A New Conception of Totemism - iscte-iul

A New Conception of Totemism
Author(s): Robert H. Lowie
Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1911), pp. 189-207
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/659643
Accessed: 14/01/2010 10:38
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist.
http://www.jstor.org
American
Anthropologist
NEW SERIES
VOL.I3
I9II
APRIL-JUNE,
NO. 2
A NEVVCONCEPTIONOF TOTEMISM
BY ROBERT H. LOWIE
recentpaperon totemism
significance
of Dr Goldenweiser's
lies in the fact that it presentsfor the Srst time what rnay
view of totemism,"be legitimatelycalled "an 9Kmerican
"American"not only becauseit takes into accountthe data of
Americanethnography,btlt in the far moreinnportantsense that
principleswhicharebecoming
it is a view basedon methodological
the commonpropertyof all the activeyoungerAmericanstudents
of ethnology.
Accordingto the traditionalview, totemismis an integral
phenomenonwhich is everywhereessentially alike. Thus, in
Frazer'slatest work on the subject,Totemismand Exogamy, the
thruston the shouldersof thosew-ho
burdenof proofis explicnitly
questionthe identity of totemicphenomenain differentquarters
of the globe and who upholdthe theoryof convergentevolution.
In Part I of his paper, "Australiaand British Columbia,"Dr
Goldenweiser
has anticipatedthis challenge. He selectsthe series
of featuresthat are commonlyregardedas distinctiveof totemism,
and comparesthe formsthey assumein the two areasconsidered.
The result is sufficientlystriking. On superficialconsideration,
it appearsthat the Australiantotem groupresdmblesthe clan of
British Columbiain the exogamicregulationof marriage. But
this resemblanceis not significant;in both cases the exogamous
THE
Tofemism, An Analytical Study. By A. A. Goldenweiser. Reprinted from the
ournal of Simerican Folk^Lore, vol. XXIII, April-June, I9IO, No. LXXXVIII, pp. II5.
I 89
AM * ANTH.,
N. S., I3-I3
I90
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
[N. S., I3,
I9I I
characterof the clanis not a primary,but a derivativetrait. Becausethe clansare,in bothareas,partsof the largerphratricunits,
and becausethese phratriesare exogamous,the totem clans must
be exogamous,even thoughthe cLan,as a clan, may have nothing
to dowithexogamy. In otherfeatures,the totemclansof Avlstralia
and British Columbiaclearlv diverge. In Australiathe social
importanceof the clan dwindlesinto insignificance
as compared
with that of the phratrwr;
in BritishColumbiathe clanis the social
unit, par e;rcellence.On the Northwestcoast thereis evidencefor
the developmentof the clans from village communities,such as
nowhereexistin Australia. Finally,the Americanclansaregracled
as to rank a conditionlikewiselackingin Australiantotemism.
In the matterof clan names,what similarityexists is again of a
superficialkind. In Australiaall clans are named from their
totems; in British Columbiaclans frequentlyderivetheir names
fromlocalities. But preciselywherethe Americansocialdivisions
(phratries)are namedafteranimals,we occasionallyfind that the
eponymousanimalis not identicalwith the crestanimal,whichis
the one that corresponds,
in religiousfunction,to the Australian
totem. If phratriesare comparedit is found that those of the
Tlingitand Haidabearanimalnames,but that only a few of the
Australianphratrynamesaredefinitelyknownto referto animals.
The view that the totemiteis a linealdescendantof his totem is
clearlydevelopedinAustralia;onthe NorthwestCoast,onthe other
hand, there is a fundamentalbelief in hlmaa3descent:the crest
animalis onewhichhasin somewaybeenassociatedwiththehuman
ancestorof the group. Nevertheless,the authorpointsout, there
are mythsin whichthe associationis very close,and, in one group
of traditions,the ancestoris the crestanimaltransformed.These
instances,insteadof militatingagainstthe author'spointof view,
constitutein reality strong evidencein supportof it. For the
myths in questionresultfromthe reactionof the guardian-spirit
conceptuponthe basicbeliefthat humarlbeingshave humanancestors Now, the guardianspirit conceptis practicallyforeign
to Australia. Whatsimilaritythereexistsbetweenthe Australian
and the Americanmyths is accordinglyan ideal instanceof convergent evolution. There remainsthe criterionof the taboo
A NEW CONCEPTION OF TOTEMISM
LowIE]
I9I
against eating or killing totems. Of this phase of totemic life
Australiaremainsthe classicalexample;in British Columbia,on
the otherhand,not a singleinstanceof totemictabooshas hitherto
been discovered,thoughthereis an abundanceof taboosof nontotemiccharacter.
A survey of the currentlyassumedsymptomsof totemismin
the two areas discussed thus reveals far-reachingdifferences.
