o f t h e m w i l l be able t o enter her t h r o u g h the

hip. T h e w o m a n learns o f this possession t h r o u g h the characteristic pains that are the first signs o f pregnancy. T h e c h i l d c o n c e i v e d i n this w a y w i l l n a t u r a l l y be f r o m the same ancestor o n w h o s e mystical b o d y i t resided before i n c a r nating itself.

61

I n o t h e r cases, the p r o c e d u r e used is s l i g h d y different, w i t h the ancestor a c t i n g i n person. A t a g i v e n m o m e n t , the ancestor leaves its u n d e r g r o u n d r e treat a n d t h r o w s at t h e w o m a n a small c h u r i n g a o f a special shape, called a namatuna.

62

T h e c h u r i n g a enters the b o d y o f the w o m a n a n d there takes

h u m a n f o r m , w h i l e the ancestor disappears again i n t o the e a r t h .

63

These t w o m o d e s o f c o n c e p t i o n are h e l d t o be e q u a l l y c o m m o n . T h e shape o f the child's face reveals t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h i t was c o n c e i v e d . A c c o r d i n g t o the w i d t h o r narrowness o f the face, c o n c e p t i o n is said t o be due to the i n c a r n a t i o n o f a ratapa o r a namatuna. S t r e h l o w also notes a t h i r d m e t h o d o f i m p r e g n a t i o n , i n a d d i t i o n t o these t w o , b u t o n e that is said t o be m u c h rarer. A f t e r its n a m a t u n a has entered t h e b o d y o f t h e w o m a n , the a n cestor itself enters a n d v o l u n t a r i l y submits t o a n e w b i r t h . I n this case, c o n c e p t i o n w o u l d result f r o m a t r u e r e i n c a r n a t i o n o f the ancestor. B u t this case is h i g h l y unusual, and f u r t h e r m o r e , w h e n the m a n so c o n c e i v e d dies, t h e a n cestral soul that a n i m a t e d h i m departs, as d o o r d i n a r y souls, f o r the island o f t h e dead, w h e r e i t i s finally destroyed after the usual p e r i o d . I t does n o t u n dergo n e w r e i n c a r n a t i o n s .

64

S u c h is Strehlow's v e r s i o n .

65

I n his v i e w , i t is radically o p p o s e d t o that o f

Spencer a n d G i l l e n . I n reality, however, i t differs o n l y i n t h e literal detail o f the formulas a n d symbols, and, variations o f f o r m aside, t h e m y t h i c a l t h e m e is the same i n b o t h cases. I n the first place, all these observers agree i n v i e w i n g every c o n c e p t i o n as the result o f an i n c a r n a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g t o Strehlow, w h a t is incarnated is n o t a "The Arunta are divided sometimes into four, sometimes into eight marriage classes. The class of a child is determined by that of its father; inversely, the father's can be deduced from the child's. (See Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 70ff.; Strehlow [Aranda], vol. I, pp. 6ff.) We must stillfindout how the ratapa acquires a definite class; I will return to this point. 61

Strehlow [Aranda], vol. II, p. 52. Sometimes, albeit seldom, conflicts do arise over which is the child's totem. Strehlow cites a case (p. 53). 62

This is the same word as namatwinna, which is found in Spencer and Gillen (Native Tribes, p. 541).

"Strehlow [Aranda], vol. II, p. 53. 64

Ibid., vol. II, p. 56.

65

Mathews ascribes a similar theory of conception to the Tjingilli (also known as Chingalee). [Possi-

bly, Proceedings and Transactions of the Queensland Branch of the Royal Geographic Society of Australasia, Bris-

bane], vol. XXII (1907), pp. 75—76. [This source remains obscure to me. Trans.]

255

The Notion of Soul

soul b u t a ratapa o r a namatuna. W h a t , t h e n , is a ratapa? I t is, says Strehlow, a complete e m b r y o , made o f b o t h a soul a n d a body, b u t the soul is always c o n ceived o f i n physical forms. Since i t sleeps, dances, hunts, eats, and so f o r t h , i t has a corporeal element as w e l l . Inversely, the ratapa is invisible t o o r d i n a r y m e n ; n o o n e sees i t e n t e r i n g the woman's b o d y ;

6 6

i t is made o f material quite

comparable t o that o f the soul. I n this respect, therefore, i t does n o t seem possible t o differentiate clearly b e t w e e n the t w o . These are, i n sum, m y t h i c a l b e ings that are conceived m o r e o r less o n the same m o d e l . Schulze calls t h e m child-souls.

67

M o r e o v e r , l i k e the soul, the ratapa has the closest relations w i t h

the ancestor o f w h i c h the sacred tree o r r o c k is a materialized f o r m . I t is o f the same t o t e m , the same phratry, and the same marriage class as that ancestor.

68

Its

place i n the social organization o f the t r i b e is exacdy the one the ancestor is said t o have h e l d o n c e u p o n a t i m e . I t has the same n a m e .

69

T h i s is p r o o f that

these t w o personalities are v e r y closely related t o o n e another. T h e r e is m o r e : T h i s k i n s h i p goes as far as c o m p l e t e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . I t is actually o n the m y s t i c a l b o d y o f t h e ancestor that the ratapa t o o k f o r m ; i t comes from this b o d y a n d is l i k e a b i t t h a t detached itself. I n s u m , therefore, w h a t enters t h e w o m b o f the m o t h e r a n d becomes the c h i l d is p a r t o f the a n cestor. A n d b y this r o u t e , w e c o m e back t o the idea o f Spencer a n d G i l l e n : B i r t h is due t o the i n c a r n a t i o n o f an ancestral personage. O f course, w h a t is i n c a r n a t e d is n o t t h e w h o l e personage b u t o n l y an e m a n a t i o n o f i t . H o w e v e r , this difference is o f e n t i r e l y secondary interest, f o r this reason: W h e n a sacred b e i n g divides a n d replicates itself, i t is f o u n d again, a n d w i t h all its f u n d a m e n t a l traits, i n each o f the fragments i n t o w h i c h i t has b e e n d i v i d e d . B a s i cally, t h e n , t h e A l c h e r i n g a ancestor is w h o l l y w i t h i n t h e element o f itself that becomes a r a t a p a .

70

66

Sometimes the ancestor who is thought to have thrown the namatuna shows itself to the woman in the form of an animal or a man. This is further proof of the affinity the ancestral soul has for physical form. 67

Schulze, "Aborigines of. . . Finke River," p. 237.

68

This arisesfromthe fact that the ratapa can only incarnate itself in the body of a woman who belongs to the same marriage class as the mother of the mythical ancestor. Thus I do not understand how Strehlow could say (Aranda, vol. I, p. 42, Anmerkung) that, except in this case, the myths do not assign the Alcheringa ancestors to definite marriage classes. His own theory of conception presupposes just the opposite (cf. II, pp. 53ff.). 69


70

The difference between the two versions narrows even more and diminishes almost to nothing if we notice that when Spencer and Gillen tell us that the ancestral soul is incarnated in the body of the woman, their mode of expression must not be taken literally. It is not the whole soul that comes to impregnate the mother but only an emanation of that soul. Indeed, on their own avowal, a soul equal and even superior in power to the one that is incarnated continues to reside in the nanja tree or rock (see Native Tribes, p. 514). I will have occasion to return to this point (cf. below, p. 277).

256


T h e second m o d e o f c o n c e p t i o n that S t r e h l o w distinguishes has

the

same m e a n i n g . I n fact, the c h u r i n g a , a n d especially the p a r t i c u l a r c h u r i n g a that is called the namatuna, is considered a n avatar o f t h e ancestor: I t is t h e ancestor's b o d y , a c c o r d i n g t o S t r e h l o w ,

71

j u s t as t h e nanja tree is. I n o t h e r

w o r d s , t h e p e r s o n a l i t y o f the ancestor, its c h u r i n g a , a n d its nanja tree are sac r e d things, w h i c h e l i c i t the same feelings, a n d t o w h i c h t h e same religious value is ascribed. T h e r e f o r e , t h e y change i n t o o n e a n o t h e r : A sacred tree o r r o c k came o u t o f the g r o u n d i n t h e place w h e r e the ancestor lost a c h u r i n g a , j u s t as i n t h e places w h e r e he h i m s e l f sank i n t o t h e g r o u n d .

7 2

T h e r e is a

m y t h i c a l equivalence b e t w e e n an A l c h e r i n g a personage a n d his c h u r i n g a , t h e n ; so w h e n the personage t h r o w s a n a m a t u n a i n t o a w o m a n ' s body, i t is as i f that v e r y personage entered her. I n fact, w e have seen t h a t i t sometimes e n ters i n person, f o l l o w i n g the namatuna; and, a c c o r d i n g t o o t h e r accounts, t h e personage enters before the n a m a t u n a , as i f o p e n i n g a w a y f o r i t .

7 3

T h e fact

that these themes coexist i n the same m y t h shows d e f i n i t i v e l y that the o n e is o n l y a d u p l i c a t e o f t h e other. F u r t h e r m o r e , n o m a t t e r h o w c o n c e p t i o n occurs, there is n o d o u b t that each i n d i v i d u a l is b o u n d t o a d e f i n i t e A l c h e r i n g a ancestor b y e x t r e m e l y close ties. First, each m a n has his r e c o g n i z e d ancestor; t w o persons c a n n o t s i m u l taneously have t h e same one. I n o t h e r w o r d s , an A l c h e r i n g a b e i n g never has m o r e t h a n o n e representative a m o n g the l i v i n g .

7 4

W h a t is m o r e , the o n e is

o n l y an aspect o f t h e other. I n fact, as w e already k n o w , t h e c h u r i n g a left b y t h e ancestor expresses his personality. I f w e a d o p t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n that S t r e h l o w reports, w h i c h is perhaps t h e m o r e satisfactory, w e w i l l say that i t is the ancestor's body. B u t this same c h u r i n g a is related i n the same w a y t o the i n d i v i d u a l w h o is t h o u g h t t o have b e e n c o n c e i v e d u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f the ancestor, that is, the o n e w h o is the f r u i t o f his mystical labors. W h e n the y o u n g n e o p h y t e is b r o u g h t i n t o t h e sanctuary o f t h e clan, he is s h o w n the c h u r i n g a o f his ancestor w i t h t h e w o r d s : " Y o u are this b o d y ; y o u are the

''Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, pp. 76, 81. According to Spencer and Gillen, the churinga is not the body of the ancestor but the object in which the ancestors soul resides. These two mythical interpretations are basically identical, and it is easy to see how one was able to pass over into the other: The body is the place where the soul resides. 72

Ibid., vol. I, p. 4.

73

Ibid., vol. I, pp. 53—54. In these accounts, the ancestor begins by entering the womb of the woman, bringing on the characteristic discomforts of pregnancy. Then he exits and only afterward leaves the namatuna. 74


257

The Notion of Soul

same t h i n g as t h i s . "

75

T h u s , i n Strehlow's phrase, the c h u r i n g a is " t h e c o m -

m o n b o d y o f the i n d i v i d u a l a n d his ancestor."

76

F r o m o n e p o i n t o f v i e w , at

least, t h e i r t w o personalities have t o be m e r g e d i n o r d e r f o r t h e m t o have the same body. S t r e h l o w e x p l i c i t l y recognizes this. H e says: " B y the T j u r u n g a ( c h u r i n g a ) , the i n d i v i d u a l is j o i n e d w i t h his personal ancestor."

77

T o s u m m a r i z e , f o r S t r e h l o w as w e l l as f o r Spencer a n d G i l l e n , there is a religious a n d mystical p r i n c i p l e i n each n e w b o r n that emanates f r o m

an

A l c h e r i n g a ancestor. I t is this p r i n c i p l e that f o r m s t h e essence o f each i n d i v i d u a l . So this p r i n c i p l e is the i n d i v i d u a l ' s soul; or, i n any case, t h e soul is made o f the same m a t t e r and substance. I have r e l i e d o n this f u n d a m e n t a l fact o n l y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e nature a n d o r i g i n o f the idea o f soul. T h e different m e t a p h o r s b y means o f w h i c h this c o u l d have b e e n expressed are o f e n t i r e l y secondary interest t o m e .

7 8

Far from c o n t r a d i c t i n g t h e data o n w h i c h m y thesis rests, the recent o b servations o f S t r e h l o w b r i n g us n e w evidence that c o n f i r m s i t . M y reasoning consisted o f i n f e r r i n g the t o t e m i c nature o f the h u m a n soul from the t o t e m i c nature o f the ancestral soul, o f w h i c h t h e h u m a n o n e is an e m a n a t i o n and a k i n d o f replica. C e r t a i n o f the n e w facts that w e o w e t o S t r e h l o w d e m o n strate this characteristic o f b o t h , even m o r e u n e q u i v o c a l l y than those r e l i e d u p o n u n t i l n o w . First, l i k e Spencer a n d G i l l e n , S t r e h l o w insists o n " t h e i n t i m a t e relations that j o i n each ancestor t o an a n i m a l , a p l a n t o r a n o t h e r natural object."

C e r t a i n o f these A l t j i r a n g a m i t j i n a (these are the A l c h e r i n g a o f

Spencer a n d G i l l e n ) , he says, " m u s t be d i r e c d y manifested i n the f o r m o f a n imals; others take a n i m a l f o r m t e m p o r a r i l y . " ally t r a n s f o r m i n g themselves i n t o a n i m a l s .

80

79

E v e n n o w , they are c o n t i n u -

I n any case, and w h a t e v e r t h e i r

75

Ibid., p. 81. Here is the word-for-word translation of the terms used, as Strehlow gives them to us: Dies du Körper bist; dies du der ähnliche. In one myth, a civilizing hero, Mangarkunjerkunja, presents to each man the churinga of his ancestor, telling him, "You were born from this churinga" (ibid., p. 76). 76

Ibid.

77

Ibid.

78

Basically, the only real divergence between Strehlow, on the one hand, and Spencer and Gillen, on the other, is the following. For Spencer and Gillen, after death the soul of the individual returns to the nanja tree where it is again assimilated into the soul of the ancestor (Native Tribes, p. 513); for Strehlow, it leaves for the island of the dead, where it is eventually destroyed. In neither myth does it survive individually. I make no attempt to determine the cause of this divergence. Possibly Spencer and Gillen, who do not speak of the island of the dead, made an error of observation. Possibly also, the myth is not the same among the eastern Arunta, which Spencer and Gillen mainly observed, and in the other parts of the tribe. 79

Strehlow [Aranda], vol. II, p. 51.

'»Ibid., vol. II, p. 56.

258


o u t w a r d appearance, " i n each o f t h e m , the special a n d d i s t i n c t i v e qualities o f t h e a n i m a l are q u i t e evident." F o r example, the ancestors o f the K a n g a r o o clan eat grass a n d flee the h u n t e r , l i k e real kangaroos; those o f the E m u clan feed a n d flee l i k e e m u s ,

81

a n d so o n . A n d consider this: T h o s e o f the ances-

tors w h o h a d a p l a n t t o t e m became t h e same p l a n t at d e a t h .

82

Furthermore,

this close k i n s h i p o f the ancestor a n d t h e t o t e m i c b e i n g is so strongly felt b y t h e native that i t affects t e r m i n o l o g y . A m o n g t h e A r u n t a , the c h i l d calls altjira the t o t e m o f its m o t h e r , w h i c h serves as its secondary t o t e m .

8 3

Since descent

was at first r e c k o n e d i n the m a t e r n a l l i n e , there was a t i m e w h e n each i n d i v i d u a l h a d n o t o t e m o t h e r t h a n its mother's; thus, q u i t e probably, the t e r m " a l t j i r a " designated the t o t e m , p e r i o d . N o w i t o b v i o u s l y enters i n t o the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the w o r d that means "great ancestor," a l t j i r a n g a m i t j i n a .

84

T h e ideas o f t o t e m a n d ancestor are so close, i n d e e d , that t h e y apparently are sometimes interchangeable. I n this way, after h a v i n g t o l d us a b o u t the mother's t o t e m o r altjira, S t r e h l o w adds: " T h i s altjira appears t o the blacks i n dreams a n d utters w a r n i n g s , j u s t as i t takes news o f t h e m t o t h e i r sleeping friends."

85

T h i s altjira that speaks, that is personally attached t o each i n d i v i d -

ual, is o b v i o u s l y an ancestor, a n d yet i t is also a n i n c a r n a t i o n o f the t o t e m . A t e x t b y R o t h that discusses invocations addressed t o the t o t e m m u s t n o d o u b t be i n t e r p r e t e d i n this w a y .

86

I t seems, t h e n , that the t o t e m is sometimes i m a g -

i n e d as a c o l l e c t i o n o f ideal beings, m y t h i c personages that are m o r e o r less d i s t i n c t f r o m the ancestors. I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e ancestors are the t o t e m d i vided i n t o parts. But

87

i f the ancestor is m e r g e d w i t h the t o t e m i c b e i n g t o this e x t e n t , i t

c a n n o t be o t h e r w i s e f o r the i n d i v i d u a l soul that is so closely related t o the a n cestral soul. M o r e o v e r , this also emerges f r o m t h e close b o n d s that j o i n each m a n t o his c h u r i n g a . W e k n o w that t h e c h u r i n g a expresses t h e personality o f the i n d i v i d u a l w h o is t h o u g h t t o have b e e n b o r n o f i t ;

81

Ibid., vol. I, pp. 3-4.

82


8 8

b u t i t also expresses

83

See above, p. 185.

84

Strehlow [Aranda], vol. II, p. 57, and vol. I, p. 2.

85

Ibid„ vol. II, p. 57.

^Roth, Superstition, Magic, §74. 87

In other words, the totemic species is constituted more by the group of ancestors and by the mythic species than by the animal or plant species themselves. '"'See above, p. 256.

259

The Notion of Soul

the t o t e m i c a n i m a l . W h e n the c i v i l i z i n g h e r o M a n g a k u n j e r k u n j a gave a p e r sonal c h u r i n g a t o each m e m b e r o f the K a n g a r o o clan, he spoke these w o r d s : " H e r e is the b o d y o f a k a n g a r o o . "

89

I n this way, the c h u r i n g a is the b o d y o f

the ancestor, the actual i n d i v i d u a l , and the t o t e m i c a n i m a l , all at once: T h e three beings f o r m , i n the s t r o n g a n d apt phrase o f Strehlow, " a n indissoluble unity."

90

These t e r m s are partially equivalent a n d interchangeable. T h a t is,

they are c o n c e i v e d o f as different aspects o f o n e a n d the same reality, w h i c h is also d e f i n e d b y the d i s t i n c t i v e attributes o f the t o t e m . T h e i r shared essence is t h e t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e . Language itself expresses this i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .

The

w o r d s ratapa and, i n the language o f the L o r i t j a , aratapi designate the m y t h i cal e m b r y o that detaches itself from t h e ancestor a n d becomes the c h i l d . B u t the same w o r d s also designate t h e t o t e m o f this same c h i l d , as d e t e r m i n e d b y the place w h e r e t h e m o t h e r t h i n k s she c o n c e i v e d .

91

Ill I n t h e p r e c e d i n g , the d o c t r i n e o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n was s t u d i e d o n l y i n the tribes o f central Australia; the bases o n w h i c h m y inference rests m i g h t therefore be j u d g e d t o o n a r r o w . B u t i n the first place, f o r t h e reasons already g i v e n , the scope o f the e x p e r i m e n t extends b e y o n d the societies w e have studied d i rectly. F u r t h e r m o r e , a b u n d a n t facts establish that the same o r similar ideas are t o be f o u n d i n the m o s t disparate parts o f Australia or, at least, have left v i s i ble traces there. T h e y are also t o be f o u n d i n A m e r i c a . I n s o u t h e r n A u s t r a l i a , H o w i t t reports t h e m a m o n g the D i e r i .

9 2

The

w o r d Mura-mura, w h i c h Gason translated as G o o d - S p i r i t (and i n w h i c h he 93

t h o u g h t he saw b e l i e f i n a creator g o d expressed ), is i n reality a collective n a m e t h a t denotes the m u l t i t u d e o f ancestors placed at the o r i g i n o f the t r i b e . T h e y c o n t i n u e t o exist today, as i n the past. " I t is b e l i e v e d that t h e y i n h a b i t trees, w h i c h are sacred f o r this reason." C e r t a i n features o f the g r o u n d , rocks,

89

Strehlow [Aranda], vol. II, p. 76.

'"Ibid. 91

Ibid., pp. 57, 60, 61. Strehlow calls the list of the totems the list of the ratapas.

92

Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 475ff.

93

[Gason], "The Manners and Customs of the Dieyerie Tribe of Australian Aborigines," in [Edward

M.] Curr [The Australian Race, Its Origin, Languages, Customs, Place of Landing in Australia, and the Routes by Which It Spread Itself over That Continent, Melbourne, J. Ferres, 1886-1887], vol. II, p. 47.

260


a n d springs are i d e n t i f i e d w i t h these M u r a - m u r a ,

9 4

w h i c h , consequendy, are

-remarkably l i k e the A l t j i r a n g a m i t j i n a o f t h e A r u n t a . E v e n t h o u g h o n l y vestiges o f t o t e m i s m still exist a m o n g t h e m , the K u r n a i o f G i p p s l a n d also believe i n the existence o f ancestors called Muk-Kurnai, way b e t w e e n m e n a n d a n i m a l s .

95

c o n c e i v e d o f as beings m i d -

A m o n g t h e N i m b a l d i , T a p l i n has f o u n d a

t h e o r y o f c o n c e p t i o n l i k e the o n e S t r e h l o w ascribes t o the A r u n t a .

9 6

I n the

state o f V i c t o r i a , a m o n g t h e W o t j o b a l u k , w e find i n f u l l the b e l i e f i n r e i n c a r n a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g t o M a t h e w s : " T h e spirits o f the dead gather i n the 97

miyur

o f t h e i r respective clans; t h e y c o m e o u t i n o r d e r t o be b o r n again i n 98

h u m a n f o r m , w h e n a favorable o p p o r t u n i t y presents i t s e l f . " M a t h e w s even states that " t h e b e l i e f i n r e i n c a r n a t i o n o r i n the t r a n s m i g r a t i o n o f souls is deeply r o o t e d i n all the A u s t r a l i a n t r i b e s . "

99

I f w e m o v e o n t o the n o r t h e r n regions, w e find i n t h e n o r t h w e s t , a m o n g the N i o l - N i o l , the p u r e d o c t r i n e o f the A r u n t a : E v e r y b i r t h is a t t r i b u t e d t o the i n c a r n a t i o n o f a p r e e x i s t i n g soul t h a t is i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the b o d y o f the woman.

1 0 0

I n N o r t h Q u e e n s l a n d , m y t h s that differ f r o m the p r e c e d i n g o n l y

i n f o r m translate exactiy t h e same ideas. I n the tribes o f the Pennefather R i v e r , each m a n is b e l i e v e d t o have t w o souls: one, called ngai, resides i n t h e heart; the other, choi, remains i n the placenta. R i g h t after b i r t h , the placenta is b u r i e d i n a consecrated place. A personal genie n a m e d A n j e - a , w h i c h is i n charge o f the p h e n o m e n o n o f p r o c r e a t i o n , comes t o c o l l e c t this c h o i , a n d t o keep i t u n t i l , h a v i n g reached a d u l t h o o d , the c h i l d m a r r i e s . W h e n t h e t i m e has c o m e t o give h i m a son, A n j e - a gathers a b i t o f that man's c h o i a n d i n serts i t i n t o the e m b r y o , w h i c h A n j e - a makes a n d puts i n t h e w o m b o f t h e m o t h e r . T h u s the c h i l d is m a d e w i t h the soul o f its father. I t is t r u e that the c h i l d does n o t receive its f u l l paternal s o u l r i g h t away, f o r the ngai remains i n the father's heart f o r as l o n g as he lives. B u t w h e n he dies, the freed n g a i also

94


95

Ibid., p. 487.

%

[George] Taplin, Folklore, Customs, Manners, etc. [Customs and Languages] of South Australian Aborigines,

Adelaide, E. Spiller, 1879], p. 88. 97

Each clan of ancestors has its special camp under the ground; the miyur is this camp.

98

Mathews, "Aboriginal Tribes" in RSNSVV vol. XXXVIII, p. 293. Mathews reports the same belief in other tribes of Victoria (ibid., p. 197). "Ibid., p. 349. 100

[P. Jos.] Bischofs, "Die Niol-Niol, [ein Eingeborenenstamm in Nordwest Australien"] in Anthropos, vol. Ill [1908], p. 35.

261

The Notion of Soul

goes t o incarnate itself i n t h e bodies o f c h i l d r e n ; i f there are several, i t divides itself equally a m o n g t h e m . So there is perfect s p i r i t u a l c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n the generations: T h e same s o u l is t r a n s m i t t e d f r o m father t o c f u l d r e n a n d from t h e m t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n ; a n d this single soul, always i d e n t i c a l t o itself d e spite its successive divisions a n d subdivisions, is t h e o n e that a n i m a t e d the first ancestor, at the b e g i n n i n g o f t h i n g s .

1 0 1

T h e r e is o n l y one difference o f

any i m p o r t a n c e b e t w e e n this t h e o r y a n d that o f the central tribes: that r e i n c a r n a t i o n is n o t the w o r k o f t h e ancestors themselves b u t o f a special genie, professionally assigned t o that f u n c t i o n . B u t i t seems, actually, that this genie is the p r o d u c t o f a syncretism that caused the m u l t i p l e figures o f the first a n cestors t o m e r g e i n t o o n e a n d t h e same figure. T h e fact that t h e w o r d s " A n j e - a " a n d " A n j i r " are apparendy related q u i t e closely makes this h y p o t h esis at least plausible; n o w , " A n j i r " designates t h e first m a n , the o r i g i n a l a n cestor from w h o m all m e n are d e s c e n d e d .

102

T h e same ideas r e c u r a m o n g t h e I n d i a n tribes o f A m e r i c a . A c c o r d i n g t o Krause, i t is b e l i e v e d a m o n g t h e T l i n g i t that the souls o f the departed r e t u r n t o e a r t h t o enter t h e bodies o f the pregnant w o m e n w h o b e l o n g t o t h e i r families. "So, w h e n a w o m a n dreams o f such a n d such a deceased relative, d u r i n g pregnancy, she believes t h a t relative's s o u l has entered her." I f the n e w b o r n displays some characteristic m a r k that t h e deceased had, i t is t h o u g h t t o be the deceased himself, r e t u r n e d t o earth, a n d is g i v e n t h e d e ceased's n a m e .

1 0 3

T h i s b e l i e f is also c o m m o n a m o n g t h e H a i d a . I t is t h e

shaman w h o reveals w h i c h relative has r e i n c a r n a t e d h i m s e l f i n t h e c h i l d and, consequendy, w h a t n a m e t h e c h i l d s h o u l d h a v e .

104

I t is b e l i e v e d a m o n g the

K w a k i u d that t h e last t o die r e t u r n s t o life i n t h e p e r s o n o f the first c h i l d b o r n i n the f a m i l y .

1 0 5

T h e same is t r u e a m o n g t h e H u r o n , the I r o q u o i s , the

T i n n e h , a n d m a n y o t h e r tribes o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s .

106

101

Roth, Superstition, Magic, §68; cf. §69a, the similar case of the natives of the Proserpine River. To simplify the exposition, I have left aside the complication that arises from sex difference. Girls' souls are made with the choi of their mothers, whereas they share with their brothers the ngai of their father. However this peculiarity, which perhaps arises from the fact that the two systems of descent have been in use one after the other, does not affect the principle of the soul's perpetuity. ,02

Ibid., p. 16.

103

,04

[Aurel Krause], DieTlinkit-Indianer [Jena, H. Constable, 1885], p. 282.

[John] Swanton, Contributions to the Ethnology of the Haida [Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1905], pp. 117ff.

105

Boas, Sixth Report of the Committee on the North-Western Tribes of Canada, p. 59.

106

[Joseph François] Lafitau, Moeurs des sauvages américains [comparées aux moeurs des premiers temps], vol.

II [Paris, Saugrain l'ainé; Charles Estienne Hochereau, 1724], p. 434; [Emile Fortune Stanislas Joseph] Petitot, Monographie des Dénè-Dindjié [Paris, E. Leroux, 1876], p. 59.

262


T h e scope o f these ideas extends n a t u r a l l y t o the c o n c l u s i o n I have d e d u c e d f r o m i t : m y p r o p o s e d e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e idea o f soul. Its general app l i c a b i l i t y is a d d i t i o n a l l y c o n f i r m e d b y t h e f o l l o w i n g facts. We k n o w

1 0 7

that each i n d i v i d u a l harbors w i t h i n h i m s e l f s o m e t h i n g o f

the a n o n y m o u s force that pervades the entire sacred species, f o r he h i m s e l f is a m e m b e r o f that species—not, however, insofar as he is an e m p i r i c a l a n d v i s ible b e i n g . I n spite o f t h e designs a n d s y m b o l i c signs w i t h w h i c h he decorates his body, n o t h i n g a b o u t h i m b r i n g s t o m i n d the f o r m o f an a n i m a l o r plant. H e n c e , there is a n o t h e r b e i n g i n h i m ; a n d w h i l e n o t ceasing t o recognize h i m s e l f i n that b e i n g , he imagines i t i n the f o r m o f an a n i m a l o r plant. Is i t n o t o b v i o u s that this d o u b l e can o n l y be the soul, since the soul, o n its o w n , is already a d o u b l e o f the subject i t animates? As final p r o o f o f this i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , t h e organs that m o s t p r e e m i n e n t l y incarnate t h e t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e i n each i n d i v i d u a l are t h e same as those i n w h i c h the soul resides. T h i s is t r u e o f the b l o o d . T h e b l o o d contains some p a r t o f the t o t e m i c essence, as is demonstrated b y t h e role b l o o d plays i n t o t e m i c c e r e m o n i e s .

108

B u t at the

same t i m e , t h e b l o o d is one o f the soul's residences; or, rather, i t is the soul itself seen f r o m outside. W h e n i t flows, life slips away, a n d the soul escapes t h e n a n d there. H e n c e , i t is i d e n t i f i e d w i t h the sacred p r i n c i p l e that is i m m a n e n t i n the b l o o d . T o t u r n the m a t t e r a r o u n d : I f i n fact m y e x p l a n a t i o n is w e l l f o u n d e d , t h e t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e that enters (as I assume) i n t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l must retain a certain a u t o n o m y there, f o r i t is specifically d i s t i n c t

from

t h e subject i n

w h i c h i t is i n c a r n a t e d . N o w , this is precisely w h a t H o w i t t says he observed a m o n g t h e Y u i n . H e says, " T h e fact that t h e t o t e m is c o n c e i v e d a m o n g these tribes as b e i n g i n some w a y p a r t o f the m a n is clearly p r o v e d b y the case o f o n e U m b a r a , already m e n t i o n e d . U m b a r a t o l d t h e s t o r y o f h o w , a f e w years ago, an i n d i v i d u a l o f the L a c e - L i z a r d clan sent h i m his t o t e m as U m b a r a h i m self slept. I t w e n t d o w n the t h r o a t o f the sleeper a n d nearly ate his t o t e m , w h i c h resided i n his chest, a n d this nearly caused d e a t h . "

109

So i t is q u i t e t r u e

that the t o t e m divides as i t becomes i n d i v i d u a l i z e d a n d that each o f the pieces that is thereby detached plays t h e role o f a s p i r i t , o f a soul that resides i n t h e body. 107

l08

1 1 0

See above, pp. 133ff.

See above, p. 136.

109

Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 147. Cf. ibid., p. 769.

n0

Strehlow [Aranda] (vol. I, p. 15 n. 2), Schulze ("Aborigines of. . . Finke River," p. 246) portray the soul to us, as Howitt here portrays the totem, as coming out of the body to go and eat another being. Similarly, we earlier saw the altjira or maternal totem manifest itself in a dream, just as a soul or a spirit does.

263

The Notion of Soul

H e r e are m o r e d i r e c t l y t e l l i n g facts. I f the soul is b u t the t o t e m i c p r i n c i ple i n d i v i d u a l i z e d , t h e n i n c e r t a i n cases, at least, i t m u s t m a i n t a i n m o r e o r less close relations w i t h the a n i m a l o r p l a n t species w h o s e f o r m the t o t e m r e p r o duces. A n d , i n fact, " T h e G e w w e - G a l (a t r i b e o f N e w S o u t h Wales) believe that each p e r s o n has w i t h i n h i m s e l f an affinity f o r t h e spirit o f some b i r d , beast, o r reptile. I t is n o t that t h e i n d i v i d u a l is t h o u g h t t o be descended f r o m that a n i m a l , b u t that a k i n s h i p is t h o u g h t t o exist b e t w e e n the spirit that a n imates the m a n a n d t h e spirit o f the a n i m a l . "

1 1 1

I n d e e d , there are cases i n w h i c h the soul is t h o u g h t t o emanate d i r e c t l y from t h e t o t e m i c p l a n t o r a n i m a l . A m o n g t h e A r u n t a , a c c o r d i n g t o Strehlow, i t is believed t h a t w h e n a w o m a n has eaten a b u n d a n d y o f a fruit, she w i l l bear a c h i l d w h o s e t o t e m is that fruit. I f she was l o o k i n g at a kangaroo w h e n she felt the first m o v e m e n t s o f the c h d d , a kangaroo ratapa is believed t o have e n tered her b o d y a n d i m p r e g n a t e d h e r . b e l i e f a m o n g the W o g a i t .

1 1 3

1 1 2

H . B a s e d o w has r e p o r t e d t h e same

W e k n o w , o n the o t h e r h a n d , that the ratapa a n d

the soul are nearly indistinguishable. N o w , i t w o u l d n o t have b e e n possible t o ascribe such an o r i g i n t o the soul i f i t was n o t t h o u g h t t o be m a d e o f the same substance as t h e animals a n d plants o f the t o t e m i c species. T h u s the soul is o f t e n d e p i c t e d as an a n i m a l . I n t h e l o w e r societies, as is w e l l k n o w n , death is never considered a n a t u r a l event, w i t h p u r e l y physical causes, b u t is w i d e l y i m p u t e d t o the m a c h i n a t i o n s o f some sorcerer. I n m a n y A u s t r a l i a n tribes, t o d e t e r m i n e w h o is responsible f o r a m u r d e r , p e o p l e start f r o m the p r i n c i p l e that, g i v i n g i n t o a sort o f c o m p u l s i o n , the soul o f the m u r d e r e r i n e v i t a b l y comes t o v i s i t his v i c t i m . F o r this reason, t h e b o d y is placed o n a scaffold, a n d the g r o u n d u n d e r a n d all a r o u n d the corpse is caref u l l y s m o o t h e d , so that the slightest m a r k o n i t is easily seen. T h e people r e t u r n the n e x t day. I f an a n i m a l has passed that w a y i n the m e a n t i m e , its tracks are easily r e c o g n i z e d . T h e i r shape reveals t h e species t o w h i c h he belongs,

'"[Lorimer] Fison and [Alfred William] Howitt, Kamilaroi and Kurnai: [Group Marriage and Relationship by Elopement, Drawn Chieflyfromthe Usage of the Australian Aborigines. Also the Kurnai Tribe, Their Cus-

toms in Peace and War, Melbourne, G. Robertson, 1880], p. 280. n 2

Globus, vol. CXI, p. 289. Despite the objections of Leonhardi, Strehlow has stood behind his statements on this point. Leonhardi deems that there is a certain contradiction between this assertion and the theory that the ratapas emanate from trees, rocks, and churingas. But since the totemic animal incarnates the totem, just as does the nanja tree or rock, it can play the same role. These different things are mythologically equivalent. 113

[H. Basedow], "Notes on the West Coastal Tribes of the Northern Territory of S. Australia," in RSSA, vol. XXXI (1907), p. 4. Cf. regarding the tribes of the Cairns district (North Queensland), Man [vol. IX] (1909), p. 86.

264


a n d i n that way, the social g r o u p t o w h i c h t h e m u r d e r belongs is i n f e r r e d . H e is said t o be a m a n o f such a n d such class o r c l a n ,

1 1 4

i f the a n i m a l is a t o t e m

o f this o r that class o r clan. T h i s is because t h e soul is t h o u g h t t o have c o m e i n the f o r m o f the t o t e m i c a n i m a l . I n o t h e r societies, w h e r e t o t e m i s m has w e a k e n e d o r disappeared,

the

soul still continues t o be t h o u g h t o f i n a n i m a l f o r m . T h e natives o f C a p e B e d f o r d ( N o r t h Queensland) believe that at the m o m e n t t h e c h i l d enters the b o d y o f its m o t h e r , i t is a c u r l e w i f a g i r l a n d a snake i f a boy. O n l y later does i t take a h u m a n f o r m .

1 1 5

A c c o r d i n g t o the P r i n c e o f W i e d , m a n y Indians o f

N o r t h A m e r i c a say t h e y have an a n i m a l i n t h e i r b o d y .

1 1 6

The Bororo o f

B r a z i l d r a w t h e i r souls i n t h e f o r m o f a b i r d a n d f o r that reason believe t h e y are birds o f the same k i n d .

1 1 7

Elsewhere the soul is c o n c e i v e d o f as a snake, a

lizard, a fly, a bee, a n d so o n .

1 1 8

B u t i t is above all after death that t h e a n i m a l nature o f t h e soul manifests itself. D u r i n g life, this feature is p a r t i a l l y v e i l e d , so t o speak, b y the v e r y f o r m o f t h e h u m a n b o d y . O n c e death has set t h e soul free, i t becomes itself again. A m o n g t h e O m a h a , i n at least t w o o f the buffalo clans, the souls o f t h e dead are b e l i e v e d t o r e j o i n t h e buffalo, t h e i r a n c e s t o r s .

119

T h e H o p i are d i v i d e d

i n t o a c e r t a i n n u m b e r o f clans, w h o s e ancestors w e r e animals o r beings i n a n i m a l f o r m . As Schoolcraft reports, t h e y say that at death t h e y regain t h e i r o r i g i n a l f o r m . E a c h o f t h e m becomes a bear again, o r a hart, a c c o r d i n g t o the clan t o w h i c h he b e l o n g s .

120

O f t e n the soul is t h o u g h t t o reincarnate itself i n

114

Among the Wakelbura where, according to Curr and Howitt, each marriage class has its own totems, the animal determines the class (see Curr, vol. Ill, p. 28); among the Buandik, it determines the clan (Mrs. James S. Smith, The Booandik Tribes of S.Australian Aborigines [Adelaide, E. Spiller,1880], p. 128). Cf. [Alfred William] Howitt, "On Some Australian Beliefs," in JAI, vol. XIII [1884], p. 191; XIV (1884), p. 362; [Northcote Whitridge] Thomas, "An American View of Totemism," in Man [vol. II] (1902), 85; [R. H.] Mathews, RSNSW. vol. XXXVIII, pp. 347-348; [Robert] Brough Smyth [The Aborigines of Victoria, Melbourne, J. Ferres, 1878], vol. I, p. 110; Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 513. 115

Roth, Superstition, Magic, §83. This is probably a form of sexual totemism.

116

Prinz [von Maximillian] Wied, Reise in das innere Nord-Amerika in der Jahren 1832 bis 1834, II

[Koblenz, 1839], p. 190. n 7

K . von den Steinen, Unter den Naturvölkern Zentral-Bräsiliens [Berlin, D. Reimer, 1894], pp. 511,

512. "'See Frazer, Golden Bough, 2d. ed., vol. 1, London, Macmillan, 1894, pp. 250, 253, 256, 257, 258. 119

[James Owen Dorsey, "Omaha Sociology,"] Third L4nnwiiJ Report, [BAE, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1884], pp. 229, 233. 120

[Schoolcraft], Indian Tribes, vol. IV, p. 86.

265

The Notion of Soul

the b o d y o f an a n i m a l .

1 2 1

T h i s , q u i t e probably, is the source o f the d o c t r i n e

o f metempsychosis, w h i c h is so w i d e l y h e l d . W e have seen h o w m u c h t r o u ble T y l o r has a c c o u n t i n g f o r i t .

1 2 2

I f t h e soul is f u n d a m e n t a l l y a h u m a n p r i n -

ciple, w h a t c o u l d be stranger t h a n the m a r k e d p r e d i l e c t i o n f o r a n i m a l f o r m that i t manifests i n so m a n y societies? O n the o t h e r h a n d , all is e x p l a i n e d i f , i n its v e r y c o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e soul is closely a k i n t o the a n i m a l , f o r t h e n , b y r e t u r n i n g after life t o the a n i m a l w o r l d , i t is o n l y r e t u r n i n g t o its t r u e nature. T h u s , the quasi-uruversality o f b e l i e f i n metempsychosis is a d d i t i o n a l p r o o f that t h e c o n s t i t u t i v e elements i n the idea o f the soul have b e e n taken chiefly f r o m t h e a n i m a l r e a l m , as is presupposed b y t h e t h e o r y j u s t set f o r t h .

IV T h e idea o f the soul is a p a r t i c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n o f the beliefs relative t o sacred things. I n this w a y m a y be e x p l a i n e d t h e r e l i g i o u s character this idea has d i s played ever since i t appeared i n h i s t o r y a n d that i t still has today. T h e soul has always b e e n considered a sacred t h i n g ; i n this respect i t is opposed t o the body, w h i c h i n itself is profane. T h e soul is n o t m e r e l y distinct f r o m its p h y s ical envelope, as the inside is from the outside, a n d i t is n o t m e r e l y i m a g i n e d as b e i n g m a d e o f a m o r e subtle a n d f l u i d m a t e r i a l t h a n the b o d y ; m o r e t h a n that, i t elicits i n some degree those feelings that are e v e r y w h e r e reserved f o r that w h i c h is d i v i n e . I f i t is n o t m a d e i n t o a g o d , i t is seen at least as a spark o f the d i v i n i t y . T h i s f u n d a m e n t a l characteristic w o u l d be i n e x p l i c a b l e i f the idea o f the soul was n o m o r e t h a n a prescientific s o l u t i o n t o the p r o b l e m o f dreams. Since there is n o t h i n g i n d r e a m i n g that can awaken religious e m o t i o n , t h e same m u s t be t r u e o f the cause that accounts f o r d r e a m i n g . H o w ever, i f t h e soul is a b i t o f d i v i n e substance, i t represents s o m e t h i n g w i t h i n

I21

For example, among the Batta of Sumatra (See Golden Bough, 2d. ed., vol. Ill, p. 420), in Melanesia (Codrington, The Melanesians, p. 178), in the Malay Archipelago (Tylor, "Remarks on Totemism," in JAI, new series, vol. I [1907], p. 147). It will be noticed that the cases in which the soul clearly presents itself after death as an animal are taken from societies in which totemism has been more or less breached. This is so because, where totemic beliefs are relatively pure, the idea of soul is necessarily ambiguous, for totemism implies that the soul participates in both realms at once. It cannot direct itself in either direction exclusively but sometimes takes one aspect and sometimes the other, depending on the circumstances. The more totemism recedes, the less necessary this ambiguity becomes, while, at the same time, the spirits feel a stronger need for differentiation. Then the quite marked affinities of the soul for the animal realm make themselves felt, especially so after it is liberatedfromthe human body. !22

See above, p. 172. On the universality of belief in metempsychosis, see Tylor, vol. II, pp. 8ff.

266


us that is o t h e r t h a n ourselves, a n d i f i t is made o f the same m e n t a l m a t e r ial as the sacred beings, i t w o u l d n a t u r a l l y be the object o f the same feelings. N o r is the character m a n thus ascribes t o h i m s e l f the result o f m e r e i l l u sion. L i k e t h e ideas o f r e l i g i o u s force a n d d i v i n i t y , t h e idea o f the soul is n o t w i t h o u t reality. I t is q u i t e t r u e that w e are m a d e o f t w o d i s t i n c t parts that are opposed t o o n e a n o t h e r as the sacred is t o the profane, a n d w e can say that i n a sense there is d i v i n i t y i n us. F o r society, that u n i q u e source o f all that is sacred, is n o t satisfied t o m o v e us from outside a n d t o affect us t r a n s i t o r i l y ; i t organizes itself lastingly w i t h i n us. I t arouses i n us a w h o l e w o r l d o f ideas a n d feelings that express i t b u t at t h e same t i m e are an i n t e g r a l a n d p e r m a n e n t part o f ourselves. W h e n the A u s t r a l i a n comes away from a religious cerem o n y , the representations that c o m m o n life has awakened o r reawakened i n h i m d o n o t i n s t a n d y dissolve. T h e g r a n d ancestral figures, the heroic e x p l o i t s that t h e rites c o m m e m o r a t e , the great things o f all k i n d s that w o r s h i p has made h i m participate i n — i n s u m , the various ideals that he has elaborated w i t h o t h e r s — a l l these g o o n l i v i n g i n his consciousness. A n d b y t h e e m o t i o n s that are attached t o t h e m i n his consciousness, b y t h e v e r y special i n fluence

t h e y have, t h e y clearly d i s t i n g u i s h themselves

from

the o r d i n a r y

impressions that his daily dealings w i t h e x t e r n a l things m a k e u p o n h i m . M o r a l ideas are o f the same nature. I t is society that has engraved t h e m u p o n us, a n d since the respect society inspires is n a t u r a l l y passed o n t o a l l that comes f r o m i t , the i m p e r a t i v e n o r m s o f c o n d u c t , because o f t h e i r o r i g i n , b e c o m e invested w i t h an a u t h o r i t y a n d a stature that o u r o t h e r i n w a r d states d o n o t have. T h e r e f o r e , w e assign t h e m a special place w i t h i n the t o t a l i t y o f o u r psychic life. A l t h o u g h o u r m o r a l conscience is part o f o u r consciousness, w e d o n o t feel o n an equal f o o t i n g w i t h i t . W e c a n n o t recognize o u r o w n v o i c e i n that v o i c e that makes itself heard o n l y t o o r d e r us t o d o some things a n d n o t t o d o others. T h e v e r y t o n e i n w h i c h i t speaks announces that i t is e x pressing s o m e t h i n g i n us that is o t h e r t h a n us. T h i s is w h a t is objective a b o u t the idea o f t h e soul. T h e representations that are the w a r p a n d w o o f o f o u r i n n e r life are o f t w o different species, i r r e d u c i b l e t o o n e another. Some relate t o the o u t w a r d a n d physical w o r l d , some t o an ideal w o r l d that w e consider t o be m o r a l l y above t h e physical o n e . T h u s , w e are really m a d e o f t w o beings that are o r i e n t e d i n t w o d i v e r g e n t a n d v i r t u a l l y o p p o s i t e directions, o n e o f w h i c h exercises supremacy over the other. S u c h is the p r o f o u n d m e a n i n g o f the antithesis that all peoples have m o r e o r less clearly c o n c e i v e d : b e t w e e n the b o d y a n d t h e soul, b e t w e e n t h e physical b e i n g a n d t h e s p i r i t u a l b e i n g that coexist i n us. M o r a l i s t s a n d preachers have o f t e n h e l d that w e c a n n o t d e n y the reality a n d sacredness o f d u t y w i t h o u t f a l l i n g i n t o m a t e r i a l i s m . A n d i n -

267

The Notion of Soul

deed, i f w e d i d n o t have t h e idea o f m o r a l a n d religious i m p e r a t i v e s ,

123

our

psychic life w o u l d be flattened o u t , all o u r states o f consciousness w o u l d be o n the same plane, a n d all sense o f d u a l i t y w o u l d disappear. T o m a k e this d u ality i n t e l l i g i b l e , i t is b y n o means necessary t o i m a g i n e a mysterious a n d u n representable substance o p p o s e d t o the b o d y , u n d e r the n a m e " s o u l . " B u t i n this case, t o o , as i n that o f the sacred, t h e e r r o r is i n t h e l i t e r a l character o f the s y m b o l used, n o t i n t h e reality o f the fact s y m b o l i z e d . I t is t r u e that o u r n a ture is d o u b l e ; there t r u l y is a parcel o f d i v i n i t y i n us, because there is i n us a parcel o f t h e g r a n d ideals that are the soul o f c o l l e c t i v i t y . T h e i n d i v i d u a l soul is thus o n l y a p o r t i o n o f t h e group's collective soul. I t is the a n o n y m o u s force o n w h i c h t h e c u l t is based b u t i n c a r n a t e d i n an i n d i v i d u a l w h o s e p e r s o n a l i t y i t cleaves t o : I t is m a n a i n d i v i d u a l i z e d . D r e a m i n g may w e l l have h a d a role i n p r o d u c i n g c e r t a i n secondary characteristics o f the idea. Perhaps the

fluidity

a n d i n s t a b i l i t y o f t h e images that o c c u p y o u r m i n d s

d u r i n g sleep, a n d t h e i r remarkable capacity t o be t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o o n e a n other, f u r n i s h e d t h e m o d e l o f that subtle, diaphanous, a n d p r o t e a n m a t e r i a l o f w h i c h t h e soul is t h o u g h t t o be made. M o r e o v e r , the p h e n o m e n a o f f a i n t i n g , catalepsy, a n d so f o r t h m a y have suggested t h e idea that the soul was m o b i l e and, b e g i n n i n g i n this life, t e m p o r a r i l y left the b o d y ; this, i n t u r n , has b e e n used t o e x p l a i n c e r t a i n dreams. B u t all these experiences a n d observations c o u l d o n l y have h a d i n c i d e n t a l , c o m p l e m e n t a r y influence, a n d i n d e e d the existence o f that i n f l u e n c e is h a r d t o establish. W h a t is t r u l y f u n d a m e n tal t o the idea comes from elsewhere. D o e s n o t this o r i g i n o f t h e idea o f soul m i s c o n c e i v e its f u n d a m e n t a l n a ture? I f soul is b u t a special f o r m o f the i m p e r s o n a l p r i n c i p l e that pervades the g r o u p , t h e t o t e m i c species, a n d all k i n d s o f things that are attached t o t h e m , t h e n i t t o o is at b o t t o m i m p e r s o n a l . A n d so, w i t h o n l y a f e w differences, i t m u s t therefore have t h e same properties as t h e force o f w h i c h i t is o n l y a specialized f o r m — i n particular, the same diffuseness, the same capaci t y t o spread contagiously, a n d t h e same u b i q u i t y . N o w , q u i t e t h e contrary, i t is easily i m a g i n e d as a d e f i n i t e , concrete b e i n g , w h o l l y self-contained a n d i n c o m m u n i c a b l e t o others; i t is m a d e t h e basis o f o u r personality.

123

If the religious and moral representations constitute the essential elements in the idea of soul, as I believe they do, I nonetheless do not mean to say that these are the only ones. Other states of conscience having this same quality, though to a lesser degree, come to group themselves around this central nucleus. This is true of all the higher forms of intellectual life, by reason of the quite special value and status that society attributes to them. When we live the life of science or art, we feel we are in contact with a circle of things above sensation (this, by the way, I will have occasion to show with greater precision in the Conclusion). This is why the higher functions of the intellect have always been regarded as specific manifestations of the soul's activity. But they probably could not have been enough to form the idea of soul.

268


B u t this w a y o f t h i n k i n g a b o u t soul is the p r o d u c t o f recent and p h i l o sophical d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e p o p u l a r c o n c e p t i o n , such as i t has

emerged

spontaneously f r o m o r d i n a r y experience, is v e r y different, especially at the b e g i n n i n g . F o r t h e A u s t r a l i a n , t h e s o u l is a v e r y vague entity, i n d e t e r m i nate and f l u i d i n f o r m , p e r v a d i n g t h e e n t i r e b o d y . A l t h o u g h i t is especially manifest i n c e r t a i n parts, there are p r o b a b l y n o n e f r o m w h i c h i t is absent altogether, so i t has a diffuseness, a contagiousness,

a n d an

omnipresence

comparable t o that o f mana. L i k e mana, i t can s u b d i v i d e a n d replicate itself i n f i n i t e l y , all the w h i l e r e m a i n i n g w h o l e i n each o f those parts (the p l u r a l i t y o f souls r e s u l t i n g f r o m those replications a n d divisions). I n a d d i t i o n , t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n , w h o s e w i d e s p r e a d acceptance w e have established, shows w h a t i m p e r s o n a l elements there are i n t h e idea o f s o u l a n d h o w f u n d a m e n t a l t h e y are. F o r the same s o u l t o be able t o take o n a n e w personality i n each g e n e r a t i o n , the i n d i v i d u a l f o r m s i n w h i c h i t is successively c l o t h e d m u s t also be e x t e r n a l t o i t a n d u n a t t a c h e d t o its t r u e nature. T h i s is a k i n d o f generic substance that b e c o m e s i n d i v i d u a l i z e d o n l y secondarily and s u p e r f i cially. M o r e o v e r , this idea o f s o u l is far f r o m h a v i n g t o t a l l y disappeared. T h e c u l t o f relics shows that, f o r o r d i n a r y believers even today, the soul o f a saint c o n t i n u e s t o adhere t o his various bones, a n d w i t h all its essential p o w e r s — w h i c h i m p l i e s that i t is i m a g i n e d t o be capable o f diffusing a n d s u b d i v i d i n g , a n d o f i n c o r p o r a t i n g i t s e l f i n t o all sorts o f different things at the same t i m e . Just as w e f i n d i n s o u l the characteristic attributes o f mana, so t o o d o seco n d a r y a n d superficial changes suffice f o r m a n a t o b e c o m e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d as soul. O n e moves o n from the first idea t o t h e second w i t h o u t any radical j u m p . E v e r y r e l i g i o u s force that is r e g u l a r l y attached t o a d e f i n i t e b e i n g participates

i n t h e characteristics o f that b e i n g , takes its f o r m , a n d becomes its

spirit duplicate. Tregear, i n his M a o r i - P o l y n e s i a n d i c t i o n a r y , b e l i e v e d he c o u l d c o n n e c t the w o r d mana t o a w h o l e g r o u p o f o t h e r w o r d s , l i k e manawa, manamana, a n d others, w h i c h seem t o be o f the same f a m i l y and m e a n "heart," " l i f e , " "consciousness." Is this n o t t o say that some k i n s h i p b e t w e e n the c o r r e s p o n d i n g ideas m u s t also exist, that is, b e t w e e n t h e ideas o f i m p e r sonal p o w e r a n d those o f i n w a r d life a n d m e n t a l f o r c e — i n a w o r d , o f s o u l ?

124

T h i s is w h y the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e c h u r i n g a is sacred because i t serves as residence f o r a s o u l , as Spencer a n d G i l l e n believe, o r because i t has i m p e r sonal v i r t u e s , as S t r e h l o w believes, is o f h t d e interest t o m e a n d w i t h n o soc i o l o g i c a l i m p o r t . W h e t h e r t h e efficacy o f a sacred o b j e c t is i m a g i n e d i n abstract f o r m o r ascribed t o some personal agent is n o t t h e heart o f the quest i o n . T h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l roots o f b o t h beliefs are i d e n t i c a l . A t h i n g is sacred l24

F. Tregear, The Maori-Polynesian Comparative Dictionary, pp. 203—205.

269

The Notion of Soul

because, i n some way, i t inspires a c o l l e c t i v e f e e l i n g o f respect that removes i t f r o m profane c o n t a c t . T o u n d e r s t a n d this feeling, m e n sometimes relate i t t o a vague a n d imprecise cause a n d sometimes t o a d e f i n i t e s p i r i t u a l b e i n g w i t h a name a n d a history. B u t these v a r y i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are added t o a f u n d a m e n t a l process that is t h e same i n b o t h cases. T h i s is w h a t explains those e x t r a o r d i n a r y m i x t u r e s , examples o f w h i c h w e have e n c o u n t e r e d a l o n g t h e way. I said that t h e i n d i v i d u a l , the s o u l o f t h e ancestor he reincarnates o r o f w h o m his o w n s o u l is an e m a n a t i o n , his c h u r i n g a , a n d t h e animals o f the t o t e m i c species are partially equivalent a n d interchangeable t h i n g s . T h i s is because, i n c e r t a i n respects, they all act u p o n the c o l l e c t i v e consciousness i n the same way. I f the c h u r i n g a is sacred, i t is sacred because t h e t o t e m i c e m b l e m engraved o n its surface provokes c o l l e c t i v e feelings o f respect. T h e same feeling is attached t o the animals o r plants w h o s e o u t w a r d f o r m t h e t o t e m copies, t o t h e soul o f the i n d i v i d u a l (since i t is itself t h o u g h t o f i n t h e f o r m o f the t o t e m i c b e i n g ) , a n d finally t o t h e a n cestral s o u l o f w h i c h t h e p r e c e d i n g is o n l y a p a r t i c u l a r aspect. I n this way, a l l these disparate objects, w h e t h e r real o r ideal, have a c o m m o n e l e m e n t b y w h i c h t h e y arouse t h e same affective state i n consciousness and c o n s e q u e n d y merge. T o the e x t e n t that t h e y are expressed b y o n e a n d the same represent a t i o n , t h e y are indistinguishable. T h i s is w h y t h e A r u n t a c o u l d be l e d t o see the c h u r i n g a as the b o d y c o m m o n t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l , t h e ancestor, a n d even the t o t e m i c b e i n g . I t is a w a y o f saying t o h i m s e l f that the feelings o f w h i c h those different things are t h e o b j e c t are i d e n t i c a l . H o w e v e r , from the fact that the idea o f s o u l derives from the idea o f mana, i t i n n o w a y f o l l o w s e i t h e r that the idea o f soul was a relatively late d e v e l o p m e n t o r t h a t there was a h i s t o r i c a l t i m e i n w h i c h m e n k n e w the r e l i gious forces o n l y i n t h e i r i m p e r s o n a l f o r m s . I f b y t h e w o r d " p r e a n i m i s m " w e m e a n t o designate a h i s t o r i c a l p e r i o d d u r i n g w h i c h a n i m i s m is t h o u g h t t o have b e e n u n k n o w n , w e set u p an a r b i t r a r y h y p o t h e s i s ,

125

f o r there is n o

p e o p l e a m o n g w h o m the idea o f s o u l a n d the idea o f mana d o n o t c o exist. W e thus have n o basis f o r s u p p o s i n g t h a t t h e y w e r e f o r m e d i n t w o d i s t i n c t p e r i o d s ; all the evidence suggests instead that t h e y are m o r e o r less c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s . Just as there is n o society w i t h o u t i n d i v i d u a l s , so the i m personal forces that arise from c o l l e c t i v i t y c a n n o t take f o r m w i t h o u t i n c a r n a t i n g themselves

i n i n d i v i d u a l consciousnesses, i n w h i c h t h e y

become

i n d i v i d u a l i z e d . These are n o t t w o different processes b u t t w o different aspects

125

This is the thesis of [Konrad Theodor] Preuss in the Globus articles I have cited several times. Mr. Levy-Bruhl also seems inclined toward the same idea (See Fonctions mentales, etc., pp. 92—93).

270


o f o n e a n d the same process.

T r u e , t h e y are n o t o f equal i m p o r t a n c e ,

since o n e is m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l t h a n the other. I f m a n a is t o be able t o i n d i v i d u a l i z e a n d fragment i n t o p a r t i c u l a r souls, i t m u s t first exist, a n d w h a t i t is i n itself does n o t d e p e n d o n the f o r m s i t takes as i t individualizes. H e n c e the idea o f m a n a does n o t presuppose that o f soul. Q u i t e the contrary, the idea o f soul c a n n o t be u n d e r s t o o d except i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e idea o f mana. I n this regard, o n e can i n d e e d say that i t is d u e t o a " s e c o n d a r y "

formation—

b u t a secondary f o r m a t i o n i n t h e l o g i c a l , n o t t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l , sense o f the word.

V B u t h o w d i d m e n c o m e t o believe that the s o u l survives t h e b o d y a n d can even survive i t i n d e f i n i t e l y ? W h a t emerges from the analysis I have c o n d u c t e d is that b e l i e f i n i m m o r t a l i t y was n o t at all f o r m e d u n d e r the i n f l u e n c e o f ideas about m o r a l i t y . M a n d i d n o t i m a g i n e e x t e n d i n g his existence b e y o n d t h e t o m b so t h a t a j u s t r e t r i b u t i o n o f m o r a l acts c o u l d b e p r o v i d e d i n a n o t h e r life, i f n o t i n this one. W e have seen t h a t a l l considerations o f this sort w e r e f o r e i g n t o the p r i m i t i v e idea o f the b e y o n d . N o r are w e any b e t t e r o f f a c c e p t i n g the hypothesis that the o t h e r life was i n v e n t e d as a means o f escape from t h e a n g u i s h i n g prospect o f a n n i h i l a t i o n . First o f all, t h e n e e d f o r personal survival is far f r o m h a v i n g b e e n v e r y strong at the b e g i n n i n g . T h e p r i m i t i v e generally accepts the idea o f death w i t h a sort o f indifference. B r o u g h t u p t o take l i t t l e a c c o u n t o f his i n d i v i d u a l i t y a n d accustomed t o e n d a n g e r i n g his life c o n t i n u a l l y , he easily lets g o o f i t .

1 2 6

Sec-

o n d , the i m m o r t a l i t y that is p r o m i s e d t o h i m b y t h e r e l i g i o n s he practices is n o t at all personal. I n m a n y cases, the s o u l does n o t c o n t i n u e the personality o f the deceased, o r does n o t c o n t i n u e i t f o r l o n g , since, f o r g e t t i n g its p r e v i ous existence, i t goes f o r t h after a c e r t a i n time t o animate o t h e r bodies a n d becomes t h e r e b y t h e h f e - g i v i n g p r i n c i p l e o f n e w personalities. E v e n a m o n g m o r e advanced peoples, i t was n o t the colorless a n d sad existence l e d b y the shades i n S h e o l o r Erebus that c o u l d ease the s o r r o w left b y the m e m o r y o f the life lost. T h e n o t i o n that connects t h e idea o f a p o s t h u m o u s life t o d r e a m e x p e riences is a m o r e satisfactory e x p l a n a t i o n . O u r dead relatives and

126

On this point, see my [Le] Suicide [elude de sociologie, Paris, F. Alcan, 1897], pp. 233ff.

friends

The Notion of Soul

271

reappear t o us i n dreams. W e see t h e m a c t i n g a n d hear t h e m speaking; i t is natural t o d r a w the c o n c l u s i o n that t h e y still exist. B u t i f those observations c o u l d have served as c o n f i r m a t i o n o f t h e idea, o n c e b o r n , they d o n o t seem capable o f h a v i n g called i t f o r t h f r o m n o t h i n g . T h e dreams i n w h i c h w e see deceased persons alive again are t o o rare a n d t o o short, a n d the m e m o r i e s they leave are i n themselves t o o vague, f o r dreams alone t o have suggested such an i m p o r t a n t system o f beliefs t o m e n . T h e r e is a m a r k e d d i s p r o p o r t i o n b e t w e e n t h e effect a n d the cause t o w h i c h i t is ascribed. W h a t makes t h e q u e s t i o n t r o u b l e s o m e is that, b y itself, the idea o f the soul d i d n o t entail the idea o f survival b u t seemed t o preclude i t . I n d e e d , w e have seen that the soul, w h i l e distinct f r o m the body, is nevertheless t h o u g h t to be closely l i n k e d w i t h i t . Since the soul g r o w s o l d w i t h the b o d y and r e acts t o all the body's illnesses, i t m u s t have seemed natural f o r the soul t o die w i t h the b o d y . T h e b e l i e f m u s t at least have b e e n that i t ceased t o exist the m o m e n t i t i r r e v o c a b l y lost its o r i g i n a l f o r m , w h e n n o t h i n g o f w h a t i t had been r e m a i n e d . Yet i t is at j u s t this m o m e n t that a n e w life opens o u t b e fore i t . T h e m y t h s I have p r e v i o u s l y r e p o r t e d f u r n i s h us w i t h the o n l y possible e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h a t belief. W e have seen that t h e souls o f n e w b o r n s w e r e e i t h e r emanations o f ancestral souls o r those same souls reincarnated. B u t t o have b e e n able e i t h e r t o reincarnate themselves o r t o give o f f n e w emanations p e r i o d i c a l l y , t h e y h a d t o have o u t l i v e d t h e i r first possessors, so i t seems that the idea o f the survival o f t h e dead was accepted i n o r d e r t o m a k e the b i r t h o f the l i v i n g explicable. T h e p r i m i t i v e does n o t have the idea o f an a l l p o w e r f u l g o d that pulls souls o u t o f nothingness. I t seems t o h i m that o n e can o n l y m a k e souls w i t h o t h e r souls. T h o s e that are b o r n i n this w a y can o n l y be n e w f o r m s o f those that existed i n the past. C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e y must go o n e x i s t i n g so that others can be f o r m e d . I n s u m , b e l i e f i n the i m m o r t a l i t y o f souls is the o n l y w a y m a n is able t o c o m p r e h e n d a fact that c a n n o t fail t o attract his a t t e n t i o n : the p e r p e t u i t y o f the group's life. T h e individuals die, b u t t h e c l a n survives, so t h e forces that c o n s t i t u t e his life m u s t have the same p e r p e t u i t y . These forces are t h e souls t h a t a n i m a t e t h e i n d i v i d u a l bodies, because i t is i n a n d b y t h e m that t h e g r o u p realizes itself. F o r that reason, t h e y m u s t endure. I n d e e d , w h i l e e n d u r i n g , t h e y also m u s t r e m a i n the same. Since the clan always keeps its characteristic f o r m , t h e s p i r i t u a l substance o f w h i c h i t is m a d e m u s t be c o n c e i v e d o f as qualitatively invariable. Since i t is always the same c l a n w i t h the same t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e , i t m u s t also be the same souls, the souls b e i n g n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n the t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e f r a g m e n t e d a n d p a r t i c u l a r i z e d . T h u s , there is a m y s t i c a l sort o f g e r m i n a t i v e plasma that is t r a n s m i t t e d f r o m g e n e r a t i o n t o g e n e r a t i o n a n d that creates, o r at least is h e l d t o

272


create, the s p i r i t u a l u n i t y o f the clan over t i m e . A n d despite its s y m b o l i c nature, this b e l i e f is n o t w i t h o u t objective t r u t h , f o r a l t h o u g h the g r o u p is n o t i m m o r t a l i n the absolute sense o f the w o r d , yet i t is t r u e that t h e g r o u p lasts above a n d b e y o n d the i n d i v i d u a l s a n d that i t is r e b o r n a n d reincarnated i n each n e w g e n e r a t i o n . O n e fact c o n f i r m s this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . W e have seen that, a c c o r d i n g t o Strehlow's account, the A r u n t a d i s t i n g u i s h t w o sorts o f souls: those o f the A l c h e r i n g a ancestors a n d those o f the i n d i v i d u a l s w h o at any m o m e n t i n h i s t o r y c o n s t i t u t e t h e b o d y o f t h e t r i b e . T h e souls o f i n d i v i d u a l s o u t l i v e the b o d y f o r o n l y a rather s h o r t t i m e a n d are s o o n n u l l i f i e d completely. O n l y those o f t h e A l c h e r i n g a ancestors are i m m o r t a l : Just as t h e y are uncreated, so they d o n o t p e r i s h . N o w , i t is t o be n o t i c e d that these are also the o n l y ones w h o s e i m m o r t a l i t y is n e e d e d i n o r d e r t o e x p l a i n the p e r m a n e n c e o f the g r o u p , f o r the f u n c t i o n o f e n s u r i n g t h e p e r p e t u i t y o f the clan falls t o t h e m a n d t h e m alone: E v e r y c o n c e p t i o n is t h e i r d o i n g . I n this regard, the others have n o role t o play. T h u s t h e souls are said t o be i m m o r t a l o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t that this i m m o r t a l i t y is useful i n m a k i n g the c o n t i n u i t y o f collective life intelligible. T h e causes o f the first beliefs a b o u t a n o t h e r life w e r e thus u n r e l a t e d t o t h e f u n c t i o n s that i n s t i t u t i o n s b e y o n d t h e grave w o u l d later have t o f u l f i l l . B u t , o n c e b o r n , t h e y w e r e s o o n p u t t o use f o r ends different f r o m those that w e r e t h e i r i n i t i a l raison d'être. F r o m t h e A u s t r a l i a n societies o n , w e see those causes b e g i n n i n g t o organize themselves t o this e n d . T o d o so, f u r t h e r m o r e , they h a d n o n e e d t o u n d e r g o f u n d a m e n t a l transformations. H o w t r u e i t is that the same social i n s t i t u t i o n can f u l f i l l different f u n c t i o n s

successively,

w i t h o u t c h a n g i n g its nature!

VI T h e idea o f soul l o n g was a n d i n p a r t still is t h e m o s t w i d e l y h e l d f o r m o f the idea o f p e r s o n a l i t y .

127

B y e x a m i n i n g h o w t h e idea o f s o u l o r i g i n a t e d , t h e r e -

fore, w e s h o u l d c o m e t o u n d e r s t a n d h o w the idea o f p e r s o n a l i t y was f o r m e d . 127

It might be objected that unity is the characteristic of personalities, while the soul has always been conceived as multiple and as capable of dividing and subdividing almost infinitely. But we know today that the unity of the person is also made up of parts, that it is itself also capable of dividing and subdividing itself. Still, the idea of personality does not disappear merely because we have ceased to think of it as an indivisible, metaphysical atom. The same is true of those commonsense ideas of personality that have found expression in the idea of soul. They show that all peoples have always felt that the human person did not have the absolute unity certain metaphysicians have imputed to it.

The Notion of Soul

273

I t is a consequence o f the p r e c e d i n g that t w o sorts o f elements p r o d u c e d the idea o f person. O n e is essentially i m p e r s o n a l : I t is t h e spiritual p r i n c i p l e that serves as the s o u l o f t h e c o l l e c t i v i t y . T h a t p r i n c i p l e is t h e v e r y substance o f w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l souls are made. I t is n o t the p r o p e r t y o f anyone i n particular b u t p a r t o f t h e c o l l e c t i v e p a t r i m o n y ; i n a n d t h r o u g h that p r i n c i p l e , all the consciousnesses c o m m u n e . F r o m a different p o i n t o f v i e w , i f there are t o be separate personalities, some factor m u s t i n t e r v e n e t o fragment a n d differentiate this p r i n c i p l e ; i n o t h e r w o r d s , an e l e m e n t o f i n d i v i d u a t i o n is necessary. T h e b o d y plays this role. Since bodies are d i s t i n c t f r o m o n e another, since t h e y o c c u p y different positions i n t i m e a n d space, each is a special m i l i e u i n w h i c h the c o l l e c t i v e representations are gradually refracted a n d c o l ored differently. H e n c e , even i f all t h e consciousnesses situated i n those bodies v i e w t h e same w o r l d — n a m e l y , t h e w o r l d o f ideas and feelings that m o r a l l y u n i f y the g r o u p — t h e y d o n o t all v i e w i t from t h e same v i e w p o i n t ; each expresses i t i n his o w n fashion. O f those t w o equally indispensable factors, t h e i m p e r s o n a l e l e m e n t is certainly n o t the less i m p o r t a n t , since i t is the o n e that furnishes the r a w m a terial f o r the idea o f s o u l . I t w i l l be s u r p r i s i n g , perhaps, t o see such an i m p o r t a n t r o l e a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e i m p e r s o n a l e l e m e n t i n the o r i g i n o f t h e idea o f personality. B u t t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l analysis o f that idea, w h i c h stole a m a r c h o n s o c i o l o g i c a l analysis, a n d b y a l o t , a r r i v e d at similar results o n this p o i n t . O f all t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s , L e i b n i z is o n e o f those w h o h a d the m o s t v i v i d sense o f w h a t the p e r s o n a l i t y is, f o r the m o n a d is, first o f all, a personal a n d a u t o n o m o u s b e i n g . A n d yet, f o r L e i b n i z , t h e c o n t e n t o f all t h e monads is i d e n tical. A l l i n fact are consciousnesses that express o n e a n d t h e same object: the w o r l d . A n d since t h e w o r l d itself is b u t a system o f representations, each i n d i v i d u a l consciousness is i n t h e e n d o n l y a r e f l e c t i o n o f the universal c o n sciousness. H o w e v e r , each expresses i t from its o w n p o i n t o f v i e w a n d i n its own

m a n n e r . W e k n o w h o w this difference o f perspectives arises from the

fact that the monads are d i f f e r e n d y placed w i t h respect t o o n e a n o t h e r a n d w i t h respect t o t h e w h o l e system t h e y c o m p r i s e . K a n t expresses this same awareness differently. F o r h i m , the cornerstone o f personality is w i l l . W i l l is the capacity t o act i n accordance w i t h reason, a n d reason is that w h i c h is m o s t i m p e r s o n a l i n us. R e a s o n is n o t m y reason; i t is h u m a n reason i n general. I t is the p o w e r o f the m i n d t o rise above the p a r t i c ular, the c o n t i n g e n t , a n d the i n d i v i d u a l a n d t o t h i n k i n universal terms. F r o m this p o i n t o f view, o n e can say that w h a t makes a m a n a person is that b y w h i c h he is indistinguishable from o t h e r m e n ; i t is that w h i c h makes h i m m a n , rather t h a n such and such a m a n . T h e senses, the body, i n short e v e r y t h i n g that i n d i vidualizes, is, t o the contrary, regarded b y K a n t as antagonistic t o p e r s o n h o o d .

274


T h i s is because i n d i v i d u a t i o n is n o t t h e essential characteristic o f the person. A person is n o t o n l y a singular subject that is d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m all the others. I t is, i n a d d i t i o n a n d m o s t o f all, a b e i n g t o w h i c h a relative a u t o n o m y is i m p u t e d i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e m i l i e u w i t h w h i c h i t interacts m o s t direcdy. A p e r s o n is c o n c e i v e d o f as b e i n g capable, i n a c e r t a i n measure, o f m o v i n g o n its o w n . T h i s is w h a t L e i b n i z expressed i n an e x t r e m e fashion, saying that the m o n a d is e n t i r e l y closed t o the outside. M y analysis enables us t o i m a g i n e h o w this c o n c e p t i o n was f o r m e d a n d t o w h a t i t corresponds. T h e nature o f t h e soul, w h i c h is i n fact a s y m b o l i c expression o f the personality, is t h e same. A l t h o u g h i n close u n i o n w i t h t h e b o d y , i t is presumed t o b e p r o f o u n d l y d i s t i n c t from a n d b r o a d l y i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e body. D u r i n g life, i t can leave the b o d y t e m p o r a r i l y , a n d at death i t retires t h e r e f r o m for g o o d . Far from b e i n g s u b o r d i n a t e d t o t h e b o d y , i t dominates t h e b o d y g i v e n its h i g h e r status. I t m a y v e r y w e l l b o r r o w f r o m t h e b o d y t h e o u t w a r d f o r m i n w h i c h i t becomes i n d i v i d u a l i z e d , b u t i t owes t h e b o d y n o t h i n g essential. T h i s a u t o n o m y that a l l peoples have ascribed t o t h e s o u l is n o t m e r e i l l u s i o n , and w e n o w k n o w its objective basis. G r a n t e d , the elements that c o n s t i t u t e the idea o f the soul, a n d those that enter i n t o the idea [représentation]

o f the body,

c o m e f r o m t w o sources different from a n d i n d e p e n d e n t o f o n e another. T h e first are made o f impressions a n d images that c o m e f r o m every part o f the b o d y ; t h e others consist o f ideas a n d feelings that c o m e from the society and express i t . H e n c e , the first are n o t d e r i v e d from the second. I n this way, there really is a p a r t o f us that is n o t d i r e c d y subordinate to t h e organic factor: T h a t p a r t is e v e r y t h i n g that represents society i n us. T h e general ideas that r e l i g i o n o r science impresses u p o n o u r m i n d s , the m e n t a l operations t h a t these ideas presuppose, t h e beliefs a n d feelings o n w h i c h o u r m o r a l life is based—all t h e h i g h e r f o r m s o f psychic a c t i v i t y that society s t i m ulates a n d develops i n us—are n o t , l i k e o u r sensations a n d b o d i l y states, t o w e d a l o n g b y t h e b o d y . T h i s is so because, as I have s h o w n , the w o r l d o f representations i n w h i c h social life unfolds is added t o its m a t e r i a l substrate, far i n d e e d from o r i g i n a t i n g there. T h e d e t e r m i n i s m that reigns i n t h a t w o r l d o f representations is thus far m o r e supple t h a n t h e d e t e r m i n i s m that is r o o t e d in our

flesh-and-blood

c o n s t i t u t i o n , a n d i t leaves t h e agent w i t h a j u s t i f i e d

i m p r e s s i o n o f greater l i b e r t y . T h e m i l i e u i n w h i c h w e m o v e i n this w a y is s o m e h o w less opaque a n d resistant. I n i t w e feel, a n d are, m o r e at ease. I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e o n l y means w e have o f l i b e r a t i n g ourselves from physical forces is t o oppose t h e m w i t h c o l l e c t i v e forces. W h a t w e have from society w e have i n c o m m o n w i t h o u r f e l l o w m e n , so i t is far from t r u e that t h e m o r e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d w e are, t h e m o r e personal w e are. T h e t w o t e r m s are b y n o means s y n o n y m o u s . I n a sense, they oppose

275

The Notion of Soul

more t h a n t h e y i m p l y o n e another. Passion i n d i v i d u a l i z e s a n d yet enslaves. O u r sensations are i n t h e i r essence i n d i v i d u a l . B u t t h e m o r e emancipated w e are from t h e senses, a n d t h e m o r e capable w e are o f t h i n k i n g a n d a c t i n g c o n ceptually, t h e m o r e w e are persons. T h o s e w h o emphasize all that is social i n the i n d i v i d u a l d o n o t m e a n b y that t o d e n y o r denigrate p e r s o n h o o d . T h e y simply refuse t o c o n f o u n d i t w i t h t h e fact o f i n d i v i d u a t i o n .

128

1 2 8

For all that, I do not deny the importance of the individual factor, which is explainedfrommy standpoint just as easily as its contrary. Even if the essential element of personality is that which is social in us,fromanother standpoint, there can be no social life unless distinct individuals are associated within it; and the more numerous and differentfromone another they are, the richer it is. Thus the individual factor is a condition of the personal factor. The reciprocal is no less true, for society itself is an important source of individual differentiation (See De la Division du travail social, 3d ed. [Paris, F. Alcan (1893), 1902], pp. 627ff.).

CHAPTER NINE

THE NOTION OF SPIRITS AND GODS

W

i t h t h e n o t i o n o f soul, w e left the d o m a i n o f i m p e r s o n a l forces. B u t even the A u s t r a l i a n r e l i g i o n s recognize h i g h e r - o r d e r m y t h i c a l entities,

above a n d b e y o n d t h e soul: spirits, c i v i l i z i n g heroes, a n d even gods, p r o p e r l y so-called. W i t h o u t e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e m y t h o l o g i e s i n detail, w e m u s t t r y t o discover w h a t f o r m these three categories o f s p i r i t u a l beings take i n Australia a n d h o w t h e y f i t i n t o the r e l i g i o u s system as a w h o l e .

I A soul is n o t a s p i r i t . A soul is shut u p i n a d e f i n i t e b o d y , a n d a l t h o u g h i t can c o m e o u t at c e r t a i n times, n o r m a l l y i t is t h e body's prisoner. I t escapes f o r g o o d o n l y at death, a n d even so w e have seen w i t h w h a t d i f f i c u l t y t h a t separation is m a d e final. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , a l t h o u g h a spirit is o f t e n closely t i e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r object as its preferred residence—a s p r i n g , a r o c k , a tree, a star, and so f o r t h — i t can leave at w i l l t o lead an i n d e p e n d e n t life i n space. As a r e sult, its i n f l u e n c e has a w i d e r radius. I t can act u p o n all i n d i v i d u a l s w h o app r o a c h i t o r are approached b y i t . B y contrast, the soul has almost

no

i n f l u e n c e over a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n the b o d y i t animates; o n l y i n v e r y rare i n stances d u r i n g its e a r t h l y life does i t affect a n y t h i n g else. B u t i f the soul lacks those features t h a t define t h e s p i r i t , i t acquires t h e m t h r o u g h death, at least i n part. O n c e disincarnated, a n d so l o n g as i t has n o t c o m e d o w n again i n t o a b o d y , i t has the same f r e e d o m o f m o v e m e n t as a spirit. T o be sure, i t is t h o u g h t t o leave f o r the l a n d o f souls w h e n the rites o f m o u r n i n g are c o m p l e t e d , b u t before that, i t remains i n the v i c i n i t y o f the t o m b f o r a rather l o n g t i m e . F u r t h e r m o r e , even w h e n i t has left there f o r g o o d , i t is t h o u g h t t o c o n t i n u e p r o w l i n g a r o u n d the c a m p .

1

1

I t is generally

[Walter Edmund] Roth, Superstition, Magic, etc. [and Medicine, in North Queensland Ethnography, Bul-

letin no. 5, Brisbane, G. A. Vaughn, 1903], §65, 68; [Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [Francis James] Gillen [The NativeTribes of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1899], pp. 514, 516. 276

277

The Notion of Spirits and Gods

i m a g i n e d as rather a k i n d l y b e i n g , especially b y t h e s u r v i v i n g m e m b e r s o f its family. W e have seen, i n fact, t h a t t h e soul o f t h e father comes t o n u r t u r e t h e g r o w t h o f his c h i l d r e n a n d g r a n d c h i l d r e n . S o m e t i m e s , however, d e p e n d i n g entirely o n its m o o d a n d its t r e a t m e n t b y the l i v i n g , i t displays t r u e c r u e l t y .

2

T h u s , especially f o r w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n , i t is advisable n o t t o v e n t u r e o u t side the camp at n i g h t , so as t o a v o i d the risk o f dangerous e n c o u n t e r s .

3

A ghost, however, is n o t a t r u e s p i r i t . First, its p o w e r is usually l i m i t e d ; second, i t does n o t have d e f i n i t e f u n c t i o n s . I t is a v a g a b o n d b e i n g w i t h n o clear-cut responsibility, since the effect o f death was t o set i t outside all t h e regular structures. I n r e l a t i o n t o t h e l i v i n g , i t is d e m o t e d , as i t were. O n the other h a n d , a s p i r i t always has some sort o f p o w e r , a n d i n d e e d i t is d e f i n e d b y that p o w e r . I t has a u t h o r i t y over some range o f cosmic o r social p h e n o m e n a ; it has a m o r e o r less precise f u n c t i o n t o p e r f o r m i n t h e w o r l d scheme. B u t some souls m e e t this dual c o n d i t i o n a n d thus are spirits proper. These are the souls o f m y t h i c a l personages that are placed b y p o p u l a r i m a g i n a t i o n at the b e g i n n i n g o f time: the A l c h e r i n g a o r A l t j i r a n g a m i t j i n a people o f the A r u n t a , the M u r a - m u r a s o f the Lake E y r e tribes, the M u k - K u r n a i s o f the K u r nai, and others. I n a sense, these actually are still souls, since they are t h o u g h t to have a n i m a t e d bodies i n the past b u t t o have separated from t h e m at some p o i n t . H o w e v e r , as w e have seen, even w h i l e they were l i v i n g earthly lives, they already h a d e x c e p t i o n a l powers. T h e y had mana superior t o that o f o r d i nary m e n , a n d they k e p t i t thereafter. Besides, they have definite functions. T o b e g i n w i t h , w h e t h e r w e accept Spencer a n d Gillen's a c c o u n t

or

Strehlow's, t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r e n s u r i n g the p e r i o d i c r e c r u i t m e n t o f t h e clan falls squarely o n t h e i r shoulders. M a t t e r s o f c o n c e p t i o n are t h e i r d o m a i n . O n c e c o n c e p t i o n has t a k e n place, t h e ancestor's task is n o t f i n i s h e d . I t is u p t o h i m t o w a t c h over the n e w b o r n . Later, w h e n the c h i l d has b e c o m e a m a n , the ancestor accompanies h i m o n the h u n t a n d drives game t o w a r d h i m , w a r n s h i m i n dreams o f dangers h e m a y e n c o u n t e r , protects h i m his enemies, a n d so f o r t h . O n this p o i n t , S t r e h l o w is i n entire

from

agreement

4

w i t h Spencer a n d G i l l e n . G r a n t e d , o n e m a y w o n d e r h o w , o n t h e i r account, the ancestor can p e r f o r m this f u n c t i o n . I t w o u l d seem that because h e r e i n carnates h i m s e l f at t h e m o m e n t o f c o n c e p t i o n , h e w o u l d have t o be assimi-

2

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 515, 521; [James] Dawson [Australian Aborigines: The Languages, and Customs of Several Tribes ofAborigines in the Western District of Victoria, Australia, Melbourne, G. Robert-

son, 1881], p. 58; Roth, Superstition, Magic, §67. 'Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 517. 4

[Carl] Strehlow [DieAranda- und Loritja-Stamme in ZentralAustralien, Frankfurt, J. Baer, 1907], vol. II, p. 76 and n. 1; Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 514, 516.


278

latecl w i t h the child's s o u l a n d thus c o u l d n o t possibly p r o t e c t i t f r o m outside. B u t he can because he does n o t reincarnate h i m s e l f w h o l e , b u t instead p r o duces his d o u b l e . O n e p a r t enters the b o d y o f t h e w o m a n a n d impregnates her; a n o t h e r c o n t i n u e s t o exist outside and, w i t h the special n a m e o f A r u m buringa, performs the function o f tutelary genie.

5

W e can see h o w closely a k i n that ancestral s p i r i t is t o t h e genius o f the 6

Latins a n d t h e 8ca'u.un> o f t h e G r e e k s . T h e i r f u n c t i o n s are c o m p l e t e l y i d e n t i cal. I n d e e d t h e genius is, above a l l , the o n e w h o engenders—qui gignit. T h e 7

genius expresses a n d personifies t h e generative f o r c e . A t t h e same t i m e , i t is the p r o t e c t o r a n d g u i d e o f the p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l t o w h o s e person i t is at8

t a c h e d . Finally, i t merges w i t h that i n d i v i d u a l ' s v e r y personality, representing the set o f characteristic i n c l i n a t i o n s a n d tendencies that g i v e h i m d i s t i n c t i v e ness a m o n g o t h e r m e n . defraudare genium*

9

Hence

t h e w e l l - k n o w n saying indulgere genio,

i n the sense o f " f o l l o w one's n a t u r a l t e m p e r a m e n t . " F u n -

damentally, t h e genius is a n o t h e r f o r m of, a n d a d o u b l e of, the i n d i v i d u a l ' s soul itself. T h e p a r t i a l s y n o n y m y o f genius a n d manes proves t h i s .

1 0

T h e manes

are the genius after death, b u t t h e y are also the part o f the deceased that surv i v e s — i n o t h e r w o r d s , the s o u l o f the deceased. I n t h e same way, the A r u n t a ' s s o u l a n d t h e ancestral s p i r i t that serve as his genius are b u t t w o d i f ferent aspects o f the same b e i n g . T h e ancestor has a d e f i n e d p o s i t i o n , h o w e v e r , n o t o n l y i n r e l a t i o n t o persons b u t also i n r e l a t i o n t o t h i n g s . T h o u g h his t r u e residence is p r e s u m e d t o be u n d e r g r o u n d , the ancestor is t h o u g h t t o keep h a u n t i n g t h e site o f his nanja tree o r r o c k , o r o f the w a t e r h o l e t h a t was spontaneously f o r m e d at the exact m o m e n t he disappeared i n t o the g r o u n d , after e n d i n g his first existence. Since that tree o r r o c k is t h o u g h t t o represent t h e b o d y o f the hero, his soul itself is i m a g i n e d t o r e t u r n there c o n t i n u a l l y a n d t o reside there m o r e o r less p e r m a n e n d y . T h e presence o f t h a t s o u l accounts f o r t h e r e l i g i o u s respect T o indulge one's genius is to cheat one's genius. That is, to cater to one's genius, rather than letting it assert itself, is to frustrate it. Trans. 5

[Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes], p. 513.

6

See [Augusto] Negrioli on this question, Dei Genii presso i Romani, [Bologna, Ditta Nicola Zanichelli, 1900]; the articles "Daimon" and "Genius" in Dictionnaire des antiquités [Grecques et Romaines, Paris, Hachette, 1877-1919]; [Ludwig] Preller, Roemische Mythologie [Berlin, Weidmann, 1858], vol. II, pp. 195ÎF. 7

Negrioli, Dei Genii presso i Romani, p. 4.

8

Ibid., p. 8.

9

Ibid., p. 7.

10

Ibid., p. 11. Cf. Samter, "Der Ursprung des Larencultus," in Archiv Jiïr Religionswissenschaft, 1907, pp. 368-393.

279


evoked b y those places. N o o n e m a y snap a b r a n c h o f the nanja tree w i t h o u t risk o f f a l l i n g i l l .

1 1

" A t o n e time, t h e act o f f e l l i n g o r d a m a g i n g i t was p u n -

ished w i t h death. K i l l i n g an a n i m a l o r b i r d that takes refuge there is f o r b i d den. E v e n t h e s u r r o u n d i n g b u s h has t o be respected—the grass m u s t n o t be b u r n e d . T h e rocks, t o o , m u s t be treated w i t h respect. T o m o v e o r break t h e m is f o r b i d d e n . "

12

Since this q u a l i t y o f sacredness is ascribed t o t h e ances1 3

tor, he seems t o be t h e s p i r i t o f that tree, r o c k , w a t e r h o l e , o r s p r i n g — l e t the s p r i n g be considered as h a v i n g t o d o w i t h the r a i n ,

1 4

and he becomes a

spirit o f t h e r a i n . T h u s , these same souls that, i n o n e o f t h e i r aspects, serve m e n as p r o t e c t i v e genies also p e r f o r m cosmic f u n c t i o n s . O n e o f R o t h ' s texts is p r o b a b l y t o be u n d e r s t o o d i n this w a y : I n N o r t h Q u e e n s l a n d , the nature spirits are said t o be souls o f the dead that have chosen t o reside i n the forests or i n caves.

15

N o w w e have s p i r i t beings that are s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n w a n d e r i n g souls w i t h o u t specific p o w e r s . S t r e h l o w calls t h e m g o d s ,

16

b u t this t e r m is i n -

appropriate, at least i n t h e vast m a j o r i t y o f cases. A n d i n a society such as that o f the A r u n t a , w h e r e each i n d i v i d u a l has a p r o t e c t i n g ancestor, there w o u l d be as m a n y gods as i n d i v i d u a l s , o r m o r e . T o a p p l y t h e n o u n " g o d " t o a sacred b e i n g that has o n l y o n e adherent w o u l d p r o m o t e t e r m i n o l o g i c a l c o n f u s i o n . I t is t r u e t h a t an ancestor figure can sometimes b e c o m e enlarged t o the p o i n t that i t resembles a d e i t y proper. A m o n g t h e W a r r a m u n g a , as I have p o i n t e d out,

1 7

t h e entire clan is t h o u g h t t o b e descended f r o m a single ancestor. H o w ,

u n d e r c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s , this c o l l e c t i v e ancestor c o u l d have b e c o m e the o b j e c t o f collective d e v o t i o n is easily c o m p r e h e n d e d . T h i s h a p p e n e d t o the

"[Rev. Louis] Schulze, "Aborigines of the Upper and Middle Finke River," RSSA, vol. XIV [1891], p. 237. 12

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, p. 5. Cf. Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 133; S. Gason, in [Edward

Micklethwaite] Curr, [ The Australian Race: Its Origin, Languages, Customs, Place of Landing in Australia and the Routes by Which It Spread Itself over That Continent, Melbourne, J. Ferres, 1886-1887], vol. II, p. 69. 13

See, in [Alfred William] Howitt [The NativeTribes of South East Australia, London, Macmillan, 1904], p. 482), the case of a Mura-mura who is regarded as the spirit of certain hot springs. "[Baldwin Spencer and Francis James Gillen], Northern Tribes [of Central Australia London, Macmillan, 1904], pp. 313-314; [Robert Hamilton] Mathews, "[Ethnological Notes on the] Aboriginal Tribes of New South Wales and Victoria," RSNSW, vol. XXXVIII [1904], p. 351. Similarly, among the Dieri, there is a Mura-mura whose function is to produce rain (Howitt, NativeTribes, pp. 798—799). 15

Roth, Superstition, Magic, §67. Cf. Dawson, Australian Aborigines, p. 58.

16

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, pp. 2ff.

"See above, p. 252, n. 53.


280

snake W o l l u n q u a , t o take o n e e x a m p l e .

18

A c c o r d i n g t o belief, this m y t h i c a l

a n i m a l ( f r o m w h i c h the clan o f the same n a m e is t h o u g h t t o o r i g i n a t e ) c o n tinues t o live i n a w a t e r h o l e that is h e l d i n religious v e n e r a t i o n . M o r e o v e r , i t is the object o f a c u l t that t h e clan celebrates collectively. T h e y t r y t o please i t a n d g a i n its favor b y means o f p a r t i c u l a r rites, m a k i n g prayers o f a sort t o i t , a n d so f o r t h . T h u s , o n e can say this m y t h i c a l a n i m a l is l i k e the g o d o f the clan. B u t this is a v e r y unusual case even, a c c o r d i n g t o Spencer and G i l l e n , a u n i q u e one. N o r m a l l y , " s p i r i t " is t h e o n l y w o r d that is suitable f o r designati n g these ancestral personages. As t o the m a n n e r i n w h i c h that idea was f o r m e d , w e m a y say that i t is o b v i o u s from all that has b e e n said u p t o n o w . As I have s h o w n , o n c e the existence o f souls was accepted, i t c o u l d n o t be c o m p r e h e n d e d w i t h o u t i m a g i n i n g , at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f things, an o r i g i n a l f u n d o f f u n d a m e n t a l souls from w h i c h all t h e others d e r i v e d . These archet y p i c a l souls m u s t necessarily have b e e n i m a g i n e d as c o n t a i n i n g i n themselves the source o f all r e l i g i o u s efficacy, for, since t h e i m a g i n a t i o n goes b a c k n o further, all the sacred things are h e l d t o c o m e from t h e m : t h e i n s t r u m e n t s o f the c u l t , the m e m b e r s o f the clan, t h e animals o f t h e t o t e m i c species. T h e y incarnate all t h e religiousness that is diffused t h r o u g h o u t t h e t r i b e a n d t h e w o r l d . T h i s is w h y p o w e r s are a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e m that are m a r k e d l y s u p e r i o r t o those enjoyed b y the m e r e souls o f m e n . M o r e o v e r , t i m e itself increases and reinforces the sacredness o f t h e things. A v e r y o l d c h u r i n g a elicits far greater respect t h a n a m o d e r n o n e a n d is t h o u g h t t o have m o r e v i r t u e s .

