Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
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 support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press and Society for Comparative Studies in Society and History are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative Studies in Society and History.
http://www.jstor.org
couldbeginno otherwise
The theologicalperiodof humanity thanby a completeand
usuallyverydurablestateof pureFetichism[sic],whichallowedfreeexerciseto that
tendency ofournaturebywhichMan conceivesofall externalbodiesas animatedbya
lifeanalogoustohisown,withdifferencesofmereintensity.
AugusteComte,Cours(1830-1842)
Uponhearingthestandard history
disciplinary ofthescienceofreligion(Reli-
gionswissenschaft),1one mightgettheimpression that,by thesecondhalfof
thenineteenth century, talkoffetishism shouldhavebeenall butdead.For,by
then,"fetishism" as a particulartypeor formof religiousbeliefand practice
was supposedly no longera viableorrespectable category foruse in debating
theorigin,evolution, ormorphology Thuswe
ofreligion. read intheVictorian
chapterofthishistory abouttherise-and usuallyalsothe fall-of variousthe-
oriesconcerning theoriginofreligion, suchas Tylor'sanimism theory, Marett's
pre-animism theory, Lang's or Schmidt'sprimitive monotheism theory, Max
Muller's(and others')nature-myth Durkheim'sor Freud's
theory, totemism
theory,andso on-but nobody's"fetishism theory."2 Even byVictorian stan-
dards,we areled tobelieve,thenotionoffetishism was already embarrassing-
ly outmoded,something rathermorereminiscent of certainolderhabitsof
thought thana criticaltooloftheemerging scientificdiscipline.So we see one
oftheearliestchroniclers ofthecomparative of
study religion, LouisHenryJor-
dan,makingthefollowingpronouncements 1905: in "Fetishism ... to-dayis
almostuniversally admitted tobe an inadequatetheory when offered in expla-
nationof theoriginof Religion. . . . One need notdelay to mentiona listof the
whohaveopenlyespousedanddefended
leadingwriters for.. . this
thistheory;
in
branchoftheSchoolofEvolutionists Religionis now extinct."3
practically
0010-4175/00/2167-2108$9.50 (? 2000 SocietyforComparativeStudyof Societyand History
242
a moregeneralstudyofthediscourse-network inwhichthispeculiarword/idea
evidentlyhad an especialresonanceandpotentcommunicability. The taskof
sucha studyis obviouslytoo enormousto be containedin thepresentwork.
Thispalpablelimitation notwithstanding, in thelatterpartof theessayI will
taketheliberty ofraisingsomepointers towardpossibleanswersto theques-
tionsmentioned above.I offer thesetentative signalsinfullawarenessthat,as
theystand,theymayamounttono morethanan assemblageofsuggestive im-
agesora montagestimulating totheimagination, ratherthan,say,a clearlyde-
finedsetofresearchdirectives packedwithdefinitive analyticstrategies.
As forthemorecircumscribed fieldof interest to thedisciplinary
pertinent
historyofReligionswissenschaft, itmaybe usefulto recallthat,justwhenthe
fetishism-bashing was at its height-roughly fromthetimeof Muller'spro-
nouncements to the1930s-scholarsofreligionwerebeginning to speakrou-
tinelyabout"religionsoftheworld."Duringthisperiod,"religion" was becom-
ing a generalcategoryto whichbelongedall modalitiesof practicefromthe
lowesttothehighest-i.e.,from fetishism tomodern Itbecamenor-
Christianity.
