



Produced by Marc D'Hooghe at http://www.freeliterature.org
(Images generously made available by the Hathi Trust)





METHOD IN THE STUDY OF TOTEMISM

BY

ANDREW LANG


GLASGOW

Printed at the University Press by

ROBERT MACLEHOSE & CO. LTD.

1911




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, bearing _not_ totemic 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 names _plus_ exogamy. 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. There _is_
"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