19

It

is as t h o u g h the feelings o f v e n e r a t i o n i t has received t h r o u g h successive g e n erations' h a n d l i n g are a c c u m u l a t e d i n i t . F o r the same reason, t h e personages that have b e e n t h e subjects o f m y t h s t r a n s m i t t e d respectfully f o r centuries f r o m m o u t h t o m o u t h , a n d t h a t are p e r i o d i c a l l y enacted b y rites, w e r e b o u n d t o take an altogether special place i n p o p u l a r i m a g i n a t i o n . B u t h o w does i t h a p p e n t h a t instead o f r e m a i n i n g outside t h e f r a m e w o r k o f society, t h e y have b e c o m e regular m e m b e r s o f it? T h e reason is that each i n d i v i d u a l is the d o u b l e o f an ancestor. N o w , w h e n t w o beings are so closely a k i n , t h e y are naturally t h o u g h t o f as u n i f i e d ; since t h e y share the same n a ture, w h a t affects o n e seems necessarily t o affect the other. I n this way, t h e t r o o p o f the m y t h i c a l ancestors became attached t o t h e society o f the l i v i n g b y a m o r a l b o n d ; the same interests a n d passions w e r e i m p u t e d t o b o t h ; a n d

18

Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, chap. VII.

"Ibid., p. 277.

281


they w e r e seen as associates. B u t since the ancestors h a d h i g h e r status t h a n the l i v i n g , this association entered t h e p u b l i c m i n d as a relationship b e t w e e n superiors a n d subordinates, patrons a n d clients, helpers a n d h e l p e d . T h u s was b o r n the c u r i o u s n o t i o n o f the t u t e l a r y genie attached t o each i n d i v i d u a l . H o w t h e ancestor was p l a c e d i n c o n t a c t n o t o n l y w i t h m e n b u t also w i t h things m i g h t appear a m o r e t r o u b l e s o m e q u e s t i o n . A t first glance, i t is n o t obvious w h a t relationship c o u l d exist b e t w e e n a personage o f this k i n d a n d a tree o r r o c k . B u t a piece o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t w e o w e t o S t r e h l o w provides us w i t h at least a plausible s o l u t i o n t o this p r o b l e m . T h o s e trees and rocks are n o t situated j u s t a n y w h e r e i n the t r i b a l t e r r i t o r y b u t are massed f o r t h e m o s t p a r t a r o u n d c e r t a i n sanctuaries (called e r t n a t u l u n g a b y Spencer a n d G i l l e n a n d arknanaua b y S t r e h l o w ) , w h e r e the churingas o f t h e c l a n are k e p t .

2 0

H o w deeply these places are respected w e

k n o w from the v e r y fact that t h e m o s t precious c u l t i n s t r u m e n t s are k e p t there. I n a d d i t i o n , each o f t h e m radiates sanctity. T h i s is w h y the nearby trees and rocks seem sacred, w h y i t is f o r b i d d e n t o destroy o r damage t h e m , a n d w h y any v i o l e n c e against t h e m is sacrilege. T h i s sacredness stems from the p h e n o m e n o n o f psychic c o n t a g i o n . T o a c c o u n t f o r i t , t h e native is o b l i g e d t o grant that these different objects are i n relations w i t h the beings that he sees as the source o f a l l r e l i g i o u s p o w e r — t h a t is, w i t h t h e A l c h e r i n g a ancestors. T h e r e i n originates t h e system o f m y t h s I have r e c o u n t e d . E a c h e r t n a t u l u n g a was i m a g i n e d t o m a r k t h e place w h e r e a g r o u p o f ancestors w e r e s w a l l o w e d u p b y the earth. T h e m o u n d s a n d trees t h a t t h e n covered the g r o u n d were t h o u g h t t o represent t h e i r bodies. B u t because the soul generally retains a c e r t a i n affinity f o r the b o d y i n w h i c h i t o n c e l i v e d , p e o p l e naturally came t o believe that these ancestral souls p r e f e r r e d t o keep

frequenting

the places

w h e r e t h e i r physical envelope r e m a i n e d . H e n c e t h e y w e r e l o c a l i z e d i n trees, rocks, a n d w a t e r holes. I n this way, each o f t h e m , w h i l e r e m a i n i n g attached t o the guardianship o f a d e f i n i t e i n d i v i d u a l , f o u n d itself t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o a sort o f genius loci* a n d p e r f o r m e d t h e f u n c t i o n o f o n e .

21

* A spirit attached to a place. Standard Roman belief was that every place had one. 20


21

It is true that some nanja trees and rocks are not situated around the ertnatulunga but are scattered across various parts of the territory. They are said to correspond to places where a lone ancestor disappeared into the ground, lost an appendage, spilled some blood, or forgot a churinga that was transformed into either a tree or a rock. But these totemic sites have only secondary importance; Strehlow calls them kleinere Totemplatze (Aranda, vol. I, pp. 4—5). So we can imagine that they took on this character only by analogy with the principal totemic centers. The trees and rocks that in some way resembled those found in the neighborhood of the ertnatulunga stirred similar feelings, so as a result the myth that formed a pro¬ pos of the place extended to the things.

282


T h u s elucidated, these ideas p u t us i n a p o s i t i o n t o u n d e r s t a n d a f o r m o f t o t e m i s m that u n t i l n o w h a d t o be left u n e x p l a i n e d : i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m i s m . A n i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m is d e f i n e d b y essentially t h e t w o f o l l o w i n g characteristics: (1) i t is a b e i n g i n t h e f o r m o f an a n i m a l o r p l a n t w h o s e f u n c t i o n is t o p r o t e c t an i n d i v i d u a l ; (2) t h e fate o f the i n d i v i d u a l a n d that o f its p a t r o n are closely i n t e r d e p e n d e n t . E v e r y t h i n g that affects t h e p a t r o n is passed o n sympathetically t o the i n d i v i d u a l . T h e ancestral spirits j u s t discussed f i t the same d e f i n i t i o n . T h e y also b e l o n g , at least i n part, t o t h e r e a l m o f animals o r o f plants. T h e y t o o are t u t e l a r y genies. Finally, a sympathetic b o n d attaches each i n d i v i d u a l t o his p r o t e c t i n g ancestor. T h e nanja tree, t h e m y s t i c a l b o d y o f that ancestor, c a n n o t be destroyed w i t h o u t the man's f e e l i n g threatened. T r u e , this b e l i e f is l o s i n g some o f its force n o w , b u t Spencer a n d G i l l e n f o u n d i t still i n existence, a n d t h e y j u d g e i t t o have b e e n w i d e s p r e a d i n t h e p a s t .

22

T h a t these t w o ideas are i d e n t i c a l can be seen even i n the details. T h e a n cestral souls live i n trees o r rocks that are considered sacred. Similarly, a m o n g the E u a h l a y i , t h e s p i r i t o f t h e a n i m a l t h a t serves as an i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m is h e l d t o live i n a tree o r s t o n e .

23

T h i s tree o r stone is sacred: N o o n e m a y t o u c h i t ,

except the o n e w h o s e t o t e m i t is; and, w h e n i t is a stone o r a r o c k , t h e p r o h i b i t i o n is a b s o l u t e .

24

T h e result is that these are t r u e places o f refuge.

Finally, w e have seen that t h e i n d i v i d u a l soul is b u t a different aspect o f the ancestral s p i r i t ; i n a way, this s p i r i t serves, t o use Strehlow's phrase, as a second self.

25

Similarly, t o use M r s . Parker's phrase, t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m o f

the E u a h l a y i , called Y u n b e a i , is an alter ego o f the i n d i v i d u a l : " T h e s o u l o f the m a n is i n his Y u n b e a i , a n d the s o u l o f his Y u n b e a i is i n h i m . "

2 6

I n essence,

t h e n , i t is o n e soul i n t w o bodies. T h e k i n s h i p o f these t w o ideas is so great that t h e y are sometimes expressed w i t h o n e a n d the same w o r d . T h i s is t r u e i n Melanesia a n d Polynesia: atai o n the island o f M o t a , tamaniu o n t h e island o f A u r o r a , a n d talegia at M o t l a w designate b o t h the soul o f an i n d i v i d u a l and his personal t o t e m .

2 7

T h e same is t r u e o f aitu i n S a m o a .

28

T h i s is because the

22


a

{K. Langloh] Parker, [Catherine Sommerville Field Parker], The Euahlayi [Tribe, London, A. Constable, 1905], p. 21. The tree that serves this purpose is generally one of those that figure among the individual's subtotems. The reason given for this choice is that, being of the same family, they are probably more inclined to help him. 24

Ibid., p. 36.

25


^Parker, Euahlayi Tribe , p. 21. 27

[Robert Henry] Codrington, The Melanesians [Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1891], pp. 249—253.

28

[George] Turner, Samoa, London, Macmillan, 1884, p. 17.

283


i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m is t h e o u t w a r d a n d visible form o f the self, the personality, and the soul is its i n w a r d a n d invisible f o r m .

2 9

T h u s , the i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m has all the essential characteristics o f t h e p r o tecting ancestor a n d plays t h e same role. A l l this is so because its o r i g i n is the same, a n d i t arises f r o m t h e same idea. I n fact, b o t h i n v o l v e a d u p l i c a t i o n o f t h e soul. L i k e the ancestor, the t o t e m is the i n d i v i d u a l ' s soul, b u t the s o u l e x t e r n a l i z e d and invested w i t h greater p o w e r s t h a n those i t is b e l i e v e d t o have w h i l e inside the b o d y . T h i s d u p l i c a t i o n arises f r o m a p s y c h o l o g i c a l need, f o r all i t does is e x p l a i n the n a ture o f t h e soul w h i c h , as w e have seen, is d o u b l e . I t is ours i n a sense, i t e x presses o u r personality. B u t i t is outside us at the same time, since i t is the extension inside us o f a r e l i g i o u s force that is outside us. W e c a n n o t b e c o m e fully m e r g e d w i t h i t because w e ascribe t o i t a stature a n d a respect that l i f t i t above us a n d o u r e m p i r i c a l i n d i v i d u a l i t y . T h e r e is a p a r t o f us, t h e n , that w e t e n d t o p r o j e c t outside ourselves. T h i s w a y o f c o n c e i v i n g ourselves is so w e l l established i n o u r nature t h a t even w h e n w e t r y t o conceive o f ourselves w i t h o u t u s i n g any r e l i g i o u s s y m b o l , w e c a n n o t escape i t . O u r m o r a l c o n sciousness is l i k e the nucleus a r o u n d w h i c h the idea o f soul t o o k f o r m , a n d yet w h e n i t speaks t o us, i t seems t o be a p o w e r outside o f and greater t h a n us, l a y i n g d o w n t h e l a w t o a n d j u d g i n g us, b u t also h e l p i n g a n d s u p p o r t i n g us. W h e n w e have i t o n o u r side, w e feel stronger a m i d t h e trials o f life a n d m o r e c e r t a i n o f o v e r c o m i n g , j u s t as the A u s t r a l i a n w h o has confidence i n his ancestor o r his personal t o t e m feels m o r e valiant against his e n e m i e s .

30

Thus

there is s o m e t h i n g objective at the basis o f these different ideas—be t h e y the R o m a n genius, the i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m , o r t h e A l c h e r i n g a ancestor—and that is the reason t h e y have s u r v i v e d i n v a r i o u s f o r m s u n t i l today. E v e r y t h i n g w o r k s o u t as i f w e really d i d have t w o souls: o n e that is i n us—or, rather, is us; a n o t h e r that is above us, a n d w h o s e f u n c t i o n is t o oversee and assist the first. Frazer h a d an i n k l i n g that there was an e x t e r n a l soul i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m ,

29

These are the very words used by Codrington, The Melanesians (p. 251).

30

This close relationship among the soul, the protective genie, and the moral consciousness of the individual is especially apparent among certain peoples of Indonesia: "One of the seven souls of the Tobabatak is buried with the placenta; while it prefers to reside there, it can leave to give warnings to the individual or to show approval when he conducts himself well. Thus, in a certain sense, it plays the role of moral conscience. However, its warnings do not extend only to the domain of moral affairs. It is called the younger brother of the soul, just as the placenta is called the younger brother of the child. . . . In war, it inspires the man with the courage to march against the enemy" ([Johannes Gustav] Warneck, Der bataksche Ahnen und Geisterkult, in Allgemeine Missionszeitschrift, Berlin, 1904, p. 10. Cf. [Albertus Christi-

aan] Kruijt, Het Animisme in den indischen Archipel ['s Gravenhage, M. Nijhoff, 1906], p. 25).

284


b u t he b e l i e v e d that e x t e r n a l i t y was the result o f an artifice o r a magician's t r i c k . I n reality, i t is i m p l i c i t i n the v e r y c o n s t i t u t i o n o f the idea o f s o u l .

31

II I n the m a i n , the spirits j u s t discussed are k i n d . N o d o u b t , they sometimes p u n i s h the m a n w h o does n o t treat t h e m p r o p e r l y ,

32

b u t d o i n g h a r m is n o t

their function. I n itself, however, the s p i r i t can be used f o r e v i l as w e l l as f o r g o o d . T h i s is w h y a class o f clever genies n a t u r a l l y came i n t o b e i n g opposite the a u x i l i a r y a n d t u t e l a r y spirits, w h i c h a l l o w e d m e n t o e x p l a i n the e n d u r i n g evils they had to suffer—nightmares,

33

illnesses,

34

tornadoes, s t o r m s ,

35

and so f o r t h .

Doubdess, this is n o t because all h u m a n miseries appeared t o be t o o a b n o r m a l t o be e x p l a i n e d o t h e r w i s e t h a n b y supernatural forces, b u t because, back t h e n , all those forces w e r e t h o u g h t o f i n r e l i g i o u s f o r m . A r e l i g i o u s p r i n c i p l e is regarded as the source o f life; hence i t was l o g i c a l f o r all t h e events that dist u r b o r destroy life t o b e b r o u g h t b a c k t o a p r i n c i p l e o f the same k i n d . T h e s e h a r m f u l spirits seem t o have b e e n c o n c e i v e d a c c o r d i n g t o the same m o d e l as the b e n e f i c e n t genies j u s t discussed. T h e y are c o n c e i v e d i n the

31

StiIl to be discovered is how it happens that, from some point in evolution on, this doubling of the soul was done in the form of the individual totem rather than that of the protecting ancestor. The question has perhaps more ethnographic than sociological interest. Still, here is how the origin of this substitution might be imagined. The individual totem must have played a purely complementary role at first. The individuals who wished to acquire powers above the ordinary were not content, and could not be content, with only the protection of the ancestor. Hence they sought to fit themselves out with another auxiliary of the same kind. And so it is that, among the Euahlayi, the magicians are the only ones who have, or could have, procured individual totems. Since each of them also has a collective totem, they end up with several souls. There is nothing surprising about that multiplicity of souls; It is the condition of superior efficacy. Once collective totemism lost ground and, in consequence, the notion of the protecting ancestor began to efface that of spirits, it became necessary to imagine the nature of the soul, which was still felt, differendy. The idea remained that outside each individual soul there was another, responsible for watching over thefirst.In order to uncover that protective power, since it was not designated by the fact of birth itself, it seemed natural to use means similar to those magicians use to enter into dealings with the forces whose help those means ensure. 32

See, for example, Strehlow, Aranda, vol. II, p. 82.

33

[J. P.] Wyatt, "Adelaide and Encounter Bay Tribes," in [James Dominick] Woods, [77ie NativeTribes of South Australia, Adelaide, E. S. Wigg, 1879], p. 168. '"[Rev. George] Taplin, "The Narrinyeri" [in Woods, The Native Tribes of South Australia], pp. 62-63; Roth, Superstition, Magic, §116; Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 356, 358; Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, pp. 11-12. 35

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, pp. 13—14; Dawson, Australian Aborigines, p. 49.

285


form

o f an a n i m a l , o r as p a r t a n i m a l a n d p a r t h u m a n ,

3 6

b u t people t e n d n a t -

urally t o ascribe e n o r m o u s d i m e n s i o n s a n d repulsive appearance t o t h e m .

3 7

L i k e the souls o f ancestors, t h e y are t h o u g h t t o live i n trees, rocks, w a t e r holes, a n d u n d e r g r o u n d c a v e r n s .

38

M a n y are presented t o us as the souls o f

persons w h o have l i v e d e a r t h l y l i v e s .

39

Spencer a n d G i l l e n say explicitly, so

far as the A r u n t a i n p a r t i c u l a r are c o n c e r n e d , that these b a d genies, k n o w n b y the name O r u n c h a , are A l c h e r i n g a b e i n g s .

40

A m o n g the personages o f

m y t h i c a l times, there w e r e different temperaments. C e r t a i n o f t h e m h a d a n d 41

still have c r u e l a n d m e a n i n s t i n c t s , w h i l e others w e r e o f i n n a t e l y p o o r c o n s t i t u t i o n — t h i n a n d haggard. T h e r e f o r e , w h e n t h e y w e n t d o w n i n t o the g r o u n d , t h e nanja rocks t o w h i c h t h e y gave b i r t h w e r e considered t o be c e n ters o f dangerous i n f l u e n c e s .

42

C e r t a i n characteristics d i s t i n g u i s h t h e m from t h e i r b r e t h r e n , the A l c h e r inga heroes. T h e y d o n o t reincarnate themselves; t h e y are never represented a m o n g the l i v i n g ; a n d t h e y are w i t h o u t h u m a n p r o g e n y .

43

So w h e n , a c c o r d -

i n g t o c e r t a i n signs, a c h i l d is b e l i e v e d t o be the p r o d u c t o f t h e i r labors, i t is p u t t o death as s o o n as i t is b o r n .

4 4

I n a d d i t i o n , these h a r m f u l spirits d o n o t

b e l o n g t o any d e f i n i t e t o t e m i c center a n d are outside the social organiza45

tion.

T h r o u g h all these traits, w e see t h a t such powers are far m o r e m a g i c

^Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, pp. 11-14; [Richard] Eylmann [Die Eingeborenen der Kolonie Sud Australien, Berlin, D. Reumer], pp. 182, 185, Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 211; [Rev. C. W.] Schürmann, The Aboriginal Tribes of Port Lincoln, in Woods [The Native Tribes of South Australia], p. 239. 37

Eylmann, Eingeborenen, p. 182.

38

Mathews, "Aboriginal Tribes," p. 345; [Lorimer] Fison and [Alfred William] Howitt, Kamilaroi and Kurnai [Melbourne, G. Robertson, 1880], p. 467; Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, p. 11. 39

Roth, Superstition, Magic, §115; Eylmann, Eingeborenen, p. 190.

""Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 390—391. Strehlow calls the bad spirits Erintja, but this word and Oruncha are obviously equivalents. Yet they are presented in different ways. The Oruncha, according to Spencer and Gillen, are more malicious than evil; indeed, according to these observers (p. 328), totally evil beings are unknown to the Arunta. By contrast, Strehlow's Erintja have the routine function of doing evil. Furthermore, according to certain myths that Spencer and Gillen themselves report (Native Tribes, p. 390), it seems that they have embellished the Orunchafiguressomewhat. Originally, they were more like ogres (ibid., p. 331). •"Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 390—391. 42

Ibid., p. 551.

43

Ibid., pp. 326-327.

44

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, p. 14. When there are twins, the firstborn is thought to have been conceived in that way. 45


286


t h a n t h e y are r e l i g i o u s . A n d i n d e e d , t h e y are above all i n contact w i t h the m a g i c i a n , w h o o f t e n obtains his p o w e r s f r o m t h e m .

4 6

I thus arrive at the

p o i n t w h e r e the w o r l d o f r e l i g i o n ends a n d that o f m a g i c begins; a n d since m a g i c is b e y o n d the scope o f m y research, I n e e d p u s h that study n o f u r t h e r .

47

Ill T h e appearance o f the idea o f spirit marks an i m p o r t a n t advance i n the i n d i v i d u a t i o n o f religious forces. Nevertheless, the spirit beings discussed u p t o now

c o n t i n u e t o be o n l y secondary personages. E i t h e r t h e y are e v i l genies

that b e l o n g m o r e t o m a g i c t h a n t o r e l i g i o n , o r else, attached t o a definite i n d i v i d u a l a n d place, they can m a k e t h e i r i n f l u e n c e felt o n l y w i t h i n a v e r y l i m i t e d radius. T h e r e f o r e they can be the objects o f o n l y private a n d local rites. B u t once the idea o f spirit t o o k f o r m , i t n a t u r a l l y e x t e n d e d i n t o the h i g h e r spheres o f religious life. A n d i n this way, h i g h e r - o r d e r m y t h i c a l personalities were b o r n . A l t h o u g h the ceremonies p r o p e r t o each clan differ f r o m o n e another, t h e y b e l o n g t o the same r e l i g i o n nonetheless, a n d so there are basic s i m i l a r i ties. Since every clan is b u t a p a r t o f o n e a n d t h e same t r i b e , t h e u n i t y o f the t r i b e c a n n o t fail t o s h o w t h r o u g h the d i v e r s i t y o f p a r t i c u l a r cults. A n d as i t t u r n s o u t , there is i n d e e d n o t o t e m i c g r o u p t h a t does n o t have churingas a n d b u l l roarers, w h i c h are used e v e r y w h e r e i n a similar way. T h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the t r i b e i n t o phratries, m a r r i a g e classes, a n d clans, a n d t h e e x o g a m i c p r o h i b i t i o n s attached thereto, are also g e n u i n e l y t r i b a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . A l l the festivals o f i n i t i a t i o n i n v o l v e c e r t a i n basic p r a c t i c e s — t o o t h e x t r a c t i o n , c i r c u m c i s i o n , s u b i n c i s i o n , a n d o t h e r s — t h a t d o n o t v a r y b y t o t e m w i t h i n a single t r i b e . U n i f o r m i t y i n this m a t t e r is t h e m o r e easdy established since i n i t i a t i o n always takes place i n the presence o f t h e t r i b e , o r at least before an assembly t o w h i c h different clans have b e e n s u m m o n e d . T h e reason is that the a i m o f i n i t i a t i o n is t o i n t r o d u c e t h e n o v i c e i n t o t h e r e l i g i o u s life o f the t r i b e as a w h o l e , n o t m e r e l y that o f t h e c l a n i n t o w h i c h he was b o r n . T h e r e f o r e the v a r i e d aspects o f the t r i b a l r e l i g i o n m u s t be enacted before h i m and, i n a sense, pass before his eyes. T h i s is the occasion o n w h i c h t h e m o r a l a n d r e l i g i o u s u n i t y o f the t r i b e is best d e m o n s t r a t e d .

^Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 358, 381, 385; Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 334; Northern Tribes,

p. 327. "Nevertheless, the spirit beings discussed up to now continue to be spirits whose only function is to do ill; the others' role is to prevent or neutralize the evil influence of thefirst.Cases of this kind are to be found in Northern Tribes, pp. 501—502. What brings out clearly that both are magical is that, among the Arunta, both have the same name. Hence, these are different aspects of the same magical power.

287


H e n c e there are i n each society a c e r t a i n n u m b e r o f rites that are d i s t i n guished f r o m all the others b y t h e i r h o m o g e n e i t y a n d t h e i r universality. B e cause such a remarkable c o n c o r d a n c e d i d n o t seem explainable except b y c o m m o n o r i g i n , i t was i m a g i n e d that each g r o u p o f similar rites h a d b e e n i n stituted b y o n e a n d the same ancestor, w h o h a d c o m e t o reveal t h e m t o the t r i b e as a w h o l e . T h u s , a m o n g t h e A r u n t a , an ancestor o f the W i l d c a t clan, named Putiaputia,

48

is h e l d t o have t a u g h t m e n h o w t o make churingas a n d

use t h e m r i t u a l l y ; a m o n g t h e W a r r a m u n g a , i t is M u r t u - m u r t u ; U r a b u n n a , i t is W i t u r n a ; the K u r n a i .

5 2

5 0

A t n a t u a m o n g the K a i t i s h

5 1

and T u n d u n among

53

t o t w o specific M u r a - m u r a s , a n d b y the

A r u n t a t o an A l c h e r i n g a h e r o o f the L i z a r d t o t e m , n a m e d jerkunja.

a m o n g the

Similarly, the practices o f c i r c u m c i s i o n are ascribed b y the east-

e r n D i e r i a n d several o t h e r t r i b e s 5 4

4 9

Mangarkun-

T o the same personage are ascribed the i n s t i t u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e

p r o h i b i t i o n s a n d the social o r g a n i z a t i o n t h e y e n t a i l , the discovery o f fire, the i n v e n t i o n o f the spear, t h e shield, t h e b o o m e r a n g , a n d so f o r t h . Incidentally, the i n v e n t o r o f t h e b u l l roarer is o f t e n considered t o be the f o u n d e r o f the i n i t i a t i o n rites, as w e l l .

5 5

These special ancestors c o u l d n o t be placed o n a par w i t h the others. For o n e t h i n g , the feelings o f v e n e r a t i o n t h e y i n s p i r e d w e r e n o t l i m i t e d t o o n e clan b u t w e r e c o m m o n t o the w h o l e t r i b e . F o r another, all that was v a l u e d m o s t i n the t r i b a l c i v i l i z a t i o n was a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e m . F o r this t w o f o l d reason, t h e y became the o b j e c t o f special v e n e r a t i o n . F o r example, i t is said that

48

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, p. 9. Moreover, Putiaputia is not the only personage of this kind that is mentioned in the Arunta myths. Certain parts of the tribe give a different name to the hero to whom they attribute the same invention. It should be borne in mind that the breadth of the territory occupied by the Arunta does not permit the mythology to be perfecdy homogeneous. 49


"Ibid., p. 498. 51

Ibid., pp. 498-499.

52


"Ibid., pp. 476ff. 54

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, pp. 6—8. Later, the work of Mangarkunjerkunja had to be taken in hand again by other heroes; according to a belief that is not peculiar to the Arunta, a moment came when men forgot the teachings of theirfirstinitiators and compromised themselves. [Here, Durkheim may well have been thinking of the biblical prophets. Notice that this point is unrelated to the one made in the text. Trans.] "This is the case, for example, of Atnatu (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 153), and of Witurna (ibid., p. 498). If Tundun did not initiate the rites, it is he who is charged with directing their celebration (Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 670).

288


A t n a t u was b o r n i n the sky, even before A l c h e r i n g a times, a n d that he made a n d n a m e d h i m s e l f T h e stars are his wives o r his daughters. B e y o n d the sky w h e r e he lives, there is a n o t h e r w i t h a n o t h e r s u n . * H i s name is sacred and m u s t never be said before w o m e n o r t h e u n i n i t i a t e d .

5 6

S t i l l , n o m a t t e r h o w great t h e stature o f these personages, there was never any reason t o establish special rites i n t h e i r h o n o r , f o r t h e y are themselves n o m o r e t h a n the r i t e p e r s o n i f i e d . T h e o n l y reason t h e y exist is t o e x p l a i n the practices that exist. T h e y are b u t a different aspect o f those practices. T h e c h u r i n g a is inseparable from t h e ancestor w h o i n v e n t e d i t ; t h e y sometimes have the same n a m e .

57

W h e n t h e b u l l roarer is s o u n d e d , the v o i c e o f the a n -

cestor is said t o be m a k i n g i t s e l f h e a r d .

58

B u t because each o f these heroes is

m e r g e d w i t h t h e c u l t he is said t o have i n s t i t u t e d , he is t h o u g h t t o oversee the m a n n e r i n w h i c h i t is celebrated. N o t satisfied unless t h e faithful p e r f o r m t h e i r duties exacdy, he punishes those w h o are n e g l e c t f u l .

59

T h u s he is c o n -

sidered the g u a r d i a n o f t h e r i t e as w e l l as its f o u n d e r , a n d f o r that reason he becomes invested w i t h an a u t h e n t i c a l l y m o r a l r o l e .

6 0

IV Yet even this m y t h o l o g i c a l f o r m a t i o n is n o t the m o s t advanced that is t o be f o u n d a m o n g the Australians. Several tribes have achieved t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f a g o d w h o , i f n o t the o n l y one, is at the least the supreme one, and o n e t o w h o m a p r e e m i n e n t p o s i t i o n a m o n g all the o t h e r r e l i g i o u s entities is ascribed. T h e existence o f that b e l i e f was l o n g ago r e p o r t e d b y various observers,

61

b u t H o w i t t has c o n t r i b u t e d m o s t t o establishing t h a t i t is relatively w i d e *In the first edition, "sun" and "moon" are not capitalized, but in the second they are. The rationale for capitalizing them probably was that they sometimes serve as proper names. In both editions, "Kangaroo," "Emu," and other nouns are capitalized when they refer to clans. Trans. ^[Spencer and Gillen], Northern Tribes, p. 499. "Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 493; [Fison and Howitt], Kamilaroi and Kurnai, pp. 197, 267; Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 492. 58

See, for example, Northern Tribes, p. 499.

59

Ibid., pp. 338, 347, 499.

Spencer and Gillen contend that these mythical beings play no moral role 'Northern Tribes, p. 493), true enough; but this is because they give the word too narrow a sense. Religious duties are duties; hence the fact of watching over the manner in which they are performed concerns morality—all the more because, at that moment, all morality is religious in character. 61

This fact had been documented as far back as 1845 by [Edward John] Eyre, Journals [of Expeditions of Discovery into Central Australia, London, T. and W. Boone, 1845], vol. II, p. 362, and before Eyre, by Henderson, in his Observations on the Colonies of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land [Calcutta, Baptist Mis-

sion Press, 1832], p. 147.

289


spread. I n d e e d , he has d o c u m e n t e d i t f o r a v e r y w i d e geographic

area

c o m p r i s i n g V i c t o r i a State a n d N e w S o u t h Wales, a n d e x t e n d i n g as far as Queensland.

62

T h r o u g h o u t that entire r e g i o n , a large n u m b e r o f tribes b e -

lieve i n the existence o f a g e n u i n e l y t r i b a l d e i t y that has different names i n different regions. T h e m o s t frequendy e m p l o y e d are B u n j i l o r P u n j d , mulun, Kohin,

6 4

6 7

and Baiame.

65

6 3

Dara-

B u t w e also f i n d the names N u r a l i e o r N u r e l l e ,

and M u n g a n - n g a u a .

6 8

6 6

T h e same idea is f o u n d farther west, a m o n g

the N a r r i n y e r i , w h e r e t h e h i g h g o d is called N u r u n d e r i o r N g u r r u n d e r i .

6 9

A m o n g t h e D i e r i , i t is q u i t e probable that, above the M u r a - m u r a s o r o r d i nary ancestors, there is o n e that enjoys a k i n d o f supremacy.

70

Finally, i n c o n -

trast t o Spencer a n d G i l l e n , w h o c l a i m n o t t o have observed any b e l i e f i n a g o d p r o p e r a m o n g the A r u n t a ,

7 1

S t r e h l o w assures us this people, as w e l l as

the L o r i t j a , recognize a t r u e " g o o d g o d , " w i t h t h e n a m e A l t j i r a .

7 2

T h e characteristics o f this personage are f u n d a m e n t a l l y the same everyw h e r e . I t is an i m m o r t a l a n d i n d e e d an eternal b e i n g , since i t is d e r i v e d

from

62

[Howitt], Native Tribes, pp. 488-508.

63

Among the Kulin, the Wotjobaluk, and the Woeworung (Victoria).

64

Among the Yuin, the Ngarrigo, and the Wolgal (New South Wales).

65

Among the Kamilaroi and the Euahlayi (the northern part of New South Wales); and more toward the center of the same province, among the Wonghibon and the Wiradjuri. 66

Among the Wiimbaio and the tribes of Lower Murry, [William] Ridley, Kamilaroi, [and Other Australian Languages, Sydney, T. Richards, 1875], p. 137; [Robert] Brough Smyth, [The Aborigines ofVictoria, Melbourne, J. Ferres, 1878], vol. I, p. 423 n. 431). "Among the tribes of the Herbert River (Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 498). 68

Among the Kurnai.

69

Taplin, "Narrinyeri," p. 55; Eylmann, Eingeborenen, p. 182.

70

It is probably to this supreme Mura-mura that Gason alludes in the passage already cited ([Edward

M.] Curr, [The Australian Race], vol. II, p. 55). 71


72

The difference between Baiame, Bunjil, and Daramulun, on the one hand, and Altjira, on the other, would be that the last named is totally indifferent to everything that concerns humanity. It is not he who made men, and he does not concern himself with what they do. The Arunta neither love nor fear him. But even if that idea was accurately observed and analyzed, it is quite difficult to accept as original, for if Altjira plays no role, explains nothing, and serves no purpose, what would have made the Arunta imagine him? Perhaps he must be seen as a sort of Baiame who lost his former prestige, a former god whose memory gradually faded. Perhaps, as well, Strehlow wrongly interpreted the accounts he collected. According to Eylmann (who, granted, is neither a competent nor a very reliable observer), Altjira made men (Eingeborenen, p. 184). In addition, among the Loritja, the personage that, with the name Tukura, corresponds to the Altjira of the Arunta is believed to conduct the ceremonies of initiation himself.

290


n o other. A f t e r h a v i n g l i v e d o n earth f o r a time, he l i f t e d himself, o r was carried, to the sky.

73

H e continues t o live there s u r r o u n d e d b y his f a m i l y — o n e

o r several w i v e s b e i n g w i d e l y a t t r i b u t e d t o h i m , as w e l l as c h i l d r e n and b r o t h ers

74

w h o s o m e t i m e s assist h i m i n his f u n c t i o n s . Because o f a stay i n the sky

(together w i t h the f a m i l y a t t r i b u t e d t o h i m ) , he is o f t e n i d e n t i f i e d w i t h part i c u l a r stars.

75

M o r e o v e r , he is said t o have p o w e r over the stars. I t is he w h o

set u p the m o v e m e n t o f the sun a n d the m o o n ; is he w h o causes l i g h t n i n g t o leap f o r t h the t h u n d e r . well,

7 9

much.

78

7 6

from

he orders t h e m a b o u t .

77

It

t h e clouds a n d w h o hurls

Because he is t h e t h u n d e r , he is associated w i t h the r a i n as

a n d i t is he w h o m u s t be addressed w h e n there is w a n t o f water o r t o o 8 0

H e is spoken o f as a sort o f creator. H e is called t h e father o f m e n a n d is said t o have m a d e t h e m . A c c o r d i n g t o a l e g e n d o n c e c u r r e n t near M e l b o u r n e , B u n j i l is said t o have m a d e t h e first m a n i n t h e f o l l o w i n g m a n n e r : H e m a d e a statuette o u t o f clay;* t h e n he d a n c e d all a r o u n d i t several times, b r e a t h e d i n t o its nostrils, a n d the statuette came alive a n d began t o w a l k .

8 1

A c c o r d i n g t o a n o t h e r m y t h , he l i t the sun, w h e r e u p o n the earth w a r m e d u p a n d m e n came o u t o f i t .

8 2

A t the same t i m e as he m a d e m e n ,

8 3

this d i v i n e

* Curiously, despite the Australian context, Swain (p. 324) wrote "white clay," although Durkheim merely said argile. 73

For Bunjil, see Brough Smyth [Aborigines of Victoria], vol. I, p. 417; for Baiame, Ridley, Kamilaroi, p. 136;forDaramulun, Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 495. "On the composition of Bunjil's family, for example, see Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 128, 129, 489, 491; Brough Smyth [Aborigines of Victoria], vol. I, pp. 417, 423; for that of Baiame, Parker, The Euahlayi, pp. 7, 66, 103; Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 407, 502, 585; for that of Nurunderi, Taplin, "The Narrinyeri" [in Woods, 77ie Native Tribes of South Australia] pp. 57-58. Besides, the manner in which the families of the high gods are conceived has all sorts of variations. Such and such a personage is here the brother and elsewhere called the son. The number of wives and their names vary according to region. "Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 128. 76

Brough Smyth [Aborigines of Victoria], vol. I, pp. 430, 431.

77

Ibid., vol. I, p. 432 n.

™Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 498, 538; Mathews, "Aboriginal Tribes," RSNSW vol. XXXVIII, p. 343; Ridley, Kamilorai p. 136. 79

Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 538; Taplin, The Narrinyeri, pp. 57-58.

^Parker, The Euahlayi, p. 8 81

Brough Smyth [Aborigines of Victoria], vol. I, p. 424.

82


"According to certain myths, he made men and not women; this is what is said of Bunjil. But the origin of women is attributed to his son-brother, Pallyan (Brough Smyth [Aborigines of Victoria], vol. 1, pp. 417, 423).

291


personage made t h e animals a n d t h e trees,

84

a n d all t h e arts o f l i f e—w e a p o n s ,

85

language, t r i b a l r i t e s — a r e thanks t o h i m . H e is the benefactor o f h u m a n i t y . Even today, he plays t h e role o f a k i n d o f P r o v i d e n c e f o r h u m a n i t y . I t is he w h o provides his o w n w i t h a l l that is n e e d f u l i n t h e i r e x i s t e n c e . municates w i t h t h e m d i r e c t l y o r t h r o u g h i n t e r m e d i a r i e s .

87

86

He com-

A n d b e i n g at the

same t i m e t h e guardian o f t r i b a l m o r a l i t y , he punishes w h e n that m o r a l i t y is violated.

88

F u r t h e r m o r e , i f w e can r e l y o n t h e w o r d o f c e r t a i n observers, he

performs t h e f u n c t i o n o f j u d g e after death, d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n t h e g o o d and t h e b a d a n d n o t t r e a t i n g b o t h t h e s a m e .

89

sented as gatekeeper f o r t h e l a n d o f t h e d e a d , they arrive i n the b e y o n d .

I n any event, he is o f t e n p r e 90

w e l c o m i n g the souls w h e n

9 1

Since i n i t i a t i o n is t h e p r i n c i p a l f o r m o f the t r i b a l c u l t , t h e rites o f i n i t i a t i o n are associated especially w i t h h i m , a n d he is central t o t h e m . H e is o f t e n represented i n those rites b y an i m a g e carved i n tree b a r k o r m o d e l e d o u t o f earth. People dance a r o u n d i t , sing i n its h o n o r , a n d i n d e e d actually pray t o it.

9 2

T h e y e x p l a i n t o t h e y o u n g m e n w h o t h e personage is that t h e image

represents, t e l l i n g t h e m t h e secret n a m e that w o m e n a n d t h e u n i n i t i a t e d m u s t n o t k n o w , r e c o u n t i n g t o t h e m his h i s t o r y a n d his role i n t h e life o f the t r i b e a c c o r d i n g t o t r a d i t i o n . A t o t h e r m o m e n t s , t h e y raise t h e i r hands t o w a r d t h e sky, w h e r e he is t h o u g h t t o reside, o r p o i n t t h e weapons o r t h e r i t u a l i n s t r u 93

ments t h e y have i n h a n d i n t h e same d i r e c t i o n — m e a n s o f e n t e r i n g i n t o c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h h i m . T h e y feel his presence e v e r y w h e r e . H e watches over t h e n o v i c e w h i l e he is secluded i n t h e f o r e s t .

94

H e is v i g ü a n t a b o u t t h e

m a n n e r i n w h i c h t h e rites are c o n d u c t e d . Since i n i t i a t i o n is his c u l t , he

84

Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 489, 492; Mathews, "Aboriginal Tribes," p. 340.

85

Parker, The Euahlayi, p. 7; Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 630.

86

Ridley, Kamilaroi, p. 136; L. Parker, The Euahlayi, p. 114.

87

[K. Langloh], Parker, More Australian Legendary Tales [London, D. Nutt, 1898], pp. 84-99, 90-91.

88

Howitt, Native Tribes, pp.495, 498, 543, 563, 564; Brough Smyth [Aborigines of Victoria], vol. I, p. 429; L. Parker, The Euahlayi, p. 79. 89

Ridley, Kamilaroi, p. 137.

'"Parker, The Euahlayi, pp. 90-91. 91

Howitt, NativeTribes, p. 495; Taplin, "The Narrinyeri," in Woods, The NativeTribes of South Australia, p. 58. 92

Howitt, NativeTribes, pp. 538, 543, 553, 555, 556; Mathews, "Aboriginal Tribes," p. 318; Parker, The

Euahlayi, pp. 6, 79, 80. 93

Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 498, 528.

94

Ibid., p. 493; Parker, The Euahlayi, p. 76.

292


makes sure that these rites, i n particular, are c o r r e c t l y observed. W h e n there are mistakes o r negligence, he punishes those i n a t e r r i b l e w a y .

95

T h e a u t h o r i t y each o f these h i g h gods has is n o t restricted t o a single t r i b e b u t is r e c o g n i z e d as w e l l b y a n u m b e r o f n e i g h b o r i n g tribes. B u n j i l is w o r s h i p p e d i n nearly t h e w h o l e state o f V i c t o r i a , B a i a m e i n a sizable part o f N e w S o u t h Wales, a n d so f o r t h — f a c t s that e x p l a i n w h y there are so f e w gods f o r a relatively large geographic area. T h e cults o f w h i c h t h e y are objects therefore have an i n t e r n a t i o n a l character. S o m e t i m e s , i n fact, the diverse m y t h o l o g i e s b l e n d i n t o , c o m b i n e w i t h , a n d b o r r o w f r o m o n e another. T h u s , the m a j o r i t y o f t h e tribes that believe i n B a i a m e also accept t h e existence o f D a r a m u l u n , a l t h o u g h t h e y a c c o r d h i m l o w e r standing. T h e y take h i m t o be a son o r a b r o t h e r o f B a i a m e , a n d subordinate t o h i m .

9 6

T h u s i n various

f o r m s , faith i n D a r a m u l u n is general t h r o u g h o u t N e w S o u t h Wales. H e n c e religious i n t e r n a t i o n a l i s m is far f r o m b e i n g the exclusive p r o v i n c e o f t h e m o s t m o d e r n a n d advanced regions. F r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g o f history, religious b e liefs s h o w a t e n d e n c y n o t t o c o n f i n e themselves w i t h i n a n a r r o w l y d e l i m i t e d p o l i t i c a l society. T h e y n a t u r a l l y g o b e y o n d b o u n d a r i e s , spreading a n d b e c o m i n g i n t e r n a t i o n a l . T h e r e c e r t a i n l y have b e e n peoples a n d times i n w h i c h that spontaneous a p t i t u d e was h e l d i n c h e c k b y v a r i o u s social necessities. Nevertheless, i t is real and, as w e see, v e r y p r i m i t i v e . T o T y l o r this idea seemed t o be o f such advanced t h e o l o g y that h e r e fused t o see i t as a n y t h i n g b u t a E u r o p e a n i m p o r t a t i o n , a s o m e w h a t d i s t o r t e d Christian idea.

97

B y contrast, A . L a n g

9 8

considers i t t o be i n d i g e n o u s . B u t at

the same t i m e he accepts t h e n o t i o n that i t is i n contrast w i t h A u s t r a l i a n b e liefs as a w h o l e a n d rests u p o n w h o l l y different p r i n c i p l e s . A n d he concludes that the r e l i g i o n s o f Australia are m a d e u p o f t w o heterogeneous systems, o n e s u p e r i m p o s e d o n t h e other, a n d thus have a d o u b l e o r i g i n . First c o m e the ideas relative t o totems a n d spirits, suggested t o m e n b y the spectacle o f cert a i n n a t u r a l p h e n o m e n a . A t t h e same t i m e , h o w e v e r , b y a sort o f i n t u i t i o n 99

(the nature o f w h i c h he refuses t o e x p l a i n ) , the h u m a n i n t e l l e c t suddenly

95

Parker, The Euahlayi, p. 76; Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 493, 612.

'"Ridley, Kamilaroi, p. 153; Parker, T?ie Euahlayi, p. 67; Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 585; Mathews, "Aboriginal Tribes," p. 343. Daramulun is sometimes presented in opposition to Baiame as an inherendy evil spirit (L. Parker, The Euahlayi; [William] Ridley, in Brough Smyth [Aborigines of Victoria], vol. II, p. 285). "[Edward Burnett Tylor, "On the Limits of Savage Religion,"] J/U, vol. XXI [1892], pp. 292ff. ''[Andrew] Lang, The Making of Religion [London, Longmans, 1898], pp. 187-293. "Ibid., p. 331. Mr. Lang says only that the hypothesis of St. Paul seems to him the least defective ([not] the most unsatisfactory). [The reference is probably to St. Paul on the road to Damascus, when he "saw a great light," after which "the scales fell"fromhis eyes and he became a believer in Jesus Christ. Trans.]

293


manages t o conceive o f o n e g o d , creator o f the w o r l d , legislator o f the m o r a l order. L a n g even j u d g e s that at t h e b e g i n n i n g , i n A u s t r a l i a especially, this idea is purer o f all f o r e i g n elements t h a n i n t h e civilizations i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w ing. O v e r t i m e , i t supposedly is l i t t l e b y l i t t l e o v e r g r o w n and obscured b y the constandy g r o w i n g mass o f a n i m i s t a n d t o t e m i s t superstitions. I n this way, i t undergoes a sort o f progressive d e g e n e r a t i o n u n t i l t h e day w h e n , u n d e r the influence o f a p r i v i l e g e d c u l t u r e , i t manages t o recover and reaffirm itself, w i t h a b r i l l i a n c e a n d c l a r i t y that i t d i d n o t o r i g i n a l l y h a v e .

100

B u t t h e facts d o n o t s u p p o r t e i t h e r the skeptical hypothesis o f T y l o r o r the t h e o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f L a n g . I n the first place, w e k n o w t o d a y f o r certain that t h e ideas relative t o t h e t r i b a l h i g h g o d are i n d i g e n o u s . T h e y were r e p o r t e d w h e n t h e i n f l u e n c e o f the missionaries h a d n o t yet h a d to m a k e itself f e l t .

1 0 1

time

B u t that t h e y m u s t be a t t r i b u t e d t o a mysterious revela-

t i o n does n o t f o l l o w . I t is far f r o m t r u e that t h e y o r i g i n a t e d elsewhere. Q u i t e the contrary, t h e y f l o w l o g i c a l l y from the sources o f t o t e m i s m a n d are its m o s t advanced f o r m . W e have seen that the v e r y p r i n c i p l e s o n w h i c h t o t e m i s m rests i m p l y the idea o f m y t h i c a l ancestors, since each o f those ancestors is a t o t e m i c b e i n g . A l t h o u g h the h i g h gods are surely s u p e r i o r t o t h e m , t h e differences are o n l y o f degree; o n e passes from the first t o t h e second w i t h o u t a radical break. I n fact, a h i g h g o d is h i m s e l f an ancestor o f special i m p o r t a n c e . H e is spoken o f as a m a n , o n e g i f t e d w i t h m o r e t h a n h u m a n p o w e r s , o f course, b u t o n e w h o

I00

Father [Wilhelm] Schmidt has taken up the thesis of A. Lang in Anthropos ["L'Origine de l'idée de dieu," vol. III (1908), pp. 125-162, 336-368, 559-611, 801-836, vol. IV (1909), pp. 207-250, 505-524, 1075—1091]. Against Sidney Hardand, who had criticized Lang's theory in an article of Folk-Lore (vol. IX [1898], pp. 290tT., pp. 290ff.), tided "The 'High Gods' of Australia," Father Schmidt set out to demonstrate that Baiame, Bunjil, and the others are eternal gods, creators, omnipotent and omniscient, and guardians of the moral order. I will not enter into that discussion, which seems to me without interest and import. If those different adjectives are understood in a relative sense, in harmony with the Australian turn of mind, I am quite prepared to take them up on my own account and have even used them. From this point of view, "all-powerful" means one who has more power than the other sacred beings; "omniscient," one who sees things that escape the ordinary person and even the greatest magicians; and "guardian of the moral order," one who sees to it that the rules of Australian morality are respected, however different that morality may befromour own. But if one wants to give those words a meaning that only a Christian spiritualist can give them, it seems to me poindess to discuss an opinion so at odds with the principles of historical method. ""On that question, see N[orthcote] W[hitridge] Thomas, "Baiame and Bell-bird: A Note on Australian Religion," in Man, vol. V (1905), 28. Cf. Lang, Magic and Religion, p. 25. [Theodor] Waitz had already argued for the original character of this idea in Anthropologie der Naturvölker [Leipzig, F. Fleischer, 1877], pp. 796-798.

294


has l i v e d a f u l l y h u m a n life o n e a r t h . a powerful m a g i c i a n , men.

1 0 6

move.

1 0 7

1 0 4

1 0 2

H e is d e p i c t e d as a great h u n t e r ,

a n d t h e f o u n d e r o f the t r i b e .

1 0 5

1 0 3

H e is the first o f

H e is even presented i n o n e l e g e n d as a t i r e d o l d m a n w h o can barely I f , a m o n g the D i e r i , there was a h i g h g o d called M u r a - m u r a , that

w o r d is significant, since i t is used t o designate ancestors as a class. I n t h e same way, N u r a l i e , the n a m e o f the h i g h g o d a m o n g t h e tribes o f t h e M u r ray R i v e r , is sometimes used as a collective phrase, c o l l e c t i v e l y a p p l i e d t o the g r o u p o f m y t h i c a l beings that t r a d i t i o n places at the b e g i n n i n g o f t h i n g s . T h e y are e n t i r e l y comparable t o the A l c h e r i n g a personages.

109

1 0 8

W e have a l -

ready e n c o u n t e r e d i n Q u e e n s l a n d a g o d A n j e - a o r A n j i r , w h o makes m e n and yet w h o seems o n l y t o be the first o f t h e m .

1 1 0

W h a t has h e l p e d t h e t h o u g h t o f the Australians t o advance f r o m t h e p l u rality o f ancestral genies t o t h e idea o f t h e t r i b a l g o d is that a m i d d l e t e r m f o u n d its place b e t w e e n t h e t w o extremes a n d served as a t r a n s i t i o n : the c i v i l i z i n g heroes. T h e m y t h i c a l beings called b y this n a m e are actually m e r e a n cestors t o w h o m m y t h o l o g y has ascribed a p r e e m i n e n t r o l e i n t h e h i s t o r y o f the t r i b e a n d has therefore placed above t h e others. W e have even seen that t h e y w e r e n o r m a l l y p a r t o f the t o t e m i c o r g a n i z a t i o n : M a n g a r k u n j e r k u n j a is o f the Lizard t o t e m and Putiaputia, o f the W i l d c a t t o t e m . B u t from another p o i n t o f view, the f u n c t i o n s t h e y are said t o p e r f o r m , o r t o have p e r f o r m e d , resemble those assigned t o the h i g h g o d v e r y closely. H e t o o is b e l i e v e d t o have i n i t i a t e d m e n i n t o the arts o f c i v i l i z a t i o n , t o have b e e n t h e f o u n d e r o f the p r i n c i p a l social i n s t i t u t i o n s , a n d t o b e t h e o n e w h o revealed the great r e l i g i o u s ceremonies, w h i c h are still u n d e r his c o n t r o l . I f he is the father o f m e n , i t is f o r h a v i n g m a d e rather t h a n e n g e n d e r e d t h e m ; b u t M a n g a r k u n 102

Dawson, Australian Aborigines, p. 49; [Rev. A.] Meyer, "Encounter Bay Tribe," in Woods [The Na-

tiveTribes of South Australia], pp. 205, 206; Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 481, 491, 492, 494; Ridley, Kamilaroi, p. 136. 103

Taplin, "The Narrinyeri," in Woods, pp. 55-56.

104

!05

L . Parker, More Australian Legendary Tales, p. 94.

Taplin, "The Narrinyeri," in Woods, p. 61.

,06

Brough Smyth [Aborigines of Victoria], vol. I, pp. 425^127.

107

Taplin, "The Narrinyeri," in Woods, p. 60.

mR

"The world was created by beings called the Nuralie; some of these beings, which have existed for a long time, had the form of the crow and others, that of the eaglehawk" (Brough Smyth [Aborigines of Victoria], vol. I, pp. 423-424). 109

"Byamee," says Mrs. L. Parker, "is for the Euahlayi what the Alcheringa is for the Arunta" (The Eu-

ahlayi, p. 6).

"°See above, p. 261.

295


j e r k u n j a d i d as m u c h . B e f o r e h i m , there w e r e n o m e n , b u t o n l y masses o f formless flesh i n w h i c h t h e different b o d y parts a n d even the different i n d i viduals w e r e n o t separated from o n e another. I t is he w h o sculpted this r a w material a n d w h o d r e w p r o p e r l y h u m a n beings o u t o f i t .

1 1 1

T h e r e are o n l y

slight shadings o f difference b e t w e e n this m e t h o d o f f a b r i c a t i o n a n d the o n e ascribed t o B u n j i l b y t h e m y t h I c i t e d . M o r e o v e r , the fact that a k i n r e l a t i o n is sometimes set u p b e t w e e n these t w o k i n d s o f f i g u r e b r i n g s o u t the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e m . A m o n g the K u r n a i a n d t h e T u n d u n , the hero o f t h e b u l l roarer is the son o f t h e h i g h g o d M u n g a n n g a u a .

1 1 2

A m o n g the E u a h l a y i ,

i n a similar way, D a r a m u l u n , t h e son o r b r o t h e r o f Baiame, is i d e n t i c a l t o Gayandi, w h o is the equivalent o f T u n d u n a m o n g the K u r n a i .

1 1 3

W e c e r t a i n l y m u s t n o t c o n c l u d e from all these facts that the h i g h g o d is n o m o r e t h a n a c i v i l i z i n g hero. T h e r e are cases i n w h i c h these t w o p e r s o n ages are clearly differentiated. B u t w h i l e t h e y c a n n o t be assimilated, t h e y are at least a k i n . Sometimes, therefore, i t is rather h a r d t o differentiate b e t w e e n t h e m , a n d some o f t h e m can be classified equally w e l l i n e i t h e r category. T h u s , w e have s p o k e n o f A t n a t u as a c i v i l i z i n g hero, b u t he is v e r y close t o being a high god. I n d e e d , the n o t i o n o f h i g h g o d is so closely d e p e n d e n t u p o n the ensemble o f t o t e m i c beliefs that i t still b e a n t h e i r m a r k . T u n d u n is a d i v i n e hero w h o is v e r y close t o the t r i b a l deity, as w e have j u s t seen. N o w , a m o n g the K u r n a i , the same w o r d means " t o t e m . "

1 1 4

Similarly, " A l t j i r a " is the name o f t h e h i g h

g o d a m o n g the A r u n t a a n d also the n a m e o f the m a t e r n a l t o t e m . tionally,

1 1 5

Addi-

a n u m b e r o f h i g h gods have an o b v i o u s l y t o t e m i c f o r m . D a r a m u l u n

is an e a g l e h a w k ;

116

his m o t h e r is an e m u .

the characteristics o f an e m u .

1 1 8

1 1 7

B a i a m e h i m s e l f is p o r t r a y e d w i t h

T h e A l t j i r a o f the A r u n t a has the legs o f an

"'In another myth reported by Spencer and Gillen, an entirely similar role is performed by two personages who live in the sky and are called Ungambikula (Native Tribes, pp. 388ff.). 2

" Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 493. 113

L . Parker, The Euahlayi, pp. 67, 62-66. Because the high god is in close relationship with the bull roarer, it is identified with the thunder, the rumbling that ritual instrument makes being assimilated to that of thunder. 114

Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 135. The word that means "totem" is spelled by Howitt as thundung.

115

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, pp. 1—2, and vol. II, p. 59. It will be recalled that, quite probably, among the Arunta the maternal totem was originally the totem, period. 1I6


117

n8

Ibid„ pp. 546, 560.

Ridley, Kamilaroi, pp. 136, 156. He is depicted in that form during the initiation rites of the Kami¬ laroi. According to another legend, he is a black swan (Parker, More Australian Legendary Tales, p. 94).

296


emu.

1 1 9

A s w e saw, before b e i n g the name o f a h i g h g o d , N u r a l i e referred to

the f o u n d i n g ancestors o f the t r i b e ; some o f those ancestors w e r e crows and others, h a w k s .

1 2 0

According to H o w i t t ,

1 2 1

B u n j i l is always represented i n h u -

m a n f o r m ; however, the same w o r d is used t o denote the t o t e m o f a phratry, the eaglehawk. A t least o n e son o f his is o n e o f t h e totems that c o m p r i s e the p h r a t r y t o w h i c h he gave o r l e n t his n a m e .

1 2 2

H i s b r o t h e r is Pallyan, the bat;

t h e bat serves as a men's sexual t o t e m i n m a n y tribes o f V i c t o r i a .

1 2 3

W e can g o even f u r t h e r a n d specify t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t the h i g h gods have w i t h t h e t o t e m i c system. D a r a m u l u n , l i k e B u n j i l , is an eaglehawk, and w e k n o w that this a n i m a l is a p h r a t r y t o t e m i n m a n y o f the tribes.

1 2 4

southeastern

A s I have said, N u r a l i e seems t o have b e e n at first a collective t e r m

that designated t h e eaglehawks o r t h e crows, interchangeably. I n t h e tribes w h e r e this m y t h has b e e n f o u n d , t h e c r o w serves as t h e t o t e m o f o n e o f the t w o phratries, the eaglehawk o f the o t h e r .

1 2 5

I n a d d i t i o n , t h e legendary h i s -

t o r y o f the h i g h gods closely resembles that o f the p h r a t r y t o t e m s . T h e m y t h s , a n d sometimes t h e rites, c o m m e m o r a t e t h e battles that each o f these deities h a d t o wage against a c a r n i v o r o u s b i r d that t h e y d i d n o t easily defeat. B u n j i l , o r the first m a n , h a v i n g made K a r w e e n , t h e second m a n , came i n t o c o n f l i c t w i t h h i m and, i n a k i n d o f d u e l , gravely w o u n d e d h i m and changed h i m into a crow.

1 2 6

T h e t w o f o r m s o f N u r a l i e are d e p i c t e d as t w o e n e m y

groups that, at the b e g i n n i n g , w e r e constandy at w a r .

1 2 7

F o r his part, B a i a m e

f o u g h t against M u l l i a n , the c a n n i b a l eaglehawk ( w h o , m o r e o v e r , is i d e n t i c a l to D a r a m u l u n ) .

1 2 8

N o w , as w e have seen, there is also a sort o f innate h o s t i l -

i t y b e t w e e n the p h r a t r y t o t e m s . T h i s parallelism f u l l y demonstrates that the m y t h o l o g y o f t h e h i g h gods a n d that o f the t o t e m s are closely related. T h i s

119


120

Brough Smyth [Aborigines of Victoria ], vol. I, pp. 423-424.

121


122

Ibid., p. 128.

123

Brough Smyth [Aborigines of Victoria], vol. I, pp. 417—423.

124

See above, p. 106.

125

These are the tribes whose phratries bear the names Kilpara (crow) and Mukwara. This explains even the myth reported by Brough Smyth ([Aborigines of Victoria], vol. I, pp. 423—424). 126

Brough Smyth [Aborigines of Australia ], vol. I, pp. 425-427; cf. Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 486; in this latter case, Karween is identified with the blue heron. 127

Brough Smyth [Aborigines of Victoria ], vol. I, p. 423.

128

Ridley, Kamilaroi, p. 136; Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 585; Mathews, "Aboriginal Tribes," p. 111.


297

kinship w i l l stand o u t even m o r e clearly i f w e n o t i c e that the r i v a l o f the g o d is usually e i t h e r t h e c r o w o r t h e eaglehawk a n d t h a t these are v e r y c o m m o n phratry t o t e m s .

1 2 9

So B a i a m e , D a r a m u l u n , N u r a l i e , a n d B u n j i l seem t o be p h r a t r y totems that have b e e n d e i f i e d — a n d here is h o w w e can e n v i s i o n this apotheosis as h a v i n g c o m e a b o u t . Clearly, i t is i n t h e assemblies h e l d f o r i n i t i a t i o n that this idea was d e v e l o p e d ; for, b e i n g strangers t o the o t h e r r e l i g i o u s ceremonies, o n l y i n these rites d o t h e h i g h gods play a role o f any i m p o r t a n c e . M o r e o v e r , since i n i t i a t i o n is the p r i n c i p a l f o r m o f the t r i b a l c u l t , a t r i b a l m y t h o l o g y c o u l d have b e e n b o r n o n l y o n this occasion. W e have already seen that the rituals o f c i r c u m c i s i o n a n d s u b i n c i s i o n t e n d e d t o w a r d spontaneous p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n as c i v i l i z i n g heroes. B u t these heroes h a d n o supremacy; they w e r e o n the same f o o t i n g as the o t h e r l e g e n d a r y benefactors o f the society. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w h e r e t h e t r i b e t o o k o n a m o r e v i v i d awareness o f itself, this awareness was e m b o d i e d q u i t e n a t u r a l l y i n a personage t h a t became its s y m b o l . T o c o m p r e h e n d t h e ties that b o u n d t h e m t o o n e another, n o m a t t e r w h a t clan t h e y b e l o n g e d t o , m e n i m a g i n e d t h a t t h e y w e r e o f the same stock, that t h e y w e r e c h i l d r e n o f the same father, t o w h o m t h e y o w e d t h e i r existence even t h o u g h he o w e d his o w n existence t o n o o n e . T h e g o d o f i n i t i a t i o n was p e r f e c d y suited f o r this r o l e . A c c o r d i n g t o a phrase that o f t e n recurs o n the Hps o f the natives, the specific p u r p o s e o f i n i t i a t i o n is t o make, t o f a b ricate, m e n . T h u s , a creative p o w e r was i m p u t e d t o this g o d , a n d f o r all these reasons, he came t o be e n d o w e d w i t h a prestige that set h i m w e l l above the o t h e r heroes o f m y t h o l o g y . T h e others became his subordinates a n d helpers; t h e y w e r e made i n t o his sons o r his y o u n g e r b r o t h e r s , l i k e T u n d u n , G a y a n d i , K a r w e e n , Pallyan, a n d so o n . B u t there already w e r e o t h e r sacred beings that h e l d a n equally p r o m i n e n t place i n t h e r e l i g i o u s system o f t h e t r i b e ; these w e r e t h e p h r a t r y t o t e m s . W h e r e v e r these have e n d u r e d , they are t h o u g h t t o have d o m i n i o n over the c l a n t o t e m s . I n this way, t h e y h a d all t h e y needed t o b e c o m e t r i b a l d i v i n i t i e s themselves. N a t u r a l l y , these t w o sorts o f m y t h i c a l figures p a r t i a l l y m e r g e d , a n d so i t was t h a t o n e o f t h e t w o basic t o t e m s o f t h e t r i b e l e n t his traits t o t h e h i g h g o d . B u t since i t was necessary t o e x p l a i n w h y o n l y o n e o f t h e m was called t o this status, a n d t h e o t h e r e x c l u d e d , the latter was p r e s u m e d t o have lost o u t d u r i n g a f i g h t against his r i v a l , the e x c l u s i o n b e i n g t h e consequence o f his defeat. T h i s idea was t h e m o r e easily accepted because i t a c c o r d e d w i t h t h e m y t h o l o g y as a w h o l e , i n w h i c h t h e p h r a t r y totems are generally v i e w e d as enemies o f o n e another.

129

See above, p. 146; cf. P. Schmidt, "L'Origine de l'idée de Dieu," in Anthropos, 1909.

298


A m y t h a m o n g the Euahlayi studied by M r s . Parker

130

can serve t o c o r -

r o b o r a t e this e x p l a n a t i o n , f o r i t translates that e x p l a n a t i o n figuratively. A s the s t o r y goes, t h e totems i n this t r i b e w e r e at first o n l y t h e names g i v e n t o d i f ferent parts o f Baiame's b o d y . I n that sense, t h e clans are l i k e fragments o f the d i v i n e b o d y . Is this n o t a n o t h e r w a y o f saying that t h e h i g h g o d is the s y n thesis o f all t h e t o t e m s a n d hence t h e p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n o f t h e t r i b e as a w h o l e ? A t the same t i m e , however, B a i a m e t o o k o n an i n t e r n a t i o n a l character. I n fact, t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e t r i b e t o w h i c h t h e y o u n g initiates b e l o n g are n o t t h e o n l y ones w h o a t t e n d t h e i n i t i a t i o n ceremonies. Representatives o f the n e i g h b o r i n g tribes are specifically i n v i t e d t o these festivals, w h i c h are rather l i k e i n t e r n a t i o n a l fairs a n d are b o t h r e l i g i o u s a n d secular.

131

Beliefs that are

fashioned i n such social m i l i e u x c a n n o t r e m a i n the exclusive p a t r i m o n y o f any o n e nationality. T h e f o r e i g n e r t o w h o m t h e y have b e e n revealed takes t h e m back i n t o his native t r i b e . A n d since, sooner o r later, he m u s t i n t u r n i n v i t e his hosts o f yesterday, c o n t i n u a l exchanges o f ideas b e t w e e n one s o c i ety a n d a n o t h e r are created. I n this way, an i n t e r n a t i o n a l m y t h o l o g y was f o r m e d . Since the m y t h o l o g y h a d its o r i g i n i n t h e rites o f i n i t i a t i o n , w h i c h the g o d serves t o personify, the h i g h g o d was q u i t e n a t u r a l l y t h e basic elem e n t i n i t . H i s n a m e thus passed from o n e language t o another, a l o n g w i t h the symbols attached t o i t . T h e fact that t h e names o f t h e phratries are u s u ally c o m m o n t o v e r y different tribes c o u l d o n l y facilitate that diffusion. T h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l i s m o f the p h r a t r y t o t e m s blazed a t r a i l f o r the i n t e r n a t i o n a l i s m o f the h i g h g o d .

V T h u s w e a r r i v e at the m o s t advanced idea that t o t e m i s m achieved. T h i s is t h e p o i n t at w h i c h i t resembles a n d prepares t h e w a y f o r the r e l i g i o n s that are t o f o l l o w a n d helps us t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e m . A t t h e same t i m e , w e can see that this c u l m i n a t i n g idea is c o n t i n u o u s w i t h the m o r e r u d i m e n t a r y beliefs that w e analyzed at the outset.

130

Parker, The Euahlayi Tribe, p. 7. Among the same people, the principal wife of Baiame is also depicted as the mother of all the totems, without belonging to any totem herself (ibid., pp. 7, 78). 131

See Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 511-512, 513, 602ff.; Mathews, "Aboriginal Tribes," RSNSW, vol. XXXVIII (1904), p. 270. Invited to the feasts of initiation are not only the tribes with which a regular connubium is established but also those with which there are quarrels to settle. Vendettas that are half-ceremonial and half-serious take place on these occasions.


299

T h e t r i b a l h i g h g o d is actually n o n e o t h e r t h a n an ancestral spirit that eventually w o n a p r o m i n e n t place. T h e ancestral spirits are n o n e o t h e r t h a n entities f o r g e d i n t h e i m a g e o f the i n d i v i d u a l souls, the o r i g i n o f w h i c h t h e y are m e a n t t o a c c o u n t for. T h e souls, i n t u r n , are n o n e o t h e r t h a n the f o r m taken b y the i m p e r s o n a l forces that w e f o u n d at t h e basis o f t o t e m i s m , as these b e c o m e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n p a r t i c u l a r bodies. T h e u n i t y o f the system is as great as its c o m p l e x i t y . T h e idea o f s o u l has u n d o u b t e d l y played an i m p o r t a n t part i n this w o r k o f e l a b o r a t i o n . T h r o u g h i t , t h e idea o f personality was i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the d o m a i n o f r e l i g i o n . B u t w h a t t h e theorists o f a n i m i s m c l a i m is far f r o m t r u e — t h a t i t contains the seed o f t h e w h o l e r e l i g i o n . F o r o n e t h i n g , this idea presupposes that o f m a n a o r o f t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e , o f w h i c h i t is o n l y a particular f o r m . F o r another, i f t h e spirits a n d gods c o u l d n o t be c o n c e i v e d o f before the s o u l was, still t h e y are s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n mere h u m a n souls freed b y death. O t h e r w i s e , w h e r e w o u l d t h e y get t h e i r s u p e r h u m a n powers? T h e idea o f s o u l has served o n l y t o o r i e n t t h e m y t h o l o g i c a l i m a g i n a t i o n i n a n e w d i r e c t i o n a n d t o suggest t o i t c o n s t r u c t i o n s o f a n e w sort. T h e basic m a t e r i a l f o r those c o n s t r u c t i o n s was n o t t a k e n from the idea o f soul b u t was i n stead d r a w n f r o m that reservoir o f a n o n y m o u s a n d diffuse forces w h i c h is the o r i g i n a l f o u n t o f r e l i g i o n s . T h e c r e a t i o n o f m y t h i c a l personalities was o n l y a n o t h e r w a y o f c o n c e i v i n g these f u n d a m e n t a l forces. T u r n i n g t o t h e h i g h g o d , that n o t i o n is w h o l l y attributable t o an awareness w h o s e i n f l u e n c e w e have already observed i n the o r i g i n o f the m o r e specifically t o t e m i c beliefs: the awareness o f t r i b e . W e have seen that t o t e m i s m was n o t the isolated w o r k o f t h e clans b u t that i t was always elaborated i n the m i d s t o f a t r i b e that was t o some e x t e n t conscious o f its u n i t y . I t is f o r this reason that the various cults p e c u l i a r t o each clan c o m e t o g e t h e r a n d c o m p l e m e n t o n e a n o t h e r i n such a w a y as t o f o r m a u n i f i e d w h o l e .

1 3 2

I t is this

same f e e l i n g o f t r i b a l u n i t y that is expressed i n t h e idea o f a h i g h g o d c o m m o n t o t h e w h o l e t r i b e . F r o m the b o t t o m t o the t o p o f this religious system, t h e n , the same causes are at w o r k . U p t o n o w , w e have considered these r e l i g i o u s representations as i f t h e y w e r e sufficient u n t o themselves a n d c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d o n l y i n terms o f themselves. I n fact, t h e y are inseparable f r o m the rites, n o t o n l y because the representations appear i n the rites b u t also because t h e rites i n f l u e n c e t h e m . T h e c u l t n o t o n l y rests o n b u t also reacts o n t h e beliefs. T o understand those better, i t is i m p o r t a n t t o u n d e r s t a n d the c u l t better. T h e t i m e has c o m e t o take u p that study. 132

See above, pp. 155-156.

BOOK

THREE

THE DRINCIPAL

M

Q D E S

OF D ITUAL pONDUCT*

*Les Principales attitudesrituelles.The contrast between croyances and attitudes in the odes of Books Two

and Three, respectively, is that between thought and action.

CHAPTER ONE

THE NEGATIVE CULT AND ITS FUNCTIONS The Ascetic Rites

I

n w h a t f o l l o w s , I w i l l n o t u n d e r t a k e a f u l l d e s c r i p t i o n o f the p r i m i t i v e c u l t . Since m y m a i n goal is t o a r r i v e at w h a t is m o s t e l e m e n t a l a n d f u n d a m e n -

tal i n r e l i g i o u s life, I w i l l m a k e n o a t t e m p t at a detailed r e p r o d u c t i o n o f all r i t u a l acts i n t h e i r o f t e n c h a o t i c m u l t i p l i c i t y . B u t i n o r d e r t o test and, i f n e e d 1

be, f i n e - t u n e t h e results t o w h i c h m y analysis o f t h e beliefs has l e d , I w i l l t r y to choose from t h e e x t r e m e l y diverse practices t h e m o s t characteristic that the p r i m i t i v e f o l l o w s i n t h e c e l e b r a t i o n o f his c u l t , t o classify the m o s t c e n tral f o r m s o f his rites, a n d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i r o r i g i n s a n d significance. E v e r y c u l t has t w o aspects: o n e negative, the o t h e r positive. A c t u a l l y the two

sorts o f rites are i n t e r t w i n e d ; as w e w i l l see, t h e y presuppose o n e a n -

other. B u t since t h e y are different, w e m u s t d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n t h e m , i f o n l y to u n d e r s t a n d t h e i r relationships.

I B y d e f i n i t i o n , sacred beings are beings set apart. W h a t distinguishes t h e m is a d i s c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n t h e m a n d profane beings. N o r m a l l y , the t w o sorts o f beings are separate from o n e another. A w h o l e c o m p l e x o f rites seeks t o b r i n g a b o u t that separation, w h i c h is essential. T h e s e rites prevent unsanct i o n e d m i x t u r e a n d contact, a n d p r e v e n t e i t h e r d o m a i n f r o m e n c r o a c h i n g o n the other. H e n c e t h e y can o n l y prescribe abstinences, that is, negative acts. For

this reason, I propose t o use t h e t e r m "negative c u l t " f o r the system

'I will completely leave aside one form of ritual: oral ritual, which is to be studied in a special volume of the Collection of the année sociologique.

303

304

THE PRINCIPAL MODES OF RITUAL C O N D U C T

f o r m e d b y these p a r t i c u l a r rites. T h e y d o n o t m a n d a t e obligations to be carr i e d o u t b y the faithful b u t instead p r o h i b i t c e r t a i n ways o f acting. A c c o r d ingly, all take t h e f o r m o f p r o h i b i t i o n s , or, t o f o l l o w c o m m o n usage i n ethnography, the f o r m o f taboo. Taboo is the t e r m used i n t h e Polynesian l a n guages t o d e n o t e the i n s t i t u t i o n i n accordance w i t h w h i c h c e r t a i n things are 2

w i t h d r a w n f r o m o r d i n a r y use; i t is also an adjective that expresses the dist i n c t i v e characteristic o f those sorts o f things. I have already h a d occasion t o s h o w h o w p r o b l e m a t i c i t is t o t r a n s f o r m a l o c a l a n d dialectal t e r m i n t o a generic one. Since there is n o r e l i g i o n i n w h i c h p r o h i b i t i o n s d o n o t exist a n d play an i m p o r t a n t part, i t is regrettable t h a t this accepted t e r m i n o l o g y s h o u l d seem t o m a k e such a widespread i n s t i t u t i o n a p e c u l i a r i t y specific t o P o l y n e 3

sia. T h e t e r m s " i n t e r d i c t i o n s " o r " p r o h i b i t i o n s " * seem t o m e preferable b y far. S t i l l , l i k e the w o r d " t o t e m , " the w o r d " t a b o o " is so w i d e l y used that t o a v o i d i t altogether w o u l d be an excess o f p u r i s m . Besides, its liabilities d i m i n i s h i f its m e a n i n g a n d scope are carefully specified. B u t p r o h i b i t i o n s are o f different k i n d s , a n d i t is i m p o r t a n t t o distinguish t h e m . W e n e e d n o t treat every sort o f p r o h i b i t i o n i n this chapter. T o b e g i n , aside f r o m those that b e l o n g t o r e l i g i o n , there are others that b e l o n g t o m a g i c . W h a t b o t h have i n c o m m o n is that t h e y define c e r t a i n things as i n c o m p a t i b l e a n d prescribe t h e separation o f t h e things so d e f i n e d . B u t there are also p r o f o u n d differences. First, the p u n i s h m e n t s are n o t the same i n t h e t w o cases. C e r t a i n l y , as w i l l be p o i n t e d o u t b e l o w , the v i o l a t i o n o f r e l i g i o u s p r o h i b i t i o n s is o f t e n t h o u g h t a u t o m a t i c a l l y t o cause physical disorders from w h i c h t h e g u i l t y p e r s o n is t h o u g h t t o suffer a n d w h i c h are c o n sidered p u n i s h m e n t f o r his a c t i o n . B u t even w h e n that really does occur, this spontaneous a n d a u t o m a t i c sanction does n o t stand alone. I t is always supp l e m e n t e d b y a n o t h e r that requires h u m a n i n t e r v e n t i o n . E i t h e r a p u n i s h ment

p r o p e r l y so-called

is added

( i f i t does n o t

actually precede

the

a u t o m a t i c sanction), a n d that p u n i s h m e n t is p u r p o s e l y i n f l i c t e d b y h u m a n beings; or, at the v e r y least, there is b l a m e a n d p u b l i c disapproval. E v e n w h e n *Between these two terms there is afinegrading of abstractness, interdiction being more mundane or applied, and interdit more abstract; but Durkheim uses the two interchangeably, although interdit is more frequent. Both "interdict" and "interdiction" are good English words, but I have preferred their commoner synonyms: "prohibition," "restriction," "ban," and the like. Trans. 2

See the article "Taboo" in the Encyclopedia Britannica, the author of which is [James George] Frazer [Edinburgh, Adam & Charles Black, 1887]. 3

The facts prove this to be a real liability. There is no dearth of writers who, taking the word literally, have believed that the institution designated by it was peculiar to primitive societies in general or even to the Polynesian peoples only (see [Albert] Réville, Religion des peuples non civilisés, Paris, Fischbacher, 1883, vol. II, p. 55; [Gaston] Richard, La Femme dans l'histoire [étude sur l'évolution de la condition sociale de la

femme, Paris, O. Doin et Fils, 1909], p. 435).

305

The Negative Cult and Its Functions

sacrilege has already b e e n p u n i s h e d b y the sickness o r n a t u r a l death o f its p e r petrator, i t is also d e n o u n c e d . I t offends o p i n i o n , w h i c h reacts against i t , a n d it places the c u l p r i t i n a state o f sin. B y contrast, a m a g i c a l p r o h i b i t i o n is sanct i o n e d o n l y b y the t a n g i b l e consequences that t h e f o r b i d d e n act is h e l d t o produce w i t h a k i n d o f physical necessity. B y d i s o b e y i n g , o n e takes risks l i k e those a sick p e r s o n takes b y n o t f o l l o w i n g the advice o f his d o c t o r ; b u t i n this case disobedience does n o t c o n s t i t u t e sin a n d does n o t p r o d u c e i n d i g n a t i o n . I n m a g i c , there is n o such t h i n g as sin. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e fact that the sanctions are n o t t h e same is p a r t a n d parcel o f a p r o f o u n d difference i n the nature o f the p r o h i b i t i o n s . A religious p r o h i b i t i o n necessarily involves the idea o f the sacred. I t arises from the respect evoked b y t h e sacred object, a n d its p u r p o s e is t o prevent any disrespect. B y contrast, m a g i c p r o h i b i t i o n s presuppose an e n t i r e l y secular idea o f p r o p e r t y — n o t h i n g m o r e . T h e things that the m a g i c i a n r e c o m m e n d s

keeping

separated are things that, because o f t h e i r characteristic properties, c a n n o t b e m i x e d o r b r o u g h t near o n e a n o t h e r w i t h o u t danger. A l t h o u g h he m a y ask his clients t o keep t h e i r distance from c e r t a i n sacred t h i n g s , he does n o t d o so o u t o f respect f o r those t h i n g s o r o u t o f fear that t h e y m a y be p r o f a n e d (since, 4

as w e k n o w , m a g i c thrives o n p r o f a n a t i o n s ) . H e does so o n l y f o r reasons o f secular u t i l i t y . I n short, r e l i g i o u s p r o h i b i t i o n s are categorical imperatives a n d magic ones are u t i l i t a r i a n m a x i m s , the earliest f o r m o f h y g i e n i c a n d m e d i c a l p r o h i b i t i o n s . T w o orders o f facts that are so different c a n n o t be s t u d i e d at the same t i m e , a n d u n d e r the same r u b r i c , w i t h o u t c o n f u s i o n . H e r e w e n e e d c o n c e r n ourselves o n l y w i t h r e l i g i o u s p r o h i b i t i o n s .

5

B u t a f u r t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n a m o n g these p r o h i b i t i o n s themselves is necessary: T h e r e are r e l i g i o u s p r o h i b i t i o n s w h o s e p u r p o s e is t o separate different kinds o f sacred things from o n e another. W e recall, f o r example, that a m o n g the W a k e l b u r a , the scaffold o n w h i c h a dead p e r s o n is l a i d o u t m u s t b e b u i l t exclusively w i t h materials b e l o n g i n g t o t h e p h r a t r y o f the deceased. A l l c o n tact is f o r b i d d e n b e t w e e n the corpse, w h i c h is sacred, a n d things o f t h e o t h e r phratry, w h i c h are sacred t o o , b u t i n a different r i g h t . Elsewhere,

the

weapons used t o h u n t an a n i m a l m u s t n o t be m a d e o f a w o o d that is classi6

fied i n the same social g r o u p as t h e a n i m a l itself. T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t o f

4

See p. 40, above.

5

This is not to say that there is a radical discontinuity between religious and magic prohibitions. To the contrary, there are some whose true nature is ambiguous. In folklore, there are prohibitions that often cannot be easily said to be either religious or magic. Even so, the distinction is necessary, for magic prohibitions can be understood, I believe, only in relation to religious ones. 6

See above, p. 150.

306


these p r o h i b i t i o n s are e x a m i n e d i n a later chapter: those a i m e d at p r e v e n t i n g all c o n t a c t b e t w e e n t h e sacred p u r e a n d t h e sacred i m p u r e , as w e l l as b e t w e e n things that are sacred a n d auspicious a n d those that are sacred a n d disastrous. A l l o f these p r o h i b i t i o n s have a c o m m o n trait: T h e y d o n o t arise f r o m the fact that some things are sacred a n d others n o t b u t f r o m the fact that there are relations o f d i s p a r i t y a n d i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y a m o n g sacred t h i n g s . H e n c e , they are n o t based u p o n w h a t is f u n d a m e n t a l t o t h e idea o f the sacred.

Conse-

quently, the observance o f these p r o h i b i t i o n s can give rise o n l y t o isolated, particular, a n d rather e x c e p t i o n a l rites, b u t t h e y c a n n o t m a k e u p a cult, proper, f o r a c u l t is above all made u p o f regular relations b e t w e e n the p r o fane a n d t h e sacred as such. T h e r e is a n o t h e r m u c h m o r e extensive a n d i m p o r t a n t system o f religious p r o h i b i t i o n s — n o t the system that separates different species o f sacred things b u t the o n e that separates all that is sacred f r o m all that is profane. T h i s syst e m o f r e l i g i o u s p r o h i b i t i o n s derives d i r e c d y f r o m t h e n o t i o n o f sacredness, w h i c h i t expresses a n d i m p l e m e n t s . T h i s system furnishes t h e r a w m a t e r i a l f o r a g e n u i n e c u l t and, i n d e e d , a c u l t t h a t f o r m s t h e basis o f all the rest; f o r i n t h e i r dealings w i t h sacred things, t h e f a i t h f u l m u s t never depart from the c o n d u c t i t prescribes. T h i s is w h a t I call the negative c u l t . These p r o h i b i t i o n s 7

can be said t o be r e l i g i o u s p r o h i b i t i o n s par e x c e l l e n c e . T h e y alone w i l l be the subject o f the f o l l o w i n g pages. T h e y take m a n y f o r m s . H e r e are the p r i n c i p a l types f o u n d i n Australia. First a n d foremost c o m e t h e p r o h i b i t i o n s o f contact. These are the p r i m a r y taboos, a n d the others are l i t d e m o r e t h a n p a r t i c u l a r varieties o f t h e m . T h e y rest o n the p r i n c i p l e that the profane m u s t n o t t o u c h the sacred. W e

'Many of the prohibitions between sacred things are reducible, I think, to the prohibition between sacred and profane. This is true for prohibitions of age or grade. In Australia, for example, there are sacred foodstuffs that are reserved exclusively for the initiated. But those foodstuffs are not all equally sacred; there is a hierarchy among them. Nor are all the initiated equal. They do not enjoy the plenitude of their religious rights immediately, but rather enter into the domain of sacred things gradually. They must pass through a series of grades that are conferred upon them, one after the other, following ordeals and special ceremonies; it takes them months, sometimes even years, to reach the highest. Definite foods are assigned to each of these grades. Men of the lower grades must not touch foods that belong, as a matter of right, to men of the higher grades (see [Robert Hamilton] Mathews, "Ethnological Notes on the [Aboriginal Tribes of New South Wales and Victoria," RSNSW. vol. XXXVIII (1904)], pp. 262fT.; Mrs. [Langloh] Parker [Catherine Sommerville Field Parker], The Euahlayi Tribe [London, A. Constable, 1905], p. 23; [Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [Francis James] Gillen, Northern Tribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1904], pp. 61 Iff.; [Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [F.James] Gillen, NativeTribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1899], pp. 470ff.). The more sacred repels the less sacred, but this is because, compared to the first, the second is profane. In sum, all the religious prohibitions fall into two classes: the prohibitions between the sacred and the profane and those between the sacred pure and the sacred impure.

307


have already seen that t h e churingas o r the b u l l roarers must u n d e r n o c i r cumstances be h a n d l e d b y the u n i n i t i a t e d . I f adults have free use o f those o b jects, that is o n l y because i n i t i a t i o n has c o n f e r r e d u p o n t h e m a q u a l i t y o f sacredness. B l o o d ( m o r e specifically, the b l o o d that flows d u r i n g i n i t i a t i o n ) has a r e l i g i o u s v i r t u e true o f h a i r .

10

8

a n d is subject t o the same p r o h i b i t i o n .

9

T h e same is

A dead p e r s o n is a sacred b e i n g because t h e soul that a n i m a t e d

the b o d y adheres t o the corpse. F o r this reason, i t is sometimes f o r b i d d e n t o carry the bones o f the corpse i n any w a y o t h e r t h a n w r a p p e d i n a sheet o f bark.

11

T h e v e r y place w h e r e the death o c c u r r e d m u s t be avoided, f o r the

soul o f t h e deceased is t h o u g h t t o r e m a i n there still. T h i s is w h y the people break c a m p a n d m o v e some distance away. camp a n d all i t c o n t a i n s , to the same p l a c e .

14

13

12

Sometimes they destroy t h e

a n d a p e r i o d o f time passes before they m a y r e t u r n

S o m e t i m e s t h e p e r s o n w h o is d y i n g creates a v a c u u m

a r o u n d himself, t h e others deserting h i m after h a v i n g settled h i m as c o m fortably as possible.

15

T h e c o n s u m p t i o n o f f o o d b r i n g s a b o u t an especially i n t i m a t e f o r m o f contact. T h e n c e arises t h e p r o h i b i t i o n against e a t i n g sacred animals o r plants, especially those s e r v i n g as t o t e m s .

16

S u c h an act appears so sacrilegious that

the p r o h i b i t i o n covers even adults, o r at least m o s t adults, and o n l y o l d m e n attain sufficient r e l i g i o u s status t o be n o t always subject t o i t . T h i s p r o h i b i t i o n has sometimes b e e n e x p l a i n e d i n terms o f t h e m y t h i c a l k i n s h i p that

8

See above, p. 136.

'Spencer and Gülen, Native Tribes, p. 463. 10

Ibid., p. 538; Spencer and Gülen, Northern Tribes, p. 604.

"Spencer and Gülen, Northern Tribes, p. 531. ,2

Ibid., pp. 518-519; [Alfred William] Howitt, NativeTribes [of South-EastAustralia, London, Macmillan, 1904], p. 449. 13

Spencer and Gülen, Native Tribes, p. 498; [Rev. Louis] Schulze, "Aboriginal Tribes of Upper and Middle Finke River," RSSA, vol. XIV [1891], p. 231. "Spencer and Gülen, Native Tribes, p. 499. 15

Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 451. [The point made is not at this place in Howitt. Trans.]

16

The alimentary restrictions applied to the totemic plant or animal are the most important, but they are far from being the only ones. We have seen that there are foods that, because they are considered sacred, are forbidden to the uninitiated. Very different causes can make those foods sacred. For example, as we will see below, the animals that climb to the tops of trees are reputed to be sacred because they are neighbors of the high god that lives in the heavens. It is also possible that, for different reasons, the flesh of certain animals was reserved especiaUy for old men and that, as a result, it seemed to participate in the sacredness that old men are acknowledged to have.

308

THE PRINCIPAL MODES OF RITUAL CONDUCT

unites m a n w i t h t h e animals w h o s e n a m e he bears—the animals b e i n g p r o tected, presumably, b y the s y m p a t h y t h e y inspire, as k i n .

1 7

T h a t the o r i g i n o f

this p r o h i b i t i o n is n o t s i m p l y r e v u l s i o n caused b y t h e sense o f f a m i l i a l solid a r i t y is b r o u g h t o u t b y the f o l l o w i n g : C o n s u m p t i o n o f the f o r b i d d e n flesh is p r e s u m e d t o cause sickness a n d death automatically. T h u s , forces o f a different sort have c o m e i n t o play—forces analogous t o those forces i n all r e l i gions that are p r e s u m e d t o react against sacrilege. F u r t h e r , w h i l e c e r t a i n foods, because sacred, are f o r b i d d e n t o t h e p r o fane, o t h e r foods, because profane, are f o r b i d d e n t o persons e n d o w e d w i t h special sacredness. T h u s , c e r t a i n animals are o f t e n specifically designated as f o o d f o r w o m e n . F o r this reason, t h e y are believed t o participate i n femaleness a n d hence are profane. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e y o u n g i n i t i a t e undergoes an especially harsh set o f rites. A n e x c e p t i o n a l l y p o w e r f u l b e a m o f religious forces is focused u p o n h i m , so as t o m a k e i t possible t o t r a n s m i t t o h i m the v i r t u e s that w i l l enable h i m t o enter the w o r l d o f sacred things, f r o m w h i c h he h a d p r e v i o u s l y b e e n e x c l u d e d . Since he is t h e n i n a state o f sanctity that repels all that is profane, he is n o t a l l o w e d t o eat game that is considered t o be w o m e n ' s .

1 8

C o n t a c t can be established b y means o t h e r t h a n t o u c h i n g . O n e is i n c o n tact w i t h a t h i n g s i m p l y b y l o o k i n g at i t ; t h e gaze is a means o f establishing contact. T h i s is w h y , i n c e r t a i n cases, t h e sight o f sacred things is f o r b i d d e n t o the profane. A w o m a n m u s t never see t h e c u l t i n s t r u m e n t s and at m o s t is a l l o w e d t o glimpse t h e m from afar.

19

T h e same applies t o t o t e m i c p a i n t i n g

d o n e o n the bodies o f celebrants f o r especially i m p o r t a n t c e r e m o n i e s .

20

In

certain tribes, t h e e x c e p t i o n a l s o l e m n i t y o f i n i t i a t i o n rites makes i t i m p o s s i ble f o r w o m e n even t o see the place w h e r e t h e y have b e e n c e l e b r a t e d novice himself.

22

21

o r the

T h e sacredness t h a t is i m m a n e n t i n t h e entire c e r e m o n y is

l7

See [James George] Frazer, Totemism [and Exogamy London, Macmillan, 1910] p. 7.

"Howitt, NativeTribes, p. 674. I do not address one prohibition of contact because its precise nature is not easy to determine: sexual contact. There are religious periods in which men must not have contact with women (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 293, 295; Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 387). Is it because the woman is profane or because the sexual act is a dreaded act? This question cannot be setded in passing. I postpone it along with everything related to conjugal and sexual rites. They are too closely bound up with the problem of marriage and the family to be separated from it. "Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 134; Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 354. 20


2l


22

Ibid., p. 661.

309

17te Negative Cult and Its Functions

f o u n d as w e l l i n the persons o f those w h o d i r e c t i t o r w h o take any part i n i t — w i t h t h e result that t h e n o v i c e m u s t n o t raise his eyes t o t h e m , a p r o h i b i t i o n that c o n t i n u e s even after the r i t e has b e e n c o m p l e t e d .

2 3

A corpse, t o o , is

sometimes t a k e n o u t o f sight, t h e face b e i n g covered i n such a w a y that i t cannot be s e e n .

24

Speech is a n o t h e r means o f c o m i n g i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h persons o r t h i n g s . T h e e x h a l e d b r e a t h establishes contact, since i t is a p a r t o f ourselves that spreads outside us. T h u s the profane are b a r r e d from speaking t o sacred b e ings o r even speaking i n t h e i r presence. Just as the n e o p h y t e must l o o k at n e i ther those p r e s i d i n g n o r those i n attendance, so he is also b a r r e d f r o m t a l k i n g t o t h e m i n any w a y o t h e r t h a n w i t h signs. T h i s p r o h i b i t i o n continues u n t i l i t is l i f t e d b y means o f a special r i t e . i n t h e g r a n d ceremonies

2 5

A m o n g all the A r u n t a , there are m o m e n t s

w h e n silence is o b l i g a t o r y .

26

As s o o n as

the

churingas are displayed, t a l k i n g stops; or, i f there is t a l k i n g , i t is i n a l o w v o i c e and w i t h the Hps o n l y .

2 7

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e t h i n g s that are sacred, there are w o r d s and sounds that have the same q u a l i t y ; t h e y m u s t n o t b e f o u n d o n t h e Hps o f t h e profane o r reach t h e i r ears. T h e r e are r i t u a l songs that w o m e n m u s t n o t hear, o n p a i n o f death.

28

T h e y m a y hear t h e noise o f the b u l l roarers, b u t o n l y from a distance.