maltospeakabouta common, permanent, anduniversal essenceofreligion, or
about"thelowestcommondenominator" ofreligionpresent in all itshistorical
manifestations.18 Moreover, justas scholarsbeganto lendcredibility to some-
thinglikea commonuniversal coreofall religions, highandlow,a powerfully
innocuous-sounding rhetoric of "worldreligions"was beingborn.Today,the
discourseof "worldreligions"has becomea basic,all-encompassing strategy
forunderstanding thephenomenon of religion.This discoursesupposedly re-
placed-but in facthas revisedand retained-thedevelopmental and hierar-
chicalassumptions inherentin theso-called"evolutionary" mappingprevalent
inthenineteenth 19Itis inthecontext
century. ofthistransition fromtheunilin-
earevolutionary schematypicaloftheVictorian erato thepluralist yetdeeply
universalist
world-religions discourse typicalofthetwentieth century-i.e.,this
transmutation of theuniversalist history of religion(s)20 fromtheevolutionist
modeto theworld-religions mode-thatI situatethelingering problemofthe
valueunaccountably invested inthedisreputable conceptoffetishism.
"stones,shells,bones,and suchlikethings"-inotherwords,"casualobjects
which,forsomereasonor other,or itmaybeforno reasonat all, werecon-
sideredendowedwithexceptional powers."23
Fetishism's lowlycharacter is evidencedaboveall bya tenaciousattachment
tothebase materiality oftheobjectand,bythesametoken,toitsphysicalim-
mediacy, itsincidental nature,anditsradicalfinitude.24 The fetishis material-
ityatitscrudestandlowest;itpointstono transcendent meaningbeyonditself,
no abstract,general, oruniversal essencewithrespecttowhichitmight be con-
struedas a symbol.It is thisspecialtietomateriality, orrather, thisineradica-
ble essenceofthefetishas materiality, andtheallegedabsenceofanysymbol-
ic (orsupra-material) dimension, thatdistinguishes
fetishism fromidolatry, or
as
"polytheism," idolatry be
came to morecommonly in
called thecourseof
thenineteenth century.25 As a matter offact,itmaybe speculated thattheposit-
ingoffetishism as a thirdcategory inadditiontopolytheism andmonotheism-
or"fetish" as a third category inaddition to"idol"and"icon/symbol"-helped
clarifyandjustifytheoftendifficult-to-sustain distinctionbetweentheillegiti-
mateand legitimate uses of materialobjectsin religiouspractice.For,on the
one hand,a meremultiplicity of materialrepresentations of spiritualreality
amounts toidolatry, ora cultofmany(false)gods;ontheotherhand,theequal-
ly multipleiconic/symbolic representationsof thetrulyspiritual God do not
seemto threaten theunityofthatdeity.Buthowdo we tellthedifference? By
positingthefetish as theoppositeextreme incontrastwithiconic/symbolic rep-
resentation,one can renderidolatry as something of a transitionalstagein the
development ofreligion, a midwaypointbetweenabsolutemateriality andtrue
between,on theone hand,thetotalabsenceof thesenseof unity
spirituality,
and,on theother,theapotheosisof theidea of unityitself,or theidea of the
singularAuthorof theentireuniverse,theidea centralto so-calledethical
monotheism.26
The notionof thethree-stage development-i.e.,firstfetishism, thenpoly-
theism, andfinallymonotheism-first articulatedbyde Brossesandlatermade
famousby AugusteComte27,JohnLubbock28,and others,has provenso
durableas tobe reiteratedevenbythosewhoultimately soughttodiscredit the
theory ofprimitive fetishism. In the1920s,forexample,WilhelmSchmidtin-
sistedon a stricter
definition of"truefetishism,in whichtheobjectofworship
is notsymbolicbutis worshipped foritselfandnotas connectedwith,orrep-
resenting,a deityor spirit."To be sure,Schmidtis merelyquotingthisdefini-
tionfromP. AmauryTalbot,onlyto pressthepointthatgenuinefetishism in
thisexactsenseofthetermis nottobe foundanywhere, in Nigeroranyother
oftheusually-suspected placesinAfrica.29 Likewise,whileAlfredHaddonfor
all intents
andpurposesdeniedtheexistenceofanypredominantly fetishistso-
ciety30,heupheldtheassumption ofthehierarchy all thesame.Nevermindthat
fetishismas suchdidnotreallyexist,he wenton toassert:"Fetishism is a stage
ofreligiousdevelopment associatedwitha low gradeofconsciousness andof
practicewithfeiti4os.Theydidrecognize,howeverimperfectly, theinvisible
realityandtheformidable institutionalapparatusassociatedwithit-namely,
Christianity-which purportedly empowered theirpreciousobjectsandmade
themsacredinthefirst place.In contrast, thePortuguese failedtoperceiveany
comparablesystemof invisiblepowerin relationto theAfricanpractice,and
immediately assumedthetotalabsenceof any suchhigherorderof reality.