It wouldbe artificial,however,to confinethe comparisonwithin
the limitsset by conventionaldefinitionsof totemism. If we wish
expressedin these
to disabuseourselvesof the preconceptions
insists,we mustnot neglectto consider
definitions,Dr Goldenweiser
are empiricallyfound in intimate
which
those culturalfeatures
associationwith the criteriagenerallyrecognizedas totemic. In
Australia,two elementshave risen to so commandinga position
within the totemic complesthat each has been assumedas the
of totemismgenerically. Theseelements
essenceandstarting-point
are the intichiumaceremoniesconductedfor the multiplicationof
of ancestral
the totem animals,and the beliefin the reincarnation
features
analogous
America,
of
Coast
Northwest
the
On
spirits.
totemic
from
dissociated
wholly
are indeedfound, but they are
viewing
in
institutions. A parallelconditionof affairsis revealed
America. The
the dominanttraits of social life in northwestern
taking into
without
unintelligible
is
Kwakiutl
the
social life of
spirit;
guardian
same
the
sharing
accountthe groupsof individuals
essentially
is
among the tribes farthernorth the clan tradition
an account of the ancestor'sacquisitionof his guardianspirit,
while the circumstancesincident thereto are dramatizedin the
dancesof the secret societies. In Australiaguardianspirits are
rare,and,wherefound,aregenerallyquitedistinctfromthe totems;
factor
even whenthe two conceptsdo coincide,the guardian-spirit
significance
special
of
trait
second
A
moment.
is of relativelyslight
in the Americanarea is the relationshipof totemismto art,-the
saturationof practicallyall decorativeattempts with totemic
a totemic
motives,andthe retroactivetendencyto give,secondarily,
intimate
This
origin.
in
decorative
purely
designs
to
interpretation
charstyle
quasi-realistic
the
on
connectionis largelydependent
geowhere
acteristicof NorthwestAmericanart. In Australia,
I92
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
[N. S., I3, I9I r
art has exertedbut little influence
metricalmotivespredominate,
on totemiclife.
of the totemiccomplexin the two
The empiricalconsideration
typical regionsdealt with thus establishesthe essentialdiversity
compared. Thedominantmotivesof Australian
of the phenomena
totemismare not the dominantmotivesof NorthwestAmerican
totemism,and vice versa. What resemblancesexist are either
superficial,or are functionsof traitsnot directlyassociatedwith
the criticismmight be made that tototesnism. Here, howesrer,
becausetheAmerican
is
temismin theareasselected not comparable
development. "The
of
stage
institutionrepresentsa far later
totem,"as the authorputs it in anticipationof this stricture,"has
becomeattenuatedto a crest,to a symbol;theliving,fleshandblood
relationshipwith the totem animalhas been transferredinto the
realm of mythology; and naturallyenough,the taboo on the
totem animalhas dwindledaway and finally disappeared."Dr
clear. "To a retortof that
answeris unmistakably
Coldenweiser's
character,I wouldanswerthat we may safelyassertthat thereis
in an evolutionnot one phaseof humanculture,so far represented
the succession
where
development,
of
stages
successive
ary seriesof
historicfact
of
observation
by
given has been so amplyjustified
as to be safely adoptedas a principleof interpretation"(p. 22).
The evidencefromNorthwestAmericamust thus be admittedas
coordinatewith that fromAustralia.
the validityof the theoryof convergent
Havingdemonstrated
evolutionfor the totemicphenomenaof Australiaand the North
PacificCoastof America,the authorproceedsin the secondpart
of his paper,"The TotemicComplex,"to consider,one by one, the
traditionalelementsof totemism,and to determinetheir mutual
relationson the basis of the widest possibleethnographicbasis.
takesthe imIn the first sectionof Part II, Dr Goldenweiser
of totemism.
concept
the
from
exogamy
portantstey)of divorcing
Nandi of
the
Assam,
A discussionof the data on the nativesof
E;astAfrica,severalPlainsIndiantribes,and the Samoan-Fijian
culture province,leads to the conclusionthat "clan exogamy,
althougha usualconcomitantof the othertotemicfeatures,is not
. . hencenot a necessary,concomitantof the latter;and
. onstatlt,
LOWIE1
A NEW CONCEPTION OF TOTEMISM
I93
again,wherethe otherfeaturesareabsent,exogamymay nevertheless occur" (p. 55).
The pages immediatelyfollowingembody what is probably
the author'smost importantand originalcontributionto the suS
ject, a critiqueof the conceptof exogamyitself. Not only may
clans exist independentlyof esogamicrules, and exogamicrules
independentlyof clans, but even whereclan exogamydoes exist
the unionof exogamywiththe clanunitmaybe a secondaryfeature.
In the case of the Kurnai,to be sure, specialconditionsseem to
warrantHowitt'sconclusionsthat marriagewas originallyregulated by non-localizedtotem clans, that paternaldescenteffected
a localizationof the totems, and that consequently,in recent
times, locality has appearedas the regulatingfactor. But we
this modeof
shouldnot by an) meansbe justifiedin transferring
reasoningto other areaswhere difFerentconditionsprevail. In
13ritishColumE)ia,for example, it seems probable that the
clans at one time occtlpiedseparate villages. Now, whether
the clans were exogamousas clans,or becausethey happenedto
coincidewith local exogamicdivisions,becomesan open question as soonas the existenceof exogamydissociatedfromclanshas
beenestablished. The point comesout even moreclearlywhere
kinship exerts an influenceon matrimonialregulations. Among
the Todas a purelyobjectiveinvestigationrevealsa numberof
exogamousclans,as wellas a seriesof matrimonialrules based on
the matteris quitedifferent.