E v e r y personal n a m e is considered an essential e l e m e n t o f the person w h o carries i t . Since i t is closely associated w i t h t h e idea o f that person, the n a m e participates i n the feelings that p e r s o n arouses. I f the p e r s o n is sacred, so is t h e name; hence i t m a y n o t b e p r o n o u n c e d i n the course o f profane life. A m o n g the W a r r a m u n g a is a t o t e m that receives special v e n e r a t i o n , the m y t h i c a l serp e n t n a m e d W o l l u n q u a ; that name is t a b o o .

29

T h e same holds t r u e f o r B a -

i a m e , D a r a m u l u n , a n d B u n j i l ; t h e esoteric f o r m s o f t h e i r names m u s t n o t be 3 0

revealed t o t h e u n i n i t i a t e d . D u r i n g the p e r i o d o f m o u r n i n g , the n a m e o f the dead person m u s t b e m e n t i o n e d , at least b y his relatives, o n l y i n cases o f

23

Spencer and Gülen, Native Tribes, p. 386; Hewitt, Native Tribes, pp. 655, 665.

24

Among the Wiimbaio, Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 451.

25

Ibid„ pp. 624, 661, 663, 667; Spencer and Gülen, Native Tribes, pp. 221, 382ff.; Spencer and Gülen,

Northern Tribes, pp. 335, 344, 353, 369. 26

Spencer and Gülen, Native Tribes, pp. 221, 262, 288, 303, 367, 378, 380.

27

Ibid„ p. 302.

28

Howitt, Native Tribes, p> 88.1.

''Spencer and Gülen, Northern Tribes, p. 227. '"See above, p. 291.

T H E PRINCIPAL MODES OF RITUAL C O N D U C T

310

absolute necessity, a n d even t h e n t h e y m u s t o n l y w h i s p e r i t .

3 1

This restriction

is o f t e n p e r m a n e n t f o r t h e w i d o w a n d c e r t a i n f a m i l y m e m b e r s .

32

Among

certain peoples, i t extends even b e y o n d t h e family, everyone w h o has the same n a m e as the deceased b e i n g r e q u i r e d t o change i t t e m p o r a r i l y .

33

Fur-

t h e r m o r e , relatives a n d close friends b a n c e r t a i n w o r d s f r o m everyday l a n guage, p r o b a b l y because t h e y w e r e used b y t h e deceased. T h e gaps are f i l l e d w i t h c i r c u m l o c u t i o n s o r w i t h b o r r o w i n g s from some f o r e i g n d i a l e c t .

34

I n ad-

d i t i o n t o t h e i r o r d i n a r y , p u b l i c n a m e , m e n have a n o t h e r that is k e p t secret. W o m e n and c h i l d r e n d o n o t k n o w i t , a n d i t is never used i n o r d i n a r y life b e cause i t has a r e l i g i o u s q u a l i t y .

35

I n d e e d , there are ceremonies d u r i n g w h i c h

the participants are r e q u i r e d t o speak i n a special language w h o s e use is f o r b i d d e n i n profane dealings. H e r e is a b e g i n n i n g o f sacred l a n g u a g e .

36

N o t o n l y are sacred beings separated f r o m profane ones, b u t i n a d d i t i o n , n o t h i n g t h a t d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c d y concerns profane life m u s t b e m i n g l e d w i t h r e l i g i o u s life. T o t a l nakedness is o f t e n r e q u i r e d o f t h e native as t h e p r e c o n d i t i o n o f his b e i n g a l l o w e d t o take p a r t i n a r i t e .

3 7

H e m u s t take o f f all his

usual o r n a m e n t s , even those he values m o s t a n d from w h i c h he separates 3 8

h i m s e l f the less w i l l i n g l y because he i m p u t e s t o t h e m p r o t e c t i v e v i r t u e s . I f he m u s t decorate h i m s e l f f o r his r i t u a l role, that d e c o r a t i o n m u s t be made especially f o r t h e occasion; i t is a c e r e m o n i a l costume, a feast-day v e s t m e n t .

39

Since these o r n a m e n t s are sacred b y v i r t u e o f the use m a d e o f t h e m , t h e i r use i n profane activities is f o r b i d d e n . O n c e the c e r e m o n y is over, t h e y are b u r i e d or b u r n e d ;

4 0

a n d i n d e e d the m e n m u s t wash themselves, so as n o t t o take

away w i t h t h e m any trace o f t h e decorations that a d o r n e d t h e m .

4 1

"Spencer and Gillen, NativeTribes, p. 498; Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 526; [George] Taplin "The Narrinyeri" [in James Dominick Woods, The Native Tribes of South Australia, Adelaide, E. S. Wigg, 1879], p. 19. 32

Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 466, 469£F.

33

[J. P.] Wyatt, "Adelaide and Encounter Bay Tribes," in Woods, [The Native Tribes of South Australia], p. 165. 34

Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 470. [It is actually at p. 466. Trans.]

35

Ibid., p. 657; Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 139; Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 580fF.

36


37

Ibid., pp. 544, 597, 614, 620.

38

For example, the hair belt that he usually wears (Spencer and Gillen, NativeTribes, p. 171).

39

Ibid„ pp. 624ff.

""Howitt, NativeTribes, p. 556. 41

Ibid„ p. 587.


311

M o r e generally, the t y p i c a l actions o f o r d i n a r y life are f o r b i d d e n so l o n g as those o f religious life are i n progress. T h e act o f e a t i n g is profane i n itself. A daily o c c u r r e n c e , i t satisfies basically u t i l i t a r i a n a n d physical needs and is part o f o u r o r d i n a r y e x i s t e n c e .

42

T h i s is w h y eating is p r o h i b i t e d d u r i n g r e l i -

gious periods. T h u s , w h e n a t o t e m i c g r o u p has l e n t its c h u r i n g a t o a f o r e i g n clan, the m o m e n t w h e n t h e y are b r o u g h t b a c k a n d r e t u r n e d t o the e r t n a t u lunga is o n e o f great solemnity. A l l those w h o take p a r t i n the c e r e m o n y m u s t abstain f r o m eating as l o n g as i t lasts, a n d i t lasts a l o n g time. is f o l l o w e d d u r i n g t h e c e l e b r a t i o n o f t h e r i t e s

44

43

T h e same r u l e

t o be treated i n t h e n e x t

chapter, as w e l l as at c e r t a i n times d u r i n g i n i t i a t i o n .

4 5

F o r t h e same reason, all secular occupations are suspended w h e n t h e great r e l i g i o u s ceremonies Spencer a n d G i l l e n ,

4 6

take place. A c c o r d i n g t o an o b s e r v a t i o n b y

c i t e d previously, t h e life o f the A u s t r a l i a n has t w o q u i t e

distinct parts: O n e is t a k e n u p w i t h h u n t i n g , fishing, a n d w a r ; the o t h e r is dedicated t o the c u l t . These t w o f o r m s o f a c t i v i t y are m u t u a l l y exclusive a n d repel o n e another. T h e universal i n s t i t u t i o n o f r e l i g i o u s days o f rest is based o n this p r i n c i p l e . I n all k n o w n r e l i g i o n s , t h e d i s t i n g u i s h i n g feature o f feast days is t h e cessation o f w o r k and, b e y o n d that, t h e suspension o f p u b l i c a n d private life, insofar as i t has n o r e l i g i o u s object. T h i s pause is n o t m e r e l y a k i n d o f t e m p o r a r y r e l a x a t i o n that m e n take, so as t o a b a n d o n

themselves

m o r e freely t o the feelings o f e l a t i o n that holidays generally arouse, since i t is n o less o b l i g a t o r y d u r i n g those sad holidays that are d e v o t e d t o m o u r n i n g a n d penance. T h e reason f o r t h e pause is that w o r k is t h e p r e e m i n e n t f o r m o f profane activity. I t has n o apparent a i m o t h e r t h a n m e e t i n g the secular needs o f life, a n d i t puts us i n c o n t a c t o n l y w i t h o r d i n a r y things. D u r i n g h o l y days, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , r e l i g i o u s life attains unusual intensity. Because the contrast b e t w e e n these t w o sorts o f existence is p a r t i c u l a r l y m a r k e d at that

42

Granted, this act takes on a religious character when thefoodeaten is sacred. But the act in itself is profane, to such an extent that the consumption of a sacred food always constitutes a profanation. The profanation can be permitted or even prescribed but, as we will see below, only if rites to attenuate or expiate the profanation precede or accompany it. The existence of these rites clearly shows that the sacred thing itself resists being consumed. 43


"Spencerand Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 171. 45

Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 674. It may be that the prohibition against speaking during the great religious ceremonies derives in partfromthe same cause. In ordinary life, people speak, and in particular people speak loudly; therefore, in religious life, they must keep silent or speak in a low voice. The same consideration is germane to the dietary restrictions. (See above, p. 127). 46


312

T H E PRINCIPAL MODES OF RITUAL CONDUCT

t i m e , t h e y c a n n o t abut o n e another. M a n c a n n o t approach his g o d i n t i m a t e l y w h i l e still b e a r i n g t h e marks o f his profane life; inversely, he c a n n o t r e t u r n to his o r d i n a r y occupations w h e n the r i t e has j u s t sanctified h i m . R i t u a l cessat i o n o f w o r k is thus n o m o r e t h a n a special case o f the general i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y that divides the sacred a n d the profane, a n d i t is the result o f a p r o h i b i t i o n . T h e r e is n o w a y t o e n u m e r a t e every k i n d o f p r o h i b i t i o n that is observed, even i n the A u s t r a l i a n r e l i g i o n s alone. L i k e the n o t i o n o f the sacred o n w h i c h it rests, the system o f p r o h i b i t i o n s extends i n t o t h e m o s t v a r i e d relations. I t is even used i n t e n t i o n a l l y f o r u t i l i t a r i a n p u r p o s e s .

47

B u t h o w e v e r c o m p l e x this

system m a y be, i n the e n d i t comes d o w n t o t w o f u n d a m e n t a l p r o h i b i t i o n s that e p i t o m i z e a n d g o v e r n i t . First, r e l i g i o u s and profane life c a n n o t coexist i n the same space. I f r e l i gious life is t o develop, a special place m u s t be prepared f o r i t , o n e f r o m w h i c h profane life is e x c l u d e d . T h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f temples a n d sanctuaries arises f r o m this. These are spaces assigned t o sacred things a n d beings, servi n g as t h e i r residence, f o r t h e y c a n n o t establish themselves o n the g r o u n d e x cept b y f u l l y a p p r o p r i a t i n g a part o f i t f o r themselves. A r r a n g e m e n t s o f this k i n d are so indispensable t o all r e l i g i o u s life t h a t even t h e simplest r e l i g i o u s c a n n o t d o w i t h o u t t h e m . T h e e r t n a t u l u n g a , t h e place w h e r e the churingas are stored, is a t r u e sanctuary. T h e u n i n i t i a t e d are b a n n e d f r o m a p p r o a c h i n g i t , a n d i n d u l g i n g i n any k i n d o f profane o c c u p a t i o n is f o r b i d d e n there. W e w i l l see that there are o t h e r sanctified places w h e r e i m p o r t a n t ceremonies are conducted.

48

47

Since, from the beginning, there is a sacred principle within each man, the soul, the individual has been surrounded by prohibitions, thefirstformof the moral prohibitions that today insulate and protect the human person. It is in this way that the body of the victim is considered dangerous by the murderer (Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 492) and is forbidden to him. Prohibitions that have this origin are often used by individuals as a means of withdrawing certain things from common use and establishing a right of property over them. "Does a man depart from camp, leaving weapons, food, etc. there?" asks [waiter Edmund] Roth with regard to the Palmer River tribes (North Queensland). "If he urinates near objects that he has thus left behind, they become tami (equivalent of the word "taboo"), and he can be assured offindingthem intact upon his return" [possibly, "Marriage Ceremonies and Infant Life," North Queensland Ethnography, Bull. 10] in RAM, [Sydney, 1908], vol. VII, part 2, p. 75). This is because the urine, like the blood, is held to contain a part of the sacred force that is personal to the individual. Thus it keeps strangers at a distance. For the same reasons, speech also can serve as a vehicle for these same influences. This is why it is possible to ban access to an object simply by verbal declaration. Further, this power of creating prohibitions is variable according to individuals—the greater their sacredness, the greater this power. Men have the privilege of this power to the virtual exclusion of women (Roth cites a single example of a taboo imposed by women). It is at its maximum among chiefs and elders, who use it to monopolize the things they choose ([Walter Edmund] Roth, Superstition, Magic and Medicine [Brisbane, G. A. Vaughn, 1903], in North Queensland Ethnography, Bulletin No. 5, p. 77). In this way, religious prohibition becomes property right and administrative regulation. 48

Bk. 3, chap. 2.

313


Likewise, religious a n d profane life c a n n o t coexist at the same t i m e . I n consequence, r e l i g i o u s life m u s t have specified days o r periods assigned t o i t from w h i c h all profane occupations are w i t h d r a w n . T h u s were h o l y days b o r n . T h e r e is n o r e l i g i o n , a n d h e n c e n o society, that has n o t k n o w n a n d practiced this d i v i s i o n o f time i n t o t w o d i s t i n c t parts that alternate w i t h o n e another a c c o r d i n g t o a p r i n c i p l e that varies w i t h peoples a n d civilizations. I n fact, p r o b a b l y the necessity o f that a l t e r n a t i o n l e d m e n t o insert distinctions and differentiations i n t o the h o m o g e n e i t y a n d c o n t i n u i t y o f d u r a t i o n that i t does n o t n a t u r a l l y h a v e .

49

O f course, i t is v i r t u a l l y impossible f o r r e l i g i o n ever

to reach t h e p o i n t o f b e i n g c o n c e n t r a t e d h e r m e t i c a l l y i n the spatial a n d t e m poral m i l i e u x that are assigned t o i t ; a l i t d e o f i t i n e v i t a b l y filters o u t . T h e r e are always sacred things outside t h e sanctuaries a n d rites that can be celebrated d u r i n g w o r k d a y s , b u t those are sacred things o f the second r a n k a n d rites o f lesser i m p o r t a n c e . C o n c e n t r a t i o n is still the p r e d o m i n a n t characteristic o f this structure; a n d i n d e e d , c o n c e n t r a t i o n is generally t o t a l w i t h respect to the p u b l i c c u l t , w h i c h m u s t be celebrated collectively. T h e p r i v a t e , i n d i v i d u a l c u l t is t h e o n l y o n e that m i n g l e s m o r e o r less closely w i t h secular life. Therefore, because the i n d i v i d u a l c u l t is at its least d e v e l o p e d i n the l o w e r societies, such as t h e A u s t r a l i a n tribes, the contrast b e t w e e n these t w o successive phases o f h u m a n life is at its m o s t e x t r e m e t h e r e .

50

II T h u s far w e have seen the negative c u l t o n l y as a system o f abstinences. I t appears capable o n l y o f i n h i b i t i n g activity, n o t s t i m u l a t i n g a n d i n v i g o r a t i n g i t . Nevertheless, t h r o u g h an u n e x p e c t e d r e a c t i o n t o this i n h i b i t i n g affect, i t e x erts a positive a n d h i g h l y i m p o r t a n t i n f l u e n c e u p o n the religious a n d m o r a l nature o f the i n d i v i d u a l . Because o f the b a r r i e r that sets the sacred apart f r o m the profane, m a n can enter i n t o close relations w i t h sacred t h i n g s o n l y i f he strips h i m s e l f o f w h a t is profane i n h i m . H e c a n n o t live a r e l i g i o u s life o f any i n t e n s i t y unless he first w i t h d r a w s m o r e o r less c o m p l e t e l y from secular hfe. T h e negative c u l t i n a sense is a means t o an e n d ; i t is the p r e c o n d i t i o n o f access t o the positive c u l t . N o t c o n f i n e d t o p r o t e c t i n g t h e sacred beings from o r d i n a r y c o n tact, i t acts u p o n the w o r s h i p p e r h i m s e l f a n d m o d i f i e s his state positively.

49

See above, p. 9.

50

See above, p. 220.

314


A f t e r h a v i n g s u b m i t t e d t o t h e p r e s c r i b e d p r o h i b i t i o n s , m a n is n o t the same as he was. Before, he was an o r d i n a r y b e i n g a n d f o r that reason h a d t o keep at a distance f r o m r e l i g i o u s forces. A f t e r , he is o n a m o r e nearly equal f o o t i n g w i t h t h e m , since he has approached the sacred b y the v e r y act o f p l a c i n g h i m s e l f at a distance from the profane. H e has p u r i f i e d a n d sanctified h i m s e l f b y d e t a c h i n g h i m s e l f from t h e l o w a n d t r i v i a l things that p r e v i o u s l y e n c u m b e r e d his nature. L i k e positive rites, therefore, negative rites confer positive capacities; b o t h can increase t h e religious zest o f i n d i v i d u a l s . As has b e e n r i g h d y observed, n o o n e can engage i n a r e l i g i o u s c e r e m o n y o f any i m p o r tance w i t h o u t first s u b m i t t i n g t o a sort o f i n i t i a t i o n that i n t r o d u c e s h i m g r a d ually i n t o the sacred w o r l d .

5 1

A n o i n t i n g s , p u r i f i c a t i o n s , a n d blessings can be

used f o r this, a l l b e i n g essentially positive operations; b u t t h e same results can be achieved t h r o u g h fasts a n d v i g i l s , o r t h r o u g h retreat a n d silence—that is, b y r i t u a l abstinences t h a t are n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n d e f i n i t e p r o h i b i t i o n s p u t i n t o practice. W h e n negative rites are considered o n l y o n e b y one, t h e i r positive i n f l u ence is usually t o o Htde m a r k e d t o be easily perceptible; b u t t h e i r effects c u mulate, a n d b e c o m e m o r e apparent, w h e n a f u l l system o f p r o h i b i t i o n s is focused o n a single person. T h i s occurs i n Australia d u r i n g i n i t i a t i o n . T h e n o v i c e is subjected t o an e x t r e m e v a r i e t y o f negative rites. H e must w i t h d r a w f r o m t h e society w h e r e h e has spent his life u n t i l t h e n , a n d from v i r t u a l l y all h u m a n society. H e is n o t o n l y f o r b i d d e n t o see w o m e n a n d u n i n i t i a t e d men,

5 2

b u t he also goes t o live i n the bush, far from his peers, u n d e r the su-

p e r v i s i o n o f a f e w o l d m e n s e r v i n g as g o d f a t h e r s .

53

So m u c h is the forest c o n -

sidered his n a t u r a l m i l i e u that, i n q u i t e a f e w tribes, the w o r d f o r i n i t i a t i o n means " t h a t w h i c h is o f t h e forest."

54

F o r the same reason, the n o v i c e is o f -

t e n decorated w i t h leaves d u r i n g t h e ceremonies he a t t e n d s . spends l o n g m o n t h s

5 6

punctuated

from

55

I n this way, he

t i m e t o time b y rites i n w h i c h he

51

See [Henri] Hubert and [Marcel] Mauss, "Essai sur la nature et la fonction du sacrifice," in Mélanges d'histoire des religions [Paris, F. Alcan, 1909], pp. 22ff. 52

Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 560, 657, 659, 661. Not even a woman's shadow must fall on him (ibid., p. 633). What he touches must not be touched by a woman (ibid., p. 621). 53

Ibid., pp. 561, 563, 670-671; Spencer and Gillen, NativeTribes, p. 223; Spencer and Gillen, Northern

Tribes, pp. 340, 342. 54

The word jeraeil, for example, among the Kurnai; kuringal among the Yuin and the Wolgat (Howitt,

NativeTribes, pp. 518, 617). 55


56


315


must participate. F o r h i m , this is a t i m e f o r every sort o f abstinence. H e is f o r b i d d e n a great m a n y foods, a n d he is a l l o w e d o n l y as m u c h f o o d as is strictly necessary t o sustain l i f e .

57

58

I n d e e d , r i g o r o u s fasting is o f t e n o b l i g a t o r y , o r he

is made t o eat disgusting f o o d .

5 9

W h e n he eats, he m u s t n o t t o u c h the f o o d

w i t h his hands; his godfathers p u t i t i n his m o u t h . beg for his subsistence.

61

6 0

I n some cases, he must

H e sleeps o n l y as m u c h as is indispensable.

62

He

must abstain f r o m speaking unless s p o k e n t o a n d i n d i c a t e his needs w i t h signs.

63

H e is f o r b i d d e n all r e c r e a t i o n .

64

H e must n o t bathe;

must n o t m o v e . H e remains l y i n g o n t h e g r o u n d , i m m o b i l e , i n g o f any k i n d .

6 7

65

6 6

sometimes he without cloth-

T h e result o f these m u l t i p l e p r o h i b i t i o n s is t o b r i n g a b o u t

a radical change i n t h e status o f the n e o p h y t e . B e f o r e the i n i t i a t i o n , he l i v e d w i t h w o m e n a n d was e x c l u d e d f r o m t h e c u l t . F r o m n o w o n , he is a d m i t t e d i n t o t h e society o f m e n ; he takes part i n the rites a n d has gained a q u a l i t y o f sacredness. So c o m p l e t e is the m e t a m o r p h o s i s that i t is often p o r t r a y e d as a second b i r t h . T h e profane p e r s o n that p r e v i o u s l y was the y o u n g m a n is i m a g i n e d t o have d i e d , t o have b e e n k i l l e d a n d taken away b y the G o d o f i n i t i a t i o n — B u n j i l , Baiame, o r D a r a m u l u n — a n d t o have b e e n replaced b y an altogether different i n d i v i d u a l f r o m the o n e w h o existed p r e v i o u s l y .

68

Thus

w e capture i n the r a w the positive effects o f w h i c h t h e negative rites are capable. I d o n o t m e a n t o c l a i m that these rites alone p r o d u c e so p r o f o u n d a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , b u t t h e y c e r t a i n l y c o n t r i b u t e t o i t , a n d substantially. I n l i g h t o f these facts, w e can u n d e r s t a n d w h a t asceticism is, w h a t place i t holds i n r e l i g i o u s life, a n d w h e r e t h e v i r t u e s that are w i d e l y i m p u t e d t o i t

"Ibid., pp. 633, 538, 560. 58

Ibid., p. 674; Parker, The Euahlayi Tribe, p. 75.

59

[William] Ridley, Kamilaroi [and Other Australian Languages, Sydney, T. Richards, 1875], p. 154.

""Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 563. 61

Ibid., p. 611.

62

Ibid., pp. 549, 674.

63

Ibid., pp. 580, 596, 604, 668, 670; Spencer and Gillen, NativeTribes, pp. 223, 351.

M

Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 567. [This note and the phrase to which it is attached are missingfromthe Swain translation. Trans.] 65

Ibid„ p. 557.

"'Ibid., p. 604; Spencer and Gillen, NativeTribes, p. 351. 67

Howitt, NativeTribes, p. 611.

68

Ibid., p. 589.

316


o r i g i n a t e . I n actuality, there is n o p r o h i b i t i o n w h o s e observance is n o t t o some degree l i k e asceticism. T o abstain f r o m s o m e t h i n g that m a y be useful o r f r o m an a c t i v i t y that, because h a b i t u a l , m u s t m e e t a h u m a n need, is o f n e cessity t o i m p o s e restrictions a n d r e n u n c i a t i o n s u p o n oneself. F o r there t o be asceticism p r o p e r l y so-called, i t is e n o u g h f o r these practices t o develop i n such a w a y as t o b e c o m e t h e f o u n d a t i o n f o r a g e n u i n e system o f life. T h e negative c u l t usually serves as barely m o r e t h a n an i n t r o d u c t i o n t o , a n d a p r e p a r a t i o n for, the positive c u l t . B u t i t sometimes escapes that s u b o r d i n a t i o n a n d becomes central, t h e system o f p r o h i b i t i o n s s w e l l i n g a n d a g g r a n d i z i n g i t self t o t h e p o i n t o f i n v a d i n g t h e w h o l e o f life. I n this way, systematic ascetic i s m is b o r n ; i t is thus n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n a b l o a t i n g o f the negative c u l t . T h e special v i r t u e s i t is said t o confer are o n l y those c o n f e r r e d t h r o u g h the practice o f any p r o h i b i t i o n , t h o u g h i n m a g n i f i e d f o r m . T h e y have t h e same o r i g i n , f o r b o t h rest o n the p r i n c i p l e that the v e r y effort t o separate oneself f r o m the profane sanctifies. T h e p u r e ascetic is a m a n w h o raises h i m s e l f above m e n a n d w h o acquires a special sanctity t h r o u g h fasts, v i g i l s , retreat, a n d s i l e n c e — i n a w o r d , m o r e b y p r i v a t i o n s t h a n b y acts o f positive p i e t y (offerings, sacrifices, prayers, etc.). H i s t o r y shows w h a t heights o f r e l i g i o u s prestige are attainable b y those means. T h e B u d d h i s t saint is f u n d a m e n t a l l y an ascetic, a n d he is equal o r s u p e r i o r t o the gods. I t f o l l o w s that asceticism is n o t a rare, e x c e p t i o n a l , a n d almost a b n o r m a l fruit

o f religious life, as o n e m i g h t t h i n k , b u t q u i t e the c o n t r a r y : an essential

e l e m e n t o f i t . E v e r y r e l i g i o n has at least the seed o f asceticism, f o r there is n o n e w i t h o u t a system o f p r o h i b i t i o n s . I n this respect, the o n l y possible d i f ference b e t w e e n cults is that this seed is m o r e o r less d e v e l o p e d w i t h i n t h e m . A n d i t is w e l l t o add that there p r o b a b l y is n o t even a single o n e i n w h i c h this d e v e l o p m e n t does n o t at least t e m p o r a r i l y a d o p t t h e characteristic traits o f asc e t i c i s m proper. T h i s generally happens at c e r t a i n c r i t i c a l periods, w h e n a p r o f o u n d change i n an i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o n d i t i o n m u s t be b r o u g h t a b o u t i n a r e l atively s h o r t t i m e . I n that case, i n o r d e r t o b r i n g h i m m o r e r a p i d l y i n t o the circle o f sacred things w i t h w h i c h h e m u s t be p u t i n contact, he is a b r u p t l y separated from t h e profane w o r l d . T h i s does n o t o c c u r w i t h o u t increased abstinences a n d an e x t r a o r d i n a r y i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n i n the system o f p r o h i b i t i o n s . Precisely this occurs i n Australia at t h e time o f i n i t i a t i o n . T o t r a n s f o r m t h e y o u t h s i n t o m e n , t h e y are r e q u i r e d t o lead the life o f ascetics. M r s . Parker q u i t e accurately calls t h e m t h e m o n k s o f B a i a m e . 69

69

These ascetic practices may be compared to the ones used during a magicians initiation. Like the young neophyte, the apprentice magician is subjected to a multitude of prohibitions the observance of which helps him acquire his specific powers (see "L'Origine des pouvoirs magiques," in Mélanges d'histoire des religions, by Hubert and Mauss, pp. 171, 173, 176). It is the same for husbands on the eve of their mar-

317

Die Negative Cult and Its Functions

Abstinences a n d p r i v a t i o n s are n o t w i t h o u t suffering. W e h o l d t o the profane w o r l d w i t h every fiber o f o u r flesh. O u r sensuous nature attaches us to i t ; o u r life depends u p o n i t . N o t o n l y is the profane w o r l d the n a t u r a l t h e ater o f o u r a c t i v i t y ; i t enters us from every d i r e c t i o n ; i t is p a r t o f us. W e c a n not detach ourselves

from

i t w i t h o u t d o i n g v i o l e n c e t o o u r nature and

w i t h o u t p a i n f u l l y clashing w i t h o u r instincts. I n o t h e r w o r d s , the negative cult c a n n o t develop unless i t causes suffering. P a i n is its necessary c o n d i t i o n . B y this r o u t e , p e o p l e came t o regard p a i n as a sort o f r i t e i n itself. T h e y saw it as a state o f grace t o be sought after a n d i n d u c e d , even artificially, because o f the powers a n d privileges i t confers i n the same r i g h t as those systems o f p r o h i b i t i o n s t o w h i c h i t is t h e n a t u r a l a c c o m p a n i m e n t . T o m y k n o w l e d g e , 70

Preuss was the first t o b e c o m e aware o f t h e r e l i g i o u s role that is ascribed t o pain i n the l o w e r societies. H e cites cases: the A r a p a h o w h o i n f l i c t t o r t u r e u p o n themselves as p r o t e c t i o n f r o m the dangers o f battle; the G r o s - V e n t r e Indians w h o s u b m i t t o t o r t u r e o n the eve o f m i l i t a r y e x p e d i t i o n s ; t h e H u p a w h o s w i m i n freezing rivers a n d afterward r e m a i n stretched o u t o n the shore as l o n g as possible, t o ensure t h e success o f t h e i r u n d e r t a k i n g s ; t h e Karaya w h o p e r i o d i c a l l y d r a w b l o o d from t h e i r arms a n d legs w i t h scrapers made o f fish teeth, t o f i r m t h e i r muscles; t h e m e n o f D a l l m a n n h a f e n ( E m p e r o r W i l l i a m ' s L a n d i n N e w G u i n e a ) w h o c o m b a t sterility i n t h e i r wives b y m a k i n g b l o o d y cuts o n the w o m e n ' s u p p e r t h i g h s .

71

B u t similar d o i n g s can be f o u n d w i t h o u t l e a v i n g Australia, especially i n the course o f i n i t i a t i o n rites. M a n y o f those rites i n v o l v e the systematic i n fliction

o f suffering o n t h e n e o p h y t e , f o r the p u r p o s e o f a l t e r i n g his state a n d

riage or on the day after (taboos offiancesand of newlyweds); this is because marriage also involves an important change in status. I confine myself to noting these briefly without lingering over them. The former concern magic, which is not my subject, while the latter belong to that system ofjuridico-religious rules that refer to commerce between the sexes; the study of those will be possible only in conjunction with the other precepts of primitive conjugal morality. 70

True, Preuss interprets these facts by saying that pain is a means of increasing a man's magical power (die menschliche Zauberkraft); it might be thought, following this statement, that suffering is a magic rite and not a religious one. But as I have already pointed out, Preuss calls all anonymous and impersonal forces magic, without great precision, whether they belong to magic or to religion. There no doubt are tortures that serve to make magicians, but many of those he describes are part of authentically religious ceremonies. Hence their aim is to modify the religious states of individuals. 71

[Konrad Theodor] Preuss, "Der Ursprung der Religion und der Kunst," Globus, LXXXVII [1904], pp. 309—400. Preuss categorizes many disparate rites under the same rubric, for example, the sheddings of blood that act through the positive qualities ascribed to blood rather than through the sufferings they involve. I single out only those phenomena in which pain is the essential element of the rite and the source of its efficacy.

318


m a k i n g h i m take o n the d i s t i n g u i s h i n g qualities o f a m a n . A m o n g

the

Larakia, w h i l e the y o u t h s are o n retreat i n the forest, t h e i r godfathers a n d overseers c o n s t a n t l y assault t h e m w i t h b r u t a l b l o w s , w i t h o u t advance w a r n i n g a n d f o r n o apparent r e a s o n .

72

A m o n g t h e U r a b u n n a , at a g i v e n m o m e n t ,

t h e n o v i c e lies stretched o u t o n t h e g r o u n d w i t h his face d o w n . A l l t h e m e n present beat h i m b r u t a l l y ; t h e n t h e y m a k e a series o f f o u r t o e i g h t incisions o n his back, d o w n b o t h sides o f his spine, a n d o n e a l o n g t h e m i d l i n e o f his neck.

7 3

A m o n g t h e A r u n t a , the first r i t e o f i n i t i a t i o n consists o f tossing t h e

subject; the m e n t h r o w h i m i n t o t h e air, catch h i m w h e n he comes d o w n , and then t h r o w h i m again.

74

I n that same t r i b e , at t h e e n d o f a l o n g series o f

ceremonies, t h e y o u n g m a n is m a d e t o He d o w n o n a b e d o f leaves w i t h live coals u n d e r i t ; a n d he c o n t i n u e s t o l i e there i m m o b i l e , i n t h e m i d s t o f the heat a n d suffocating s m o k e .

75

T h e U r a b u n n a practice a similar r i t e , b u t the

i n i t i a t e is beaten o n the b a c k as w e l l .

7 6

So m u c h are his exertions o f this k i n d

that h e seems pathetic a n d half-dazed w h e n he is a l l o w e d t o resume o r d i n a r y life.

7 7

I t is t r u e t h a t all these practices are o f t e n presented as ordeals t o test the

novice's w o r t h a n d t o m a k e k n o w n his w o r t h i n e s s f o r acceptance i n t o r e l i gious s o c i e t y .

78

A c t u a l l y , h o w e v e r , the p r o b a t i o n a r y f u n c t i o n o f the r i t e is b u t

a n o t h e r aspect o f its efficacy, f o r t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h the n o v i c e bears the ordeal proves that the r i t e has a c c o m p l i s h e d e x a c d y w h a t i t was m e a n t t o : t o confer o n h i m the qualities that are its p r i m a r y raison d'être. I n o t h e r cases, these r i t u a l t o r m e n t s are a p p l i e d n o t t o the w h o l e b o d y b u t t o a n o r g a n o r a tissue, i n o r d e r t o stimulate its vitality. A m o n g the

72

Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 331—332.

73

Ibid., p. 335. A similar practice is found among the Dieri (Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 658ff.).

74

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 214ff. From this example, we see that the rites of initiation sometimes have the characteristics of hazing. This is so because hazing is a true social institution that arises spontaneously whenever two groups that are unequal in their moral and social situationsfindthemselves in intimate contact. In this case, the group that views itself as superior to the other resists the intrusion of the newcomers; it reacts against them in such a way as to make them understand how superior it feels. That reaction, which occurs automatically and takes the form of more or less severe torments, is also aimed at adapting individuals to their new life and assimilating them into their new milieu. It thus constitutes a sort of initiation. In this way, we can explain why initiation constitutes a sort of hazing. It does because the group of elders is superior in religious and moral status to that of the young, and yet the elders must take in the youths. All the conditions of hazing are present. 75


76

Ibid., p. 335.

"Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 675. 78

Ibid., pp. 569, 604.

319


A r u n t a , the W a r r a m u n g a , a n d several o t h e r t r i b e s ,

79

at a c e r t a i n m o m e n t

d u r i n g the i n i t i a t i o n , delegated i n d i v i d u a l s p l u n g e t h e i r t e e t h i n t o

the

novice's scalp. T h i s is so p a i n f u l that usually t h e patient c a n n o t bear i t w i t h o u t c r y i n g o u t . Its p u r p o s e is t o m a k e the hair g r o w .

8 0

T h e same t r e a t m e n t is

applied t o m a k e t h e beard g r o w . T h e r i t e o f hair r e m o v a l , w h i c h H o w i t t r e 81

ports f o r o t h e r tribes, m a y w e l l have t h e same raison d'être

A m o n g the

A r u n t a a n d the K a i t i s h , a c c o r d i n g t o E y l m a n n , m e n a n d w o m e n m a k e small w o u n d s o n t h e i r arms w i t h r e d - h o t sticks so as t o b e c o m e skillful at m a k i n g fire o r g a i n t h e strength t h e y n e e d t o c a r r y heavy loads o f w o o d .

8 2

Accord-

i n g t o the same observer, W a r r a m u n g a girls amputate the second a n d t h i r d j o i n t s o f t h e i n d e x f i n g e r o n o n e h a n d , b e l i e v i n g that the f i n g e r becomes m o r e skillful at u n c o v e r i n g t h e yams t h e r e b y .

83

I t is n o t impossible that t h e e x t r a c t i o n o f t e e t h m i g h t sometimes be i n t e n d e d t o b r i n g a b o u t effects o f t h e same k i n d . I t is c e r t a i n , i n any case, that the p u r p o s e o f such c r u e l rites as c i r c u m c i s i o n a n d s u b i n c i s i o n is t o confer special p o w e r s o n t h e g e n i t a l organs. Since the y o u n g m a n owes special virtues t o those rites, h e is n o t a l l o w e d t o m a r r y u n t i l he has

undergone

t h e m . W h a t makes this sui generis i n i t i a t i o n indispensable is t h e fact that, i n all the l o w e r societies, sexual u n i o n is e n d o w e d w i t h a q u a l i t y o f r e l i g i o u s ness. I t is t h o u g h t t o b r i n g i n t o play awesome forces that m a n can approach w i t h o u t danger o n l y i f he has g a i n e d t h e requisite i m m u n i t y t h r o u g h r i t u a l procedures.

84

A w h o l e series o f positive a n d negative rites, o f w h i c h c i r c u m -

c i s i o n a n d s u b i n c i s i o n are the f o r e r u n n e r s , have this purpose. A n o r g a n is g i v e n sacredness b y p a i n f u l m u t i l a t i o n , f o r that v e r y act enables i t t o w i t h stand sacred forces that o t h e r w i s e i t w o u l d be unable t o c o n f r o n t . I said at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f this w o r k t h a t all the essential elements o f r e l i gious t h o u g h t a n d life s h o u l d be f o u n d , at least i n seed, as far b a c k as the m o s t p r i m i t i v e r e l i g i o n s . T h e f o r e g o i n g facts reinforce t h a t c l a i m . I f o n e b e l i e f is h e l d t o b e specific t o t h e m o s t m o d e r n a n d idealistic r e l i g i o n s , i t is the

79

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 251; Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 341, 352.

^Consequendy, among the Warramunga, the operation must be done by individuals favored with beautiful heads of hair. 81

Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 675, which is about the tribes of Lower Darling.

^[Richard] Eylmann, [Die Eingeborenen der Kolonie Sud Australien, Berlin, D. Reumer, 1908], p. 212. 83

84

Ibid.

Information on this question is to be found in my article "La Prohibition de l'inceste et ses origines" (Année Sociologique, vol. I [1898], pp. Iff.) and in [Alfred Ernest] Crawley, The Mystic Rose [London, Macmillan, 1902], pp. 37ff.

320


o n e that attributes sanctifying p o w e r t o p a i n . T h e rites j u s t e x a m i n e d are based u p o n t h e same belief, w h i c h is v a r i o u s l y i n t e r p r e t e d , d e p e n d i n g u p o n the h i s t o r i c a l p e r i o d i n w h i c h i t is e x a m i n e d . F o r the C h r i s t i a n , p a i n is t h o u g h t t o act above all u p o n the s o u l — r e f i n i n g , e n n o b l i n g , a n d s p i r i t u a l i z i n g i t . F o r t h e A u s t r a l i a n , i t acts u p o n the b o d y — i n c r e a s i n g its v i t a l energies, m a k i n g the beard a n d hair g r o w , t o u g h e n i n g the l i m b s . B u t i n b o t h cases, t h e p r i n c i p l e is t h e same. I n b o t h , p a i n is h e l d t o be generative o f e x c e p t i o n a l forces. N o r is this b e l i e f u n f o u n d e d . I n fact, the g r a n d e u r o f a m a n is m a d e manifest b y the w a y he braves t h e p a i n . N e v e r does he rise above h i m s e l f m o r e spectacularly t h a n w h e n he subdues his nature t o the p o i n t o f m a k i n g i t f o l l o w a p a t h c o n t r a r y t o the o n e i t w o u l d take o n its o w n . I n that way, h e makes h i m s e l f u n i q u e a m o n g all the o t h e r creatures, w h i c h g o b l i n d l y w h e r e pleasure leads t h e m . I n t h a t way, he takes a special place i n the w o r l d . P a i n is the sign that c e r t a i n o f the ties that b i n d h i m t o t h e profane w o r l d are b r o k e n . Because p a i n attests that h e is p a r t i a l l y e m a n c i p a t e d from that w o r l d , i t is r i g h t l y considered t h e t o o l o f his deliverance, so h e w h o is delivered i n this w a y is n o t t h e v i c t i m o f m e r e i l l u s i o n w h e n h e believes h e is e n d o w e d w i t h a k i n d o f mastery over t h i n g s . B y t h e v e r y act o f r e n o u n c i n g things, he has risen above things. Because he has silenced nature, he is stronger t h a n nature. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h a t v i r t u e is far from h a v i n g o n l y aesthetic value. R e l i gious life as a w h o l e presupposes i t . Sacrifices a n d offerings d o n o t g o u n a c c o m p a n i e d b y p r i v a t i o n s that exact a p r i c e from the w o r s h i p p e r . E v e n i f t h e rites d o n o t r e q u i r e t a n g i b l e things o f h i m , t h e y take his t i m e a n d strength. T o serve his gods, he m u s t f o r g e t himself. T o create f o r t h e m the place i n his life t o w h i c h t h e y are e n t i d e d , he m u s t sacrifice some o f his profane interests. T h e positive c u l t is possible, t h e n , o n l y i f m a n is t r a i n e d t o r e n u n c i a t i o n , abn e g a t i o n , a n d d e t a c h m e n t from self—hence, t o suffering. H e m u s t n o t dread suffering, f o r h e can c a r r y p u t his duties j o y f u l l y o n l y i f he i n some measure loves i t . I f that is t o c o m e a b o u t , h e m u s t t r a i n h i m s e l f t o suffering, a n d this is w h e r e t h e ascetic practices lead. T h e sufferings t h e y i m p o s e are n o t a r b i t r a r y a n d sterde cruelties, t h e n , b u t a necessary s c h o o l i n w h i c h m a n shapes a n d steels himself, a n d i n w h i c h he gains t h e qualities o f disinterestedness a n d endurance w i t h o u t w h i c h there is n o r e l i g i o n . I n fact, i f this result is t o be achieved, i t helps i f t h e ascetic ideal is e m i n e n d y i n c a r n a t e d i n c e r t a i n i n d i viduals w h o are specialized, as i t were, i n that aspect o f r i t u a l life, almost t o excess. T h o s e c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l s a m o u n t t o so m a n y l i v i n g m o d e l s that e n courage s t r i v i n g . S u c h is the h i s t o r i c a l role o f the great ascetics. W h e n w e a n alyze i n detail t h e things t h e y d o , w e w o n d e r w h a t t h e useful p o i n t o f those things c o u l d be. T h e c o n t e m p t t h e y profess f o r all that o r d i n a r i l y impassions m e n strikes us as bizarre. B u t those extremes are necessary t o m a i n t a i n a m o n g

321


the faithful an adequate level o f distaste f o r easy l i v i n g a n d m u n d a n e pleasures. A n elite m u s t set the g o a l t o o h i g h so that the mass does n o t set i t t o o low. Some must g o t o extremes so that the average m a y r e m a i n h i g h e n o u g h . B u t asceticism serves m o r e t h a n r e l i g i o u s ends. H e r e , as elsewhere, r e l i gious interests are o n l y social a n d m o r a l interests i n s y m b o l i c f o r m . T h e ideal beings t o w h i c h cults are addressed are n o t alone i n d e m a n d i n g o f t h e i r servants a c e r t a i n c o n t e m p t f o r p a i n ; society, t o o , is possible o n l y at that p r i c e . E v e n w h e n e x a l t i n g t h e powers o f m a n , i t is o f t e n b r u t a l t o w a r d i n d i v i d u a l s . O f necessity, i t requires p e r p e t u a l sacrifices o f t h e m . Precisely because s o c i ety lifts us above ourselves, i t does constant v i o l e n c e t o o u r natural appetites. So that w e can f u l f i l l o u r duties t o w a r d i t , o u r c o n d i t i o n i n g must ready us t o overcome o u r instincts at t i m e s — w h e n necessary, t o g o u p t h e d o w n staircase o f nature. T h e r e is an i n h e r e n t asceticism i n all social life t h a t is destined to o u d i v e all m y t h o l o g i e s a n d all dogmas; i t is an i n t e g r a l part o f all h u m a n culture. A n d , fundamentally, that asceticism is t h e rationale a n d j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f the asceticism that r e l i g i o n s have t a u g h t since t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t i m e .

Ill H a v i n g d e t e r m i n e d w h a t the system o f p r o h i b i t i o n s consists o f a n d w h a t its negative a n d positive f u n c t i o n s are, w e m u s t n o w u n c o v e r its causes. I n a sense, the v e r y n o t i o n o f t h e sacred l o g i c a l l y entails i t . E v e r y t h i n g that is sacred is the o b j e c t o f respect, a n d every f e e l i n g o f respect is translated i n t o stirrings o f i n h i b i t i o n i n the person w h o has that feeling. Because o f the e m o t i o n i t inspires, a respected b e i n g is always expressed i n consciousness b y a representation that is h i g h l y charged w i t h m e n t a l energy. H e n c e , i t is a r m e d i n such a w a y as t o t h r o w any representation that w h o l l y o r p a r t l y contradicts i t far away f r o m itself. A n t a g o n i s m characterizes t h e relationship t h e sacred w o r l d has w i t h the profane one. T h e t w o c o r r e s p o n d t o t w o f o r m s o f life that are m u t u a l l y exclusive, o r at least that c a n n o t be l i v e d at the same time w i t h t h e same intensity. W e c a n n o t be d e v o t e d e n t i r e l y t o the ideals t o w h i c h the c u l t is addressed, a n d e n t i r e l y t o ourselves a n d o u r sensuous interests also; e n t i r e l y t o the c o l l e c t i v i t y a n d e n t i r e l y t o o u r e g o i s m as w e l l . H e r e i n are t w o states o f consciousness that are o r i e n t e d t o w a r d , a n d that o r i e n t o u r b e h a v i o r t o w a r d , t w o opposite poles. W h i c h e v e r is m o r e p o w e r f u l must p u s h the o t h e r o u t o f consciousness. W h e n w e t h i n k o f sacred things, t h e idea o f a profane o b j e c t c a n n o t present itself t o t h e m i n d w i t h o u t m e e t i n g resistance, s o m e t h i n g w i t h i n us that opposes its settlement there. T h e idea o f t h e sacred does n o t tolerate such a n e i g h b o r . B u t this psychic antagonism, this m u t u a l e x c l u s i o n o f ideas, m u s t necessarily c u l m i n a t e i n the e x c l u s i o n o f t h e things

322


that c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e m . I f t h e ideas are n o t t o coexist, t h e things m u s t n o t t o u c h o n e a n o t h e r o r c o m e i n t o c o n t a c t i n any way. S u c h is the v e r y p r i n c i ple o f t h e p r o h i b i t i o n . M o r e o v e r , the w o r l d o f the sacred is a w o r l d apart, b y d e f i n i t i o n . Since the sacred is o p p o s e d t o the profane w o r l d b y all t h e features I have m e n t i o n e d , i t m u s t be treated i n a w a y that is appropriate t o i t . I f , i n o u r dealings w i t h the things that c o m p r i s e the sacred w o r l d , w e used the actions, l a n guage, and attitudes that serve us i n o u r relations w i t h profane things, that w o u l d be t o m i s a p p r e h e n d t h e nature o f t h e sacred w o r l d a n d c o n f o u n d i t w i t h w h a t i t is n o t . W e m a y freely handle profane t h i n g s , a n d w e talk freely to o r d i n a r y beings. So w e w i l l n o t t o u c h sacred beings o r w i l l t o u c h t h e m o n l y w i t h reserve, and w e w i l l n o t talk i n t h e i r presence o r n o t talk i n the o r d i n a r y language. A l l that is c u s t o m a r y i n o u r dealings w i t h o n e set o f things m u s t be e x c l u d e d i n o u r d e a l i n g w i t h the other. B u t w h i l e this e x p l a n a t i o n is n o t inaccurate, still i t is inadequate. I n fact, a g o o d m a n y beings that are objects o f respect exist w i t h o u t b e i n g protected by strict systems o f p r o h i b i t i o n s , such as I have been describing. Doubdess, the i n tellect has a sort o f general tendency t o situate different things i n different e n v i r o n m e n t s , especially w h e n they are i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h o n e another. B u t the profane e n v i r o n m e n t and the sacred o n e are n o t m e r e l y distinct b u t also closed to one another; there is a g u l f b e t w e e n t h e m . I n the nature o f sacred beings, there m u s t be some special cause that necessitates this c o n d i t i o n o f unusual isol a t i o n and m u t u a l e x c l u s i o n . A n d voila: B y a sort o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n , the sacred w o r l d is as t h o u g h i n c l i n e d b y its v e r y nature t o spread i n t o the same profane w o r l d that i t otherwise excludes. W h i l e r e p e l l i n g the profane w o r l d , the sacred w o r l d tends at the same time t o f l o w i n t o the profane w o r l d w h e n e v e r that latter w o r l d comes near i t . T h a t is w h y they must be kept at a distance from each other and w h y , i n some sense, a v o i d must be o p e n e d between t h e m . W h a t necessitates such precautions is the e x t r a o r d i n a r y contagiousness that sacredness has. Far from r e m a i n i n g attached t o the things that are m a r k e d w i t h i t , sacredness possesses a c e r t a i n transience. E v e n the. m o s t superficial o r i n d i r e c t c o n t a c t is e n o u g h f o r i t t o spread from o n e o b j e c t t o another. R e l i gious forces are so i m a g i n e d as t o appear always o n the p o i n t o f escaping the places they o c c u p y a n d i n v a d i n g all that passes w i t h i n t h e i r reach. T h e nanja tree i n w h i c h an ancestral spirit lives is sacred f o r the i n d i v i d u a l w h o c o n s i d ers h i m s e l f a r e i n c a r n a t i o n o f that ancestor. B u t every b i r d that comes t o l i g h t u p o n that tree shares i n t h e same q u a l i t y ; so t o t o u c h the b i r d is f o r b i d d e n as 8 5

w e l l . 1 have already s h o w n h o w t h e m e r e t o u c h o f a c h u r i n g a is e n o u g h t o 85


323


sanctify p e o p l e a n d t h i n g s .

86

M o r e t h a n that, all rites o f consecration are

f o u n d e d u p o n this p r i n c i p l e , the contagiousness o f the sacred. Such, i n d e e d , is the churinga's sacredness that i t makes its i n f l u e n c e felt at a distance. A s w e recall, this sacredness spreads n o t o n l y t o the c a v i t y i n w h i c h churingas are kept b u t also t o t h e w h o l e s u r r o u n d i n g area, t o t h e animals t a k i n g refuge there ( w h i c h m a y n o t be k i l l e d ) , a n d t o the plants g r o w i n g there ( w h i c h m a y 8 7

n o t be p l u c k e d ) . A snake t o t e m has its center at a place w h e r e there is a w a ter h o l e . T h e sacredness o f t h e t o t e m is passed o n t o t h e place, t o the w a t e r hole, a n d t o t h e w a t e r itself, w h i c h is f o r b i d d e n t o all m e m b e r s o f the totemic g r o u p .

8 8

T h e n e o p h y t e lives i n an atmosphere f u l l o f religiousness,

and h e h i m s e l f is as t h o u g h suffused w i t h i t .

8 9

A s a result, e v e r y t h i n g he has

and e v e r y t h i n g he touches is f o r b i d d e n t o w o m e n a n d w i t h d r a w n from c o n tact w i t h t h e m , d o w n t o the b i r d he has s t r u c k w i t h his stick, the kangaroo he has r u n t h r o u g h w i t h his spear, a n d the fish that has s t r u c k his

90

fishhook.

B u t a n o t h e r side o f i t is that t h e rites he undergoes a n d t h e things that play a r o l e i n t h e m have greater sacredness t h a n he. T h a t sacredness is passed o n c o n t a g i o u s l y t o e v e r y t h i n g t h a t b r i n g s e i t h e r t o m i n d . T h e t o o t h that has been p u l l e d f r o m his m o u t h is regarded as v e r y sacred.

91

T h e r e f o r e , he c a n -

n o t eat o f animals that have p r o m i n e n t t e e t h , since t h e y b r i n g t o m i n d the extracted t o o t h . T h e ceremonies o f the K u r i n g a l e n d w i t h r i t u a l w a s h i n g .

92

A q u a t i c birds are f o r b i d d e n t o the n o v i c e because t h e y evoke this r i t e . T h e animals that c l i m b all the w a y t o the tops o f trees are sacrosanct t o h i m as w e l l , because t h e y are t o o m u c h t h e n e i g h b o r s o f D a r a m u l u n , the g o d o f i n i t i a t i o n , w h o lives i n the heavens.

93

T h e s o u l o f a dead m a n is a sacred b e i n g .

W e have already seen that the same p r o p e r t y passes t o t h e b o d y i n w h i c h that soul has l i v e d , t o the place w h e r e i t is b u r i e d , the c a m p w h e r e t h e m a n l i v e d

86

See above, p. 120.

87

Spencer and Gülen, Native Tribes, pp. 134—135; [Carl] Strehlow, [Die Aranda- und Loritja-stamme in Zentral-Australien, Frankfurt, J. Baer, 1907], vol. II, p. 78. 88

Spencer and Gülen, Northern Tribes, pp. 167, 299.

89

Apart from the ascetic rites of which I have spoken, there are positive ones whose purpose is to fill or, as Howitt says, to saturate the neophyte with religiousness (Howitt, NativeTribes, p. 535). True, instead of speaking of religiousness, Howitt speaks of magic powers, but we know that, for the majority of ethnographers, this word simply means religious virtues that are impersonal in nature. '"Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 674-675. 91

Spencer and Gülen, NativeTribes, p. 454. Cf. Howitt, NativeTribes, p. 561.

92


"Ibid., p. 560.

324


his life ( w h i c h is destroyed o r abandoned), the n a m e he had, his w i f e , a n d his relations.

94

I t is as t h o u g h t h e y themselves are invested w i t h sacredness, so

o n e keeps at a distance f r o m t h e m a n d does n o t treat t h e m as mere profane beings. I n the societies s t u d i e d b y D a w s o n , t h e i r names, l i k e that o f t h e dead m a n , m u s t n o t be spoken d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d o f m o u r n i n g . animals he ate m a y be p r o h i b i t e d as w e l l .

9 5

C e r t a i n o f the

9 6

T h i s contagiousness o f t h e sacred is t o o w e l l k n o w n a f a c t

97

f o r there t o

be any n e e d t o demonstrate its existence w i t h n u m e r o u s examples. I have sought o n l y t o establish that i t is as t r u e o f t o t e m i s m as i t is o f m o r e advanced religions. O n c e n o t e d , that contagiousness readily explains t h e e x t r e m e r i g o r o f the p r o h i b i t i o n s that d i v i d e the sacred f r o m the profane. B y v i r t u e o f that e x c e p t i o n a l v o l a t i l i t y , t h e slightest contact, t h e least p r o x i m i t y o f a profane b e i n g , w h e t h e r physical o r s i m p l y m o r a l , is e n o u g h t o d r a w the r e l i g i o u s forces outside t h e i r d o m a i n . O n the o t h e r h a n d , since t h e y c a n n o t e x i t w i t h o u t b e l y i n g t h e i r nature, a w h o l e system o f measures t o keep t h e t w o w o r l d s at a respectful distance apart b e c o m e s indispensable. T h i s is w h y o r d i n a r y p e o p l e are f o r b i d d e n n o t o n l y t o t o u c h b u t also t o see o r hear that w h i c h is sacred, a n d w h y these t w o k i n d s o f life m u s t n o t m i n g l e i n consciousness. Precautions t o keep t h e m apart are all the m o r e necessary because they t e n d t o m e r g e , even w h i l e o p p o s i n g o n e another. A t the same time as w e u n d e r s t a n d the m u l t i p l i c i t y o f these p r o h i b i t i o n s , w e u n d e r s t a n d h o w t h e y a n d t h e sanctions attached t o t h e m f u n c t i o n . O n e result o f t h e contagiousness i n h e r e n t i n all that is sacred is this: A profane b e i n g c a n n o t v i o l a t e a p r o h i b i t i o n w i t h o u t h a v i n g the r e l i g i o u s force that he has i m p r o p e r l y approached e x t e n d t o h i m a n d take h i m over. B u t since there is a n t a g o n i s m b e t w e e n h i m s e l f and that force, h e finds h i m s e l f subject t o a

94

See above, pp. 307, 310. Cf. Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 498; Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 506-507, 518-519, 526; Howitt, NativeTribes, pp. 449, 461, 469; Mathews, "Aboriginal Tribes of New South Wales and Victoria," RSNSW. vol. XXXVIII [1904], p. 274; Schulze, "Aborigines of. . . Finke River," p. 231; Wyatt, Adelaide and Encounter Bay Tribes, in Woods [The Native Tribes of South Australia], pp. 165, 198. 95

[James Dawson], Australian Aborigines, [The Languages and Customs of SeveralTribes ofAborigines in the Western District of Victoria, Australia, Melbourne, G. Robertson, 1881], p. 42.

^Howitt, NativeTribes, pp. 470-471. "On this question, see [William] Robertson Smith, [Lectures on] the Religion of the Semites [London, A. & C. Black, 1889], pp. 152ff., 446, 481; Frazer, "Taboo," in Encyclopedia Britannica; [Frank Byron] Jevons, Introduction to the History of Religions [London, Methuen, 1896], pp. 59ff.; Crawley, Mystic Rose, Chaps. 2-9; Arnold] Van Gennep, Tabou et totémisme à Madagascar [étude descriptive et théorique, Paris, E. Leroux,

1904], chap. 3.

325


hostile p o w e r , the h o s t i l i t y o f w h i c h is i n e v i t a b l y manifested i n v i o l e n t reactions that t e n d t o destroy h i m . T h i s is w h y sickness a n d death are p r e s u m e d to be the n a t u r a l consequences o f all such transgressions, and such are the consequences that are p r e s u m e d t o o c c u r b y themselves w i t h a sort o f p h y s ical necessity. T h e c u l p r i t feels i n v a d e d b y a force t h a t takes h i m over a n d against w h i c h he is powerless. Has h e eaten the t o t e m i c animal? H e feels i t p e r v a d i n g h i m a n d g n a w i n g at his entrails; he lies o n the g r o u n d a n d awaits death.

98

E v e r y p r o f a n a t i o n i m p l i e s a consecration, b u t o n e that is dreadful t o

w h o e v e r is consecrated a n d w h o e v e r comes near h i m . I n d e e d the results o f that consecration i n p a r t s a n c t i o n t h e p r o h i b i t i o n .

9 9

N o t i c e that this e x p l a n a t i o n o f the p r o h i b i t i o n s does n o t d e p e n d u p o n the v a r i e d symbols w i t h w h o s e help t h e r e l i g i o u s forces can be i m a g i n e d . I t is o f l i t t l e consequence w h e t h e r t h e y are i m a g i n e d as a n o n y m o u s a n d i m personal energies o r as personalities e n d o w e d w i t h consciousness a n d feeling. To be sure, t h e y are t h o u g h t i n the first case t o react against p r o f a n i n g transgressions m e c h a n i c a l l y a n d unconsciously, whereas i n the second they are t h o u g h t t o o b e y goadings o f passion aroused b y the offense. Fundamentally, however, these t w o c o n c e p t i o n s ( w h i c h , b y t h e way, have the same practical effects) d o n o m o r e t h a n express o n e a n d the same psychic m e c h a n i s m i n t w o different languages. B o t h are based o n t h e a n t a g o n i s m b e t w e e n the sacred and t h e profane, plus the remarkable capacity o f t h e first t o be passed o n t o the second. T h e a n t a g o n i s m a n d the contagiousness act i n the same way, w h e t h e r sacredness is i m p u t e d t o b l i n d forces o r t o consciousnesses. So a u t h e n t i c a l l y r e l i g i o u s life is far f r o m b e g i n n i n g o n l y w h e r e m y t h i c a l p e r s o n a l ities exist, f o r w e see i n this case that t h e r i t e remains the same w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e r e l i g i o u s beings are p e r s o n i f i e d . T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n is o n e I w i l l have occasion t o repeat i n each o f t h e chapters t o c o m e .

IV I f the contagiousness o f t h e sacred helps t o e x p l a i n the system o f p r o h i b i tions, h o w is this contagiousness itself t o be explained? S o m e have t h o u g h t t h e y c o u l d a c c o u n t f o r i t b y t h e w e l l - k n o w n laws

98

See the references above, p. 128, n. 1. Cf. Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 323, 324; Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 168; Taplin, The Narrinyeri, p. 16; Roth, [possibly "Marriage Ceremonies"], p. 76. "Bear in mind that when the prohibition violated is religious, these sanctions are not the only ones; there is, besides, either an actual punishment or a public stigma.

326


g o v e r n i n g the association o f ideas. Feelings e v o k e d b y a p e r s o n o r a t h i n g spread contagiously, f r o m t h e idea o f that t h i n g o r p e r s o n t o t h e representations associated w i t h i t , a n d from there t o t h e objects w i t h w h i c h those r e p resentations b e c o m e associated. T h e respect w e have f o r a sacred b e i n g is t h e r e b y c o m m u n i c a t e d t o a l l that touches this b e i n g a n d t o all that resembles i t o r calls i t t o m i n d . O f course, an educated m a n is n o t t h e d u p e o f such associations. H e k n o w s t h a t t h e e m o t i o n s result from m e r e plays o f images, e n t i r e l y m e n t a l c o m b i n a t i o n s , a n d he w i l l n o t a b a n d o n h i m s e l f t o the superstitions that those i l l u s i o n s t e n d t o create. B u t , i t is said, t h e p r i m i t i v e o b j e c tifies these impressions naively, w i t h o u t c r i t i q u i n g t h e m . D o e s a t h i n g inspire reverent fear i n h i m ? F r o m t h e fear, t h e c o n c l u s i o n : A majestic a n d awesome force does i n d e e d l i v e i n i t , so he keeps his distance from that t h i n g a n d treats i t as i f i t was sacred, even t h o u g h i t is i n n o w a y e n t i t l e d t o b e .

1 0 0

T o say this, h o w e v e r , is t o f o r g e t that t h e m o s t p r i m i t i v e r e l i g i o n s are n o t t h e o n l y ones that have ascribed t o sacredness such an a b i l i t y t o propagate. E v e n t h e m o s t m o d e r n cults have a set o f rites based o n this p r i n c i p l e . D o e s n o t every c o n s e c r a t i o n b y a n o i n t i n g o r w a s h i n g t r a n s m i t t h e sanctifying v i r t u e s o f a sacred o b j e c t i n t o a profane one? A l t h o u g h that m o d e o f t h i n k i n g has n o n a t u r a l e x p l a n a t i o n o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n , still i t is h a r d t o see today's e n l i g h t e n e d C a t h o l i c as a k i n d o f b a c k w a r d savage. M o r e o v e r , t h e t e n d e n c y t o o b j e c t i f y every e m o t i o n is ascribed t o t h e p r i m i t i v e q u i t e arbitrarily. I n everyday life, i n t h e details o f his secular o c c u p a t i o n s , he does n o t a t t r i b u t e t o o n e t h i n g t h e properties o f its n e i g h b o r , o r v i c e versa. T o b e sure, he is less infatuated w i t h c l a r i t y a n d distinctness t h a n w e are. E v e n so, i t is far f r o m t r u e that l i v i n g i n h i m is w h o - k n o w s - w h a t d e p l o r a b l e i n c l i n a t i o n t o s c r a m ble e v e r y t h i n g , t o r u n e v e r y t h i n g together. I t is r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t alone that has a m a r k e d i n c l i n a t i o n t o w a r d fusions o f this sort. Clearly, t h e n , i t is n o t i n t h e general laws o f h u m a n i n t e l l i g e n c e that w e m u s t seek t h e o r i g i n o f these predispositions b u t i n t h e special nature o f r e l i g i o u s t h i n g s . W h e n a force o r a p r o p e r t y seems t o us t o be an i n t e g r a l part, a c o n stituent e l e m e n t , o f w h a t e v e r i t i n h a b i t s , w e d o n o t easdy i m a g i n e i t as capab l e o f d e t a c h i n g i t s e l f a n d g o i n g elsewhere. A b o d y is d e f i n e d b y its mass a n d a t o m i c c o m p o s i t i o n ; w e d o n o t i m a g i n e e i t h e r t h a t i t can pass o n any o f these d i s t i n g u i s h i n g properties b y m e r e c o n t a c t . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , i f t h e force is o n e that has e n t e r e d t h e b o d y from outside, t h e idea that i t s h o u l d be 100

See Jevons, Introduction to the History of Religion, pp. 67—68.1 will say nothing about the (by the way, barely formulated) theory of Crawley (Mystic Rose, chaps. 4—7), in which the reason taboos are contagious is that certain phenomena of contagion are erroneously interpreted. That is arbitrary. As Jevons quite correcdy observes in the passage to which I refer the reader, the contagiousness of the sacred is affirmed a priori, and not on the basis of improperly interpreted experiences.

327


able t o escape f r o m that b o d y is i n n o w a y u n i m a g i n a b l e , f o r n o t h i n g attaches it there. T h u s , t h e heat o r e l e c t r i c i t y that any o b j e c t has received f r o m o u t side can be t r a n s m i t t e d t o the s u r r o u n d i n g m i l i e u , a n d the m i n d readily accepts the p o s s i b i l i t y o f that transmission. I f r e l i g i o u s forces are generally conceived o f as e x t e r n a l t o t h e beings i n w h i c h t h e y reside, t h e n there is n o surprise i n the e x t r e m e ease w i t h w h i c h r e l i g i o u s forces radiate a n d diffuse. This is precisely w h a t t h e t h e o r y I have p u t f o r w a r d i m p l i e s . R e l i g i o u s forces are i n fact o n l y transfigured collective forces, that is, m o r a l forces; t h e y are m a d e o f ideas a n d feelings that t h e spectacle o f society awakens i n us, n o t o f sensations that c o m e t o us f r o m the physical w o r l d . T h u s , t h e y are quahtatively different from the tangible things i n w h i c h w e l o calize t h e m . F r o m those things t h e y m a y v e r y w e l l b o r r o w the o u t w a r d a n d physical f o r m s i n w h i c h t h e y are i m a g i n e d , b u t t h e y o w e n o n e o f t h e i r p o w e r to those things. T h e y are n o t h e l d b y i n t e r n a l b o n d s t o t h e various supports o n w h i c h t h e y eventually settle a n d are n o t r o o t e d i n t h e m . T o use a w o r d I have used already a n d that best characterizes t h e m ,

1 0 1

they are superadded.

T h u s n o objects, t o the e x c l u s i o n o f others, are predisposed t o r e c e i v i n g those forces. T h e m o s t i n s i g n i f i c a n t objects, even t h e m o s t

commonplace

ones, can play this role. C h a n c e circumstances decide w h i c h are the elect. L e t us recall t h e terms i n w h i c h C o d r i n g t o n speaks o f mana: " I t is a force that is by no means fixed on a material object, but that can be carried on almost any sort of object!'

102

Similarly, M i s s Fletcher's D a k o t a p o r t r a y e d w a k a n f o r us as a k i n d

o f m o v i n g force that comes a n d goes t h r o u g h o u t the w o r l d , a l i g h t i n g here o r there w i t h o u t s e t t l i n g a n y w h e r e o n c e a n d f o r a l l .

1 0 3

T h e religiousness that is

i n h e r e n t i n m a n is n o different. I t is t r u e that, i n t h e w o r l d o f experience, n o b e i n g is closer t o t h e v e r y source o f r e l i g i o u s life; n o n e participates i n i t m o r e direcdy, f o r h u m a n consciousness is the place w h e r e i t develops. A n d yet w e k n o w that t h e r e l i g i o u s p r i n c i p l e that animates m a n , the soul, is p a r t l y e x t e r nal t o h i m . I f t h e r e l i g i o u s forces d o n o t have a place o f t h e i r o w n a n y w h e r e , t h e i r m o b i l i t y becomes easy t o e x p l a i n . Since n o t h i n g binds t h e m t o the things i n w h i c h w e localize t h e m , i t is n o t s u r p r i s i n g that t h e y escape from those things u p o n the slightest contact—against t h e i r w i l l , so t o speak. T h e i r i n tensity pushes t h e m o n t o w a r d diffusion, w h i c h e v e r y t h i n g facilitates. T h i s is w h y the soul itself, t h o u g h h o l d i n g o n t o t h e b o d y w i t h e n t i r e l y personal 101

See above, p. 230.

102

See above, p. 197. [I have rendered this passage by Codrington according to the two slighdy different renderings by Dürkheim. Trans.] 103

See above, p. 201.

328


bonds, c o n t i n u a l l y threatens t o leave i t ; all t h e openings a n d pores o f the b o d y are so m a n y channels t h r o u g h w h i c h i t tends t o spread a n d diffuse to the o u t s i d e .

104

B u t t h e p h e n o m e n o n w e are t r y i n g t o u n d e r s t a n d w i l l be e x p l a i n e d better still i f , instead o f c o n s i d e r i n g the f u l l y f o r m e d c o n c e p t o f religious forces, w e go b a c k t o the m e n t a l process from w h i c h i t results. W e have seen that t h e sacredness o f a b e i n g d i d n o t d e p e n d u p o n any one o f its i n h e r e n t characteristics. I t is n o t because the t o t e m i c a n i m a l has this o r that appearance o r p r o p e r t y that i t inspires r e l i g i o u s feelings. T h e causes o f those feelings are e n t i r e l y f o r e i g n t o t h e nature o f t h e o b j e c t o n w h i c h they eventually settle. W h a t constitutes those feelings are t h e impressions o f reassurance a n d dependence that are created i n consciousness t h r o u g h t h e w o r k ings o f society. B y themselves, these e m o t i o n s are n o t b o u n d t o the idea o f any d e f i n i t e object. B u t since t h e y are e m o t i o n s , a n d especially intense ones, t h e y are e m i n e n t l y c o n t a g i o u s as w e l l . H e n c e , t h e y are l i k e an o i l slick; they spread t o all t h e o t h e r m e n t a l states t h a t o c c u p y t h e m i n d . T h e y pervade and c o n t a m i n a t e especially those representations i n w h i c h are expressed the various objects that the m a n at that v e r y m o m e n t has i n his hands o r before his eyes: T o t e m i c designs that cover his body, b u l l roarers t h a t he causes t o resonate, rocks that s u r r o u n d h i m , g r o u n d that he tramps u n d e r f o o t , and so o n . So i t is that these objects themselves take o n r e l i g i o u s significance that is n o t i n t r i n s i c t o t h e m b u t is c o n f e r r e d o n t h e m from outside. H e n c e c o n t a g i o n is n o t a k i n d o f secondary process b y w h i c h sacredness propagates, o n c e acq u i r e d , b u t is instead t h e v e r y process b y w h i c h sacredness is acquired. I t setdes

by contagion; we

s h o u l d n o t be

surprised

that

i t is t r a n s m i t t e d

contagiously. A special e m o t i o n gives i t t h e reality i t has; i f sacredness b e comes attached t o an object, that happens because t h e e m o t i o n has e n c o u n tered the o b j e c t o n its p a t h . I t n a t u r a l l y spreads from the o b j e c t t o all the others i t finds n e a r b y — t h a t is, t o all that some cause has b r o u g h t close t o the first i n the m i n d , w h e t h e r physical c o n t i g u i t y o r m e r e similarity. T h u s , t h e c o n t a g i o u s q u a l i t y o f sacredness finds its e x p l a n a t i o n i n the t h e o r y o f r e l i g i o u s forces that I have p r o p o s e d , a n d that v e r y fact serves as confirmation o f the t h e o r y .

1 0 5

A t t h e same t i m e , i t helps us u n d e r s t a n d a fea-

t u r e o f p r i m i t i v e m e n t a l i t y t o w h i c h I p r e v i o u s l y called a t t e n t i o n .

104

This Preuss clearly demonstrated in the Globus articles I cited previously.

105

It is true that the contagiousness is not peculiar to religious forces, for those belonging to magic have the same property. And yet it is evident that those forces do not correspond to objectified social feelings. This is because the magic forces were conceived on the model of religious forces. I will return later to this point (see p. 366).


W e have s e e n

106

329

h o w easily the p r i m i t i v e assimilates disparate k i n g d o m s

o f nature a n d sees the m o s t disparate things as i d e n t i c a l — m e n , animals, plants, stars, a n d so f o r t h . W e n o w see o n e o f the causes that c o n t r i b u t e d most t o f a c i l i t a t i n g these fusions. Because r e l i g i o u s forces are e m i n e n t l y c o n tagious, a single p r i n c i p l e is c o n t i n u a l l y f o u n d t o b e a n i m a t i n g the m o s t disparate things. I t passes a m o n g t h e m as a result o f m e r e physical nearness o r mere similarity, even superficial similarity. So i t is that m e n , animals, plants, and rocks are h e l d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e same t o t e m : t h e m e n because they carry the n a m e o f the a n i m a l ; t h e plants because t h e y serve as f o o d f o r t h e animal; t h e rocks because t h e y stand w h e r e t h e ceremonies are c o n d u c t e d . T h e r e l i g i o u s forces are considered the source o f all that is p o w e r f u l ; as a r e sult, beings that h a d the same r e l i g i o u s p r i n c i p l e m u s t have seemed t o be o f the same essence a n d t o differ f r o m o n e a n o t h e r o n l y i n secondary

charac-

teristics. T h i s is w h y i t seemed e n t i r e l y n a t u r a l t o p u t t h e m i n t h e same cate g o r y a n d t o v i e w t h e m as varieties w i t h i n a single genus a n d as transmutable i n t o o n e another. O n c e established, this relationship makes the p h e n o m e n a o f c o n t a g i o n appear i n a n e w l i g h t . B y themselves, they seem aben t o logical Ufe. D o they n o t b r i n g a b o u t the m i n g l i n g a n d fusion o f things, despite the natural differences o f those things? B u t w e have seen that these fusions and participations have played a logical role, and o n e o f great u t i l i t y : T h e y have served t o c o n nect things that sensation leaves separate f r o m o n e another. T h u s , the sort o f fundamental i r r a t i o n a l i t y that w e are at first l e d t o i m p u t e to c o n t a g i o n , the source o f that b r i n g i n g together a n d m i x i n g , is far f r o m b e i n g its distinctive m a r k . C o n t a g i o n prepared the w a y f o r the scientific explanations o f the future.

106

See above, p. 237.

CHAPTER TWO

THE POSITIVE CULT The Elements of the Sacrifice

W

hatever its i m p o r t a n c e a n d a l t h o u g h i t has i n d i r e c t l y positive effects, t h e negative c u l t is n o t an e n d i n itself. I t gives access t o religious life

b u t presupposes, rather t h a n constitutes, that life. I f t h e negative c u l t c o m mands the faithful t o flee the profane w o r l d , the p o i n t is t o d r a w t h e m closer t o t h e sacred w o r l d . M a n has never i m a g i n e d that his duties t o w a r d the r e l i gious forces c o u l d be h m i t e d t o abstinence f r o m all c o m m e r c e . H e has always t h o u g h t o f h i m s e l f as m a i n t a i n i n g positive bilateral relations w i t h

them,

w h i c h a set o f r i t u a l practices regulate a n d organize. T o this special system o f rites I g i v e the n a m e " p o s i t i v e c u l t . " For a l o n g t i m e , w e w e r e almost e n t i r e l y i g n o r a n t o f w h a t the positive c u l t o f t o t e m i c r e l i g i o n m i g h t i n c l u d e . W e k n e w almost n o t h i n g b e y o n d the i n i t i a t i o n rites, a n d those inadequately. T h i s gap i n o u r k n o w l e d g e has been partially

f i l l e d b y the studies o f Spencer a n d G i l l e n o n the tribes o f central

Australia, f o r w h i c h Schulze paved the w a y a n d w h i c h S t r e h l o w has c o n f i r m e d . T h e r e is o n e celebration i n particular that these explorers were especially i n t e n t o n d e s c r i b i n g a n d that seem t o d o m i n a t e the t o t e m i c cult: the o n e that, a c c o r d i n g t o Spencer and G i l l e n , the A r u n t a call the I n t i c h i u m a . I t is t r u e that S t r e h l o w disputes this m e a n i n g o f the w o r d . A c c o r d i n g t o h i m , intichiuma (or as he spells i t , intijiuma) means " t o t e a c h " a n d designates the ceremonies that are p e r f o r m e d before the y o u n g m a n f o r the purpose o f i n i t i a t i n g h i m i n t o the traditions o f the t r i b e . H e says that the feast I w i l l describe bears the 1

name mbatjalkatiuma, w h i c h means " t o f e r t i l i z e " o r " t o repair." I w i l l n o t t r y to setde this question o f vocabulary, w h i c h is beside the p o i n t — a l l the m o r e so, i n that the rites t o be discussed are also c o n d u c t e d d u r i n g i n i t i a t i o n . B e -

'[Carl] Strehlow, [DieAranda- und Loritja-Stämme in Zentral-Australien, Frankfurt, J. Baer, 1907], vol. I, p.4. 330

331

The Positive Cult

sides, since today the w o r d " I n t i c h i u m a " belongs t o the c o m m o n parlance o f ethnography, t o substitute another w o u l d seem poindess.

2

T h e date o n w h i c h t h e I n t i c h i u m a takes place depends largely o n t h e time o f year. I n c e n t r a l A u s t r a l i a there are t w o clearly m a r k e d seasons: a d r y season, w h i c h lasts a l o n g time, a n d a r a i n y one, w h i c h b y contrast is s h o r t and o f t e n irregular. A s s o o n as t h e rains c o m e , t h e plants s p r i n g f r o m the g r o u n d as i f b y a spell, t h e animals m u l t i p l y , a n d lands that w e r e b u t sterile deserts the day before are r a p i d l y covered again w i t h l u x u r i a n t flora a n d fauna. T h e I n t i c h i u m a is celebrated at t h e precise m o m e n t w h e n the g o o d season seems at h a n d . B u t because t h e r a i n y season is q u i t e variable, the date o f the ceremonies c a n n o t be set o n c e a n d f o r a l l . I t varies a c c o r d i n g t o c l i matic c o n d i t i o n s , w h i c h o n l y t h e head o f t h e t o t e m i c g r o u p , t h e A l a t u n j a , is qualified t o assess. O n t h e day he j u d g e s t o be appropriate, he i n f o r m s his people that the t i m e has c o m e .

3

E a c h t o t e m i c g r o u p has its o w n I n t i c h i u m a . A l t h o u g h the r i t e is f o u n d t h r o u g h o u t t h e societies o f t h e center, i t is n o t t h e same e v e r y w h e r e . A m o n g the W a r r a m u n g a i t is n o t t h e same as i t is a m o n g the A r u n t a , and i t varies n o t o n l y b y t r i b e b u t also b y clan w i t h i n the same t r i b e . S t i l l , the various p r o c e dures i n use are t o o a k i n t o o n e a n o t h e r t o b e c o m p l e t e l y dissociable. T h e r e are p r o b a b l y n o ceremonies that d o n o t have several o f those mechanisms, b u t q u i t e u n e q u a l l y d e v e l o p e d . W h a t exists o n l y as a seed i n o n e case d o m i nates elsewhere, a n d v i c e versa. Still i t is i m p o r t a n t t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e m carefully. T h e y c o n s t i t u t e so m a n y different r i t u a l types that w e m u s t describe a n d e x p l a i n separately—and o n l y after that t r y t o discern w h e t h e r t h e y all have a c o m m o n o r i g i n . I w i l l b e g i n w i t h those that are observed m o r e specifically a m o n g t h e A r u n t a .

I T h e feast has t w o successive phases. T h e series o f rites that o c c u r o n e after the o t h e r i n the first phrase are i n t e n d e d t o ensure t h e w e l l - b e i n g o f the a n i m a l o r p l a n t species that serves as the t o t e m o f the clan. T h e means used f o r this p u r p o s e are r e d u c i b l e t o a f e w m a i n types. 2

The word designating that feast varies by tribe. The Urabunna call it Pijinta ([Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [Francis James] Gillen, Northern Tribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1904], p. 284); the Warramunga, Thalaminta (ibid., p. 297), etc. 3

[R_ev. Louis] Schulze, "Aborigines of the Upper and Middle Finke River," RSSA, vol. XIV [1891], p. 243; [Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [Francis James] Gillen, Native Tribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1904], pp. 169-170.

332


R e c a l l that t h e m y t h i c a l ancestors f r o m w h i c h each clan is t h o u g h t t o descend o n c e l i v e d o n earth a n d left traces o f t h e i r passage. I n particular, those traces i n c l u d e stones o r rocks that t h e y are t h o u g h t t o have set d o w n i n c e r t a i n places o r that w e r e f o r m e d at t h e places w h e r e t h e y sank i n t o the g r o u n d . T h e rocks and stones are considered t o be the bodies o r b o d y parts o f the ancestors w h o s e m e m o r y t h e y evoke a n d w h o m t h e y represent. Since an i n d i v i d u a l a n d his t o t e m are one, i t f o l l o w s that t h e y also represent t h e a n imals a n d plants that w e r e t h e t o t e m s o f those same ancestors. Consequently, the same reality a n d the same properties are a c c o r d e d t o t h e m as t o t h e a n i mals a n d plants o f t h e same sort that live today. T h e advantage they have over these latter is t o be i m m o r t a l — t o k n o w n e i t h e r sickness n o r death. I n this way, t h e y c o n s t i t u t e s o m e t h i n g l i k e a p e r m a n e n t , u n c h a n g i n g , and always available stock o f a n i m a l a n d p l a n t life. A n d i n a c e r t a i n n u m b e r o f cases, i t is this reserve that p e o p l e d r a w u p o n a n n u a l l y t o ensure the r e p r o d u c t i o n o f the species. H e r e , as an example, is h o w t h e W i t c h e t t y G r u b clan, at A l i c e Springs, conducts its I n t i c h i u m a .

4

O n t h e day set b y t h e chief, all t h e m e m b e r s o f the t o t e m i c g r o u p gather at t h e m a i n camp. T h e m e n o f o t h e r t o t e m s retire a c e r t a i n distance; a m o n g the A r u n t a , t h e y are f o r b i d d e n t o be present at t h e c e l e b r a t i o n o f the r i t e , w h i c h has all the characteristics o f a secret c e r e m o n y .

5

Sometimes an i n d i -

v i d u a l o f the same p h r a t r y b u t a different t o t e m m a y be i n v i t e d as a courtesy, b u t o n l y as a witness. U n d e r n o circumstances m a y h e take an active role. O n c e the m e n o f t h e t o t e m have gathered, t h e y depart, l e a v i n g o n l y t w o o r three o f t h e i r n u m b e r at t h e camp. C o m p l e t e l y naked, w i t h o u t weapons, a n d w i t h o u t any o f t h e i r usual o r n a m e n t s , t h e y w a l k single fde, i n p r o f o u n d silence. T h e i r a t t i t u d e a n d pace are m a r k e d w i t h r e l i g i o u s solemnity, because t h e act i n w h i c h t h e y are t a k i n g p a r t is, i n t h e i r eyes, o n e o f e x c e p t i o n a l i m p o r t a n c e . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e y m u s t observe a r i g o r o u s fast u n t i l t h e e n d o f the ceremony. T h e l a n d t h e y cross is f i l l e d w i t h m e m e n t o s left b y t h e g l o r i o u s ancestors. F i n a l l y t h e y reach a place w h e r e a large b l o c k o f q u a r t z i t e is stuck i n the earth, s u r r o u n d e d b y small, r o u n d e d stones. T h e b l o c k represents the w i t c h e t t y g r u b i n its a d u l t state. T h e A l a t u n j a hits i t w i t h a sort o f small w o o d e n 6

plate, called an apmara, w h i l e i n t o n i n g a chant w h o s e o b j e c t is t o i n v i t e the

"Ibid., pp. 170fF. 5

Of course, the same obligation binds the women.

6

The Apmara [Dürkheim capitalized here. Trans.] is the only object he has brought from the camp.

333

The Positive Cult

animal t o lay eggs. H e does the same w i t h t h e stones, w h i c h represent the eggs o f the a n i m a l , and, u s i n g o n e o f t h e m , he rubs the stomach o f each p e r son i n attendance. T h i s d o n e , t h e y all descend a l i t t l e l o w e r , t o the f o o t o f a rock that t h e A l c h e r i n g a m y t h s also celebrate, a n d at the base o f w h i c h is f o u n d a n o t h e r stone that again represents the w i t c h e t t y g r u b . T h e A l a t u n j a strikes i t w i t h his apmara; the m e n a c c o m p a n y i n g h i m d o the same w i t h g u m tree branches that t h e y have gathered o n the way, all this a m i d h y m n s repeati n g the i n v i t a t i o n earlier addressed t o t h e a n i m a l . N e a r l y t e n different places, sometimes a m i l e apart, are v i s i t e d o n e after the other. A t each o f t h e m , i n the back o f a sort o f cave o r h o l e , is a stone that is said t o represent the w i t c h etty g r u b i n o n e o f its aspects o r phases o f life, a n d the same ceremonies are repeated o n each o f these stones. T h e m e a n i n g o f t h e r i t e is apparent. T h e A l a t u n j a strikes the sacred stones i n o r d e r t o detach some dust from i t . T h e grains o f this v e r y h o l y * dust are regarded as so m a n y seeds o f life, each c o n t a i n i n g a s p i r i t u a l p r i n c i ple that, b y e n t e r i n g an o r g a n i s m o f the same species, w i l l give b i r t h t h e r e i n t o a n e w b e i n g . T h e tree branches that t h e participants c a r r y are used t o spread this precious dust i n all d i r e c t i o n s ; i t goes f o r t h i n all directions t o d o its w o r k o f i m p r e g n a t i o n . B y this means, t h e y believe t h e y have ensured the abundant r e p r o d u c t i o n o f the a n i m a l species that the c l a n watches over, so t o speak, a n d t o w h i c h i t belongs. T h e natives themselves i n t e r p r e t the r i t e i n this way. I n the clan o f the I l p i r l a (a sort o f m a n n a ) , t h e y p r o c e e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way. W h e n the day o f the I n t i c h i u m a has c o m e , t h e g r o u p meets at a place w h e r e a large r o c k , a b o u t five feet h i g h , stands; a second r o c k that l o o k s v e r y m u c h l i k e the first rises o n t o p o f i t , a n d smaller rocks s u r r o u n d this one. B o t h represent a c c u m u l a t i o n s o f m a n n a . T h e A l a t u n j a digs i n the g r o u n d at the f o o t o f these rocks a n d b r i n g s f o r t h a c h u r i n g a that is said t o have b e e n b u r i e d there i n A l c h e r i n g a times a n d that itself is l i k e t h e quintessence o f mana. H e t h e n climbs t o the t o p o f the h i g h e r r o c k a n d rubs i t first w i t h this c h u r i n g a , t h e n w i t h t h e smaller stones that are a r o u n d i t . Finally, u s i n g tree branches,

he

sweeps t h e dust that has c o l l e c t e d o n t h e surface o f the r o c k . E a c h o f the o t h e r participants does t h e same t h i n g i n t u r n . N o w , say Spencer a n d G i l l e n , the t h o u g h t o f the natives "is that t h e dust thus dispersed w i l l g o a n d rest o n the m u l g a trees a n d there p r o d u c e m a n n a . " T h e s e operations are a c c o m p a n i e d b y a h y m n s u n g b y t h e participants that expresses this idea.

7

T h e same r i t e is f o u n d , w i t h variations, i n o t h e r societies. A m o n g the *Sainte.

'Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 185-186.

334


U r a b u n n a , there is a r o c k representing an ancestor o f the L i z a r d clan; stones are detached f r o m i t a n d t h r o w n i n all d i r e c t i o n s i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n abundant 8

lizard b i r t h s . I n this same t r i b e , there is a sand b a n k that m y t h o l o g i c a l r e c o l l e c t i o n closely associates w i t h the t o t e m o f the louse. T h e r e are t w o trees at the same p l a c e — o n e called t h e tree o f t h e o r d i n a r y louse, the o t h e r that o f the crab louse. T h e w o r s h i p p e r s take some o f t h e sand, r u b i t against those trees, a n d t h r o w i t i n all directions, b e i n g c o n v i n c e d that b y this means m a n y 9

lice w i l l be b o r n . T h e M a r a g o a b o u t t h e I n t i c h i u m a o f bees b y spreading dust that has b e e n detached f r o m sacred r o c k s .

10

A somewhat

different

m e t h o d is used f o r the plains kangaroo. T h e y c o l l e c t some kangaroo d u n g a n d w r a p i t i n a grass t h a t the a n i m a l is v e r y f o n d o f a n d that therefore b e longs t o the kangaroo t o t e m . T h e y place the d u n g o n t h e g r o u n d i n the w r a p p i n g , b e t w e e n t w o layers o f the same grass, a n d t h e n set fire t o all o f this. W i t h the flame that results, t h e y l i g h t tree branches and t h e n shake t h e m , so sparks f l y i n all directions. T h e s e sparks play the same role as t h e dust o f the p r e c e d i n g cases.

11

I n a n u m b e r o f clans,

12

t h e m e n m i x some o f t h e i r o w n substance w i t h

that o f the stone, i n o r d e r t o m a k e this r i t e m o r e efficacious. Y o u n g m e n o p e n t h e i r veins a n d let the b l o o d gush o n t o t h e r o c k . T h i s occurs, f o r e x ample, i n t h e Hakea F l o w e r I n t i c h i u m a , a m o n g the A r u n t a . T h e c e r e m o n y is h e l d at a sacred place, a r o u n d a stone that is also sacred a n d that, i n the eyes o f the natives, represents hakea flowers. A f t e r several p r e l i m i n a r y operations, " t h e o l d m a n w h o is c o n d u c t i n g the r i t e asks a y o u n g m a n t o o p e n his veins. T h e y o u n g m a n obeys and lets his b l o o d f l o w freely o n t o the stone, w h i l e those present c o n t i n u e t o sing. T h e b l o o d flows u n t i l t h e stone is c o m p l e t e l y covered w i t h i t . "

1 3

T h e o b j e c t o f this practice is t o infuse n e w life i n t o the

v i r t u e s t h e stone contains a n d m a k e i t m o r e p o w e r f u l . Bear i n m i n d t h a t the clansmen themselves are relatives o f the p l a n t o r a n i m a l w h o s e name they bear. T h e same l i f e - p r i n c i p l e resides i n t h e m , especially i n t h e i r b l o o d . N a t urally, t h e n , this b l o o d a n d the mystical seeds c a r r i e d a l o n g b y i t are used t o ensure t h e regular r e p r o d u c t i o n o f the t o t e m i c species. W h e n a m a n is sick o r t i r e d , i t is c o m m o n a m o n g the A r u n t a f o r o n e o f his y o u n g c o m p a n i o n s

8


9

Ibid.

10

Ibid., p. 312.

"Ibid. 12

We will see below that these clans are much more numerous than Spencer and Gillen say.

"Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 184-185.

335

The Positive Cult

to o p e n his o w n veins a n d s p r i n k l e t h e a d i n g m a n w i t h the b l o o d t o revive him.

1 4

I f b l o o d can thus reawaken life i n a m a n , i t is n o t s u r p r i s i n g that b l o o d

can also serve t o awaken life i n the a n i m a l o r p l a n t species w i t h w h i c h the m e n o f the clan are i d e n t i f i e d . T h e same t e c h n i q u e is used i n the K a n g a r o o I n t i c h i u m a at U n d i a r a ( A r u n t a ) . T h e setting f o r the c e r e m o n y is a w a t e r h o l e p r e c i p i t o u s l y overh u n g b y a r o c k . T h i s r o c k represents an A l c h e r i n g a a n i m a l - k a n g a r o o that was k i l l e d a n d set i n this place b y a m a n - k a n g a r o o o f t h e same p e r i o d . F o r that reason, m a n y spirits o f kangaroos are t h o u g h t t o reside here. A f t e r a n u m b e r o f sacred stones have b e e n r u b b e d against o n e a n o t h e r i n the m a n n e r I have described, several o f those present c l i m b o n t o t h e r o c k a n d let t h e i r b l o o d flow all a l o n g i t .

1 5

" T h e p u r p o s e o f this ceremony, a c c o r d i n g t o w h a t the n a -

tives say, is actually t h e f o l l o w i n g . T h e b l o o d o f the m a n - k a n g a r o o is spilled o n the r o c k i n o r d e r t o free t h e spirits o f animal-kangaroos and scatter t h e m i n all d i r e c t i o n s ; the effect m u s t be t o increase the n u m b e r o f kangaroos."

16

T h e r e is even a case a m o n g t h e A r u n t a i n w h i c h b l o o d seems t o be the active p r i n c i p l e o f t h e r i t e . I n t h e E m u g r o u p , n e i t h e r stones n o r a n y t h i n g r e s e m b l i n g stones are used. T h e A l a t u n j a a n d c e r t a i n o f those w i t h h i m s p r i n kle the g r o u n d w i t h t h e i r b l o o d . O n t h e g r o u n d thus m o i s t e n e d , they trace lines o f various colors, w h i c h represent the various parts o f the emu's body. T h e y k n e e l a r o u n d this d r a w i n g a n d chant a m o n o t o n o u s h y m n . F r o m the Active e m u i n c a n t e d i n this way, hence from the b l o o d used i n d o i n g so, l i f e p r i n c i p l e s c o m e f o r t h that w i l l animate the e m b r y o s o f t h e n e w g e n e r a t i o n and thus p r e v e n t the species from d y i n g o u t . A clan a m o n g t h e W o n k g o n g a r u

1 8

1 7

has a c e r t a i n k i n d o f f i s h as its t o t e m ;

i n t h e I n t i c h i u m a o f this t o t e m as w e l l , b l o o d plays the central role. A f t e r h a v i n g p a i n t e d h i m s e l f ceremonially, the c h i e f o f t h e g r o u p enters a w a t e r

14

Ibid., pp. 438, 461, 464; Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 596£F.

''Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 201. 16

Ibid., p. 206.1 use the language of Spencer and Gillen and say, as they do, that it is the spirits of kangaroos that come awayfromthe rocks (spirits or spirit parts of kangaroos). Strehlow, Aranda (vol. Ill, p. 7), disputes the accuracy of this phrase. According to him, it is real kangaroos, living bodies, that the rite causes to appear. But quite like the dispute over the notion of ratapa (see p. 254—255 above), this one is without interest. Since the kangaroo seeds that escape from the rocks are invisible, they are not made of the same substance as the kangaroos our senses perceive. That is all Spencer and Gillen mean. It is quite certain, moreover, that these are not pure spirits as a Christian might conceive of them. Just like human souls, they have physical forms. 17


18

A tribe living east of Lake Eyre.