Mullerthusconcludes:"As [thosefirstEuropeanvisitorsto theGold Coast]
discovered no othertracesofanyreligiousworship[amongtheAfricans], they
concludedverynaturally thatthisoutward showofregardforthesefeiti9os con-
stitutedthewholeofthenegro'sreligion."39
In sum,theAfricanobservances involving small,portableobjectswererec-
ognizedbythePortuguese sailorsas religiousacts(hencebelonging tothesame
genusas theirown devotionalacts predicatedon Christianity). At thesame
time,theAfrican andEuropeanformsoffeitio veneration weresortedoutinto
twoentirely separatecategoriesand madeincommensurate: On theone hand
was theprimitive worshipof purelymaterialobjects,eventually to be called
"fetishism," and on theotherhand,a peripheral manifestationof Christianity
stillprevalent amongtheuneducated-i.e.,superstitious veneration of icons
andamulets.Thusitcametopass,accordingtoMuller,thathalf-civilized Eu-
ropeansina transitional stateofreligiousdevelopment tooktheerring firststep
alongthecourseleadingtotheillusionthatwas fetishism, andeventually tothe
benighted theory ofprimitive fetishism.40
In Muller'sopinion,thenotionthata purelymaterial objectcouldinand of
itselfgeneratea non-material power/entity is an illogical-indeed impossi-
ble-idea. Ifonewantstoclaimthatsuchanirrational, spontaneous generation
oftheimmaterial/spiritual fromthematerialcannottakeplace in theexterior
worldofnature, thenone mustbe prepared to recognizethatitcannothappen
in theinterior worldof thesavage mindeither.By ascribingfetishism to the
Africans,Mullerhereseemstosay,thosetheorists fellintothesame"supersti-
tion"thattheyattributed to thesavages.By disputing thetheoryofprimitive
fetishism andthusexonerating theAfricansof anysuchconfounding beliefs,
Mullerrestores theirrudimentary to thepropersphereofpurespir-
religiosity
it.For,in his view,all formsofveneration andworship, howeverhumble,al-
waysreferto theInfinite (theunitary, invisible,and spiritual),regardlessof
whatparticular finiteobjectsorentities maycometo standas a vehicleoras a
mediating agentfortheInfinite. Unilaterally championing unboundedspirit
overfinitematter, Mullerwouldvanquishthespecterof fetishism. This ac-
complished, at leastto his ownsatisfaction, we hearno morefromhimabout
thiscurioustaleof culturalhybridity, thelawlesscommerceofnovelobjects,
andthespontaneous generation ofdisproportionate values,whichweretaking
placein thecontactzoneofAfrica-meets-Europe. Here,whatmighthavebeen
an openingofa newgroundforcolonialcultural criticism,a crevicewhichwe
couldglimpseinthepassagequotedabove,was henceforth closedoff.Instead,
V. TROUBLES AT HOME
Materialism
A fewyearsbeforeMuller'slectureon fetishism, on thepagesof thejournal
thatwas bringing to publicattention suchworksas HerbertSpencer's"The
Genesisof Superstitions" and "Idol-Worship another
and Fetish-Worship,"42
scandalofmaterialitywas unfolding. Thebeginning ofthecontroversywas the
presidentialaddressof theBritishAssociationdeliveredin Belfaston August
19th,1874,byan eminent andfriend
physicalscientist ofSpencer,sittingpres-
identoftheRoyalInstitution of GreatBritainand successorto MichaelFara-
day in thiscapacity,JohnTyndall.This address and its expandedprinted
version was partlyan evocationof thenobly-enduring historyof scientific
materialism thatharkened backto thepre-Socratic andpartlya plea
atomists,
fortherightofsciencetoexploreall aspectsofnatureaccording toitsownprin-
ciples,freefromtheologicalsanctionsand dogmaticprescriptions.43 Among
theimmediate reactionsprovokedby Tyndall'sspeech,themostsubstantial
cameintheformofanother address,deliveredinLondonon October6thofthe
sameyearbya distinguished Unitarianandauthor ofnumerous onthe-
treatises
ologicalsubjects,JamesMartineau. The fulltextof Martineau'saddresswas
publishedearlyin 1875as Religionas Affected byModernMaterialism,44 and
was prefacedby an introduction writtenby a certainRev.HenryW. Bellows.