considered,
kinship. But, subjectivelnr
The Toda merelvknowsthat certainrelativesthroughthe father
and certainrelativesthroughthe mother all of them included
personsfor him. Besides
in the termpuliol are not marriageable
membersof otherclans,an individual'spuliol groupalso embraces
all the peopleof his own clan,but this fact does not seemto have
been noticed by Rivers'informantsbeforehe pointeditiout to
them. Similarlw,amongthe Blackfoot,membersof a band are
forbiddento intermarry,not as band members,but becausethey
are consideredblood relatives. In a manuscriptby Sternberg,
which the author lays under contributionfor additionalfacts,
the Gilyakaredescribedas a peoplewithexogamousgentes. Nowt
wheregentes as such are the exogamousunits, two gentes suffice
I94
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
[N. S., I3, I9I I
for the regulationof tribalmarriages,the rnenof gensA marrying
womenof gens B, and aJiceuersa. This reciprocalrelationshipis
preciselt7
what does not obtainin Gilyaksociety. If the men of
gens A marrywomenof gens B, the men of gens B are ipso facto
debarredfrommarryingwomenof gens A, the two gentes being
regardedas gentesof "sons-in-law
" and "fathers-in-law
" respectively The men of B must thus marrywomenof gens C, and so
forth. It is, accordingly,obviousthat the gens as such does not
determinemarriage.
The thesis is thus establishedthat "whenthe fact of a given
socialgroupnot marryingwithin itself is ascertained,the informationacquiredis but partiallycomplete"(p. 59). Theexogamous
natureof a group,as objectivelyobserved,mayindeedbe a primary
trait;butit mayalsobe a derivativetrait, a necessaryconsequence
of otherregulations
not linkedwiththe groupas such. Dr Goldenweiseris thusemboldened
to inquire,whethertheexogamiccharacter
of Australiantotemclansis a primaryor a secondarycharacteristic.
Takingup firstthe simplerformof socialorganizationtypifiedby
the Dieri, viz., two exogamousphratriessubdividedinto smaller
totem groups,he findsthat a givenclan can not be consideredan
exogamicunit becausein no case are the exogamicmarriageregulationsfully determinedby clan affiliation. If this conditiondid
obtain,nothingwouldpreventmembersof clan a frommarrying
membersof clan b of the samephratry. But this is emphatically
not what takes place. In reality, clan a "behaves exactly as
wouldan individualof phratryA if therewere no clans" (p. 60).
Becauseit formspart of a largerunit exogamicin its own right,
clan a must ipso Jcgstobe exogamic. The conditionof affairsis
strictly parallelto that among the Tlingit and Haida Indians.
In Australiathe derivativecharacterof clanexogamyis illustrated
amongthe anomalousAranda(Arunta),wheresome clans occur
in both phra-tries.Herea man of clan a may marrya woinanof
clan a if she belongsto a differentphratrysbut he mustnot marry
her if she belongsto the samephratry.
The argumentis greatly strengthenedby a considerationof
the four-classsystem. Forherethe class is the marriage-regulating
unit, and the clanstare in no senseexogamousunits,as each clan
LOWIE]
A NEW CONCEPTION OF TOTEMISM
I95
containstwo sets of memberswithdistinctmatrimonial
regulations.
In tribeswith the eight-sub-class
systema parallelargumentholds:
the sub-classis the marriage-regulating
unit,andeachclanconsists
of "fourmatrimonially
heterogeneous
units." The questionarises,
what, in thesesystems,may be the marriage-regulating
functions
of the phratry,and of the phratryand class, respectively? Dr
Goldenweiser
is of opinionthat in the four-classsystem the fact
beyonddoubtis the exogamyof the cZass,whilethat of the phratry
remainsto be investigated;in the eight-sub-class
system the immediatedata indicatethe exogamousnatureof the sub-class,and
the matrimonialfunctionsof the class and phratryremainto be
investigated. The point to be determinedwould be the native
feelingwith regardto theselargerunits, whether,forexample,the
phratryof four-classtribescontinuesin the mindsof the natives
to constitutea distinctexogamicgroup. The necessityof taking
into account the subjectiveattitude of the natives is strikingly
illustratedin perhapsthe most suggestivepassageof the entire
paper. A purely objectivedescriptionof the regulationsfound
among four-classtribes does not by any means necessitatethe
current mode of representation.Instead of subdividingtwo
phratriesinto two exogamousclasses,it is possibleto unite the
intermarryingclasses into endogamousmoietieswith exogamous
subdivisions. This has actuallybeendoneby ProfessorKlaatsch,
a relativelwr
naiveobserverin mattersethnological,
in thedescription
of Niol-Niolsocialorganization.This travelerhas even recorded
native names for the endogamousmoieties. Dr Goldenweiser
rightlyinsiststhat, objectively,Klaatsch'smodeof representation
is as legitimateas the one ordinarilyemployed. His suspicions
arearousedmerelyby the fact that endogamous
moietiesrecognized
as such by the aborigineshave hithertoescapedthe eyes of other
Australianethnographers.Moreover,the classnamesof the NiolNiol apparentlycorrespond
to thoseof the Aranda,whosephratryclass organizationseems firmly established. Accordingly,the
author does not contendthat Klaatsch'sschemerepresentsthe
subjectivefacts,thoughhe admitsthat "on a parwiththedominant
phratricorganization
theremayalsoexistin theseAustraliantribes
a consciousnessof the objectivelyendogamousgroupsconstituted
by the pairsof intermarrying
classes"(p. 64).