336


h o l e a n d sits d o w n i n i t . T h e n , u s i n g l i t t l e p o i n t e d bones, h e pierces his scrot u m a n d t h e n t h e s k i n a r o u n d his navel. " T h e b l o o d that flows f r o m these various w o u n d s spreads i n the w a t e r a n d gives rise t o f i s h . "

19

T h e D i e r i believe t h e y m a k e t w o o f t h e i r totems reproduce, the carpet snake a n d t h e w o m a snake (an o r d i n a r y snake), b y a similar practice. A M u r a m u r a called M i n k a n i is b e l i e v e d t o live u n d e r a d u n e . H i s b o d y is represented b y fossil bones o f animals o r reptiles such as are f o u n d , H o w i t t tells us, i n the deltas o f t h e rivers t h a t e m p t y i n t o Lake E y r e . W h e n t h e day o f the c e r e m o n y comes, the m e n assemble a n d g o t o the place w h e r e M i n k a n i is t o be f o u n d . T h e r e t h e y d i g u n t i l t h e y reach a layer o f d a m p earth, w h i c h t h e y call " t h e e x c r e m e n t o f M i n k a n i . " F r o m t h e n o n , t h e y c o n t i n u e t o sift t h r o u g h the soil w i t h great care u n t i l " t h e e l b o w o f M i n k a n i " is u n c o v e r e d . T h e n t w o m e n o p e n t h e i r veins a n d let t h e b l o o d flow o n t h e sacred stone. T h e songs o f M i n k a n i are sung w h i l e the participants, caught u p i n a veritable frenzy, strike o n e a n o t h e r w i t h t h e i r weapons. T h e battle c o n t i n u e s u n t i l t h e i r r e t u r n t o camp, a b o u t a m i l e away. T h e r e the w o m e n i n t e r v e n e and e n d the f i g h t i n g . T h e b l o o d that flows f r o m t h e w o u n d s is c o l l e c t e d a n d m i x e d w i t h t h e " e x c r e m e n t o f M i n k a n i " ; t h e p r o d u c t s o f the m i x t u r e are sowed o n the d u n e . H a v i n g c a r r i e d o u t the r i t e , t h e y are c o n v i n c e d that carpet snakes w i l l be b o r n i n a b u n d a n c e .

20

I n some cases, t h e substance used as a v i t a l i z i n g p r i n c i p l e is t h e same o n e they are t r y i n g t o p r o d u c e . A m o n g t h e K a i t i s h , a sacred stone representing the m y t h i c a l heroes o f the W a t e r clan is s p r i n k l e d d u r i n g t h e r a i n m a k i n g ceremony. I t is apparendy b e l i e v e d that t h e p r o d u c t i v e v i r t u e s o f the stone are b y this means increased, j u s t as t h e y are w i t h b l o o d , a n d f o r the same reasons.

21

A m o n g the M a r a , the celebrant goes t o d r a w w a t e r i n a sacred h o l e ,

d r i n k s some a n d spits some i n each d i r e c t i o n .

2 2

A m o n g the Wbrgaia, w h e n

the yams b e g i n t o g r o w , t h e head o f t h e Y a m c l a n sends p e o p l e b e l o n g i n g t o the p h r a t r y t o w h i c h he h i m s e l f does n o t b e l o n g t o harvest some o f the plants; they b r i n g h i m some a n d ask h i m t o i n t e r v e n e so that the species w i l l develop w e l l . H e takes one, bites i t a n d t h r o w s pieces i n all d i r e c t i o n s .

23

"Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 287-288. ^[Alfred William] Howitt, Native Tribes [of South-East Australia, London, Macmillan, 1904], p. 798. Cf. Howitt, "Legends of the Dieri and Kindred Tribes of Central Australia," JAI, vol. XXIV [1885], pp. 124ff. Howitt believes that the ceremony is conducted by the people of the totem but is not in a position to certify this fact. 2l


22

Ibid., p. 314

23

Ibid., pp. 296-297.

337

The Positive Cult

A m o n g the K a i t i s h , w h e n (after various rites w h i c h I w i l l n o t describe) a certain seed grass called e r l i p i n n a comes t o f u l l m a t u r i t y , the c h i e f o f the t o t e m b r i n g s a l i t t l e t o the men's c a m p a n d g r i n d s i t b e t w e e n t w o stones. T h e dust thereby o b t a i n e d is p i o u s l y c o l l e c t e d , a n d several grains o f i t are placed o n the hps o f the chief, w h o b l o w s , scattering t h e m i n all directions. U n doubtedly, the p u r p o s e o f this c o n t a c t w i t h t h e m o u t h o f the chief, w h i c h has a special sacramental v i r t u e , is t o stimulate the v i t a l i t y o f the seeds c o n tained w i t h i n these kernals a n d that, p r o p e l l e d t o a l l p o i n t s o f the h o r i z o n , w i l l spread t h e i r f e r t i l i z i n g properties t o t h e p l a n t s .

24

F o r the native, the efficacy o f these rites is b e y o n d d o u b t : H e is c o n v i n c e d that they m u s t p r o d u c e the results he expects o f t h e m , a n d w i t h a sort o f necessity. I f the o u t c o m e does n o t live u p t o his hopes, he m e r e l y c o n cludes that they have b e e n cancelled o u t b y the e v i l deeds o f some hostile group. I n any case, i t does n o t enter his m i n d that a favorable o u t c o m e m i g h t be o b t a i n e d b y o t h e r means. I f , b y chance, the vegetation grows, o r i f the animals m u l t i p l y before he has c a r r i e d o u t the I n t i c h i u m a , he assumes that another I n t i c h i u m a has b e e n celebrated—under

the earth, b y the souls o f

the ancestors—and that the l i v i n g reap the benefits o f this u n d e r g r o u n d ceremony.

25

24


25

Ibid., p. 519. The analysis of the rites just studied has been made only with the observations that we owe to Spencer and Gillen. After this chapter was written, Strehlow published the third installment of his work, which treats the positive cult and, in particular, the Intichiuma—or, as he says, the rites of mbatjalkatiuma, I have found nothing in this publication that obliges me to alter the preceding description, or even to make major amendments. Of greatest interest in what Strehlow teaches us on this subject is that the sheddings and offerings of blood are much more common than might have been suspected from the account of Spencer and Gillen (see Strehlow, Aranda, vol. Ill, pp. 13, 14, 19, 29, 39, 43, 46, 56, 67, 80, 89). Incidentally, Strehlow's information on the cult must be used circumspecdy, for he did not witness the rites he describes. He settled for collecting oral accounts, and in general these are rather sketchy (see vol. Ill, preface of Leonhardi, p. v). One can even ask whether he has not gone too far in assimilating the totemic ceremonies of initiation to those he calls mbatjalkatiuma. To be sure, he has not failed to make a laudable effort to distinguish them: indeed, he has brought out clearly two of their differentiating characteristics. First, the Intichiuma is always conducted in a consecrated place, to which the memory of some ancestor is attached, whereas the initiation ceremonies may be conducted anywhere. Second, offerings of blood are specific to the Intichiuma, which proves that they are part and parcel of what is most essential to these rites (vol. Ill, p. 7). In the description of the rites that he gives, wefindmingled together information that refers indiscriminately to both kinds of rite. In fact, in the ones he describes for us under the name mbatjalkatiuma, the young men generally play an important role (see, for example, pp. 11, 13, etc.)—which is characteristic of initiation. Similarly, it even appears that the location of the rite is up to the participants, since they build an artificial stage. They dig a hole and go into it; throughout no reference is made to rocks or sacred trees and to their ritual role.

338


II S u c h is act o n e o f t h e feast. Actually, there is n o c e r e m o n y as such i n the p e r i o d that i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w s , yet r e l i g i o u s life remains intense. I t reveals itself t h r o u g h a h e i g h t e n i n g i n the usual system o f p r o h i b i t i o n s . T h e sacredness o f the t o t e m is someh o w r e i n f o r c e d ; there is less i n c l i n a t i o n t o t o u c h i t . W h e r e a s the A r u n t a may eat t h e i r t o t e m i c a n i m a l o r p l a n t i n o r d i n a r y times, p r o v i d e d they d o so w i t h m o d e r a t i o n , this r i g h t is suspended the day after the I n t i c h i u m a . T h e dietary p r o h i b i t i o n is strict a n d u n q u a l i f i e d . I t is b e l i e v e d that any v i o l a t i o n w i l l n e u tralize the b e n e f i c i a l effects o f t h e r i t e a n d arrest the r e p r o d u c t i o n o f the species. A l t h o u g h the p e o p l e o f o t h e r totems w h o h a p p e n t o be i n the same l o c a l i t y are n o t subject t o the same r e s t r i c t i o n , t h e y are n o t as free at this t i m e as t h e y o r d i n a r i l y are. T h e y m a y n o t eat the t o t e m i c a n i m a l j u s t a n y w h e r e — i n the bush, f o r e x a m p l e — b u t are r e q u i r e d t o b r i n g i t t o the camp, a n d only there m a y i t be c o o k e d .

2 6

T h e r e is a f i n a l c e r e m o n y t o b r i n g these e x t r a o r d i n a r y p r o h i b i t i o n s t o an e n d a n d a d j o u r n this l o n g series o f rites. A l t h o u g h i t varies s o m e w h a t acc o r d i n g t o clan, the essential elements are t h e same e v e r y w h e r e . H e r e are t w o o f the p r i n c i p a l f o r m s the c e r e m o n y takes a m o n g the A r u n t a . O n e refers t o the W i t c h e t t y G r u b a n d the o t h e r t o the K a n g a r o o . O n c e the caterpillars have reached f u l l m a t u r i t y a n d p r o v e t o be a b u n dant, the p e o p l e o f t h e t o t e m , as w e l l as others, c o l l e c t as m a n y as possible. E v e r y o n e t h e n b r i n g s those t h e y have f o u n d t o c a m p a n d c o o k t h e m u n t i l they b e c o m e h a r d a n d crisp. T h e c o o k e d p r o d u c t s are k e p t i n a t y p e o f w o o d e n c o n t a i n e r called a pitchi. Caterpillars can be harvested f o r o n l y a very s h o r t t i m e , as t h e y appear o n l y after the r a i n . W h e n t h e y b e g i n t o be less plentiful,

the

Alatunja

summons

everyone

t o the

men's camp;

at

the

Alatunja's i n v i t a t i o n , each b r i n g s his supply. T h e outsiders place theirs before t h e p e o p l e o f t h e t o t e m . W i t h t h e h e l p o f his c o m p a n i o n s , t h e A l a t u n j a takes o n e p i t c h i a n d g r i n d s the contents b e t w e e n t w o stones. H e t h e n eats a little o f the p o w d e r thus o b t a i n e d , a n d the rest is g i v e n t o the p e o p l e o f the other clans, w h o f r o m n o w o n m a y d o w h a t t h e y w a n t w i t h i t . T h e p r o c e d u r e is exactly the same f o r the supply the A l a t u n j a has made. F r o m this m o m e n t o n , the m e n a n d w o m e n o f t h e t o t e m m a y eat some, b u t o n l y a l i t d e . I f they exceeded the permissible l i m i t s , t h e y w o u l d lose t h e strength they n e e d to celebrate the I n t i c h i u m a , a n d the species w o u l d n o t r e p r o d u c e . B u t i f they

26

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 203. Cf. [Rev. A.] Meyer, The Encounter Bay Tribe, in [James Dominick] Woods, [The Native Tribes of South Australia, Adelaide, E. S. Wigg, 1879], p. 187.

339

The Positive Cult

ate n o n e o f i t at a l l , a n d especially i f the A l a t u n j a t o t a l l y abstained f r o m eati n g any i n t h e circumstances j u s t m e n t i o n e d , t h e y w o u l d be s t r i c k e n w i t h the same i m p o t e n c e . I n the t o t e m i c g r o u p o f the K a n g a r o o that has its center at U n d i a r a , certain features o f the c e r e m o n y are m o r e o b v i o u s . A f t e r the rites o n the sacred rock that I have described are d o n e w i t h , the y o u n g m e n leave t o h u n t the kangaroo a n d b r i n g the game b a c k t o t h e men's camp. T h e elders, i n the midst o f w h o m stands the A l a t u n j a , eat a l i t t l e o f the animal's flesh a n d w i t h its fat a n o i n t t h e bodies o f those w h o have taken part i n t h e I n t i c h i u m a . T h e rest is shared a m o n g t h e assembled m e n . N e x t , the m e n o f the t o t e m d e c o rate themselves w i t h t o t e m i c designs, a n d the n i g h t is spent i n s i n g i n g that recalls t h e e x p l o i t s o f the m e n - a n d animal-kangaroos i n A l c h e r i n g a times. O n t h e f o l l o w i n g day, the y o u n g m e n g o h u n t i n g again i n the forest, b r i n g i n g back m o r e kangaroos t h a n t h e y d i d t h e first t i m e , a n d the c e r e m o n y o f the previous n i g h t r e s u m e s .

27

W i t h variations o f detail, the same r i t e is f o u n d i n the o t h e r A r u n t a clans,

28

a m o n g the U r a b u n n a ,

counter Bay t r i b e .

3 2

2 9

the K a i t i s h ,

30

the U n m a t j e r a ,

31

a n d the E n -

E v e r y w h e r e i t comprises the same basic elements. Several

specimens o f the t o t e m i c p l a n t o r a n i m a l are presented t o the head o f the clan, w h o s o l e m n l y eats some and is r e q u i r e d t o d o so. I f he d i d n o t f u l f i l l this o b l i g ation, he w o u l d lose his p o w e r t o celebrate the I n t i c h i u m a efficaciously—that is, t o create the species each year. Sometimes the r i t u a l eating is f o l l o w e d b y an a n o i n t i n g d o n e w i t h the fat o f the a n i m a l o r w i t h certain parts o f the plant.

33

Generally, the r i t e is repeated afterward b y the m e n o f the t o t e m , o r at

least b y the elders. O n c e i t is over, the special restrictions are lifted. A t present, there is n o such c e r e m o n y a m o n g the tribes farther n o r t h , the W a r r a m u n g a a n d n e i g h b o r i n g societies.

34

Nonetheless, o n e still

finds

traces that seem t o evidence a t i m e w h e n that was n o t u n k n o w n . I t is t r u e

27


28

Ibid., pp. 205-207.

29

Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 286-287.

30

Ibid., p. 294.

31

lbid., p. 296.

32

Meyer, ["The Encounter Bay Tribe"] in Woods [The Native Tribes of South Australia], p. 187.

33

I have already cited one case of this; others are to be found in Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 205; Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 286. 34

The Walpari, Wulmala, Tjingili, Umbaia.

340


that t h e head o f the clan never eats the t o t e m r i t u a l l y a n d o b l i g a t o r i l y . B u t i n certain cases, the p e o p l e w h o are n o t o f the t o t e m w h o s e I n t i c h i u m a has j u s t b e e n c o n d u c t e d are r e q u i r e d t o b r i n g the a n i m a l o r p l a n t t o the camp a n d offer i t t o t h e head, asking h i m i f he wishes t o eat some. H e refuses a n d adds: " I have m a d e this f o r y o u ; y o u m a y eat freely o f i t . "

3 5

Thus the custom o f

presentation persists a n d the q u e s t i o n asked o f the c h i e f seems t o h a r k back t o a t i m e w h e n r i t u a l e a t i n g was p r a c t i c e d .

36

Ill W h a t gives t h e system o f rites j u s t described its interest is that i t contains all the p r i n c i p a l elements, a n d i n the m o s t e l e m e n t a r y f o r m n o w k n o w n , o f a great r e l i g i o u s i n s t i t u t i o n that was destined t o b e c o m e a f o u n d a t i o n o f the positive c u l t i n the h i g h e r r e l i g i o n s : t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f sacrifice. I t is w e l l k n o w n h o w m u c h t h e w o r k s o f R o b e r t s o n S m i t h have r e v o l u tionized the traditional theory o f sacrifice.

37

U n t i l S m i t h , sacrifice was seen

o n l y as a sort o f t r i b u t e o r h o m a g e , e i t h e r o b l i g a t o r y o r freely g i v e n , and 35


'"For this second part of the ceremony, as for the first, I have followed Spencer and Gillen. On this point, Strehlow's recent volume confirms the observations of his predecessors, at least in essentials. He recognizes, indeed, that after thefirstceremony (on p. 13 he says two months after), the head of the clan ritually eats a bit of the totemic animal or plant, and that they then proceed to the lifting of the prohibitions; he calls this operation die Freigabe des Totems zum allgemeinen Gebrauch (vol. Ill, p. 7). He even informs us that this operation is important enough to be designated by a special word in the Arunta language. True, he adds that this ritual consumption is not the only one, that sometimes the chief and elders also eat the sacred plant or animal before the initial ceremony, and that the celebrant in the rite does the same after the celebration. There is nothing implausible about this. Such acts of consumption are so many means used by the celebrants or the participants to confer on themselves the virtues they wish to acquire; it is not surprising that they should be multiple. None of that invalidates the account of Spencer and Gillen, for the rite they emphasize, not without reason, is the Freigabe des Totems. Strehlow disputes the claims of Spencer and Gillen on only two points. In thefirstplace, he declares that the act of ritual consumption does not always take place. That fact is beyond question, because some totemic animals and plants are inedible. But the fact remains that the rite is very common; Strehlow himself cites numerous examples of it (pp. 13, 14, 19, 23, 33, 36, 50, 59, 67, 68, 71, 75, 80, 84, 89, 93). In the second place, we have seen that (according to Spencer and Gillen) if the chief of the clan did not partake of the totemic animal or plant, he would lose his powers. Strehlow assures us that native testimony does not corroborate this assertion. But this question seems to me altogether secondary. The certain fact is that this ritual consumption is prescribed—hence that it is judged to be useful or necessary. Like all communions, its only purpose is to confer on the communicant the virtues he needs. It does not follow from the fact that the natives, or some of them, have forgotten that this function of the rite is not real. Must it be repeated that worshippers most often do not know the real reasons for the practices that they carry out? 37

See [William Robertson Smith, Lectures on] the Religion of the Semites, 2d. ed., London, A. & C. Black, 1894], Lectures VI to XI, and the article "Sacrifice" in the Encyclopedia Britannica [Edinburgh, Adam & Charles Black, 1891].

The Positive Cult

341

analogous t o those that subjects o w e t h e i r princes. R o b e r t s o n S m i t h was the first t o d r a w a t t e n t i o n t o t h e fact that this t r a d i t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n d i d n o t account f o r t w o f u n d a m e n t a l features o f the r i t e . First, i t is a meal; the substance o f sacrifice is f o o d . Second, i t is a m e a l o f w h i c h the faithful w h o offer it partake at t h e same t i m e as t h e g o d t o w h o m i t is offered. C e r t a i n parts o f the v i c t i m are reserved f o r the d e i t y ; others are c o n f e r r e d o n the celebrants, w h o c o n s u m e t h e m . T h i s is w h y , i n t h e B i b l e , the sacrifice is sometimes called a m e a l prepared before Y a h w e h . I n m a n y societies, the m e a l is taken i n c o m m o n t o create a b o n d o f artificial k i n s h i p a m o n g the participants. K i n are beings w h o are m a d e o f t h e same flesh a n d the same b l o o d . A n d since f o o d constantly remakes t h e substance o f the body, shared f o o d can create the same effects as shared o r i g i n . A c c o r d i n g t o S m i t h , the object o f sacrificial banquets is t o have the f a i t h f u l a n d t h e g o d c o m m u n e i n one a n d the same flesh, t o t i e a k n o t o f k i n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e m . F r o m this perspective, sacrifice came i n t o v i e w i n an altogether n o v e l way. Its essence was n o l o n g e r the act o f r e n u n c i a t i o n that t h e w o r d "sacrifice" usually expresses, as was so l o n g b e lieved; i t was first a n d foremost an act o f a l i m e n t a r y c o m m u n i o n . I n p a r t i c u l a r details, n o d o u b t , this m a n n e r o f e x p l a i n i n g w h a t sacrificial banquets achieve m u s t be q u a l i f i e d . W h a t t h e y achieve does n o t result e x clusively f r o m the fact o f sharing a c o m m o n table. M a n does n o t sanctify h i m s e l f o n l y because, i n some sense, he sits d o w n at t h e same table as t h e g o d , b u t p r i n c i p a l l y because the f o o d that he consumes i n the r i t u a l m e a l has sacredness. I n d e e d , as has b e e n s h o w n , a w h o l e series o f p r e l i m i n a r y steps i n the sacrifice (washings, anointings, prayers, a n d so o n ) t r a n s f o r m the a n i m a l t o be i m m o l a t e d i n t o a sacred t h i n g , the sacredness o f w h i c h is thereafter c o m m u n i c a t e d t o t h e faithful w h o partake o f i t .

3 8

B u t i t is n o less t r u e that

a l i m e n t a r y c o m m u n i o n is a m o n g t h e essential elements o f sacrifice. N o w , i f w e go back t o t h e r i t e that ends the I n t i c h i u m a ceremonies, i t t o o consists i n an act o f this k i n d . W h e n the t o t e m i c a n i m a l is k i l l e d , the A l a t u n j a a n d the elders s o l e m n l y partake o f i t . T h u s t h e y c o m m u n e w i t h the sacred p r i n c i p l e that inhabits i t , a n d t h e y absorb that p r i n c i p l e i n t o themselves. T h e o n l y d i f ference i n this c o n t e x t is that the a n i m a l is sacred naturally, whereas o r d i n a r i l y i t acquires sacredness o n l y artificially i n the course o f t h e sacrifice. F u r t h e r m o r e , the f u n c t i o n o f this c o m m u n i o n is manifest. E v e r y m e m ber o f t h e t o t e m i c clan carries w i t h i n h i m s e l f a k i n d o f mystic substance that makes u p the h i g h e r p a r t o f his b e i n g : H i s soul is m a d e f r o m that substance. H e becomes a p e r s o n t h r o u g h i t ; t h e p o w e r s he ascribes t o himself, a n d his

38

See Hubert and Mauss, "Essai sur la nature et la fonction du sacrifice," in Mélanges d'histoire des religions [Paris, F. Alcan, 1909], pp. 40ff.

342


social role, c o m e t o h i m from i t . So he has a v i t a l interest i n p r e s e r v i n g i t i n tact and i n k e e p i n g i t i n a state o f p e r p e t u a l y o u t h as m u c h as possible. Alas, all forces, even the m o s t s p i r i t u a l , are w o r n away w i t h t h e passage o f t i m e i f n o t h i n g replenishes the energy t h e y lose i n t h e o r d i n a r y course o f events: H e r e i n lies a v i t a l necessity that, as w e w i l l see, is t h e p r o f o u n d cause o f the positive c u l t . T h e p e o p l e o f a t o t e m c a n n o t r e m a i n themselves unless they p e r i o d i c a l l y r e n e w the t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e that is i n t h e m , a n d since t h e y c o n ceive this p r i n c i p l e i n t h e f o r m o f a p l a n t o r an a n i m a l , t h e y g o to that a n i m a l o r p l a n t t o seek the strength t h e y n e e d t o r e n e w a n d rejuvenate i t . A m a n o f the K a n g a r o o clan believes he is, a n d feels he is, a kangaroo. T h r o u g h that q u a l i t y he defines himself, a n d i t d e t e r m i n e s his place i n society. I n o r d e r to m a i n t a i n that quality, from t i m e t o t i m e he causes a l i t t l e flesh o f that a n i m a l to pass i n t o his o w n substance. A f e w bits are e n o u g h , i n accordance w i t h the r u l e that the part is as g o o d as the w h o l e .

3 9

T o m a k e all the h o p e d - f o r results possible, h o w e v e r , i t is i m p o r t a n t that this p r o c e d u r e n o t o c c u r at j u s t any t i m e . T h e t i m e w h e n the n e w generat i o n has j u s t reached its f u l l d e v e l o p m e n t is the m o s t o p p o r t u n e , f o r that is also w h e n the forces that animate t h e t o t e m i c species c o m e i n t o f u l l b l o o m . T h e y have j u s t b e e n extracted f r o m t h e r i c h reservoirs o f life that are the sac r e d trees a n d rocks. Besides, all sorts o f means have b e e n used t o h e i g h t e n t h e i r intensity, such b e i n g the p u r p o s e o f t h e rites that have o c c u r r e d i n the first p a r t o f the I n t i c h i u m a . W h a t is m o r e , b y t h e i r v e r y appearance, the first fruits

o f the harvest m a k e the energy t h e y c o n t a i n manifest. I n those

fruits, why,

first

the t o t e m i c g o d asserts h i m s e l f i n all the splendor o f y o u t h . T h i s is t h r o u g h o u t the ages, the first fruits have b e e n considered v e r y sacred

f o o d , reserved t o v e r y sacred beings. N a t u r a l l y , therefore, t h e A u s t r a l i a n uses t h e m t o regenerate h i m s e l f spiritually. I n this way, b o t h t h e date and the c i r cumstances o f the c e r e m o n y are e x p l a i n e d . Perhaps i t w i l l seem s u r p r i s i n g that such sacred f o o d is eaten b y mere profane beings, b u t there is n o positive c u l t that does n o t m o v e w i t h i n this c o n t r a d i c t i o n . A l l beings that are sacred stand b e y o n d the reach o f the p r o fane, b y reason o f t h e i r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g trait. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e y w o u l d lose t h e i r w h o l e raison d'être i f t h e y w e r e n o t p l a c e d i n a relationship w i t h those same faithful w h o m u s t o t h e r w i s e stay respectfully at a distance

from

t h e m . T h e r e is n o positive r i t e that does n o t f u n d a m e n t a l l y c o n s t i t u t e a v e r itable sacrilege. M a n can have n o dealings w i t h the sacred beings w i t h o u t crossing the b a r r i e r that m u s t o r d i n a r i l y keep h i m separate from t h e m . A l l that matters is that t h e sacrilege be c a r r i e d o u t w i t h m i t i g a t i n g p r e 39

For an explanation of this rule, see above, pp. 230-231.

343

The Positive Cult

cautions. T h e c o m m o n e s t o f those consist o f p r e p a r i n g the t r a n s i t i o n a n d i n t r o d u c i n g the faithful i n t o the w o r l d o f sacred things slowly, a n d o n l y i n stages. B r o k e n u p a n d d i l u t e d i n this way, the sacrilege does n o t strike the religious consciousness abrupdy. N o t felt as such, i t vanishes. T h i s is w h a t is h a p p e n i n g i n t h e case before us. T h e effect o f a w h o l e sequence o f cerem o n i e s c o n d u c t e d p r i o r t o t h e m o m e n t w h e n t h e t o t e m is s o l e m n l y eaten has b e e n gradually t o sanctify t h e participants. I t is essentially a religious p e r i o d , w h i c h they c o u l d n o t go t h r o u g h w i t h o u t transformation o f their religious state. L i t t l e b y l i t t l e , t h e fasts, the c o n t a c t o f sacred rocks and the churingas,

40

t o t e m i c decorations, a n d so f o r t h , have c o n f e r r e d a sacredness

o n t h e m that t h e y d i d n o t have before a n d t h a t p e r m i t s t h e m , w i t h o u t scandalous a n d dangerous p r o f a n a t i o n , t o c o n f r o n t the dangerous a n d awesome food ordinarily forbidden to t h e m .

4 1

I f t h e act b y w h i c h a sacred b e i n g is offered u p a n d t h e n eaten b y those w h o venerate i t can be called a sacrifice, t h e r i t e j u s t discussed is e n t i d e d t o the same name. M o r e o v e r , t h e similarities i t has w i t h o t h e r practices f o u n d i n m a n y agrarian cults clarify its m e a n i n g . As i t t u r n s o u t , even

among

peoples w h o have attained a h i g h level o f c i v i l i z a t i o n , a c o m m o n r u l e is that the first p r o d u c t s o f the harvest are used as t h e substance o f r i t u a l meals, the paschal m e a l b e i n g t h e b e s t - k n o w n e x a m p l e .

42

Since agrarian rites are at the

v e r y f o u n d a t i o n o f w o r s h i p i n its m o s t advanced f o r m s , w e see that the I n t i c h i u m a o f A u s t r a l i a n societies is closer t o us t h a n its apparent crudeness m i g h t have l e d us t o believe. B y a stroke o f genius, S m i t h h a d an i n t u i t i o n o f these facts w i t h o u t k n o w i n g t h e m . T h r o u g h a string o f ingenious deductions ( w h i c h need not 43

be repeated here, since t h e y are o f o n l y h i s t o r i c i n t e r e s t ) , he came t o b e lieve he c o u l d establish that at the b e g i n n i n g t h e a n i m a l offered u p i n t h e sacrifices m u s t at first have b e e n considered as q u a s i - d i v i n e a n d as the close k i n o f those w h o offered i t . N o w , these are precisely t h e characteristics b y w h i c h the t o t e m i c species is d e f i n e d . T h u s , S m i t h came t o suppose that t o t e m i s m m u s t have k n o w n a n d p r a c t i c e d a r i t e v e r y s i m i l a r t o the o n e w e have j u s t e x a m i n e d . I n d e e d , h e t e n d e d t o see this k i n d o f sacrifice as the o r i g i n o f the

"•"See Strehlow, Aranda, vol. Ill, p. 3. •"Besides, it should not be forgotten that among the Arunta, eating of the totemic animal is not forbidden altogether. 42

See other examples in [James George] Frazer, The Golden Bough, 2d. ed. [London, Macmillan, 1894], pp. 348ff. 41

The Religion of the Semites, pp. 275ff.

344


sacrificial i n s t i t u t i o n as a w h o l e .

4 4

A t t h e b e g i n n i n g , sacrifice is i n s t i t u t e d n o t

t o create a b o n d o f artificial k i n s h i p b e t w e e n m a n a n d his gods b u t t o m a i n t a i n a n d r e n e w the n a t u r a l k i n s h i p that at t h e b e g i n n i n g u n i t e d m e n . H e r e , as elsewhere, t h e artifice is b o r n o n l y t o i m i t a t e nature. B u t i n Smith's b o o k , this hypothesis was presented as l i t d e m o r e t h a n a m e n t a l c o n s t r u c t , w h i c h the facts t h e n k n o w n d i d n o t at all adequately w a r r a n t . T h e f e w cases o f t o t e m i c sacrifice that he cites i n s u p p o r t o f his thesis d o

not

m e a n w h a t he says t h e y d o , a n d t h e animals that figure i n i t w e r e n o t real totems.

45

B u t today, o n e m a y say that this has b e e n p r o v e d , o n o n e p o i n t at

least: W e have j u s t seen that t o t e m i c sacrifice, as S m i t h c o n c e i v e d i t , is o r was p r a c t i c e d i n a large n u m b e r o f societies. G r a n t e d , w e have n o p r o o f that this practice is necessarily i n h e r e n t i n t o t e m i s m o r that i t is t h e seed from

w h i c h all the o t h e r types o f sacrifice have e m e r g e d . B u t i f the u n i v e r -

sality o f the r i t e is h y p o t h e t i c a l , its existence can n o l o n g e r be disputed. W e m u s t consider i t established from n o w o n that the m o s t mystical f o r m o f a l i m e n t a r y c o m m u n i o n is f o u n d as early as t h e m o s t r u d i m e n t a r y r e l i g i o n now known.

IV O n a n o t h e r p o i n t , h o w e v e r , t h e n e w facts w e have at h a n d u n d e r m i n e Smith's theories. A c c o r d i n g t o h i m , c o m m u n i o n was n o t o n l y an essential e l e m e n t o f sacrifice b u t also t h e o n l y e l e m e n t , at least i n i t i a l l y . H e t h o u g h t n o t o n l y that i t was a mistake t o reduce sacrifice t o a m e r e act o f t r i b u t e o r o f f e r i n g b u t also that the idea o f o f f e r i n g was i n i t i a l l y absent; that this idea made o n l y a late appearance, i n f l u e n c e d b y e x t e r n a l circumstances; a n d that, far from h e l p i n g us t o u n d e r s t a n d the t r u e nature o f the r i t u a l m e c h a n i s m , the idea o f o f f e r i n g masked i t . S m i t h b e l i e v e d that he d e t e c t e d t o o gross an absurdity i n the v e r y idea o f sacrifice f o r i t t o b e v i e w e d as t h e p r o f o u n d cause o f such a great i n s t i t u t i o n . O n e o f the m o s t i m p o r t a n t f u n c t i o n s that fall squarely u p o n the shoulders o f t h e d e i t y is t o see that m e n have t h e f o o d they n e e d t o live, so i t w o u l d seem impossible that sacrifice s h o u l d i n v o l v e a presentation o f f o o d t o t h e deity. I t seems c o n t r a d i c t o r y f o r t h e gods t o e x pect t h e i r f o o d from m a n , w h e n i t is b y t h e m that m a n h i m s e l f is fed. H o w

•"Ibid., pp. 318-319. 45

See on this point Hubert and Mauss, Mélanges d'histoire des religions, preface, pp. vff.

345

The Positive Cult

c o u l d they n e e d his h e l p t o c l a i m t h e i r j u s t p o r t i o n o f the things that he r e ceives f r o m t h e i r hands? F r o m these considerations, S m i t h c o n c l u d e d that the c o m b i n e d idea o f s a c r i f i c e - o f f e r i n g c o u l d have b e e n b o r n o n l y i n the great r e l i g i o n s . I n t h e m o n c e the gods w e r e separated from the things w i t h w h i c h they w e r e o r i g i n a l l y m e r g e d , t h e y w e r e c o n c e i v e d as rather l i k e kings, foremost o w n e r s o f the l a n d a n d its p r o d u c t s . F r o m t h e n o n , a c c o r d i n g t o S m i t h , sacrifice was c o n f o u n d e d w i t h t h e t r i b u t e that subjects pay t h e i r p r i n c e i n r e t u r n f o r t h e r i g h t s c o n c e d e d t o t h e m . I n reality, however, this n e w i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was an a l t e r a t i o n a n d even a c o r r u p t i o n o f the o r i g i n a l idea. F o r w h e n the n o t i o n that " t h e idea o f p r o p e r t y makes e v e r y t h i n g i t touches m a t e r i a l " becomes p a r t o f sacrifice, sacrifice is denatured a n d made into a k i n d o f bartering between m a n and the deity.

46

T h e facts I have set f o r t h u n d e r m i n e that a r g u m e n t . T h e rites I have d e scribed are c e r t a i n l y a m o n g the m o s t p r i m i t i v e ever observed. As yet, n o defi n i t e m y t h i c a l p e r s o n a l i t y is seen t o m a k e its appearance i n t h e m ; there are n e i t h e r gods n o r spirits as such, a n d o n l y vague, a n o n y m o u s , i m p e r s o n a l forces are at w o r k . Yet the reasoning t h e y presuppose is exactly t h e reasoning S m i t h declared impossible because o f its absurdity. L e t us l o o k again at the first act o f t h e I n t i c h i u m a : the rites i n t e n d e d t o b r i n g a b o u t t h e f e r t i l i t y o f t h e a n i m a l o r p l a n t species that serves as the t o t e m o f the clan. T h i s species is t h e sacred t h i n g . I t incarnates w h a t I was l e d t o call, i n a m e t a p h o r i c a l sense, t h e t o t e m i c deity. B u t w e have seen that i t needs man's h e l p t o p e r p e t u a t e itself. I t is m a n w h o dispenses life t o a n e w generation each year; w i t h o u t h i m , i t w o u l d n o t see t h e l i g h t o f day. I f m a n stopped celebrating t h e I n t i c h i u m a , t h e sacred beings w o u l d disappear from the face o f the earth. I n a sense, i t is f r o m h i m that t h e y have t h e i r b e i n g . I n a n o t h e r sense, however, i t is from t h e m that he has his o w n . O n c e t h e y have attained m a t u r i t y , i t is from t h e m that h e w i l l b o r r o w the strength n e e d e d f o r the maintenance a n d repair o f his s p i r i t u a l b e i n g . H e n c e i t is m a n w h o makes his gods, o n e can say, o r at least, i t is m a n w h o makes t h e m endure; b u t at the same t i m e , i t is t h r o u g h t h e m that he h i m s e l f endures. T h u s he regularly closes the circle that, a c c o r d i n g t o S m i t h , is entailed b y t h e v e r y n o t i o n o f sacrificial t r i b u t e . H e gives t o sacred beings a l i t d e o f w h a t he receives

from

t h e m a n d he receives from t h e m , all that he gives t h e m . T h e r e is m o r e : T h e offerings that he is r e q u i r e d t o make each year are n o t different i n nature f r o m those that w i l l be m a d e later, i n sacrifices p r o p -

'[William Robertson Smith], The Religion of the Semites, pp. 390ff.


346

erly so-called. T h e sacrificer offers an a n i m a l so that t h e

life-principles

w i t h i n i t separate f r o m the o r g a n i s m a n d g o f o r t h t o feed the deity. Similarly, the grains o f dust that t h e A u s t r a l i a n detaches from the sacred r o c k are so m a n y p r i n c i p l e s that spread t h r o u g h space so that t h e y w i l l vitalize the t o t e m i c species a n d b r i n g a b o u t its r e n e w a l . T h e m o v e m e n t b y w h i c h this spreading is d o n e is also t h e o n e that n o r m a l l y accompanies offerings. I n cert a i n cases, the resemblance b e t w e e n the t w o rites goes as far as t h e details o f the m o v e m e n t s made. W e have seen t h a t t h e K a i t i s h p o u r w a t e r o n a stone i n o r d e r t o have r a i n ; a m o n g c e r t a i n peoples, t h e priest p o u r s w a t e r o n the altar f o r the same p u r p o s e .

47

T h e sheddings o f b l o o d , w h i c h are customary

i n some I n t i c h i u m a s , are t r u e offerings. Just as t h e A r u n t a o r t h e D i e r i s p r i n k l e the r o c k o r t h e sacred design w i t h b l o o d , so i n t h e m o r e advanced cults is t h e b l o o d o f the sacrificed v i c t i m , o r t h e believer, i n m a n y cases p o u r e d o u t o n , o r i n front of, the a l t a r .

48

I n this case, i t is g i v e n t o t h e gods, w h o s e

favorite f o o d i t is. I n Australia, i t is g i v e n t o t h e sacred species. T h u s there are n o l o n g e r any g r o u n d s f o r the v i e w t h a t t h e idea o f offerings is a recent p r o d uct o f civilization. A d o c u m e n t f o r w h i c h w e are i n d e b t e d t o S t r e h l o w b r i n g s o u t this k i n ship b e t w e e n the I n t i c h i u m a a n d sacrifice. I t is a h y m n a c c o m p a n y i n g the K a n g a r o o I n t i c h i u m a t h a t describes the c e r e m o n y a n d states its h o p e d - f o r effects. A piece o f the kangaroo's fat has b e e n placed b y the c h i e f o n a s u p p o r t made o f branches. T h e t e x t says that this fat makes the fat o f the kangaroos grow.

4 9

I n this case, therefore, t h e y d o n o t c o n f i n e themselves t o spreading

sacred dust o r h u m a n b l o o d ; the a n i m a l itself is i m m o l a t e d — o n e can say sacr i f i c e d , placed o n a k i n d o f a l t a r — a n d offered t o t h e species w h o s e life i t must maintain. W e see n o w i n w h a t sense i t is permissible t o say t h a t t h e I n t i c h i u m a contains the seeds o f the sacrificial system. I n t h e f o r m i t takes w h e n fully c o n s t i t u t e d , sacrifice comprises t w o essential elements: an act o f c o m m u n i o n and an act o f o f f e r i n g . T h e f a i t h f u l c o m m u n e w i t h t h e g o d b y i n g e s t i n g a sacred f o o d a n d simultaneously m a k e an o f f e r i n g t o this g o d . W e

find

these t w o acts i n t h e I n t i c h i u m a as j u s t described. T h e o n l y difference is that

47

R . Smith himself cites such cases, ibid., p. 231.

48

See for example Exodus, 29:10-14; Leviticus, 9:8-11; the priests of Baal let their own blood flow on the altar (I Kings 18:8). [Compare Exodus 39:13 with Dürkheims discussion of special treatment given to the liver, fat, and other parts of sacrificed animals. In I Kings 18:28, we learn about the Baal priests' encounter with Elijah, where Durkheim's claim that "there are no religions that are false" is dramatically contradicted. Trans.] 49

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. Ill, p. 12, verse 7.

347

The Positive Cult

they are d o n e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y o r i m m e d i a t e l y after o n e another i n sacrifice proper,

50

whereas t h e y are separated i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n ceremony. I n the first

case, t h e y are p a r t o f o n e i n d i v i s i b l e r i t e ; i n t h e second, they o c c u r at different times a n d m a y even be separated b y a rather l o n g i n t e r v a l , b u t basically the m e c h a n i s m is the same. T a k e n as a w h o l e , the I n t i c h i u m a is a sacrifice, b u t o n e w h o s e parts are n o t yet j o i n e d a n d o r g a n i z e d . T h i s c o m p a r i s o n has t h e t w o f o l d advantage o f h e l p i n g us u n d e r s t a n d the nature o f b o t h t h e I n t i c h i u m a a n d sacrifice better. W e understand the I n t i c h i u m a better. I n d e e d , the c o n c e p t i o n p u t f o r t h by Frazer, w h o m a d e i t o u t t o be s i m p l y a m a g i c a l o p e r a t i o n d e v o i d o f any r e ligious character,

51

n o w seems untenable. T o place outside r e l i g i o n a r i t e that

appears t o be the h e r a l d o f such a great religious i n s t i t u t i o n is u n i m a g i n a b l e . W e also u n d e r s t a n d better w h a t sacrifice itself is. I n the first place, the equal i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e t w o elements that enter i n t o i t is h e n c e f o r t h established. I f t h e A u s t r a l i a n makes offerings t o his sacred beings, there is n o basis at all f o r supposing that t h e idea o f o f f e r i n g was f o r e i g n t o the o r i g i n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e sacrificial i n s t i t u t i o n a n d d i s t u r b e d its natural h a r m o n y . Smith's t h e o r y m u s t b e revised o n this p o i n t .

5 2

Sacrifice is c e r t a i n l y a process

o f c o m m u n i o n i n p a r t . B u t i t is also, a n d n o less fundamentally, a gift, an act o f r e n u n c i a t i o n . I t always presupposes that the w o r s h i p p e r relinquishes t o t h e gods some p a r t o f his substance o r his goods. A n y a t t e m p t t o reduce o n e o f these elements t o t h e o t h e r is poindess. I n d e e d , the o f f e r i n g m a y have m o r e lasting effects t h a n the c o m m u n i o n .

5 3

I n t h e second place, i t seems that sacrifice i n general, a n d i n p a r t i c u l a r the sacrificial o f f e r i n g , can be m a d e o n l y t o personal beings. T h e offerings w e have j u s t e n c o u n t e r e d i n A u s t r a l i a d o n o t e n t a i l any such n o t i o n . I n o t h e r w o r d s , sacrifice is i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e variable f o r m s i n w h i c h religious forces are t h o u g h t of; i t has deeper causes, w h i c h w e w i l l e x a m i n e b e l o w . I t is clear, h o w e v e r , that the act o f o f f e r i n g n a t u r a l l y awakens i n people the idea o f a m o r a l subject that the o f f e r i n g is m e a n t t o satisfy. T h e r i t u a l acts

50

At least, when it is performed in its entirely; in certain cases it can be reduced to only one of these elements. ''According to Strehlow [Aranda] vol. Ill, p. 9, the natives "regard these ceremonies as a sort of divine service, in the same way as the Christian regards the practices of his religion." 52

It might be well to ask whether the sheddings of blood and offerings of hair that Smith sees as acts of communion are not typical offerings. (See Smith, The Religion of the Semites, pp. 320ff.) 53

The piacular sacrifices, of which I will speak more specifically in Bk. 3, chap. 5, consist entirely of offerings. They serve as communions only secondarily.

348


I have described b e c o m e easier t o u n d e r s t a n d w h e n t h e y are b e l i e v e d t o be addressed t o persons. T h u s , even w h i l e o n l y b r i n g i n g i m p e r s o n a l powers i n t o play, the practices o f the I n t i c h i u m a paved the w a y f o r a different c o n ception.

5 4

T o be sure, t h e y c o u l d n o t have b e e n sufficient t o p r o d u c e t h e idea

o f m y t h i c personalities straightaway. B u t o n c e f o r m e d , t h e idea was d r a w n i n t o the c u l t b y the v e r y nature o f the rites. A t t h e same t i m e , i t became less abstract. A s i t i n t e r a c t e d m o r e d i r e c d y w i t h a c t i o n a n d life, i t t o o k o n greater reality b y the same stroke. T h u s w e can believe that practice o f the c u l t e n c o u r a g e d t h e p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n o f r e l i g i o u s f o r c e s — i n a secondary way, n o d o u b t , b u t o n e that deserves n o t i c e .

V T h e ' c o n t r a d i c t i o n that R . S m i t h saw as inadmissible, a piece o f blatant i l l o g i c , m u s t still be e x p l a i n e d . I f sacred beings always manifested t h e i r p o w e r s i n a p e r f e c d y equal m a n ner, i t w o u l d appear i n c o n c e i v a b l e that m a n s h o u l d have d r e a m e d o f o f f e r i n g t h e m favors. I t is h a r d t o see w h a t t h e y c o u l d have needed f r o m h i m . B u t as l o n g as t h e y are m e r g e d w i t h things a n d seen as cosmic p r i n c i p l e s o f life, t h e y are subject t o its r h y t h m . T h a t life unfolds t h r o u g h oscillations b a c k and f o r t h that succeed o n e a n o t h e r i n accordance w i t h a d e f i n i t e law. A t some times, life affirms itself i n all its splendor; at others, i t fades so m u c h that o n e w o n ders w h e t h e r i t w i l l n o t e n d altogether. E v e r y year, t h e plants die. W i l l t h e y be reborn? T h e a n i m a l species t e n d t o d i m i n i s h t h r o u g h n a t u r a l o r v i o l e n t death. W i l l t h e y r e n e w themselves i n t i m e , a n d as t h e y should? A b o v e a l l , the r a i n is u n c e r t a i n , a n d f o r l o n g p e r i o d s i t seems t o have disappeared, never t o r e t u r n . W h a t these weakenings o f nature bear witness t o is that, at the c o r r e s p o n d i n g seasons, t h e sacred beings t o w h i c h t h e animals, plants, r a i n , a n d so f o r t h are subject pass t h r o u g h t h e same c r i t i c a l states, so t h e y t o o have t h e i r p e r i o d s o f b r e a k d o w n . M a n can never take p a r t i n these spectacles as an i n different watcher. I f he is t o live, life m u s t c o n t i n u e universally, a n d therefore the gods m u s t n o t die. H e therefore seeks t o s u p p o r t a n d a i d t h e m ; and t o d o this, he puts at t h e i r service t h e forces he has at his disposal a n d m o b i l i z e s f o r that purpose. T h e b l o o d f l o w i n g i n his veins has f e c u n d a t i n g virtues; h e w i l l

54

This has caused these ceremonies often to be spoken of as though they were addressed to personal deities. (See, for example, a text of Krichauff and another of Kempe cited by [Richard] Eylmann, [Die Eingeborenen der Kolonie Sud Australien, Berlin, D. Reumer, 1908], pp. 202—203.)

The Positive Cult

349

p o u r i t o u t . H e w i l l d r a w u p o n the seeds o f life that s l u m b e r i n the sacred rocks that his clan possesses, a n d he w i l l sow t h e m i n the w i n d . I n a w o r d , he w i l l m a k e offerings. I n a d d i t i o n , these e x t e r n a l a n d physical crises go h a n d i n h a n d w i t h i n ternal a n d m e n t a l crises that t e n d t o w a r d the same result. T h e sacred beings are sacred o n l y because t h e y are i m a g i n e d as sacred. L e t us stop b e l i e v i n g i n t h e m , a n d t h e y w i l l be as i f t h e y w e r e n o t . I n this respect, even those that have a physical f o r m , a n d are k n o w n t o us t h r o u g h sense experience, d e p e n d on the t h o u g h t o f the faithful w h o venerate t h e m . T h e sacredness that d e fines t h e m as objects o f the c u l t is n o t g i v e n i n t h e i r n a t u r a l m a k e u p ; i t is s u peradded t o t h e m b y belief. T h e k a n g a r o o is o n l y an a n i m a l , l i k e any o t h e r ; for the K a n g a r o o p e o p l e , however, i t contains a p r i n c i p l e that sets i t apart f r o m o t h e r beings, a n d this p r i n c i p l e exists o n l y i n the m i n d s that t h i n k o f it.

5 5

I f , o n c e c o n c e i v e d , t h e sacred beings d i d n o t n e e d m e n i n o r d e r t o live,

the representations that express t h e m w o u l d have t o r e m a i n t h e same. T h i s stability is impossible. I n actuality, i t is i n g r o u p life that these representations are f o r m e d , a n d g r o u p life is b y nature i n t e r m i t t e n t . O f necessity, t h e n , t h e y share t h e same i n t e r m i t t e n c e . T h e y achieve t h e i r greatest i n t e n s i t y w h e n the individuals are assembled a n d i n d i r e c t relations w i t h o n e another, at the m o m e n t w h e n everyone c o m m u n e s i n t h e same idea o r e m o t i o n . O n c e t h e assembly is dissolved a n d each p e r s o n has r e t u r n e d t o his o w n existence, those representations lose m o r e a n d m o r e o f t h e i r o r i g i n a l energy. O v e r l a i d l i t t l e b y l i t t l e b y the r i s i n g flood o f d a y - t o - d a y sensations, t h e y w o u l d eventually disappear i n t o the unconscious, unless w e f o u n d some means o f c a l l i n g t h e m back t o consciousness a n d r e v i t a l i z i n g t h e m . N o w t h e y c a n n o t w e a k e n w i t h out t h e sacred beings' l o s i n g t h e i r reality, because the sacred beings exist o n l y i n a n d t h r o u g h t h e i r representations.* I f w e t h i n k less h a r d a b o u t t h e m , t h e y c o u n t f o r less t o us a n d w e c o u n t less o n t h e m ; t h e y exist t o a lesser degree. T h u s , here again is a p o i n t o f v i e w from w h i c h t h e favors o f m e n are necessary t o t h e m . T h i s second reason t o h e l p t h e m is even m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n the first, f o r i t has existed from t i m e i m m e m o r i a l . T h e i n t e r m i t t e n c e s o f physical life affect r e l i g i o u s beliefs o n l y w h e n r e l i g i o n s are n o t yet detached from t h e i r cosmic m a g m a . B u t the i n t e r m i t t e n c e s o f social life are inevitable, and even t h e m o s t idealistic r e l i g i o n s can never escape t h e m . M o r e o v e r , i t is because t h e gods are i n this state o f dependence o n the

This sentence is missing from the Swain translation. 53

In a philosophical sense, the same is true of anything, for things exist only through representation. But as 1 have shown (pp. 228—229), this proposition is doubly true of religious forces, because there is nothing in the makeup of things that corresponds to sacredness.

350


t h o u g h t o f m a n that m a n can believe his h e l p t o be efficacious. T h e o n l y w a y t o r e n e w the collective representations

that refer t o sacred beings is

t o p l u n g e t h e m again i n t o the v e r y source o f r e l i g i o u s life:

assembled

groups. T h e e m o t i o n s aroused b y the p e r i o d i c crises t h r o u g h w h i c h external things pass i n d u c e the m e n w i t n e s s i n g t h e m t o c o m e together, so that they can see w h a t i t is best t o do. B u t b y t h e v e r y fact o f b e i n g assembled, they c o m f o r t o n e another; t h e y f i n d t h e r e m e d y because t h e y seek i t together. T h e shared f a i t h comes t o life again q u i t e n a t u r a l l y i n the m i d s t o f r e c o n s t i t u t e d c o l l e c t i v i t y . I t is r e b o r n because i t finds itself o n c e again i n the same c o n d i t i o n s i n w h i c h i t was first b o r n . O n c e i t is restored, i t easdy overcomes all the p r i v a t e doubts that h a d m a n a g e d t o arise i n i n d i v i d u a l m i n d s . T h e m e n t a l i m a g e * o f the sacred things regains strength sufficient t o w i t h s t a n d the i n w a r d o r e x t e r n a l causes that t e n d e d t o w e a k e n i t . D e s p i t e t h e o b v i o u s failures, o n e can n o l o n g e r believe that t h e gods w i l l die, because t h e y are felt t o live again i n t h e depths o f one's o w n self. N o m a t t e r h o w c r u d e t h e techniques used t o h e l p the gods, t h e y c a n n o t seem u n a v a i l i n g , because e v e r y t h i n g happens as i f t h e y really w e r e w o r k i n g . People are m o r e c o n f i d e n t because t h e y feel stronger, a n d t h e y are stronger i n reality b e cause t h e strength that was f l a g g i n g has b e e n reawakened i n t h e i r consciousnesses. I t is necessary, t h e n , t o refrain from b e l i e v i n g , w i t h S m i t h , that t h e c u l t was i n s t i t u t e d o n l y f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f m e n a n d that t h e gods have n o use f o r i t . T h e y still n e e d i t as m u c h as t h e i r faithful d o . N o d o u b t , the m e n c o u l d n o t live w i t h o u t t h e gods; b u t o n the o t h e r h a n d , the gods w o u l d die i f they w e r e n o t w o r s h i p p e d . T h u s the p u r p o s e o f t h e c u l t is n o t o n l y t o b r i n g the profane i n t o c o m m u n i o n w i t h sacred beings b u t also t o keep t h e sacred b e ings alive, t o remake a n d regenerate t h e m perpetually. T o be sure, the m a t e r i a l offerings d o n o t p r o d u c e this r e m a k i n g t h r o u g h t h e i r o w n virtues b u t t h r o u g h m e n t a l states that reawaken a n d a c c o m p a n y these doings, w h i c h are e m p t y i n themselves. T h e t r u e raison d'être o f even those cults that are m o s t materialistic i n appearance is n o t t o be s o u g h t i n the actions t h e y prescribe b u t i n the i n w a r d a n d m o r a l r e n e w a l that the actions h e l p t o b r i n g about. W h a t the w o r s h i p p e r i n reality gives his g o d is n o t t h e f o o d he places o n the altar o r the b l o o d that he causes t o f l o w f r o m his veins: I t is his t h o u g h t . N e v ertheless, there remains a m u t u a l l y r e i n f o r c i n g exchange o f g o o d deeds b e t w e e n the d e i t y a n d his w o r s h i p p e r s . T h e r u l e do ut desj b y w h i c h the p r i n c i p l e o f sacrifice has sometimes b e e n d e f i n e d , is n o t a recent i n v e n t i o n *Durkheim said image, which here refers to a mental, rather than a physical, representation. *I give in order that you might give.

351

The Positive Cult

by u t i l i t a r i a n theorists; i t s i m p l y makes e x p l i c i t t h e mechanics o f t h e sacrificial system itself and, m o r e generally, that o f t h e w h o l e positive c u l t . T h u s , the circle S m i t h p o i n t e d o u t is q u i t e real, b u t n o t h i n g a b o u t i t offends the i n telligence. I t arises f r o m the fact that a l t h o u g h sacred beings are s u p e r i o r t o m e n , they can live o n l y i n h u m a n consciousnesses. B u t i f , pressing the analysis f u r t h e r a n d s u b s t i t u t i n g f o r the religious s y m bols the realities t h e y express, w e i n q u i r e i n t o t h e w a y those realities behave w i t h i n the r i t e , this circle w i l l seem t o us even m o r e natural, and w e w i l l b e t ter u n d e r s t a n d its sense a n d purpose. I f , as I have t r i e d t o establish, the sacred p r i n c i p l e is n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n society hypostasized a n d transfigured, i t s h o u l d be possible t o i n t e r p r e t r i t u a l life i n secular a n d social t e r m s . L i k e r i t ual life, social life i n fact moves i n a circle. O n the o n e hand, the i n d i v i d u a l gets the best p a r t o f h i m s e l f f r o m s o c i e t y — a l l that gives h i m a distinctive character a n d place a m o n g o t h e r beings, his i n t e l l e c t u a l a n d m o r a l c u l t u r e . Let language, sciences, arts, a n d m o r a l beliefs be taken f r o m m a n , a n d he falls to the r a n k o f a n i m a h t y ; therefore the d i s t i n c t i v e attributes o f h u m a n nature c o m e t o us f r o m society. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , h o w e v e r , society exists a n d lives o n l y i n and t h r o u g h i n d i v i d u a l s . L e t t h e idea o f society be e x t i n g u i s h e d i n i n d i v i d u a l m i n d s , let the beliefs, t r a d i t i o n s , a n d aspirations o f the c o l l e c t i v i t y be felt a n d shared b y i n d i v i d u a l s n o l o n g e r , a n d the society w i l l die. T h u s w e can repeat a b o u t society w h a t was p r e v i o u s l y said a b o u t the deity: I t has reality o n l y t o the e x t e n t that i t has a place i n h u m a n consciousnesses, a n d that place is m a d e f o r society b y us. W e n o w glimpse t h e p r o f o u n d reason w h y the gods can n o m o r e d o w i t h o u t t h e i r f a i t h f u l t h a n the faithful can d o w i t h o u t t h e i r gods. I t is that society, o f w h i c h t h e gods are o n l y the s y m b o l i c e x pression, can n o m o r e d o w i t h o u t i n d i v i d u a l s t h a n i n d i v i d u a l s can

do

w i t h o u t society. H e r e w e t o u c h t h e s o l i d r o c k o n w h i c h all the cults are b u i l t a n d that has made t h e m e n d u r e as l o n g as h u m a n societies have. W h e n w e see w h a t the rites are m a d e o f a n d w h a t t h e y seem t o be d i r e c t e d t o w a r d , w e w o n d e r w i t h astonishment h o w m e n c o u l d have a r r i v e d at t h e idea and, especially, h o w they r e m a i n e d attached t o i t so faithfully. W h e r e c o u l d t h e y have g o t t e n the i l l u s i o n that, w i t h a f e w grains o f sand t h r o w n t o the w i n d o r a f e w drops o f b l o o d p o u r e d o n a r o c k o r o n the stone o f an altar, t h e life o f an a n i m a l species o r a g o d c o u l d be maintained? W h e n , f r o m beneath these o u t w a r d and s e e m i n g l y i r r a t i o n a l doings, w e have u n c o v e r e d a m e n t a l m e c h a n i s m that gives t h e m sense a n d m o r a l i m p o r t , w e have m a d e a step t o w a r d s o l v i n g this p r o b l e m . B u t n o t h i n g assures us that t h e m e c h a n i s m i t s e l f is a n y t h i n g b u t a play o f h a l l u c i n a t o r y images.

I have i n d e e d s h o w n w h a t p s y c h o l o g i c a l

processes m a k e the faithful t h i n k that the r i t e makes the s p i r i t u a l forces t h e y

352


n e e d c o m e t o life again a r o u n d t h e m ; b u t from t h e fact that i t can be e x p l a i n e d p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y does n o t f o l l o w that this b e l i e f has objective value. T o have a s o u n d basis f o r seeing the efficacy that is i m p u t e d t o the rites as something other than offspring o f a chronic delusion w i t h w h i c h humanity deceives itself, i t m u s t be possible t o establish t h a t the effect o f t h e c u l t is p e r i o d i c a l l y t o recreate a m o r a l b e i n g o n w h i c h w e d e p e n d , as i t depends u p o n us. N o w , this b e i n g exists: I t is society. I n fact, i f religious ceremonies have any i m p o r t a n c e at all, i t is that they set c o l l e c t i v i t y i n m o t i o n ; groups c o m e t o g e t h e r t o celebrate t h e m . T h u s t h e i r first result is t o b r i n g i n d i v i d u a l s together, m u l t i p l y the contacts bet w e e n t h e m , and m a k e those contacts m o r e i n t i m a t e . T h a t i n itself modifies the c o n t e n t o f the consciousnesses. O n o r d i n a r y days, t h e m i n d is chiefly o c c u p i e d w i t h u t i l i t a r i a n a n d i n d i v i d u a h s t i c affairs. E v e r y o n e goes about his o w n personal business; f o r m o s t p e o p l e , w h a t is m o s t i m p o r t a n t is t o m e e t the demands o f m a t e r i a l life; the p r i n c i p a l m o t i v e o f e c o n o m i c a c t i v i t y has always b e e n p r i v a t e interest. O f course, social feelings c o u l d n o t be absent a l together. W e r e m a i n i n relationship w i t h o u r f e l l o w m e n ; the habits, ideas, a n d tendencies that u p b r i n g i n g has stamped o n us, a n d that o r d i n a r i l y p r e side over o u r relations w i t h others, c o n t i n u e t o m a k e t h e i r i n f l u e n c e felt. B u t t h e y are constandy frustrated a n d h e l d i n c h e c k b y t h e o p p o s i n g tendencies that the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f the d a y - i n , d a y - o u t struggle p r o d u c e a n d p e r p e t u ate. D e p e n d i n g o n the i n t r i n s i c energy o f those social feelings, they h o l d u p m o r e o r less successfully; b u t that energy is n o t r e n e w e d . T h e y live o n t h e i r past, and, i n consequence, they w o u l d i n t i m e be d e p l e t e d i f n o t h i n g came t o give back a l i t d e o f the strength t h e y lose t h r o u g h this incessant c o n f l i c t and

friction. W h e n t h e Australians h u n t o r fish i n scattered small groups, t h e y lose

sight o f w h a t concerns t h e i r clan o r t r i b e . T h e y t h i n k o n l y o f t a k i n g as m u c h game as possible. O n feast days, h o w e v e r , these concerns are overshadowed o b l i g a t o r i l y ; since t h e y are i n essence profane, t h e y are shut o u t o f sacred p e r i o d s . W h a t t h e n occupies t h e m i n d are t h e beliefs h e l d i n c o m m o n : the m e m o r i e s o f great ancestors, t h e c o l l e c t i v e ideal t h e ancestors e m b o d y — i n short, social things. E v e n t h e m a t e r i a l interests that the great r e l i g i o u s cerem o n i e s a i m t o satisfy are p u b l i c a n d hence social. T h e w h o l e society has an interest i n an abundant harvest, i n t i m e l y r a i n t h a t is n o t excessive, and i n t h e n o r m a l r e p r o d u c t i o n o f the animals. H e n c e i t is society that is foremost i n every consciousness a n d that d o m i n a t e s a n d directs c o n d u c t , w h i c h a m o u n t s t o saying that at such times i t is even m o r e alive, m o r e active, a n d thus m o r e real t h a n at profane times. A n d so w h e n m e n feel there is s o m e t h i n g outside

The Positive Cult

353

themselves that is r e b o r n , forces that are reanimated, a n d a life that reawakens, they are n o t d e l u d e d . T h i s r e n e w a l is i n n o w a y imaginary, a n d the i n dividuals themselves b e n e f i t f r o m i t , f o r t h e particle o f social b e i n g that each i n d i v i d u a l bears w i t h i n h i m s e l f necessardy participates i n this collective remaking. T h e

i n d i v i d u a l soul itself is also regenerated, b y i m m e r s i n g

itself o n c e m o r e i n the v e r y w e l l s p r i n g o f its life. As a result, that soul feels stronger, m o r e mistress o f itself, a n d less d e p e n d e n t u p o n physical n e cessities. W e k n o w that t h e positive c u l t tends n a t u r a l l y t o take o n p e r i o d i c f o r m s ; this is o n e o f its d i s t i n g u i s h i n g traits. O f course, there are rites that m a n c e l ebrates occasionally, t o deal w i t h t e m p o r a r y situations. B u t these episodic practices never play m o r e t h a n a secondary role, even i n the religions w e are s t u d y i n g i n this b o o k . T h e essence o f the c u l t is t h e cycle o f feasts that are regularly repeated at d e f i n i t e times. W e are n o w i n a p o s i t i o n t o understand w h e r e that i m p u l s e t o w a r d p e r i o d i c i t y comes f r o m . T h e r h y t h m that r e l i gious life obeys o n l y expresses, a n d results f r o m , t h e r h y t h m o f social life. Society c a n n o t revitalize t h e awareness i t has o f itself unless i t assembles, b u t i t cannot r e m a i n c o n t i n u o u s l y i n session. T h e demands o f hfe d o n o t p e r m i t i t to stay i n c o n g r e g a t i o n i n d e f i n i t e l y , so i t disperses, o n l y t o reassemble anew w h e n i t again feels the need. I t is t o these necessary alternations that the r e g ular a l t e r n a t i o n o f sacred a n d profane t i m e responds. Because at least the manifest f u n c t i o n o f t h e c u l t is i n i t i a l l y t o regularize t h e course o f natural p h e n o m e n a , the r h y t h m o f cosmic life set its m a r k u p o n t h e r h y t h m o f r i t u a l life. H e n c e , f o r a l o n g t i m e the feasts w e r e seasonal; w e have observed that such was already a trait o f t h e A u s t r a l i a n I n t i c h i u m a . B u t the seasons m e r e l y p r o v i d e d t h e e x t e r n a l f r a m e w o r k o f this o r g a n i z a t i o n , n o t the p r i n c i p l e o n w h i c h i t rests, f o r even the cults that have exclusively s p i r i t u a l ends have r e m a i n e d p e r i o d i c . T h e reason is that this p e r i o d i c i t y has different causes. B e cause the seasonal changes are c r i t i c a l periods f o r nature, they are a natural occasion f o r gatherings a n d thus f o r religious ceremonies. B u t o t h e r events c o u l d play, a n d have i n fact played, the role o f occasional causes. Yet i t must be a c k n o w l e d g e d that this f r a m e w o r k , a l t h o u g h p u r e l y e x t e r n a l , has s h o w n remarkable endurance, f o r its vestige is still f o u n d i n the religions that are furthest r e m o v e d f r o m any physical basis. Several C h r i s t i a n feasts are b o u n d w i t h u n b r o k e n c o n t i n u i t y t o the pastoral a n d a g r i c u l t u r a l feasts o f the a n c i e n t Israelites, even t h o u g h they are n e i t h e r pastoral n o r a g r i c u l t u r a l any longer. T h e f o r m o f this cycle is apt t o v a r y f r o m o n e society t o another. W h e r e the p e r i o d o f dispersion is l o n g o r the dispersion v e r y great, the p e r i o d o f

354


c o n g r e g a t i o n is p r o l o n g e d i n t u r n , a n d there are veritable orgies o f collective a n d r e l i g i o u s life. Feasts c o m e o n e after the o t h e r f o r weeks o r m o n t h s , and r i t u a l life sometimes rises t o o u t r i g h t frenzy. T h i s is t r u e o f the Australian tribes a n d o f several societies i n the A m e r i c a n N o r t h a n d N o r t h w e s t .

5 6

Else-

w h e r e , b y contrast, these t w o phases o f social life f o l l o w o n e a n o t h e r m o r e closely, a n d t h e contrast b e t w e e n t h e m is less m a r k e d . T h e m o r e societies develop, the less is t h e i r tolerance f o r i n t e r r u p t i o n s that are t o o p r o n o u n c e d .

56

See Mauss, Essai sur les variations saisonnières des sociétés Eskimos, in AS, vol. IX [1906], pp. 96ff.

CHAPTER THREE

THE POSITIVE CULT (CONTINUED) Mimetic Rites and the Principle of Causality

T

he techniques j u s t discussed are n o t t h e o n l y ones used t o b r i n g a b o u t the f e r t i l i t y o f the t o t e m i c species. O t h e r s w i t h the same p u r p o s e either

accompany t h e m o r take t h e i r place.

I I n the same ceremonies I have described, various rites apart f r o m b l o o d o r o t h e r sacrifices are o f t e n p e r f o r m e d t o s u p p l e m e n t o r reinforce t h e effects o f those practices. T h e y are c o m p o s e d o f m o v e m e n t s and cries i n t e n d e d t o m i m i c the b e h a v i o r o r traits o f t h e a n i m a l w h o s e r e p r o d u c t i o n is h o p e d for. For this reason, I call t h e m mimetic. A m o n g the A r u n t a , the W i t c h e t t y G r u b I n t i c h i u m a involves m o r e t h a n the rites that are c a r r i e d o u t o n t h e sacred rocks, as discussed above. O n c e those have b e e n c o m p l e t e d , the participants start b a c k t o w a r d t h e camp. W h e n t h e y are n o m o r e t h a n a b o u t a m i l e away f r o m i t , t h e y call a_halt a n d decorate themselves ritually, after w h i c h t h e y c o n t i n u e t h e i r m a r c h . T h e i r a d o r n m e n t announces that an i m p o r t a n t c e r e m o n y is t o c o m e . A n d so i t does. W h i l e the d e t a c h m e n t was away, o n e o f t h e elders left o n g u a r d at the camp has b u i l t a shelter o u t o f l o n g , n a r r o w branches; i t is called the Umbana and represents t h e chrysalis f r o m w h i c h the insect emerges. A l l those w h o have taken p a r t i n the earlier ceremonies gather near the place w h e r e this structure has b e e n p u t u p ; t h e n t h e y s l o w l y advance, s t o p p i n g f r o m time t o t i m e u n t i l t h e y reach the U m b a n a , w h i c h t h e y enter. I m m e d i a t e l y , all those w h o d o n o t b e l o n g t o the p h r a t r y t o w h i c h t h e W i t c h e t t y G r u b t o t e m b e longs (but w h o are o n the scene, t h o u g h at a distance) he face d o w n o n the g r o u n d ; t h e y m u s t stay i n this posture u n t i l t h e y are g i v e n p e r m i s s i o n t o get 355

356


up. D u r i n g this t i m e , a h y m n rises f r o m w i t h i n the U m b a n a . I t recounts the various phases the a n i m a l goes t h r o u g h i n the course o f his d e v e l o p m e n t and t h e m y t h s c o n c e r n i n g the sacred rocks. A t t h e e n d o f this h y m n , the A l a t u n j a glides o u t o f the U m b a n a a n d , still c r o u c h i n g , s l o w l y advances o n the g r o u n d i n f r o n t o f i t . H e is f o l l o w e d b y all his c o m p a n i o n s , w h o i m i t a t e his gestures. T h e y apparently m e a n t o p o r t r a y the insect as i t emerges from the chrysalis. T h e s i n g i n g that is heard at the same m o m e n t , a k i n d o f oral c o m m e n t a r y o n the r i t e , is i n fact a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the m o v e m e n t s the a n i m a l makes at this stage o f its d e v e l o p m e n t .

1

2

I n a n o t h e r I n t i c h i u m a , celebrated a propos o f a n o t h e r sort o f g r u b , the 3

unchalka g r u b , this characteristic is even m o r e p r o n o u n c e d . T h e participants i n the r i t e a d o r n themselves w i t h designs representing the u n c h a l k a bush, o n w h i c h this g r u b lives at the b e g i n n i n g o f its life; t h e n t h e y cover a shield w i t h c o n c e n t r i c circles o f d o w n that represent a n o t h e r k i n d o f bush o n w h i c h the adult insect lays its eggs. W h e n these preparations are c o m p l e t e , everyone sits o n the g r o u n d i n a semicircle f a c i n g the p r i n c i p a l celebrant. T h e celebrant alternately curves his b o d y i n t w o b y b e n d i n g t o w a r d the g r o u n d and r i s i n g o n his knees; at the same t i m e , he shakes his outspread arms, a w a y o f r e p r e senting the w i n g s o f the insect. F r o m t i m e t o t i m e , he leans over the shield, i m i t a t i n g the m a n n e r i n w h i c h the b u t t e r f l y hovers over t h e shrubs i n w h i c h i t lays its eggs. W h e n this c e r e m o n y is over, a n o t h e r begins at a different place, t o w h i c h t h e y g o i n silence. T h i s t i m e , t w o shields are used. O n one, the tracks o f the g r u b are represented b y zigzag lines; o n the o t h e r are c o n c e n t r i c circles o f u n e q u a l size, some representing the eggs o f t h e insect a n d the others t h e seeds o f the e r e m o p h i l e bush, o n w h i c h i t feeds. As i n the first ceremony, everyone sits i n sdence w h i l e the celebrant moves about, i m i t a t i n g the m o v e m e n t s o f t h e a n i m a l w h e n i t leaves the chrysalis a n d struggles t o take f l i g h t . Spencer a n d G i l l e n p o i n t o u t a f e w m o r e practices f r o m a m o n g the A r u n t a , w h i c h are s i m i l a r b u t o f lesser i m p o r t a n c e . F o r example, i n the I n t i c h i u m a o f t h e E m u , t h e participants at a g i v e n m o m e n t t r y t o c o p y the gait 4

a n d appearance o f this b i r d i n t h e i r o w n b e h a v i o r ; i n an I n t i c h i u m a o f the

'[Sir Baldwin Spencer and Francis James Gillen, The Native Tribes of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1899], p. 176. 2

[Sir Baldwin Spencer and Francis James Gillen, The Northern Tribes of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1904], p. 179. It is true that Spencer and Gillen do not say explicidy that the ceremony is an Intichiuma, but the context leaves no doubt about the meaning of the rite. 3

4

In the index of names of totems, Spencer and Gillen spell it Untjalka (Northern Tribes, p. 772).


357

The Positive Cult (Continued)

Water, the m e n o f the t o t e m m a k e t h e characteristic c r y o f the plover, a c r y 5

that i n t h e i r m i n d s is associated w i t h the r a i n y season. B u t all i n all, these t w o explorers n o t e d rather f e w instances o f m i m e t i c rites. I t is certain, h o w ever, that t h e i r relative silence o n this p o i n t arises e i t h e r f r o m the fact that they d i d n o t observe e n o u g h I n t i c h i u m a s o r that t h e y o v e r l o o k e d this aspect o f the ceremonies. Schulze, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , was s t r u c k b y the e x t r e m e l y m i m e t i c character o f t h e A r u n t a rites. " T h e sacred c o r r o b o r é e s , " he says, "are f o r t h e m o s t p a r t ceremonies that represent animals"; he calls t h e m " a n 6

i m a l t j u r u n g a s , " a n d the d o c u m e n t s S t r e h l o w c o l l e c t e d have c o r r o b o r a t e d his r e p o r t i n g . I n Strehlow's w o r k , t h e examples are so n u m e r o u s that i t is i m possible t o cite t h e m all; there are v i r t u a l l y n o ceremonies i n w h i c h some i m itative gesture is n o t n o t e d . A c c o r d i n g t o the nature o f t h e t o t e m s w h o s e feast is celebrated, t h e y j u m p i n t h e m a n n e r o f kangaroos and i m i t a t e the m o v e m e n t s kangaroos m a k e w h e n eating. T h e y i m i t a t e the f l i g h t o f w i n g e d ants, the characteristic noise t h e bat makes, t h e c r y o f the w i l d t u r k e y a n d that o f t h e eagle, t h e hissing o f the snake, t h e c r o a k i n g o f the frog, a n d so 7

8

f o r t h . W h e n the t o t e m is a p l a n t , t h e y gesture as t h o u g h p i c k i n g o r e a t i n g

9

it, for example. A m o n g t h e W a r r a m u n g a , the I n t i c h i u m a generally takes a v e r y unusual f o r m (described i n the n e x t chapter) that differs from those s t u d i e d u p t o now. Nonetheless, a t y p i c a l case o f a p u r e l y m i m e t i c I n t i c h i u m a exists a m o n g this p e o p l e : that o f the W h i t e C o c k a t o o . T h e c e r e m o n y Spencer a n d G i l l e n described began at t e n at n i g h t . A l l n i g h t l o n g , t h e head o f the clan i m i t a t e d the c r y o f the b i r d w i t h distressing m o n o t o n y . H e stopped o n l y w h e n he h a d used u p all his strength a n d was replaced b y his son; t h e n h e began again as soon as h e felt a l i t t l e rested. T h e s e e x h a u s t i n g exercises c o n t i n u e d w i t h o u t break u n t i l m o r n i n g .

1 0

L i v i n g beings are n o t t h e o n l y ones t h e y t r y t o i m i t a t e . I n a large n u m ber o f tribes, t h e I n t i c h i u m a o f t h e R a i n basically consists o f i m i t a t i v e rites. T h a t celebrated a m o n g the U r a b u n n a is o n e o f the simplest. T h e head o f t h e

5

Ibid., p. 193.

6

[Rev. Louis] Schulze, "Aborigines of the Upper and Middle Finke River," RSSA, vol. XIV [1891], p. 221; cf. p. 243. 7

[Carl] Strehlow, [DieAranda- und Loritja-Stamme in Zentral-Australien, Frankfurt, J. Baer, 1907], vol. Ill, pp. 11, 84, 31, 36, 37, 68, 72. 8

Ibid., p. 100.

9

Ibid., pp. 81, 100, 112, 115.

'"[Spencer and Gillen], Northern Tribes, p. 310.

358


clan is seated o n the g r o u n d , decorated i n w h i t e d o w n a n d h o l d i n g a lance. H e moves every w h i c h way, p r o b a b l y t o shake o f f the d o w n that is attached t o his b o d y a n d represents the clouds w h e n they are dispersed i n t h e air. I n that way, he imitates the great A l c h e r i n g a m a n - c l o u d s that, a c c o r d i n g t o l e g e n d , h a d t h e h a b i t o f r i s i n g t o t h e sky t o f o r m the clouds f r o m w h i c h the r a i n t h e n came back t o earth. I n short, t h e object o f the entire r i t e is t o d e p i c t the f o r m a t i o n a n d ascent o f the r a i n - b e a r i n g c l o u d s .

11

A m o n g the K a i t i s h , the c e r e m o n y is m u c h m o r e c o m p l e x . I have already n o t e d o n e o f the means e m p l o y e d : T h e celebrant p o u r s w a t e r o n the sacred stones a n d o n himself. O t h e r rites strengthen the effect this sort o f o f f e r i n g has. T h e r a i n b o w is t h o u g h t t o be closely c o n n e c t e d t o t h e r a i n . I t is the son, the K a i t i s h say, a n d i t is always i n a h u r r y t o c o m e o u t a n d stop the r a i n . So i f the r a i n is t o fall, t h e r a i n b o w m u s t n o t appear. T h e y t h i n k they can get this result i n the f o l l o w i n g way. O n a shield t h e y d r a w a design representing the r a i n b o w . T h e y take this shield t o camp, carefully k e e p i n g i t h i d d e n from all eyes. T h e y are c o n v i n c e d that, i n m a k i n g this i m a g e o f the r a i n b o w invisible, they are p r e v e n t i n g t h e appearance o f the r a i n b o w itself. M e a n w h d e , w i t h a p i t c h i f u l l o f w a t e r at his side, the head o f t h e clan t h r o w s tufts o f w h i t e d o w n , representing t h e clouds, i n all d i r e c t i o n s . R e p e a t e d i m i t a t i o n s o f the plover's c r y r o u n d o u t the ceremony, w h i c h seems t o have special solemnity. F o r as l o n g as i t lasts, those w h o participate i n i t , w h e t h e r as actors o r as m e m b e r s o f the c o n g r e g a t i o n , m u s t have n o contact w i t h t h e i r wives, n o t even t o speak w i t h t h e m .

1 2

T h e m e t h o d s o f d e p i c t i o n are n o t t h e same a m o n g t h e D i e r i . T h e r a i n is d e p i c t e d n o t b y w a t e r b u t b y b l o o d , w h i c h m e n cause t o f l o w veins o n t o those i n a t t e n d a n c e .

13

from

their

A t the same time, t h e y t h r o w handfuls o f

w h i t e d o w n , w h i c h s y m b o l i z e t h e clouds. I n t o a h u t that has b e e n b u i l t ahead o f t i m e , t h e y place t w o large stones that represent the b a n k i n g u p o f clouds, a sign o f r a i n . H a v i n g left t h e m there f o r a t i m e , t h e y m o v e the stones a certain distance away a n d place t h e m as far u p as possible o n the tallest tree they can f i n d . T h i s is a w a y o f m a k i n g the clouds m o u n t i n t o the sky. S o m e p o w d e r e d g y p s u m is t h r o w n i n t o a w a t e r h o l e , at the sight o f w h i c h t h e r a i n

"Ibid., pp. 285—286. It may be that the movements of the lance are to pierce the clouds. 12

[Spencer and Gillen] Northern Tribes, pp. 294—296. On the other hand, interestingly enough, among the Anula, the rainbow is held to bring about rain. (Ibid., p. 314.) 13

The same procedure is used among the Arunta (Strehlow, Aranda, vol. Ill, p. 132). True, the question arises whether this shedding of blood might not be an offering for the purpose of bringing forth the principles that produce rain. However, Gason says emphatically that it is a way of imitating the falling rain.

359


spirit i m m e d i a t e l y makes clouds appear. F i n a l l y everyone, y o u n g a n d o l d , come t o g e t h e r a r o u n d the h u t and, w i t h t h e i r heads d o w n , rush t o w a r d i t . T h e y pass v i o l e n t l y t h r o u g h i t , repeating the m o v e m e n t several times, u n t i l the o n l y p a r t o f the structure that remains standing is its s u p p o r t i n g posts. T h e n they attack t h e posts as w e l l , s h a k i n g a n d t e a r i n g at t h e m u n t i l the w h o l e structure collapses. T h e o p e r a t i o n o f p i e r c i n g the h u t all over is i n tended t o represent the clouds p a r t i n g ; a n d the collapse o f its structure, the falling o f the r a i n .

1 4

A m o n g the tribes o f the n o r t h w e s t s t u d i e d b y C l e m e n t ,

1 5

w h i c h occupy

the t e r r i t o r y b e t w e e n the Fortescue a n d F i t z r o y rivers, there are ceremonies c o n d u c t e d f o r exactly the same p u r p o s e as t h e I n t i c h i u m a s o f the A r u n t a and that seem i n t h e m a i n t o be essentially m i m e t i c . A m o n g these peoples, t h e n a m e tarlow is g i v e n t o piles o f stones that are apparently sacred because, as w e w i l l see, t h e y are the o b j e c t o f i m p o r t a n t 16

rites. E a c h a n i m a l a n d p l a n t — e a c h t o t e m o r s u b t o t e m — i s represented b y a tarlow, o f w h i c h a s p e c i f i c

17

clan is the custodian. T h e s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n

these tarlows a n d the sacred stones o f t h e A r u n t a is easy t o see. W h e n kangaroos are scarce, f o r e x a m p l e , the head o f t h e c l a n t o w h i c h the t a r l o w o f t h e kangaroos belongs goes t o the t a r l o w w i t h some o f his c o m p a n i o n s . T h e r e t h e y execute various rites. T h e p r i n c i p a l ones consist o f j u m p i n g a r o u n d t h e t a r l o w as t h e kangaroos j u m p a n d d r i n k i n g as t h e y d r i n k — i n short, i m i t a t i n g t h e i r m o s t characteristic m o v e m e n t s . T h e w e a p ons used i n h u n t i n g t h e a n i m a l play an i m p o r t a n t role i n these rites. T h e y are brandished, t h r o w n against the stones, a n d so f o r t h . W h e n i t is a m a t t e r o f emus, t h e y g o t o t h e t a r l o w o f the emus; t h e y w a l k a n d r u n as those birds do. T h e cleverness that t h e natives display i n these i m i t a t i o n s is apparendy q u i t e remarkable. O t h e r tarlows are dedicated t o plants—grass seeds, f o r example. I n this

14

[S.] Gason, "The Dieyerie Tribe," in [Edward Micklethwaite Curr, The Australian Race: Its Origin,

Languages, Customs, Place of Landing in Australia and the Routes by Which It Spread Itself over That Continent,

Melbourne, J. Ferres, 1886-1887], vol. II, pp. 66-68; [Alfred William] Howitt (The NativeTribes [of Southeast Australia, London, Macmillan, 1904], pp. 798-800) mentions another Dieri rite to get rain. 15

[E.] Clement, "Ethnographical Notes on the Western-Australian Aborigines [with a Descriptive Catalogue of Ethnographical ObjectsfromWestern Australia]," in Internationales Archiv fur Ethnographic, vol. XVI [1903], pp. 6-7. Cf. Withnal, Marriage Rites and Relationship, in [Science of] Man: [Australasian Anthropological Journal, vol. VI], 1903, p. 42. 16

I assume that a subtotem can have a tarlow because, according to Clement, certain clans have several totems. 17

Clement says a tribal family.


360

case, t h e techniques used i n w i n n o w i n g o r m i n i n g those seeds are m i m e d . A n d since, i n o r d i n a r y life, i t is w o m e n w h o are o r d i n a r i l y

responsible

for such tasks, i t is also t h e y w h o p e r f o r m the r i t e a m i d songs and dances.

II A l l o f these rites b e l o n g t o t h e same category. T h e p r i n c i p l e o n w h i c h they 1 8

are based is o n e o f those o n w h i c h w h a t is c o m m o n l y (and i m p r o p e r l y ) called sympathetic m a g i c is based. T h i s p r i n c i p l e m a y usually be s u b d i v i d e d i n t o t w o .

1 9

T h e first can be stated i n this w a y : Whatever touches an object also touches everything that has any relationship of proximity or solidarity with that object. T h u s , w h a t e v e r affects the p a r t affects the w h o l e ; any force e x e r t e d o n an i n d i v i d ual is t r a n s m i t t e d t o his n e i g h b o r s , his k i n , a n d e v e r y t h i n g w i t h w h i c h he is u n i t e d i n any w a y at all. A l l these cases are s i m p l y applications o f the l a w o f c o n t a g i o n , w h i c h w e s t u d i e d earlier. A g o o d o r b a d state o r q u a l i t y is transm i t t e d c o n t a g i o u s l y from o n e subject t o a n o t h e r that has any relationship w i t h the first. T h e second p r i n c i p l e is usually s u m m a r i z e d i n this f o r m u l a : Like produces like. T h e d e p i c t i o n o f a b e i n g o r a state produces that b e i n g o r state. T h i s is the m a x i m that the rites j u s t described p u t i n t o o p e r a t i o n , a n d its characteristic traits can b e grasped best w h e n t h e y occur. T h e classic example o f b e w i t c h m e n t , w h i c h is generally presented as t h e t y p i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f this same precept, is m u c h less significant. I n d e e d , t h e p h e n o m e n o n i n b e w i t c h m e n t is largely a m e r e transfer. T h e idea o f the i m a g e is associated i n the m i n d w i t h the idea o f the m o d e l . As a result, the effects o f any a c t i o n o n the statuette are passed o n c o n t a g i o u s l y t o t h e p e r s o n w h o s e traits i t m i m i c s . I n r e l a t i o n t o the o r i g i n a l , the i m a g e plays the role o f the p a r t i n r e l a t i o n t o the w h o l e ; i t is an agent o f transmission. T h u s i t is b e l i e v e d that o n e can o b t a i n the same result b y b u r n i n g the hair o f the p e r s o n o n e wants t o get at. T h e o n l y difference b e t w e e n these t w o k i n d s o f o p e r a t i o n is that, i n one, the c o m m u n i c a t i o n is d o n e b y means o f similarity, a n d i n the other, b y means o f contiguity. T h e rites that c o n c e r n us are a different case. T h e y presuppose n o t

18

19

I will explain the nature of this impropriety below (p. 517).

On this classification see [James George] Frazer, Lectures on the Early History of Kingship, [London, Macmillan, 1905], pp. 37ff.; [Henri] Hubert and [Marcel] Mauss, ["Esquisse d'une] théorie générale de la magie," [AS, vol. VII, 1904], pp. 61ff.

361


merely the passage o f a g i v e n state o r q u a l i t y f r o m o n e object i n t o a n o t h e r but the c r e a t i o n o f s o m e t h i n g altogether new. T h e v e r y act o f d e p i c t i n g the animal gives b i r t h t o that a n i m a l a n d creates i t — i n i m i t a t i n g the noise o f the w i n d o r the f a l l i n g water, o n e causes the clouds t o f o r m a n d dissolve i n t o rain, a n d so f o r t h . I n b o t h k i n d s o f rites, resemblance u n d o u b t e d l y has a role but a v e r y different one. I n b e w i t c h m e n t , resemblance o n l y guides the force exerted i n a p a r t i c u l a r w a y ; i t orients a p o w e r that is n o t its o w n i n a c e r t a i n d i r e c t i o n . I n the rites j u s t considered, i t acts b y itself a n d is d i r e c t l y efficacious. Besides, c o n t r a r y t o the usual d e f i n i t i o n s , w h a t really differentiates t h e t w o p r i n c i p l e s o f the m a g i c called sympathetic a n d its c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r a c tices is n o t that c o n t i g u i t y acts i n some cases a n d resemblance i n others, b u t that, i n the first, there is m e r e l y c o n t a g i o u s c o m m u n i c a t i o n and, i n the second, production and creation.

20

T h u s t o e x p l a i n t h e m i m e t i c rites is t o e x p l a i n t h e second o f these p r i n ciples, a n d v i c e versa. I w i l l n o t t a r r y l o n g over the e x p l a n a t i o n that the a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l s c h o o l has p u t f o r w a r d , n o t a b l y T y l o r a n d Frazer. T h e y call u p o n the association o f ideas, j u s t as t h e y d o t o a c c o u n t f o r the contagiousness

o f the sacred.

" H o m e o p a t h i c magic," says Frazer, w h o prefers this t e r m t o that o f " m i m e t i c magic," "rests o n the association o f ideas b y similarity, a n d contagious m a g i c o n the association o f ideas b y c o n t i g u i t y . H o m e o p a t h i c m a g i c errs b y t a k i n g 21

things that resemble o n e a n o t h e r as i d e n t i c a l . " B u t this is t o m i s u n d e r s t a n d the specific character o f the practices u n d e r discussion. F r o m o n e p o i n t o f view, Frazer s f o r m u l a c o u l d b e a p p l i e d s o m e w h a t j u s t i f i a b l y t o the case o f bewitchment.

2 2

I n that c o n t e x t , i t actually is t w o d i s t i n c t t h i n g s — t h e image

and the m o d e l i t represents m o r e o r less s c h e m a t i c a l l y — t h a t are assimilated t o o n e a n o t h e r because o f t h e i r p a r t i a l resemblance. B u t o n l y the i m a g e is g i v e n i n the m i m e t i c rites w e have j u s t studied, a n d as f o r the m o d e l , there is none, since t h e n e w g e n e r a t i o n o f the t o t e m i c species is still n o m o r e t h a n a hope, a n d an u n c e r t a i n h o p e at that. T h u s there can be n o q u e s t i o n o f ass i m i l a t i o n , m i s t a k e n o r n o t ; there is c r e a t i o n , i n the f u l l sense o f t h e w o r d , and h o w t h e association o f ideas c o u l d ever lead o n e t o believe i n this cre-

20

I say nothing about the so-called law of contrariety. As Hubert and Mauss have shown, the contrary produces its contrary only by means of its like (Théorie générale de la magie, p. 70). 2 1

22

[Frazer], Lectures on the Early History of Kingship, p. 39.

It is applicable in the sense that there really is an amalgamation of the statuette and the person bewitched. But this amalgamation is far from being a mere product of the association of ideas by similarity. As I have shown, the true determining cause of the phenomenon is the contagiousness that is characteristic of religious forces.

362


a t i o n is n o t clear. H o w c o u l d t h e m e r e fact o f r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e m o v e m e n t s o f an a n i m a l p r o d u c e c e r t a i n t y that t h e a n i m a l w i l l be r e b o r n i n abundance? T h e general properties o f h u m a n n a t u r e c a n n o t e x p l a i n such o d d practices. Instead o f c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e o n w h i c h t h e y rest i n its general a n d abstract f o r m , l e t us p u t i t b a c k i n t o t h e m o r a l m i l i e u t o w h i c h i t belongs a n d i n w h i c h w e have j u s t observed i t . L e t us r e c o n n e c t i t w i t h t h e set o f ideas a n d feelings that are t h e o r i g i n o f t h e rites i n w h i c h i t is a p p l i e d , and w e w i l l be i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o d i s c e r n its causes. T h e m e n w h o gather f o r these rites believe t h e y really are animals o r plants o f t h e species w h o s e n a m e t h e y bear. T h e y are conscious o f an a n i m a l or p l a n t nature, a n d i n t h e i r eyes that n a t u r e constitutes w h a t is m o s t essential a n d m o s t e x c e l l e n t a b o u t themselves. W h e n t h e y are assembled, t h e n , t h e i r first act m u s t be t o a f f i r m t o o n e a n o t h e r this q u a l i t y that t h e y ascribe to themselves a n d b y w h i c h t h e y define themselves. T h e t o t e m is t h e i r r a l l y i n g sign. F o r this reason, as w e have seen, t h e y d r a w i t o n t h e i r bodies, a n d t h e y t r y t o emulate i t b y t h e i r gestures, cries, a n d carriage. Since t h e y are emus o r kangaroos, t h e y w i l l behave l i k e t h e animals o f t h e same name. B y this means, t h e y witness t o o n e a n o t h e r that t h e y are m e m b e r s o f t h e same m o r a l c o m m u n i t y , a n d t h e y take cognizance o f t h e k i n s h i p that unites t h e m . T h e r i t e n o t o n l y expresses this k i n s h i p b u t also makes o r remakes i t , f o r this k i n s h i p exists o n l y insofar as i t is b e l i e v e d , a n d t h e effect o f all these c o l l e c tive d e m o n s t r a t i o n s is t o keep alive t h e beliefs o n w h i c h i t rests. So a l t h o u g h these j u m p s , cries, a n d m o v e m e n t s o f all k i n d s are b i z a r r e a n d grotesque i n appearance, i n reality t h e y have a m e a n i n g that is h u m a n a n d p r o f o u n d . T h e A u s t r a l i a n seeks t o resemble his t o t e m j u s t as t h e adherent o f m o r e advanced r e l i g i o n s seeks t o resemble his G o d . F o r b o t h , this is a means o f c o m m u n i n g w i t h t h e sacred, that is, w i t h t h e c o l l e c t i v e i d e a l that t h e sacred symbolizes. I t is an early f o r m o f t h e 6u,oLCuat 9ew. * S t i l l , this first cause applies t o w h a t is m o s t specific t o t h e t o t e m i c beliefs, a n d i f i t was t h e o n l y cause, t h e p r i n c i p l e o f l i k e produces l i k e w o u l d n o t have l i v e d b e y o n d t o t e m i s m . Since there is perhaps n o r e l i g i o n i n w h i c h rites d e r i v e d f r o m i t are n o t t o be f o u n d , a n o t h e r cause m u s t have c o m b i n e d w i t h that one. I n fact, t h e v e r y general p u r p o s e o f t h e ceremonies i n w h i c h w e have seen i t a p p l i e d is n o t o n l y t h e o n e I have j u s t m e n t i o n e d , f u n d a m e n t a l t h o u g h i t is, f o r t h e y also have a m o r e i m m e d i a t e a n d conscious purpose: t o b r i n g a b o u t t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e t o t e m i c species. T h e idea o f this neces-

* Imitation of God.

