Totemism
Totemism METHOD IN THE STUDY OF TOTEMISMII.III.IV.V.VI.VII.VIII.IX.Copyright
Totemism
Andrew Lang
METHOD IN THE STUDY OF TOTEMISM
Is there any human institution which can be safely called
"Totemism"? Is there any possibility of defining, or even
describing Totemism? Is it legitimate—is it even possible, with due
regard for "methodology" and logic—to seek for the "normal" form of
Totemism, and to trace it through many Protean changes, produced by
various causes, social and speculative? I think it possible to
discern the main type of Totemism, and to account for
divergences.Quite the opposite opinion appears to be held by Mr. H. H.
Goldenweizer in his "Totemism, an Analytic Study."[1]This treatise is acutely critical
and very welcome, as it enables British inquirers about totemism to
see themselves as they appear "in larger other eyes than ours." Our
common error, we learn, is this: "A feature salient in the totemic
life of some community is seized upon only to be projected into the
life of the remote past, and to be made the starting-point of the
totemic process. The intermediary stages and secondary features are
supplied from local evidence, by analogy with other communities, or
'in accordance with recognised principles of evolution' [what are
they?] and of logic. The origin and development, thus arrived at,
are then used as principles of interpretation of the present
conditions. Not one step in the above method of attacking the
problem of totemism is logically justifiable."[2]As I am the unjustifiable sinner quoted in this
extract,[3]I may observe that
my words are cited from a harmless statement to the effect that a
self-consistent "hypothesis," or "set of guesses," which colligates
all the known facts in a problem, is better than a
self-contradictory hypothesis which does not colligate the
facts.Now the "feature salient in the totemic life of some
communities," which I "project into the life of the remote past,"
and "make the starting-point of the totemic process" is the totemic
name, animal, vegetable, or what not, of the
totem-kin.In an attempt to construct a theory of the origin of
totemism, the choice of the totemic name as a starting-point is
logically justifiable, because the possession of a totemic name
is,universally, the mark of a
totem-kin; or, as most writers prefer to say, "clan." How can you
know that a clan is totemic, if it is not called by a totemic name?
The second salient feature in the totemic life of some communities
which I select as even prior to the totemic name, is the exogamy of
the "clans" now bearing totemic names.To these remarks Mr. Goldenweizer would reply (I put his
ideas briefly) there are (1) exogamous clans without totemic names;
and there are (2) clans with totemic names, but without
exogamy.To this I answer (1) that if his exogamous clan has not a
totemic name, I do not quite see why it should be discussed in
connection with totemism; but that many exogamous sets,
bearingnottotemic names, but
local names or nicknames, can be proved to have at one time borne
totemic names. Such exogamous sets, therefore, no longer bearing
totemic names, are often demonstrably variations from the totemic
type; and are not proofs that there is no such thing as a totemic
type.Secondly, I answer, in the almost unique case of "clans"
bearing totemic names without being exogamous, that these "clans"
have previously been exogamous, and have, under ascertained
conditions, shuffled off exogamy. They are deviations from the
prevalent type of clans with totemic namesplusexogamy. They are exceptions to
the rule, and, as such, they prove the rule. They are divergences
from the type, and, as such, they prove the existence of the type
from which they have diverged.So far I can defend my own method: it starts from features
that are universal, or demonstrably have been universal in
totemism. Thereis"an organic
unity of the features of totemism,"—of these two features, the
essential features.Lastly, Mr. Goldenweizer accuses us "Britishers," as he calls
us, of neglecting in our speculations the effects of "borrowing and
diffusion, of assimilation and secondary associations of cultural
elements, in primitive societies."[4]This charge I do not understand. There has been much
discussion of possibilities of the borrowing and diffusion and
assimilation of phratries, exogamy, and of totemic institutions;
and of "ethnic influences," influences of races, in Australia. But
the absence of historical information, the almost purely mythical
character of tribal legends (in North-West America going back to
the Flood, in Australia, to the "Dream Time"), with our ignorance
of Australian philology, prevent us in this field from reaching
conclusions.(Possibly philologists may yet cast some light on "ethnic
influences" in Australia. The learned editor ofAnthropos, Père Schmidt, tells me that
he has made a study of Australian languages and believes that he
has arrived at interesting results.)Mr. Goldenweizer represents, though unofficially, the studies
of many earnest inquirers of North America, whether British
subjects, like Mr. Hill Tout, or American citizens such as Dr.
Boas. They vary, to be sure, among themselves, as to theories, but
they vary also from British speculators. They have personally and
laboriously explored and loyally reported on totemism among the
tribes of the north-west Pacific coast andHinterland; totemism among these
tribes has especially occupied them; whereas British
anthropologists have chiefly, though by no means solely, devoted
themselves to the many varieties of totemism exhibited by the
natives of Australia. These Australian tribes are certainly on
perhaps the lowest known human level of physical culture, whereas
the tribes of British Columbia possess wealth, "towns," a currency
(in blankets), rank (noble, free, unfree), realistic art, and
heraldry as a mark of rank, and of degrees of wealth.Mr. Goldenweizer's method is to contrast the North-Western
American form of totemism with that prevalent in Central Australia,
and to ask,—how, among so many differences, can you discover a
type, an original norm? I answer that both in North-Western America
and in Central Australia, we find differences which can be proved
to arise from changes in physical and "cultural" conditions and
from speculative ideas. I have said that in British Columbia the
tribes are in a much more advanced state of culture than any
Australian peoples, and their culture has affected their society
and their totemism. Wealth, distinctions of rank, realistic art,
with its result in heraldry as a mark of rank, and fixed residence
in groups of houses are conditions unknown to the Australian
tribes, and have necessarily provided divergences in totemic
institutions. Mr. Goldenweizer replies "that the American
conditions are due to the fact that the tribes of British Columbia
are 'advanced' cannot be admitted."[5]But, admitted or not, it can be
proved, as I hope to demonstrate.[1]Journal of American
Folk-Lore, April-June, 1910.[2]J. A. F.p.
280[3]Secret of the Totem,
p. 28.[4]J. A. F.p.
281.[5]J. A. F.p.
287.
II.
Mr. Goldenweizer gives what he supposes some of us to regard
as "essential characteristics" or "symptoms" of totemism. He
numbers five of these "symptoms."
1. An exogamous clan.
2. A clan name derived from the totem.
3. A religious attitude towards the totem, as a "friend,"
"brother," "protector," &c.
4. Taboos or restrictions against the killing, eating
(sometimes touching, seeing) of the totem.
5. A belief in descent from the totem.
Mr. Goldenweizer next, by drawing a contrast between British
Columbian and Central Australian totemism, tries to prove, if I
understand him, that "the various features of totemism," are, or
may be "essentially independent of one another," "historically, or
psychologically, or both."[6]
Now, looking at the five symptoms of totemism, I may repeat
(speaking only for myself) that, as to 1 and 2, I thinkthe exogamous clan, with "a clan name derived from the totem" is
an institution of such very wide diffusion that I may blamelessly
study it and attempt to account to myself for its existence. But
this does not mean that I regard all exogamous social sets as at
present totemic; or as always having borne totem names. Again, sets
of people (I cannot call them "clans," for the word "clan"
indicates persons claiming common descent from a male
ancestor,—sayClan Gihean, Clan
Diarmaid), may bear animal or vegetable or other
such names, yet not be at present, as such, exogamous. Of these are
the Arunta, and the Narran-ga.
3.A religious attitude towards the
totem