I96
ANTHROPOLOGIST
AAIERICAN
S., I3,
[N.
I9I I
illuminatingdiscussionthe critic can
In this extraordinarily
"exogamy."
findfault only with the author'suse of the term
members
wordis obviouslyrequiredto designatethe ruleagainst
A
the rule
ofa groupmarryingamongthemselves, in otherwordsS
is the etyofthe incest group. The word sanctionedby usage
exogamy."
"
term
andself-explanatory
unexceptionable
mologically
however,modelinghis conceptionof the "typical
DrGoldenweiser,
relation"on the conditionssupposedlyfoundin Ausexogamous
tribeswith two phratries,writes:"An exogamousrelation
tralian
onlywhenboththe groupwithinwhichmarriage
isfullyrepresented
prescribed,
isprohibited,and the one into whichit is permittedor
four(among
class
the
views
he
aregiven" (p. 60). Accordingly,
an
finds
and
classtribes) as the exogamousunit par excellence,
institution
to "puretotemicexogamy"in the Arabana
approach
only one
ofeach totem c]an being permittedto intermarrywith
phratry. Werethe matter
clan of the complementary
particular
of a currenttermwould,
there-definition
onepurelyof nomenclature,
howof course,be perfectlylegitimate. In the presentinstance,
can not
ever,it seems to the critic that the term is not, and
sense.
modified
the
in
convenientlybe, used with consistency
own
their
in
UJherethere are only two social units exogamous
followsas a physicalnecessity;the groupinto
right,intermarriage
by the
which marriageis permittedor prescribedis determined
obviously
is
This
merestatemDntof the prohibitoryregulations.
within
not the casewhentherearefour,or six, or fourteengroups,
might be
each of which marriageis prohibited. To be sure, it
Dr Goldensaid that in suchinstancesthe exogamousrelation,in
statements
where
as,
inasmuch
weiser'ssense,is fully represented,
marry
may
to the contraryare lacking,a memberof group I
are to
membersof all other groups. But if positiveregulations
whether
be takeninto account,it certainlyis not the same thing own,
his
besides
existing
a man mustmarryinto the only group
groups,or
whetherhe must marryinto one of a numberof other
To
whetherhe may marryinto ary of the othergroupsextant.
Either
the critic it seems that there are only two alternaties. mutual
the
Then
esogamy.
of
we adoptthe author'sconception
classeswith rulesagainstintra-class
relationshipof intermarrying
LOWIE]
A NEW CONCEPTION OF TOTEMISM
I97
marriage
wouldformthe standardillustrationof exogamy;phratries
wouldformally,but, for reasonsjust given, might only formally,
exemplifyesogamy;and it wouldbe inadmissibleto speakglibly
of four exogamousTsimshianclans (p. 9), of a great numberof
exogamousKhasiclans(p. 53), of fourteenexogamousBahimaclans
and forty-oneexogamoussepts (p. 74). Or, we cling to the acceptedusageof the term. Thenexogatnymaybe ascribedto anv
groupprohibitingmarriageamongits members. In this case, the
exogamyof the Kamilaroiclass,as wellas the exogamyof the Aribanaclan,is a derivativefeature, a logicalconsequence
of phratric
exogamy. In additionto this derivatively(andthereforerelatively
unimportant)exogamictrait, the Kamilaroiclassand the Arabana
clan have certain positive marriage-regulating
functions,whicht
however,have nothingto do with exogamy,of whichthe functions
are only prohibitory.
In the next part of the sectionon "Exogamyand Endogamy,"
the authorbrieflymentionsthe constanttendencyto extendregulationsof marriage,even wherefairlydefiniteregulationsalreadv
exist. An unusuallysuggestiveinstanceis furnishedby the Toda
(p. I68).
Withinthe (endogamous)
Teivaliolmoiety there are a
numberof exogamousclans. But the membersof the Kundr
clanoutnumber
theotherclansto suchanextentthattheexogamous
rulecanonlybe followedby the Kundrmarryingmostof the members of the other clans. Thus very few of the latter are left to
marryone another,and the conditionof affairsseemsto approach
as a limit the widespreaddivisionof a tribe into two exogamous
intermarrE
ing phratries. The occurrenceof positi2oeobligations
forcertainclassesto intermarrv a pointtoo little noticedby other
writers is strikinglyillustratedby the Gilyakgroupsof prospective
husbandsand wives. Dr Goldenweiser,
in discussingthe matrimonialinstitutionsof this people,also callsattentionto the correlated rulesof "psychic intercourse."Thereis restrictionof conversationand intimacy between personswho might come into
conflictfromjealousy,and avoidanceobtains,in differentdegrees
of stringency,betweenrelativesdebarredfromintermarrying.On
the otherhand,thereis greatfreedombetweenprospectivehusbands
and wives, and an extraordinary
cordialitycharacterizesthe re-
I98
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
[N. S., I3,
I9II
lations of fathers-in-lawand sons-;n-law.There can be little
doubtthat the correlation
of the rulesfor sexualandpsychicintercourse,whichthe authorconsidersonly in connectionwith a single
tribe,meritsmoreextensiveinvestigation.