363


sary r e p r o d u c t i o n haunts the m i n d s o f t h e faithful; t h e y concentrate the force o f t h e i r a t t e n t i o n a n d w i l l o n this goal. N o w a single c o n c e r n c a n n o t h a u n t an entire g r o u p o f m e n t o that e x t e n t a n d n o t b e c o m e e x t e r n a l i z e d i n t a n g i ble f o r m . Since all are t h i n k i n g o f an a n i m a l o r p l a n t t o w h o s e destinies the clan is allied, this t h i n k i n g i n c o m m o n is i n e v i t a b l y manifested o u t w a r d l y b y m o v e m e n t s , a n d the ones m o s t singled o u t f o r this role are those that represent the a n i m a l o r p l a n t i n o n e o f its m o s t characteristic f o r m s . T h e r e are n o m o v e m e n t s that as closely resemble t h e idea that fills consciousnesses at that m o m e n t , since t h e y are its d i r e c t a n d almost a u t o m a t i c translation. T h e p e o ple d o t h e i r best t o i m i t a t e t h e a n i m a l ; t h e y c r y o u t l i k e i t ; they j u m p l i k e it; t h e y m i m i c the settings i n w h i c h the p l a n t is dady used. A l l o f these processes o f representation are so m a n y ways o f o u t w a r d l y m a r k i n g the goal to w h i c h everyone aspires a n d o f saying, c a l l i n g o n , a n d i m a g i n i n g the t h i n g they w a n t t o b r i n g a b o u t .

2 3

N o r is this t h e n e e d o f any o n e era o r caused b y

the beliefs o f any o n e r e l i g i o n . I t is quintessentialfy h u m a n . T h i s is w h y , even i n r e l i g i o n s v e r y different from the o n e w e are s t u d y i n g , once, the faithful are gathered t o g e t h e r t o ask t h e i r gods f o r an o u t c o m e that t h e y f e r v e n t l y desire, they are v i r t u a l l y c o m p e l l e d t o d e p i c t i t . T o be sure, speech is o n e means o f expressing i t , b u t m o v e m e n t is n o less n a t u r a l . S p r i n g i n g from t h e b o d y j u s t as spontaneously, i t comes even before speech or, i n any case, at the same time. B u t even i f w e can thus u n d e r s t a n d h o w these m o v e m e n t s f o u n d t h e i r w a y i n t o t h e ceremony, w e m u s t still e x p l a i n the p o w e r that is ascribed t o t h e m . I f the A u s t r a l i a n repeats t h e m r e g u l a r l y at each n e w season, i t is b e cause he t h i n k s t h e y are r e q u i r e d f o r t h e success o f the r i t e . W h e r e c o u l d he have g o t t e n the idea that i m i t a t i n g an a n i m a l makes i t reproduce? S u c h an o b v i o u s e r r o r seems barely i n t e l l i g i b l e so l o n g as w e see i n the r i t e o n l y t h e physical p u r p o s e i t apparendy has. B u t w e k n o w that apart

from

its p r e s u m e d effect o n the t o t e m i c species, i t has a p r o f o u n d i n f l u e n c e o n t h e souls o f t h e faithful w h o take part. T h e faithful c o m e away from i t w i t h an impression o f w e l l - b e i n g w h o s e causes t h e y d o n o t see clearly b u t that is w e l l f o u n d e d . T h e y feel that t h e c e r e m o n y is g o o d f o r t h e m ; a n d i n i t t h e y d o i n deed remake t h e i r m o r a l b e i n g . H o w w o u l d this k i n d o f e u p h o r i a n o t m a k e t h e m feel that the r i t e has succeeded, t h a t i t actually was w h a t i t set o u t t o be, that i t achieved its i n t e n d e d goal? A n d since t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n o f the t o t e m i c species is t h e o n l y g o a l that is consciously p u r s u e d , i t seems t o be achieved b y the m e t h o d s used, t h e efficacy o f w h i c h stands thereby d e m o n strated. I n this way, m e n came t o ascribe creative v i r t u e s t o m o v e m e n t s that "On the causes of this outward manifestation, see above, pp. 23Iff.

364


are e m p t y i n themselves. T h e p o w e r o f the r i t e over m i n d s , * w h i c h is real, m a d e t h e m believe i n its p o w e r over things, w h i c h is i m a g i n a r y ; the efficacy o f the w h o l e l e d m e n t o believe i n that o f each part, taken separately. T h e g e n u i n e l y useful effects b r o u g h t a b o u t b y the c e r e m o n y as a w h o l e are t a n t a m o u n t t o an e x p e r i m e n t a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f the e l e m e n t a r y practices that c o m p r i s e i t , t h o u g h i n reality all these practices are i n n o w a y indispensable t o its success. M o r e o v e r , the fact that t h e y can be replaced b y others o f a v e r y different nature, w i t h o u t change i n the final result, proves that they d o n o t act b y themselves. I n d e e d , i t seems there are I n t i c h i u m a s m a d e u p o f offerings o n l y a n d w i t h o u t m i m e t i c rites; others are p u r e l y m i m e t i c and w i t h o u t offerings. Nevertheless, b o t h are t h o u g h t t o be equally efficacious. T h u s i f value is attached t o these various m a n i p u l a t i o n s , i t is n o t because o f value i n trinsic t o t h e m b u t because t h e y are p a r t o f a c o m p l e x r i t e w h o s e overall u t i l i t y is felt. W e can u n d e r s t a n d that w a y o f t h i n k i n g all the m o r e easily since w e can observe i t i n o u r m i d s t . Especially a m o n g the m o s t c u l t i v a t e d peoples and m i l i e u x , w e o f t e n c o m e u p o n believers ^ [croyants] w h o , w h i l e h a v i n g doubts a b o u t t h e specific p o w e r ascribed b y d o g m a t o each r i t e t a k e n separately, nonetheless persist i n t h e i r religious practice. T h e y are n o t c e r t a i n t h a t the details o f t h e p r e s c r i b e d observances can b e r a t i o n a l l y j u s t i f i e d , b u t t h e y feel that i t w o u l d be impossible t o emancipate themselves

from

those w i t h o u t

f a l l i n g i n t o m o r a l disarray, from w h i c h t h e y r e c o i l . T h u s t h e v e r y fact that f a i t h has lost its i n t e l l e c t u a l roots a m o n g t h e m reveals t h e p r o f o u n d causes that u n d e r l i e i t . T h i s is w h y the faithful [fidèles] are i n general left i n d i f f e r e n t b y the facile c r i t i c i s m s that a simplistic r a t i o n a l i s m has sometimes leveled against r i t u a l p r e s c r i p t i o n s . T h e t r u e j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f r e l i g i o u s practices is n o t i n the apparent ends t h e y pursue b u t i n t h e i r invisible i n f l u e n c e over c o n sciousnesses a n d i n t h e i r m a n n e r o f affecting o u r states o f m i n d . Sirnilarly, w h e n preachers u n d e r t a k e t o m a k e a c o n v e r t , t h e y focus less u p o n d i r e c t l y establishing, w i t h systematic evidence, the t r u t h o f some p a r t i c u l a r p r o p o s i tion

o r the usefulness o f such a n d such observance, t h a n u p o n a w a k e n i n g o r

r e a w a k e n i n g the sense o f m o r a l s u p p o r t that regular c e l e b r a t i o n o f the c u l t provides. I n this way, t h e y create a p r e d i s p o s i t i o n t o w a r d b e l i e v i n g that goes i n advance o f p r o o f , influences the i n t e l l e c t t o pass over the inadequacy o f

* L'efficacité morale du rite, qui est réelle, a fait croire à son efficacité physique, qui est imaginaire. . . . Here the

term "moral" refers to mind as opposed to matter. tDurkheim here uses the term croyants in contrast with fidèles, used twice as often. Professor Douglas Kibbee was kind enough to give me an exact count, plus the exact contexts, using his database searcher. Personal communication, 4 May 1992.

365


the l o g i c a l arguments, a n d leads i t t o go, as i f o n its o w n , b e y o n d t h e p r o p o sitions the preachers w a n t t o get i t t o accept. T h i s favorable prejudice, this leap t o w a r d b e l i e v i n g , is precisely w h a t f a i t h is m a d e of; and i t is f a i t h that gives the rites a u t h o r i t y i n t h e eyes o f the b e l i e v e r — n o m a t t e r w h o he is, the C h r i s t i a n o r the A u s t r a l i a n . T h e C h r i s t i a n is s u p e r i o r o n l y i n his greater awareness o f the psychic process from w h i c h b e l i e f results. H e k n o w s that salv a t i o n comes " b y f a i t h alone." Because such is the o r i g i n o f f a i t h , i t is i n a sense " i m p e r v i o u s t o e x p e r i ence."

24

I f the p e r i o d i c failures o f the I n t i c h i u m a d o n o t shake t h e confidence

the A u s t r a l i a n has i n his r i t e , i t is because he holds w i t h all the strength o f his soul t o those practices he comes t o f o r the p u r p o s e o f r e n e w i n g h i m s e l f p e riodically. H e c o u l d n o t possibly d e n y t h e m i n p r i n c i p l e w i t h o u t causing a real upheaval o f his entire b e i n g , w h i c h resists. B u t h o w e v e r great that resistance m i g h t be, i t does n o t radically distinguish the religious m e n t a l i t y

from

the o t h e r f o r m s o f h u m a n mentality, even f r o m those o t h e r f o r m s that w e are most i n t h e h a b i t o f o p p o s i n g t o i t . I n this regard, the m e n t a l i t y o f the savant differs o n l y i n degree from the f o r e g o i n g . W h e n a scientific l a w has the a u t h o r i t y o f n u m e r o u s a n d v a r i e d e x p e r i m e n t s , t o reject i t t o o easdy u p o n d i s covery o f one single fact that seems t o c o n t r a d i c t i t is c o n t r a r y t o all m e t h o d . I t is still necessary t o ensure that this fact has o n l y one i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a n d c a n n o t be a c c o u n t e d f o r w i t h o u t a b a n d o n i n g the p r o p o s i t i o n that seems discredited. T h e A u s t r a l i a n does n o differendy w h e n he puts d o w n the failure o f an I n t i c h i u m a t o e v i l d o i n g s o m e w h e r e , o r the abundance o f a harvest that comes t o o s o o n t o some mystic I n t i c h i u m a celebrated i n t h e b e y o n d . H e has even less g r o u n d s f o r d o u b t i n g his r i t e o n the strength o f a c o n trary fact, since its value is, o r seems t o be, established b y a larger n u m b e r o f facts that a c c o r d w i t h i t . T o b e g i n w i t h , t h e m o r a l efficacy o f the c e r e m o n y is real a n d d i r e c t l y felt b y all w h o take part; t h e r e i n is a constantly repeated e x p e r i e n c e w h o s e i m p o r t n o c o n t r a d i c t o r y e x p e r i e n c e can w e a k e n . W h a t is m o r e , physical efficacy itself finds at least apparent c o n f i r m a t i o n i n t h e results o f objective o b s e r v a t i o n . I t is i n fact n o r m a l f o r the t o t e m i c species t o r e p r o duce itself regularly. T h u s , i n the great m a j o r i t y o f cases, e v e r y t h i n g happens as i f the r i t u a l m o v e m e n t s t r u l y have b r o u g h t a b o u t t h e h o p e d - f o r

results.

Failures are n o t the r u l e . N o t surprisingly, since the rites, especially the p e r i o d i c ones, d e m a n d o n l y that nature take its regular course, i t seems m o s t o f t e n t o o b e y t h e m . I n this way, i f the believer happens t o seem resistant t o certain lessons from experience, he does so b y r e l y i n g o n o t h e r experiences

24

[Lucien] Lévy-Bruhl, Les Fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures [Paris, F. Alcan, 1910], pp. 61-68.

366


that seem t o h i m m o r e conclusive. T h e researcher does this m o r e m e t h o d i cally b u t acts n o differently. T h u s m a g i c is n o t , as Frazer h e l d ,

2 5

a p r i m a r y d a t u m and religion only

its derivative. Q u i t e the contrary, t h e precepts o n w h i c h the magician's art rests w e r e f o r m e d u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f religious ideas, a n d o n l y b y a seco n d a r y e x t e n s i o n w e r e t h e y t u r n e d t o p u r e l y secular applications. Because all the forces o f the universe w e r e c o n c e i v e d o n t h e m o d e l o f sacred forces, the contagiousness i n h e r e n t i n t h e sacred forces was e x t e n d e d t o t h e m a l l , and i t was believed that, u n d e r c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s , all t h e properties o f bodies c o u l d t r a n s m i t themselves contagiously. Similarly, o n c e the p r i n c i p l e that l i k e p r o duces l i k e t o o k f o r m t o satisfy d e f i n i t e r e l i g i o u s needs, i t became detached from its r i t u a l o r i g i n s and, t h r o u g h a k i n d o f spontaneous generalization, b e came a l a w o f n a t u r e .

26

T o c o m p r e h e n d these f u n d a m e n t a l a x i o m s o f magic,

w e m u s t resituate t h e m i n the r e l i g i o u s m i l i e u x i n w h i c h t h e y w e r e b o r n and w h i c h alone p e r m i t s us t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e m . W h e n w e see those axioms as t h e w o r k o f isolated i n d i v i d u a l s , l o n e magicians, w e w o n d e r h o w h u m a n m i n d s i m a g i n e d t h e m , since n o t h i n g i n e x p e r i e n c e c o u l d have suggested or v e r i f i e d t h e m . I n particular, w e c a n n o t u n d e r s t a n d h o w such a deceptive craft c o u l d have abused men's trust f o r so l o n g . T h e p r o b l e m disappears i f the faith m e n have i n m a g i c is o n l y a special case o f r e l i g i o u s f a i t h i n general, i f i t is itself the p r o d u c t , o r at least t h e i n d i r e c t p r o d u c t , o f a collective effervescence. I n o t h e r w o r d s , u s i n g the phrase " s y m p a t h e t i c m a g i c " t o denote the c o l l e c t i o n o f practices j u s t discussed is n o t altogether i m p r o p e r . A l t h o u g h there are sympathetic rites, t h e y are n o t p e c u l i a r t o m a g i c . N o t o n l y are they f o u n d i n r e l i g i o n as w e l l , b u t i t is f r o m r e l i g i o n that m a g i c received t h e m . T h u s , all w e d o is c o u r t c o n f u s i o n i f , b y the n a m e w e give those rites, w e seem t o m a k e t h e m o u t t o be s o m e t h i n g specifically m a g i c a l . H e n c e t h e results o f m y analysis strongly resemble those H u b e r t and Mauss o b t a i n e d w h e n t h e y studied m a g i c d i r e c t l y .

27

T h e y s h o w e d magic

t o be s o m e t h i n g altogether different from c r u d e i n d u s t r y , based o n crude science. T h e y have b r o u g h t t o l i g h t a w h o l e b a c k g r o u n d o f religious c o n ceptions that l i e b e h i n d t h e apparently secular mechanisms used b y t h e m a -

25

[James George Frazer], Golden Bough, 2d. ed. vol. I [London, Macmillan, 1894], pp. 69—75.

26

I do not mean to say that there was a time when religion existed without magic. Probably, as religion was formed, certain of its principles were extended to nonreligious relations, and in this way, a more or less developed magic came to complement it. Even if these two systems of ideas and practices do not correspond to distinct historical phases, nevertheless there is a definite relationship of derivation between them. This is all I have set out to establish. 27

[Mauss and Hubert, Théorie générale de la magie], pp. 108ff. [Actually, pp. 131—187. Trans.]

367


gician, a w h o l e w o r l d o f forces the idea o f w h i c h m a g i c t o o k f r o m r e l i g i o n . W e can n o w see w h y m a g i c is so f u l l o f r e l i g i o u s elements: I t was b o r n o u t o f religion.

Ill T h e p r i n c i p l e j u s t e x p l a i n e d does n o t have a m e r e l y r i t u a l f u n c t i o n ; i t is o f direct interest t o the t h e o r y o f k n o w l e d g e . I n effect, i t is a concrete statement o f the l a w o f causality and, i n all l i k e l i h o o d , o n e o f the earliest statements o f i t ever t o have existed. A f u l l - f l e d g e d n o t i o n o f the causal r e l a t i o n is i m p l i e d i n the p o w e r thus a t t r i b u t e d t o " l i k e produces l i k e . " A n d because i t serves as the basis o f c u l t practices as w e l l as the magician's t e c h n i q u e , this c o n c e p t i o n bestrides p r i m i t i v e t h o u g h t . T h u s , the o r i g i n s o f the precept

on

which

m i m e t i c rites rest can e x p l a i n h o w the p r i n c i p l e o f causality o r i g i n a t e d . T h e one s h o u l d h e l p us understand t h e other. I have j u s t s h o w n that the first arises f r o m social causes. I t has b e e n fashioned b y groups w i t h collective ends i n view, a n d c o l l e c t i v e feelings express i t . T h u s w e m a y presume that the same is t r u e o f the second. T o v e r i f y w h e t h e r this is i n d e e d the o r i g i n o f the elements f r o m w h i c h the p r i n c i p l e o f causality is made, i t is e n o u g h t o analyze t h e p r i n c i p l e itself. First a n d foremost, t h e idea o f causal r e l a t i o n i m p l i e s efficacy, effective p o w e r , o r active force. W e usually understand "cause" t o m e a n " t h a t w h i c h is able t o p r o d u c e a d e f i n i t e change." Cause is force before i t has manifested the p o w e r that is i n i t . Effect is the same p o w e r , b u t actualized. H u m a n i t y has always i m a g i n e d causality i n d y n a m i c t e r m s . T o be sure, some philosophers deny this c o n c e p t i o n any objective basis; they see i t o n l y as an a r b i t r a r y c o n struct o f i m a g i n a t i o n that relates t o n o t h i n g i n things. F o r the m o m e n t , h o w ever, w e d o n o t have t o ask ourselves w h e t h e r i t has a basis i n reality; n o t i c i n g that i t exists a n d that i t constitutes, a n d has always c o n s t i t u t e d , an e l e m e n t o f o r d i n a r y t h o u g h t (as is a c k n o w l e d g e d even b y those w h o c r i t i c i z e i t ) is e n o u g h . O u r i m m e d i a t e p u r p o s e is t o f i n d o u t n o t w h a t causality a m o u n t s t o l o g i c a l l y b u t w h a t accounts f o r i t . I t has social causes. T h e analysis o f the evidence has already p e r m i t t e d us t o s h o w that, i n p r o t o t y p e , the idea o f force was mana, w a k a n , the t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e — v a r i o u s names g i v e n t o collective force o b j e c t i f i e d a n d p r o j e c t e d into things.

28

So the first p o w e r that m e n i m a g i n e d as such does i n d e e d ap-

pear t o have b e e n that w h i c h society exerts u p o n its m e m b e r s . Analysis later c o n f i r m s this result o f observation. I n d e e d , i t is possible t o establish w h y this

28

See above, p. 205ff.

368


idea o f p o w e r , o f efficacy a n d o f active force, c o u l d n o t have c o m e t o us f r o m a n y w h e r e else. I t is o b v i o u s at first glance, a n d r e c o g n i z e d b y a l l , t h a t e x t e r n a l e x p e r i ence c a n n o t possibly g i v e us this idea. T h e senses s h o w us o n l y p h e n o m e n a that coexist w i t h o r f o l l o w o n e another, b u t n o t h i n g t h e y perceive can give us the idea o f that c o n s t r a i n i n g a n d d e t e r m i n a t i v e i n f l u e n c e that is characteristic o f w h a t w e call a p o w e r o r a force. T h e senses take i n o n l y states that are realized, achieved, a n d e x t e r n a l t o o n e another, w h i l e the i n t e r n a l process that binds these states t o g e t h e r eludes the senses. N o t h i n g t h e y teach us can possibly suggest t o us t h e idea o f s o m e t h i n g that is an i n f l u e n c e o r an efficacy For j u s t this reason, t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s o f e m p i r i c i s m have seen these different ideas as so m a n y m y t h o l o g i c a l aberrations. B u t even supposing that there was n o t h i n g b u t h a l l u c i n a t i o n s i n all these, i t w o u l d still b e h o o v e us t o say h o w they came t o be. I f e x t e r n a l e x p e r i e n c e has n o p a r t i n the o r i g i n o f these ideas a n d i f , o n the o t h e r h a n d , i t is inadmissible that t h e y s h o u l d have b e e n g i v e n us readymade, w e must assume that t h e y c o m e t o us f r o m i n t e r n a l experience. I n fact, the idea o f force is o b v i o u s l y f u l l o f s p i r i t u a l elements that c o u l d o n l y have b e e n b o r r o w e d f r o m o u r psychic life. I t has o f t e n b e e n t h o u g h t that t h e act b y w h i c h o u r w i l l comes t o a decision, holds o u r desires i n check, a n d rules o u r bodies c o u l d have served as the m o d e l f o r this c o n s t r u c t i o n . I n an act o f w i l l , i t is said, w e d i r e c d y p e r ceive ourselves as a p o w e r i n a c t i o n . Seemingly, therefore, o n c e m a n came u p o n that idea, e x t e n d i n g i t t o things was all i t t o o k f o r the c o n c e p t o f force to c o m e i n t o b e i n g . As l o n g as the a n i m i s t t h e o r y passed f o r d e m o n s t r a t e d t r u t h , that e x p l a n a t i o n c o u l d seem c o n f i r m e d b y history. I f t h e forces w i t h w h i c h h u m a n t h o u g h t at first p o p u l a t e d the w o r l d really h a d b e e n s p i r i t s — t h a t is, personal and conscious beings m o r e o r less l i k e m a n — w e m i g h t believe t h a t o u r i n d i v i d u a l e x p e r i e n c e was e n o u g h t o f u r n i s h us w i t h t h e elements f r o m w h i c h the idea o f force is made. Instead, w e k n o w t h a t t h e first forces m e n i m a g i n e d are a n o n y m o u s , vague, diffuse forces, t h e i m p e r s o n a l i t y o f w h i c h resembles cosmic forces, a n d w h i c h therefore stand i n the strongest contrast w i t h t h e e m i n e n d y personal p o w e r that is t h e h u m a n w i l l . H e n c e t h e y c o u l d n o t have b e e n c o n c e i v e d i n the i m a g e o f the w i l l . M o r e o v e r , there is a f u n d a m e n t a l characteristic o f i m p e r s o n a l forces that w o u l d be i n e x p l i c a b l e o n that hypothesis: t h e i r c o m m u n i c a b i l i t y . T h e forces o f nature have always b e e n c o n c e i v e d o f as b e i n g able t o pass f r o m o n e o b j e c t i n t o another, t o m i n g l e a n d c o m b i n e w i t h o n e another, a n d t o change i n t o o n e another. I n d e e d , that p r o p e r t y is w h a t gives t h e m e x p l a n a t o r y


369

value. B y v i r t u e o f that p r o p e r t y , the effects can be j o i n e d t o t h e i r causes w i t h o u t d i s c o n t i n u i t y . N o w , the " I " is exactly opposite i n character; i t is i n c o m m u n i c a b l e . I t c a n n o t change bases o r spread f r o m o n e t o another. I t spreads i n o n l y a m e t a p h o r i c a l sense. T h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h i t arrives at a n d carries o u t its decisions c a n n o t possibly suggest t o us the idea o f an energy that is c o m m u n i c a t e d , that can even assimilate i n t o others and, t h r o u g h those c o m b i n a t i o n s a n d m i x t u r e s , give b i r t h t o n e w effects. T h u s , as i m p l i e d i n the causal r e l a t i o n , the idea o f force m u s t have a t w o f o l d character. First, i t can c o m e t o us o n l y f r o m o u r i n w a r d experience; the o n l y forces w e can t o u c h d i r e c t l y are o f necessity m o r a l forces. A t the same t i m e , h o w e v e r , t h e y m u s t also be i m p e r s o n a l , since the idea o f i m personal p o w e r was c o n s t i t u t e d first. N o w , t h e o n l y forces that satisfy this t w o f o l d c o n d i t i o n are those that arise from life i n c o m m o n : collective forces. I n actuality, t h e y are o n the o n e h a n d w h o l l y psychic, m a d e exclusively o f objectified ideas a n d feelings, a n d o n the o t h e r h a n d , t h e y are b y d e f i n i t i o n i m p e r s o n a l , since t h e y are t h e p r o d u c t o f c o o p e r a t i o n . B e i n g the w o r k o f all, they are the p r o p e r t y o f n o o n e i n particular. So l i t d e d o they b e l o n g t o the personalities o f the subjects i n w h i c h t h e y reside that t h e y are never f i x e d there. Just as they enter subjects from outside, so are t h e y always ready t o d e tach themselves from those subjects. T h e y have a spontaneous t e n d e n c y t o spread f u r t h e r a n d invade n e w d o m a i n s . As w e k n o w , n o n e are m o r e c o n t a gious a n d hence m o r e c o m m u n i c a b l e . G r a n t e d , physical forces have t h e same p r o p e r t y , b u t w e c a n n o t have d i rect consciousness o f t h e m . Because t h e y are e x t e r n a l t o us, w e c a n n o t even apprehend t h e m as such. W h e n I r u n against an obstacle, I have a sensation o f c o n f i n e m e n t a n d d i s c o m f o r t ; however, the force causing that sensation is n o t i n m e b u t i n the obstacle a n d thus b e y o n d t h e range o f m y p e r c e p t i o n . W e perceive its effects b u t n o t the force itself. T h i s is n o t the case w i t h social forces. Since t h e y are part o f o u r i n t e r i o r life, w e n o t o n l y k n o w the results o f t h e i r a c t i o n b u t see t h e m i n a c t i o n . T h e force t h a t isolates t h e sacred b e i n g a n d holds the profane ones at a distance is, i n reality, n o t i n that b e i n g ; i t lives i n the consciousness o f t h e faithful. T h u s the faithful feel i t at t h e v e r y m o m e n t that i t acts o n t h e i r w i l l s t o p r o h i b i t c e r t a i n actions a n d prescribe others. Because this happens e n t i r e l y w i t h i n us, w e capture i n a c t i o n the c o n s t r a i n i n g a n d necessitating i n f l u e n c e that escapes us w h e n i t comes

from

an e x t e r n a l t h i n g . O f course, w e d o n o t always i n t e r p r e t t h a t i n f l u e n c e adequately, b u t w e c a n n o t fail t o be conscious o f i t . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e idea o f force bears the m a r k o f its o r i g i n overtly. I t i n fact entails an idea o f p o w e r that does n o t g o w i t h o u t those o f ascendancy, mastery, d o m i n a t i o n — a n d , c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , o f d e p e n d e n c e a n d s u b o r d i n a -

370


tion.

T h e relations that all these ideas express are e m i n e n t l y social. I t is soci-

ety that has classified beings as s u p e r i o r a n d subordinate, as masters w h o c o m m a n d a n d subjects w h o obey; i t is society that has c o n f e r r e d o n the first that singular p r o p e r t y that makes c o m m a n d efficacious a n d that constitutes power. So e v e r y t h i n g tends t o s h o w that the first p o w e r s t h e h u m a n m i n d c o n c e i v e d are those that societies i n s t i t u t e d as t h e y became organized. I t is i n t h e i r i m a g e that the powers o f the physical w o r l d w e r e c o n c e i v e d . T h u s man c o u l d n o t have a r r i v e d at the idea o f h i m s e l f as a force i n charge o f the b o d y i n w h i c h i t resides w i t h o u t i n t r o d u c i n g concepts b o r r o w e d f r o m social life i n t o t h e idea he h a d o f himself. I n fact, he h a d t o differentiate h i m s e l f from his physical d o u b l e a n d i m p u t e a h i g h e r sort o f d i g n i t y t o h i m s e l f t h a n t o this d o u b l e — i n a w o r d , h e h a d t o t h i n k o f h i m s e l f as a soul. I n fact, i t is i n the f o r m o f t h e soul that h e has always i m a g i n e d t h e force that he believes he is. B u t w e k n o w that the soul is s o m e t h i n g altogether different f r o m a name g i v e n t o the abstract faculty t o m o v e , t h i n k , o r feel. A b o v e a l l , i t is a religious p r i n c i p l e , a p a r t i c u l a r aspect o f t h e c o l l e c t i v e force. I n s u m , m a n feels he is a soul, a n d thus a force, because he is a social b e i n g . A l t h o u g h an a n i m a l moves its legs j u s t as w e d o a n d has the same c o n t r o l over his muscles as w e , n o t h i n g warrants o u r supposing that he has consciousness o f h i m s e l f as o f an active a n d efficient cause. T h i s is because i t has n o s o u l — o r , m o r e precisely, i t does n o t i m p u t e a s o u l t o itself. B u t i f i t does n o t i m p u t e a s o u l t o itself, this is because i t does n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n a social life comparable t o that o f m e n . A m o n g animals, n o t h i n g r e s e m b l i n g a c i v i l i z a t i o n exists.

29

T h e idea o f force is n o t all there is t o the p r i n c i p l e o f causality. T h i s p r i n ciple consists i n a j u d g m e n t stating that a force develops i n a d e f i n i t e manner and that its state at each m o m e n t o f its e v o l u t i o n p r e d e t e r m i n e s the succeedi n g state. T h e first is called cause; t h e second, effect; a n d t h e causal j u d g m e n t affirms the existence o f a necessary c o n j u n c t i o n b e t w e e n these t w o m o m e n t s o f any force. R u l e d b y a sort o f constraint from w h i c h i t c a n n o t free itself, the m i n d sets u p this r e l a t i o n i n advance o f any p r o o f . I t postulates this relat i o n s h i p , as p e o p l e say, a priori. E m p i r i c i s m has never succeeded i n g i v i n g an a c c o u n t o f that a p r i o r i s m a n d that necessity. N e v e r have t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s o f that s c h o o l b e e n able to e x p l a i n h o w an association o f ideas r e i n f o r c e d b y h a b i t c o u l d p r o d u c e anyt h i n g o t h e r t h a n a state o f expectancy, a m o r e o r less s t r o n g p r e d i s p o s i t i o n o n the p a r t o f ideas t o call themselves t o m i n d i n a d e f i n i t e order. N o w , the

w

O f course, there are animal societies. Even so, the meaning of the word is by no means the same when applied to men and animals. The institution is the characteristic phenomenon of human societies; there are no institutions in animal societies.


371

p r i n c i p l e o f causality has an e n t i r e l y different character. I t is n o t s i m p l y an i n herent t e n d e n c y f o r o u r t h o u g h t t o u n f o l d i n a c e r t a i n w a y ; i t is a n o r m e x ternal a n d s u p e r i o r t o the flow o f o u r representations, w h i c h i t rules a n d regulates absolutely. I t is e n d o w e d w i t h an a u t h o r i t y that binds the i n t e l l e c t and goes b e y o n d the i n t e l l e c t ; i n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e i n t e l l e c t is n o t its creator. I n this regard, i t does n o g o o d t o substitute h e r e d i t a r y f o r i n d i v i d u a l habit. T h e nature o f habit does n o t change because i t lasts l o n g e r t h a n a man's life; it is o n l y stronger. A n i n s t i n c t is n o t a r u l e . T h e rites j u s t studied enable us t o discern a source o f that a u t h o r i t y that u n t i l n o w has b e e n l i t t l e suspected. L e t us recall h o w the causal l a w that the m i m e t i c rites p u t i n t o practice was b o r n . T h e g r o u p comes together, d o m i nated b y one c o n c e r n : I f the species w h o s e name i t bears does n o t reproduce, the clan is d o o m e d . I n this way, the c o m m o n feeling that animates all its members is expressed o u t w a r d l y i n the f o r m o f d e f i n i t e m o v e m e n t s that a l ways recur i n the same w a y i n the same circumstances. A n d for the reasons set f o r t h , i t t u r n s o u t that the desired result seems t o be o b t a i n e d w h e n the cere m o n y has b e e n c o n d u c t e d . A n association is thereby f o r m e d b e t w e e n the idea o f this result a n d that o f the actions p r e c e d i n g i t . T h i s association does n o t v a r y from o n e subject t o the other. Because i t is the p r o d u c t o f a c o l l e c tive experience, i t is the same f o r all w h o take p a r t i n the r i t e . Nonetheless, i f n o o t h e r factor i n t e r v e n e d , o n l y a collective state o f w a i t i n g w o u l d result. H a v i n g c o m p l e t e d the i m i t a t i v e m o v e m e n t s , everyone w o u l d w a i t , m o r e o r less c o n f i d e n t l y , t o see the i m m i n e n t approach o f the h o p e d - f o r event. E v e n so, an i m p e r a t i v e r u l e o f t h o u g h t w o u l d n o t c o m e i n t o b e i n g . Because a social interest o f p r e m i e r i m p o r t a n c e is at stake, society c a n n o t let things take t h e i r course, at t h e m e r c y o f circumstances; hence i t intervenes t o regulate t h e i r course t o suit its needs. Society requires this ceremony, w h i c h i t c a n n o t d o w i t h o u t , t o be repeated w h e n e v e r necessary and, hence, the actions that are the c o n d i t i o n o f success t o be r e g u l a r l y done. I t imposes t h e m as an o b l i g a t i o n . T h o s e actions i m p l y a d e f i n i t e attitude o f m i n d that, i n response, shares the same q u a l i t y o f o b l i g a t i o n . T o prescribe that t h e a n i m a l o r p l a n t m u s t be i m i t a t e d t o m a k e t h e m c o m e t o life again is t o m a k e " l i k e produces l i k e " i n t o an a x i o m that m u s t n o t be d o u b t e d . O p i n i o n c a n n o t p e r m i t i n d i v i d u a l s t o d e n y this p r i n c i p l e i n t h e o r y , w i t h o u t at the same t i m e p e r m i t t i n g t h e m t o v i o l a t e i t i n t h e i r c o n d u c t . I t therefore imposes the p r i n c i p l e , as i t does the practices that d e r i v e f r o m i t , a n d i n this w a y the r i t u a l precept is r e i n f o r c e d b y a l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e that is n o n e o t h e r t h a n the i n t e l l e c t u a l aspect o f the r i t u a l one. T h e a u t h o r i t y o f b o t h derives f r o m the same source: society. T h e respect e v o k e d b y society passes i n t o those ways o f t h i n k i n g a n d a c t i n g t o w h i c h i t attaches value. O n e c a n n o t stand

372


aside f r o m e i t h e r w i t h o u t m e e t i n g resistance f r o m p r e v a i l i n g o p i n i o n . T h i s is w h y the ways o f t h i n k i n g r e q u i r e the adherence o f the i n t e l l e c t i n advance o f all e x a m i n a t i o n , j u s t as t h e ways o f a c t i n g d i r e c t l y b r i n g a b o u t t h e submission o f the w i l l . U s i n g this example, w e can test o n c e again h o w a s o c i o l o g i c a l t h e o r y o f the idea o f causality, a n d t h e categories m o r e generally, b o t h diverges f r o m t h e classical d o c t r i n e s o n this q u e s t i o n a n d accords w i t h t h e m . H e r e , as i n a p r i o r i s m , causality retains the a priori a n d necessary character o f the causal r e l a t i o n . T h e s o c i o l o g i c a l t h e o r y does n o t s i m p l y a f f i r m i t b u t also accounts for i t a n d yet does n o t , as i n e m p i r i c i s m , m a k e i t disappear w h d e ostensibly a c c o u n t i n g f o r i t . Besides, there can be n o q u e s t i o n o f d e n y i n g the p a r t that belongs t o i n d i v i d u a l experience. T h a t the i n d i v i d u a l b y h i m s e l f notes r e g u lar sequences o f p h e n o m e n a , a n d i n so d o i n g acquires a c e r t a i n sensation o f regularity, is n o t t o be d o u b t e d . B u t this sensation is n o t t h e category o f causality. T h e first is i n d i v i d u a l , subjective, a n d i n c o m m u n i c a b l e ; w e make i t o u r selves

from

o u r personal observations. T h e second is t h e w o r k o f the

collectivity, w h i c h gives i t t o us ready-made. I t is a framework i n w h i c h o u r e m p i r i c a l observations arrange themselves a n d w h i c h enables us t o t h i n k a b o u t t h e m — t h a t is, t o see t h e m from an angle that enables us t o understand o n e a n o t h e r o n the subject o f those observations. T o be sure, i f the

frame-

w o r k can be a p p l i e d t o the c o n t e n t , that is because i t is n o t w i t h o u t relat i o n s h i p t o that c o n t e n t , b u t the f r a m e w o r k does n o t m e r g e w i t h w h a t i t contains. I t transcends a n d d o m i n a t e s t h e c o n t e n t because i t has a different o r i g i n . I t is n o t s i m p l y a c o l l e c t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l m e m o r i e s ; i t is made,

first

a n d foremost, t o satisfy the needs o f life i n c o m m o n . I n s u m , the mistake o f e m p i r i c i s m has b e e n t o see the causal tie as o n l y a l e a r n e d c o n s t r u c t o f speculative t h i n k i n g a n d the p r o d u c t o f a m o r e o r less systematic generalization. Pure speculation can give b i r t h o n l y t o v i e w s that are p r o v i s i o n a l , h y p o t h e t i c a l , a n d m o r e o r less plausible, b u t v i e w s that must always be regarded as suspect. W e d o n o t k n o w w h e t h e r some n e w observat i o n w i l l invalidate t h e m i n t h e near future. T h e r e f o r e an a x i o m that t h e m i n d does and m u s t accept, w i t h o u t testing a n d w i t h o u t q u a l i f i c a t i o n ,

cannot

c o m e t o us f r o m that source. T h e demands o f a c t i o n , especially o f collective a c t i o n , can and m u s t express themselves i n categorical formulas that are p e r e m p t o r y a n d sharp a n d that b r o o k n o c o n t r a d i c t i o n , f o r collective m o v e ments are possible o n l y i f t h e y are c o n c e r t e d , a n d thus regulated and w e l l defined.

T h e y preclude b l i n d g r o p i n g , w h i c h is the source o f anarchy. T h e y

t e n d b y themselves t o w a r d an o r g a n i z a t i o n that, o n c e established, imposes i t self u p o n i n d i v i d u a l s . A n d since a c t i o n c a n n o t d o w i t h o u t t h e i n t e l l e c t , the i n t e l l e c t is eventually p u l l e d a l o n g i n the same way, a d o p t i n g w i t h o u t a r g u -

373


m e n t the theoretical postulates that practice requires. T h e imperatives o f t h o u g h t a n d those o f the w i l l are p r o b a b l y t w o sides o f the same c o i n . I t is far from m y i n t e n t i o n , h o w e v e r , t o offer these observations as a c o m p l e t e t h e o r y o f the c o n c e p t o f causality. T h a t issue is t o o c o m p l e x t o be resolved i n this way. T h e p r i n c i p l e o f cause has b e e n u n d e r s t o o d differendy i n different times a n d places; i n a single society i t varies w i t h social m i l i e u x , and w i t h t h e realms o f nature t o w h i c h i t is a p p l i e d .

30

Therefore, one cannot

possibly d e t e r m i n e w h a t causes a n d c o n d i t i o n s he b e h i n d i t after c o n s i d e r i n g o n l y o n e o f t h e f o r m s i t has taken historically. T h e v i e w s that have j u s t b e e n set f o r t h m u s t be regarded o n l y as i n d i c a t i v e ; t h e y w i l l have t o be tested and fleshed o u t . Nonetheless, since t h e causal l a w j u s t considered is surely o n e o f the m o s t p r i m i t i v e i n existence a n d since i t has played an i m p o r t a n t role i n the d e v e l o p m e n t o f h u m a n t h o u g h t a n d industry, i t constitutes a c h o i c e e x p e r i m e n t , a n d so i t can be p r e s u m e d that the observations i t has a l l o w e d us to m a k e are i n s o m e measure generalizable.

30

The idea of cause is not the same for a scientist as for a man who is scientifically uneducated. Besides, many of our contemporaries understand the principle of causality differendy depending on the phenomena to which it is applied—social or physicochemical. In the social realm, there is an idea of causality that is extraordinarily reminiscent of the one on which magic was based for so long. We might well ask ourselves whether a physicist and a biologist imagine the causal relation in the same fashion.

CHAPTER FOUR

THE POSITIVE CULT (CONTINUED) Representative or Commemorative Rites

I

n the t w o p r e c e d i n g chapters, the e x p l a n a t i o n o f the positive rites that I offered ascribes t o t h e m m o r a l a n d social m e a n i n g , first a n d foremost. T h e

physical efficacy ascribed t o t h e m b y t h e f a i t h f u l is an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n that hides t h e i r f u n d a m e n t a l reason f o r b e i n g : T h e y are d e e m e d t o have an effect o n things because t h e y serve t o r e m a k e i n d i v i d u a l s a n d groups m o r a l l y . T h i s hypothesis enabled m e t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e facts, b u t i t c a n n o t be said t o have b e e n p r o v e d directly. I n d e e d , i t seems at first glance t o j i b e rather p o o r l y w i t h t h e nature o f the r i t u a l mechanisms I have analyzed. W h e t h e r these m e c h a nisms be offerings o r m i m e t i c practices, the actions that c o n s t i t u t e t h e m have p u r e l y physical ends i n v i e w . T h e i r sole p u r p o s e is o r seems t o be t o i n d u c e the r e b i r t h o f t h e t o t e m i c species. I n that case, is i t n o t s u r p r i s i n g that t h e i r real f u n c t i o n s h o u l d be t o serve m o r a l ends? I t is t r u e that t h e i r physical f u n c t i o n m a y v e r y w e l l have b e e n exaggerated b y Spencer a n d G i l l e n , even i n t h e cases w h e r e i t is m o s t clearly i n c o n testable. I n the v i e w o f those authors, each clan celebrates its I n t i c h i u m a i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e a useful f o o d s t u f f t o the o t h e r clans. T h e w h o l e c u l t supposedly involves a k i n d o f e c o n o m i c c o o p e r a t i o n a m o n g different t o t e m i c groups, each supposedly w o r k i n g f o r all the rest. B u t , a c c o r d i n g t o Strehlow, this n o t i o n o f A u s t r a l i a n t o t e m i s m is u t t e r l y f o r e i g n t o the native m e n t a l i t y . H e says: " I f , w h d e d o i n g t h e i r u t m o s t t o m u l t i p l y t h e animals o r plants o f the consecrated species, t h e m e m b e r s o f a t o t e m i c g r o u p seem t o be w o r k i n g f o r t h e i r f e l l o w m e n o f o t h e r totems, w e m u s t refrain f r o m seeing this c o l l a b o r a tion as the f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e o f A r u n t a o r L o r i t j a t o t e m i s m . N e v e r have the black m e n themselves t o l d m e that t h e p o i n t o f t h e i r ceremonies was any such t h i n g . O f course, w h e n I suggested this idea t o t h e m a n d e x p l a i n e d i t , they u n d e r s t o o d a n d w e n t a l o n g . B u t n o o n e w i l l b l a m e m e i f I have a cer374

375


t a i n m i s t r u s t f o r responses o b t a i n e d u n d e r these c o n d i t i o n s . " S t r e h l o w o b serves, f u r t h e r m o r e , that this w a y o f i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e r i t e is c o n t r a d i c t e d b y the fact that t h e t o t e m i c animals o r plants are n o t all edible o r useful; some have n o use, a n d i n d e e d some are dangerous. T h u s t h e ceremonies that c o n c e r n t h e m c a n n o t have n u t r i t i o n a l ends i n v i e w .

1

O u r a u t h o r concludes: " W h e n the natives are asked the decisive reason for these ceremonies, t h e y r e p l y u n a n i m o u s l y : I t is because t h e ancestors have so i n s t i t u t e d t h i n g s . T h a t is w h y w e act i n this w a y a n d n o t some 2

o t h e r . " B u t t o say that t h e r i t e is observed because i t comes from the ancestors is t o a c k n o w l e d g e that its a u t h o r i t y is o n e a n d the same as the a u t h o r i t y o f t r a d i t i o n , w h i c h is e m i n e n d y a social t h i n g . I t is celebrated t o keep f a i t h w i t h t h e past a n d preserve the group's m o r a l * i d e n t i t y , n o t because o f the physical effects i t can b r i n g about. T h u s , its p r o f o u n d causes can b e g l i m p s e d t h r o u g h the v e r y m a n n e r i n w h i c h t h e f a i t h f u l e x p l a i n i t . T h e r e are cases i n w h i c h this aspect o f t h e ceremonies is i m m e d i a t e l y obvious.

I T h i s aspect o f t h e ceremonies is best observed a m o n g the W a r r a m u n g a .

3

A m o n g this people, each clan is h e l d t o b e descended from a single ancestor w h o , a l t h o u g h b o r n i n a d e f i n i t e place, spent his life o n earth t r a v e l i n g the c o u n t r y i n all d i r e c t i o n s . H e i t is w h o gave the l a n d its present f o r m d u r i n g those travels, t h e y say, and he w h o made the m o u n t a i n s and the plains, the w a t e r holes a n d the streams, a n d so f o r t h . A t the same t i m e , a l o n g his r o u t e he s o w e d t h e seeds o f life that came f o r t h

from

his b o d y and, t h r o u g h

successive reincarnations, became t h e present-day m e m b e r s o f the clan. T h e "•Note the term "moral," here used in the sense that encompasses conscience collective in its cognitive and normative meanings. 'Of course, these ceremonies are not followed by alimentary communion. According to Strehlow, they have a distinct generic name, at least when they involve inedible plants: They are called knujilelama, not mbatjalkatiuma. ([Carl Strehlow, Die Aranda- und Loritja-Stamme in Zentral-Australien] vol. Ill [Frank-

furt,.!. Baer, 1907], p. 96). 2

Ibid., p. 8.

3

The Warramunga are not the only people among whom the Intichiuma takes the form I will describe. It is also found among the Tjingilli, the Umbaia, the Wulmala, the Walpari, and even the Kaitish, although the Kaitish ritual is in some ways reminiscent of the Arunta one ([Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [Francis James] Gillen, Northern Tribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1904], pp. 291, 309, 311, 317). I adopt the Warramunga as the type case because they have been very well studied by Spencer and Gillen.


376

p u r p o s e o f the W a r r a m u n g a ceremony, w h i c h corresponds exactly t o the I n t i c h i u m a o f t h e A r u n t a , is t o d e p i c t a n d c o m m e m o r a t e the m y t h i c a l h i s t o r y o f the ancestor. I t involves n e i t h e r sacrifice n o r , w i t h o n l y a single excep4

t i o n , m i m e t i c practices. T h e r i t e involves r e m e m b e r i n g t h e past and m a k i n g i t present, so t o speak, b y means o f a t r u e dramatic p e r f o r m a n c e

[représenta-

tion]. T h i s t e r m is a l l the m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e i n the present case, since t h e c e l ebrant is b y n o means v i e w e d as an i n c a r n a t i o n o f the ancestor he represents. H e is an actor p l a y i n g a role. H e r e , as an example, is w h a t the I n t i c h i u m a o f t h e B l a c k Snake consists of, as observed b y Spencer a n d G i l l e n .

5

T h e i n i t i a l c e r e m o n y does n o t seem t o refer t o the past; at least, t h e d e s c r i p t i o n g i v e n us does n o t j u s t i f y such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I t consists o f r u n 6

n i n g and j u m p i n g b y t w o celebrants a d o r n e d w i t h figures that represent the black snake. W h e n b o t h at last fall exhausted t o t h e g r o u n d , those i n a t t e n dance r u n t h e i r hands g e n d y over the e m b l e m a t i c designs that cover the backs o f t h e t w o actors. T h i s gesture is said t o please the b l a c k snake. O n l y after that does the series o f c o m m e m o r a t i v e rites b e g i n . T h e y act o u t the m y t h i c a l h i s t o r y o f the ancestor, Thalaualla, from the m o m e n t he came o u t o f the g r o u n d t o t h e m o m e n t he finally disappeared i n t o i t again. T h e y f o l l o w h i m t h r o u g h all his travels. A c c o r d i n g t o the m y t h , he c o n d u c t e d t o t e m i c ceremonies i n each o f t h e localities w h e r e he soj o u r n e d . These are repeated i n the same o r d e r i n w h i c h t h e y are said t o have taken place at the b e g i n n i n g . T h e m o v e m e n t that recurs m o s t frequently is a sort o f r h y t h m i c a n d v i o l e n t t r e m b l i n g o f t h e e n t i r e b o d y because, i n m y t h ical times, t h e ancestor s h o o k h i m s e l f i n this w a y t o b r i n g o u t t h e seeds o f life w i t h i n h i m . T h e actors have t h e i r s k i n covered w i t h d o w n that comes o f f a n d flies away as a result o f this shaking. T h i s is a means o f d e p i c t i n g the flight o f the m y s t i c a l seeds a n d t h e i r dispersion i n t h e air. W e recall that a m o n g the A r u n t a , the place w h e r e t h e c e r e m o n y occurs is r i t u a l l y d e t e r m i n e d . I t is t h e site o f the sacred rocks, trees, a n d w a t e r holes, a n d the faithful m u s t g o there t o celebrate t h e c u l t . A m o n g t h e W a r r a m u n g a , t h o u g h , the c h o i c e o f site is a r b i t r a r y a n d a m a t t e r o f convenience. T h e i r s is a c o n v e n t i o n a l stage. T h e actual place w h e r e t h e events that are the t h e m e o f the r i t e o c c u r r e d is represented b y d r a w i n g s . S o m e t i m e s these drawings are

This is true for the Intichiuma of the white cockatoo; see p. 357 above. 5

Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 300fF.

6

One of the two actors does not belong to the Black Snake clan but to the Crow. This is because the Crow is considered an associate of the Black Snake—in other words, its subtotem.

377


made o n the bodies o f t h e actors themselves. F o r example, a small circle c o l o r e d i n w i t h r e d a n d p a i n t e d o n the b a c k a n d s t o m a c h represents a w a t e r 7

h o l e . I n o t h e r examples, t h e i m a g e is traced i n t h e d i r t . O n g r o u n d p r e v i ously d a m p e n e d a n d covered w i t h r e d ochre, t h e y m a k e c u r v e d lines f r o m a series o f w h i t e p o i n t s , s y m b o l i z i n g a stream o r a m o u n t a i n . T h i s is a r u d i m e n t a r y t h e a t r i c a l set. I n a d d i t i o n t o the s t r i c t l y r e l i g i o u s ceremonies that the ancestor is said to have c o n d u c t e d i n the past, s i m p l e epic o r c o m i c episodes o f Thalaualla's earthly career are presented. T h u s , at a c e r t a i n m o m e n t , w h i l e three actors are busy o n stage w i t h an i m p o r t a n t r i t e , a n o t h e r hides b e h i n d a c l u m p o f trees some distance away. H u n g a r o u n d his n e c k is a packet o f d o w n r e p r e senting a wallaby. As s o o n as the m a i n c e r e m o n y has ended, an o l d m a n traces o n t h e g r o u n d a l i n e that leads t o t h e place w h e r e a f o u r t h actor is h i d i n g . T h e others w a l k b e h i n d , w i t h t h e i r eyes l o w e r e d a n d f i x e d u p o n this l i n e as i f t h e y are f o l l o w i n g a p a t h . W h e n t h e y discover t h e m a n , they act surprised, a n d o n e o f t h e m beats h i m w i t h a stick. T h i s e n t i r e m i m i c r y portrays an i n c i d e n t i n the life o f the great b l a c k snake. O n e day, his son w e n t o f f t o h u n t alone, bagged a wallaby, a n d ate i t w i t h o u t g i v i n g any t o his father. T h e fat h e r f o l l o w e d his tracks, surprised h i m , a n d f o r c e d h i m t o v o m i t . T h i s i n c i d e n t is a l l u d e d t o i n t h e b e a t i n g that ends t h e p e r f o r m a n c e .

8

I w i l l n o t state here all the m y t h i c a l events that are presented o n e after the other. T h e f o r e g o i n g examples are e n o u g h t o s h o w t h e character o f these ceremonies. T h e y are plays, b u t plays o f a v e r y p a r t i c u l a r k i n d . T h e y act, o r at least are t h o u g h t t o act, u p o n the course o f nature. W h e n the c o m m e m o r a t i o n o f Thalaualla is over, the W a r r a m u n g a are c o n v i n c e d that b l a c k snakes c a n n o t fad t o increase a n d m u l t i p l y . T h u s these dramas are rites, a n d i n fact rites that, b y the w a y t h e y w o r k , are comparable i n every respect t o those that m a k e u p the A r u n t a I n t i c h i u m a . C o n s e q u e n d y , the t w o sets o f rites can shed l i g h t u p o n one another. I n deed, c o m p a r i n g t h e m is all the m o r e l e g i t i m a t e because there is n o radical d i s c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n t h e m . N o t o n l y is the same g o a l p u r s u e d i n b o t h cases, b u t w h a t is m o s t characteristic o f the W a r r a m u n g a r i t u a l is t o be f o u n d i n e m b r y o n i c f o r m i n t h e other. A s the A r u n t a generally practice i t , the I n t i c h i u m a contains w h a t a m o u n t s t o a k i n d o f i m p l i c i t c o m m e m o r a t i o n . T h e places w h e r e i t is celebrated are, o b l i g a t o r i l y , those that the ancestors made i l l u s t r i o u s . T h e paths t h e f a i t h f u l take i n t h e i r p i o u s p i l g r i m a g e s are those

'Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 302. 8

Ibid., p. 305.

378


traveled b y the A l c h e r i n g a heroes; the places w h e r e t h e y stop t o c o n d u c t rites are those w h e r e t h e ancestors themselves s o j o u r n e d , w h e r e t h e y v a n ished i n t o t h e g r o u n d , a n d so f o r t h . T h u s e v e r y t h i n g calls t h e i r m e m o r y back i n t o the m i n d s o f those i n attendance. M o r e o v e r , t h e y q u i t e often supple9

m e n t the physical r i t e s * w i t h h y m n s r e c o u n t i n g t h e ancestors' e x p l o i t s . L e t those stories be acted o u t rather t h a n t o l d , a n d let t h e m develop i n this n e w f o r m so as t o b e c o m e t h e essence o f the ceremony, a n d w e w i l l have t h e W a r r a m u n g a ceremony. M o r e t h a n that: F r o m o n e s t a n d p o i n t , the A r u n t a I n t i c h i u m a is already a sort o f play. T h e celebrant, i n fact, is o n e and the same as the ancestor from w h o m he descends a n d w h o m he reincarnates.

10

The

m o v e m e n t s he makes are those the ancestor made i n t h e same circumstances. T o speak precisely, o f course, he is n o t p l a y i n g the ancestral personage as an actor m i g h t d o ; he is that v e r y personage. I n a sense, i t is still t h e hero w h o is o n the stage. T o accentuate the representative character o f that r i t e , all i t takes is t o accentuate the d u a l i t y o f t h e ancestor a n d t h e celebrant. T h i s is precisely w h a t happens a m o n g the W a r r a m u n g a .

11

I n d e e d , there is m e n t i o n

o f at least o n e I n t i c h i u m a a m o n g the A r u n t a , i n w h i c h c e r t a i n people are r e sponsible f o r p o r t r a y i n g ancestors w i t h w h o m t h e y have n o m y t h i c a l r e l a t i o n o f descent a n d thus i n w h i c h there are d r a m a t i c performances i n t h e f u l l sense. T h i s is the I n t i c h i u m a o f the E m u .

1 2

I n this case, t o o , c o n t r a r y t o w h a t

usually happens a m o n g this p e o p l e , i t does seem that t h e theater o f t h e cere m o n y is artificially set u p .

1 3

* Rites manuels. These stand in contrast to rites oraux, "oral rites." 9

See Spencer and Gillen, NatiueTribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1889], p. 188; Streh-

low, Aranda, vol. Ill, p. 5.

'"Strehlow himself recognizes this: "The totemic ancestor and his descendant, that is to say the one who depicts him (der Darsteller), are presented in these sacred songs as one and the same" ([Aranda ], vol. Ill, p. 6). Since this incontestable fact contradicts the thesis that ancestral souls are not reincarnated, Strehlow adds in a note, "During the ceremony, there is, properly speaking, no incarnation of the ancestor in the person who depicts him." If Strehlow means that incarnation does not occur during the ceremony, nothing is more certain.- But if he means that there is no incarnation at all, I do not understand how the celebrant and the ancestor can merge. "Perhaps this difference arises in partfromthe fact that, among the Warramunga, each clan is thought to descend from a single ancestor around whom the mythical history of the clan has gradually condensed. This is the ancestor commemorated in the rite; however, the celebrant is not necessarily descended from him. Indeed, we might ask whether these mythical chiefs, demigods of a sort, undergo reincarnation. 12

In that Intichiuma, three participants depict ancestors "of considerable antiquity"; they actually play a role (Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 181—182). Spencer and Gillen add, it is true, that those are ancestors who came after the Alcheringa period. But they are nonetheless mythical personages, and they are portrayed during a rite. 13

Indeed, we are not told of sacred rocks and water holes. The center of the ceremony is an image of an emu that is drawn on the ground and can be drawn anywhere.

379


T h a t these t w o k i n d s o f ceremonies have a certain air o f kinship, despite the differences b e t w e e n t h e m , does n o t m e a n that there is a definite r e l a t i o n ship o f succession b e t w e e n t h e m , a n d that o n e is a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f the other. T h e resemblances observed m a y actually arise from t h e i r h a v i n g the same o r i g i n — t h a t is, from t h e i r b e i n g divergent f o r m s o f the same o r i g i n a l ceremony. We w i l l see, i n fact, that this hypothesis is the m o s t probable. B u t there is n o need t o take a p o s i t i o n o n that question, a n d the p r e c e d i n g is e n o u g h t o establish that these are rites o f the same k i n d . T h u s w e have a basis f o r c o m p a r i n g t h e m a n d f o r u s i n g the o n e t o help us understand the other better. W h a t is p e c u l i a r t o those W a r r a m u n g a ceremonies that I have j u s t d i s cussed is that n o t o n e m o v e m e n t is m a d e f o r the p u r p o s e o f h e l p i n g o r directly causing t h e t o t e m i c species t o be r e b o r n .

1 4

I f w e analyze t h e m o v e -

ments made t o g e t h e r w i t h the w o r d s said, w e f i n d n o t h i n g that reveals any i n t e n t i o n o f this k i n d . E v e r y t h i n g takes place i n dramatic p e r f o r m a n c e s * that have n o p u r p o s e o t h e r t h a n t o m a k e t h e clan's m y t h i c a l past present i n p e o ple's m i n d s . B u t t h e m y t h o l o g y o f a g r o u p is the c o l l e c t i o n o f beliefs c o m m o n t o the g r o u p . H o w the society i m a g i n e s m a n a n d the w o r l d is expressed i n the t r a d i t i o n s w h o s e m e m o r y t h e m y t h o l o g y perpetuates; i t is a m o r a l i t y and a c o s m o l o g y at the same time as i t is a history. T h e r e f o r e t h e r i t e serves and can o n l y serve t o m a i n t a i n t h e v i t a l i t y o f those beliefs and t o prevent t h e i r m e m o r y from b e i n g o b l i t e r a t e d — i n o t h e r w o r d s , t o revitalize t h e m o s t essential elements o f the c o l l e c t i v e consciousness a n d conscience. T h r o u g h this r i t e , t h e g r o u p p e r i o d i c a l l y revitalizes the sense i t has o f i t s e l f a n d its u n i t y ; t h e nature o f the i n d i v i d u a l s as social beings is strengthened at the same t i m e . T h e g l o r i o u s m e m o r i e s that are made t o live again before t h e i r eyes, a n d w i t h w h i c h t h e y feel i n accord, b r i n g a b o u t a feeling o f strength and c o n f i d e n c e . O n e is m o r e sure i n one's f a i t h w h e n o n e sees h o w far i n t o the past i t goes a n d w h a t great things i t has i n s p i r e d . T h i s is the feature o f the c e r e m o n y that makes i t i n s t r u c t i v e . T h e t e n d e n c y o f the w h o l e c e r e m o n y is to act o n m i n d s , a n d o n m i n d s alone. B u t i f i t is b e l i e v e d t o act o n things at the same t i m e , a n d t o b r i n g a b o u t t h e p r o s p e r i t y o f the species, this can o n l y be as a c o u n t e r p a r t o f t h e m o r a l i n f l u e n c e i t exercises—and that m o r a l i n f l u ence o b v i o u s l y is the o n l y o n e that is real. T h e r e f o r e , the hypothesis I have p r o p o s e d is v e r i f i e d b y a r e v e l a t o r y e x p e r i m e n t a n d is the m o r e c o m p e l l i n g

* Tout se passe en représentations qui ne peuvent être destinées qu'à rendre présent aux esprits le passé mythique

du clan. The word représentation neady joins two meanings: "dramatic performance" and "idea." 14

I do not mean to say, however, that all the ceremonies of the Warramunga are of this type. The example of the white cockatoo, discussed above, proves that there are exceptions.

380


because, as I have j u s t established, the r i t u a l systems o f the W a r r a m u n g a and the A r u n t a d o n o t differ fundamentally. T h e o n e s i m p l y b r i n g s o u t w i t h greater c l a r i t y w h a t w e h a d already guessed a b o u t the other.

II T h e r e are ceremonies i n w h i c h this representative a n d ideal feature is even m o r e p r o n o u n c e d . I n the ceremonies j u s t discussed, dramatic representation was n o t an e n d i n itself; i t was o n l y a means t o a c o m p l e t e l y m u n d a n e e n d , the r e p r o d u c t i o n o f the t o t e m i c species. B u t there are others t h a t are n o t part i c u l a r l y different f r o m the p r e c e d i n g a n d yet f r o m w h i c h interests o f that sort are e n t i r e l y absent. I n those, t h e past is represented f o r the sole p u r p o s e o f representing i t a n d impressing i t m o r e deeply u p o n m i n d s , w i t h n o e x p e c t a t i o n that the r i t e s h o u l d have any p a r t i c u l a r i n f l u e n c e u p o n nature. A t the v e r y least, t h e physical effects that are sometimes i m p u t e d t o the r i t e are e n t i r e l y secondary and u n r e l a t e d t o t h e l i t u r g i c a l i m p o r t a n c e i t is g i v e n . T h i s is n o t a b l y t h e case o f t h e feasts the W a r r a m u n g a celebrate i n h o n o r o f t h e snake W o l l u n q u a .

1 5

As I have already said, W o l l u n q u a is a t o t e m o f a v e r y special k i n d . I t is n o t an a n i m a l o r p l a n t species b u t a u n i q u e b e i n g ; o n l y o n e W o l l u n q u a e x ists. F u r t h e r m o r e , he is a p u r e l y m y t h i c a l b e i n g . T h e natives i m a g i n e h i m as a sort o f colossal snake, so tall that his head is lost i n the clouds w h e n he stands o n his tail. H e is b e l i e v e d t o live i n a w a t e r h o l e , called T h a p a u e r l u , w h i c h is h i d d e n deep i n a l o n e l y valley. B u t a l t h o u g h W o l l u n q u a differs i n some respects from o r d i n a r y t o t e m s , still he has all t h e d i s t i n g u i s h i n g features o f one. H e serves as a collective n a m e a n d e m b l e m f o r a w h o l e g r o u p o f i n d i v i d u a l s w h o see h i m as t h e i r c o m m o n ancestor. A n d t h e relations t h e y have w i t h this m y t h i c a l beast are i d e n t i c a l t o those that the m e m b e r s o f o t h e r clans believe t h e y have w i t h t h e founders o f t h e i r o w n respective clans. I n Alcheringa times,

16

W o l l u n q u a traveled t h e c o u n t r y i n every d i r e c t i o n . I n

the various localities w h e r e he stopped, he s o w e d s p i r i t - c h i l d r e n , spirit p r i n ciples that c o n t i n u e t o serve today as souls f o r l i v i n g beings. W o l l u n q u a is

15

Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 226ff. Cf. on the same subject certain passages of Eylmann that apparendy refer to the same mythical being ([Richard] Eylmann, Die Eingeborenen [der Kolonie Sud Australien, Berlin, D. Reumer, 1908], p. 185). Strehlow also mentions a mythical snake among the Arunta (Kulaia, water snake), which may well be the same as Wollunqua (Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, p. 78; cf. vol. II, p. 71, where Kulaiafigureson the list of totems). 16

So as not to complicate the terminology, I use the Arunta term. Among the Warramunga, this mythical time is called Wingara.

381


even regarded as a k i n d o f p r e e m i n e n t t o t e m . T h e W a r r a m u n g a are d i v i d e d i n t o t w o phratries, o n e called U l u u r u a n d t h e o t h e r K i n g i l l i . A l m o s t all the totems o f t h e first are various species o f snake. T h e y are all considered t o be descendants o f W o l l u n q u a ; he is said t o b e t h e i r g r a n d f a t h e r .

17

F r o m this o n e

can guess h o w , i n all l i k e l i h o o d , t h e W o l l u n q u a m y t h was b o r n . T o e x p l a i n the presence o f so m a n y s i m i l a r t o t e m s i n o n e phratry, t h e y w e r e all i m a g i n e d t o be d e r i v e d from o n e a n d t h e same t o t e m ; b u t o f necessity, he h a d t o be g i v e n g i g a n t i c f o r m , so that, b y his v e r y appearance, he w o u l d fit the i m p o r tant role assigned t o h i m i n the h i s t o r y o f the t r i b e . W o l l u n q u a is t h e object o f ceremonies n o different i n nature from those w e s t u d i e d previously. T h e s e are performances i n w h i c h t h e p r i n c i p a l events o f his m y t h i c a l life are d e p i c t e d ; he is s h o w n c o m i n g o u t o f the g r o u n d and m o v i n g from o n e l o c a l i t y t o t h e o t h e r ; the various episodes o f his life a n d his travels are acted o u t ; a n d so f o r t h . Spencer a n d G i l l e n w e r e present at

fifteen

ceremonies o f this k i n d , w h i c h o c c u r r e d o n e after t h e o t h e r b e t w e e n 27 J u l y a n d 2 3 A u g u s t , f o l l o w i n g a p r e s c r i b e d o r d e r i n such a w a y as t o f o r m a t r u e cycle.

18

T h u s , the detads o f t h e rites t h a t m a k e u p this feast d o n o t distinguish

i t f r o m an o r d i n a r y I n t i c h i u m a a m o n g t h e W a r r a m u n g a ; that m u c h is r e c o g n i z e d b y t h e authors w h o have described i t f o r u s .

19

B u t o n the o t h e r hand,

i t is an I n t i c h i u m a that c a n n o t possibly have the a i m o f e n s u r i n g the f e c u n d i t y o f an a n i m a l o r p l a n t species; W o l l u n q u a is a species i n h i m s e l f and does n o t reproduce. H e is; a n d t h e natives apparendy d o n o t feel that he requires a c u l t i n o r d e r t o g o o n b e i n g . N o t o n l y d o these ceremonies n o t have the efficacy o f the classic I n t i c h i u m a , b u t t h e y d o n o t seem t o have m a t e r i a l efficacy o f any k i n d . W o l l u n q u a is n o t a d e i t y set over a d e f i n i t e range o f n a t u r a l p h e n o m e n a , a n d thus n o d e f i n i t e service is e x p e c t e d o f h i m i n exchange for worship. T r u e , i t is said that i f the r i t u a l prescriptions are i m p r o p e r l y observed, W o l l u n q u a b e c o m e s angry, leaves his retreat, a n d avenges h i m s e l f u p o n the faithful f o r t h e i r negligence. A n d w h e n e v e r y t h i n g has b e e n p r o p e r l y done, t h e y t e n d t o believe that all w i l l be w e l l a n d that some happy event w i l l o c cur. B u t the idea o f these possible sanctions was apparently b o r n o n l y after 17

"It is not easy," say Spencer and Gillen, "to express in words that which is a rather vague feeling among the natives. But after having carefully observed the different ceremonies, we gained the quite distinct impression that, in the minds of the natives, Wollunqua corresponded to the idea of a dominant totem." (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 248.) 18

Among the most solemn of these ceremonies is the one I had occasion to describe above (pp. 219—220), during which an image of Wollunqua is drawn on a sort of mound that is later broken into pieces amid a general effervescence. 19


382


the fact, so as t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e r i t e . I t seemed n a t u r a l that, o n c e b o r n , the c e r e m o n y s h o u l d have some purpose, a n d hence that t o o m i t prescribed o b servances was s o m e h o w dangerous. B u t t h e r i t e was n o t i n s t i t u t e d t o prevent these m y t h i c a l dangers o r t o b r i n g a b o u t p a r t i c u l a r advantages. Incidentally, these dangers are c o n c e i v e d i n t h e vaguest o f t e r m s . F o r example, w h e n e v e r y t h i n g is d o n e w i t h , the elders a n n o u n c e that W o l l u n q u a w i l l send r a i n i f he is satisfied. B u t t h e y d o n o t celebrate the feast f o r the p u r p o s e o f h a v i n g rain.

2 0

T h e y celebrate i t because t h e ancestors d i d , because t h e y are attached

t o i t as a v e r y respected t r a d i t i o n , a n d because t h e y c o m e o u t o f i t w i t h a sense o f m o r a l w e l l - b e i n g . O t h e r considerations play o n l y a s u p p l e m e n t a r y role; t h e y can serve t o strengthen the faithful i n the c o n d u c t that the r i t e i m poses, b u t they are n o t the raison d'etre o f that c o n d u c t . H e r e , t h e n , is a w h o l e c o l l e c t i o n o f ceremonies w h o s e sole purpose is t o arouse c e r t a i n ideas a n d feelings, t o j o i n t h e present t o t h e past and the i n d i v i d u a l t o t h e c o l l e c t i v i t y . I n fact, n o t o n l y are these ceremonies incapable o f s e r v i n g o t h e r ends, b u t t h e faithful themselves seek n o t h i n g m o r e f r o m t h e m . T h i s is a d d i t i o n a l evidence t h a t t h e psychic state i n w h i c h the

assembled

g r o u p finds itself does i n d e e d c o n s t i t u t e t h e o n l y s o l i d a n d stable basis o f w h a t m i g h t be called t h e r i t u a l m e n t a l i t y . So far as beliefs ascribing this o r

20

Here is how the terms used by Spencer and Gillen describe the proceedings in their only passage about a possible relationship between the Wollunqua and the phenomenon of rain. Some days after the rite that is celebrated at the mound, "the elders declare that they have heard Wollunqua speak, that he was satisfied with what happened, and that he would send rain. The reason for this prophecy is that they had heard, as we had, the thunder resounding some distance away." Rainmaking is so farfrombeing the immediate aim of the ceremony that it was not imputed to Wollunqua until several days after the rite had been celebrated, and following accidental circumstances. Another fact shows how vague the ideas of the natives are on this point. Several lines further on, the thunder is presented as a sign, not of Wollunqua s satisfaction but of his annoyance. Despite the prognostications, continue our authors, "the rain did not fall. But some days later, thunder was again heard rumbling far away. The elders said that Wollunqua was rumbling because he was angry" about the way in which the rite had been conducted. Thus, the same phenomenon, the sound of thunder, is interpreted sometimes as a sign of favorable intentions and at others, of evil ones. There is, however, a detail of the ritual that would have direct efficacy, if one accepted the explanation of it that Spencer and Gillen suggest. According to them, the mound is destroyed in order to frighten Wollunqua and, by magical means, prevent himfromleaving his retreat. To me, this interpretation appears very suspect. As a matter of fact, in the circumstances just described in which it was announced that Wollunqua was angry, this anger was attributed to the fact that they had neglected to clean up the debris from the mound. Hence, this cleanup is farfrombeing aimed at intimidating and coercing Wollunqua; Wollunqua himself demands it. This is probably no more than a special case of a more general rule in effect among the Warramunga: The cult instruments must be destroyed after each ceremony. Thus, when the rite has been completed, the ritual ornaments in which the celebrants are dressed are torn off forcefully. (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 205.)

383


that physical efficacy t o t h e rites are c o n c e r n e d , those are accessory a n d c o n t i n g e n t matters, since t h e y can be absent w i t h o u t change t o the essence o f the r i t e . T h u s , even m o r e m a r k e d l y t h a n the p r e c e d i n g , t h e W o l l u n q u a ceremonies i n a sense lay bare the positive c u l t . I f I have g i v e n special emphasis t o those ceremonies, i t is because o f t h e i r unusual i m p o r t a n c e , b u t others are o f the same character. T h u s , the W a r r a m u n g a have a " L a u g h i n g B o y " t o t e m . Spencer a n d G i l l e n say that the clan o f this n a m e has the same o r g a n i z a t i o n as t h e o t h e r t o t e m i c groups. L i k e t h e m , i t has its sacred places (mungai) w h e r e t h e f o u n d i n g ancestor c o n d u c t e d ceremonies

i n m y t h i c a l times a n d w h e r e he left b e h i n d s p i r i t - c h i l d r e n

w h o became the m e n o f the clan. T h e rites c o n n e c t e d w i t h this t o t e m are indistinguishable from those related t o a n i m a l o r p l a n t t o t e m s .

21

I t is o b v i o u s ,

however, that the rites c a n n o t possibly have physical efficacy. T h e y are a series o f f o u r m o r e o r less r e p e t i t i o u s ceremonies, t h e i r sole p u r p o s e b e i n g t o amuse, t o p r o v o k e l a u g h t e r b y l a u g h t e r — t h a t is, t o cultivate gaiety and g o o d h u m o r w i t h i n t h e g r o u p that m o r e o r less specializes i n those traits.

22

W e find a m o n g the A r u n t a themselves m o r e t h a n o n e t o t e m that has n o o t h e r I n t i c h i u m a . I n fact, a m o n g this people, the folds o r depressions i n the l a n d that m a r k t h e place w h e r e some ancestor s o j o u r n e d are sometimes used as t o t e m s .

23

T o such t o t e m s are attached ceremonies t h a t o b v i o u s l y cannot

have physical effects o f any k i n d . T h e y can o n l y be made u p o f performances w h o s e p u r p o s e is t o c o m m e m o r a t e t h e past, a n d t h e y can have n o goal o t h e r t h a n that c o m m e m o r a t i o n .

2 4

W h d e these r i t u a l performances h e l p us u n d e r s t a n d the nature o f the c u l t better, t h e y also b r i n g o u t an i m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t o f r e l i g i o n : its recreational a n d aesthetic e l e m e n t . I

have already s h o w n that t h e y are closely a k i n t o dramatic p e r f o r -

mances.

25

T h i s k i n s h i p stands o u t even m o r e clearly i n the ceremonies j u s t

described. N o t o n l y d o t h e y use the same techniques as drama, b u t t h e y have 21

Ibid., pp. 207-208.

22

Ibid., p. 210.

"See numbers 432—442, in the list of totems compiled by Strehlow ([Aranda ], vol. II, p. 72). 24

See ibid., vol. Ill, p. 8. Also among the Arunta, there is a Worra totem that gready resembles the Warramungas' "Laughing Boy" totem (ibid, and vol. Ill, p. 124). Worra means "young men." The object of the ceremony is to make the young men take more pleasure in the game of labara (on this game, see ibid., vol. I, p. 55, n. 1). "See above, p. 376.

384


the same sort o f goal. Since u t i l i t a r i a n purposes are i n general alien t o t h e m , t h e y m a k e m e n forget the real w o r l d so as t o t r a n s p o r t t h e m i n t o a n o t h e r w h e r e t h e i r i m a g i n a t i o n is m o r e at h o m e ; t h e y e n t e r t a i n . Sometimes t h e y even g o as far as h a v i n g t h e o u t w a r d appearance o f recreation. W e see those present l a u g h i n g a n d o p e n l y h a v i n g f u n .

2 6

T h e representative rites a n d t h e c o l l e c t i v e recreations are so close t o o n e a n o t h e r that p e o p l e m o v e from o n e genre t o t h e o t h e r w i t h o u t any sense o f d i s c o n t i n u i t y . T h e trait o f the specifically r e l i g i o u s ceremonies is that they m u s t be p e r f o r m e d o n consecrated g r o u n d , from w h i c h w o m e n a n d t h e u n i n i t i a t e d are e x c l u d e d .

27

I n others, this r e l i g i o u s feature is s o m e w h a t o b -

scured, a l t h o u g h n o t g o n e c o m p l e t e l y . T h e y o c c u r away from the c e r e m o n i a l g r o u n d , w h i c h shows that t o some e x t e n t t h e y are already secular; even so, t h e profane ( w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n ) are n o t a d m i t t e d . H e n c e they straddle the b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n t w o d o m a i n s . I n general, t h e y relate t o m y t h i c a l p e r sonages that d o n o t f i t n e a d y i n t o t h e scheme o f t o t e m i c r e l i g i o n . T h e p e r sonages are spirits, m o s t o f t e n e v i l ones, that are m o r e c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e magicians t h a n w i t h t h e o r d i n a r y f a i t h f u l , a n d sorts o f b o g e y m e n i n w h i c h m e n d o n o t believe w i t h t h e same degree o f seriousness a n d firm c o n v i c t i o n as t h e y a c c o r d t o p r o p e r l y t o t e m i c beings a n d t h i n g s .

28

I n step w i t h

the

w e a k e n i n g o f the tie that binds events a n d personages t o t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e t r i b e , b o t h take o n a m o r e u n r e a l appearance, a n d the nature o f the c o r r e s p o n d i n g ceremonies changes. I n this way, w e g r a d u a l l y enter i n t o t h e d o m a i n o f p u r e fantasy a n d pass from the c o m m e m o r a t i v e r i t e t o the o r d i n a r y c o r r o b o r é e , m e r e p u b l i c r e j o i c i n g that is n o l o n g e r r e l i g i o u s i n any w a y a n d i n w h i c h everyone, w i t h o u t d i s t i n c t i o n , m a y take p a r t . I n d e e d , perhaps cert a i n o f these performances that t o d a y are o n l y f o r e n t e r t a i n m e n t are ancient rites w h o s e f u n c t i o n has changed. I n fact, the b o u n d a r i e s b e t w e e n these t w o kinds o f ceremonies are so f l u i d that i t is h a r d t o say precisely t o w h i c h g r o u p they b e l o n g .

26

2 9

An example of this kind is to be found in Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 204.

27

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 118 n. 2, 618ff.; Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 716ff. However, there are sacred ceremoniesfromwhich women are not totally excluded (see, for example, ibid., pp. 375ff.); but that is the exception. ^See Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 329ff.; Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 210ff. 29

This is the case, for example, of the Molonga corroborée, among the Pitta-Pitta of Queensland and

neighboring tribes (see [Walter Edmund] Roth, Ethnological Studies among the North West Central Queens-

land Aborigines [Brisbane, E. Gregory, 1897], pp. 120ff.). Information on these ordinary corroborées is to be found in Stirling [Sir Baldwin] Spencer, Report [on the Work] of the Horn [Scientific] Expedition to Central

Australia [London, Dulau, 1896], Part IV, p. 72, and in Roth, Queensland Aborigines, pp. 117ff.


385

I t is w e l l k n o w n t h a t games a n d the p r i n c i p a l forms o f art seem t o have been b o r n i n r e l i g i o n a n d that t h e y l o n g m a i n t a i n e d t h e i r religious character.

30

W e can see w h y : w h i l e p u r s u i n g o t h e r goals direcdy, the c u l t has at the

same t i m e b e e n a f o r m o f recreation. R e l i g i o n has n o t played this role b y chance o r a h a p p y c o i n c i d e n c e b u t as a result o f its i n h e r e n t logic. I n d e e d , as I have s h o w n , a l t h o u g h r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t is s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n a system o f fictions, t h e realities t o w h i c h i t corresponds can g a i n religious expression o n l y i f i m a g i n a t i o n transfigures t h e m . Great is the distance b e t w e e n society, as i t is objectively, a n d t h e sacred t h i n g s that represent i t symbolically. T h e impressions really felt b y m e n — t h e r a w m a t e r i a l f o r this c o n s t r u c t i o n — h a d t o be i n t e r p r e t e d , elaborated, a n d t r a n s f o r m e d t o the p o i n t o f b e c o m i n g u n recognizable. So t h e w o r l d o f r e l i g i o u s things is p a r d y an i m a g i n a r y w o r l d (albeit o n l y i n its o u t w a r d f o r m ) and, f o r this reason, o n e that lends itself m o r e readdy t o t h e free creations o f t h e m i n d . M o r e o v e r , because the i n tellectual forces that serve i n m a k i n g i t are intense a n d t u m u l t u o u s , the m e r e task o f expressing t h e real w i t h the h e l p o f p r o p e r symbols is i n s u f f i c i e n t t o o c c u p y t h e m . A surplus remains generally available that seeks t o busy itself w i t h s u p p l e m e n t a r y a n d superfluous w o r k s o f l u x u r y — t h a t is, w i t h w o r k s o f art. W h a t is t r u e o f practices is t r u e o f beliefs. T h e state o f effervescence i n w h i c h t h e assembled f a i t h f u l f i n d themselves is translated o u t w a r d l y b y e x u berant m o t i o n s that are n o t easily s u b o r d i n a t e d t o ends that are d e f i n e d t o o stricdy. T h e y escape, p a r t l y w i t h o u t d e s t i n a t i o n , displaying themselves m e r e l y f o r t h e sake o f displaying themselves, a n d t a k i n g pleasure i n w h a t a m o u n t t o games. Besides, t o the e x t e n t that t h e beings t o w h i c h t h e c u l t is addressed are i m a g i n a r y , t h e y are i n n o p o s i t i o n t o c o n t a i n a n d regulate this exuberance; t h e w e i g h t o f t a n g i b l e a n d durable realities is needed t o press act i v i t y i n t o exact a n d h a r m o n i o u s adaptations. T h e r e f o r e , w e r i s k m i s u n d e r standings w h e n , t o e x p l a i n rites, w e believe an exact p u r p o s e a n d raison d'être m u s t be assigned t o each m o v e m e n t . S o m e serve n o purpose; t h e y m e r e l y satisfy the w o r s h i p p e r s ' n e e d t o act, m o v e , a n d gesticulate. T h e w o r s h i p p e r s are seen j u m p i n g , w h i r l i n g , d a n c i n g , s h o u t i n g , a n d s i n g i n g , and t h e y are n o t always able t o assign a m e a n i n g t o this t u r b u l e n c e . T h u s , r e l i g i o n w o u l d n o t be r e l i g i o n i f there was n o place i n i t f o r free c o m b i n a t i o n s o f t h o u g h t a n d a c t i o n , f o r games, f o r art, f o r all that refreshes a s p i r i t w o r n d o w n b y all that is o v e r b u r d e n i n g i n d a y - t o - d a y labor. T h a t

'"On that question, see especially the excellent work of [Stewart] Culin, "Games of the North American Indians," Twenty-Sixth Report, BAE, [Washington, Government Printing Office, 1907].

386


w h i c h made art exist makes i t a necessity. I t is n o t m e r e l y an o u t w a r d a d o r n m e n t that t h e c u l t can be t h o u g h t o f as dressing u p i n , i n o r d e r t o h i d e w h a t m a y be t o o austere a n d harsh a b o u t i t ; t h e c u l t i n itself is aesthetic i n some way. Because o f t h e w e l l - k n o w n c o n n e c t i o n s m y t h o l o g y has w i t h poetry, scholars have sometimes w a n t e d t o situate m y t h o l o g y outside r e l i g i o n .

3 1

The

t r u t h is that there is a p o e t r y i n h e r e n t i n all r e l i g i o n . T h e representative ceremonies j u s t s t u d i e d m a k e this aspect o f r e l i g i o u s life o b v i o u s , b u t there are v i r t u a l l y n o rites that d o n o t manifest i t i n some degree. O b v i o u s l y , i t w o u l d be a grave e r r o r t o see o n l y this aspect o f r e l i g i o n o r t o overstate its i m p o r t a n c e . W h e n a r i t e serves o n l y as e n t e r t a i n m e n t , i t is n o l o n g e r a r i t e . T h e m o r a l forces that r e l i g i o u s symbols express are real forces that w e m u s t r e c k o n w i t h a n d that w e m a y n o t d o w i t h as w e please. E v e n i f the p u r p o s e o f the c u l t is n o t t o achieve physical effects, b u t deliberately stops at a c t i n g u p o n m i n d s , i t exerts its i n f l u e n c e i n a different d i r e c t i o n t h a n does a p u r e w o r k o f art. T h e representations i t w o r k s t o arouse a n d m a i n t a i n are n o t e m p t y images that c o r r e s p o n d t o n o t h i n g i n reality a n d that w e call u p f o r n o purpose, m e r e l y f o r t h e pleasure o f w a t c h i n g t h e m appear and c o m b i n e w i t h o n e a n o t h e r before o u r eyes. T h e y are as necessary t o the g o o d o r der o f o u r m o r a l life as f o o d is t o the n u r t u r e o f o u r physical life. I t is t h r o u g h t h e m that t h e g r o u p affirms a n d maintains itself, a n d w e k n o w h o w i n d i s pensable the g r o u p is t o the i n d i v i d u a l . T h u s a r i t e is s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n a game; i t belongs t o t h e serious side o f life. B u t w h i l e the u n r e a l a n d i m a g i n a r y e l e m e n t is n o t the essence, i t still plays a role that is far from n e g l i g i b l e . T h a t e l e m e n t enters i n t o t h e feeling o f c o m f o r t that the faithful d r a w f r o m the a c c o m p l i s h e d r i t e . R e c r e a t i o n is o n e f o r m o f the m o r a l r e m a k i n g t h a t is the p r i m a r y o b j e c t o f the positive c u l t . O n c e w e have f u l f i l l e d o u r r i t u a l duties, w e r e t u r n t o profane life w i t h m o r e energy a n d enthusiasm, n o t o n l y because w e have placed ourselves i n contact w i t h a h i g h e r source o f energy b u t also because o u r o w n capacities have been replenished t h r o u g h l i v i n g , f o r a f e w m o m e n t s , a life that is less tense, m o r e at ease, a n d freer. R e l i g i o n gains t h e r e b y an appeal that is n o t t h e least o f its attractions. F o r this reason, the idea o f a r e l i g i o u s c e r e m o n y o f any i m p o r t a n c e n a t urally elicits t h e idea o f a festival. Inversely, every festival has c e r t a i n characteristics o f a r e l i g i o u s ceremony, even i f i t is o f p u r e l y secular o r i g i n . I n every case, its effect is t o b r i n g i n d i v i d u a l s together, t o p u t t h e masses i n t o m o t i o n , a n d thus i n d u c e a state o f effervescence—sometimes

31

See above, p. 79.

even d e l i r i u m — w h i c h

387


is n o t w i t h o u t k i n s h i p t o the r e l i g i o u s state. M a n is c a r r i e d outside h i m self, p u l l e d away f r o m his o r d i n a r y occupations and preoccupations. W e observe t h e same manifestations i n b o t h cases: cries, songs, music, v i o l e n t m o v e m e n t s , dances, the search f o r stimulants that increase vitality, and o t h ers. I t has o f t e n b e e n observed that p o p u l a r festivals lead t o excesses, causing people t o lose sight o f t h e b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n the l i c i t a n d the i l l i c i t ;

3 2

there

are also r e l i g i o u s ceremonies that b r i n g a b o u t a k i n d o f thirst f o r v i o l a t i n g those rules that o r d i n a r i l y are w i d e l y o b e y e d .

33

T o be sure, this is n o t because

there is n o basis f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n the t w o f o r m s o f p u b l i c activity. S i m p l e r e j o i c i n g , t h e profane c o r r o b o r é e , has n o serious purpose, b u t w h e n taken as a w h o l e , a r i t u a l c e r e m o n y always has a serious purpose. O n c e again, w e m u s t n o t i c e that there is n o r e j o i c i n g i n w h i c h the seriousness o f life has n o echo at all. Instead, the basic difference lies i n t h e different p r o p o r t i o n s i n w h i c h the t w o elements are c o m b i n e d .

Ill As i t happens, a m o r e general fact c o n f i r m s t h e p r e c e d i n g v i e w s . I n t h e i r first w o r k , Spencer a n d G i l l e n presented the I n t i c h i u m a as a perfectly c i r c u m scribed r i t u a l entity. T h e y spoke o f i t as i f i t was a process d e v o t e d exclusively t o e n s u r i n g the r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e t o t e m i c species; a n d i t seemed that the I n t i c h i u m a m u s t necessarily lose any sort o f m e a n i n g b e y o n d this single f u n c t i o n . B u t i n t h e i r Northern Tribes of Central Australia, t h e same authors use d i f ferent language, perhaps w i t h o u t b e i n g aware o f i t . T h e y recognize that these same ceremonies can j u s t as w e l l take place i n the I n t i c h i u m a s p r o p e r as i n the i n i t i a t i o n r i t e s .

34

T h e y serve j u s t as w e l l e i t h e r t o m a k e animals a n d plants

o f the t o t e m i c species o r t o confer u p o n the neophytes the qualities i t takes

32

Notably, in sexual matters. Sexual license is common in the ordinary corroborées (see Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 96—97, and Northern Tribes, pp. 136—137). On sexual license in popular feasts generally, see [Alfred] Hagelstange, Süddeutsches Bauernleben im Mittelalter [Leipzig, Duncker & Humbolt, 1898], pp. 221ff. 33

Thus, the rules of exogamy are obligatorily violated during certain religious ceremonies (see above, p. 218, n. 27). We probably should not seek precise ritual meaning in this license. It simply arises mechanically from the state of overexcitement provoked by the ceremony. It is an example of those rites that have no definite object in themselves but are merely discharges of activity (see above, p. 385). The native himself does not assign it a definite purpose; he says only that if this license is not committed, the rite will not produce its effects; the ceremony will be botched. 34

These are the very words Spencer and Gillen use; "They (the ceremonies connected to the totems) are often, but not always, associated with those that concern the initiation of young men, or else they are part of the Intichiumas" (Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 178).

388


t o b e c o m e f u l l m e m b e r s o f the society o f m e n .

3 5

F r o m this p o i n t o f v i e w , the

I n t i c h i u m a appears i n a n e w l i g h t . N o l o n g e r is i t a d i s t i n c t r i t u a l m e c h a n i s m based o n p r i n c i p l e s that are p e c u l i a r t o i t b u t instead a p a r t i c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n o f m o r e general ceremonies that can serve q u i t e different purposes. T h i s is why, before speaking o f t h e I n t i c h i u m a a n d o f i n i t i a t i o n , t h e y devote a special chapter o f t h e i r n e w w o r k t o t o t e m i c ceremonies i n general, apart the various f o r m s t h e y m a y take d e p e n d i n g o n the purposes t h e y serve. T h i s i n h e r e n t i n d e t e r m i n a c y o f the

t o t e m i c ceremonies

was

from 36

only

p o i n t e d t o b y Spencer a n d G i l l e n , a n d i n d e e d rather i n d i r e c d y , b u t i t has b e e n c o n f i r m e d b y S t r e h l o w i n the m o s t e x p l i c i t t e r m s . H e says, " W h e n the y o u n g novices are passed t h r o u g h t h e various i n i t i a t i o n celebrations, rites are p e r f o r m e d o n e after a n o t h e r f o r t h e m . Nevertheless, a l t h o u g h these rites r e p r o d u c e those o f the c u l t proper, d o w n t o t h e m o s t characteristic details (Read: the rites that Spencer and Gillen term Intichiuma), t h e i r p u r p o s e is n o t t o m u l t i p l y the c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t e m a n d m a k e i t prosper."

37

So t h e same cere-

m o n y is used i n b o t h cases; o n l y the n a m e is changed. W h e n its p u r p o s e is s t r i c t l y the r e p r o d u c t i o n o f the species, i t is called M b a t j a l k a t i u m a , a n d w h e n i t is a p r o c e d u r e o f i n i t i a t i o n i t is g i v e n the n a m e I n t i c h i u m a .

3 8

I n a d d i t i o n , a m o n g the A r u n t a , c e r t a i n secondary characteristics d i s t i n guish these t w o k i n d s o f ceremonies from o n e another. A l t h o u g h the struct u r e o f t h e rites is the same i n b o t h cases, the s h e d d i n g o f b l o o d and, m o r e generally, the offerings characteristic o f the A r u n t a I n t i c h i u m a are l a c k i n g i n t h e i r i n i t i a t i o n ceremonies. F u r t h e r m o r e , whereas t h e A r u n t a I n t i c h i u m a is h e l d at a place a u t h o r i t a t i v e l y set b y t r a d i t i o n and t o w h i c h people m u s t p i l g r i m a g e , the stage o n w h i c h t h e i n i t i a t i o n ceremonies are h e l d is p u r e l y conventional.

