



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
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 of _Anthropos_, Pere 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
and _Hinterland_; 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