The next two sections,"TotemicNames"and '-'Descentfrom
the Totem,"add little to the argumentof the corresponding
dirrisionsof Part I. Someadditionalexamplesare adducedto show
thatreponymous
totems,xvhileremarkablyfrequent,do not occur
universallyS
and that the totem is not invariablyregardedas the
ancestor-ofthe group. Underthe heading"Taboo,"the author
pointsout that quitegenerallyrestrictions
of confltlctareassociated
with groupsother than totem clans, while there are tribes,such
as those of the Iroquoisconfederacy,whose totem clans are not
connectedwith taboosagainstkillingor eatingthe eponymousanimal. In reply to the speciousreasoningof many writers,that
totemitesabstainfromkillingor eating their totemsbecausethey
regardthem as kin, Dr Goldenweiser
intimatesthat taboosma+t
have a variety of origins. The Omahafurnisha tellingseriesof
illustrations. For heremanyof the taboosassociatedwith totem
groupsare logicallyunconnectedwith the totems, an(l it seems
practicallycertainthat eachof these "fancifulprohibitions"
had a
distinctorigin.
In the pages on "The ReligiousAspect of Totemism,"the
author emphasizesthe fact that totemismand animal cult are
distinctphenomena. Animalworshipis prominentwheretotemic
groupsdo not exist. On the otherhand,worshipof the totem is
very rare,andin somecasesthereis a completeabsenceof religious
associationswith totems. It is obviousthat underthe circumstancesit wouldbe absurdto regardtotemismas a formof religion,
or as a distinctstagein the evolutionof religiousbeliefs. On this
point, at least, Dr Goldenweiser
findshimselfin agreementwith
the views put forwardin Frazer'smost recentpublicationon the
subject.
The comprehensive
surveyof ethnologicalphenomena
in PartII
thus confirmsthe conclusionsarrivedat from a comparisonof
Australianand BritishColumbianconditions. Totemismcan no
longerbe consideredas an integralphenomenon.Totemiccom-
LOWIE]
A NEW CONCEPTION OF TOTEMISM
I99
plexes are ''conglomeratesof essentially-independentfeatures"
(p. 88). It may be possibleto trace logicallythe development
of the severaltraitsfroma singlehypotheticalfactorof fundamental
importance,but only throughhistoricalproofscan suchdeductions
gain scientificvalue even for limitedareas. Neithera systemof
naminggroupsafter totem animals,nor the doctrineof descent
fromthe totems,nor a religiousregardfor the totem,in fact, not
one of the symptomsordinarilyassumed,is a constantfeatureof
totemism;andthereis no evidenceforthe historicalor pswrchological
primacyof any one of them. The instancesof other factorsmagicalceremonies
in Australia,estheticmotivesin BritishColumbia-rising to prominencewithin the totemic complexillustrate
the variabilityof the phenomenonstudied,and lead to the important queries,"If totemissmincludes,roughlyspeaking,everything,is totemismitself anythingin particular) Is thereanything
specificin this phenomenon,or has the name 'totemism'simply
been appliedto one set of featureshere,to anotherset there,and
still elsewhereperhapsto both sets combined?"(p. 89).
Dr Goldenweiser
repliesthat, in the light of his foregoinganalysis,the specifictrait of totemismcan not be a certaindefinite
sum of elements,but only the relationobtainingbetweenthe eZements
(p. 92). In a given totemic complex,factorsa, b, c, . . ., are
associatedandcorrelatedso as to forma relativelyintegralcombination. The fairly completeintegrationof totemic factorsresults
fromthe factthatelementsin themselvessociallyindifferent
become
associatedwith clearlydefinedsocialgroups,the associationbeing
effectedby meansof descent(p. 93). In definingthe relationship
of the totemicelements,the authorstartsfroma consideration
of
the currentview that totemismhas a religiousand a socialaspect.
Theoccasionalabsenceof any religiousfactor,notablyamongthe
Iroquois,induceshim to eliminatethe term "religious" and to
conceivetotemismas the-associationof "objectsand symbolsof
emotionalvalue"with definitesocialunits,the latterbeingdefined
asunits perpettlatedthroughdescent. Again,totemismis usualty
dese.ribed
as a static phenomenon.Yet, nothingis rnoreobvious
than its variabilityin time. Dr Goldenweiser'sinvestigatiorl,
accordingly,culminatesin the -dynamic definition:"Totemism
200
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
[N. S., I3, I9I I
is the processof specificsocializationof objectsand
symbolsof
emotionalvalue" (p.-97).
As an epilogue,the substanceof whichwouldhave more
appropriatelyprecededthe definitionof totemism,comesa discussion
of "Origins;in Theoryand History." Schmidt's,
Frazer's,and
Lang'stheoriesare jointlysubjectedto a methodological
critique.
Insteadof attemptingto understand
presentconditionson the basis
of theirestablishedantecedents,these theoriesselect a
prominent
featureof moderntotemismand projectit into the past,
assuming
it to be the starting-point
of the totemicprocess. This,the author
contends,is unjustifiable;for what is now of overshadowing
signiScanceneednot alwayshavefiguredwith equal
conspicuousness.