39

B u t w h e n the I n t i c h i u m a consists m e r e l y o f a dramatic p e r -

f o r m a n c e , as is t h e case a m o n g t h e W a r r a m u n g a , t h e lack o f d i s t i n c t i o n b e -

35

I leave aside the question of what this trait consists in. That question would lead into a development that would be very long and very technical and, for this reason, would have to be handled separately. The question does not, however, affect the propositions that are established in the course of the present work. •'"This is Chapter VI, tided "Ceremonies Connected with the Totems." 37

Strehlow, Aranda, vol. Ill, pp. 1-2.

38

The error with which Strehlow taxes Spencer and Gillen is explained in this way: They applied to one form of the rite the term that more especially suits the other. But in this instance, the error does not seem as grave as Strehlow makes it out to be. 39

Indeed, it cannot have any other character. In fact, since initiation is a tribal feast, the novices of different totems are initiated at the sametime.The ceremonies that occur one after the other in this way, at the same place, always refer to several totems, and consequendy, they must take place outside the localities to which myth attaches them.

389


t w e e n the t w o rites is t o t a l . T h e past is c o m m e m o r a t e d i n b o t h ; the m y t h is p u t i n t o a c t i o n — p e r f o r m e d — a n d c a n n o t be p e r f o r m e d i n t w o m a r k e d l y different ways. T h u s , d e p e n d i n g o n t h e circumstances, o n e and the same cere m o n y fulfills t w o d i s t i n c t f u n c t i o n s .

40

I n d e e d , i t can l e n d itself t o a g o o d m a n y o t h e r uses. A s w e k n o w , since b l o o d is a sacred t h i n g , w o m e n m u s t n o t see i t flowing. Nevertheless, a q u a r rel m a y o n occasion break o u t i n t h e i r presence a n d e n d i n b l o o d s h e d . A r i t ual i n f r a c t i o n is t h e r e b y c o m m i t t e d . A m o n g the A r u n t a , i n order t o atone for this lapse, t h e m a n w h o s e b l o o d has flowed first m u s t " c o n d u c t a c e r e m o n y that refers e i t h e r t o his father's o r his m o t h e r ' s t o t e m . "

4 1

T h a t c e r e m o n y bears

a special name, Alua uparilima, w h i c h means "erasing o f t h e b l o o d . " B u t , i n and o f itself, i t is n o different from those c o n d u c t e d d u r i n g i n i t i a t i o n o r at the I n t i c h i u m a s ; i t portrays an event o f the ancestors' history. T h u s i t can serve equally w e l l t o i n i t i a t e , t o act u p o n the a n i m a l species, o r t o expiate a sacrilege. W e w i l l see b e l o w that a t o t e m i c c e r e m o n y can take the place o f a funeral r i t e .

4 2

H u b e r t a n d Mauss have already d r a w n a t t e n t i o n t o a f u n c t i o n a l a m b i g u i t y o f the same sort i n t h e case o f sacrifice and, m o r e specifically, H i n d u sacrifice.

4 3

T h e y have s h o w n that t h e sacrifices o f c o m m u n i o n , e x p i a t i o n , oaths,

and contracts w e r e b u t variants o f t h e same m e c h a n i s m . A s w e n o w see, this p h e n o m e n o n is far m o r e p r i m i t i v e a n d b y n o means c o n f i n e d t o the i n s t i t u t i o n o f sacrifice. T h e r e is perhaps n o r i t e that does n o t display similar i n d e t e r m i n a c y . T h e mass is used f o r marriages as w e l l as f o r burials; i t redeems the sins o f the dead, ensures d i v i n e favor t o the l i v i n g , a n d so o n . Fasting is an e x p i a t i o n a n d a penance, b u t i t is also a p r e p a r a t i o n f o r c o m m u n i o n ; i t even

""How it happens that I have nowhere studied rites of initiation in and of themselves will now be understood. They do not constitute a ritual entity but are a composite made from various sorts of rites. For example, there are prohibitions, ascetic rites, and representative ceremonies that are indistinguishable from those conducted during the Intichiuma. Thus I have had to take this composite system apart and separately treat each of the elementary rites that comprise it, classifying them with those similar rites with which they must be compared. In addition, we have seen (pp. 288—289) that initiation has served as the point of departure for a new religion that tends to move beyond totemism. But it was enough to show that totemism contained the seed of that religion; I did not have to pursue its development. Since the object of this book is to study the elementary beliefs and practices, I must stop at the moment they give birth to more complex forms. 41

Spencer and Gillen, NativeTribes, p. 463. If the individual can, as he chooses, conduct a ceremony of either his father's or his mother's totem, that is because, for the reasons set forth above (p. 185), he belongs to both. 42

See below, Bk. 3, chap. 5, p. 399.

43

See [Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss], "Essai sur [la nature et fonction du] sacrifice," in Melanges d'histoire des religions [Paris, F. Alcan, 1909], p. 83.

390


conveys positive v i r t u e s . T h i s a m b i g u i t y shows that the real f u n c t i o n o f a r i t e is n o t the specific, w e l l - d e f i n e d results i t seems i n t e n d e d t o reap and b y w h i c h i t is usually characterized. Instead, its real f u n c t i o n is a general result, w h i c h can take different f o r m s i n different circumstances a n d yet r e m a i n a l ways a n d e v e r y w h e r e the same. T h e t h e o r y I have p u t f o r w a r d presupposes exacdy this. I f the t r u e f u n c t i o n o f the c u l t is t o arouse i n the faithful a c e r t a i n state o f soul, are o f m o r a l strength a n d c o n f i d e n c e , a n d i f the various effects i m p u t e d t o the rites are o n l y d u e t o secondary a n d variable causes o f this f u n d a m e n t a l state, t h e n i t is not

s u r p r i s i n g that t h e same r i t e s h o u l d seem t o p r o d u c e m u l t i p l e effects

w h i l e k e e p i n g the same c o m p o n e n t s a n d structure. I n every case, those m e n tal dispositions that its p e r m a n e n t f u n c t i o n is t o b r i n g a b o u t r e m a i n the same; t h e y d e p e n d o n the fact that t h e g r o u p is assembled, n o t o n t h e p a r t i c u l a r reasons w h y the g r o u p is assembled. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , however, t h e y are i n t e r p r e t e d d i f f e r e n d y t o fit the circumstances t o w h i c h t h e y apply. Is i t a physical effect that o n e wants t o obtain? T h e c o n f i d e n c e felt w i l l lead t o b e l i e v i n g that this result has b e e n o r w i l l be o b t a i n e d b y the means used. Has o n e c o m m i t t e d some lapse t h a t o n e wants t o erase? T h e same state o f m o r a l assurance w i l l cause the same r i t u a l m o v e m e n t s t o take o n e x p i a t o r y v i r t u e s . I n this way, the apparent efficacy w i l l seem t o change, even t h o u g h t h e real efficacy remains u n c h a n g i n g ; a n d the r i t e w i l l seem t o f u l f i l l disparate f u n c tions even t h o u g h i n fact i t has o n l y one, w h i c h is always t h e same. Conversely, j u s t as a single r i t e can serve several ends, several rites can b e used interchangeably t o b r i n g a b o u t t h e same e n d . T o ensure the r e p r o d u c t i o n o f the t o t e m i c species, sacrifices, m i m e t i c practices, o r c o m m e m o rative performances can be used equally w e l l . T h i s i n t e r c h a n g e a b i l i t y o f rites demonstrates o n c e again—just as t h e i r plasticity demonstrates—the e x t r e m e generality o f the useful i n f l u e n c e t h e y exercise. W h a t matters m o s t is that i n dividuals are assembled a n d t h a t feelings i n c o m m o n are expressed t h r o u g h actions i n c o m m o n . B u t as t o the specific nature o f these feelings and actions, that is a relatively secondary a n d c o n t i n g e n t matter. T o b e c o m e conscious o f itself, the g r o u p n e e d n o t p e r f o r m s o m e acts rather t h a n others. A l t h o u g h i t m u s t c o m m u n e i n the same t h o u g h t a n d t h e same a c t i o n , the visible f o r m s i n w h i c h this c o m m u n i o n occurs h a r d l y matter. T h e e x t e r n a l f o r m s p r o b a b l y d o n o t c o m e a b o u t b y chance. T h e y have t h e i r causes, b u t these causes d o n o t g o t o the essence o f t h e c u l t . E v e r y t h i n g b r i n g s us back, t h e n , t o the same idea. First a n d foremost, t h e rites are means b y w h i c h the social g r o u p reaffirms itself periodically. A n d perhaps, b e g i n n i n g there, w e can achieve a h y p o t h e t i c a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the m a n n e r i n w h i c h the first t o t e m i c c u l t m u s t have b e e n b o r n . M e n w h o feel


391

u n i t e d — i n p a r t b y ties o f b l o o d b u t even m o r e b y c o m m o n interests and t r a ditions—assemble a n d b e c o m e conscious o f t h e i r m o r a l unity. For the reasons I have set f o r t h , t h e y are l e d t o conceive this u n i t y as a v e r y special k i n d o f consubstantiality. T h e y regard themselves as all p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the nature o f a certain a n i m a l . U n d e r those c o n d i t i o n s , there w i l l be o n l y one w a y f o r t h e m to a f f i r m t h e i r collective existence: t o a f f i r m themselves as animals o f that same species—and this n o t o n l y i n the silence o f consciousness b u t b y p h y s i cal d o i n g . I t is this d o i n g that w i l l f o r m the cult, a n d o b v i o u s l y i t can o n l y be m o v e m e n t s b y w h i c h t h e m a n imitates the a n i m a l w i t h w h i c h he identifies himself. T h u s u n d e r s t o o d , the m i m e t i c rites c o m e i n t o v i e w as the p r i m i t i v e f o r m o f the c u l t . S o m e w i l l find that this is t o a t t r i b u t e a rather large h i s t o r i cal role t o practices that at first glance resemble c h i l d i s h games. B u t , as I have s h o w n , these naive a n d gauche gestures, these c r u d e modes o f representation, express a n d n u r t u r e a feeling o f p r i d e , c o n f i d e n c e , a n d reverence that is e n tirely

comparable t o the feeling expressed b y the faithful o f the m o s t idealist

religions w h e n , gathered together, t h e y p r o c l a i m themselves t o be the c h i l d r e n o f the a l l - p o w e r f u l G o d . I n b o t h cases, this feeling stems from the same impressions o f security a n d respect that are aroused i n i n d i v i d u a l consciousnesses b y t h e great m o r a l force that d o m i n a t e s t h e m : the collective force. I n all l i k e l i h o o d , t h e o t h e r rites w e have studied are n o m o r e t h a n v a r i a tions o n this f u n d a m e n t a l r i t e . O n c e t h e close u n i o n b e t w e e n a n i m a l and man

was accepted, m a n s t r o n g l y felt t h e n e e d t o ensure the regular r e p r o -

d u c t i o n o f the t o t e m i c species, a n d that r e p r o d u c t i o n was made the p r i n c i p a l object o f t h e c u l t . I n this way, those m i m e t i c practices that p r o b a b l y h a d o n l y a m o r a l a i m at the b e g i n n i n g f o u n d themselves s u b o r d i n a t e d t o a u t i l i t a r i a n , m a t e r i a l one, a n d h e c o n c e i v e d o f t h e m as means o f p r o d u c i n g the desired result. B u t w i t h f u r t h e r e v o l u t i o n i n t h e m y t h o l o g y that at first i d e n t i f i e d t h e ancestor hero w i t h the t o t e m i c a n i m a l , the ancestor figure became m o r e dist i n c t a n d personal, i m i t a t i o n o f the ancestor replaced i m i t a t i o n o f the a n i m a l , and the representative rites replaced o r s u p p l e m e n t e d the m i m e t i c ones. F i nally, t o b e c o m e m o r e c e r t a i n o f a t t a i n i n g the g o a l h e was s t r i v i n g t o w a r d , man

felt the n e e d t o b r i n g i n t o play all t h e means available t o h i m . H a v i n g i n

h a n d reserves o f life-forces a c c u m u l a t e d i n t h e sacred rocks, he used those; since the man's b l o o d was o f t h e same nature as t h e animal's, h e used i t f o r the same purpose, a n d he shed i t . Inversely, because o f that same k i n s h i p , t h e man

used t h e animal's flesh f o r the p u r p o s e o f r e m a k i n g his o w n substance.

T h e n c e came the rites o f sacrifice a n d c o m m u n i o n . I n the e n d , however, all these v a r i e d practices are variations o n the same t h e m e : F u n d a m e n t a l l y , w e e n c o u n t e r e v e r y w h e r e the same state o f soul, differendy i n t e r p r e t e d a c c o r d i n g t o the circumstances, h i s t o r i c a l m o m e n t s , a n d i n c l i n a t i o n s o f the faithful.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE PIACULAR RITES* AND THE AMBIGUITY OF THE NOTION OF THE SACRED

N

o m a t t e r h o w greatly the actions they i n v o l v e m a y differ

from

one

another, the various positive rites j u s t r e v i e w e d have o n e feature i n

c o m m o n : T h e y are all c a r r i e d o u t w i t h c o n f i d e n c e , j o y , a n d

enthusiasm.

A l t h o u g h t h e w a i t f o r a future a n d c o n t i n g e n t event is never

without

u n c e r t a i n t y , usually the r a i n falls w h e n t h e season comes, a n d the a n i m a l a n d p l a n t species r e p r o d u c e o n schedule. R e p e a t e d e x p e r i e n c e has s h o w n t h a t t h e rites generally b r i n g a b o u t the h o p e d - f o r effect that is t h e i r raison d'être. T h e y are celebrated w i t h assurance, a n d w i t h r e j o i c i n g i n advance o f the happy event t h e y i n d u c e a n d a n n o u n c e . T h e actions c o n t r i b u t e t o that state o f m i n d . T o b e sure, the seriousness that always attends a r e l i g i o u s c e r e m o n y marks t h e m , b u t that seriousness precludes n e i t h e r h i g h spirits n o r joy. T h o s e ceremonies are j o y f u l . B u t there are sad ceremonies as w e l l , w h o s e p u r p o s e is t o m e e t a c a l a m i t y o r t o r e m e m b e r a n d m o u r n o n e . These rites take o n a d i s t i n c t i v e f o r m that I w i l l characterize a n d e x p l a i n . Since t h e y r e veal a n e w aspect o f r e l i g i o u s life, i t is all the m o r e necessary t o e x a m i n e t h e m separately. I propose t o call ceremonies o f this t y p e "piacular." T h e advantage o f the t e r m " p i a c u l u m " is that w h i l e suggesting the idea o f e x p i a t i o n , i t n e v e r t h e less has a m u c h broader m e a n i n g . A n y m i s f o r t u n e , a n y t h i n g that is o m i n o u s , a n d a n y t h i n g that motivates feelings o f disquiet o r fear requires a p i a c u l u m

'Dürkheim formulated this concept of rites conducted on the occasion of death, misfortune, or collective crisis that are not expressions of individual feeling. He introduced the term into the study of religion and ritual. See the Maemillan Dictionary of Anthropology, London, 1986.

392

393

The Piacular Rites and the Ambiguity of the Notion of the Sacred

1

and is therefore called piacular. T h i s w o r d seems w e l l suited t o designating rites that are c o n d u c t e d u n d e r c o n d i t i o n s o f u n c e r t a i n t y o r sadness.

I M o u r n i n g offers us an i n i t i a l , a n d i m p o r t a n t , e x a m p l e o f piacular rites. T h e v a r i o u s rites used f o r m o u r n i n g m u s t be distinguished. S o m e c o n sist o n l y o f p r o h i b i t i o n s : I t is f o r b i d d e n t o p r o n o u n c e the n a m e o f t h e d e 2

3

ceased o r t o r e m a i n at the place w h e r e the death o c c u r r e d ; the relatives, especially the female ones, m u s t abstain f r o m all c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h o u t 4

siders; the o r d i n a r y occupations o f life are suspended, j u s t as they are d u r i n g 5

feasts; a n d so o n . Since all these practices b e l o n g t o the negative c u l t a n d are e x p l a i n e d as rites o f that sort, t h e y n e e d n o t c o n c e r n us here. T h e y arise

from

the fact that t h e deceased is a sacred b e i n g . A s a result o f c o n t a g i o n , e v e r y t h i n g that is o r was i n c o n t a c t w i t h h i m is i n a r e l i g i o u s state that precludes all c o n t a c t w i t h t h e things o f profane life. B u t m o u r n i n g consists o f m o r e t h a n p r o h i b i t i o n s t o be respected. P o s i tive acts are r e q u i r e d , a n d k i n are b o t h the agents a n d the objects o f t h e m . T h e s e rites q u i t e c o m m o n l y b e g i n as s o o n as death seems i m m i n e n t . H e r e is a scene that Spencer a n d G i l l e n witnessed a m o n g the W a r r a m u n g a . A t o t e m i c r i t e h a d j u s t b e e n celebrated, a n d the actors a n d spectators w e r e l e a v i n g the sacred g r o u n d w h e n suddenly a p i e r c i n g scream arose from the

1

"Piacularia auspicia appellabant quae sacrificantibus tristiaportendebant" (Paul ex. Fest., p. 244, ed. Muller).

[They used to call the auspices piacularia auspices, which portended sad things to the people sacrificing. Trans.] The word piaculum is even used as a synonym of misfortune. "Vettonica herba," says Pliny [The El-

der, Natural History], "tantumquegloriae habet ut domus in qua sata sit tuta existimetur a piaculis omnibus" (XX

8, 46). [The vetonica herb is so renowned that the house in which it is planted is considered safefromall piacula. I am indebted to Kathryn Argetsinger for these Latin translations.] 2

[Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [Francis James] Gillen, Northern Tribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1904], p. 526; [Richard] Eylmann, [Die Eingeborenen der Kolonie Sud Australien, Berlin, D. Reumer, 1908], p. 239. Cf. above, p. 310. '[Robert] Brough Smyth [The Aborigines of Victoria], vol. I [Melbourne: J. Ferres, 1878], p. 106; [James] Dawson, [Australian Aborigines; The Languages and Customs of Several Tribes of Aborigines in the Western District of Victoria, Australia, Melbourne, G. Robertson, 1881], p. 64; Eylmann, Die Eingeborenen,

p. 239. 4

Dawson, Australian Aborigines, p. 66; Eylmann, Die Eingeborenen, p. 241.

5

[Sir Baldwin] Spencer and [Francis James] Gillen, NativeTribes [of Central Australia, London, Macmillan, 1899], p. 502; Dawson, Australian Aborigines, p. 67.

394


e n c a m p m e n t . A m a n was d y i n g there. I m m e d i a t e l y , the w h o l e c o m p a n y b e gan t o r u n as fast as possible, a n d m o s t o f t h e m began t o scream even as they ran. " B e t w e e n us a n d t h e camp," say these observers, "there was a deep stream o n w h o s e banks sat several m e n ; scattered here a n d there, heads d o w n b e t w e e n t h e i r knees, they c r i e d a n d l a m e n t e d . " As we crossed the stream, we found the camp broken up, as required by custom. Some of the women, who had come from all directions, lay upon the body of the dying man; others stood or knelt all around it, pushing the points of their digging sticks into the tops of their heads, thereby causing wounds from which the blood ran down over their faces. They kept up a continuous wailing all the while. At this juncture, some men run up to the body, throwing themselves down upon it as the women get up; after a few moments, nothing is visible but a writhing mass of interlaced bodies. To one side, seated with their backs to the dying man, and still dressed in their ceremonial decorations, three men of the Thapungarti class let out piercing cries. After a minute or two, another man of the same class rushes onto the scene, screaming with pain and brandishing a stone knife. As soon as he reaches the camp, he makes such deep incisions across his thighs, into the muscles, that, unable to hold himself up, he finally falls on the ground in the midst of a group; two or three of his female relatives pull him away and apply their lips to his gaping wounds while he lies senseless.

T h e sick m a n d i d n o t die u n t i l late t h a t e v e n i n g . As s o o n as h e had d r a w n his last breath, t h e same scene began again. T h i s t i m e , t h e moans were even m o r e p e n e t r a t i n g . C a u g h t u p i n the same frenzy, m e n a n d w o m e n r a n back a n d f o r t h , c u t t i n g themselves w i t h knives a n d p o i n t e d sticks; t h e w o m e n h i t each other, w i t h n o o n e t r y i n g t o f e n d o f f the b l o w s . Finally, after an h o u r , a t o r c h l i g h t procession m o v e d across the p l a i n t o the tree i n w h o s e branches the b o d y h a d b e e n p l a c e d .

6

W h a t e v e r t h e i r v i o l e n c e , these displays are t i g h t l y c o n t r o l l e d b y e t i quette. C u s t o m designates t h e i n d i v i d u a l s w h o m a k e b l o o d y gashes o n t h e m selves; t h e y m u s t have specified k i n s h i p relations w i t h the deceased. I n the case Spencer a n d G i l l e n observed a m o n g the W a r r a m u n g a , those w h o slashed t h e i r thighs w e r e t h e m a t e r n a l grandfather, m a t e r n a l u n c l e , and wife's 7

b r o t h e r o f the deceased. O t h e r s are r e q u i r e d t o c u t t h e i r whiskers a n d hair

6


'Ibid., pp. 520—521. The authors do not tell us whether these are tribal or blood relatives. The first hypothesis is the more likely.

395


and t h e n cover t h e i r scalps w i t h p i p e clay. T h e w o m e n have especially r i g o r ous o b l i g a t i o n s . T h e y m u s t c u t t h e i r hair a n d cover t h e i r entire b o d y w i t h p i p e clay; f u r t h e r m o r e , t o t a l silence is i m p o s e d o n t h e m f o r the p e r i o d o f m o u r n i n g , w h i c h can last u p t o t w o years. As a result o f this p r o h i b i t i o n , i t is n o t u n c o m m o n a m o n g t h e W a r r a m u n g a f o r all t h e w o m e n o f a c a m p t o be c o n d e m n e d t o absolute silence. T h e y b e c o m e so accustomed t o i t that, even after t h e p e r i o d o f m o u r n i n g expires, t h e y v o l u n t a r i l y give u p spoken language a n d prefer sign language ( w h i c h t h e y use w i t h remarkable skill). Spencer a n d G i l l e n k n e w an o l d w o m a n w h o h a d n o t spoken f o r m o r e t h a n t w e n t y - f o u r years.

8

T h e c e r e m o n y I have described opens a l o n g sequence o f rites that o c c u r o n e after the o t h e r f o r weeks a n d even m o n t h s . I t is repeated i n various f o r m s over t h e days that f o l l o w . G r o u p s o f m e n a n d w o m e n sit o n the g r o u n d , c r y i n g , l a m e n t i n g , a n d e m b r a c i n g o n e a n o t h e r at p a r t i c u l a r times. T h e s e r i t u a l embraces are repeated o f t e n over the p e r i o d o f m o u r n i n g . T h e i n d i v i d u a l s feel t h e n e e d t o c o m e close t o o n e another, i t seems, and t o c o m m u n e i n t i m a t e l y . T h e y can be seen pressed t o g e t h e r a n d e n t w i n e d t o t h e p o i n t o f f o r m i n g a single mass t h a t emits l o u d m o a n s .

9

M e a n w h i l e , the

w o m e n g o b a c k t o lacerating t h e i r heads, a n d t h e y g o t o t h e e x t r e m e o f app l y i n g t h e ends o f r e d - h o t sticks t o t h e w o u n d s t h e y make, i n o r d e r t o aggravate t h e m .

1 0

Practices o f this sort are c o m m o n t h r o u g h o u t A u s t r a l i a . F u n e r a l r i t e s — that is, t h e r i t u a l a t t e n t i o n g i v e n t h e corpse, t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h i t is b u r i e d , a n d so f o r t h — v a r y f r o m t r i b e t o t r i b e

1 1

and, w i t h i n a single t r i b e , a c c o r d i n g

t o the age, sex, a n d social r a n k o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s .

12

B u t the ceremonies o f

'Ibid., pp. 525—526. Although only an abstinence, this prohibition against speaking, specifically women's, has all the signs of a piacular rite, for it is a way of inconveniencing oneself. This is why I mention it here. Fasting also can be either a piacular or an ascetic rite, depending on the circumstances. It depends on the conditions in which the fasting occurs and the aim sought (see below, p. 400, on the difference between these two sorts of rites). 9

A plate in Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 525, illustrates this rite quite vividly.

,0

lbid., p. 522.

"On the principal kinds of funeral rites, see [Alfred William] Howitt, NativeTribes [of South-East Australia, New York, Macmillan, 1904], pp. 446-508, for the tribes of the southeast; Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 505, and Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 497ff., for the tribes of the center; [Walter Edmund] Roth, North Queensland Ethnography, Bull. 9, in RAM, VI, part 5, 1907, pp. 365ff. ("Burial Ceremonies and Disposal of the Dead"). 12

See, for example, Roth, "Burial Ceremonies," p. 368; [Edward John] Eyre, Journals of Expeditions [of Discovery] into Central Australia [London, T. and W. Boone, 1845], vol. II, pp. 344—345, 347.

396


m o u r n i n g itself v a r y o n l y i n detail, repeating t h e same t h e m e everywhere. E v e r y w h e r e , there is the same silence p u n c t u a t e d b y w a i l i n g , o b l i g a t i o n t o c u t the hair o r b e a r d o r even e x c r e m e n t ;

15

14

1 3

the same

a n d cover the head w i t h p i p e clay, ashes,

e v e r y w h e r e , finally, there is the same frenzy o f beating,

lacerating, a n d b u r n i n g oneself. I n the center o f V i c t o r i a , " w h e n there is a death, the w o m e n cry, l a m e n t , a n d tear t h e s k i n o f t h e i r temples w i t h their fingernads.

T h e relatives o f the deceased lacerate themselves furiously, espe-

cially i f t h e y have lost a son. T h e father hits his head w i t h a t o m a h a w k and sobs bitterly. T h e m o t h e r , seated near t h e fire, b u r n s her breast and a b d o m e n w i t h a stick r e d d e n e d i n the fire. . . . S o m e t i m e s , these b u r n s are so c r u e l that death results."

16

A c c o r d i n g t o an a c c o u n t b y B r o u g h S m y t h , here is w h a t occurs i n the s o u t h e r n tribes o f the same state. O n c e the b o d y is l o w e r e d i n t o the grave, the w i d o w begins her funeral observances. She shears off the hair above her forehead, and, reaching outright frenzy, takes h o l d o f red-hot sticks and applies them to her chest, arms, legs, and thighs. She seems to enjoy the t o r tures she inflicts o n herself. I t w o u l d be rash and, besides, useless to t r y to stop her. W h e n she is so exhausted that she can no longer walk, she goes o n trying to kick the ashes o f the fire and throw them i n all directions. H a v i n g fallen o n the ground, she takes ashes into her hands and rubs her wounds w i t h them; then she scratches her face (the only part o f her body that the sticks passed through the fire have not touched). T h e blood that flows mingles w i t h the ashes that cover her wounds and, still scraping herself, she laments and cries o u t . 17

T h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f m o u r n i n g rites a m o n g the K u r n a i that H o w i t t gives us is r e m a r k a b l y s i m i l a r t o t h e p r e c e d i n g . O n c e the b o d y has b e e n w r a p p e d i n o p o s s u m s k i n a n d enclosed i n a b a r k s h r o u d , a h u t is b u d t , and i n i t the relatives gather. " T h e r e , l y i n g o n t h e g r o u n d , t h e y l a m e n t t h e i r fate, saying for e x a m p l e : ' W h y have y o u left us?' F r o m time t o t i m e , t h e i r g r i e f is i n t e n -

13

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 500; Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 507, 508; Eylmann [Die Eingeborenen], p. 241; Mrs. Langloh Parker [Catherine Sommerville Field Parker], The EuahlayiTribe [London: A. Constable, 1905], pp. 83£F.; Brough Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria, vol. I, p. 118. 14

Dawson, Australian Aborigines, p. 66; Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 466; Eylmann, Die Eingeborenen,

pp. 239-240. 15

Brough Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria, vol. I, p. 113.

16

W. E. Stanbridge, Transactions of the Ethnological Society of London, n.s., vol. I, p. 286.

"Brough Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria, vol. I, p. 104.

397


sified b y p e n e t r a t i n g moans f r o m o n e o f t h e m : T h e w i f e o f the deceased cries, ' M y h u s b a n d is dead,' o r the m o t h e r , ' M y c h i l d is dead.' E a c h o f those present repeats t h e same c r y : O n l y the w o r d s change, d e p e n d i n g u p o n the tie o f k i n s h i p each has w i t h the deceased. U s i n g sharpened stones o r t o m a hawks, t h e y beat and tear themselves u n t i l t h e i r heads a n d bodies stream w i t h b l o o d . T h e cries a n d moans c o n t i n u e t h r o u g h the n i g h t . "

1 8

Sadness is n o t the o n l y f e e l i n g expressed d u r i n g these ceremonies. A k i n d o f anger is usually m i n g l e d w i t h i t . T h e relatives apparently n e e d s o m e h o w t o avenge t h e death suffered. T h e y are seen t h r o w i n g themselves u p o n a n d t r y i n g t o w o u n d each o t h e r . T h e attack is sometimes real a n d sometimes pretended.

19

T h e r e are even cases i n w h i c h a k i n d o f d u e l i n g is organized.

A m o n g t h e K a i t i s h , the h a i r o f t h e deceased goes b y r i g h t t o his s o n - i n - l a w . I n t u r n , the s o n - i n - l a w m u s t go, t o g e t h e r w i t h a c o m p a n y o f relatives and friends, t o challenge o n e o f his t r i b a l b r o t h e r s (that is, a m a n w h o belongs t o the same m a r r i a g e class as he a n d w h o , as such, c o u l d also have m a r r i e d the d a u g h t e r o f the deceased). T h e challenge m a y n o t be refused, a n d the t w o combatants i n f l i c t serious injuries u p o n o n e another's shoulders a n d thighs. W h e n the d u e l is over, the challenger gives his adversary the hair he h a d c o n d i t i o n a l l y i n h e r i t e d . T h e adversary leaves, i n his o w n t u r n , t o challenge and f i g h t a n o t h e r o f his t r i b a l b r o t h e r s t o w h o m t h e precious relic is t h e n transm i t t e d , b u t always c o n d i t i o n a l l y ; i n this w a y i t passes from h a n d t o h a n d a n d circulates from g r o u p t o g r o u p .

2 0

M o r e o v e r , some part o f these same feelings

enters i n t o t h e sort o f rage w i t h w h i c h each relative beats, b u r n s , o r slashes himself. A p a i n that reaches such great i n t e n s i t y does n o t g o w i t h o u t anger. O n e c a n n o t b u t be s t r u c k b y t h e similarities o f these customs t o those o f the vendetta. B o t h arise from t h e same p r i n c i p l e : t h a t death calls f o r the s h e d d i n g o f b l o o d . T h e o n l y difference is that the v i c t i m s are relatives i n o n e case and strangers i n t h e o t h e r . A l t h o u g h w e n e e d n o t specifically discuss t h e vendetta, w h i c h falls u n d e r the d o m a i n o f legal i n s t i t u t i o n s , i t is appropriate t o s h o w h o w i t is c o n n e c t e d t o t h e m o u r n i n g rites, w h o s e e n d i t a n n o u n c e s .

21

I n some societies, m o u r n i n g concludes w i t h a c e r e m o n y w h o s e effervescence matches o r even surpasses that p r o d u c e d d u r i n g the o p e n i n g cerem o n i e s . A m o n g t h e A r u n t a , this r i t e o f c l o t u r e is called U r p m i l c h i m a . 18

Howitt, Native Tribes, p. 459. Similar scenes will be found in Eyre, Journals of Expedition, vol. II, pp. 255 n, 347; Roth, "Burial Ceremonies," especially pp. 394, 395; [George] Grey, [Journal of the Two Expeditions in North Western and Western Australia, London, T. and W. Boone, 1841], vol. II, pp. 320ff. 19

Brough Smyth, Aborigines ofVictoria, vol. I, pp. 104, 112; Roth, "Burial Ceremonies," p. 382.

20

Spencerand Gillen, Northern Tribes, pp. 511-512.

21

Dawson, Australian Aborigines, p. 67; Roth, "Burial Ceremonies," pp. 366—367.


398

Spencer and G i l l e n w e r e present at t w o o f these. O n e was c o n d u c t e d i n h o n o r o f a m a n , t h e o t h e r o f a w o m a n . H e r e is the d e s c r i p t i o n they give o f the w o m a n ' s .

22

T h e y b e g i n b y m a k i n g o r n a m e n t s o f a v e r y special type, w h i c h are called C h i m u r i l i a b y the m e n and A r a m u r i l i a b y t h e w o m e n . U s i n g a sort o f resin, t h e y glue small a n i m a l bones ( w h i c h have p r e v i o u s l y b e e n c o l l e c t e d and stored) t o locks o f hair f u r n i s h e d b y relatives o f the dead w o m a n . T h e y attach these pendants t o o n e o f those headbands o f t h e k i n d that w o m e n often wear, a d d i n g w h i t e c o c k a t o o a n d parakeet feathers t o i t . W h e n these preparations are c o m p l e t e , t h e w o m e n gather i n t h e i r camp. T h e y p a i n t t h e i r b o d ies w i t h different colors, a c c o r d i n g t o the degree o f t h e i r k i n s h i p w i t h the deceased. A f t e r h a v i n g h e l d themselves i n a m u t u a l embrace f o r a b o u t ten m i n u t e s , w a i l i n g all t h e w h i l e , t h e y b e g i n t o w a l k t o w a r d the t o m b . A t a cert a i n distance a l o n g the way, t h e y m e e t a b l o o d b r o t h e r o f t h e deceased, w h o is a c c o m p a n i e d b y some o f h e r t r i b a l brothers. T h e y all sit o n the g r o u n d , a n d the w a i l i n g begins again. T h e n , a p i t c h i

2 3

c o n t a i n i n g the C h i m u r i l i a s is

presented t o the o l d e r b r o t h e r , w h o presses i t against his stomach; this is said t o be a means o f lessening his p a i n . T h e y b r i n g o u t o n e o f these C h i m u r i l ias, a n d the m o t h e r o f t h e dead w o m a n puts i t o n her head f o r a f e w m o ments. T h e n i t is p u t back i n t o the p i t c h i , w h i c h the o t h e r m e n take turns pressing against t h e i r breasts. Finally, the b r o t h e r places t h e C h i m u r i l i a s o n the heads o f the t w o o l d e r sisters, a n d t h e y set o u t again f o r the t o m b . E n r o u t e , the m o t h e r t h r o w s h e r s e l f o n t h e g r o u n d several times, t r y i n g t o slash her head w i t h a p o i n t e d stick. E a c h t i m e , t h e o t h e r w o m e n l i f t her u p again a n d seem absorbed i n p r e v e n t i n g h e r from h u r t i n g herself. O n c e at the t o m b , she t h r o w s herself o n t h e m o u n d a n d tries t o destroy i t w i t h h e r hands, w h i l e the o t h e r w o m e n l i t e r a l l y dance o n t o p o f her. T h e t r i b a l m o t h e r s a n d aunts (father's sisters o f the dead w o m a n ) f o l l o w her example. T h e y , t o o , t h r o w themselves o n t h e g r o u n d , b e a t i n g a n d t e a r i n g at one another. I n the end, b l o o d streams over t h e i r entire bodies. A f t e r a t i m e , t h e y are p u l l e d away. T h e o l d e r sisters t h e n m a k e a h o l e i n t h e earth o f t h e t o m b , i n t o w h i c h t h e y place the C h i m u r i l i a s , w h i c h have p r e v i o u s l y b e e n b r o k e n i n t o pieces. O n c e again, the t r i b a l m o t h e r s t h r o w themselves o n t h e g r o u n d and slash each other's heads. A t this m o m e n t , " t h e c r y i n g a n d w a i l i n g o f t h e w o m e n w h o have r e m a i n e d all a r o u n d seemed t o rouse t h e m t o the u l t i m a t e degree o f e x c i t e m e n t . T h e b l o o d that flowed t h e l e n g t h o f t h e i r bodies, over the p i p e clay

22

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 508-510.

23

The small wooden vessel already described, above p. 338.

The Piacular PJtes and the Ambiguity of the Notion of the Sacred

399

w i t h w h i c h t h e y w e r e covered, gave t h e m the appearance o f ghosts. A t the end, the o l d m o t h e r r e m a i n e d alone l y i n g o n t h e t o m b , c o m p l e t e l y e x hausted a n d g r o a n i n g feebly." T h e others t h e n l i f t e d her u p again, a n d r e m o v e d t h e p i p e clay i n w h i c h she h a d b e e n covered. T h i s was t h e e n d o f the c e r e m o n y a n d o f the m o u r n i n g .

2 4

A m o n g t h e W a r r a m u n g a , t h e f i n a l r i t e has rather special features. A l t h o u g h the s h e d d i n g o f b l o o d seems t o have n o place i n i t , the collective effervescence is expressed differently. A m o n g this p e o p l e , before the b o d y is f i n a l l y b u r i e d , i t is l a i d o u t o n a sort o f p l a t f o r m i n the branches o f a tree a n d left there s l o w l y t o d e c o m p o s e u n t i l o n l y t h e bones r e m a i n . T h e bones are t h e n c o l l e c t e d and, w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f o n e h u m e r u s , placed inside an a n t h i l l . T h e h u m e r u s is w r a p p e d i n a b a r k sheath that is decorated i n various ways. T h e sheath is c a r r i e d t o the c a m p a m i d the shrieks a n d moans o f w o m e n . I n the days that f o l l o w , the W a r r a m u n g a c o n d u c t a series o f t o t e m i c ceremonies, w h i c h refer t o t h e t o t e m o f the deceased a n d t o the m y t h i c a l h i s t o r y o f t h e ancestors f r o m w h o m the clan is descended. W h e n all these ceremonies are over, t h e y m o v e o n t o the r i t e o f c l o t u r e . A t r e n c h o n e f o o t deep a n d fifteen feet l o n g is m a d e o n the c e r e m o n i a l g r o u n d . A t o t e m i c design has p r e v i o u s l y b e e n d r a w n o n the g r o u n d at a distance f r o m i t , the design representing the t o t e m o f the deceased and c e r t a i n places w h e r e the ancestor s o j o u r n e d . A small t r e n c h has b e e n d u g i n the g r o u n d v e r y near this design. T e n d e c o r a t e d m e n t h e n advance, o n e after the other. W i t h t h e i r hands crossed b e h i n d t h e i r heads a n d t h e i r legs apart, they stand astride t h e t r e n c h . W h e n t h e signal is g i v e n , t h e w o m e n r u s h f r o m t h e camp, i n the deepest sdence. W h e n t h e y are near, t h e y get i n t o single file, t h e last h o l d i n g i n her hands the sheath c o n t a i n i n g the h u m e r u s . T h e n t h e y all t h r o w themselves o n t h e g r o u n d and, m o v i n g o n t h e i r hands a n d knees b e t w e e n the spread legs o f the m e n , c r a w l t h e f u l l l e n g t h o f the t r e n c h . T h i s scene marks a state o f great sexual e x c i t e m e n t . A s s o o n as the last w o m a n has passed, the sheath is taken away f r o m her a n d c a r r i e d t o w a r d t h e h o l e , near w h i c h stands an o l d m a n ; he breaks t h e b o n e i n o n e stroke, a n d the pieces are speedily b u r i e d . D u r i n g this t i m e , the w o m e n have r e m a i n e d farther away w i t h t h e i r backs t o t h e scene, w h i c h t h e y are f o r b i d d e n t o w a t c h . B u t w h e n t h e y hear t h e b l o w o f t h e axe, t h e y flee, s h r i e k i n g a n d m o a n i n g . T h e r i t e is over; the m o u r n i n g d o n e .

2 5

2 4

s encer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 508—510. The other last rite that Spencer and Gillen attended is described on pp. 503-508 of the same work. It does not differ fundamentally from the one I have just analyzed. P

25



400

II These rites b e l o n g t o a category v e r y different f r o m those I have c o n s t r u c t e d thus far. T h i s is n o t t o say that i m p o r t a n t resemblances b e t w e e n t h e m cannot be f o u n d , a n d there w i l l be occasion t o n o t e those; b u t t h e differences are perhaps m o r e o b v i o u s . Instead o f j o y f u l dances, songs, a n d dramatic p e r f o r mances, w h i c h e n t e r t a i n a n d relax t h e s p i r i t , there are tears a n d l a m e n t s — i n short, t h e m o s t v a r i e d displays o f anguished s o r r o w a n d a k i n d o f m u t u a l p i t y that takes u p the e n t i r e scene. A l t h o u g h there c e r t a i n l y is shedding o f b l o o d i n t h e course o f the I n t i c h i u m a , that is an o f f e r i n g made o u t o f pious enthusiasm. So a l t h o u g h t h e actions resemble o n e another, the feelings they express are different a n d even opposite. Sinularly, ascetic rites d o i n deed i n v o l v e abstinences, p r o h i b i t i o n s , a n d m u t i l a t i o n s that m u s t b e b o r n e w i t h impassive firmness a n d a k i n d o f serenity. B u t here, despondency, cries, a n d tears are the r u l e . T h e ascetic t o r t u r e s h i m s e l f i n o r d e r t o p r o v e — i n the eyes o f his n e i g h b o r as w e l l as his o w n — t h a t h e is above suffering. I n m o u r n i n g , p e o p l e h u r t themselves i n o r d e r t o p r o v e that t h e y are i n the g r i p o f suffering. A l l these signs are recognizable as characteristic traits o f piacular rites. H o w m a y these rites be explained? O n e i n i t i a l fact remains constant: M o u r n i n g is n o t t h e spontaneous e x pression o f i n d i v i d u a l e m o t i o n s .

2 6

I f t h e relatives cry, l a m e n t , a n d beat t h e m -

selves b l a c k a n d b l u e , the reason is n o t that t h e y feel personally affected b y t h e death o f t h e i r k i n s m a n . I n p a r t i c u l a r cases, t o be sure, t h e sadness e x pressed m a y h a p p e n t o be t r u l y f e l t .

27

B u t generally there is n o relationship

b e t w e e n t h e feelings felt a n d the actions d o n e b y those w h o take part i n the rite:

2 8

I f , at t h e v e r y m o m e n t w h e n t h e m o u r n e r s seem m o s t o v e r c o m e b y

t h e p a i n , s o m e o n e t u r n s t o t h e m t o talk a b o u t some secular interest, t h e i r faces a n d t o n e o f t e n change instantly, t a k i n g o n a c h e e r f u l air, a n d t h e y speak w i t h all the gaiety i n the w o r l d .

2 9

M o u r n i n g is n o t t h e n a t u r a l response o f a

private sensibility h u r t b y a c r u e l loss. I t is an o b l i g a t i o n i m p o s e d b y the g r o u p . O n e laments n o t s i m p l y because o n e is sad b u t because o n e is o b l i -

26

Contrary to what [Frank Byron] Jevons says, Introduction to the History of Religions [London, Methuen, 1896], pp. 46fF. 27

This is what leads Dawson to say that people mourn sincerely (Australian Aborigines, p. 66). But Eylmann declares that he has known only one case of wounding for sadness really felt (Die Eingeborenen, p. 113). 28


29

Eylmann, Die Eingeborenen, pp. 238—239.

401


gated t o l a m e n t . I t is a r i t u a l facade that m u s t be a d o p t e d o u t o f respect f o r c u s t o m , b u t o n e that is largely i n d e p e n d e n t o f the i n d i v i d u a l s ' e m o t i o n a l states. M o r e o v e r , this o b l i g a t i o n is sanctioned b y m y t h i c o r social penalties. I t is believed, f o r example, that w h e n a relative does n o t p r o p e r l y c a r r y o u t m o u r n i n g , the soul o f t h e deceased dogs his steps a n d kills h i m .

3 0

I n other

cases, society does n o t leave t h e p u n i s h m e n t o f the neglectful t o religious forces b u t steps i n t o p u n i s h r i t u a l lapses. I f a b r o t h e r - i n - l a w does n o t c a r r y o u t the funeral obligations he owes t o his f a t h e r - i n - l a w , i f he does n o t make the m a n d a t o r y incisions o n himself, his t r i b a l f a t h e r s - i n - l a w take his w i f e back a n d give her t o s o m e o n e else.

31

I n order to do r i g h t by custom, there-

fore, sometimes t h e y force tears a r t i f i c i a l l y .

32

W h e r e does this o b l i g a t i o n c o m e from? E t h n o g r a p h e r s a n d sociologists have generally b e e n satisfied w i t h the n a tives' o w n answer t o this q u e s t i o n . T h e natives say that t h e dead m a n wants t o be m o u r n e d , that he is offended i f d e n i e d his r i g h t f u l t r i b u t e o f sorrow, and that the o n l y w a y t o prevent his anger is t o c o n f o r m t o his w i s h e s .

33

B u t this m y t h o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n m e r e l y changes the terms o f the p r o b l e m a n d does n o t solve i t ; w e still n e e d t o k n o w w h y t h e dead m a n i m p e r a t i v e l y demands m o u r n i n g . I t w i l l be said that i t is i n t h e nature o f m a n t o w a n t t o be m o u r n e d a n d missed: B u t t o use this f e e l i n g t o e x p l a i n the c o m p l e x apparatus o f rites that constitute m o u r n i n g is t o ascribe affective needs t o the A u s t r a l i a n that even the c i v i l i z e d m a n does n o t display. L e t us grant s o m e t h i n g that is n o t self-evident a priori: that t h e idea o f n o t b e i n g t o o q u i c k l y f o r g o t t e n is n a t u r a l l y pleasing t o the m a n w h o t h i n k s o f the future. E v e n i f that was t r u e , w e w o u l d still n e e d t o establish that i t has always h a d so large a place i n t h e hearts o f the l i v i n g that an a t t i t u d e based almost e n t i r e l y o n such a c o n c e r n c o u l d reasonably have b e e n ascribed t o t h e dead. I t seems especially i m p r o b a b l e that such a f e e l i n g c o u l d have managed so c o m p l e t e l y t o p r e o c c u p y a n d impassion m e n w h o j u s t barely have the h a b i t o f t h i n k i n g b e y o n d the present. I t is far f r o m t r u e that t h e desire t o live o n i n the m e m o r y o f t h e survivors m u s t be regarded as the r o o t o f m o u r n i n g . R a t h e r , o n e begins t o ask oneself w h e t h e r i t is n o t m o u r n i n g itself, o n c e i n stituted, that awakened t h e n o t i o n o f a n d taste f o r p o s t h u m o u s l a m e n t a t i o n . I f w e k n o w w h a t p r i m i t i v e m o u r n i n g is, the standard i n t e r p r e t a t i o n seems all t h e m o r e untenable. I t consists n o t m e r e l y o f p i o u s regrets accorded •"'Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 507; Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 498. 3!

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 500; Eylmann, Die Eingeborenen, p. 227.

32

Brough Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria, vol. I, p. 114.

33


402


t o the o n e w h o is n o m o r e b u t also o f harsh abstinences a n d c r u e l sacrifices. T h e r i t e n o t o n l y demands that o n e t h i n k o f the deceased i n a m e l a n c h o l y w a y b u t that o n e beat, bruise, lacerate, a n d b u r n oneself. W e have even seen that people i n m o u r n i n g are so c a r r i e d away i n t o r t u r i n g themselves that t h e y sometimes d o n o t survive t h e i r w o u n d s . W h a t w o u l d be the dead man's reason f o r i m p o s i n g such tortures u p o n them? S u c h c r u e l t y o n his part i n d i cates s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n a desire n o t t o be f o r g o t t e n . F o r the deceased t o find

pleasure i n seeing his o w n suffer, h e w o u l d have t o hate t h e m a n d thirst

f o r t h e i r b l o o d . T h i s f e r o c i t y w i l l n o d o u b t seem n a t u r a l t o those f o r w h o m every s p i r i t is necessarily an e v i l a n d dreaded p o w e r . B u t w e k n o w that there are all k i n d s o f spirits. H o w does i t h a p p e n that the soul o f the deceased s h o u l d necessarily be an e v i l spirit? As l o n g as the m a n is alive, he loves his k i n a n d trades favors w i t h t h e m . Is i t n o t strange that his soul s h o u l d s l o u g h o f f his earlier feelings t h e instant i t is freed f r o m the b o d y , so as t o b e c o m e a m e a n a n d t o r m e n t i n g genie? Yet generally, t h e dead m a n retains the p e r s o n ality o f the o n e w h o l i v e d ; he has t h e same character, t h e same hatreds, and the same affections. So the m e t a m o r p h o s i s is far from b e i n g self-evident a n d c o m p r e h e n s i b l e . T r u e , t h e natives i m p l i c i t l y c o n c e d e that p o i n t w h e n t h e y e x p l a i n the r i t e b y the demands o f the deceased; b u t the q u e s t i o n precisely is t o k n o w from w h e n c e that idea came t o t h e m . Far from o u r b e i n g able t o r e gard that m e t a m o r p h o s i s as a t r u i s m , i t is as obscure as t h e r i t e itself and, hence, inadequate t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e r i t e . Finally, a l t h o u g h o n e m a y have f o u n d the reasons f o r this s t u n n i n g transf o r m a t i o n , o n e w o u l d still have t o e x p l a i n w h y i t is o n l y t e m p o r a r y , f o r i t does n o t last b e y o n d m o u r n i n g . O n c e t h e rites have b e e n done, the deceased o n c e again becomes w h a t he was i n life: an affectionate a n d d e v o t e d relative. H e places the n e w capacities he gains from his n e w c o n d i t i o n at the disposal o f his o w n .

3 4

F r o m t h e n o n , he is seen as a g o o d genie, always ready t o help

those he o n c e t o r m e n t e d . F r o m w h e n c e c o u l d these successive reversals have arisen? I f the b a d feelings ascribed t o the soul arise o n l y from t h e fact that i t is n o l o n g e r alive, t h e n t h e y o u g h t t o r e m a i n i n v a r i a n t . A n d i f m o u r n i n g d e rives f r o m such feelings, t h e n i t o u g h t t o be w i t h o u t e n d . These m y t h i c a l explanations d o n o t translate the r i t e itself b u t the idea the i n d i v i d u a l has o f i t . I n o r d e r t o c o n f r o n t the reality t h e y d o translate b u t distort, w e can p u t t h e m aside. W h d e m o u r n i n g differs f r o m o t h e r f o r m s o f the positive c u l t , i t resembles t h e m i n o n e respect: I t t o o is made o f c o l l e c -

34

Several examples of this belief are to be found in Howitt, NativeTribes, p. 435. Cf. Strehlow, Aranda, vol. I, pp. 15—16 and vol. II, p. 7.


403

tive rites that b r i n g a b o u t a state o f effervescence i n those w h o take part. T h e intense feelings are different; the w i l d i n t e n s i t y is the same. Presumably, therefore, t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f the j o y f u l rites is applicable t o t h e sad rites, p r o v i d e d t h e i r terms are transposed. W h e n an i n d i v i d u a l dies, the f a m i l y g r o u p t o w h i c h he belongs feels d i m i n i s h e d , a n d i t comes t o g e t h e r t o react t o this d i m i n i s h m e n t . A shared m i s f o r t u n e has the same effect as the approach o f a happy event. I t enlivens collective feelings, w h i c h lead i n d i v i d u a l s t o seek o n e a n o t h e r o u t and c o m e together. I n fact, w e have seen this n e e d a f f i r m itself sometimes w i t h special e n e r g y — p e o p l e kissing a n d p u t t i n g t h e i r arms a r o u n d o n e another, pressing as close t o g e t h e r as possible. B u t the e m o t i o n a l state i n w h i c h the g r o u p finds itself reflects t h e circumstances i t is t h e n g o i n g t h r o u g h . N o t o n l y d o the k i n m o s t i m m e d i a t e l y affected b r i n g t h e i r personal s o r r o w t o the g a t h e r i n g , b u t the society exerts m o r a l pressure o n its m e m b e r s , a n d they b r i n g t h e i r feelings i n t o h a r m o n y w i t h t h e s i t u a t i o n . I f society p e r m i t t e d t h e m t o r e m a i n indifferent t o the b l o w that strikes a n d diminishes i t , i t w o u l d be p r o c l a i m i n g that i t does n o t h o l d its r i g h t f u l place i n t h e i r hearts. I n d e e d , i t w o u l d d e n y itself. F o r a f a m i l y t o tolerate t h a t o n e o f its m e m b e r s s h o u l d die w i t h o u t b e i n g m o u r n e d w o u l d give witness thereby that i t lacks m o r a l u n i t y a n d c o h e siveness: I t abdicates; i t renounces its existence. F o r his part, w h e n the i n d i v i d u a l feels f i r m l y attached t o the society t o w h i c h h e belongs, h e feels m o r a l l y b o u n d t o share i n its g r i e f a n d its j o y . T o a b a n d o n i t w o u l d be t o break the ties that b i n d h i m t o the collectivity, t o give u p w a n t i n g c o l l e c t i v i t y , a n d t o c o n t r a d i c t himself. I f the C h r i s t i a n fasts a n d m o r t i f i e s h i m s e l f d u r i n g t h e c o m m e m o r a t i v e feasts o f the Passion a n d the J e w o n t h e anniversary o f Jerusalem's fall, i t is n o t t o give w a y t o sadness spontaneously felt. I n those circumstances, t h e believer's i n w a r d state is i n d i s p r o p o r t i o n t o the harsh abstinences t o w h i c h he submits. I f he is sad, i t is first and foremost because he forces h i m s e l f t o b e a n d disciplines h i m s e l f t o t o be; a n d he disciplines h i m s e l f t o be i n o r d e r t o a f f i r m his faith. T h e a t t i t u d e o f t h e A u s t r a l i a n i n m o u r n i n g is t o b e u n d e r s t o o d i n the same way. I f he cries a n d moans, i t is n o t o n l y t o express i n d i v i d u a l sadness b u t also t o f u l f i l l a d u t y t o the f e e l i n g — a n o b l i g a t o r y feeling o f w h i c h the society a r o u n d h i m does n o t fad t o r e m i n d h i m o n occasion. W e k n o w f r o m elsewhere h o w h u m a n feelings intensify w h e n t h e y are c o l l e c t i v e l y a f f i r m e d . L i k e j o y , sadness is h e i g h t e n e d a n d a m p l i f i e d b y its reverberation f r o m

one

consciousness t o the n e x t , a n d t h e n i t gradually

expresses itself o v e r t l y as unrestrained a n d convulsive m o v e m e n t . T h i s n o l o n g e r is the j o y f u l a n i m a t i o n that w e observed a w h i l e ago; i t is cries and shrieks o f p a i n . E v e r y p e r s o n is p u l l e d a l o n g b y every other, and s o m e t h i n g

404


l i k e a panic o f sadness occurs. W h e n the p a i n reaches such a p i t c h , i t b e comes suffused w i t h a k i n d o f anger and exasperation. O n e feels the need t o break o r destroy s o m e t h i n g . O n e attacks oneself o r others. O n e strikes, w o u n d s , o r b u r n s oneself, o r o n e attacks s o m e o n e else, i n o r d e r t o strike, w o u n d , o r b u r n h i m . T h u s was established the m o u r n i n g c u s t o m o f g i v i n g oneself over t o veritable orgies o f t o r t u r e . I t seems t o m e probable that the vendetta a n d head h u n t i n g have n o o t h e r o r i g i n . I f every death is i m p u t e d t o some m a g i c a l spell a n d i f , f o r that reason, i t is b e l i e v e d that the dead person m u s t be avenged, the reason is a felt n e e d t o f i n d a v i c t i m at all costs o n w h o m t h e c o l l e c t i v e s o r r o w a n d anger can be discharged. T h i s v i c t i m w i l l naturally be sought outside, f o r an outsider is a subject minoris resistentiae*'; since he is n o t p r o t e c t e d b y the f e l l o w - f e e l i n g t h a t attaches t o a relative o r a n e i g h b o r , n o t h i n g a b o u t h i m b l o c k s a n d neutralizes t h e b a d a n d destructive feelings aroused b y t h e death. P r o b a b l y f o r the same reason, a w o m a n serves m o r e o f t e n t h a n a m a n as t h e passive o b j e c t o f t h e m o s t c r u e l m o u r n i n g rites. Because she has l o w e r social significance, she is m o r e readily singled o u t t o f i l l the f u n c t i o n o f scapegoat. W e see that this e x p l a n a t i o n o f m o u r n i n g leaves ideas o f soul o r s p i r i t e n t i r e l y o u t o f account. T h e o n l y forces really at w o r k are o f an e n t i r e l y i m p e r sonal nature; these forces are t h e e m o t i o n s that t h e death o f a m e m b e r arouses i n t h e g r o u p . B u t the p r i m i t i v e does n o t k n o w the psychic m e c h a n i s m

from

w h i c h all these practices arise. T h u s , w h e n he tries t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e m , he has t o forge a q u i t e different e x p l a n a t i o n f o r himself. A l l he k n o w s is that he m u s t p a i n f u l l y m o r t i f y himself. Because every o b l i g a t i o n arouses the idea o f a w i l l that obligates, he l o o k s a r o u n d h i m f o r t h e source o f the constraint he feels. N o w there is a m o r a l p o w e r w h o s e reality seems t o h i m c e r t a i n a n d a l t o g e t h e r apt f o r this r o l e — a n d that is t h e s o u l set at l i b e r t y b y t h e death. For w h a t c o u l d be m o r e interested t h a n the s o u l i n the repercussions o f its o w n demise f o r the living? T h e r e f o r e , w e i m a g i n e that i f the l i v i n g i n f l i c t u n n a t u r a l t r e a t m e n t u p o n themselves, i t is t o g i v e i n t o the soul's demands. T h e idea o f the s o u l must therefore have entered the m y t h o l o g y o f m o u r n i n g after the fact. M o r e o v e r , since i n h u m a n demands are a t t r i b u t e d t o the soul, w e m u s t o n those g r o u n d s suppose that i t a b a n d o n e d all h u m a n feeling w h e n i t left the b o d y i t f o r m e r l y a n i m a t e d . T h u s is e x p l a i n e d the m e t a m o r p h o s i s that

*Less able to resist. This account of scapegoating, as a process by which society reaffirms itself in the face of loss, is closely analogous to Durkheim's 1899 account of anti-Semitism in France: "When society undergoes suffering, it feels the need to find someone whom it can holdresponsiblefor its sickness, on whom it can avenge its misfortunes: and those against whom opinion already discriminates are naturally desiginated for this role. These are the pariahs who serve as expiatory victims." Quoted in Steven Lukes, Entile Dürkheim: His Life and Work (London, Allen Lane, 1973), p. 345.

405

The Macular Rites and the Ambiguity of the Notion of the Sacred

makes a dreaded e n e m y o u t o f yesterday's relative. T h i s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n is n o t the genesis o f m o u r n i n g b u t rather its sequel. I t expresses the change that has o c c u r r e d i n t h e e m o t i o n a l state o f the g r o u p . T h e dead m a n is n o t m o u r n e d because h e is feared; he is feared because h e is m o u r n e d . T h i s change i n e m o t i o n a l state can o n l y be temporary. T h e rites o f m o u r n i n g b o t h result f r o m a n d c o n c l u d e i t . T h e y gradually neutralize the v e r y causes that gave t h e m b i r t h . T h e basis o f m o u r n i n g is the impression o f enfeeblement that is felt b y the g r o u p w h e n i t loses a m e m b e r . B u t this v e r y impression has the effect o f b r i n g i n g the i n d i v i d u a l s close to one another, p u t t i n g t h e m i n t o closer t o u c h , a n d i n d u c i n g i n t h e m the same state o f soul. A n d from all this comes a sensation o f r e n e w e d strength, w h i c h counteracts the o r i g i n a l enfeeblement. People c r y t o g e t h e r because they c o n t i n u e t o be precious t o o n e a n o t h e r and because, regardless o f the b l o w that has fallen u p o n i t , the c o l l e c t i v i t y is n o t breached. T o be sure, i n that case they o n l y share sad e m o t i o n s i n c o m m o n ; b u t t o c o m m u n e i n sadness is still t o c o m m u n e , a n d every c o m m u n i o n o f consciousnesses increases social vitality, i n w h a t e v e r f o r m i t is d o n e . T h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y v i o l e n c e o f the displays that necessarily a n d o b l i g a t o r i l y express the shared s o r r o w is evidence that, even at this m o m e n t , society is m o r e alive and active t h a n ever. I n fact, w h e n social f e e l i n g suffers a p a i n f u l shock, i t reacts w i t h greater force t h a n usual. O n e never holds so t i g h d y to one's f a m i l y as w h e n i t has j u s t b e e n tested. T h i s excess o f energy all the m o r e t h o r o u g h l y erases t h e effects o f t h e c r i p p l i n g that o c c u r r e d t o b e g i n w i t h , a n d i n this w a y t h e sensation o f c o l d that death e v e r y w h e r e b r i n g s w i t h it is dissipated. T h e g r o u p feels its s t r e n g t h g r a d u a l l y c o m i n g back t o i t ; i t b e gins again t o h o p e a n d t o live. O n e comes o u t o f m o u r n i n g , and o n e comes o u t o f i t thanks t o m o u r n i n g itself. B u t since t h e idea p e o p l e have o f t h e soul reflects the m o r a l state o f the society, that idea m u s t change w h e n the state changes. W h i l e t h e p e o p l e w e r e i n the p e r i o d o f d e j e c t i o n and anguish, they c o n c e i v e d o f the s o u l as h a v i n g the traits o f an e v i l b e i n g , interested o n l y i n p e r s e c u t i n g m e n . N o w that t h e y again feel c o n f i d e n c e and security, they m u s t concede that t h e s o u l has recovered its o r i g i n a l nature and its o r i g i n a l feelings o f tenderness a n d solidarity. T h u s can be e x p l a i n e d the v e r y different ways i n w h i c h i t is c o n c e i v e d at different p e r i o d s o f its existence.

35

35

One may ask why repeated ceremonies are necessary to bring about the relief that follows mourning. First, it is because funerals are often very long, with multiple procedures that spread out over many months. In this way, they prolong and maintain the moral disturbance caused by the death (cf. [Robert] Hertz, ["Contribution a une etude sur la] representation collective de la mort," AS, vol. X [1907], pp. 48ff.). Furthermore, death is a profound change, with wide and lasting repercussions for the group. It takestimefor those effects to be neutralized.


406

N o t o n l y d o m o u r n i n g rites b r i n g i n t o b e i n g certain o f the secondary characteristics ascribed t o the soul, b u t perhaps, as w e l l , the idea that the soul outlives the b o d y is n o t alien t o t h e m . T o be i n a p o s i t i o n t o understand the practices t o w h i c h he subjects h i m s e l f w h e n a relative dies, m a n has n o choice b u t t o believe that those practices are n o t a matter o f indifference t o the deceased. T h e shedding o f b l o o d that is so w i d e l y practiced i n m o u r n i n g is actually a sacrifice t o the dead m a n .

3 6

I t is d o n e because some part o f the deceased

person lives o n , a n d since w h a t lives o n is n o t the body, w h i c h is o b v i o u s l y n o t m o v i n g a n d is d e c o m p o s i n g , that part can o n l y be the soul. O f course, i t is i m possible t o say f o r certain w h a t role these considerations played i n the o r i g i n o f the idea o f life after death. B u t p r o b a b l y the i n f l u e n c e o f the c u l t was i n this case w h a t i t is elsewhere. R i t e s are easier t o e x p l a i n w h e n they are t h o u g h t o f as b e i n g addressed t o personal beings; i n this way, m e n were p r o m p t e d t o e x t e n d the influence o f m y t h i c personalities i n religious life. So that they c o u l d account f o r m o u r n i n g , they e x t e n d e d the existence o f the soul b e y o n d the t o m b . H e r e is a f u r t h e r example o f the w a y i n w h i c h rites react u p o n beliefs.

Ill D e a t h is n o t the o n l y event that can unsettle a c o m m u n i t y . T h e r e are a g o o d m a n y o t h e r occasions f o r m e n t o be saddened a n d b e c o m e disquieted. A n d so w e m i g h t anticipate that even the Australians k n o w a n d c o n d u c t piacular rites o t h e r t h a n those o f m o u r n i n g . I t is n o t e w o r t h y , h o w e v e r , that o n l y a small n u m b e r o f examples can be f o u n d i n observers' accounts. O n e r i t e o f this sort v e r y closely resembles those j u s t studied. R e c a l l that, a m o n g the A r u n t a , each l o c a l g r o u p ascribes e x c e p t i o n a l l y i m p o r t a n t v i r t u e s t o its c o l l e c t i o n o f churingas. I t is a c o l l e c t i v e p a l l a d i u m , w h o s e fate is l i n k e d w i t h that o f the c o l l e c t i v i t y . T h u s , w h e n enemies o r w h i t e m e n manage t o u n c o v e r o n e o f these r e l i g i o u s treasures, the loss is d e e m e d a p u b l i c calamity. T h i s m i s f o r t u n e is the occasion o f a r i t e that has all the characteristics o f m o u r n i n g . B o d i e s are covered w i t h w h i t e p i p e clay, a n d at the c a m p t w o weeks are spent i n w a n i n g a n d l a m e n t a t i o n .

3 7

T h i s is f u r t h e r evidence that

m o u r n i n g is caused n o t b y t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h t h e s o u l o f the dead person

36

In a case reported by Grey, based on an observation by Bussel, the rite is quite like sacrifice, with the blood being poured onto the corpse itself (Grey, Journal of Two Expeditions, vol. II, p. 330). In other instances, there is a sort of beard offering, in which the men in mourning cut off part of their beards, which they throw on the corpse (ibid., p. 335). 37

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, pp. 135—136.

407


is c o n c e i v e d b u t b y i m p e r s o n a l causes, b y the m o r a l state o f the g r o u p . H e r e , i n d e e d , is a r i t e w h o s e structure c a n n o t be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m m o u r n i n g p r o p e r a n d yet does n o t d e p e n d u p o n any idea o f s p i r i t o r evil d e m o n .

3 8

T h e distress i n w h i c h society finds itself w h e n t h e harvests have b e e n i n sufficient is a n o t h e r circumstance that gives rise t o ceremonies o f this sort. " T h e natives w h o live i n t h e environs o f Lake E y r e , " says E y l m a n n , "also t r y t o c o n j u r e away t h e i n a d e q u a c y o f the f o o d s u p p l y w i t h secret ceremonies. B u t several o f the r i t u a l practices observed i n this r e g i o n are different f r o m those p r e v i o u s l y discussed: T h e y seek t o act u p o n the r e l i g i o u s powers o r forces o f nature n o t w i t h s y m b o l i c dances, m i m e t i c m o v e m e n t s , a n d dazzling decorations, b u t w i t h sufferings that the i n d i v i d u a l s i n f l i c t u p o n themselves. I n t h e n o r t h e r n t e r r i t o r i e s , as w e l l , t h e y strive t o appease those powers that are i l l - d i s p o s e d t o w a r d m e n , b y u s i n g tortures such as p r o l o n g e d fasts, v i g i l s , dances c a r r i e d o n u n t i l the dancers are exhausted, a n d physical suffering o f all k i n d s . "

3 9

T h e t o r m e n t s the natives u n d e r g o f o r this p u r p o s e

sometimes

leave t h e m so w o r n o u t that t h e y are unable t o h u n t f o r m a n y days.

40

T h e s e practices are used m o s t o f all t o c o m b a t d r o u g h t , since l a c k o f w a ter leads t o general f a m i n e . T h e y resort t o v i o l e n t means o f r e m e d y i n g this e v i l . O n e o f t h e means used is t o o t h e x t r a c t i o n . A m o n g t h e K a i t i s h , f o r e x a m p l e , an i n c i s o r is e x t r a c t e d from an i n d i v i d u a l a n d h u n g f r o m a t r e e .

41

A m o n g the D i e r i , the idea o f r a i n is closely associated w i t h that o f b l o o d y i n cisions made o n the s k i n o f t h e t h o r a x a n d a r m s .

42

A m o n g the same people,

w h e n the d r o u g h t is v e r y severe, t h e g r a n d c o u n c i l meets and s u m m o n s the w h o l e t r i b e . I t is a g e n u i n e l y t r i b a l event. W o m e n are sent f o r t h i n all d i rections t o call the p e o p l e t o g e t h e r at a p r e s c r i b e d place and t i m e . O n c e gathered, t h e y are heard t o g r o a n , t o scream i n p i e r c i n g voices a b o u t the m i s erable state o f the l a n d , a n d t o ask the M u r a - m u r a s ( m y t h i c a l ancestors) t o confer o n t h e m t h e p o w e r t o m a k e a b u n d a n t r a i n f a l l .

4 3

I n cases (very rare,

h o w e v e r ) w h e n there has b e e n t o o m u c h , an analogous c e r e m o n y t o stop the

38

Of course, each churinga is considered to be connected with an ancestor. Sail, lost churingas are not mourned in order to appease the spirits of the ancestors. I have shown elsewhere (pp. 121-122) that the idea of the ancestor entered into the idea of the churinga only in a secondary way, and after the fact. 39

Eylmann, Die Eingeborenen, p. 207; cf. p. 116.

4ll

4,

Ibid„ p. 208.

Ibid., p. 211.

42

[Alffed William] Howitt, "The Dieri [and Other Kindred Tribes of Central Australia"], JAI, vol. XX (1891), p. 93. 43



408

r a i n takes place. T h e o l d m e n t h e n enter i n t o a state o f o u t - a n d - o u t f r e n z y , a n d the cries m a d e b y t h e c r o w d are pathetic t o h e a r .

44

45

Spencer and G i l l e n r e c o u n t a c e r e m o n y f o r us, u n d e r the name I n t i c h i u m a , that m a y w e l l have the same purpose a n d o r i g i n as the preceding. Physical t o r t u r e is used t o make an a n i m a l species m u l t i p l y . T h e r e is a clan a m o n g the U r a b u n n a that has a k i n d o f snake called wadnungadni as its t o t e m . T h i s is h o w the c h i e f goes about " m a k i n g sure that a n i m a l does n o t fail t o reproduce." A f t e r d e c o r a t i n g himself, he kneels o n the g r o u n d , w i t h his arms fully e x tended. A helper pinches the skin o f the r i g h t a r m b e t w e e n his fingers w h i l e the celebrant forces a p o i n t e d b o n e five inches l o n g t h r o u g h the f o l d thereby f o r m e d . T h e left a r m is treated i n the same way. T h i s s e l f - m u t i l a t i o n is h e l d t o p r o d u c e the desired r e s u l t .

46

A m o n g the D i e r i , an analogous r i t e is used t o

make the w i l d c h i c k e n lay eggs: T h e celebrants pierce t h e i r s c r o t u m s .

47

I n cer-

tain o t h e r tribes o f Lake Eyre, the ear is p i e r c e d t o make the yams p r o d u c e .

48

Partial o r t o t a l famines are n o t the o n l y disasters that can befall a t r i b e . O t h e r events t h a t threaten o r seem t o threaten t h e group's existence o c c u r f r o m t i m e t o t i m e . T h i s is the case, f o r example, o f t h e s o u t h e r n lights. T h e K u r n a i believe that i t is a fire l i t i n the sky b y the h i g h g o d M u n g a n - n g a u a . T h i s is w h y , w h e n t h e y see t h e lights, t h e y fear that fire w i l l spread t o earth a n d e n g u l f t h e m . T h e result is a great effervescence i n t h e camp. T h e K u r n a i shake t h e d r i e d h a n d o f a dead m a n , t o w h i c h t h e y ascribe an assortment o f v i r t u e s , a n d t h e y g i v e o u t yells such as: " S e n d i t back; d o n o t let us b u r n . " A t the same t i m e , b y o r d e r o f t h e elders, there are exchanges o f wives, w h i c h a l ways signals great e x c i t e m e n t .

49

T h e same sexual license is r e p o r t e d a m o n g

the W i i m b a i o w h e n e v e r some c a l a m i t y appears i m m i n e n t , a n d especially i n times o f e p i d e m i c .

5 0

U n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f these ideas, m u t i l a t i o n a n d t h e s h e d d i n g o f b l o o d are sometimes regarded as efficacious means o f c u r i n g sicknesses. A m o n g the

44

Ibid., p. 396.

^Communication of [S.] Gason, ["Of the Tribes Dieyerie, Auminie, Yandrawontha, Yarawurka, Pdladapa, Lat. 31°S„ Long. 138° 55'"] JAL, vol. XXIV (1895), p. 175. ^Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 286. 47

[S.] Gason, "The Dieyerie Tribe," in [Edward Micklethwaite] Curr, The Australian Race: Its Origin,

Languages, Customs, Place of Landing in Australia, and the Routes by Which It Spread Itself over That Continent,

vol. II, Melbourne, John Ferres, 1886-1887, p. 68. 48

Ibid.; Eylmann, Die Eingeborenen, p. 208.

49

Howitt, Native Tribe, pp. 277, 430.

50

Ibid., p. 195.

409


D i e r i , w h e n a c h i l d has an accident, his relatives beat themselves o n the head w i t h sticks o r b o o m e r a n g s , u n t i l the b l o o d streams d o w n t h e i r faces. T h e y believe t h e y are r e l i e v i n g t h e child's p a i n t h e r e b y .

51

Elsewhere, p e o p l e i m a g -

ine t h e y o b t a i n the same result w i t h an a d d i t i o n a l t o t e m i c c e r e m o n y .

52

These

are analogous t o t h e r i t e t o erase the consequences o f a r i t u a l lapse, already considered.

53

T o be sure, a l t h o u g h i n these last cases there are n e i t h e r w o u n d s

n o r b l o w s n o r physical sufferings o f any k i n d , the r i t e does n o t differ i n essence from t h e p r e c e d i n g ones. T h e p o i n t i n all cases is t o t u r n aside an evil o r expiate a m i s d e e d w i t h extra r i t u a l proceedings. S u c h are t h e o n l y piacular rites, o t h e r t h a n rites o f m o u r n i n g , that I have m a n a g e d t o c o l l e c t f o r Australia. I n all l i k e l i h o o d , some must have escaped m e , and w e m a y surmise as w e l l that others w e n t u n n o t i c e d by the observers. S t i l l , i f o n l y a f e w have b e e n discovered u p t o n o w , t h e l i k e l y reason is that they d o n o t c o u n t f o r m u c h i n t h e c u l t . Since t h e rites that express p a i n f u l e m o t i o n s are relatively f e w i n p r i m i t i v e r e l i g i o n s , w e see h o w far those r e l i gions are from b e i n g daughters o f apprehension a n d fear. N o d o u b t , the reason is that a l t h o u g h the A u s t r a l i a n leads an i m p o v e r i s h e d existence c o m p a r e d t o that o f m o r e c i v i l i z e d peoples, he b y contrast asks so l i t t l e o f life that he contents h i m s e l f w i t h l i t t l e . H i s o n l y n e e d is f o r nature t o f o l l o w its n o r m a l course, f o r the seasons t o m o v e i n regular succession, a n d f o r the r a i n t o fall at the usual t i m e , a b u n d a n d y b u t n o t excessively. Great disturbances i n the cosmic o r d e r are always unusual. T h u s i t was n o t e w o r t h y that m o s t o f the regular piacular rites I r e p o r t e d above w e r e observed i n the tribes o f the c e n ter, w h e r e d r o u g h t s are frequent a n d c o n s t i t u t e g e n u i n e p u b l i c disasters. S t i l l , i t is s u r p r i s i n g that piacular rites f o r the specific p u r p o s e o f e x p i a t i n g sin appear t o be almost e n t i r e l y absent. Nonetheless the A u s t r a l i a n , l i k e any m a n , m u s t c o m m i t r i t u a l misdeeds that i t w o u l d be i n his interest t o atone for. A n d so I raise the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e sdence o f t h e texts o n this p o i n t m a y n o t be p u t d o w n t o inadequacies o f o b s e r v a t i o n . A l t h o u g h the substantive evidence I have m a n a g e d t o call u p o n is sparse, i t is nonetheless i n s t r u c t i v e . W h e n w e study piacular rites i n the m o r e advanced religions, i n w h i c h the religious forces are i n d i v i d u a l i z e d , the rites seem t o be closely c o n n e c t e d

5I

Gason, The Dieyerie Tribe, vol. II, p. 69. The same procedure is used to redeem a ridiculous act. When, through clumsiness or otherwise, a person has made those near him laugh, he asks them to hit him on the head until the blood flows. Then things are restored and the person others were laughing at joins in the gaiety of those around him (ibid., p. 70). 52

Eylmann, Die Eingeborenen, pp. 212, 447.

"See above, p. 389.

410


w i t h a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c ideas. I f the faithful i m p o s e privations o n themselves a n d u n d e r g o tortures, they d o so t o d i s a r m the malevolence that they i m p u t e t o sacred beings t o w h o m they t h i n k t h e y are subject. T o appease the hate o r anger o f those beings, the faithful anticipate t h e i r demands, s t r i k i n g t h e m selves so as n o t t o be struck b y t h e m . I t seems, t h e n , that these practices c o u l d o n l y have b e e n b o r n w h e n gods a n d spirits w e r e c o n c e i v e d o f as m o r a l persons susceptible t o passions l i k e those o f humans. F o r this reason, R o b e r t s o n S m i t h believed he c o u l d assign e x p i a t o r y sacrifices a n d sacrificial offerings t o a relatively recent date. A c c o r d i n g t o h i m , the shedding o f b l o o d that is characteristic o f these rites was at first m e r e l y a process o f c o m m u n i o n : M a n spilled his b l o o d o n the altar t o t i g h t e n t h e b o n d s b e t w e e n h i m s e l f a n d his g o d . T h e r i t e presumably d i d n o t take o n a piacular a n d p u n i t i v e character u n t i l its o r i g i n a l m e a n i n g h a d b e e n f o r g o t t e n a n d u n t i l the n e w idea people had o f the sacred beings enabled t h e m t o ascribe a different f u n c t i o n t o i t .

5 4

B u t since piacular rites g o as far b a c k as t h e A u s t r a l i a n societies, they c a n n o t be assigned so recent an o r i g i n . M o r e o v e r , w i t h o n e e x c e p t i o n ,

5 5

all

those I have j u s t m e n t i o n e d are i n d e p e n d e n t o f any a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c idea, f o r t h e y i n v o l v e n e i t h e r gods n o r spirits. Abstinences a n d b l o o d l e t t i n g stop famines a n d cure sicknesses, a c t i n g o n t h e i r o w n . T h e w o r k o f n o s p i r i t u a l b e i n g is t h o u g h t t o i n t r u d e b e t w e e n the r i t e a n d t h e effects i t is t h o u g h t t o b r i n g about. H e n c e i t was o n l y later that m y t h i c personalities came o n t o the scene. T h e y h e l p e d t o m a k e t h e r i t u a l m e c h a n i s m easier t o i m a g i n e , o n c e i t was established, b u t t h e y are n o t c o n d i t i o n s o f its existence. T h a t m e c h a n i s m was i n s t i t u t e d f o r different reasons a n d owes its efficacy t o a different cause. I t acts t h r o u g h the collective forces t h a t i t sets i n m o t i o n . D o e s a m i s f o r t u n e t h r e a t e n i n g t h e c o l l e c t i v i t y seem i m m i n e n t ? T h e c o l l e c t i v i t y comes together, as i t does i n consequence o f m o u r n i n g , a n d a sense o f disquiet n a t u r a l l y dominates the assembled g r o u p . As always, the effect o f m a k i n g these feelings shared is t o intensify t h e m . T h r o u g h b e i n g a f f i r m e d , these feelings are e x c i t e d a n d i n f l a m e d , r e a c h i n g an i n t e n s i t y that is expressed i n the e q u i v alent i n t e n s i t y o f t h e actions that express t h e m . I n t h e same w a y that people u t t e r t e r r i b l e cries u p o n t h e death o f a close relative, t h e y are caught u p b y the i m m i n e n c e o f a collective m i s f o r t u n e a n d feel the n e e d t o tear a n d d e stroy. T o satisfy this need, t h e y strike a n d w o u n d themselves a n d m a k e t h e i r b l o o d flow. B u t w h e n e m o t i o n s are as v i v i d as this, even i f t h e y are p a i n f u l ,

34

[William Robertson Smith, Lectures on] the Religion of the Semites, lect. XI [London, A. and C. Black, 1889]. 55

According to Gason, this is true of the Dieri invoking the water Mura-muras in time of drought.

411

Tiie Piacular Rites and the Ambiguity of the Notion of the Sacred

they are i n n o w a y depressing. Q u i t e the contrary, t h e y p o i n t t o a state o f effervescence that entails the m o b i l i z a t i o n o f all o u r o w n active energy and, i n a d d i t i o n , a f u r t h e r i n f l u x f r o m outside ourselves. T h a t this e x c i t a t i o n has arisen from a sad event matters little, f o r i t is n o less real a n d n o t specifically different f r o m the o n e observed i n j o y f u l feasts. As a m a t t e r o f fact, i t sometimes manifests itself t h r o u g h m o v e m e n t s o f the same k i n d . T h e same frenzy takes h o l d o f the f a i t h f u l , a l o n g w i t h the same i n c l i n a t i o n t o sexual d e b a u c h e r y — a sure sign o f great nervous o v e r e x c i t e m e n t . R o b e r t s o n S m i t h h a d already n o t i c e d this c u r i o u s i n f l u e n c e o f the sad rites i n the S e m i t i c cults. " I n d i f f i c u l t times," he says, " w h e n men's t h o u g h t s w e r e usually somber, they t u r n e d t o the physical excitements o f r e l i g i o n , j u s t as, n o w , they take refuge i n w i n e . A m o n g the Semites, as a general r u l e , w h e n w o r s h i p began w i t h w a i l i n g a n d lamentation—as i n the m o u r n i n g o f A d o n i s o r i n the great e x p i a t o r y rites that became c o m m o n i n later times—a sudden r e v o l u t i o n created an e x p l o s i o n o f gaiety a n d r e j o i c i n g t o f o l l o w the g l o o m y service w i t h w h i c h the c e r e m o n y h a d b e g u n . "

5 6

I n short, w h i l e the religious

ceremonies start o u t from a d i s q u i e t i n g o r saddening fact, they retain t h e i r p o w e r t o e n l i v e n the e m o t i o n a l state o f the g r o u p a n d the individuals. S i m p l y b y b e i n g collective, religious ceremonies raise the vital tone. W h e n o n e feels life i n oneself-—in the f o r m o f painful anger o r j o y f u l enthusiasm— o n e does n o t believe i n death; one is reassured, one takes greater courage, and, subjectively, e v e r y t h i n g happens as i f the r i t e really had set aside the danger that was feared. T h i s is h o w curative o r preventive virtues came to be ascribed t o the m o v e m e n t s that the r i t e is made of: the cries uttered, the b l o o d shed, the w o u n d s i n f l i c t e d u p o n oneself o r others. A n d since these various t o r m e n t s necessarily cause suffering, i n the end, suffering i n itself is regarded as the means o f c o n j u r i n g away evil and c u r i n g sickness.

57

Later, w h e n most o f the

religious forces had taken the f o r m o f personified spirits,* the efficacy o f these practices was explained b y i m a g i n i n g t h e i r purpose t o be p r o p i t i a t i o n o f a malevolent o r a n g r y g o d . B u t these ideas reflect o n l y the r i t e and the feelings i t arouses; they are an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f i t , n o t its d e t e r m i n i n g cause. A r i t u a l lapse w o r k s n o differently. I t , t o o , is a m e n a c e f o r the c o l l e c t i v ity. I t strikes at the m o r a l existence o f the c o l l e c t i v i t y because i t strikes at the

* Personnalités spirituelles. 56

Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 262.

57

It is possible, by the way, that the belief in the morally uplifting virtues of suffering (see above, p. 317) played some role in this. Since pain sanctifies and since it raises the religious level of the faithful, it can also uplift the faithful when they have fallen below the norm.

412


beliefs o f the c o l l e c t i v i t y . B u t let the anger caused b y a r i t u a l misdeed be e x pressed o p e n l y a n d energetically, a n d the e v i l i t caused is counteracted. I f that anger is strongly felt b y a l l , t h e reason is that t h e i n f r a c t i o n c o m m i t t e d is an e x c e p t i o n , w h i l e the shared f a i t h is still i n t a c t . H e n c e t h e m o r a l u n i t y o f the g r o u p is n o t i n danger. T h e p a i n i n f l i c t e d as e x p i a t i o n is b u t a manifestation o f this p u b l i c anger a n d physical p r o o f o f its u n a n i m i t y . I n this way, the p a i n really does have the r e d e e m i n g powers t h a t p e o p l e i m p u t e t o i t . Basically, the feeling at t h e r o o t o f the p r o p e r l y e x p i a t o r y rites is n o different i n k i n d

from

t h e o n e w e have f o u n d at the r o o t o f o t h e r piacular rites. I t is a sort o f a n g r y sorrow, w h i c h tends t o express itself t h r o u g h destructive acts. A t times, this p a i n is relieved t o t h e d e t r i m e n t o f t h e v e r y o n e w h o feels i t ; at times, i t is at the expense o f an outside t h i r d party. B u t the psychic m e c h a n i s m is basically the same i n b o t h cases.

58

IV O n e o f t h e greatest services R o b e r t s o n S m i t h r e n d e r e d t o t h e science o f r e l i g i o n s is t o have called a t t e n t i o n t o the a m b i g u i t y o f t h e idea o f the sacred. R e l i g i o u s forces are o f t w o k i n d s . S o m e are benevolent, guardians o f physical and m o r a l order, as w e l l as dispensers o f life, health, a n d all the q u a l ities that m e n value. T h i s is t r u e o f t h e t o t e m i c p r i n c i p l e , w h i c h is spread o u t over the w h o l e species, o f the m y t h i c a l ancestor, o f the a n i m a l - p r o t e c t o r , o f c i v i l i z i n g heroes, a n d o f t u t e l a r y gods i n all t h e i r k i n d s a n d degrees. W h e t h e r they are t h o u g h t o f as distinct personalities o r as diffused energies makes l i t t l e difference. I n b o t h f o r m s , they play the same role a n d affect the consciousness o f the faithful i n the same manner. T h e y inspire a respect that is full o f love a n d gratitude. T h e persons a n d things that are o r d i n a r i l y i n contact w i t h t h e m participate i n the same feelings a n d the same quality. T h e y are sacred persons a n d things. So, t o o , are the places consecrated t o the c u l t , the objects used i n the regular rites, the priests, the ascetics, a n d so o n . O n the o t h e r hand, there are e v d and i m p u r e powers, bringers o f disorder, causes o f death and sickness, instigators o f sacrilege. T h e o n l y feelings m a n has f o r t h e m is a fear that usually has a c o m p o n e n t o f h o r r o r . Such are the forces o n w h i c h and t h r o u g h w h i c h the sorcerer acts: those that c o m e from corpses a n d

from

menstrual

b l o o d , those that unleash every p r o f a n a t i o n o f h o l y [siJi'wies] things, and so o n . T h e spirits o f the dead a n d the e v i l genies o f all kinds are its p e r s o n i f i e d f o r m s . B e t w e e n these t w o categories o f forces a n d beings, there is the sharpest possible contrast, u p t o a n d i n c l u d i n g the m o s t radical antagonism. T h e g o o d 58

Cf. what I have said about expiation in my Division du travail social, 3d ed., Paris, F. Alcan, 1902, pp. 64£F.

413


and w h o l e s o m e forces p u s h far away f r o m themselves those o t h e r forces, w h i c h negate a n d c o n t r a d i c t t h e m . Besides, t h e first are f o r b i d d e n t o the second. A n y contact b e t w e e n t h e m is considered t h e w o r s t o f profanations. T h i s is the archetype o f those p r o h i b i t i o n s b e t w e e n sacred things o f different k i n d s , w h o s e existence I have m e n t i o n e d a l o n g t h e w a y .

59

Since w o m e n d u r -

i n g m e n s t r u a t i o n are i m p u r e , a n d especially so at t h e first appearance o f the menses, t h e y are r i g o r o u s l y sequestered at that t i m e , a n d m e n must have n o contact w i t h t h e m .

6 0

w i t h a dead p e r s o n .

61

T h e b u l l roarers a n d the churingas are never i n contact A sacrilegious p e r s o n is c u t o f f from the society o f the

faithful a n d n o t a l l o w e d t o take p a r t i n t h e c u l t . T h e w h o l e o f religious life gravitates a r o u n d t w o opposite poles, t h e n , t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n b e i n g the same as that b e t w e e n the p u r e a n d the i m p u r e , the saint a n d t h e sacrilegious p e r son, t h e d i v i n e a n d t h e d i a b o l i c a l . B u t a l t h o u g h opposite t o o n e another, these t w o aspects o f religious life are at t h e same t i m e closely a k i n . First, b o t h have t h e same r e l a t i o n t o p r o fane beings. T h e y m u s t abstain f r o m all contact w i t h i m p u r e things a n d w i t h v e r y h o l y [saintes] things. T h e f o r m e r are n o less f o r b i d d e n t h a n the latter, a n d they, t o o , are taken o u t o f c i r c u l a t i o n , w h i c h is t o say that t h e y are also sacred [sdrres]. T o be sure, t h e t w o d o n o t p r o v o k e i d e n t i c a l feelings. Disgust a n d h o r r o r are o n e t h i n g a n d respect another. Nonetheless, f o r actions t o be the same i n b o t h cases, the feelings expressed m u s t n o t be different i n k i n d . I n fact, there actually is a c e r t a i n h o r r o r i n r e l i g i o u s respect, especially w h e n i t is v e r y intense; a n d t h e fear i n s p i r e d b y m a l i g n a n t p o w e r s is n o t w i t h o u t a c e r t a i n reverential quality. I n d e e d , the shades o f difference b e t w e e n these t w o attitudes are sometimes so elusive that i t is n o t always easy t o say i n j u s t w h i c h state o f m i n d the f a i t h f u l are. A m o n g c e r t a i n Semitic peoples, p o r k was f o r b i d d e n , b u t o n e d i d n o t always k n o w w i t h c e r t a i n t y i f i t was f o r b i d d e n as an i m p u r e t h i n g o r as a h o l y [sainte] t h i n g .

6 2

A n d the same p o i n t can

be a p p l i e d t o a v e r y large n u m b e r o f d i e t a r y restrictions. T h e r e is m o r e : A n i m p u r e t h i n g o r an e v i l p o w e r o f t e n becomes a h o l y t h i n g o r a t u t e l a r y p o w e r — a n d v i c e v e r s a — w i t h o u t c h a n g i n g i n nature, b u t 5,

See pp. 304-306 above.

60

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 460; Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 601; Roth, [Super-

stition, Magic and Medicine], North Queensland Ethnography, Bull. 5 [Brisbane, G. A. Vaughn, 1903], p. 24.

There is no need to multiply references in support of such a well-known fact. 6l

However, Spencer and Gillen cite a case in which churingas are placed under the head of the dead person (Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 156). As they acknowledge, however, this is unique and abnormal (ibid., p. 157), and it is strenuously denied by Strehlow (Aranda, vol. II, p. 79). 62

Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 153, cf. p. 446, the additional note tided "Holiness, Uncleanness and Taboo."

414


s i m p l y t h r o u g h a change i n e x t e r n a l circumstances. W e have seen that the soul o f the dead person, at first a dreaded p r i n c i p l e , is t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o a p r o tective genie w h e n t h e m o u r n i n g is over. S i m i l a r l y the corpse, w h i c h at first inspires o n l y t e r r o r a n d distance, is later treated as a venerated relic. Funeral anthropophagy, w i d e l y p r a c t i c e d i n the A u s t r a l i a n societies, is evidence o f this t r a n s f o r m a t i o n .

63

T h e t o t e m i c a n i m a l is archetypically the h o l y b e i n g ,

b u t f o r h i m w h o w r o n g f u l l y consumes its flesh, i t is a p r i n c i p l e o f death. T h e p e r s o n g u d t y o f sacrilege is, generally speaking, o n l y a profane person w h o has b e e n i n f e c t e d b y a b e n e v o l e n t r e l i g i o u s force. C h a n g i n g its nature w h e n i t changes its habitat, this force pollutes rather t h a n sanctifies.

64

The blood

that comes f r o m t h e g e n i t a l organs o f a w o m a n , t h o u g h i t is o b v i o u s l y as i m p u r e as that o f the menses, is o f t e n used as a r e m e d y against sickness.

65

The

v i c t i m i m m o l a t e d i n e x p i a t o r y sacrifices is saturated w i t h i m p u r i t y , because t h e sins t o be e x p i a t e d have b e e n m a d e t o converge u p o n i t . H o w e v e r , o n c e i t is slaughtered, its flesh a n d b l o o d are p u t t o t h e m o s t p i o u s uses.

66

Inversely, a l t h o u g h c o m m u n i o n is a r e l i g i o u s p r o c e d u r e w h o s e f u n c t i o n is o r d i n a r i l y consecration, i t sometimes has the same effects as a sacrilege. I n dividuals w h o have c o m m u n e d t o g e t h e r are, i n c e r t a i n cases, f o r c e d t o flee o n e another, l i k e carriers o f plague. I t is as t h o u g h t h e y have b e c o m e sources o f dangerous c o n t a m i n a t i o n f o r o n e another. T h e sacred b o n d that j o i n s t h e m separates t h e m at t h e same time. C o m m u n i o n s o f this sort are c o m m o n i n Australia. O n e o f the m o s t t y p i c a l has b e e n observed a m o n g the N a r r i n y e r i a n d n e i g h b o r i n g tribes. W h e n a c h i l d comes i n t o t h e w o r l d , its parents carefully preserve its u m b i l i c a l c o r d , w h i c h is t h o u g h t t o c o n t a i n some part o f t h e chdd's soul. T w o i n d i v i d u a l s w h o exchange u m b i l i c a l cords preserved i n this w a y c o m m u n e b y the v e r y fact o f this exchange; i t is as t h o u g h t h e y e x c h a n g e d souls. B u t b y the same t o k e n , t h e y are f o r b i d d e n t o t o u c h o n e a n other, t o speak t o one another, a n d even t o see o n e another. I t is as t h o u g h t h e y w e r e objects o f h o r r o r f o r one a n o t h e r .