The secondstep made by the theoristsmentioned,
namely,the
deductionof otherfeaturesfromthe one assumedto be primary,
is likewiseillegitimate;for it assumesthe unity of the
totemic
featuresanda uniformlawof development. Theformer
assumption
has beenrefutedby the precedinganalysis,whilethe latter
seems
doubtfulin the light of modernresearch. Finally, the
authors
criticizederr in neglectingthe influenceof borrowingon the
developmentof culturein a givenarea.
To bring home this last point, Dr Goldenweiser
proceedsto
showwhat the courseof totemicdevelopmenthas actuallv
beenin
the carefullystudied region of British Columbia.
While the
southernShuswaphave the loose village organization
typical
of the Salishtribesof the interior,the westernShuswap
have a
socialsystem obviouslypatternedon that of the coastal
tribest
andindirectlyderivedfromthem. Amongotherinstances
within
the same area, the transformation
of the irxstitutions
of certain
Athapascantribes is especiallyremarkable.Such features as
potlatches,
clan exogamy,and an hereditarynobility,have been
obviouslyborrowedfrom neighhoringcoastal tribes; and in
so
faras the Athapascantribes possessingthese traits differ
in the
detailsof these institutions,the differencescan sometimes
be
directly
explainedby contactwith correspondingly
differingtribes
ofthe coast. The actualhistoryof such changescould
neverbeforetold
by meansof speculationsas to primitivepsychology;it
wasascertainedonly by intensivestudy of the influencesto
which
IdOWIE;]
A NEW CONCEPTION OF TOTEMISM
20I
each tribe has been subjected(p. I09). In the data alreadyaccumulatedon Australia,Dr Goldenweiser
findsevidenceof the farreachinginfluenceof diffusionon culturaldevelopment;and his
paperterminatesin the confidentprophecythat future research
will revealconditionsof borrowingcomparable
to thoseestablished
in BritishColumbia. As Englishethnologistsseem to adoptonly
with reluctancethe historicalpoint of view advocatedby other
students,it may be well to recallTylor'smemorable
words:"Most
of its phenomena(that is, of humanculture)have growninto shape
out of suchta complicationof events, that the laboriouspiecing
togetherof theirprerrious
historyis the only safe way of stuclying
them. It is easy to see how far a theologianor a lawyerwouldgo
wrongwho shouldthrow history aside, and attempt to e2iplain,
on abstractprinciples,the existenceof the ProtestantChurchor
the CodeNapoleon. A Romanesque
or an EarlyEnglishcathedral
is not to bestudied-as thoughall that thearchitecthad to do was to
take stone and mortarand set up a buildingfor a given purpose"
(Researchesinto the Early History of Alankind,p. at).
The historicalsignificanceof Dr Goldenweiser'sessay will
perhapsbecomeclearerfroma parallelbetweenthe (levelopment
of ethnologicalthinkingand the evolutionof philosophical
thought
sn general. Popularphilosophyhas always had the tendencyto
assumea necessarybondbetweenthe constituentsof a relativelwr
stable complexof observedelements,-to assumethat there is a
"thing"whichhas properties,an ego whichhas sensations,feelings,
and other manifestationsof consciousness.Valuable as such
summariesof experienceare froma practicalpoint of view, they
becomeindefensiblefroma higherstandpoint. The ideaswe form
of "things"resultfroman association(by contiguitv)of the ideas
of its properties. A childlearnsby experiencethat a brownpatch
of colorand a certainform of resistanceto the touchare linked
together,and lry connectionsof these i-deasdevelops the idea
of a table. A "thing"-is thus nothingdistinctfromits properties;
it is nothingbut tlie sum-totalof theseproperties;thereis no mvstic
unitv in reality apart from the properties. (Cf. Hoffding,PsychoSogie,pp. 2I2, 226, 285.) The ethnologist,like the uncritical
philosophers
is confrontedat everystep with conjunctionsof feat-
woX
AA!ERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
|N. S., I3,
I9I I
united. >A geometricalpattern
ureswhichat firstseemindissolubly
isassociatedin th-eprimitivecraftsman'smindwith somedefinite
is
animalor plant. It is naturalto assumethat the associatuion
realistiG
at
attempt
a pr;maryone, that the designis a degenerate
representation.Gamesare playedas meansof divinationor processesof sympatheticmagic. - Shouldthey not be conceivedas
ceremonialcontrivances?Tales of heroic exploits culminatein
the hero'sascensionto the sky. Must not the whole plot be a
functionof hiscelestialaffiliations?Socialunitswithanimalnames
and food taboosprohibitmarriagewithin the group. To regard
names,taboos,and exogamousrtllesas merelymanifestationsof
the samefundamentalphenomenonis, at a relativelyearlystage
most intelligiblething
of inquiry,the (3bviousand psychologically
to do.
At a morecriticalstage,however,theinstabilityof the complexes
notice. Whatwas at firstsupposedto be a necessaryconattreacts
nectionis reducedto a mereconjunctionof elements. Thought
of the mysticunderlying
is no longerarrestedby a contemplation
units and theirrelationswith the observedelements;to deterrnine
of theseelementsthemselvesbecomes
the natureand interrelations
the highest,nayonlypossible,goalof investigation. In the domain
of physicalscienceaa criticalreformationof this type has been,
within recent decades, effectedby ProfessorErnst Mach. In
aim,
ethnology,the school which has set itself a corresponding
ethmystic
in
belief
traditional
whichendeavorsto supplantthe
only
still
be,
nologicalcomplexeswith a deeper,though,it may
proximateanalysisinto provisionalelements,is the schoolheaded
by ProfessorFranz Boas. Under-his influenceKroeber and
Wisslerhave shownthat the same patternis subjectto varying
even within the same tribe: designand interpreinterpretations
to distinctpsychologicalprocesses.
tationare foundto correspond
to the conjunctionof story
regard
with
An analogousconclusion
by the presentwriter.
drawn
has been
plot and cosmicphenomena
Independentlyof Boas, but in thoroughharmonywith his point
of view, Seler, in criticizingPreuss,and Haddon,in criticizing
(Sulin,have pointedout en passant that the associationof ritual
with formsof diversionis a secondarydevelopment. What all
LOWIE]
A NEW COSYCEPTION OF TOTEMISM
203
these writershave attemptedin the study of theirown problerns,
has done for the far more complicatedsubject
Dr Goldenweiser
of totemism. He has shownthe futilityof attemptingto connect
any definiteconceptionof concreteethnologicalfactswith the term
"totemism." He has shownthat thereis no justificationfor assuminga commonsubstratumunderlvingall the "totemic"complexes:a completestatementof all the social, religious,esthetic,
as foundin a given
and other correlateswith their interrelations,
area, exhausts the possibilitiesof descriptionand explanation.
However,as alreadyshown in the resumeof the sectionon
doesnot abandon
"The Complexin the Making,"Dr Goldenweiser
by a reretention
its
justify
the term "totemism,"but seeks to
definitionof the word from a dynamicstandpoint. It is here
that he passesbeyond the limits reachedby his fellow-students
of secondaryassociations. For, while the latter are generally
contentto indicatethe factthat a secondaryassociationof elements
boldly undertakesto define,vvith
has occurred,[)r Goldenweiser
some precision,the processitself of the association. That is to
say, he doesnot merelyholdthat totemismis the resultof a secondary associationof social units with variousfactors. He holds,in
addition,that the associationresultedfromthe fact that objects
and symbolswhichwereoriginallyof emotionalvalue only to individualsbecame,throughdescent,valuesfordefinitesocialgroups
(P-97)
Beforeenteringinto a critiqueof this conception,it is worth
noting that many formsof associationnot;ordinarilyconsidered
totemicwouldbe classedas such accordingto the new definition.A phratryand a local groupmightillustratethe dynamicprocess
in questionas well as any "totem kin" of other writers. In
particular,the fact that the name occupiesno favoredposition,
but appearsas but one factorof many that may be associated,
seemsto render"totemism" almostall-inclusirJe.Thisis especially
the casewhenwe considerthat, on the author'stheory,it is not at
all necessarythat the namesbe derivedfrom animalsor plants.
DiscussingIroquoistotemism(p. 96, footnote),Dr Goldenweiser
arguesthat even here, wherethe totem is merelya name,it, at
an emotionalvalue,inasmuchas otherleast formerly,represented
204
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
I9I I
[N- S., I3,
wisethe namewould-nothavebecomefirmlyfixedin socialgroups.
Obsriously,the same reasoning which the reviewercannot considerconclusive-wouldapplyto localunitswithnon-animal
names.
It is not clearwhether,or where,the authorwoulddrawthe line
here;indeed,the data bearingon namesof totemgroupsrequire
moreextensivetreatmentthanthat givenin thepresentpaperbefore
it will be possibleto forma clearview of Dr Coldenweiser's
conceptionof this specialpoint.
Dr Goldenweiser's
definitionof totemismmay be considered
fromtwo pointsof view. In how far does it accuratelyrepresent
the phenomenacommonlydesignatedas totemic? And, to what
extent does it representthe totality of phenomenawhich seem
psychologicallyand sociologicallyrelated with these totemic
phenomena?
In replyto the firstquery,it mustbe admittedthat the author's
definitionoutlinesa plausiblecourseof development. Nevertheless,
it is possibleto conceivethat conditionsotherthanthosedefinedby
Dr Goldenweisermay lead to typical totemism. Assume two
locallydistinctgroups,eachwith its own taboosagainstthe eating
of a certainanimal. Then the unionof these two groupswould
leadto a typicaltotemicsociety,in-the ordinarysenseof the term,
if we add the featureof exogamy. Sucha hypotheticaldevelopmentin no way militatesagainstthe author'sgeneralpointof view.
Nevertheless,it is perfectlyeasy to understandthe process,from
what we knowof the developmentof taboos,withoutrecourseto
the theorythat the taboowas originallyof only individualsignificanceand afterwardsbecamesocializedthroughdescent. Or,to
take a casewhichis not hypothetical. Whatevidenceis thereto
show that amongthe Iroquoisthe clan name was originallyan
individualpossessionwhich, throughdescent,becamesocialized?