67

63

Howitt, Native Tribes, pp. 448-450; Brough Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria, vol. I, pp. 118, 120; Dawson, The Australian Aborigines, p. 67; Eyre, Journals of Expedition, vol. II, p. 257; [Walter Edmund] Roth, "Burial Ceremonies," p. 367. M

See pp. 324-325 above.

65

Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes, p. 464; Spencer and Gillen, Northern Tribes, p. 599.

''For example, among the Israelites, the altar is purified with the blood of the expiatory victim (Lev. 4: 5ff.); thefleshis burned, and the ashes are used to make a purifying water (Num.: 19.) 67

Taplin, "The Narrinyeri Tribe," in [James Dominick Woods, The Native Tribes of South Australia, Adelaide, E. S. Wigg, 1879], pp. 32-34. When the two individuals who have exchanged their umbilical cords belong to different tribes, they are used as agents of intertribal commerce. In this case, the exchange of cords takes place shortly after their births and through the intermediary of their respective parents.


415

So the p u r e a n d t h e i m p u r e are n o t t w o separate genera b u t t w o varieties o f the same genus that includes all sacred t h i n g s . T h e r e are t w o sorts o f sacred, l u c k y a n d u n l u c k y ; a n d n o t o n l y is there n o radical d i s c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n the t w o opposite f o r m s , b u t t h e same o b j e c t can pass from o n e t o the o t h e r w i t h o u t c h a n g i n g its nature. T h e i m p u r e is made f r o m the pure, a n d v i c e versa. T h e possibility o f such transformations constitutes the a m b i g u i t y o f the sacred. B u t w h i l e R o b e r t s o n S m i t h had a k e e n sense o f this ambiguity, he never a c c o u n t e d f o r i t explicidy. H e c o n f i n e d h i m s e l f t o p o i n t i n g o u t that since all religious forces are intense a n d contagious, i n w h a t e v e r d i r e c t i o n t h e i r i n f l u ence is exercised, the w i s e t h i n g is t o approach t h e m w i t h respectful precautions. I t seemed t o h i m that the farrufy resemblance they all have c o u l d be a c c o u n t e d f o r i n this way, despite the contrasts that otherwise distinguish t h e m . B u t first o f all, that o n l y shifted the question. Still t o be s h o w n was h o w the powers o f e v i l c o m e t o have the i n t e n s i t y a n d contagiousness o f the others. P u t differendy, h o w does i t h a p p e n that these powers are o f a r e l i gious nature? Second, the energy a n d v o l a t i l i t y c o m m o n t o b o t h d o n o t enable us t o understand h o w , despite the c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n t h e m , they can t r a n s f o r m themselves i n t o o n e a n o t h e r o r replace o n e another i n t h e i r respective functions, o r h o w t h e p u r e can c o n t a m i n a t e w h i l e the i m p u r e sometimes sanctifies.

68

T h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e piacular rites that I have j u s t p r o p o s e d enables us t o answer this t w o f o l d q u e s t i o n . W e have seen that the e v i l p o w e r s actually result from a n d s y m b o l i z e these rites. W h e n society is g o i n g t h r o u g h events that sadden, distress, o r anger i t , i t pushes its m e m b e r s t o give witness t o t h e i r sadness, distress, o r anger t h r o u g h expressive actions. I t demands c r y i n g , l a m e n t i n g , a n d w o u n d i n g o n e s e l f a n d others as a m a t t e r o f duty. I t does so because those c o l l e c t i v e demonstrations,

as w e l l

as t h e m o r a l c o m m u n i o n t h e y simultaneously

bear witness t o a n d reinforce, restore t o t h e g r o u p t h e energy that the events

68

It is true that [William Robertson] Smith does not accept the reality of these substitutions and transformations. According to him, the expiatory victim could purify only because it was itself in no way impure. From the beginning, it was a holy thing; it was intended to reestablish, through communion, the ties of kinship that united the worshipper to his god, after a ritual lapse had loosened or broken them. For that operation, they chose an exceptionally holy animal, so that communion would be more efficacious and might remove the effects of the wrong more completely. Only when they had ceased to understand the meaning of the rite was the sacrosanct animal considered impure (Religion of the Semites, pp. 347ff.). But it is inadmissible that such universal beliefs and practices as those that we find at the basis of expiatory sacrifice should result from a mere error of interpretation. In fact, it is beyond doubt that the impurity of the sin was loaded onto the expiatory victim. Moreover, we have just seen that these transformations from pure to impure, or vice versa, are found in the simplest societies we know.

416


threatened t o take away, a n d thus enables i t t o recover its e q u i l i b r i u m . I t is this e x p e r i e n c e that m a n is i n t e r p r e t i n g w h e n he imagines e v d beings o u t side h i m w h o s e hostility, w h e t h e r i n h e r e n t o r transitory, can be d i s a r m e d o n l y t h r o u g h h u m a n suffering. So these beings are n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n c o l lective states o b j e c t i f i e d ; t h e y are society itself seen i n o n e o f its aspects. B u t w e also k n o w that the b e n e f i c e n t p o w e r s are n o t made any differently; they t o o result from a n d express c o l l e c t i v e life; they t o o represent society, b u t society captured i n a v e r y different p o s t u r e — t h a t is, at t h e m o m e n t w h e n i t c o n f i d e n d y affirms itself and zealously presses things i n t o the service o f the ends i t is p u r s u i n g . Since these t w o k i n d s o f forces have a c o m m o n o r i g i n , i t is n o t s u r p r i s i n g that, even t h o u g h m o v i n g i n opposite directions, t h e y s h o u l d have t h e same nature, that they s h o u l d be equally intense and c o n t a g i o u s — a n d hence, p r o h i b i t e d a n d sacred. F r o m precisely this fact, w e can u n d e r s t a n d h o w they are t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o o n e another. Since they reflect t h e e m o t i o n a l state i n w h i c h the g r o u p finds itself, a change i n that state is sufficient t o m a k e the forces themselves change d i r e c t i o n . W h e n the m o u r n i n g ends, the h o u s e h o l d o f the deceased has b e e n c a l m e d b y the m o u r n i n g itself; i t gathers n e w c o n f i d e n c e ; the i n d i v i d u a l s are relieved o f t h e p a i n f u l pressure t h a t was exerted u p o n t h e m ; they feel m o r e at ease. I t therefore seems t o t h e m that the spirit o f t h e d e ceased has set aside its hostile feelings i n order t o b e c o m e a b e n e v o l e n t p r o tector. T h e o t h e r transmutations, examples o f w h i c h I have c i t e d , are t o be e x p l a i n e d i n the same way. W h a t makes a t h i n g sacred is, as I have s h o w n , the collective feeling o f w h i c h i t is t h e object. I f , i n v i o l a t i o n o f the p r o h i b i t i o n s that isolate i t , i t comes i n c o n t a c t w i t h a profane p e r s o n , this same feeling w i l l spread c o n t a g i o u s l y t o that p e r s o n a n d m a r k h i m w i t h a special quality. H o w ever, w h e n i t arrives at that, i t finds i t s e l f i n a v e r y different state from t h e o n e i n w h i c h i t was at t h e outset. H a v i n g b e e n s h o c k e d a n d angered b y the p r o fanation e n t a i l e d b y this w r o n g f u l , u n n a t u r a l e x t e n s i o n , i t becomes aggressive and i n c l i n e d t o w a r d destructive v i o l e n c e ; i t is i n c l i n e d t o seek revenge f o r the trespass i t has e n d u r e d . F o r this reason, the i n f e c t e d subject is as t h o u g h i n vaded b y a v i r u l e n t and n o x i o u s force, t h r e a t e n i n g t o all that comes near h i m ; thereafter, he inspires n o t h i n g b u t distance a n d repugnance, as t h o u g h he was m a r k e d w i t h a t a i n t o r stain. A n d yet t h e cause o f this stain is the v e r y psychic state that i n o t h e r circumstances consecrated a n d sanctified. B u t let t h e anger thus aroused be satisfied b y an e x p i a t o r y r i t e , a n d i t subsides, relieved. T h e offended f e e l i n g is p r o p i t i a t e d and returns t o its i n i t i a l state. T h u s , i t again acts as i t acted at first. Instead o f c o n t a m i n a t i n g , i t sanctifies. Because i t goes o n i n f e c t i n g the o b j e c t t o w h i c h i t has b e c o m e attached, that o b j e c t c a n n o t b e c o m e profane a n d r e l i g i o u s l y i n d i f f e r e n t again. B u t t h e d i r e c t i o n o f

417


the religious force that appears t o o c c u p y i t has b e e n i n v e r t e d . F r o m b e i n g i m p u r e i t has b e c o m e p u r e a n d an i n s t r u m e n t o f p u r i f i c a t i o n . I n summary, the t w o poles o f religious life correspond t o the t w o opposite states t h r o u g h w h i c h all social life passes. T h e r e is the same contrast b e t w e e n the l u c k y a n d the u n l u c k y sacred as b e t w e e n the states o f collective e u p h o r i a and dysphoria. B u t because b o t h are equally collective, the m y t h o l o g i c a l c o n structions that symbolize t h e m are i n t h e i r v e r y essence closely related. W h i l e the feelings placed i n c o m m o n v a r y f r o m extreme d e j e c t i o n to extreme h i g h spiritedness, from painful anger t o ecstatic enthusiasm, the result i n all cases is c o m m u n i o n a m o n g i n d i v i d u a l consciousnesses a n d m u t u a l c a l m i n g . W h i l e the fundamental process is always the same, different circumstances c o l o r i t differendy. I n the end, t h e n , i t is the u n i t y and diversity o f social life that creates at the same t i m e the u n i t y and the diversity o f sacred beings and things. T h i s a m b i g u i t y is n o t peculiar t o t h e idea o f the sacred alone. S o m e t h i n g o f this same q u a l i t y is t o be f o u n d i n all the rites studied. O f course, i t was necessary t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e m . T r e a t i n g t h e m as o n e a n d the same w o u l d have b e e n t o m i s u n d e r s t a n d the m u l t i p l e aspects o f religious life. B u t h o w e v e r d i f ferent t h e y m a y be, there is n o d i s c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n t h e m . Q u i t e the c o n trary, t h e y are o v e r l a p p i n g a n d even interchangeable. I have already s h o w n that rites o f o f f e r i n g a n d c o m m u n i o n , m i m e t i c rites, a n d c o m m e m o r a t i v e rites o f t e n p e r f o r m the same f u n c t i o n s . O n e m i g h t t h i n k that the negative c u l t is m o r e clearly separated from the positive c u l t , yet w e have seen that the negative c u l t can nonetheless b r i n g a b o u t positive effects i d e n t i c a l t o those o f the positive c u l t . T h e same results are o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h fasts, abstinences, a n d s e l f - m u t i l a t i o n as t h r o u g h c o m m u n i o n s , offerings, and

commemora-

tions. Conversely, offerings a n d sacrifices i m p l y p r i v a t i o n s and renunciations o f all k i n d s . T h e c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n ascetic a n d piacular rites is even m o r e apparent. B o t h are m a d e o f sufferings, accepted o r e n d u r e d , t o w h i c h similar efficacy is ascribed. T h u s , t h e practices n o m o r e fall i n t o t w o separate genera t h a n t h e beliefs do. H o w e v e r c o m p l e x the o u t w a r d manifestations o f religious life m a y be, its i n n e r essence is simple, a n d o n e a n d the same. E v e r y w h e r e i t fulfills t h e same n e e d a n d derives from the same state o f m i n d . I n all its f o r m s , its object is t o lift m a n above h i m s e l f a n d t o m a k e h i m live a h i g h e r hfe t h a n he w o u l d i f he o b e y e d o n l y his i n d i v i d u a l impulses. T h e beliefs express this hfe i n terms o f representations; the rites organize a n d regulate its f u n c t i o n i n g .

CONCLUSION

I

said at the b e g i n n i n g o f this b o o k that the r e l i g i o n w h o s e study I was u n d e r t a k i n g c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n itself the m o s t characteristic elements o f r e l i -

gious life. T h e t r u t h o f t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n can n o w be tested. H o w e v e r simple the system I have s t u d i e d m a y be, I have nonetheless f o u n d w i t h i n i t all the great ideas a n d all the p r i n c i p a l f o r m s o f r i t u a l c o n d u c t o n w h i c h even the m o s t advanced r e l i g i o n s are based: the d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n sacred a n d p r o fane things; the ideas o f soul, spirit, m y t h i c a l personality, n a t i o n a l a n d even i n t e r n a t i o n a l d i v i n i t y ; a negative c u l t w i t h t h e ascetic practices that are its e x treme f o r m ; rites o f sacrifice a n d c o m m u n i o n ; m i m e t i c , c o m m e m o r a t i v e , a n d piacular rites. N o t h i n g essential is absent. T h u s I have reason t o be c o n f i d e n t that t h e results achieved are n o t specific t o t o t e m i s m b u t can h e l p us u n d e r s t a n d w h a t r e l i g i o n i n general is. S o m e w i l l object that a single r e l i g i o n , w h a t e v e r its geographic spread, is a n a r r o w basis f o r such an i n d u c t i o n . I t is b y n o means m y i n t e n t t o i g n o r e w h a t an e x p a n d e d test can a d d t o the persuasiveness o f a theory. B u t i t is n o less t r u e that w h e n a l a w has b e e n p r o v e d b y a single w e l l - m a d e e x p e r i m e n t , this p r o o f is universally v a l i d . I f a scientist m a n a g e d t o i n t e r c e p t the secret o f life i n o n l y a single case, the t r u t h s thus o b t a i n e d w o u l d be applicable t o all l i v i n g things, i n c l u d i n g the m o s t advanced, even i f this case was the simplest p r o t o p l a s m i c b e i n g i m a g i n a b l e . A c c o r d i n g l y i f , i n t h e v e r y h u m b l e societies

j u s t studied, I have managed t o capture some o f the elements that c o m p r i s e the m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l r e l i g i o u s ideas, there is n o reason n o t t o e x t e n d the m o s t general results o f this research t o o t h e r r e l i g i o n s . I n fact, i t is i n c o n ceivable that the same effect c o u l d be sometimes due n o w t o o n e cause, n o w t o another, a c c o r d i n g t o the circumstances, unless f u n d a m e n t a l l y the t w o causes w e r e b u t one. A single idea c a n n o t express o n e reality here a n d a d i f ferent o n e there unless this d u a l i t y is m e r e l y apparent. I f , a m o n g c e r t a i n p e o ples, the ideas "sacred," " s o u l , " a n d " g o d s " can be e x p l a i n e d sociologically, t h e n scientifically w e m u s t presume that t h e same e x p l a n a t i o n is v a l i d i n p r i n c i p l e f o r all the peoples a m o n g w h o m t h e same ideas are f o u n d w i t h essentially the same characteristics. A s s u m i n g that I a m n o t mistaken, t h e n , at least some o f m y conclusions can l e g i t i m a t e l y be generalized. T h e t i m e has c o m e t o d r a w these o u t . A n d an i n d u c t i o n o f this sort, based o n a w e l l d e f i n e d e x p e r i m e n t , is less reckless t h a n so m a n y c u r s o r y generalizations that, i n t h e i r s t r i v i n g t o reach the essence o f r e l i g i o n i n a single stroke w i t h o u t 418

419

Conclusion

g r o u n d i n g themselves i n t h e analysis o f any p a r t i c u l a r r e l i g i o n , are at great risk o f floating away i n t o the v o i d .

I M o s t o f t e n , t h e theorists w h o have set o u t t o express r e l i g i o n i n r a t i o n a l terms have regarded i t as b e i n g , first a n d foremost, a system o f ideas that c o r respond t o a d e f i n i t e object. T h a t object has b e e n c o n c e i v e d i n different ways—nature, the i n f i n i t e , the u n k n o w a b l e , the ideal, a n d so f o r t h — b u t these differences are o f l i t d e i m p o r t a n c e . I n every case, the representations— that is, the beliefs—were considered the essential e l e m e n t o f r e l i g i o n . F o r t h e i r part, rites appeared f r o m this s t a n d p o i n t t o be n o m o r e t h a n an e x t e r nal, c o n t i n g e n t , a n d physical translation o f those i n w a r d states that alone w e r e d e e m e d t o have i n t r i n s i c value. T h i s n o t i o n is so widespread that most o f t h e t i m e debates o n the t o p i c o f r e l i g i o n t u r n a r o u n d and about o n the q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r r e l i g i o n can o r c a n n o t b e r e c o n c i l e d w i t h science—that is, w h e t h e r there is r o o m alongside scientific k n o w l e d g e f o r another f o r m o f t h o u g h t h e l d t o be specifically religious. B u t t h e believers—the m e n w h o , l i v i n g a r e l i g i o u s life, have a direct sense o f w h a t constitutes r e l i g i o n — o b j e c t that, i n t e r m s o f t h e i r d a y - t o - d a y e x p e r i e n c e , this w a y o f seeing does n o t r i n g t r u e . I n d e e d , they sense that the t r u e f u n c t i o n o f r e l i g i o n is n o t t o m a k e us t h i n k , e n r i c h o u r k n o w l e d g e , o r add representations o f a different sort a n d source t o those w e o w e t o science. Its t r u e f u n c t i o n is t o make us act a n d t o help us live. T h e believer w h o has c o m m u n e d w i t h his g o d is n o t s i m p l y a m a n w h o sees n e w truths that the u n b e liever k n o w s n o t ; he is a m a n w h o is stronger. * W i t h i n himself, he feels m o r e strength t o endure the trials o f existence o r t o overcome t h e m . H e is as t h o u g h l i f t e d above the h u m a n miseries, because h e is l i f t e d above his h u m a n c o n d i t i o n . H e believes he is delivered from e v i l — w h a t e v e r the f o r m i n w h i c h he conceives o f e v i l . T h e first article o f any f a i t h is b e l i e f i n salvation b y faith. B u t i t is h a r d t o see h o w a m e r e idea c o u l d have that p o w e r . I n fact, an idea is b u t o n e e l e m e n t o f ourselves. H o w c o u l d i t confer o n us powers that are s u p e r i o r t o those g i v e n us i n o u r n a t u r a l makeup? As r i c h i n e m o t i v e p o w e r as an idea m a y be, i t c a n n o t a d d a n y t h i n g t o o u r natural v i t a l i t y ; i t can o n l y release e m o t i v e forces that are already w i t h i n us, n e i t h e r creating n o r i n creasing t h e m . F r o m the fact that w e i m a g i n e an object as w o r t h y o f b e i n g l o v e d a n d s o u g h t after, i t does n o t f o l l o w that w e s h o u l d feel stronger. E n e r gies greater t h a n those at o u r disposal m u s t c o m e from the object, and, m o r e * Qui pent davantage. Literally "who is capable of more." Durkheim italicized peut.

420

Conclusion

t h a n that, w e m u s t have some means o f m a k i n g t h e m enter i n t o us a n d b l e n d i n t o o u r i n n e r life. T o achieve this, i t is n o t e n o u g h that w e t h i n k about t h e m ; i t is indispensable that w e place ourselves u n d e r t h e i r i n f l u e n c e , that w e t u r n ourselves i n the d i r e c t i o n f r o m w h i c h w e can best feel that i n f l u e n c e . I n short, w e m u s t act; a n d so w e m u s t repeat the necessary acts as o f t e n as is necessary t o r e n e w t h e i r effects. F r o m this s t a n d p o i n t , i t becomes apparent that the set o f regularly repeated actions that m a k e u p the c u l t regains all its i m p o r t a n c e . I n fact, anyone w h o has t r u l y p r a c t i c e d a r e l i g i o n k n o w s v e r y w e l l that i t is t h e c u l t that stimulates the feelings o f j o y , i n n e r peace, serenity, a n d enthusiasm that, f o r the f a i t h f u l , stand as e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o o f o f t h e i r b e liefs. T h e c u l t is n o t m e r e l y a system o f signs b y w h i c h t h e f a i t h is o u t w a r d l y expressed; i t is the s u m t o t a l o f means b y w h i c h that f a i t h is created a n d recreated periodically. W h e t h e r the c u l t consists o f physical operations o r m e n t a l ones, i t is always the c u l t that is efficacious. T h i s e n t i r e study rests o n the postulate that the u n a n i m o u s feeling o f b e lievers d o w n t h e ages c a n n o t be m e r e i l l u s i o n . T h e r e f o r e , l i k e a recent a p o l ogist o f f a i t h ,

1

I accept that r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f rests o n a definite experience,

w h o s e demonstrative value is, i n a sense, n o t i n f e r i o r t o that o f scientific e x p e r i m e n t s , t h o u g h i t is different. I t o o t h i n k " t h a t a tree is k n o w n b y its fruits,"

2

a n d that its f e r t i l i t y is the best p r o o f o f w h a t its roots are w o r t h . B u t

m e r e l y because there exists a " r e l i g i o u s experience," i f y o u w i l l , that is g r o u n d e d i n some m a n n e r (is there, b y t h e way, any e x p e r i e n c e that is not?), i t b y n o means f o l l o w s that t h e reality w h i c h g r o u n d s i t s h o u l d c o n f o r m o b j e c t i v e l y w i t h the idea t h e believers have o f i t . T h e v e r y fact that the w a y i n w h i c h this reality has b e e n c o n c e i v e d has v a r i e d i n f i n i t e l y i n different

times

is e n o u g h t o prove that n o n e o f these c o n c e p t i o n s expresses i t adequately. I f the scientist sets i t d o w n as a x i o m a t i c that the sensations o f heat and l i g h t that m e n have c o r r e s p o n d t o some o b j e c t i v e cause, h e does n o t thereby c o n c l u d e that this cause is t h e same as i t appears t o the senses. L i k e w i s e , even i f the feelings the faithful have are n o t i m a g i n a r y , t h e y still d o n o t c o n s t i t u t e p r i v deged i n t u i t i o n s ; there is n o reason w h a t e v e r t o t h i n k that t h e y i n f o r m us b e t t e r a b o u t t h e nature o f t h e i r o b j e c t t h a n o r d i n a r y sensations d o a b o u t the nature o f bodies a n d t h e i r properties. T o discover w h a t that object consists of, t h e n , w e m u s t a p p l y t o those sensations an analysis similar t o the o n e that has replaced t h e senses' representation o f the w o r l d w i t h a scientific a n d c o n ceptual one. T h i s is precisely w h a t I have t r i e d t o do. W e have seen t h a t this r e a l i t y — 'William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience [London, Longmans, 1902]. 2

Ibid. (p. 19 of the French translation).

421

Conclusion

w h i c h m y t h o l o g i e s have represented i n so m a n y different f o r m s , b u t w h i c h is t h e objective, universal, a n d eternal cause o f those sui generis sensations o f w h i c h r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e is made—is society. I have s h o w n w h a t m o r a l forces i t develops a n d h o w i t awakens that feeling o f s u p p o r t , safety, and p r o tective guidance w h i c h binds the m a n o f f a i t h t o his c u l t . I t is this reality that makes h i m rise above himself. I n d e e d , this is the reality that makes h i m , f o r w h a t makes m a n is that set o f i n t e l l e c t u a l goods w h i c h is c i v i l i z a t i o n , a n d c i v i l i z a t i o n is t h e w o r k o f society. I n this w a y is e x p l a i n e d the p r e e m i n e n t role o f the c u l t i n all r e l i g i o n s , w h a t e v e r t h e y are. T h i s is so because society c a n n o t m a k e its i n f l u e n c e felt unless i t is i n a c t i o n , a n d i t is i n a c t i o n o n l y i f the i n d i v i d u a l s w h o c o m p r i s e i t are assembled a n d a c t i n g i n c o m m o n . I t is t h r o u g h c o m m o n a c t i o n that society becomes conscious o f and affirms itself; society is above all an active c o o p e r a t i o n . A s I have s h o w n , even collective ideas a n d feelings are possible o n l y t h r o u g h t h e o v e r t m o v e m e n t s that s y m 3

b o l i z e t h e m . T h u s i t is a c t i o n that dominates r e l i g i o u s life, f o r the v e r y reason that society is its source. T o all t h e reasons a d d u c e d t o j u s t i f y this c o n c e p t i o n , a final one can be added that emerges from this b o o k as a w h o l e . A l o n g the way, I have established that the f u n d a m e n t a l categories o f t h o u g h t , a n d thus science itself, have r e l i g i o u s o r i g i n s . T h e same has b e e n s h o w n t o be t r u e o f magic, a n d thus o f the various techniques d e r i v e d f r o m m a g i c . Besides, i t has l o n g been k n o w n that, u n t i l a relatively advanced m o m e n t i n e v o l u t i o n , t h e rules o f m o r a l i t y a n d l a w w e r e n o t d i s t i n c t from r i t u a l prescriptions. I n short, t h e n , w e can say that nearly all the great social i n s t i t u t i o n s w e r e b o r n i n r e l i g i o n .

4

F o r t h e p r i n c i p a l features o f collective life t o have b e g u n as n o n e o t h e r t h a n various features o f r e l i g i o u s life, i t is e v i d e n t that r e l i g i o u s life m u s t necessari l y have b e e n the e m i n e n t f o r m and, as i t w e r e , t h e e p i t o m e o f collective life. I f r e l i g i o n gave b i r t h t o all that is essential i n society, that is so because the idea o f society is the s o u l o f r e l i g i o n . T h u s r e l i g i o u s forces are h u m a n forces, m o r a l forces. P r o b a b l y because collective feelings b e c o m e conscious o f themselves o n l y b y settling u p o n e x t e r n a l objects, those v e r y forces c o u l d n o t organize themselves w i t h o u t t a k i n g some o f t h e i r traits from t h i n g s . I n this way, t h e y t o o k o n a k i n d o f 3

See above, pp. 23Iff.

4

Only one form of social activity has not as yet been explicitly linked to religion: economic activity. Nevertheless, the techniques that derive from magic turn out, by this very fact, to have indirectly religious origins. Furthermore, economic value is a sort of power or efficacy, and we know the religious origins of the idea of power. Since mana can be conferred by wealth, wealth itself has some. From this we see that the idea of economic value and that of religious value cannot be unrelated; but the nature of these relationships has not yet been studied.

422

Conclusion

physical nature; t h e y came t o m i n g l e as such w i t h the life o f the physical w o r l d , and t h r o u g h t h e m i t was t h o u g h t possible t o e x p l a i n events i n that w o r l d . B u t w h e n they are considered o n l y f r o m this s t a n d p o i n t and i n this role, w e see o n l y w h a t is m o s t superficial a b o u t t h e m . I n reality, the essential elements o u t o f w h i c h t h e y are m a d e are b o r r o w e d f r o m consciousness. O r dinarily, they d o n o t seem t o have a h u m a n character except w h e n t h e y are 5

t h o u g h t o f i n h u m a n f o r m , b u t even the m o s t i m p e r s o n a l a n d m o s t a n o n y m o u s are n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n o b j e c t i f i e d feelings. O n l y b y seeing r e l i g i o n s i n this w a y does i t b e c o m e possible t o detect t h e i r real m e a n i n g . I f w e r e l y o n appearances, the rites o f t e n seem t o be p u r e l y m a n u a l o p e r a t i o n s — a n o i n t i n g s , p u r i f i c a t i o n s , meals. T o consecrate a t h i n g , o n e places i t i n c o n t a c t w i t h a source o f r e l i g i o u s energy, j u s t as today a b o d y is placed i n c o n t a c t w i t h a source o f heat o r e l e c t r i c i t y i n order t o heat o r electrify i t . T h e procedures used i n t h e t w o cases are n o t essentially different. U n d e r s t o o d i n this way, r e l i g i o u s t e c h n i q u e seems t o be a k i n d o f mystical mechanics. B u t these physical operations are b u t the o u t e r envelope i n w h i c h m e n t a l operations l i e h i d d e n . I n the e n d , t h e p o i n t is n o t t o exert a k i n d o f physical constraint u p o n b l i n d and, m o r e t h a n that, i m a g i n a r y forces b u t t o reach, fortify, a n d d i s c i p l i n e consciousnesses. T h e l o w e r r e l i gions have sometimes b e e n called materialistic. T h a t t e r m is i n c o r r e c t . A l l religions, even the crudest, are i n a sense spiritualistic. T h e p o w e r s t h e y b r i n g i n t o play are, above all, s p i r i t u a l , a n d t h e i r p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n is t o act u p o n m o r a l life. I n this way, w e u n d e r s t a n d that w h a t was d o n e i n t h e name o f r e l i g i o n c a n n o t have b e e n d o n e i n v a i n , f o r i t is necessarily t h e society o f m e n , i t is h u m a n i t y , that has reaped the fruits. I t m a y be asked, E x a c t l y w h a t society is i t that i n this w a y becomes the substrate o f r e l i g i o u s life? Is i t the real society, such as i t exists a n d f u n c t i o n s before o u r eyes, w i t h t h e m o r a l a n d j u r i d i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t i t has t o i l e d t o fashion f o r itself over the course o f history? B u t that society is full o f flaws a n d i m p e r f e c t i o n s . I n that society, g o o d rubs shoulders w i t h e v i l , injustice is ever o n t h e t h r o n e , a n d t r u t h is c o n t i n u a l l y d a r k e n e d b y error. H o w c o u l d a b e i n g so c r u d e l y m a d e inspire t h e feelings o f love, ardent enthusiasm, a n d w i l l i n g self-sacrifice that all the r e l i g i o n s d e m a n d o f t h e i r faithful?

Those

perfect beings that are t h e gods c a n n o t have taken t h e i r traits f r o m such a m e d i o c r e , sometimes even base, reality. W o u l d i t n o t be instead the perfect society, i n w h i c h j u s t i c e a n d t r u t h r e i g n e d , a n d f r o m w h i c h e v i l i n all its f o r m s was u p r o o t e d ? N o o n e disputes

3

It is for this reason that Frazer and even Preuss set the impersonal religious forces outside religion, or at most at its threshold, in order to relate them to magic.

423

Conclusion

that this perfect society has a close relationship t o r e l i g i o u s sentiment, f o r r e l i g i o n s are said t o a i m at r e a l i z i n g i t . H o w e v e r , this society is n o t an e m p i r i cal fact, w e l l d e f i n e d a n d observable; i t is a fancy, a d r e a m w i t h w h i c h m e n have l u l l e d t h e i r miseries b u t have never e x p e r i e n c e d i n reality. I t is a m e r e idea that expresses i n consciousness o u r m o r e o r less obscure aspirations t o w a r d t h e g o o d , the b e a u t i f u l , a n d t h e ideal. T h e s e aspirations have t h e i r roots i n us; since t h e y c o m e f r o m the v e r y depths o f o u r b e i n g , n o t h i n g outside us can a c c o u n t f o r t h e m . F u r t h e r m o r e , i n a n d o f themselves, they are already r e l i g i o u s ; hence, far f r o m b e i n g able t o e x p l a i n r e l i g i o n , the ideal society p r e supposes i t .

6

B u t t o see o n l y the idealistic side o f r e l i g i o n is t o s i m p l i f y arbitrarily. I n its o w n way, r e l i g i o n is realistic. T h e r e is n o physical o r m o r a l ugliness, n o v i c e , a n d n o e v i l that has n o t b e e n d e i f i e d . T h e r e have b e e n gods o f theft a n d t r i c k e r y , lust a n d war, sickness a n d death. A s u p l i f t e d as its idea o f d i v i n i t y is, C h r i s t i a n i t y itself was o b l i g e d t o m a k e a place i n its m y t h o l o g y f o r the spirit o f evd. Satan is an essential c o m p o n e n t o f t h e C h r i s t i a n m a c h i n e r y ; yet, even i f h e is an i m p u r e b e i n g , he is n o t a profane b e i n g . T h e a n t i - g o d is a g o d — l o w e r a n d subordinate, i t is t r u e , yet invested w i t h b r o a d powers; he is even t h e o b j e c t o f rites, at t h e v e r y least negative ones. Far f r o m i g n o r i n g a n d disr e g a r d i n g t h e real society, r e l i g i o n is its image, r e f l e c t i n g a l l its features, even t h e m o s t v u l g a r a n d repellent. E v e r y t h i n g is t o be f o u n d i n i t , a n d i f w e m o s t o f t e n see g o o d t r i u m p h i n g over e v i l , life over death, a n d the forces o f l i g h t over the forces o f darkness, this is because i t is n o different i n reality. I f the relationship b e t w e e n these forces was reversed, life w o u l d be impossible, whereas i n fact, life m a i n t a i n s itself a n d even tends t o develop. B u t i t is q u i t e t r u e that even i f the m y t h o l o g i e s a n d theologies a l l o w a clear glimpse o f t h e reality, t h e reality w e f i n d i n t h e m has b e e n enlarged, t r a n s f o r m e d , a n d idealized. T h e m o s t p r i m i t i v e r e l i g i o n s are n o different i n this respect f r o m the m o s t m o d e r n a n d t h e m o s t r e f i n e d . W e have seen, f o r e x a m p l e , h o w the A r u n t a place at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t i m e a m y t h i c a l society w h o s e o r g a n i z a t i o n exactly replicates t h e o n e t h a t still exists today. I t is made u p o f t h e same clans a n d phratries, i t is subject t o t h e same m a r r i a g e rules, a n d i t practices the same rites. B u t the personages that c o m p r i s e i t are ideal beings e n d o w e d w i t h capacities t o w h i c h m e r e m o r t a l s c a n n o t lay c l a i m . B e l o n g i n g t o a n i m a l i t y a n d h u m a n i t y at t h e same time, t h e i r nature is n o t o n l y h i g h e r b u t also different. T h e e v i l p o w e r s u n d e r g o a similar m e t a m o r p h o s i s

6

[Emile] Boutroux, Science et religion [dans la philosophie contemporaine, Paris, E. Flammarion, 1907], pp. 206-207.

424

Conclusion

i n that r e l i g i o n . I t is as t h o u g h e v i l i t s e l f undergoes r e f i n e m e n t a n d idealizat i o n . T h e q u e s t i o n that arises is w h e r e this i d e a l i z a t i o n comes f r o m . O n e p r o p o s e d answer is that m a n has a n a t u r a l capacity t o idealize, that is, t o replace the real w o r l d w i t h a different o n e t o w h i c h h e travels i n t h o u g h t . B u t such an answer changes the t e r m s o f t h e p r o b l e m , n e i t h e r s o l v i n g n o r even a d v a n c i n g i t . T h i s persistent i d e a l i z a t i o n is a f u n d a m e n t a l feat u r e o f r e l i g i o n s . So t o e x p l a i n r e l i g i o n s i n terms o f an i n n a t e capacity t o idealize is s i m p l y t o replace o n e w o r d w i t h its equivalent; i t is l i k e saying that m a n created r e l i g i o n because h e has a r e l i g i o u s nature. Yet the a n i m a l k n o w s o n l y o n e w o r l d : t h e w o r l d i t perceives t h r o u g h e x p e r i e n c e , i n t e r n a l as w e l l as e x t e r n a l . M a n alone has the capacity t o conceive o f t h e ideal and add i t t o the real. W h e r e , t h e n , does this remarkable d i s t i n c t i o n c o m e from? Before t a k i n g i t t o be a p r i m a r y fact o r a m y s t e r i o u s v i r t u e that eludes science, o n e s h o u l d first have m a d e sure that this remarkable d i s t i n c t i o n does n o t arise f r o m c o n d i t i o n s t h a t can b e d e t e r m i n e d e m p i r i c a l l y . M y p r o p o s e d e x p l a n a t i o n o f r e l i g i o n has t h e specific advantage o f p r o v i d i n g an answer t o this q u e s t i o n , since w h a t defines t h e sacred is that t h e sacred is added t o the real. A n d since the ideal is d e f i n e d i n t h e same way, w e c a n n o t e x p l a i n t h e o n e w i t h o u t e x p l a i n i n g t h e other. W e have seen, i n fact, that i f c o l l e c t i v e life awakens r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t w h e n i t rises t o a cert a i n intensity, that is so because i t b r i n g s a b o u t a state o f effervescence alters t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f psychic activity. T h e v i t a l energies b e c o m e

that

hyper-

e x c i t e d , the passions m o r e intense, t h e sensations m o r e p o w e r f u l ; there are i n d e e d some that are p r o d u c e d o n l y at this m o m e n t . M a n does n o t r e c o g nize himself; he feels s o m e h o w t r a n s f o r m e d a n d i n consequence transforms his s u r r o u n d i n g s . T o a c c o u n t f o r the v e r y p a r t i c u l a r impressions he receives, he i m p u t e s t o the t h i n g s w i t h w h i c h he is m o s t d i r e c t l y i n c o n t a c t properties that t h e y d o n o t have, e x c e p t i o n a l p o w e r s a n d v i r t u e s that t h e objects o f o r d i n a r y e x p e r i e n c e d o n o t possess. I n short, u p o n the real w o r l d w h e r e p r o fane life is l i v e d , he superimposes a n o t h e r that, i n a sense, exists o n l y i n his t h o u g h t , b u t o n e t o w h i c h he ascribes a h i g h e r k i n d o f d i g n i t y t h a n he ascribes t o the real w o r l d o f profane life. I n t w o respects, t h e n , this o t h e r w o r l d is an ideal one. T h u s the f o r m a t i o n o f an ideal is b y n o means an i r r e d u c i b l e d a t u m that eludes science. I t rests o n c o n d i t i o n s that can be u n c o v e r e d t h r o u g h observation.

I t is a n a t u r a l p r o d u c t o f social life. I f society is t o be able t o b e c o m e

conscious o f i t s e l f a n d keep the sense i t has o f itself at the r e q u i r e d intensity, i t m u s t assemble a n d concentrate. T h i s c o n c e n t r a t i o n b r i n g s a b o u t an u p l i f t i n g o f m o r a l life that is expressed b y a set o f ideal c o n c e p t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e n e w life thus awakened is d e p i c t e d . These ideal c o n c e p t i o n s c o r r e s p o n d t o

Conclusion

425

the o n r u s h o f psychic forces added at that m o m e n t t o those w e have at o u r disposal f o r the everyday tasks o f life. A society can n e i t h e r create n o r recreate itself w i t h o u t c r e a t i n g some k i n d o f ideal b y t h e same stroke. T h i s crea t i o n is n o t a sort o f o p t i o n a l extra step b y w h i c h society, b e i n g already made, m e r e l y adds f i n i s h i n g touches; i t is the act b y w h i c h society makes itself, and remakes itself, p e r i o d i c a l l y . T h u s , w h e n w e set t h e ideal society i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the real society, l i k e t w o antagonists supposedly l e a d i n g us i n opposite d i rections, w e are r e i f y i n g a n d o p p o s i n g abstractions. T h e ideal society is n o t outside the real o n e b u t is p a r t o f i t . Far f r o m o u r b e i n g d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h e m as t h o u g h b e t w e e n t w o poles that repel o n e another, w e c a n n o t h o l d t o the o n e w i t h o u t h o l d i n g t o the other. A society is n o t c o n s t i t u t e d s i m p l y b y the mass o f i n d i v i d u a l s w h o c o m p r i s e i t , t h e g r o u n d they occupy, the things t h e y use, o r t h e m o v e m e n t s t h e y make, b u t above all b y t h e idea i t has o f itself. A n d there is n o d o u b t that society sometimes hesitates over the m a n n e r i n w h i c h i t m u s t conceive itself. I t feels p u l l e d i n all directions. W h e n such conflicts break o u t , t h e y are n o t b e t w e e n the ideal and the r e a l i t y b u t b e t w e e n different ideals, b e t w e e n t h e ideal o f yesterday a n d that o f t o day, b e t w e e n the ideal that has the a u t h o r i t y o f t r a d i t i o n a n d one that is o n l y c o m i n g i n t o b e i n g . S t u d y i n g h o w ideals c o m e t o evolve c e r t a i n l y has its place, b u t n o m a t t e r h o w this p r o b l e m is solved, t h e fact remains that the w h o l e o f i t unfolds i n the w o r l d o f the ideal. T h e r e f o r e the collective ideal that r e l i g i o n expresses is far f r o m b e i n g due t o some vague capacity innate t o the i n d i v i d u a l ; rather, i t is i n the school o f collective life that the i n d i v i d u a l has learned t o f o r m ideals. I t is b y assimilating the ideals w o r k e d o u t b y society that the i n d i v i d u a l is able t o conceive o f the ideal. I t is society that, b y d r a w i n g h i m i n t o its sphere o f action, has g i v e n h i m the need t o raise h i m s e l f above the w o r l d o f experience, w h i l e at the same time f u r n i s h i n g h i m the means o f i m a g i n i n g another. I t is society that b u i l t this n e w w o r l d w h i l e b u i l d i n g itself, because i t is society that the n e w w o r l d expresses. T h e r e is n o t h i n g mysterious about the faculty o f idealization, t h e n , w h e t h e r i n the i n d i v i d u a l o r i n the g r o u p . T h i s faculty is n o t a sort o f l u x u r y , w h i c h m a n c o u l d d o w i t h o u t , b u t a c o n d i t i o n o f his existence. I f he h a d n o t acquired i t , he w o u l d n o t be a social b e i n g , w h i c h is t o say that he w o u l d n o t be m a n . T o be sure, collective ideals t e n d t o b e c o m e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d as they b e c o m e incarnate i n individuals. E a c h person understands t h e m i n his o w n w a y a n d gives t h e m an i n d i v i d u a l i m p r i n t , some elements b e i n g taken o u t and others b e i n g added. A s the i n d i v i d u a l personality develops and becomes an a u t o n o m o u s source o f action, the personal ideal diverges f r o m the social one. B u t i f w e w a n t t o understand that aptitude f o r l i v i n g outside the real, w h i c h is seemingly so r e markable, all w e need t o d o is relate i t t o the social c o n d i t i o n s o n w h i c h i t rests.

426

Conclusion

B u t the last t h i n g t o d o is t o see this t h e o r y o f r e l i g i o n as m e r e l y a refurb i s h m e n t o f h i s t o r i c a l m a t e r i a l i s m . T h a t w o u l d be a t o t a l m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f m y t h o u g h t . I n p o i n t i n g o u t an essentially social t h i n g i n r e l i g i o n , I i n n o w a y m e a n t o say that r e l i g i o n s i m p l y translates the m a t e r i a l f o r m s a n d i m m e d i a t e v i t a l necessities o f society i n t o a n o t h e r language. I d o i n d e e d take i t t o be o b v i o u s that social life depends o n a n d bears t h e m a r k o f its m a t e r i a l base, j u s t as t h e m e n t a l life o f the i n d i v i d u a l depends o n t h e b r a i n and i n d e e d o n the w h o l e body. B u t collective consciousness is s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n a mere epiphenomenon

o f its m o r p h o l o g i c a l base, j u s t as i n d i v i d u a l c o n -

sciousness is s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n a m e r e p r o d u c t o f t h e n e r v o u s system. I f collective consciousness is t o appear, a sui generis synthesis o f i n d i v i d u a l c o n sciousnesses m u s t occur. T h e p r o d u c t o f this synthesis is a w h o l e w o r l d o f feelings, ideas, a n d images that f o l l o w t h e i r o w n laws o n c e t h e y are b o r n . T h e y m u t u a l l y attract one another, repel one another, fuse together, s u b d i v i d e , a n d proliferate; a n d n o n e o f these c o m b i n a t i o n s is d i r e c t l y c o m m a n d e d a n d necessitated b y the state o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g reality. I n d e e d , the life thus unleashed enjoys such great i n d e p e n d e n c e that i t sometimes plays a b o u t i n f o r m s that have n o a i m o r u t i l i t y o f any k i n d , b u t o n l y f o r t h e pleasure o f aff i r m i n g itself. I have s h o w n that precisely this is o f t e n t r u e o f r i t u a l a c t i v i t y and mythological t h o u g h t .

7

B u t i f r e l i g i o n has social causes, h o w can the i n d i v i d u a l c u l t and t h e u n i versalistic character o f c e r t a i n r e l i g i o n s be explained? I f i t is b o r n in foro ex¬ terno, * h o w was i t able t o pass i n t o t h e i n n e r core o f the i n d i v i d u a l a n d b e c o m e ever m o r e deeply i m p l a n t e d i n h i m ? I f i t is t h e w o r k o f d e f i n i t e a n d p a r t i c u l a r societies, h o w c o u l d i t b e c o m e detached e n o u g h f r o m t h e m t o be c o n c e i v e d o f as the c o m m o n h o l d i n g o f all h u m a n i t y ? Since, i n the course o f o u r study, w e came u p o n the first seeds o f i n d i v i d u a l r e l i g i o n a n d r e l i g i o u s c o s m o p o l i t a n i s m a n d saw h o w they

were

f o r m e d , w e possess the m o s t general elements o f an answer t o that t w o f o l d question. I have s h o w n that t h e religious force a n i m a t i n g the clan becomes i n d i v i d u a l i z e d b y i n c a r n a t i n g i t s e l f i n i n d i v i d u a l consciousnesses. Secondary sacred beings are f o r m e d i n this way, each i n d i v i d u a l h a v i n g his o w n that is m a d e i n his o w n image, p a r t o f his i n t i m a t e life, a n d at one w i t h his fate. T h e y are the soul, the i n d i v i d u a l t o t e m , t h e p r o t e c t i n g ancestor, a n d so f o r t h .

*In the external world. 'See above, pp. 382ff. Cf. my article on the same question: "Représentations individuelles et représentations collectives," RMM, vol. VI, 1898 [pp. 273ff.].

Conclusion

427

These beings are the objects o f rites that the w o r s h i p p e r can c o n d u c t o n his o w n , apart f r o m any g r o u p , so i t is actually a p r i m i t i v e f o r m o f the i n d i v i d ual c u l t . O f course, i t is still o n l y a v e r y u n d e v e l o p e d cult, b u t that is because the c u l t expressing t h e i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n a l i t y c o u l d n o t be v e r y w e l l d e v e l o p e d , g i v e n that the i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n a l i t y is at that stage still m a r k e d v e r y slightly, w i t h l i t t l e value a t t r i b u t e d t o i t . As i n d i v i d u a l s became m o r e differe n t i a t e d a n d the value o f t h e p e r s o n grew, t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g c u l t itself t o o k o n a larger role i n r e l i g i o u s life as a w h o l e , at t h e same t i m e m o r e c o m p l e t e l y sealing itself o f f f r o m t h e outside. T h e existence o f i n d i v i d u a l cults does n o t therefore i m p l y a n y t h i n g that contradicts o r complicates a s o c i o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n o f r e l i g i o n . T h e r e l i gious forces t h e y address are m e r e l y collective forces i n i n d i v i d u a l i z e d f o r m s . E v e n w h e r e r e l i g i o n seems t o be e n t i r e l y w i t h i n the i n d i v i d u a l , the l i v i n g source that feeds i t is t o be f o u n d i n society. W e can n o w j u d g e the w o r t h o f the radical i n d i v i d u a l i s m that is i n t e n t o n m a k i n g r e l i g i o n o u t t o be a p u r e l y i n d i v i d u a l t h i n g : I t misconceives the f u n d a m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s o f religious life. A n d i f that radical i n d i v i d u a l i s m has r e m a i n e d i n t h e state o f unrealized t h e o r e t i c a l aspiration u p t o n o w , that is because i t is unrealizable i n fact. A p h i l o s o p h y can v e r y w e l l be w o r k e d o u t i n t h e silence o f i n w a r d m e d i t a t i o n , b u t n o t a f a i t h . A f a i t h above all is w a r m t h , life, enthusiasm, e n h a n c e m e n t o f all m e n t a l activity, u p l i f t o f the i n d i v i d u a l above himself. E x c e p t b y reaching outside himself, h o w c o u l d t h e i n d i v i d u a l add t o the energies he possesses? H o w c o u l d he transcend h i m s e l f b y his o w n strength? T h e o n l y h e a r t h at w h i c h w e can w a r m ourselves m o r a l l y is the h e a r t h m a d e b y the c o m p a n y o f o u r f e l l o w m e n ; the o n l y m o r a l forces w i t h w h i c h w e can n o u r i s h o u r o w n a n d increase t h e m are those w e get f r o m others. L e t us even grant the existence o f beings m o r e o r less l i k e those t h e m y t h o l o g i e s d e p i c t f o r us. I f t h e y are t o have t h e useful i n f l u e n c e over souls that is t h e i r raison d'être, w e m u s t believe i n t h e m . T h e beliefs are at w o r k o n l y w h e n t h e y are shared. W e m a y w e l l keep t h e m t h e m g o i n g f o r a time t h r o u g h personal effort alone, b u t they are n e i t h e r b o r n n o r o b t a i n e d i n this way, a n d i t is d o u b t f u l that they can be preserved u n d e r those c o n d i t i o n s . I n fact, t h e m a n w h o has a g e n u i n e faith feels an irrepressible n e e d t o spread i t . T o d o so, he comes o u t o f his i s o l a t i o n , he approaches others, he seeks t o c o n v i n c e t h e m , a n d i t is the ardor o f the c o n v i c t i o n s he b r i n g s a b o u t that i n t u r n reinforces his o w n . T h a t ardor w o u l d speedily dissipate i f left alone. W h a t is t r u e o f religious i n d i v i d u a l i s m is t r u e o f religious universalism. Far f r o m b e i n g exclusively the trait o f a f e w v e r y great religions, w e have f o u n d i t i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n s y s t e m — n o t at its base, t o be sure, b u t at its p i n n a cle. Bunjil,- D a r a m u l u n , and B a i a m e are n o t m e r e t r i b a l gods, since each is

428

Conclusion

r e c o g n i z e d b y a n u m b e r o f different tribes. T h e i r c u l t is i n a sense i n t e r n a t i o n a l . So this c o n c e p t i o n is q u i t e close t o the o n e f o u n d i n the most m o d e r n theologies. As a result, a n d f o r that v e r y reason, c e r t a i n w r i t e r s have felt d u t y b o u n d t o d e n y its a u t h e n t i c i t y , even t h o u g h its a u t h e n t i c i t y c a n n o t be d e n i e d . B u t I have b e e n able t o s h o w h o w this c o n c e p t i o n was f o r m e d . Tribes that n e i g h b o r o n e a n o t h e r a n d are o f the same c i v i l i z a t i o n c a n n o t h e l p b u t have o n g o i n g relationships w i t h o n e another. A l l k i n d s o f c i r c u m stances p r o v i d e t h e occasion f o r contact. A p a r t f r o m business, w h i c h is still r u d i m e n t a r y , there are marriages; i n t e r n a t i o n a l marriages are v e r y c o m m o n i n Australia. I n the course o f these contacts, m e n n a t u r a l l y b e c o m e conscious o f the m o r a l k i n s h i p that unites t h e m . T h e y have the same social organizat i o n , t h e same d i v i s i o n i n t o phratries, clans, a n d m a r r i a g e classes; t h e y c o n d u c t the same o r s i m i l a r i n i t i a t i o n rites. T h e effect o f m u t u a l b o r r o w i n g s o r agreements is t o consolidate the spontaneous similarities. T h e gods t o w h i c h such o b v i o u s l y i d e n t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s w e r e attached c o u l d h a r d l y r e m a i n dist i n c t i n people's m i n d s . E v e r y t h i n g b r o u g h t t h e m together; a n d i n consequence, even supposing that each t r i b e h a d w o r k e d o u t its o w n n o t i o n o f t h e m i n d e p e n d e n d y t h e y m u s t as a m a t t e r o f course have h a d a t e n d e n c y t o amalgamate. F u r t h e r m o r e , the l i k e l i h o o d is that the gods w e r e first c o n ceived i n these i n t e r t r i b a l assemblies, f o r t h e y are gods o f i n i t i a t i o n , first a n d foremost, a n d various tribes are usually represented at the i n i t i a t i o n cerem o n i e s . T h u s i f sacred beings u n c o n n e c t e d w i t h any t e r r i t o r i a l l y d e f i n e d soc i e t y w e r e f o r m e d , i t is n o t because t h e y h a d an extrasocial o r i g i n . R a t h e r , i t is because above these t e r r i t o r i a l g r o u p i n g s are others w i t h m o r e f l u i d b o u n d a r i e s . These o t h e r g r o u p i n g s d o n o t have f i x e d frontiers b u t i n c l u d e a great m a n y m o r e o r less n e i g h b o r i n g a n d related tribes. T h e v e r y special social life that emerges tends t o spread over an area w i t h o u t clear l i m i t s . Q u i t e naturally, t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g m y t h o l o g i c a l personages are o f the same character; t h e i r sphere o f i n f l u e n c e is n o t d e f i n i t e ; t h e y h o v e r above t h e i n d i v i d u a l tribes a n d above t h e l a n d . T h e s e are t h e great i n t e r n a t i o n a l gods. N o t h i n g i n this s i t u a t i o n is p e c u l i a r t o A u s t r a l i a n societies. T h e r e is n o people, a n d n o State, that is n o t engaged w i t h a n o t h e r m o r e o r less u n d e l i m i t e d society that includes all peoples a n d a l l States* w i t h w h i c h i t is d i r e c d y o r i n d i r e c t l y i n contact; there is n o n a t i o n a l life that is n o t u n d e r the sway o f an i n t e r n a t i o n a l collective life. T h e m o r e w e advance i n history, the larger a n d t h e m o r e i m p o r t a n t these i n t e r n a t i o n a l g r o u p i n g s b e c o m e . I n this way, w e see h o w , i n some cases, the universalistic t e n d e n c y c o u l d develop t o

'Dürkheim capitalized "Church" and "State."

429

Conclusion

the p o i n t o f affecting n o t o n l y the highest ideas o f t h e religious system b u t also the v e r y p r i n c i p l e s o n w h i c h i t rests.

II T h u s there is s o m e t h i n g eternal i n r e l i g i o n that is destined t o o u t l i v e the succession o f p a r t i c u l a r symbols i n w h i c h religious t h o u g h t has c l o t h e d itself. T h e r e can be n o society that does n o t e x p e r i e n c e t h e n e e d at regular i n t e r vals t o m a i n t a i n a n d strengthen t h e collective feelings a n d ideas that p r o v i d e its coherence a n d its d i s t i n c t i n d i v i d u a l i t y . T h i s m o r a l r e m a k i n g can

be

achieved o n l y t h r o u g h meetings, assemblies, a n d congregations i n w h i c h the i n d i v i d u a l s , pressing close t o o n e another, r e a f f i r m i n c o m m o n t h e i r c o m mon

sentiments. S u c h is the o r i g i n o f ceremonies that, b y t h e i r object, b y

t h e i r results, a n d b y t h e t e c h n i q u e s used, are n o t different i n k i n d from ceremonies that are specifically r e l i g i o u s . W h a t basic difference is there b e t w e e n C h r i s t i a n s ' celebrating the p r i n c i p a l dates o f Christ's life, Jews' celebrating the exodus from E g y p t o r the p r o m u l g a t i o n o f the D e c a l o g u e , a n d a citizens' m e e t i n g c o m m e m o r a t i n g t h e advent o f a n e w m o r a l charter o r some o t h e r great event o f n a t i o n a l life? I f today w e have some d i f f i c u l t y i m a g i n i n g w h a t the feasts a n d cerem o n i e s o f t h e future w i l l be, i t is because w e are g o i n g t h r o u g h a p e r i o d o f t r a n s i t i o n a n d m o r a l m e d i o c r i t y . T h e great things o f the past that e x c i t e d o u r fathers n o l o n g e r arouse the same zeal a m o n g us, e i t h e r because t h e y have passed so c o m p l e t e l y i n t o c o m m o n c u s t o m that w e lose awareness o f t h e m o r because t h e y n o l o n g e r suit o u r aspirations. M e a n w h i l e , n o replacement f o r t h e m has yet b e e n created. W e are n o l o n g e r e l e c t r i f i e d b y those p r i n c i p l e s i n w h o s e n a m e C h r i s t i a n i t y e x h o r t e d t h e masters t o treat t h e i r slaves h u m a n e l y ; a n d besides, C h r i s t i a n i t y ' s idea o f h u m a n e q u a l i t y a n d f r a t e r n i t y seems t o us today t o leave t o o m u c h r o o m f o r unjust inequalities. Its p i t y for t h e downcast seems t o us t o o p l a t o n i c . W e w o u l d l i k e o n e that is m o r e v i g orous b u t d o n o t yet see clearly w h a t i t s h o u l d be o r h o w i t m i g h t be realized i n fact. I n short, the f o r m e r gods are g r o w i n g o l d o r d y i n g , a n d others have n o t b e e n b o r n . T h i s is w h a t v o i d e d C o m t e ' s a t t e m p t t o organize a r e l i g i o n using o l d h i s t o r i c a l m e m o r i e s , artificially r e v i v e d . I t is life itself, and n o t a dead past, that can p r o d u c e a l i v i n g c u l t . B u t that state o f u n c e r t a i n t y a n d confused a n x i e t y c a n n o t last forever. A day w i l l c o m e w h e n o u r societies o n c e again w i l l k n o w h o u r s o f creative effervescence d u r i n g w h i c h n e w ideals w i l l again s p r i n g f o r t h a n d n e w f o r m u l a s e m e r g e t o g u i d e h u m a n i t y for a t i m e . A n d

430

Conclusion

w h e n those h o u r s have b e e n l i v e d t h r o u g h , m e n w i l l spontaneously feel the n e e d t o relive t h e m i n t h o u g h t f r o m t i m e t o t i m e — t h a t is, t o preserve t h e i r m e m o r y b y means o f celebrations that r e g u l a r l y recreate t h e i r fruits. W e have already seen h o w t h e [ F r e n c h ] R e v o l u t i o n i n s t i t u t e d a w h o l e cycle o f celebrations i n o r d e r t o keep t h e p r i n c i p l e s that i n s p i r e d i t eternally y o u n g . I f that i n s t i t u t i o n q u i c k l y perished, i t is because t h e r e v o l u t i o n a r y f a i t h lasted o n l y briefly, a n d because d i s a p p o i n t m e n t s a n d discouragements q u i c k l y r e placed the first m o m e n t o f enthusiasm. B u t a l t h o u g h that w o r k m i s c a r r i e d , i t helps us t o i m a g i n e w h a t m i g h t have c o m e t o be u n d e r o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s ; a n d e v e r y t h i n g leads us t o believe that t h e w o r k w i l l sooner o r later b e taken u p again. T h e r e are n o i m m o r t a l gospels, a n d there is n o reason t o believe that h u m a n i t y is incapable o f c o n c e i v i n g n e w ones i n t h e future. As t o k n o w i n g w h a t t h e symbols w i l l be i n w h i c h t h e n e w f a i t h w i l l c o m e to express i t self, w h e t h e r t h e y w i l l resemble those o f t h e past, w h e t h e r t h e y w i l l better suit t h e reality t o be expressed—that is a q u e s t i o n that exceeds h u m a n f a c u l ties o f p r e d i c t i o n a n d that, m o r e o v e r , is beside t h e p o i n t . B u t feasts a n d r i t e s — i n a w o r d , t h e c u l t — a r e n o t t h e w h o l e o f r e l i g i o n . R e l i g i o n is n o t o n l y a system o f practices b u t also a system o f ideas w h o s e object is t o express the w o r l d ; even t h e h u m b l e s t have t h e i r o w n c o s m o l o gies, as w e have seen. N o m a t t e r h o w these t w o elements o f religious life m a y be related, t h e y are nonetheless q u i t e different. O n e is t u r n e d t o w a r d a c t i o n , w h i c h i t elicits a n d regulates; t h e o t h e r t o w a r d t h o u g h t , w h i c h i t enriches a n d organizes. Since t h e y d o n o t rest o n the same c o n d i t i o n s , t h e n , there is reason t o ask w h e t h e r t h e ideas c o r r e s p o n d t o needs as universal a n d as p e r m a n e n t as t h e practices do. W h e n w e i m p u t e specific traits t o r e l i g i o u s t h o u g h t a n d believe its f u n c t i o n is t o express, b y its o w n m e t h o d s , a w h o l e aspect o f t h e real t h a t eludes b o t h o r d i n a r y k n o w l e d g e a n d science, w e n a t u r a l l y refuse t o grant that the speculative role o f r e l i g i o n c o u l d ever be o v e r t h r o w n . B u t i t does n o t seem t o m e that analysis o f t h e facts has d e m o n s t r a t e d this specificity o f r e l i g i o n . T h e r e l i g i o n w e have j u s t s t u d i e d is o n e o f those i n w h i c h the symbols used are the m o s t u n s e t t l i n g t o reason. E v e r y t h i n g a b o u t i t seems f u l l o f mystery. A t first glance, those beings that s i m u l t a n e o u s l y participate i n the m o s t disparate k i n g d o m s , m u l t i p l y w i t h o u t ceasing t o be one, a n d break u p w i t h o u t d i m i n i s h i n g , seem t o b e l o n g t o an e n t i r e l y different w o r l d from the o n e i n w h i c h w e live. S o m e have even g o n e so far as t o say that t h e t h o u g h t that b u i l t i t was t o t a l l y i g n o r a n t o f t h e laws o f l o g i c . N e v e r , perhaps, has t h e c o n trast b e t w e e n reason a n d f a i t h b e e n so p r o n o u n c e d . I f ever there was a m o m e n t i n h i s t o r y w h e n t h e difference b e t w e e n t h e m m u s t have s t o o d o u t plainly, t h e n that t r u l y was t h e m o m e n t .

Conclusion

431

B u t I have n o t e d , c o n t r a r y t o such appearances, that the realities t o w h i c h religious speculation was a p p l i e d t h e n are t h e same ones that w o u l d later serve as objects o f scientists' r e f l e c t i o n . T h o s e realities are nature, m a n , a n d society. T h e m y s t e r y that appears t o s u r r o u n d t h e m is e n t i r e l y superficial a n d fades u p o n closer scrutiny. T o have t h e m appear as t h e y are, i t is e n o u g h t o p u l l aside the v e i l w i t h w h i c h t h e m y t h o l o g i c a l i m a g i n a t i o n covered t h e m . R e l i g i o n strives t o translate those realities i n t o an i n t e l l i g i b l e language that does n o t differ i n nature from that used b y science. B o t h a t t e m p t t o c o n n e c t things t o o n e another, establish i n t e r n a l relations b e t w e e n those things, classify t h e m , a n d systematize t h e m . W e have even seen that the essential n o t i o n s o f scientific l o g i c are o f r e l i g i o u s o r i g i n . O f course, science r e w o r k s those n o t i o n s i n o r d e r t o use t h e m . I t distills o u t a l l sorts o f extraneous

elements

a n d generally b r i n g s t o all its efforts a c r i t i c a l s p i r i t that is u n k n o w n i n r e l i g i o n ; i t surrounds itself w i t h precautions t o " a v o i d haste and bias" and to keep passions, prejudices, a n d all subjective influences at bay. B u t these i m provements i n m e t h o d are n o t e n o u g h t o differentiate science f r o m r e l i g i o n . I n this regard, b o t h pursue the same goal; scientific t h o u g h t is o n l y a m o r e perfected f o r m o f religious t h o u g h t . H e n c e i t seems natural that r e h g i o n s h o u l d lose g r o u n d as science becomes better at p e r f o r m i n g its task. T h e r e is n o d o u b t , i n fact, that this regression has taken place over the course o f history. A l t h o u g h the o f f s p r i n g o f r e l i g i o n , science tends t o replace r e l i g i o n i n e v e r y t h i n g that involves the c o g n i t i v e a n d i n t e l l e c t u a l functions. C h r i s t i a n i t y has b y n o w d e f i n i t i v e l y sanctioned that replacement, i n the r e a l m o f physical p h e n o m e n a . R e g a r d i n g m a t t e r as a profane t h i n g par e x cellence, C h r i s t i a n i t y has easfly a b a n d o n e d k n o w l e d g e t o a discipline that is alien t o i t , tradidit mundum hominum disputationi. * So i t is that the sciences o f nature have, w i t h relative ease, succeeded i n establishing t h e i r a u t h o r i t y a n d i n h a v i n g that a u t h o r i t y a c k n o w l e d g e d . B u t C h r i s t i a n i t y c o u l d n o t l e t the w o r l d o f souls o u t o f its g r i p as easily, f o r i t is above all over souls that the g o d o f t h e Christians wishes t o r u l e . T h i s is w h y t h e idea o f subjecting psychic life t o science l o n g a m o u n t e d t o a k i n d o f p r o f a n a t i o n ; even today, that idea is still r e p u g n a n t t o many. Today, e x p e r i m e n t a l a n d comparative p s y c h o l o g y has b e e n created a n d m u s t be r e c k o n e d w i t h . B u t the w o r l d o f religious a n d m o r a l life still remains f o r b i d d e n . T h e great m a j o r i t y o f m e n c o n t i n u e t o b e lieve that there is an o r d e r o f things that the i n t e l l e c t can enter o n l y b y v e r y special routes. H e n c e t h e s t r o n g resistance o n e encounters w h e n e v e r o n e attempts t o treat r e l i g i o u s a n d m o r a l p h e n o m e n a scientifically. Yet these efforts

*It abandoned the world to the disputes of men.

432

Conclusion

persist despite o p p o s i t i o n , a n d that v e r y persistence makes i t foreseeable that this last b a r r i e r w i l l give w a y i n t h e e n d , a n d t h a t science w i l l establish itself as mistress, even i n this preserve. T h i s is w h a t t h e c o n f l i c t o f science a n d r e l i g i o n is about. People o f t e n have a m i s t a k e n idea o f i t . * Science is said t o d e n y r e l i g i o n i n p r i n c i p l e . B u t r e l i g i o n exists; i t is a system o f g i v e n facts; i n short, i t is a reality. H o w c o u l d science d e n y a reality? F u r t h e r m o r e , insofar as r e l i g i o n is a c t i o n and insofar as i t is a means o f m a k i n g m e n live, science c a n n o t possibly take its place. A l t h o u g h science expresses life, i t does n o t create life, a n d science can v e r y w e l l seek t o e x p l a i n f a i t h b u t b y that v e r y fact presupposes f a i t h . H e n c e there is c o n f l i c t o n o n l y a l i m i t e d p o i n t . O f the t w o f u n c t i o n s o r i g i n a l l y p e r f o r m e d by r e l i g i o n , there is one, o n l y o n e , that tends m o r e a n d m o r e t o escape i t , a n d that is the speculative f u n c t i o n . W h a t science disputes i n r e l i g i o n is n o t its r i g h t t o exist b u t its r i g h t t o d o g m a t i z e a b o u t t h e nature o f things, its p r e tensions t o special expertise f o r e x p l a i n i n g m a n a n d the w o r l d . I n fact, r e l i g i o n does n o t k n o w itself. I t k n o w s n e i t h e r w h a t i t is made o f n o r w h a t needs i t responds t o . Far from b e i n g able t o t e l l science w h a t t o do, r e l i g i o n is itself an o b j e c t f o r science! A n d o n the o t h e r h a n d , since apart from a r e ality that eludes scientific r e f l e c t i o n , r e l i g i o u s speculation has n o special o b j e c t o f its o w n , that r e l i g i o n o b v i o u s l y c a n n o t play the same r o l e i n the f u t u r e as i t d i d i n the past. H o w e v e r , r e l i g i o n seems destined t o t r a n s f o r m itself rather t h a n disappear. I have said that there is s o m e t h i n g eternal i n r e l i g i o n : the c u l t a n d t h e f a i t h . B u t m e n can n e i t h e r c o n d u c t ceremonies f o r w h i c h t h e y can see n o r a tionale, n o r accept a f a i t h that t h e y i n n o w a y understand. T o spread o r s i m p l y m a i n t a i n r e l i g i o n , o n e m u s t j u s t i f y i t , w h i c h is t o say o n e must devise a t h e o r y o f i t . A t h e o r y o f this sort m u s t assuredly rest o n the various sciences, as s o o n as t h e y c o m e i n t o existence: social sciences first, since r e l i g i o u s f a i t h has its o r i g i n s i n society; p s y c h o l o g y n e x t , since society is a , synthesis o f h u man

consciousnesses; sciences o f nature

finally,

since m a n a n d society are

l i n k e d t o t h e universe a n d can be abstracted from i t o n l y artificially. B u t as i m p o r t a n t as these b o r r o w i n g s from t h e established sciences m a y be, t h e y are i n n o w a y sufficient; f a i t h is above all a spur t o a c t i o n , whereas science, n o m a t t e r h o w advanced, always remains at a distance from a c t i o n . Science is fragmentary a n d i n c o m p l e t e ; i t advances b u t s l o w l y a n d is never finished; b u t l i f e — t h a t c a n n o t w a i t . T h e o r i e s w h o s e c a l l i n g is t o m a k e p e o p l e live a n d m a k e t h e m act, m u s t therefore r u s h ahead o f science a n d c o m p l e t e i t p r e m a -

*This sentence is missing from Swain.

433

Conclusion

turely. T h e y are possible o n l y i f the demands o f p r a c t i c a l i t y and v i t a l necessities, such as w e feel w i t h o u t d i s t i n c t l y c o n c e i v i n g t h e m , push t h o u g h t b e y o n d w h a t science p e r m i t s us t o a f f i r m . I n this way, even the m o s t r a t i o n a l a n d secularized r e l i g i o n s c a n n o t a n d can never d o w i t h o u t a p a r t i c u l a r k i n d o f speculation w h i c h , a l t h o u g h h a v i n g the same objects as science itself, still c a n n o t b e p r o p e r l y scientific. T h e obscure i n t u i t i o n s o f sense a n d sensibility o f t e n take t h e place o f l o g i c a l reasons. T h u s , from o n e p o i n t o f v i e w , this s p e c u l a t i o n resembles the speculation w e e n c o u n t e r i n t h e r e l i g i o n s o f t h e past, w h i l e from another, i t differs

from

t h e m . W h i l e exercising the r i g h t t o g o b e y o n d science, i t m u s t b e g i n b y k n o w i n g a n d d r a w i n g i n s p i r a t i o n f r o m science. A s s o o n as the a u t h o r i t y o f science is established, science m u s t b e r e c k o n e d w i t h ; u n d e r pressure o f need, o n e can g o b e y o n d science, b u t i t is f r o m science that o n e m u s t start o u t . O n e can a f f i r m n o t h i n g that science denies, d e n y n o t h i n g that science affirms,

a n d establish n o t h i n g that does n o t d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y rest o n p r i n -

ciples t a k e n from science. F r o m t h e n o n , f a i t h * n o l o n g e r h o l d s the same sway as i n t h e past over t h e system o f representations that can c o n t i n u e t o be called r e l i g i o u s . T h e r e rises a p o w e r before r e l i g i o n that, even t h o u g h r e l i gion's offspring, from t h e n o n applies its o w n c r i t i q u e a n d its o w n testing t o r e l i g i o n . A n d e v e r y t h i n g p o i n t s t o t h e prospect that this testing w i l l b e c o m e ever m o r e extensive a n d effective, w i t h o u t any possibility o f assigning a l i m i t t o its f u t u r e i n f l u e n c e .

Ill I f t h e f u n d a m e n t a l n o t i o n s o f science are o f r e l i g i o u s o r i g i n , h o w c o u l d r e l i g i o n have e n g e n d e r e d them? I t is n o t o b v i o u s at first glance w h a t the p o i n t s o f c o n t a c t b e t w e e n l o g i c a n d r e l i g i o n m i g h t be. I n d e e d , since the reality that religious t h o u g h t expresses is society, the q u e s t i o n can be posed i n t e r m s that b r i n g o u t the d i f f i c u l t y m o r e clearly, as f o l l o w s : W h a t c o u l d have made social life such an i m p o r t a n t source o f l o g i c a l life? N o t h i n g predisposed society for this role, i t w o u l d seem, since i t is o b v i o u s that m e n d i d n o t c o m e t o gether f o r the p u r p o s e o f satisfying speculative needs. S o m e w i l l t h i n k i t reckless o f m e t o b r o a c h a p r o b l e m o f such c o m p l e x i t y here. F o r t h e t r e a t m e n t i t deserves t o be possible, the s o c i o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n s o f k n o w l e d g e w o u l d have t o be b e t t e r k n o w n t h a n t h e y are. W e can o n l y b e g i n t o discern a f e w o f those c o n d i t i o n s . H o w e v e r , the q u e s t i o n is so

"The first edition says la foi—"faith"; the second says la hi—"law."

434

Conclusion

i m p o r t a n t a n d so d i r e c t l y i m p l i e d b y e v e r y t h i n g that has g o n e before that I m u s t m a k e an effort n o t t o leave i t w i t h o u t an answer. Perhaps, moreover, i t m a y be possible t o set f o r t h even n o w a f e w general p r i n c i p l e s o f a k i n d that m a y at least shed l i g h t o n t h e s o l u t i o n . T h e basic m a t e r i a l o f l o g i c a l t h o u g h t is concepts. T o t r y t o discover h o w society c o u l d have played a role i n t h e genesis o f l o g i c a l t h o u g h t therefore a m o u n t s t o asking h o w i t can have taken p a r t i n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f concepts. I f w e see the c o n c e p t o n l y as a general idea, as is m o s t usually the case, the p r o b l e m seems i n s o l u b l e . B y his o w n means, t h e i n d i v i d u a l can i n d e e d c o m p a r e his perceptions o r images a n d sift o u t w h a t t h e y have i n c o m m o n ; i n o t h e r w o r d s , he can generalize. So i t is n o t easy t o see w h y generalization s h o u l d be possible o n l y i n a n d t h r o u g h society. B u t , first o f all, i t is i n a d m i s sible that l o g i c a l t h o u g h t s h o u l d be characterized exclusively b y the w i d e r scope o f the representations that c o n s t i t u t e i t . I f there is n o t h i n g l o g i c a l a b o u t the p a r t i c u l a r ideas, w h y w o u l d t h e general ones be any different? T h e g e n eral exists o n l y i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r ; i t is the particular, s i m p l i f i e d and s t r i p p e d d o w n . T h e general, t h e n , c a n n o t have v i r t u e s and p r i v i l e g e s that the p a r t i c ular does n o t have. Inversely, i f c o n c e p t u a l t h o u g h t can be a p p l i e d t o genus, species, a n d variety, h o w e v e r small, w h y c o u l d i t n o t e x t e n d t o the i n d i v i d ual, that is, t o t h e l i m i t t o w a r d w h i c h the idea tends i n p r o p o r t i o n as its scope narrows? A s a m a t t e r o f fact, there are a g o o d m a n y concepts that have i n d i v i d u a l objects. I n every k i n d o f r e l i g i o n , t h e gods are i n d i v i d u a l i t i e s d i s t i n c t f r o m o n e another; t h e y are nevertheless c o n c e i v e d , n o t perceived. E a c h p e o ple imagines its h i s t o r i c a l o r l e g e n d a r y heroes i n a c e r t a i n fashion, w h i c h is h i s t o r i c a l l y variable, a n d these representations are c o n c e p t u a l . Finally, each o f us has a c e r t a i n n o t i o n o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h w h o m he is i n c o n t a c t — t h e i r character, t h e i r appearance, a n d the d i s t i n c t i v e traits o f t h e i r physical and m o r a l temperaments. S u c h n o t i o n s are t r u e concepts. N o d o u b t , t h e y are i n general rather c r u d e l y f o r m e d ; b u t even a m o n g scientific concepts, are there m a n y that are perfectly adequate t o t h e i r objects? I n this regard, o u r o w n concepts a n d those o f science differ o n l y i n degree. T h e r e f o r e , t h e c o n c e p t m u s t be d e f i n e d b y o t h e r traits. T h e f o l l o w i n g properties d i s t i n g u i s h i t f r o m t a n g i b l e representations

o f any sort—sensa-

tions, perceptions, o r images. Sense representations are i n p e r p e t u a l f l u x ; they c o m e a n d g o like the ripples o f a stream, n o t staying the same even as l o n g as t h e y last. E a c h is l i n k e d w i t h the exact m o m e n t i n w h i c h i t occurs. W e are never assured o f r e t r i e v i n g a p e r c e p t i o n i n the same w a y w e felt i t t h e first t i m e ; f o r even i f the t h i n g perceived is u n c h a n g e d , w e ourselves are n o l o n g e r t h e same. T h e c o n cept, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , is s o m e h o w outside time a n d change; i t is shielded

435

Conclusion

from

all such disturbance; o n e m i g h t say that i t is i n a different r e g i o n o f the

m i n d , a r e g i o n that is calmer a n d m o r e serene. T h e c o n c e p t does n o t m o v e o n its o w n b y an i n t e r n a l , spontaneous d e v e l o p m e n t ; q u i t e the contrary, i t resists change. I t is a w a y o f t h i n k i n g that at any g i v e n m o m e n t i n t i m e is 8

f i x e d a n d c r y s t a l l i z e d . T o t h e e x t e n t that i t is w h a t i t has to be, i t is u n changeable. I f i t does change, change does n o t c o m e a b o u t because o f its nat u r e b u t because w e have discovered some i m p e r f e c t i o n i n i t , because i t needs t o be rectified. T h e system o f concepts w i t h w h i c h w e t h i n k i n e v e r y day life is the o n e the v o c a b u l a r y o f o u r m o t h e r t o n g u e expresses, f o r each w o r d translates a c o n c e p t . Language is f i x e d ; i t changes b u t slowly, and, hence, the same is t r u e o f the c o n c e p t u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n i t translates. T h e scientist finds h i m s e l f i n the same p o s i t i o n v i s - à - v i s t h e special t e r m i n o l o g y used b y t h e science t o w h i c h he is c o m m i t t e d , a n d consequently v i s - à - v i s the special system o f concepts t o w h i c h that t e r m i n o l o g y corresponds. H e m a y i n n o v a t e , o f course, b u t his i n n o v a t i o n s always d o a c e r t a i n v i o l e n c e t o established ways o f t h i n k i n g . A t t h e same t i m e as b e i n g relatively unchangeable, a c o n c e p t is universal, o r at least universalizable. A c o n c e p t is n o t m y c o n c e p t ; i t is c o m m o n t o m e a n d o t h e r m e n o r at least can be c o m m u n i c a t e d t o t h e m . I t is impossible f o r m e t o m a k e a sensation pass f r o m m y consciousness i n t o someone else's; i t is closely d e p e n d e n t o n m y b o d y and p e r s o n a l i t y a n d c a n n o t be detached

from

t h e m . A l l I can d o is i n v i t e a n o t h e r p e r s o n t o set h i m s e l f before t h e same o b j e c t as I a n d o p e n h i m s e l f t o its i n f l u e n c e . B y contrast, conversation a n d i n tellectual dealings a m o n g m e n consist i n an exchange o f concepts.

The

c o n c e p t is, i n essence, an i m p e r s o n a l representation. B y means o f i t , h u m a n intelligences c o m m u n i c a t e .

9

D e f i n e d i n that way, t h e nature o f the c o n c e p t bespeaks its o r i g i n s . I t is c o m m o n t o all because i t is t h e w o r k o f the c o m m u n i t y . I t does n o t bear the i m p r i n t o f any i n d i v i d u a l i n t e l l e c t , since i t is fashioned b y a single intellect i n w h i c h all the others m e e t , a n d t o w h i c h t h e y c o m e , as i t were, f o r n o u r i s h m e n t . I f i t has greater stability t h a n sensations o r images, that is so because collective representations are m o r e stable t h a n i n d i v i d u a l ones; f o r w h i l e the

8

William James, The Principles of Psychology, I [New York, Macmillan, 1890], p. 464.

'This universality of the concept must not be confused with its generality. The two are very different things. What I call universality is the property the concept has of being communicated to a number of minds and indeed to all minds, in principle. That communicability is altogether independent of its scope. A concept that applies only to a single object, one whose scope is therefore minimal, can be universal in the sense that it is the same for all minds: The concept of a deity is of this sort.

436

Conclusion

i n d i v i d u a l is sensitive t o even slight changes i n his i n t e r n a l o r e x t e r n a l e n v i r o n m e n t , o n l y q u i t e w e i g h t y events can succeed i n c h a n g i n g the m e n t a l 10

e q u d i b r i u m o f society. W h e n e v e r w e are i n the presence o f a type

of

t h o u g h t o r a c t i o n that presses u n i f o r m l y o n i n d i v i d u a l intellects o r w i l l s , that pressure o n t h e i n d i v i d u a l reveals t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f the collectivity. F u r t h e r , I said before that t h e concepts w i t h w h i c h w e r o u t i n e l y t h i n k are those d e p o s i t e d i n the vocabulary. I t is b e y o n d d o u b t that speech, a n d hence the syst e m o f concepts i t translates, is t h e p r o d u c t o f a c o l l e c t i v e e l a b o r a t i o n . W h a t i t expresses is t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h society as a w h o l e conceives t h e objects o f e x p e r i e n c e . T h e n o t i o n s c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o the various elements o f l a n guage are therefore c o l l e c t i v e representations. T h e v e r y c o n t e n t o f these n o t i o n s testifies i n t h e same way. I n d e e d , there are scarcely any w o r d s , even a m o n g those w e m o s t c o m m o n l y use, w h o s e m e a n i n g does n o t t o some degree g o b e y o n d t h e l i m i t s o f o u r personal e x p e r i e n c e . O f t e n a t e r m expresses things w e have never perceived and e x p e r i ences w e have never h a d o r never witnessed. E v e n w h e n w e k n o w c e r t a i n o f the objects t o w h i c h t h e t e r m refers, w e k n o w t h e m o n l y as p a r t i c u l a r e x amples that serve t o illustrate t h e idea b u t that w o u l d never have

been

e n o u g h t o f o r m i t b y themselves. T h e r e is a w h o l e science condensed i n w o r d s t h e n , a science that is m o r e t h a n i n d i v i d u a l ; a n d i t so far surpasses m e that I c a n n o t even m a k e all the results m y o w n . W h o o f us k n o w s all t h e w o r d s o f t h e language he speaks a n d t h e f u l l m e a n i n g o f each w o r d ? T h i s p o i n t enables m e t o define the sense i n w h i c h I say that concepts are collective representations. I f t h e y are c o m m o n t o an e n t i r e social g r o u p , i t is n o t because t h e y are a s i m p l e average o f t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g i n d i v i d u a l r e p r e sentations; i f t h e y w e r e that, t h e y w o u l d be o f p o o r e r i n t e l l e c t u a l c o n t e n t t h a n i n d i v i d u a l representations, whereas t h e y are i n fact replete w i t h k n o w l edge surpassing that o f the average i n d i v i d u a l . C o n c e p t s are n o t abstract things that have reality o n l y i n p a r t i c u l a r circumstances. T h e y are representations j u s t as concrete as any t h e i n d i v i d u a l can m a k e o f his o w n e n v i r o n m e n t , for t h e y c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e special b e i n g that is society t h i n k s a b o u t t h e things o f its o w n experience. I f , i n fact, concepts m o s t o f t e n are general ideas, i f t h e y express categories a n d classes rather t h a n p a r t i c -

I0

Some will object that, in the individual, ways of acting or thinking often become fixed and crystallized as habits that resist change, through the effect of repetition alone. But habit is only a tendency to repeat an action or an idea automatically whenever the same circumstances reactivate it; habit does not imply that the idea or action is constituted in the state of exemplary types, proposed or imposed on the mind or will. It is only when a type of this sort is preestablished—that is, when a rule or norm is instituted—that the workings of society can and must be presumed.

Conclusion

437

ular objects, that is because i n d i v i d u a l a n d variable characteristics o f beings are rarely o f interest t o society. Because o f its v e r y scope, society can h a r d l y be affected b y any b u t t h e i r m o s t general a n d lasting properties. H e n c e i t is this general aspect that bears society's a t t e n t i o n . I t is i n t h e nature o f society m o s t o f t e n t o see things i n large masses a n d i n the f o r m they take m o s t g e n erally. H o w e v e r , that generality is n o t indispensable; and, i n any case, even w h e n these representations have t h e g e n e r i c character that is m o s t usual f o r t h e m , t h e y are the w o r k o f society a n d are e n r i c h e d b y its experience. T h i s , f u r t h e r m o r e , is w h a t makes c o n c e p t u a l t h o u g h t valuable t o us. I f the concepts w e r e m e r e l y general ideas, t h e y w o u l d n o t gready e n r i c h k n o w l e d g e , f o r as I have already said, the general contains n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n t h e particular. B u t i f t h e y are c o l l e c t i v e representations, first a n d foremost, t h e y add t o w h a t o u r personal e x p e r i e n c e can teach us all the w i s d o m and science that t h e c o l l e c t i v i t y has amassed over centuries. T o t h i n k w i t h c o n cepts is n o t m e r e l y t o see t h e real i n its m o s t general characteristics b u t t o t u r n u p o n sensation a b e a m that lights, penetrates, a n d transforms i t . T o c o n ceptualize a t h i n g is t o a p p r e h e n d its essential elements better a n d t o place i t i n t h e g r o u p t o w h i c h i t belongs. E a c h c i v i l i z a t i o n has its o w n o r d e r e d syst e m o f concepts, w h i c h characterizes i t . B e f o r e this system o f ideas, the i n d i v i d u a l i n t e l l e c t is i n the same s i t u a t i o n as t h e vois o f Plato before the w o r l d o f Ideas. H e strives t o assimilate t h e m , f o r he needs t h e m i n order t o deal w i t h his f e l l o w m e n , b u t this assimilation is always i n c o m p l e t e . E a c h o f us sees t h e m i n his o w n way. S o m e escape us c o m p l e t e l y , r e m a i n i n g b e y o n d o u r range o f v i s i o n , w h i l e others are g l i m p s e d i n o n l y some o f t h e i r aspects. T h e r e are some, a n d i n d e e d many, that w e d i s t o r t b y t h i n k i n g t h e m . Since t h e y are b y nature collective, t h e y c a n n o t b e c o m e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d w i t h o u t b e i n g added t o , m o d i f i e d , a n d c o n s e q u e n d y d i s t o r t e d . T h i s is w h y w e have so m u c h d i f f i c u l t y u n d e r s t a n d i n g o n e another, a n d w h y , i n d e e d o f t e n , w e He t o o n e a n o t h e r u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y . T h i s happens because w e all use the same w o r d s w i t h o u t g i v i n g t h e m t h e same m e a n i n g . W e can n o w b e g i n t o see society's share i n the o r i g i n o f l o g i c a l t h o u g h t . L o g i c a l t h o u g h t is possible o n l y w h e n m a n has m a n a g e d t o go b e y o n d the f l e e t i n g representations he owes t o sense e x p e r i e n c e a n d i n the e n d t o c o n ceive a w h o l e w o r l d o f stable ideals, t h e c o m m o n g r o u n d o f intelligences. To t h i n k logically, i n fact, is always, i n some measure, t o t h i n k i m p e r s o n a l l y ; i t is also t o t h i n k sub specie aeternitatis. * I m p e r s o n a l i t y a n d stability: Such are the t w o characteristics o f t r u t h . L o g i c a l life o b v i o u s l y presupposes that m a n k n o w s , at least confusedly, that there is a t r u t h d i s t i n c t f r o m sense appear* Under the aspect of eternity.

438

Conclusion

ances. B u t h o w c o u l d he have a r r i v e d at any such idea? People p r o c e e d m o s t often as t h o u g h l o g i c a l life m u s t have appeared spontaneously, as soon as m a n o p e n e d his eyes u p o n the w o r l d . B u t there is n o t h i n g i n d i r e c t experience t o suggest i t ; i n d e e d , e v e r y t h i n g opposes i t . T h u s , c h i l d r e n a n d animals have n o t even a clue o f i t . H i s t o r y shows, f u r t h e r m o r e , that i t t o o k centuries t o emerge a n d take shape. I n o u r W e s t e r n w o r l d , o n l y w i t h t h e great t h i n k e r s o f Greece d i d l o g i c a l life f o r the first t i m e b e c o m e clearly conscious o f itself and

o f t h e consequences i t i m p l i e s . A n d w h e n the discovery came, i t p r o -

v o k e d w o n d e r m e n t , w h i c h Plato expressed i n m a g n i f i c e n t language. B u t even i f i t was o n l y t h e n t h a t t h e idea was expressed i n p h i l o s o p h i c a l f o r m u las, i t necessardy existed before t h e n as a vague awareness. Philosophers sought t o clarify this awareness; t h e y d i d n o t create i t . T o have b e e n able t o reflect u p o n a n d analyze i t , t h e y m u s t have b e e n g i v e n i t , and the q u e s t i o n is w h e r e this awareness came f r o m , that is, o n w h a t e x p e r i e n c e i t was based. The

answer is c o l l e c t i v e experience. I t is i n t h e f o r m o f collective t h o u g h t

that i m p e r s o n a l t h o u g h t revealed itself t o h u m a n i t y f o r t h e first t i m e , and b y w h a t o t h e r r o u t e that r e v e l a t i o n c o u l d have c o m e a b o u t is h a r d t o see. Solely because society exists, there also exists b e y o n d sensations a n d i m ages a w h o l e system o f representations that possess marvelous properties. B y means o f t h e m , m e n understand o n e another, and m i n d s g a i n access t o o n e another. T h e y have a k i n d o f force a n d m o r a l a u t h o r i t y b y v i r t u e o f w h i c h they i m p o s e themselves u p o n i n d i v i d u a l m i n d s . F r o m t h e n o n , the i n d i v i d u a l realizes, at least d i m l y , that above his p r i v a t e representations there is a w o r l d o f type-ideas a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h he has t o regulate his o w n ; he glimpses a w h o l e intellectual w o r l d i n w h i c h he participates b u t w h i c h is greater t h a n he. T h i s is a first i n t u i t i o n o f the r e a l m o f t r u t h . A s s o o n as he became aware o f that h i g h e r intellectuality, he set a b o u t s c r u t i n i z i n g its nature, t r y i n g t o find o u t how

these p r e e m i n e n t representations came b y t h e i r prerogatives. A n d t o the

extent that he t h o u g h t he h a d discovered t h e i r causes, he u n d e r t o o k t o p u t those causes t o w o r k h i m s e l f and, b y himself, t o d r a w the conclusions t h e y lead t o ; that is, he gave h i m s e l f the r i g h t t o m a k e concepts. I n this way, the facu l t y o f c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n i n d i v i d u a l i z e d itself. B u t t o understand the o r i g i n s o f that faculty, i t must be l i n k e d t o the social c o n d i t i o n s o n w h i c h i t depends. S o m e w i l l o b j e c t that I a m p r e s e n t i n g t h e c o n c e p t i n o n l y o n e o f its aspects—that its role is t o ensure n o t o n l y a g r e e m e n t a m o n g m i n d s b u t also, and even m o r e , t h e i r agreement w i t h the nature o f things. A c o n c e p t w o u l d seem n o t t o f u l f i l l its raison d'être unless i t was t r u e — t h a t is, o b j e c t i v e — a n d its i m p e r s o n a l i t y t o be o n l y a consequence o f its o b j e c t i v i t y . I t is i n things c o n c e i v e d as adequately as t h e y can be that m i n d s s h o u l d c o m m u n i c a t e . I d o n o t d e n y that c o n c e p t u a l e v o l u t i o n moves p a r t l y i n this d i r e c t i o n . T h e c o n -

439

Conclusion

cept that is at first h e l d t o be t r u e because i t is collective tends n o t t o b e c o m e collective unless i t is h e l d t o be t r u e : W e d e m a n d its credentials before g i v i n g i t credence. B u t first, w e m u s t n o t lose sight o f the fact that, even today, the great m a j o r i t y o f t h e concepts that w e use are n o t m e t h o d i c a l l y c o n structed; w e c o m e b y t h e m f r o m language, that is, f r o m c o m m o n e x p e r i ence, a n d w i t h o u t s u b j e c t i n g t h e m t o any p r i o r c r i t i q u e . Concepts that are scientifically w r o u g h t a n d c r i t i c i z e d are always i n a v e r y small m i n o r i t y . Second,

there are o n l y differences o f degree b e t w e e n those concepts and the

ones that d r a w all t h e i r a u t h o r i t y o n l y f r o m the fact o f b e i n g collective. A collective representation, because i t is c o l l e c t i v e , already presents assurances o f o b j e c t i v i t y . N o t w i t h o u t reason has i t b e e n able t o generalize a n d m a i n t a i n itself w i t h such persistence.

I f i t was i n disagreement w i t h the nature o f

things, i t w o u l d n o t have succeeded i n a c q u i r i n g b r o a d a n d p r o l o n g e d d o m i n i o n over m i n d s . F u n d a m e n t a l l y , w h a t makes scientific concepts inspire c o n f i d e n c e is that t h e y can be tested m e t h o d i c a l l y . A collective representat i o n necessarily undergoes a test that is repeated indefinitely. T h e m e n w h o adhere t o a collective representation verify i t t h r o u g h t h e i r o w n experience. T h u s i t c a n n o t be w h o l l y inadequate t o its object. C e r t a i n l y i t m a y e x p l a i n that o b j e c t w i t h i m p e r f e c t symbols, b u t scientific symbols are

themselves

never m o r e t h a n a p p r o x i m a t e . T h e m e t h o d I f o l l o w i n the study o f religious p h e n o m e n a is based o n exactly this p r i n c i p l e . I regard i t as a x i o m a t i c that, strange t h o u g h religious beliefs m a y sometimes be i n appearance, t h e y c o n t a i n t h e i r o w n t r u t h , w h i c h m u s t be u n c o v e r e d .