To excludeinstancesof thistypefromthe list of totemicphenomena
by a rigorousapplicationof the definitionwouldreducethe whole
discusFionto a logomachy,which would be entirely beside the
author'spurpose. Forwhathe attemptsto do is preciselyto define
the essentialfeaturesof the processresultingin whatare ordinarily
calledtotemicphenomena.The fundamentalobjectionto such a
definitionas Dr-Goldenweiser
hasattemptedis, that it is frequently
LOWIEl
A NEW CONCEPTION OF TOTEMISM
205
impossibleto determinewhetherit correctlyrepresentsthe historical
process of association. If we assume the association of name and
social group as the starting-point of totemism and, as the author
himselfhas shown, this combinationsometimesexhausts the content
of totemism it is, in our ignorance of the actual history of the
development,impossibleeither to prove or to refute the theory that
the group names, not only in the Iroquois, but in the Australian
cases as well, ever served to designate individuals. The inherent
probabilitv of such a condition does not seem very great. If the
associationof tabooand socialgroupis taken as the startingpoint, the
a priori probabilityof a socializingprocesswill presumablyappear
considerablygreaterto the majorityof ethnologists.. Nevertheless,
the hypothetical instance given above seems to indicate that socialization is not a Denknotwendigheit
for the comprehensionof the
established associatiotl. The critic is thereforeof opinion that
a non-committal attitude on the process of association (so far as
it ellldes observation) is highlv advisable. Totemism would then
be defined, not as a socializationof various elements of (at least
potentiallv) emotional value, but merely as the associationof such
elements with social groups.
The second question is, does Dr Goldenweiser's conception
embrace all the phenomenaessentially related to those of totemic
phenomena generally recognized as such? The writer feels that,
inclusive as is Dr Goldenweiser'sdefinition, it limits the field of
totemism too narrowlyby an exaggeratedemphasisof the element
of descent. By a "complete social unit" Dr Goldenweiserunderstands one group of at least two within the tribe, each including
both men and women, and perpetuatedby descent (pp. 93, 94, 97,
98). Accordingly,in dealingwith the resemblancebetween totemic
institutions and religious societies whose membersshare the same
gt1ardianspirit, he does not discover a genutnehomology. "While
a certain psychological ainity between the two institutions is not
improbable, their genetic relationship, claimed by some, calls for
demonstration" (p. 94). The matter of genetic relationshipmay
be dismissed at once as irrelevant, for as Dr Goldenweiser,on the
very next page, states his belief in the convergent evolution of
totemic phenomena,absenceof genetic connectionsurouldnot, from
AM. ANTH. N. S., I3-I4
206
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
[N. S., I3,
I9I I
hispointof view,barreligiousorganizations
fromthe foldof totemic
institutions. Their exclusion,then, rests essentiallyon the definitionof a socialunit. Now, the definitiongivenby Dr Goldenweiserseems to the writer quite arbitrary. If the peculiarity
of totemicphenomena
liesonlyin the relationobtainingbetweenthe
elements(p. 92), the psychological
resemblance
of this relationship
wouldseem to be the predominant
issue,whilethe precisenature
of the socialgroupbecomesnegligible. Amongthe GrosVentre
(Atsina),whereevery man passessuccessivelythrougha seriesof
age-societiestthese gradesare well-definedsocial units. The associationwith eachof themof a certainanimalfor whichseveral
of the societiesarenamed,doesnot seemto differin principlefrom
theassociation
of a clanwithits crestoreponymousanimalancestor.
It ma not be out of placehereto referto the fact that Schurtz
has alreadydarklyhintedat a connectionbetweentotemismand
the age-gradesof the northernPlains Indians(Altersklassenund
Mciznnerbunde,
p. I54). The argumentjust advancedin behalf
of age-societiesis obviouslyapplicableto the type of religious
societiesspecificallymentionedby Dr Goldenweiser,as well as
to still other formsof social units. Is their exclusionjustifiable
froma pointof viewthatemphasizes
merelsr
the relationof elements
enteringinto a "totemic"complex?
In advancingthese comments,the writeris fullv awareof the
fact that he maynot havefullygraspedDrGoldenweiser's
meaning.
The subjectof totemismis not yet quite in the positionof those
metaphysical
problemsof whichCliffordhassaidthat, in discussing
them,peoplefindit peculiarlydifficultnot only to makeout what
anotherman meansjbut even what they mean themselves. But
that it is peculiarlydifficultto discoveranotherman'sconception
of totemism,is amplyattestedby the recenthistoryof ethnologv.
However-thismay be, Dr Goldenweiser
himselfknowsquite well
that his analyticalstudy is not definitive,but programmatic;
that
the next step mustbe a moreextensiveethnographic
investigation
of the field. What he has alreadygiven is a statementof first
principles. Whateverdeficienciesmay be foundin his definition,
he has beenthe firstto showat length,andwith irrefragable
logic,
that totemismcan not be treatedas an integraldatum, the first,
LOWIE]
OF TOTEMISM
A NEW CONCEPTION
207
as alreadystated, to apply the doctrineof secondaryassociation
to the subjectof his inquiry. Fromthis point of view, his paper
constitutes a landmarkin the history of totemic study, the
prolegomenato all positiveattemptsat a sane interpretationof
"totemic" institutions.
MUSEUMOF NATURALHISTORY,
AMERICAN
NE\07YORKCITY.