11

Inversely, even w h e n c o n s t r u c t e d i n accordance w i t h all the rules o f science, concepts are far f r o m t a k i n g t h e i r a u t h o r i t y f r o m t h e i r objective value alone. T o be b e l i e v e d , i t is n o t e n o u g h that t h e y be t r u e . I f they are n o t i n h a r m o n y w i t h o t h e r beliefs a n d o t h e r o p i n i o n s — i n short, w i t h the w h o l e set o f collective representations—they

w i l l be d e n i e d ; m i n d s w i l l be closed t o

t h e m ; as a result, t h e y w i l l be a n d yet n o t be. I f b e a r i n g the seal o f science is usually e n o u g h today t o g a i n a sort o f p r i v i l e g e d credibility, that is because w e have f a i t h i n science. B u t that faith is n o t essentially different f r o m r e l i gious f a i t h . T h e value w e a t t r i b u t e t o science depends, i n the last analysis, u p o n t h e idea w e c o l l e c t i v e l y have o f its nature a n d role i n life, w h i c h is t o say that i t expresses a state o f o p i n i o n . T h e reason is that e v e r y t h i n g i n social life rests o n o p i n i o n , i n c l u d i n g science itself. T o be sure, w e can m a k e o p i n i o n an o b j e c t o f study a n d create a science o f i t ; that is w h a t sociology p r i n cipally consists i n . Still the science o f o p i n i o n does n o t create o p i n i o n , b u t

"From the very fact that a representation has a social origin, we see how far it is from being without objective value.

440

Conclusion

can o n l y clarify i t a n d m a k e i t m o r e conscious o f itself. I n this way, i t is t r u e , science can lead o p i n i o n t o change, b u t science remains the p r o d u c t o f o p i n i o n even at the m o m e n t i t seems t o r u l e o p i n i o n ; f o r as I have s h o w n , science draws the strength i t takes t o act u p o n o p i n i o n f r o m o p i n i o n i t s e l f .

12

T o say that concepts express t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h society conceives o f things is also t o say that c o n c e p t u a l t h o u g h t is c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s w i t h h u m a n i t y . T h e r e f o r e , I refuse t o see t h e m as t h e p r o d u c t o f m o r e o r less m o d ern c u l t u r e . A m a n w h o d i d n o t t h i n k w i t h concepts w o u l d n o t be a m a n , for he w o u l d n o t be a social b e i n g . L i m i t e d t o i n d i v i d u a l perceptions alone, he w o u l d n o t be d i s t i n c t from an a n i m a l . I t has b e e n possible t o u p h o l d t h e c o n t r a r y thesis o n l y because the c o n c e p t has b e e n d e f i n e d b y features that are not

f u n d a m e n t a l t o i t . T h e c o n c e p t has b e e n i d e n t i f i e d w i t h the general 13

i d e a — a n d w i t h the clearly d e l i m i t e d a n d c i r c u m s c r i b e d general i d e a . that case, the l o w e r societies c o u l d appear t o be i g n o r a n t o f the

14

In

concept

p r o p e r l y so-called, f o r t h e y have o n l y u n d e v e l o p e d processes o f generalizat i o n , a n d t h e n o t i o n s t h e y use are generally n o t w e l l d e f i n e d . Yet m o s t o f o u r present concepts also lack clear d e f i n i t i o n ; w e can barely force ourselves t o define t h e m except i n debate, a n d w h e n w e are o p e r a t i n g as scientists. B e sides, w e have seen that c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g is n o t the same as generalizing. T o t h i n k c o n c e p t u a l l y is n o t m e r e l y t o isolate a n d g r o u p the features c o m m o n to a c e r t a i n n u m b e r o f objects. I t is also t o subsume t h e variable u n d e r t h e p e r m a n e n t a n d the i n d i v i d u a l u n d e r the social. A n d since l o g i c a l t h o u g h t b e gins w i t h the c o n c e p t , i t f o l l o w s that l o g i c a l t h o u g h t has always existed; there has b e e n n o h i s t o r i c a l p e r i o d w h e n m e n l i v e d i n c h r o n i c c o n f u s i o n a n d c o n t r a d i c t i o n . C e r t a i n l y , t h e different features o f l o g i c i n different h i s t o r i c a l p e r i o d s c a n n o t be overemphasized; l o g i c evolves as societies themselves evolve. B u t h o w e v e r real, t h e differences s h o u l d n o t cause us t o miss t h e similarities, w h i c h are n o less f u n d a m e n t a l .

IV W e can n o w take u p a f i n a l q u e s t i o n , w h i c h was set o u t i n the I n t r o d u c t i o n

1 5

a n d has r e m a i n e d m o r e o r less i m p l i c i t t h r o u g h o u t this b o o k . W e have seen

12

Cf. above, p. 210.

13

[Lucien] Lévy-Bruhl, Les Fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures [Paris, F. Alcan, 1910], pp. 131-138. ,4

Ibid„ p. 446.

15

See above, p. 12.

Conclusion

441

that at least c e r t a i n o f the categories are social things. T h e q u e s t i o n is w h e r e t h e y g o t this trait. N o d o u b t , since t h e y are themselves concepts, w e easily understand that t h e y are t h e w o r k o f t h e c o l l e c t i v i t y . I n d e e d , n o concepts display the d i s t i n g u i s h i n g marks o f a c o l l e c t i v e representation t o t h e same degree. I n d e e d , t h e i r stability a n d i m p e r s o n a l i t y are such that t h e y have often b e e n taken t o be absolutely universal a n d i m m u t a b l e . Besides, since t h e y express the f u n d a m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g b e t w e e n m i n d s , i t seems o b v i o u s that t h e y c o u l d o n l y have b e e n fashioned b y society. Yet the p r o b l e m is m o r e c o m p l e x , insofar as t h e categories are c o n c e r n e d , f o r t h e y are social i n a n o t h e r sense and, as i t w e r e , t o a h i g h e r degree. N o t o n l y d o t h e y c o m e f r o m society, b u t the v e r y things they express are social. I t is n o t o n l y that t h e y are i n s t i t u t e d b y society b u t also that t h e i r c o n t e n t is various aspects o f the social b e i n g . T h e c a t e g o r y o f genus was at first i n d i s t i n c t from t h e c o n c e p t o f h u m a n g r o u p ; t h e category o f t i m e has the r h y t h m o f social life as its basis; the space society occupies p r o v i d e d the r a w m a t e r i a l f o r t h e category o f space; c o l l e c t i v e force was the p r o t o t y p e f o r the c o n c e p t o f effective force, an essential e l e m e n t i n the category o f causality. Nevertheless, a p p l i c a t i o n t o the social r e a l m is n o t t h e o n l y f u n c t i o n o f the categories; t h e y e x t e n d t o reality as a w h o l e . W h y is i t , t h e n , that the m o d els o n w h i c h t h e y w e r e b u d t have b e e n b o r r o w e d f r o m society? T h e answer is that these are p r e e m i n e n t concepts that have a p r e p o n d e r ant role i n k n o w l e d g e . I n d e e d , t h e f u n c t i o n o f the categories is t o g o v e r n a n d c o n t a i n the o t h e r concepts. T h e y f o r m the p e r m a n e n t f r a m e w o r k o f m e n t a l life. B u t t o encompass such an object, t h e y m u s t be m o d e l e d o n a reality o f equally w i d e scope. D o u b d e s s the relations t h e y express exist, i m p h c i d y , i n i n d i v i d u a l c o n sciousnesses. T h e i n d i v i d u a l lives i n time and, as I have said, has a c e r t a i n sense o f t e m p o r a l o r i e n t a t i o n . H e is at a d e f i n i t e p o i n t i n space, a n d i t has b e e n possible t o h o l d , w i t h g o o d reason, that all sensations have a spatial aspect.

16

H e has a sense o f similarity. S i m i l a r representations attract o n e a n o t h e r

a n d c o m e t o g e t h e r w i t h i n h i m , a n d the n e w representation f o r m e d b y t h e i r c o m i n g t o g e t h e r has a c e r t a i n generic quality. W e also have the sensation o f a c e r t a i n r e g u l a r i t y i n t h e o r d e r o f succession i n p h e n o m e n a ; even t h e a n i m a l is n o t incapable o f that. B u t all these relationships are personal t o the i n d i v i d u a l w h o is i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e m , a n d hence t h e n o t i o n he can g a i n

from

t h e m can i n n o case stretch b e y o n d his n a r r o w h o r i z o n . T h e generic images

16

James, Principles of Psychology, vol. I, p. 134.

442

Conclusion

that f o r m i n m y consciousness t h r o u g h t h e c o m i n g t o g e t h e r o f similar images represent o n l y those objects that I have p e r c e i v e d d i r e c d y ; n o t h i n g is there t o give m e the idea o f a class, that is, a f r a m e w o r k able t o encompass t h e whole g r o u p o f all possible objects that f u l f i l l the same c r i t e r i o n . I w o u l d still n e e d t o have the idea o f g r o u p b e f o r e h a n d , an idea t h a t the mere u n f o l d i n g o f o u r i n n e r hfe c a n n o t be sufficient t o arouse i n us. A b o v e all, there is n o i n d i v i d ual experience, n o m a t t e r h o w b r o a d o r p r o l o n g e d , that c o u l d make us even suspect t h e existence o f a w h o l e genus e m b r a c i n g t h e u n i v e r s a l i t y o f beings, and i n w h i c h t h e o t h e r genera w o u l d be o n l y species c o o r d i n a t e d a m o n g , o r s u b o r d i n a t e d t o , o n e another. T h i s n o t i o n o f the whole, w h i c h lies at t h e b a sis o f the classifications I have c i t e d , c a n n o t c o m e t o us from t h e i n d i v i d u a l himself, w h o is o n l y a p a r t o f the w h o l e a n d never comes i n contact w i t h m o r e t h a n an i n f i n i t e s i m a l p a r t o f reality. A n d y e t there is perhaps n o m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l category. Since t h e role o f the categories is t o encompass all t h e o t h e r concepts, the c a t e g o r y par excellence w o u l d i n d e e d seem t o b e t h e v e r y c o n c e p t of totality. T h e theorists o f k n o w l e d g e usually postulate t o t a l i t y as i f i t is self-evident, b u t i n fact i t goes i n f i n i t e l y b e y o n d t h e c o n t e n t o f each i n d i v i d u a l consciousness, t a k e n separately. F o r the same reasons, t h e space I k n o w t h r o u g h m y senses, w h e r e I a m at t h e center a n d w h e r e e v e r y t h i n g is arranged i n r e l a t i o n t o m e , c o u l d n o t be the space as a w h o l e , w h i c h contains all the i n d i v i d u a l spaces a n d i n w h i c h , m o r e o v e r , those i n d i v i d u a l spaces are c o o r d i n a t e d i n r e l a t i o n t o i m personal reference p o i n t s c o m m o n t o a l l i n d i v i d u a l s . Similarly, the concrete d u r a t i o n that I feel passing w i t h i n a n d w i t h m e c o u l d never give m e the idea o f t i m e as a w h o l e . T h e first expresses o n l y the r h y t h m o f m y i n d i v i d u a l hfe; the second m u s t c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e r h y t h m o f a hfe that is n o t that o f any p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l , b u t o n e i n w h i c h all p a r t i c i p a t e .

17

I n the same way, finally,

t h e regularities that I can perceive i n the w a y m y sensations f o l l o w o n e a n o t h e r m a y v e r y w e l l have value f o r m e ; t h e y e x p l a i n w h y I t e n d t o w a i t f o r the second w h e n the first o f t w o p h e n o m e n a w h o s e constant c o n j u n c t i o n I have e x p e r i e n c e d is g i v e n t o m e . B u t that state o f personal expectancy c a n n o t be assinulated t o t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f a universal o r d e r o f succession that imposes i t s e l f o n all m i n d s a n d all events. Since t h e w o r l d expressed b y t h e w h o l e system o f concepts is t h e w o r l d society conceives of, o n l y society can p r o v i d e us w i t h the m o s t general n o -

17

Space and time are often spoken of as if they were only concrete extension and duration, such as individual consciousness can experience them, but impoverished through abstraction. In reality, they are representations of an entirely different kind—constructed out of different elements, following a very different plan, and with ends in view that are different as well.

443

Conclusion

tions i n t e r m s o f w h i c h that w o r l d m u s t be c o n c e i v e d . O n l y a subject that encompasses every i n d i v i d u a l subject has the capacity t o encompass such an o b j e c t . Since the universe exists o n l y insofar as i t is t h o u g h t o f a n d since i t is t h o u g h t o f i n its t o t a l i t y o n l y b y society, i t takes its place w i t h i n society; i t becomes an e l e m e n t o f society's i n n e r life, a n d thus is itself the t o t a l genus outside w h i c h n o t h i n g exists. T h e c o n c e p t o f t o t a l i t y is b u t the c o n c e p t o f society i n abstract f o r m . I t is the w h o l e that includes all things, the supreme class that contains all o t h e r classes. S u c h is the u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e o n w h i c h rest those p r i m i t i v e classifications that situated a n d classified beings o f all t h e k i n g d o m s , i n the same r i g h t as m e n .

1 8

B u t i f t h e w o r l d is i n the society, the

space society occupies merges w i t h space as a w h o l e . A s w e have seen, each t h i n g does i n d e e d have its assigned place i n social space. B u t w h a t brings o u t the e x t e n t t o w h i c h that t o t a l space differs f r o m those concrete expanses that o u r senses cause us t o perceive is t h e fact that l o c a l i z a t i o n is w h o l l y ideal a n d i n n o w a y resembles w h a t i t m i g h t be i f i t was d i c t a t e d t o us b y sense e x p e rience.

19

F o r t h e same reason, the r h y t h m o f collective life governs a n d c o n -

tains t h e various r h y t h m s o f all the e l e m e n t a r y lives o f w h i c h i t is the result; consequendy, the t i m e that expresses i t governs a n d contains all the i n d i v i d u a l times. I t is t i m e as a w h o l e . F o r a l o n g time, t h e w o r l d ' s h i s t o r y was o n l y a different aspect o f s o c i ety's history. T h e o n e begins w i t h t h e o t h e r ; the p e r i o d s o f the w o r l d are d e t e r m i n e d b y the p e r i o d s o f t h e society. M e a s u r i n g that i m p e r s o n a l and global d u r a t i o n a n d s e t t i n g reference p o i n t s i n r e l a t i o n t o w h i c h i t is d i v i d e d and o r ganized are society's m o v e m e n t s o f c o n c e n t r a t i o n o r dispersal—or, m o r e generally, the p e r i o d i c n e e d f o r c o l l e c t i v e r e n e w a l . I f those c r i t i c a l m o m e n t s are m o s t o f t e n attached t o some physical p h e n o m e n o n , such as the regular reappearance o f a c e r t a i n star o r t h e a l t e r n a t i o n o f the seasons, i t is because objective signs are n e e d e d t o m a k e that essentially social o r g a n i z a t i o n t a n g i ble f o r all. Similarly, the causal r e l a t i o n becomes i n d e p e n d e n t o f any i n d i v i d u a l consciousness f r o m t h e m o m e n t i t is c o l l e c t i v e l y established b y the g r o u p ; i t hovers above all t h e m i n d s a n d all t h e i n d i v i d u a l events. I t is a l a w h a v i n g i m p e r s o n a l validity. I have s h o w n that t h e l a w o f causality seems t o have b e e n b o r n i n j u s t this way. T h e r e is a n o t h e r reason w h y the c o n s t i t u e n t elements o f the categories m u s t have b e e n t a k e n f r o m social life: T h e relationships t h e y express c o u l d

l8

In all probability, the concepts of totality, society, and deity are at bottom merely different aspects of the same notion. "See "Classifications primitives" [Emile Durkheim, "De Quelques formes primitives de classification," AS, vol. VI, 1903], pp. 40ff.

444

Conclusion

n o t b e c o m e conscious relationships except i n a n d t h r o u g h society. E v e n i f , i n a sense, t h e y are i m m a n e n t i n the life o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l , the i n d i v i d u a l h a d n e i t h e r reason n o r means t o grasp t h e m , t h i n k a b o u t t h e m , make t h e m e x p l i c i t , a n d b u i l d t h e m u p i n t o d i s t i n c t n o t i o n s . T o o r i e n t his i n d i v i d u a l self i n space a n d t o k n o w at w h a t times t o satisfy v a r i o u s physical needs, he h a d n o n e e d f o r a c o n c e p t u a l representation o f t i m e o r space, o n c e a n d f o r all. M a n y animals k n o w h o w t o f i n d t h e i r w a y b a c k t o the paths l e a d i n g t o places f a m i l i a r t o t h e m ; t h e y r e t u r n there at t h e r i g h t t i m e yet w i t h o u t t h e i r h a v i n g any category at all; sensations are e n o u g h t o g u i d e t h e m automatically. T h e s e w o u l d be sufficient f o r m a n as w e l l i f his m o v e m e n t s h a d t o satisfy i n d i v i d u a l needs alone. I n o r d e r t o recognize that o n e t h i n g resembles others

with

w h i c h w e are already acquainted, w e n e e d n o t arrange t h e m i n genera a n d species. T h e w a y i n w h i c h similar images call o n e a n o t h e r f o r t h and m e r g e are e n o u g h t o create t h e feeling o f resemblance. T h e i m p r e s s i o n of déjà vu, of s o m e t h i n g already e x p e r i e n c e d , i m p l i e s n o classification. I n order t o differentiate b e t w e e n those things w e m u s t seek after a n d those w e must flee, w e have n o n e e d t o j o i n the effects o f b o t h t o t h e i r causes w i t h a l o g i c a l l i n k , i f i n d i v i d u a l c o n v e n i e n c e alone is at stake. P u r e l y e m p i r i c a l sequences, strong c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n c o n c r e t e representations, are equally sure guides t o the w i l l . N o t o n l y does t h e a n i m a l have n o others, b u t o u r o w n i n d i v i d u a l p r a c tice q u i t e o f t e n presupposes n o t h i n g m o r e . T h e w i s e m a n is o n e w h o has a v e r y clear sense o f w h a t he m u s t d o b u t o n e that he w o u l d usually be unable t o translate i n t o a law. I t is o t h e r w i s e w i t h society. Society is possible o n l y i f the i n d i v i d u a l s a n d things t h a t m a k e i t u p are d i v i d e d a m o n g different groups, w h i c h is t o say genera,* a n d i f those groups themselves are classified i n r e l a t i o n t o o n e a n other. T h u s , society presupposes a conscious o r g a n i z a t i o n o f itself that is n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n a classification. T h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n o f society is n a t u r a l l y passed o n t o the space i t occupies. T o forestall c o n f l i c t , a d e f i n i t e p o r t i o n o f space m u s t be assigned t o each i n d i v i d u a l g r o u p . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e space m u s t b e d i v i d e d , differentiated, a n d o r i e n t e d , a n d these divisions and o r i e n tations m u s t be k n o w n t o a l l . I n a d d i t i o n , every call t o a feast, h u n t , o r m i l i t a r y e x p e d i t i o n i m p l i e s that dates are f i x e d a n d agreed u p o n and, therefore, that a c o m m o n t i m e is established that everyone conceives i n the same way.

*Here and later in the paragraph (as well as twice previously in this chapter), Durkheim shifts to the word classe. Since the English term "class" can imply economic differentiation, which would move the argument out of its present context, I have used the term "genus" throughout. Nonetheless, what the economic sense of "class" would add or subtract should be kept in mind—for example, in the end of the last sentence in this paragraph.

Conclusion

445

Finally, t h e c o l l a b o r a t i o n o f several i n p u r s u i t o f a c o m m o n goal is possible o n l y i f there is agreement o n t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n that goal a n d t h e means that m a k e its achievement possible—that is, i f a single causal r e l a t i o n is accepted b y all w h o are w o r k i n g t o g e t h e r i n t h e same enterprise. I t is n o t surp r i s i n g , t h e n , that social t i m e , social space, social genera

[classes], a n d

collective causality s h o u l d be t h e basis o f the c o r r e s p o n d i n g categories, since i t is i n t h e i r social f o r m s that t h e y w e r e first c o n c e i v e d w i t h any degree o f c l a r i t y b y h u m a n consciousness. T o s u m m a r i z e , society is b y n o means t h e i l l o g i c a l o r alogical, inconsist e n t , a n d changeable b e i n g that p e o p l e t o o o f t e n l i k e t o i m a g i n e . Q u i t e t h e contrary, t h e collective consciousness is t h e highest f o r m o f psychic life, f o r i t is a consciousness o f consciousnesses. B e i n g outside a n d above i n d i v i d u a l a n d l o c a l contingencies, collective consciousness sees things o n l y i n t h e i r p e r m a n e n t a n d f u n d a m e n t a l aspect, * w h i c h i t crystallizes i n ideas that can b e c o m m u n i c a t e d . A t t h e same t i m e as i t sees f r o m above, i t sees far ahead; at every m o m e n t , i t embraces all k n o w n reality; that is w h y i t alone can f u r n i s h ; t h e i n t e l l e c t w i t h f r a m e w o r k s that are applicable t o t h e t o t a l i t y o f beings a n d ! t h a t enable us t o b u i l d concepts a b o u t t h e m . I t does n o t create these f r a m e - \ w o r k s artificially b u t finds t h e m w i t h i n itself, m e r e l y b e c o m i n g conscious o f t h e m . T h e y express ways O f b e i n g that are m e t w i t h at all levels o f the real b u t that appear w i t h f u l l c l a r i t y o n l y at t h e pinnacle, because the e x t r e m e c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e psychic life that unfolds there requires a m o r e h i g h l y developed " consciousness. T h e r e f o r e , t o a t t r i b u t e social o r i g i n s t o l o g i c a l t h o u g h t is n o t > t o denigrate i t , d i m i n i s h its w o r t h , o r reduce i t t o n o m o r e t h a n a system o f artificial c o m b i n a t i o n s — b u t is, q u i t e t h e contrary, t o relate l o g i c a l t h o u g h t t o a cause that n a t u r a l l y i m p l i e s i t . Assuredly, this is n o t t o say that n o t i o n s w o r k e d o u t i n that w a y c o u l d b e d i r e c d y adequate t o t h e i r objects. I f society is s o m e t h i n g universal as c o m p a r e d t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l , i t is still an i n d i v i d u a l i t y , h a v i n g its o w n f o r m a n d idiosyncrasies; i t is a particular subject and, .consequently, o n e that particularizes w h a t i t t h i n k s o f . So even collective representations c o n t a i n subjective elements, a n d i f t h e y are t o b e c o m e closer t o t h i n g s , t h e y m u s t b e g r a d u a l l y r e f i n e d . B u t c r u d e as these representat i o n s m i g h t have b e e n at first, i t remains t r u e that w i t h t h e m came t h e seed o f a n e w m o d e o f t h i n k i n g , o n e t o w h i c h t h e i n d i v i d u a l c o u l d never have l i f t e d h i m s e l f o n his o w n . T h e w a y was o p e n t o stable, i m p e r s o n a l , ordered t h o u g h t , w h i c h h a d o n l y t o develop its o w n special nature f r o m t h e n o n .

*Note the similarity between this formulation about conscience collective as "a permanent and fundamental" aspect of society and a similar one about religion as a "fundamental and permanent aspect of humanity" in the Introduction (above, p. 1). {'

446

Conclusion

M o r e o v e r , the factors that have b r o u g h t a b o u t this d e v e l o p m e n t seem t o be n o different i n k i n d f r o m those that b r o u g h t i t f o r t h o r i g i n a l l y . I f l o g i c a l t h o u g h t tends m o r e a n d m o r e t o j e t t i s o n the subjective a n d personal elements that w e r e l a u n c h e d w i t h i t , the reason is n o t that extrasocial factors have entered i n b u t far m o r e that a n e w k i n d o f social life gradually d e v e l o p e d : i n t e r n a t i o n a l life, w h o s e effect even t h e n was t o universalize religious beliefs. As that i n t e r n a t i o n a l life broadens, so does t h e collective h o r i z o n ; society n o l o n g e r appears as the w h o l e , par excellence, a n d becomes p a r t o f a w h o l e that is m o r e vast, w i t h

frontiers

that are i n d e f i n i t e a n d capable o f

r o l l i n g b a c k i n d e f i n i t e l y . As a result, things can n o l o n g e r f i t w i t h i n the social frames w h e r e t h e y w e r e o r i g i n a l l y classified; t h e y m u s t be o r g a n i z e d w i t h p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e i r o w n ; l o g i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n thus differentiates itself from social o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d becomes a u t o n o m o u s . T h i s , i t seems, is h o w t h e b o n d that at first j o i n e d t h o u g h t t o d e f i n e d collective entities becomes m o r e a n d m o r e detached a n d h o w , consequently, i t becomes ever m o r e i m p e r s o n a l a n d universalizes. * T h o u g h t t h a t is t r u l y a n d p e c u l i a r l y h u m a n is n o t a p r i m i t i v e g i v e n , therefore, b u t a p r o d u c t o f h i s t o r y ; i t is an ideal l i m i t t o w h i c h w e c o m e ever closer b u t i n all p r o b a b i l i t y w i l l never attain. T h u s , the sort o f a n t i m o n y that has so o f t e n b e e n accepted, b e t w e e n science o n o n e h a n d a n d r e l i g i o n a n d m o r a l i t y o n the other, is far from the case. I n reality, these different m o d e s o f h u m a n a c t i v i t y d e r i v e from one a n d the same source. T h i s K a n t w e l l u n d e r s t o o d , a n d therefore he considered speculative reason a n d practical reason t o be t w o different aspects o f t h e same faculty. A c c o r d i n g t o h i m , w h a t j o i n s t h e m is that b o t h are o r i e n t e d t o w a r d the universal. T o t h i n k r a t i o n a l l y is t o t h i n k a c c o r d i n g t o the laws that are selfe v i d e n t t o all reasonable beings; t o act m o r a l l y is t o act a c c o r d i n g t o m a x i m s that can be e x t e n d e d w i t h o u t c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o all w i l l s . I n o t h e r w o r d s , b o t h science a n d m o r a l i t y i m p l y that t h e i n d i v i d u a l is capable o f l i f t i n g h i m s e l f above his o w n p o i n t o f v i e w a n d p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n an i m p e r s o n a l life. A n d , i n deed, h e r e i n w e u n d o u b t e d l y have a trait that is c o m m o n t o a l l the h i g h e r f o r m s o f t h o u g h t a n d a c t i o n . B u t w h a t K a n t i a n i s m does n o t e x p l a i n is w h e r e the sort o f c o n t r a d i c t i o n that m a n thus e m b o d i e s comes from. W h y m u s t he d o v i o l e n c e t o h i m s e l f i n o r d e r t o transcend his i n d i v i d u a l nature; a n d i n versely, w h y m u s t i m p e r s o n a l l a w w e a k e n as i t b e c o m e s incarnate i n i n d i v i d uals? W i l l i t be said that there are t w o antagonistic w o r l d s i n w h i c h w e participate equally: the w o r l d o f m a t t e r a n d sense, o n the o n e h a n d , a n d o n the other, that o f p u r e a n d i m p e r s o n a l reason? B u t that is t o repeat the ques-

*This sentence was omitted from the Swain translation but is in both French versions of Formes.

447

Conclusion

t i o n i n terms that are barely different: f o r the p o i n t precisely is t o k n o w w h y w e m u s t * lead those t w o lives c o n c u r r e n t l y . Since the t w o w o r l d s seem t o c o n t r a d i c t o n e another, w h y d o t h e y n o t r e m a i n separate f r o m o n e another, a n d w h a t makes i t necessary f o r t h e m t o interpenetrate, despite t h e i r antagonism? T h e hypothesis o f the Fall, w i t h all its attendant difficulties, is the o n l y e x p l a n a t i o n o f that singular necessity that has ever b e e n o f f e r e d — a n d i t n e e d n o t be r e c i t e d here. O n the o t h e r h a n d , the m y s t e r y dissolves o n c e w e have a c k n o w l e d g e d that i m p e r s o n a l reason is b u t collective t h o u g h t b y a n o t h e r name. C o l l e c t i v e t h o u g h t is possible o n l y t h r o u g h the c o m i n g t o g e t h e r o f individuals; hence i t presupposes the i n d i v i d u a l s , a n d t h e y i n t u r n presuppose i t , because they c a n n o t sustain themselves except b y c o m i n g together. T h e r e a l m o f i m p e r sonal aims a n d t r u t h s c a n n o t be realized except t h r o u g h the c o l l a b o r a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l w i l l s a n d sensibilities;f the reasons t h e y participate a n d the reasons t h e y collaborate are t h e same. I n short, there is s o m e t h i n g i m p e r s o n a l i n us because there is s o m e t h i n g social i n us, a n d since social life embraces b o t h representations a n d practices, that i m p e r s o n a l i t y extends q u i t e naturally t o ideas as w e l l as t o actions. S o m e w i l l be astonished, perhaps, t o see m e c o n n e c t i n g the highest f o r m s o f the h u m a n m i n d w i t h society. T h e cause seems q u i t e h u m b l e as c o m p a r e d t o t h e value w e a t t r i b u t e t o the effect. So great is the distance b e t w e e n t h e w o r l d o f the senses a n d appetites o n the o n e hand, a n d the w o r l d o f reason a n d m o r a l i t y o n the other, that i t seems the second c o u l d have been added t o t h e first o n l y b y an act o f c r e a t i o n . B u t t o a t t r i b u t e t o society this d o m i n a n t r o l e i n the o r i g i n o f o u r nature is n o t t o d e n y that creation. S o c i ety does i n d e e d have at its disposal a creative p o w e r that n o observable b e i n g can m a t c h . E v e r y c r e a t i o n , unless i t is a m y s t i c a l p r o c e d u r e that escapes science a n d i n t e l l e c t , is i n fact t h e p r o d u c t o f a synthesis. I f the syntheses o f part i c u l a r representations

that o c c u r w i t h i n each i n d i v i d u a l consciousness are

already, i n a n d o f themselves, p r o d u c t i v e o f novelties, h o w m u c h m o r e effective m u s t societies be—these vast syntheses o f entire consciousnesses! A s o c i ety is the m o s t p o w e r f u l c o l l e c t i o n o f physical a n d m o r a l forces that w e can observe i n nature. S u c h riches o f v a r i o u s materials, so h i g h l y concentrated, are t o b e f o u n d n o w h e r e else. I t is n o t s u r p r i s i n g , t h e n , that a h i g h e r life d e velops o u t o f t h e m , a life that acts o n the elements f r o m w h i c h i t is made, t h e r e b y raising t h e m t o a h i g h e r f o r m o f life a n d t r a n s f o r m i n g t h e m .

*The second edition says U nous fait instead of il nous faut, surely a typographical error. T

The phrase "and sensibilities" does not appear in Swain.

448

Conclusion

T h u s , i t seems the v o c a t i o n o f s o c i o l o g y is t o o p e n a n e w w a y t o the science o f m a n . U n t i l n o w , w e s t o o d before these alternatives: e i t h e r t o e x p l a i n the h i g h e r and specific faculties o f m a n b y r e l a t i n g t h e m t o l o w e r f o r m s o f being—reason t o sense, m i n d t o m a t t e r — w h i c h a m o u n t e d t o d e n y i n g t h e i r specificity; o r t o c o n n e c t t h e m w i t h some reality above experience that w e postulated b u t w h o s e existence n o o b s e r v a t i o n can establish. W h a t placed the m i n d i n that d i f f i c u l t y is that the i n d i v i d u a l was taken t o be finis naturae. * I t seemed there was n o t h i n g b e y o n d h i m , at least n o t h i n g that science m i g h t discover. B u t a n e w w a y o f e x p l a i n i n g m a n becomes possible as soon as w e recognize that above the i n d i v i d u a l there is society, and that society is a syst e m o f active f o r c e s — n o t a n o m i n a l b e i n g , a n d n o t a c r e a t i o n o f the m i n d . To preserve man's distinctive attributes, i t is n o l o n g e r necessary t o place t h e m outside experience. Before d r a w i n g that e x t r e m e c o n c l u s i o n , at any rate, i t is best t o f i n d o u t w h e t h e r that w h i c h is i n the i n d i v i d u a l b u t surpasses h i m m a y n o t c o m e t o h i m f r o m that s u p r a i n d i v i d u a l , yet concretely e x p e r i e n c e d , reali t y that is society. T o be sure, i t c a n n o t be said at this m o m e n t h o w far these explanations can be e x t e n d e d a n d i f t h e y can lay every p r o b l e m t o rest. Equally, however, i t is impossible t o m a r k i n advance a l i m i t b e y o n d w h i c h t h e y c a n n o t go. W h a t m u s t be d o n e is t o t r y o u t the hypothesis and test i t against the facts as m e t h o d i c a l l y as possible. T h i s is w h a t I have t r i e d t o do.

*The culmination of nature.

INDEX

Abstinences, 303—15. See also Prohibitions Agni, 29, 70-71, 83n39 Alatunja, 333, 335, 338-39, 341, 356 Alcheringa, 250, 251, 253, 255, 256, 257, 272, 277, 281, 283, 285, 287, 294, 339, 358, 378, 380 Altjira, 258, 262nll0, 289, 289n72, 295-96 Altjirangamitjina, 250, 257-58, 260, 277 Ambiguity: of representative rites, 387-91; of sacredness, 412-17 American Indians: and animals as cosmic deities, 64; clans of, 85-86, 93, 94, 109-10, 109fw47^18, 110; classification among, 145; individual totemism in, 158, 158«2, 159, 160nl8, 162, 163-64, 165, 175-76, 182«38; initiation rites of, 44; and kinship between man and totemic animal, 135-36, 135-36rm32—35; orenda of Iroquois, 195-96, 200, 205-206; and pain, 317; and reincarnation, 261, 264-65; space conceived of, as circle by, 11; totemic emblems of, 112-17, 125; and totemic principle, 194-96, 201; totemism of, 87, 93-95, 100n3, 101, 109-11; wakan of, 194-95, 198, 203, 205, 327 Ancestor cult, 49-52, 57, 59, 60-61, 170-73 Ancestors: and churinga, 122, 122«126, 256-57; civilizing heroes as, 286—88; and conception, 253-59, 253n59, 255«70, 277; dramatic depictions of, 378, 378««10-12; high gods as, 299; mythology on, 175—76; as origin of clans, 252, 279-80; protective relationship to persons, 277-78; and reincarnation, 249-61, 268, 277-78; relationship be-

tween individual soul, individual totem, and, 280-84, 283«30; relationship of, to things, 278-79; souls of, 250-52; as totem, 103-104, 258, 293-94; to tern transmitted from, 105, 105n27, 105n29, 163; and totemic emblem, 176 Anderson, Benedict, xxxiii Animal societies, 370n29 Animals: civilization lacking among, 370, 370n29; compared with humans, 50-51, 62; humans as participants in animal nature, 65; mental faculties of, 50-51, 62, 438, 444; primitive's view of, 172; as sacred beings, 64—65; soul in form of, 263-65, 265nl21; tattooing of, 116n89. See also Individual totem; Totem; Totemic animal Animism: and anthropomorphism, 61-65, 237; conditions of, 47-51; critique of, xlviii, 52-67, 84-85, 226; definition of, 45-46; and dreaming, 47, 48, 53-56; and force, 368; and mentality of children, 63; naturism compared with, 45—46, 70, 84; and reduction of religion to system of hallucinations, 65—67; and soul, 47-48, 52-56, 68; Spencer on, 46-47, 50-52, 66n42; and spirit, 48-50, 57-61, 68; and transformation of cult of spirits into cult of nature, 50-52, 61-65; Tylor on, lvii, 46—50, 46n3, 65; universal animism of Leibniz, 24 Anje-a, 260-61, 294 Anjir, 261, 294 Année sociologique, xxii, 44n68 Anthropological school, 91 Anthropomorphism, 61-65, 237, 410 Antisemitism, Lxviiiri84, 404n 449

450

Apriorism, 12-16, 14»16, 17w22, 18, 370, 372 Aquinas, Thomas, xxxviii Aristode, 8 Aron, Raymond, xx—xxi, xxxi, lxvi«63 Art, origin of, 385-86 Arumburinga, 278 Arúnkulta, 199-200 Asceticism, 37, 314-21 Associarion of ideas, 361 Atnatu, 287, 287n55, 288, 295 Augustine, St., xxvii Australia: early documentation of totemism in, 87-90, 88nl6, 89nn20-21; methodological reasons for basing study on totemism in, 90—93; phases of societies in, 216-18. See also Totemism; and headings beginning with Totemic Authority, 209-11, 210-1 1H6, 224

Bachofen, Johann, 6, 6n Baiame, 289, 292, 295, 297, 298, 309, 315, 316, 427 Barclay, Craig, lxviii«87 Barth, Auguste, 28, 31 Basedow, H., 263 Beliefs, 34-38. See also Faith Bellah, Robert, 1XVK54 Bergaigne, Abel, 32-33, 32«38 Berger, Peter, lxviii«85 Bewitchment, 361 Bible, xxiv, xxvii, xxxviii, xliv, xlvi—xlviii, 32, 32«33, 32«34, 32n38, 341, 346«48 Blood: atonement for bloodshed, 389; and churinga, 125; and expiatory rites, 410; fecundating virtues of, 348-49; as lifeprinciple, 334—36; menstrual blood, 412, 413; mother's drinking of blood of circumcision, 137«41; and nurtunja, 136; offerings of, 327n25, 346«48; part versus whole of, 231; prohibitions on, 137, 307; ritual shedding of, 137, 307, 317, 317«71, 334-36, 346n48, 347n52, 348-49, 358, 358wl3, 388, 391, 397¬ 400, 406-11, 406n36, 409»51; sacredness of, 125, 136-37, 137»41, 188, 307; shedding of, as communion, 410; shedding of, in mourning, 397-400, 406,

Index

406n36; as symbol, 228-29; totemic essence in, 262; of women, 138n50; from women's genital organs, 414 Boas, Franz, 87, 147n24, 175, 178, 182n38 Body: interdependence and assimilation between soul and, 245—47, 274; localization of soul in, xxvii, 1, 53, 245—46, 246n«22-23, 260, 262; sacredness of parts of, 136-38; soul separated from, at death, 48, 49, 245; soul/body dualism, xxvii, 245, 265-67, 274 Brahma, 31 Brahmanism, 28, 31 Bréal, Michel, 69, 74 Bridgmann, 142 Brinton, Daniel Garrison, 61 Buddha, 29-30, 30«26, 30rm26-28 Buddhism, 28-31, 35, 316 Bunjil, 289-92, 290n83, 295-97, 309, 315, 427 Bureau of American Ethnology, 86 Burial rites, 49, 117, 150, 185-86. See also Death; Funeral rites; Mourning Burnouf, Eugène, 28, 29-30, 29nl9, 29«22

Casimir, St., relics of, xxv, xlv, bdxnlOO Categorical imperative, 305 Categories of undertanding, 8-18, 8M, 17H22, 372, 421, 440-44 Category, notion of, 146 Causality: and collective consciousness, 443; and force, 368-70, 441; and mimetic rites, 363, 367, 371; principle of, 367—73; and science, 373, 373«30; social origin of, 367-68; sociological theory of, 372 Charcot, Jean-Martin, liii Children, 63, 125, 243»4, 246«22, 409, 414, 438 Christianity: and anthropomorphic god, 64; Catholic Church, 43; devil in, 40; divinity in, 30, 39, 64, 76n26, 193; and equality, 429; and faith, 365; and folklore, 34; individual practices within, 43; magical elements in, 40; and missionaries' influence, 248, 248n44; Müller on, 76n26; mystery in, 23; and pain, 320; plurality of sacred things in, 38-39;

Index

Protestantism, 41; and Satan, 423; and science, 36«45, 431; and seasonal feasts, 353; and tattoos, 233-34 Church: centrality of, in religion, 41—43; exclusion of, from individual religious, 43; as imagined community, 42; and individual cults, 43-44 Churinga, 115, 118-22, 119«103, 125, 132-33, 137, 140, 183, 200«41, 229, 250, 254, 256-59, 268, 269, 281, 287, 307, 311, 312, 323, 406, 407, 413, 413«61 Circumcision, 115«, 120, 137«41, 286, 287, 297, 319 Civilizing heroes, 286-88, 287«48, 287n«54-55, 288«60, 295, 297 Clans: of American Indians, 85—86, 93, 94, 109-10, 109n«47-48, 110; ancestors as origin of, 252, 279-80; classification of things by, 141—45; coherence of, as improbable, lxvi«66; definition of, 100, 100«2, 155; and phratry organization, 105, 107, 107«40, 142; similarity among, 428; as simplest form of social organization, 169; totem as name of, 100-101; and totemic principle, 207-208, 223; and totemism, 85-86, 93, 94; Tylor on, 171«8 Classification: among American Indians, 145; by clan, phratry, and class, 141-45; dichotomous organization of, 146—47, 147n«22—23; differences between resemblance and idea of genus, 146—49, 147-48n«24—26; and hierarchical order, 149; modeled on social organization, 145-46,149; religious meaning of, 149-57; and society, 444-45; and the whole, 442, 443. See also Cosmology Clement, E . , 359 Codrington, Robert Henry, 56, 59, 64, 196-97, 206, 327 Collective consciousness: and causality, 443; and exploration of culture, lvi; and Holy Ark, xlviii; and impersonal reason, 445; and moral powers, 224; as more than epiphenomenon of morphological base, 426; and Mount Sinai, xlvii; normative and cognitive aspects of, li; as not sepa-

451

rate from individuals, xlii—xliii; and religion, 239; and representative rites, 379; and sacredness, xliii, xliv, xlvi, xlviii—xlix, 268-69; and symbols, 232-34 Collective representations, xviii, xix, xxvi, lvi, 15, 228, 230, 273, 349-50, 436-37, 439, 439«11, 445 Collective thought, 447 Collective totem, 162-66, 162«33, 178-82 Collins, David, 114 Command, bases of, 209-11 Communion, 341-44, 347, 389-90, 410, 414 Comparative method, proper use of, 90-92 Comte, Auguste, xxxii, xxxix, xl, xli, lxiii«27, lxvn53, lxviiin80, 206, 429 Conception: and animal form of soul, 264; Australian theories of, 253—59, 253«55, 253«59, 255«68, 255«70, 261, 277; sexual intercourse as insufficient for, 253, 253«55; and souls, 250; and totem, 263 Conceptional totemism, 183—84 Concepts, 434-40, 435n9, 441 Conscience collective, xl-xliii, xlvii, xlviii—xlix, li, lvi, 445«. See also Collective consciousness Consciousness. See Collective consciousness; Individual consciousness Consciousness of consciousnesses, 445 Consecration, 323, 325 Contagiousness: causes of, 325-29; of feelings associated with symbol, 221-22; of magic forces, 328«105, 361; of religious forces, 238-39n60, 327-29, 415; of sacredness, 224, 281, 322—29; and scientific explanation, 327, 329; of taboos, 326«100; of totemic principle, 224 Contrariety, law of, 361 «20 Copernicus, 1 Corpses. See Death Corroboree, 217, 357, 387, 387«32 Coser, Lewis A., xxxi Cosmology: and classification by clan, phratry, and class, 141—45; modeled on social organization, 145-46, 149; and morality, 1—li; morality and history tied to, 379; religious meaning of classifications, 149—57; of totemism, 141-57. See also Classification

452

Creation myths, 290-91, 290«83 Creation science, 1—li Crusades, 213 Cult: definition of, 59-60, 420, 430; individual forms of, 426-27; international forms of, 428; meanings and connotations of, lvi, lxxi-lxxii«125; periodicity of, 60. See also Ancestor cult; Dead, cult of Curie, Marie and Pierre, xli Curr, Edward Micklethwaite, 143 Cushing, Frank Hamilton, 11, 86«8, 87

Dall, 87 Daramulun, 289, 292, 295, 296, 297, 309, 315, 323, 427 Darwin, Charles, 237« Dawson, James, 248, 248«44, 324 De Couianges, Fustel, 46«2 Dead, cult of, 59, 60-61, 62, 76«26 Death: belief in life after, 270-72; hair of man cut at, 138; honor of dead with mana, 59, 61; Millier on, 75, 75«24; prohibitions surrounding, 309—10, 324, 393, 395, 413; responsibility for, 263-64; sacredness of dead person, 307, 323; as separation of soul and body, 48, 49, 245; soul after, 48-49, 57, 59, 246-50, 252-53, 264-65, 265«121, 276—77; of totem as threat to individual, 160, 168; totemic emblem on corpse before burial, 117; transformation of soul into spirit through, 48-49, 57, 59. See also Burial practices; Funeral rites; Mourning Delusions. See Hallucinations; Illusion Demons, 34, 40, 423 Descartes, René, xxvii, brix«98 Determinism, 24—25 Deuteronomy, book of, xxvii, 32, 32n38 Dietary restrictions, 32, 78n31, 108-109, 127-31, 140, 151-52, 152«42, 160, 221, 306«7, 307-308, 307«16, 315, 338, 413 Divinity. See God Domination, 370 Dorsey, James Owen, 87, 194-95, 194«10 Double. See Soul Douglas, Mary, lxv-lxvi«63 Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan, lx

Index

Dramatic performances, 376—80, 383—84 Dreaming, lxviii«84, 47, 48, 53-56, 56«20, 57«22, 65, 150, 258, 261, 270-71 Dreyfus Affair, lxviii«84 Drought, 407-408 Duality: of body and soul, xxvii, 245, 265-67, 274; of human nature, 15—16, 50, 52-53, 134-36, 224n34 Dueling, 397

Eating, as profane, 311, 3311 «42. See also Dietary restrictions Ecclesiastes, book of, xxiv Economic activity, 421 «4 Effervescence: collective, xli-xlii, xliv-xlv, 218-20, 228, 424; in funeral rites, 398, 399; mental effervescence, 238; and mourning, 397-98, 399, 403; of Nazis, btix«88; and piacular rite, 397-99, 403, 411; and representative rites, 385, 386-87 Elementary Forms of Religious Life (Dürkheim). See Formes élémentaires de la vie

religieuse (Dürkheim) Elementary versus elemental, lix—lxi Ellington, Duke, xxiii—xxiv Emblem, 231—35. See also Totemic emblem Empedocles, xxvii, lxiii«33 Empiricism, 12-18, 12-13«15, 370, 372 Equation of religion and society. See God/society equation Ertnatulunga, 119-21, 120«, 281, 281«21, 312 Essential, meanings of, lvi—lvii, lxxii«128. See also specific ethnographers Ethnography, xxxii, 5-6, 8, 27, 27«12, 85, 101 Evans-Pritchard, E . E . , li Evil, 284-86, 285«40, 402, 404-^106, 412-17, 419, 423-24 Evolution, 1—Li» 236-37 Excrement, sacredness of, 230«43, 334, 336 Exodus, book of, xxxviii, xliv, xlvi—xlviii, 346«48 Expiatory rites, 131 «18, 151, 409, 410, 411-12, 414

Index

Eylmann, Richard, 244«9, 389«72, 407

Fables, 80n36. See abo Folklore; Mythology Fagan, Garth, xxiii Faith, 364-66, 379, 419-20, 427, 432, 433 Family. See Clans Famines, 407-408 Fertility rites, 354-60 Festivals, 386-87 Fetishism, 35-36, 161 «26, 176-77 Filloux, J. C , lxiv«52 Fire rituals, 219-20 First fruits, sacredness of, 342, 343 Fison, Lorimer, 86, 111, 116, 141-43 Flag, as symbol, 228, 229, 231 Fletcher, Alice C , 175, 178, 195nll, 197, 201, 327 Folklore, 34, 39, 42, 305«5. See also Mythology Food restrictions. See Dietary restrictions Force: and causality, 368-70; collective force as prototype for effective force, 441; concept of, xl-xlii, 1, 191-92; and domination, 370; magic forces, 328«105; mobility of religious forces, 327-28; physical contrasted with moral or collective force, 192—93, 369; priority of impersonal force over mythical personalities, 201-205; religious force as prototype of force in general, 205— 206; religious forces as external to their substrates, 326-29; social origin of, 369; of society that raise individual above himself, 211—16, 214«; and soul, 370 Ford, Harrison, xlviii Foreskin, 138, 138«49 Formalism, religious, 33 Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse (Dür-

kheim): critique on, xxxiii; English translation of tide of, lix—bei; goals for, and approaches to retranslating, xxii—xxiv, li—bri; reaction to, as scandal, XX—xxi; rhetorical mode of, xxi—xxii, liv; second edition of, lxxinl 15; Swain's translation of, xviii, xxxiii, li-liv, lvii, lix, lxi, brix«98, 211«; "we" used in, lviii, lxxii«130

453

Foucault, Michel, xxiii, xxix, lxiii«25 Frazer, Sir James G., 21, 27, 58«24, 86-88, 90-92, 102«14, 109«46, 129«10, 132«22, 158«2, 160«18, 161«26, 162«33, 163«35, 166«54, 167, 175, 177-78, 182-87, 189, 193«5, 204«56, 283-84, 361, 366, 422«5 French Revolution, xlii, 213, 215-16, 430 Freud, Sigmund, xlviii, liii, lxx«103, lxx—lxxi««113-114, lxxi«122 Functionalism, xxxii Funeral rites, 39«49, 48„58, 59, 225, 243«4, 246, 305, 395, 397-99, 405«35, 414. See also Burial rites; Death; Mourning

Games, origin of, 385 Gane, Michael, lviii Gason, 259 Gayandi, 295, 297 Generic image, 442 Genital mutilation, 115, 115«, 137, 137«41, 286, 297, 319 See also Circumcision; Subincision Genus, idea of, 147-49, 148«26, 441, 442, 444 Ghosts, versus spirits, 277 Gillen, Francis James, 27«12, 88-90, 102«13, 103, 105, 118, 121, 122, 123«133, 128-29, 131«14, 134, 135, 153, 182, 185, 186, 199, 200«41, 218-20, 247, 248«36, 252, 253, 254, 255«70, 268, 280, 281, 285, 288«60, 289, 311, 330, 333, 335«16, 337«25, 356-57, 374, 376, 381, 382«20, 383, 387, 388, 393, 394, 398, 408 God/gods: anthropomorphic god, 64-65; authority of, 211; of Christianity, 30, 39, 64, 76«26, 193; as common noun in naturism, 70—71; deification of cosmic phenomena, 83; dependence of, on humans, 345, 349-51; distribution of nature among various gods, 155; divinity connected with agency, 83«39; God/so¬ ciety equation, xxxv—xxxviii, 351; Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, 64—65, 71, 79, 80«35, 202, 208; high gods,

454

God/gods: (cont.) 288-99, 309, 315, 408, 427-28; jealous and terrible gods, 225-26; Lang on high gods, 188, 189n62; in mythology, 79-80, 79-80««33-35; orenda of Iroquois, 195—96; physical and moral force of, 192—93; Pickering on God's separateness, Lxviin71; reduction of, xxxv—xxxvi, Lxvi-lxvii«69; religion as defined in relation to idea of, 27-33; religions without gods, 28—31; rites without gods in deistic religions, 32—33; sacrifice to create bond between humans and, 344; Samoan gods, 193—94; as symbolic expression of society, 351; of totemism, 191, 208; wakan of Sioux, 194-95, 198-98 Gouldner, Alvin, xxxi Grey, George, 85, 111, 200 Grief. See Mourning; Piacular rites Grimm brothers, 68 Gruppe, Otto, 69

Habits, 436nl0 Hair, 137-38, 138»49, 307, 347n52, 394-95, 397, 398 Hall, Stuart, Lxiiin25 Hallucinations, 226, 228-30, 351-52 Hamelin, Octave, 8«4, 10 Hardand, Edwin Sidney, 87«14, 293«100 Hazing, 318n74 Hearne, Samuel, 112 Hebrews, 32, 353. See also Judaism Heckewelder, John Gotdieb Ernestus, 164 Heroes, civilizing, 286-88, 287n48, 287MK54-55, 288«60, 295, 297 Hewitt, N.J. B., 201 Hierarchy, 149 High gods, 288-99, 293nl00, 309, 315, 408, 427-28 Hill Tout, Charles, 87, 165, 166, 175-77, 178, 179«32, 180-81 Hindu sacrifice, 389-90 Historical materialism, 426 History, 376, 379, 380, 382, 397, 443 Holy Ark, xliv, xlviii, 121 Homeopathic magic, 361

Index

Howitt, Alfred William, 56, 86, 89-90, 102, 107«40, 111, 116, 142-44, 144nll, 154, 187, 262, 296, 323«89, 396 Hubert, Henri, lxxiinl31, 41, 203-204, 361«20, 366-67,389 Hugo, Victor, liv Human reason. See Reason Humans: compared with animal nature, 50—51, 62; as culmination of nature, 448; duality of, 15-16, 50, 52-53, 134-36, 224n34; gods' dependence on, 345, 349-51; invalidity of inference from animals and children, 62—63; kinship with totemic animal, 133—36, 135«31, 135n33, 136««34-35, 139-40, 139H55, 224, 224n32, 307-308, 362, 391; as participants in animal nature, 65; sacredness of, 133-34, 133n24, 136-40, 138«50. See abo Men; Old men; Uninitiated men; Women Hurston, Zora Neale, xxiv Husserl, Edmund, xviii

Idealization, 229-30, 422-25 Illness, 49, 408-409, 414 Illusion, 51-52, 83. See also Delusions; Hallucinations Imagined communities, xxxii—xxxiii, xlv, 42 Imitation. See Mimetic rites Immortality, xxix, 270—72. See also Soul Indians. See American Indians Individual consciousness, 224, 231-32, 252, 266, 426 Individual totem: acquisition of, 163—66, 163«37, 164n40, 165nn46-47, 166M54; as alter ego, 160, 161, 282; bonds between individual and, 159-63; characteristics of, 282, 426—27; compared with collective totem, 162-66; Frazer on, 162, 177-78, 178n30; name of, 158-59; as personal emblem, 159; relationship between ancestral spirit, soul, and, 280-284, 283«30, 284«31; totemism derived from, 174—82 Individualism, li, 426-27 Individuation, 273-75, 275«128, 283 Indo-European languages. See Language

Index

Initiation rites, 37, 44, 116-17, 117n95, 137, 138«50, 163-65, 256-57, 286, 291-92, 297, 307, 311, 314-15, 317-19, 318«74, 389n40 Intelligence. See Thought Intichiuma: failures of, 365; first phase of, 331-37, 345-46; as mimetic rite, 355—57, 364; as representative or commemorative rite, 374, 375-78, 381, 387-89; ritual eating of totemic plant of animal during, 338—44, 340n36; as sacrifice, 346-47, 364; seasonal nature of, 353; second phase of, 338-44, 340n36; Strehlow on, 337«25, 340n36; well-being of totemic animal or plant during, 331-37, 345-46. See also Sacrifice Intoxicating liquors, 228

Jainism, 31 James, William, lxviii-lxix«87, 420 Jay, Nancy, lix, lxviin77 Jevons, Frank Byron, 25, 26, 46«3, 57»22, 173-74, 174«17, 326«100 Jews. See Judaism Joan of Arc, 213 Jones, Robert Alun, lxxinll7 Jovis, 71 Judaism, xx, xxix, xxx, xxxi, xliv, lxiii«21, 32, 33, 352, 353, 429

Kant, Immanuel, xviii, xxix, xxxii, 8n, 273, 305, 446 Kaplan, Mordecai, lxiii«21 Karween, 296, 297 Kempe, Rev. H . , 119nl03 Kern, Hendrick, 29, 30n26 Kerr, John, lxv«54 Khomeini, Ruhollah, xxv, xliv-xlv Kind, idea of, 147-49, 148«26, 441 Kings, book of, 346n48 Kinship: in clan, 100, 100«2; man/totemic animal kinship, 133-36, 135«31, 135«33, 136nn34-35, 139-40, 139n55, 224, 224M32, 307-308, 362, 391; matrihny versus patriarchy, 6, 6n; sacrifice and creation of artificial kinship, 341, 344

455

Knowledge, theory of: and apriorism versus empirisism, 12-18, 12-15n«15-18, 17«22; and categories of understanding, 8-18, 8n, 17n22, 372, 421, 440-44; fundamental notions in, 8-12, 8nn; origins of, in religion, 8; and society, 15-16, 447-48 Krause, Avrel, 87, 113, 261 Ku Klux Klan, xlii Kuhn, Adalbert, 69, 70 Kushner, Harold, lxiiin21

LaCapra, Dominick, xxxvii Lalande, André, 237« Lang, Andrew, 46nl, 56-57n21, 61, 106, 186-89, 186-87nn52-53, 292-93, 292-93«n99-100 Language: and collective representations, 436; conceptual organization of, 435; Indo-European languages, 73—76; metaphors in, 51, 74; Millier on, 72-76; and mythology, 75, 78; and natural phenomena, 74-75; and naturism, 72-75; sacred language, 310; and speech prohibitions, 309-10, 311 «45, 324, 393, 395, 395«8; and thought, 73 Laughing Boy totem, 383 Laws of nature, 24 Legends, 79«33. See also Folklore; Mythology Leibniz, G. W , xxix, 24, 273 Leonhardi, 263«112 Lévi-Strauss, Claude, li, lxviii«78, lxxii«130 Leviticus, book of, xxvii, 32, 32«34, 346«48 Lévy-Bruhl, Lucien, 9«, 236n58, 269«125, 365«24 Lithuania, xxv, xlv, LxixnlOO Local totemism, 182-86, 184«43 Logical norms, versus moral norms, 17, 17n20 Logical thought, 433-40, 445-46 Lombroso, Césare, 234 Long, John, 85, 101«7 Looking, prohibitions against, 308-309 Lukes, Steven, xxvi, xxxiii, xliv, liii, lxiinl3, lxviiin87

456

Magic: and asceticism, 316«69; compared with religion, lxiinl6, 39-42, 200, 204, 285-86, 304-305, 361, 366-67, 366»26, 421; contagiousness and, 328nl05, 361; definition of, 39-40; faith in, 366; homeopathic magic, 361; origins of, 366; prohibitions in, 304—305; and spirits, 284-86, 286n47; sympathic magic, 360—61, 366; totemism as, xx Malinowski, Bronislaw, li Mana: and dead, 59, 61; definition of, xxxix, xl, 59, 215nl4; as force, 327; and gods, 203; and men of influence, 215; Lang on, 188; and magic, 204; rites addressed to, 203; and soul, 268-70, 299; as totemic principle, 196-200, 206; and wealth, 421«4. See also Totemic principle Mangarkunjerkunja, 287, 287n54, 294¬ 95 Mannhardt, Wilhelm, 34, 68»1, 87 Marrett, R . R., 203, 203n49, 204«57 Marriage classes, 107-108, 108n43, 108-109n«45-46, 152«42, 253-54, 254n60, 255n68, 428 Marsalis, Wynton, xxiii Marx, Karl, xix, lxvin65 Maternal totem, 104, 131, 131«14, 163, 185-86, 258, 262nll0 Mathews, Robert Hamilton, 143-44, 144nll, 163«37, 167, 182n39, 260 Matriliny, 6, 6« Maudsley, 230n41 Mauss, Marcel, Lxixn88, lxxii«131, 41, 203-204, 361 n20, 366-67, 389 McLennan, John Ferguson, 6, 6«, 85, 87 Medicine bag, 160nl8 Men: ascetic practices before and after marriage, 316-17n69; batdes between women and, 168, 168«62; creation of, 290, 290«83; lack of respect for senile old men, 245; old men and choice of individual totem, 165; old men exempted from prohibitions against eating totemic animal, 128, 129, 139, 307, 307«16; pi¬ acular rites and old men, 408; sacredness of, compared with women, 138-39; sacredness of old men, 129, 139, 244, 245, 307nl6; sexual totems of, 167—68,

Index

167«56, 296; uninitiated men, 132-33, 138, 139, 288, 312, 384 Menstrual blood, 412, 413 Mentality. See Thought Mestrovic, Stjepan G., bdv«25, lxxi«114, lxxinl22 Metaphors, 51, 74 Mexico, 204 Mimetic rites: anthropological explanation of, 361-62; and bewitchment, 361; and causality, 363, 367, 371; definition of, 355; effects on participants, 363-64; examples of, 355—60; failures not the rule, 365; and faith, 364—66; Intichiuma as, 355—57, 364; moral efficacy of, 363—65; physical efficacy of, 365—66; as primitive form of totemic cult, 391; and principle of like produces like, 360-61,

371; reasons for imitation of plant or animal, 362—63 Mindeleff, 87 Minkani, 336 Miracles, 25 Modeh, xxix Monasticism, 37 Moral authority, 209-11, 210-1 ln6, 224 Morality, xlviii, lv-lvi, 17, 17n20, 34, 270, 362 Morgan, Lewis Henry, 6, 6n, 86, 87 Mortuary rites. See Burial rites; Death; Funeral rites; Mourning Moses, xlvi—xlvii Mount Sinai, xlvi-xlviii Mourning: anger expressed during, 397, 404; bloodshedding during, 397-400, 406, 406n36; as collective expression of emotion, 400-401, 403; and double transformation of deceased, 402—405; dueling during, 397; and effervescence, 397-98, 399, 403; examples of, 393-99; explanation of, 400-406; prohibitions during, 309-10, 324, 393, 394, 395«8; sadness expressed during, 393-97; selfmutilation in, 394-99, 402, 404; and soul of dead, 252, 404-406, 414; and women, 393, 395-96, 395n8, 398-99, 404. See also Burial rites; Death; Funeral rites Muk-Kurnai, 260, 277

Index

Millier, Max, 23, 46«3, 69-76, 78-79, 82«38, 83n39 Mullian, 296 Mungan-ngaua, 289, 295, 408 Mura-mura, 259-60, 277, 287, 289, 294, 336, 407 Mutilation. See Self-mutilation Mystery, in definition of religion, 22-26 Mythology: of allied totems, 153«51; of ancestors, 175-76; contradiction in, 12, 12«13; creation myths, 290-91, 290n83; and eating of totemic animal, 128—29, 129n9; fables compared with, 80«36; formation of international mythology, 298, 298«131; gods in, 79-80, 79-80n«33—35; on kinship between man and totemic animal, 134—36, 134«28, 135—36nn31-34, 187; and language, 75, 78; legends compared with, 79n33; Miiller on, 69n5, 70, 75, 78, 79; as not historical evidence, 129; on origin of clan, 252; and poetry, 386; priority of impersonal force over mythical personalities, 201-205; religion compared with, 79; scholars on, 68-70; vampire myth, 244«9. See also Folklore

Nakedness, 310, 332 Namatuna, 254, 255, 255n66 Name: of dead person, 309-10, 324; of individual and individual totem, 158—59; sacredness of, 309; totem as, 100-11, 186-88 Natural order of things, 24—26 Nature: as animate, 57n22; disasters in, 407-408; distribution of, among various gods, 155; man's relationship with, 81—83; savage's admiration of, 81; and society, 17—18; totemism derived from cult of nature, 173—74; transformation of cult of spirits into cult of nature, 50-52, 61-65 Naturism: animism compared with, 45—46, 70, 84; critique of, xlvih, lxvii«74, 76-83, 84-85, 226; definition of, 45-46; and language, 72-76; Miiller on, 69—76, 78-79; and mythology distinguished

457

from religion, 78-81; as original form of religious life, 71-72; principles of, 70-76; and sacred/profane dichotomy, 81—83; scholars interested in, 68—70; and soul, 75-76; Spencer on, 51 Nazis, xlii, lxixn88 Negative rites: and asceticism, 314—21; and contagiousness of the sacred, 322—25; definition of, 303—304, 306; positive effects of, 313-21, 417; purpose of, 330; as system of abstinences, 303-13. See also Prohibitions Nisbet, Robert, xxxiii Norms, 17, 17n20 North America. See American Indians Nuralie, 289, 296, 297 Nurtunja, 123-25, 123nl31, 124-25«140, 132, 133, 136

Obedience, bases, 209-11 Ochre, red, 137 Offerings: in Bible, 346n48; of Intichiuma, 331-37, 345-46; in piacular sacrifices, 347«53 Oknanikilla, 250, 250n49 Old men: and ability to see souls, 244; and choice of individual token, 165; exempted from prohibitions against eating totemic animal, 128, 129, 139, 307, 307nl6; lack of respect for, at senility, 245; and piacular rites, 408; sacredness of, 129, 139, 244, 245, 307nl6 Oldenberg, Hermann, 28, 31 Opinion, 210, 439-40 Order. See Natural order of things Orenda, 195-96, 200, 205-206 Oruncha, 285, 285n40 Oxley, 113-14

Pain, religious role of, 317-21, 317»n70-71, 318M74, 411, 411n57. See also Asceticism; Self-mutilation Pallyan, 290n83, 296, 297 Palmer, Edward, 142 Parker, Mrs., 178«29, 282, 298, 316 Parsons, Talcott, lxvnn55-56, brixn93 Pascal, Blaise, 23

458

Paschal meal, 343 Paternal totem, 104-105, 131, 131«14, 163 Paul, St., 292n99 Pearce, Frank, lxiiiii25 Pensée collective. See Collective thought Personal totem. See Individual totem Personality, 272-75, 272«127, 275«128 Philosophy, 4, 8, 206, 438 Phratries, 105-107, 107n30, 110-11, lllnn52-53, 130, 130nnl2-13, 142-47, 147««22-23, 381, 428 Piacular rites: and ambiguity of the sacred, 415-17; and anger, 397, 404, 412; bloodshedding during, 397—400, 406- 10, 406«36, 409n51; as collective expression of emotion, 400-401, 403, 410-12, 416-17; definition of, 392-93; dueling during, 397; and effervescence, 397-98, 399, 403, 411; efficacy of, 415—17; explanation of, 400—406; and loss ofchuringa, 406—407; mourning, 393-406; and natural disasters, 407-408; offerings in, 347n53; prohibitions in, 393; and ritual misdeed, 411-12; selfmutilation in, 394-99, 402, 404, 407- 10, 409«51; and sickness, 408-409; and southern lights, 408. See also Mourning Picasso, Pablo, xxii Pickering, W. S. F., xxvi, xxxi, xxxiii, hi, bdinl5, lxviin71, lxixn98 Pikler, Julius, 187n53, 208«2 Plants, as sacred beings, 64. See also Totemic plants Plato, 437 Poetry, and religion, 386 Positive rites: definition of, 330; feelings associated with, 392; Intichiuma as example of, 330-48; mimetic rites, 355-67; periodicity of, 350, 353-54; representative or commemorative rites, 374—91; sacrifice, 340—54; as sacrilege, 342-43 "Positive science." See Science positive Powell, John Wesley, 86«8, 162-63 Power, social origin of, 370 Preanimism, 203, 204«57, 269 Preuss, Konrad Theodor, 27nl2, 204, 204n57, 269nl25, 317, 317n«70-71, 422»5

Index

Primitive: and admiration of nature, 81; and animals, 172; dreams of, 55-56, 56«20; mentality of, xxxi, 47, 49-51, 55, 62, 177-78, 193, 198, 236-41, 326, 328-29; missionaries' influence on, 248, 248«44; and soul, 52-53; as term, l n l . See also Savage Primitive religion: objections to study of, 1—2; rationale for study of, 1-8, 5«2. See also Totemism Procopius of Gaza, 233 Procreation. See Conception Profane: cycle of, in Australian societies, 220-21; eating as, 311, 311«42; matter as, 431; prohibitions against sacred life mingling with, 310-13, 311«45, 312n47; women as, 138, 308, 308nl8, 384. See also Sacred/profane dichotomy Prohibitions: and antagonisms between sacred and profane, 306—13, 321—22, 324-25; of contact, 132, 132n22, 306—10; and contagiousness of sacred, 322—25; dietary restrictions, 32, 78n31, 108-109, 127-31, 140, 151-52, 152«42, 160, 221, 306«7, 307-308, 307nl6, 315, 338, 413; against eating or killing totemic animal/plant, 127-32, 131««16-18, 140, 151-52, 152n42, 160, 160nl8, 221, 307-308, 307nl6, 338; in folklore, 305M5; as logically entailed by notion of sacred, 321—22; against looking, 308—309; magic versus religious prohibitions, 304—305; during mourning, 393, 395, 395n8; old men exempted from, 128, 129, 139; positive influences of, 313-15; against profane life mingling with sacred life, 310—13, 311n45, 312«47; and property right, 312n47; between sacred things of different kinds, 305—306, 413; on sexual contact, 308nl8; on speech, 309-10, 311 «45; on totemic emblem, 132-33; types of, 306—11; for uninitiated men, 132-33, 138, 288, 312; for women, 32, 125, 132, 137, 138, 288, 308, 309, 393, 395, 395n8; on work, 311-12 Property rights, 140, 312«47

Index

Psychology, xlviii, liii, lxviii-lxix«87, lxx«103, lxx—ixxin«113—114, lxxi«122, 69, 69«, 431-32 Putiaputia, 287, 287«48, 294

Raiders of the Lost Ark, xlviii

Rainmaking, 358-59, 358nl3 Ratapa, 253-54, 253«59, 255, 255«68, 259, 263 Ratzel, Friedrich, 230«41 Reason, xlix—li, lxviii«79, 13—17, 273, 446 Red ochre, 137 Redding, hi, lxii«15, lxix«98 Reincarnation: among American Indians, 261, 264—65; in Australian societies, 249-61, 268, 277-78; facts supporting, 262-65; and perpetuation of group, 271-72 Religion: all religions as true, 2-3; and art, 385-86; centrality of Church in, 41^13; compared with magic, lxii«16, 39-42, 200, 204, 285-86, 304-305, 361, 366—67, 366«26, 421; contagiousness of religious forces, 238-39«60, 327-29, 415; defined by supernatural and mysterious, 22—26; defined in relation to idea of God, 27-33; definition of, xxxiv, 33-34, 38-39, 44, 44«68; and economic activity, 421 «4; eternal nature of, 429-30, 432-33; feelings released by, 419-20; function of, 227, 419; as hygienic technique, 78n31; idealization of, 229-31, 422-25; and individual cults, 43-44, 426-27; Muller on, 23, 70, 79; mythology distinguished from, 78-81; needs fulfilled by, xviii; not defined by mythical personalities, gods, or spirits, 202—203; as not originating in fear, 225-26, 409; origins of, 7-8, 7«3, 45^16, 220, 225-26; and part as equal to whole, 230—31; philosophers on, 4; and poetry, 386; prohibitions in, 304—25; recreational aspect of, 385—87; rites without gods in deistic religions, 32—33; as rooted in "the real," xvii—xviii, xxviii, xxxvii, 226—28; and science, xxv, xxx, xxxvii, xli, xlix-li, 8, 12«13, 25, 36«45,

459

77-78, 83, 240-41, 419, 421, 430-33, 446; in seemingly nonreligious life, xlix—li; social aspects of, xix-xx, xlviii, 9, 238-39, 238-39«60, 351-54, 421-29; speculative role of, 430-31, 433; study of, through primitive religion, 1—8; Tylor on, 27; universalism in, 427-28, 446; without gods, 28-31. See also Brahminism; Buddhism; Christianity; God/gods; Judaism; Primitive religion; Science of religions; Totemism Religious beliefs. See Beliefs Religious formalism, 33 Religious individualism, 426-27 Religious rites. See Rites Religious universalism, 427-28, 446 Representations, 349-50, 349«55, 438. See also Collective representations Representative or commemorative rites: ambiguity of, 387-91; Arunta and Warramunga compared, 375-80, 388-89; definition of, 374-75; dramatic performances in, 376-80, 383—84; and effervescence, 385, 386-87;and festival, 386-87; Intichiuma as, 374, 375-78, 381, 387-89; nonutilitarian functions of, 380—87; and periodic reaffirmation of society, 390; as recreation and aesthetic expression, 383—87; utilitarian interpretation of, 375-80; Wollunqua in, 380-83 Réville, Albert, 27, 61, 64, 85«2 Richard, Gaston, bain 15 Riggs, Stephen Return, 195 Rites: as addressed to definite personalities, 79; arguments against utilitarian view of, 382, 384; automatic effects of, 32—33; compared with moral practices, 34; cult compared with, 60; definition of, 34, 38; function of, 422; interchangeability of, 390; as myths in action, 79; necessary cyclicity of, xlii; in preanirnist religion, 203; as recreation and aesthetic expression, 383—87; and religious formalism, 33; separate from deities, 202; without gods, 32-33. See also Burial rites; Expiatory rites; Funeral rites; Initiation rites; Mimetic rites; Negative rites; Piacular rites; Positive rites;

460

Rites (cont.) Representative or commemorative rites; Sacrifice Roche, Maurice, lviii Roth, Walter Edmund, 258, 279 Rules of Sociological Method, The (Dürkheim),

lviii, lxin4, lxxifil21 Ryan, Judith, lxiiin24, lxv«54

Sabatier, Auguste, 43n65 Sacrament, 127 Sacred objects and beings, xlii, 58-61, 65. See also God/gods; Totem; Totemic animal; Totemic plant; specific objects, such as Churinga; Nurtunja; Waninga Sacred/profane dichotomy: absolute heterogeneity between, 36, 37, 58; and beliefs, 34—38; characteristics of sacred versus profane, 35—39; inversions of, 413—15; and naturism, 81-83; overview of, xhii-xlix; passage from profane to sacred, 36—37; prohibitions concerning, 305-13, 321-22, 324-325 Sacredness: ambiguity of, 412-17; of blood, 125, 136-37, 137«41, 188, 307; and collective consciousness, xliii, xliv, xlvi, xlviii-xlix, 268-69; contagiousness of, 224, 281, 322-29; creation of, xlv-xlvi, 208-16, 312-13, 312«47, 328, 349-50; of dead person, 307, 323; of hair, 137-38, 307; of humans, 133-34, 133n24, 136-40; as ideal, 424; of Khomeini, xlv; levels of, 306«7; localization of, 134, 137-39; of men, 138—39; of Mount Sinai, xlvi—xlviii; as not physical, xliv, xlvii; of old men, 129, 139, 244, 245, 307«16; pure and impure forms of, 306, 412-17; and sacred/profane dichotomy, xhii-xlix; of totemic animal, 127—33; of totemic emblems, 118-25, 133; translation of terms corresponding to, lxix—lxxnlOl; of women as less than men, 138, 138n50, 243, 243«3. See also Blood; Soul Sacrifice: ambiguity of, 389-90; and artificial kinship among humans, 341, 344; Bergaine on, 32—33, 32n38; in Bible, 341; and circle in which sacrifice moves, 350-51; and communion,

Index

341-44, 347; definition of, 343; food offerings to ancestors, 49; and gods' dependence on humans, 345, 349-51; Hindu sacrifice, 389—90; as hygienic technique, 78n31; Intichiuma as, 346-47, 364; and kinship between humans and gods, 344; offerings of, 345-54; periodicity of, 350, 353-54; seeming contradictions in, 344-45, 348-49; Smith on, 340-41, 343-45, 350, 351, 357; and soul, 341-42; and suffering, 320; theory of, 347-48; and transformation, 37»46; in Vedic religion, 32—33, 35; without deities, 32-33 Sacrilege, 304-305, 342^13, 414 Sadness. See Mourning; Piacular rites Salvation by faith, 419 Samoa, 193-94, 193n5 Samuel, book of, 32, 32n33 Savage: and admiration of nature, 81; and animals, 172; dreams of, 47; as term, 47«6, 91. See also Primitive Say, 198 Scapegoating, 404, 404« Schmidt, Wilhelm, 46nl, 293«100 Scholasticism, 23«5 Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe, 101, 111 Schulze, Rev. Louis, 185, 255, 330, 357 Schutz, Alfred, xviii Schwartz, Friedrich, 69 Science: authority of, 210; and causality, 373, 373«30; concepts in, 434, 439; and contagiousness, 327, 329; as discipline applying to reality, 66-67; and duality of human nature, 224«34; and faith, 365; and magic, 366; and notion of necessary order, 26; of opinion, 439—40; profane character of, 36«45; and religion, xxv, xxx, xxxvii, xli, xlix-li, 8, 12nl3, 25, 36«45, 77-78, 83, 240-41, 419, 421, 430-33, 446; and single well-made experiment, 249, 418-19 Science of religions, 66—67, 91, 91n33 Science positive, xxiv—xxv, xxvi, xxxv—xxxvi, lxiii«27, 1, in, 26 Secular. See Profane Self-mutilation, 394-99, 402, 404, 407-11, 409«

Index

Sense perceptions, 82n38, 275, 434—35, 438, 444 Sexual communism, 62, 62n35 Sexual intercourse: as insufficient for procreation, 253, 253n55; prohibitions on, 308nl8; and sexual license, 219, 387nn32-33, 408, 411 Sexual totem, 166-68, 167rm56-57, 296 Shestov, Lev, 1 Sickness, 49, 408-409, 414 Simplifying case, logic/methodology of, xxxii, xxxviii-xl, lx-bri, lxviiinn83—84, 1, 4-8 Sin, xxix, 409 Single well-made experiment, 249, 418—19 Smith, William Robertson, Lxvin65, 42«62, 61, 86-87, 340-41, 343-45, 347n52, 348, 350, 351, 357, 410-12, 415 Smyth, Brough, 396 Society: and asceticism, 321; authority of, 16- 17, 209-11, 210-lln6, 224, 266; and categories of understanding, 442—44; classification in, 444-45; as consciousness of consciousnesses, 445; and duality of human nature, 15—17; as force raising individual above himself, 211-16, 214«13; and fusion of objects and ideas, 238-39; God/society equation, XXXV—xxxviii, 351; as highest form of human mind, 447-48; ideal society, 422—23, 425; and imperative norms, 266; individuals in, 252; and logical thought, 433—40; mourning and affirmation of, 403, 405, 416; and nature, 17- 18; nature of, 266; periodic reaffirmation of, 350—54, 390; phases of Australian societies, 216—18; and power, 370; as reality sui generis, 15; and religion, xix-xx, xlviii, 9, 238—39, 238-39n60, 351-54, 427-29; sacredness created by, 208-16; and soul, 274-75, 275nl28 Sociology, 1, 2, 448 Socrates, li Soul: analysis of notion of, in Australian societies, 242—48; animal form of, 263-65, 265nl21; of animate and inanimate things, 49—50; animist theory of, 47—48, 52-56, 65, 68; and belief in life after

461

death, 270—72; body/soul dualism, xxvii, 245, 265-67, 274; of children, 243«4; after death, 48-49, 57, 59, 246-50, 264-65, 265«121, 276-77, 414; Descartes on, xxvii; as double, xxviii, 47-48, 52-54, 57, 58, 65, 283-84, 284n31; and dreaming, 53-56, 57n22, 65, 270-71; dual individual and collective aspect of, 267-69; Durkheim on, xxvi-xxxii; exchange of, 414; as explanation of perpetuation of group, 271—72; facts supporting origin of, 262-65; and force, 370; hiding of, for safety, 177-78, 178»30; immortality of, xxix, 270-72; and individual cults, 43; individuation of, 283; interdependence and assimilation between body and, 245-47, 274; Jewish view of, xxx; localization of, xxvii, 1, 53, 245-46, 246««22-23, 260, 262; and mana, 268-70, 299; mobility of, 245, 327—28; and mourning, 252, 404-406, 414; and naturism, 75-76; origin of idea of, 249-59; parts of, 231; and personality, 272-75, 272«127; and positive rites, 353; pregnancy as result of soul entering woman's body, 250; primitive's idea of, 52-53; as principle of explanation, 50; and reincarnation, 249-61, 268; relationship between ancestral spirit, individual totem, and, 280-84, 283«30, 284M31; relationship of, to body's life, 57-58; residences of, after death, 247-48, 248n36; and sacrifice, 341-42; separation from body at death, 48, 49, 245; and sin, xxix; and society, 274—75, 275nl28; Spencer and Gillen on, 249-52, 257n78; spirit distinguished from, 48, 63-64, 276-84; and stars, 235n55; Strehlow on, 252-59, 257«78; totemic nature of, 249-59, 262-65; traits of, 243-44, 244«9; as transformation of impersonal power and force, 204; transformation of spirit into, through death, 48-49, 57, 59, 276-77; Tylor on, xxvi-xxvii, 47-48, 52-56, 65; and vampire myth, 244n9; women's lack of, 243, 243n3; Wundt on, 172nl2. See also Sacredness Southern lights, 408

462

Space, 8, 8«, 10-12, 11«8, 82, 441, 442, 442«17, 444 Speech, prohibitions on, 309—10, 311 «45, 324, 393, 395, 395«8 Spencer, Sir Baldwin, 27nl2, 58«23, 88-90, 102«13, 103, 105, 118, 121, 122, 122«127, 123«133, 128-29, 131«14, 134, 135, 153, 182, 185, 186, 199, 200«41, 218-20, 247, 248«36, 252, 253, 254, 255«70, 257«78, 268, 280, 281, 285, 288«60, 289, 311, 330, 333, 335«16, 337«25, 374, 376, 381, 382«20, 383, 387, 388, 393, 394, 398, 408 Spencer, Herbert, xx, xxviii, 12-13« 15, 43«65, 46-47, 50-52, 62-63, 66«42 Spielberg, Stephen, xlviii Spirits: of ancestors, 277—80; and animism, 48-50, 57-61, 63-64, 68; and civilizing heroes, 286-88; evil spirits, 284-86, 285«40; ghosts versus, 277; and magic, 284—86, 286«47; of natural phenomena, 63-64; relationship between ancestral spirit, individual soul, and individual totem, 280—84; Roman and Greek beliefs on, 278, 281«, 283; soul distinguished from, 48, 63-64, 276-84; Spencer on, 66«42; and transformation of cult of spirits into cult of nature, 50-52, 61-65; as transformation of impersonal power and force, 204; transformation of soul to, through death, 48—49, 57, 59, 276-77; Tylor on, 27 Split-totems, 102«14 Stanner, W. E . H . , xliii, xliv Steinthal, Hymann, 69 Stevenson, Mrs., 87 Strehlow, Carl, 89, 102-104, 105«27, 118, 119nl03, 120«108, 121-22, 132«22, 153, 185, 199-200, 236, 248, 252-59, 263, 268, 272, 279, 281, 282, 285«40, 289, 330, 337«25, 346, 347«51, 357, 374-75, 378«10, 378«12, 380«15, 388 Subincision, 115, 115«, 137, 137«, 286, 297, 319 Subtotem, 152-54, 224 Suffering: and mourning, 394-99; religious role of, 317-21, 317««70-71, 318«74,

Index

411, 411 «57. See also Asceticism; Selfmutilation Suicide (Dürkheim), xxii, lxi-lxii«4 Suicide, religious, 37 Supernatural: in definition of religion, 22-26; and mana, 206. See also God/gods; Spirits Swain, Joseph Ward, xviii, xxxiii, li-liv, lvii, lix, lxi, lxix«98, 211« Swanton.John Reed, 87, 145«17, 147«22, 175 Symbols, 221-23, 232-34 Sympathetic magic, 360-61, 366

Taboos, 188, 304, 326«100. See also Prohibitions Taplin, George, 260 Tarlow, 359-60 Tattooing, 116-17, 116«89, 116-17n«92-93, 132, 159, 233-34 Technology, 93-94 Ten Commandments, xxxviii Thalaualla, 376, 377 Thomas, Northcote Whitridge, 147«23, 235«54 Thomas, W. I., xxxvi, xlvi Thought: of animals, 50-51, 62, 438, 444; of children, 63, 438; collective thought, 447; and language, 73; logical thought, 433—40, 445—46; of primitive, xxxi, 47, 49-51, 55, 62, 177-78, 193, 198, 236-11, 326, 328-29 Time, 8, 8«, 9-10, 10«6, 18«23, 82, 311, 353-54, 441, 442, 442«17, 444 Tindalo, 59 Tjurunga. See Churingas Tools, 18«24 Tooth extraction, 115, 165, 286, 319, 323, 407 Totality, concept of, 442, 443 Totem: acquiring of, 104-105; allied totem, 153-54, 153«51; of American Indians, 109-11, 109-10««47-48, 111 ««52-53, 112-13; ancestor transmission of, 105, 105«27, 105«29, 163; collective totem, 162-66, 178-82; conceptional totemism, 183-84; cosmic phenomena not seen as, 83, 235;

Index

and cosmological system, 142—45, 147, 147««24-25, 149-56; definition of, 101«7, 191, 208; as emblem, 111-26, 221-25; etymology of term, 111-12; first use of term, 85; and high gods, 295-98; individual totem, 158-66, 174-82, 282-84, 426-27; local totemism, 182-86, 184«43; of marriage class, 107—108, 108-109««45-46; maternal totem, 104, 131, 131«14, 163, 185-86, 258, 262«110; as name, 100-11, 186—88; nature of objects serving as, 101-104, 102««13-16, 103«18, 103«20, 104«22; paternal totem, 104-105, 131, 131«14, 163 of phratries, 105-107; phratry versus clan totems, 107; property rights in, 140; sexual totem, 166-68, 296; soul's totemic nature, 249—59, 262-65; spelling of, 101 «7; splittotems, 102«14; subtotem, 152-54, 224 Totemic animal: compared with totemic emblem, 132—33; Intichiuma for wellbeing of, 331-37, 345-46; man's kinship with, 133-36, 135«31, 135«33, 136««34-35, 139-40, 139«55, 224, 224«32, 307-308, 362, 391; obligatory eating of, 128-30, 152«42; old men exempted from dietary restrictions on, 128, 129, 139, 307, 307«16; origin of, 234-36; prohibitions against contact with, 132, 132«22; prohibitions against eating, 127-31, 140, 151-52, 152«42, 160, 221, 307-308, 307«16; prohibitions against killing, 131-32, 131««16-18, 140, 160, 160«18, 221; restrictions on amount eaten, 128, 128«4, 130; ritual eating of, in Intichiuma, 338—44, 340«36; sacredness of, 127-33 Totemic centers, 236, 250 Totemic costumes, 115-16, 132, 159 Totemic emblem: and ancestors, 176; on bodies, 114—17; on churingas, 118-22, 125; conventional nature of, 125-26, 126«150; feelings aroused by, 221-23; origin of, 234—36; prohibitions concern-

463

ing, 132-33; sacredness of, 118-25, 133; on things, 112-14 Totemic object, xli Totemic plant, 127-29, 131, 133, 140, 151, 235-36, 307-308, 307«16, 331-46, 340«36 Totemic principle: Arunkulta as, 199—200; and clan, 207-208, 223; contagiousness of, 224; description of, 190-91; essence of, 223-25; and idea of force, 191-93; localization of, 224, 230; mana as, 196-200, 206; orenda as, 195-96, 200, 205-206; origin of notion of, 207-41; and primitive's mentality, 236-41; priority of impersonal force over mythical personalities, 201-205; in Samoa, 193-94; secular aspect of, 205-206; simultaneously physical and moral character of, 191—92; ubiquity of, 191; wakan as, 194-95, 197-98, 203, 205 Totemic representations, xli-xlii Totemism: clan associated with, 155; coherence of, 298—99; collective totem, 162-66, 178-82; conceptional totemism, 183-84; as confederated religion, 155-57, 199; as containing all elements of religion, 418—19; cosmological system of, 141—57; critique of theories of origin of, 169-89; derived from ancestor cult, 170-73; derived from cult of nature, 173—74; derivedfromindividual totemism, 174—82; as embryonic Christianity, xx ; essence of, 223-26, 238; ethnograhies on, xxxii; and high gods, 295-98; history of question of, 85-90; individual totem, 158-66, 174-82; local totemism, 182-86, 184«43; as magic, xx; man's kinship with totemic animal, 133-36; man's sacredness, 136-40; methodological reasons for basing study on Australian totemism, 90-93; as not zoolatry, 139-40, 173; and origin of notion of totemic principle, 207-41; rarity of expiatory rites in, 409; as religion based on Durkheim's definition, xviii—xxii; sexual totem, 166-68; as simplifying case, xxxii, xxxviii-xl; totem as emblem, 111-26; totem as name, 100-11; and totem as name only,

464

Totemism (cont.) 186—88; totemic animals and plants, 127-33; totemic principle and idea of force, 190-206; as tribal religion, 155-57, 299. See also American Indians; and headings beginnnig with Totem and Totemic Transformism, 236-37, 237n Tregear, E, 268 Tribe, 155-57, 156-57«61, 168, 297-99, 299 Tundun, 287, 287«55, 295, 297 Tylor, Edward Burnett, xxvi—xxviii, lvii, 27, 46-50, 52-56, 65, 86«10, 162-63, 170-73, 292, 361 Type-ideas, 436, 438

Umbana, 355—56 Umbilical cord, 414, 414«67 Understanding. See categories of understanding Uninitiated men, 132-33, 138, 139, 288, 312, 384 Universal animism, 24 Universal determinism, 24 Universalism, religious, 427—28, 446 Urine, 312«47 Urpmilchima, 397-98 Usener, Hermann Karl, 46«3

Vampire myth, 244«9 Varuna, 29 Vedas, 69, 70, 71, 75 Vedic religion, 32—33, 35

Wadnungadni, 408 Wakan, 188, 194-95, 194«10, 197-98, 203, 205, 327 Waninga, 123-25, 132

Index

Weber, Max, xxxi White Cockatoo, 357 Whole, notion of, 442, 443 Wife exchange, 219, 408 Wilkin, Albertus Christian Kruijt, 170-73 Will, 273, 369 Witchetty Grub, 332-33, 338-39, 355-56 Witurna, 287, 287«55 Wollunqua, 219, 280, 309, 380-83, 380«16, 381««17-18, 382«20 Women: battles between men and, 168, 168n62; blood from genital organs of, 414; blood of, 138«50; conception and pregnancy of, 183-84, 250, 253-59, 255«68, 255«70, 261, 263, 264, 277, 278; creation of, 290«83; dreams of pregnant women, 261; Dürkheims view of, fix; exclusion of,fromrepresentative rites, 384; food for, 308; funeral rite of, 398-99; and initiation rites, 138«50, 319; lack of soul of, 243, 243«3; menstrual blood of, 412, 413; mother's drinking of blood of circumcsion, 137 «41; and mourning, 393, 395-96, 395«8, 398-99, 404; old women and choice of individual totem, 164-65; and piacular rites other than mourning,407; as profane, 138, 138«50, 243, 243«3, 308, 308«18, 384; prohibitions for, 32, 125, 132, 137, 138, 288, 308, 309, 393, 395, 395«8; scapegoating of, 404; sexual totems of, 167-168, 167«56, 296; wife exchange, 219, 408 Work, prohibitions on, 311—12 Wundt, Wilhelm, Lxviii«87, 69«, 172« 12

Zeus, 71, 79, 80«35, 202, 20

The Elementary Forms of Religious Life ". . . [T]he a r g u m e n t o f Formes is m a r k e d l y p e r s o n a l i n b o t h r h e t o r i c a l style a n d scientific substance; a n d it r e v e a l s a m a n w h o w a s far m o r e t h a n t h e h a r d - n o s e d o p p o n e n t o f t h e second-rate a n d the s e n t i m e n t a l i n s o c i a l s c i e n c e , a l t h o u g h h e w a s that t o o . . . Formes i s l i k e a virtuoso p e r f o r m a n c e that builds u p o n but leaps b e y o n d t h e t e c h n i c a l limits o f the artist's d i s c i p l i n e , b e y o n d t h e safe s t r i v i n g m e r e l y to hit the c o r r e c t notes, into felt reality o f elem e n t a l truth. T o r e a d it is to w i t n e s s s u c h a p e r f o r m a n c e . T h e illum i n a t i o n s a r e public, the p e r f o r m a n c e , p e r s o n a l . " —from the Introduction by Karen E. Fields

" K a r e n Fields h a s given u s a splendid n e w translation o f the greatest w o r k o f s o c i o l o g y e v e r w r i t t e n , o n e w e w i l l n o t be e m b a r r a s s e d to a s s i g n to o u r students. I n a d d i t i o n s h e h a s w r i t t e n a brilliant a n d p r o f o u n d i n t r o d u c t i o n . T h e public ation o f this t r a n s l a t i o n i s a n o c c a s i o n f o r g e n e r a l c e l e b r a t i o n , f o r a veritable 'collective effervescence.'" — R O B E R T N. B E L L A H c o - a u t h o r o f Habits editor of

of the Heart, a n d Entile Durkheim on Morality and Society

"This superb n e w translation finally allows n o n - F r e n c h speaking A m e r i c a n r e a d e r s fully to a p p r e c i a t e D u r k h e i m ' s genius. It i s a l a b o r o f love for w h i c h a l l s c h o l a r s m u s t b e grateful." —LEWIS A. COSER

The elementary forms of religious life

The Elementary Forms of Religious Life

Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms

The Religious Life Of The Negro

Religious Life of Samuel Johnson

The Religious Urge ; Reverential Life

Elementary Dirichlet series and modular forms

Elementary Dirichlet Series and Modular Forms

Elementary Dirichlet Series and Modular Forms

Language, Language-Games and Forms of Life

Chronology of Religious Life in America

Radicals for Life: the various forms of nitric oxide

African American religious life and the story of Nimrod

The Method of Normal Forms

Beneficial Microorganisms in Multicellular Life Forms

The Abundant Life Prevails: Religious Traditions of Saint Helena Island

The Theory of Jacobi Forms

Beneficial microorganisms in multicellular life forms

Elementary Dirichlet Series and Modular Forms (Springer Monographs in Mathematics)

The Elementary Process of Bremsstrahlung

The Theory of Elementary Waves

Families of automorphic forms

Arithmetic of quadratic forms

Lay Religious Life in Late Medieval Durham

The Varieties Of Religious Experience

The Varieties of Religious Experience

Arithmetic of quadratic forms

Forms of Devotion

The Elementary Process of Bremsstrahlung

The Elementary Structures of Kinship

Pasolini: Forms of Subjectivity

The elementary forms of religious life