The openingremarks of thisintroductionsignalmuchaboutthecontroversy
thatwas to ensue:
Is themindofmanonlythelastproduct ofthematter andforceofoursystemofNature,
havingitsoriginin theblindorpurposelesschancewhichdrifts intoorderandintelli-
genceundera self-executing mandateornecessity,calledthesurvivalofthefittest?
...
It is certainthata spiritolderthanmatter,an intelligenceotherthanhuman,a will
freerthannecessity, does notenterintothecauses of thingscontemplated by thenew
science.It studiesa mindlessuniversewiththesharpened ofbruteswhohave
instincts
slowlygraduated intomen-themselvesthemostintelligent essenceinexistence.
Con-
sciousness, reason,purpose,will,areresultsofblind,undesigning,unfeelingforces,in-
herent in matter.(5-6)
Ifthisgrievancesoundsa trifle
hackneyed ear,it
toourtwenty-first-century
noteworthy
is nonetheless theReverend'sprotest
that,withproperdistillation,
boils downto a case againsttheatomisttheory,whichsupposedlyholdsthat
merematter oratomsinrandommotion cangenerate ofitsownaccordthe
entiregamutof ideationalphenomena, fromthemostvisceralfeelingsto the
highestformof intelligence. whichis manifest(so says the theologian)in
thetotaldesignoftheuniverse. onemightsaythattheatomistic
Ineffect, mater-
Spiritualism
As faras Victorian intellectualsareconcerned, thehaunting of thespiritmay
ormaynotbe anordinary stateofaffairsinAfrica,Polynesia,orotherfar-flung
primordial locations.Thatis one thing,butitis quiteanother whensomething
similaris suspectedof happeningin theworldof educatedEuropeans,espe-
ciallyamongthecutting-edge ofthetime.Yetthecontroversial
scientists atom-
ism thatscientists advocatedand theologianstriedto exorcisewas butone
instance and by naturea highlycircumscribed one of thisphenomenon.
Another, no doubtmoresensational was thesuddenvogue
spirit-manifestation
of Spiritualismin thelatterhalfofthenineteenth century,whichsweptacross
thedarkened parlorsof someof themostrespectable householdsin Victorian
Englandand NorthAmerica.Highlyfashionablemen and womengathered
arounda personfunctioning, usuallyfora fee,as a medium an oftenslightly
disreputable,exoticcharacter, typicallymigrating fromanother continent,an-
otherregion,or anotherclass foran eveningof mysterious rapping,table-
tipping,and othertangiblesignalsfromthespirit-world of thedead. Many
emergingmiddle-classintellectuals anthropologists and historians of reli-
gionsamongthem cameintotheorbitof thisphenomenon. Some of them,
suchas AlfredRusselWallaceandAndrewLang,becameenthusiasts, while
others,likeF. Max MullerandE. B. Tylor,tookthepositionoftherecalcitrant
skeptic.
The latter'sskepticism, however,did notnecessarily signify theirindiffer-
enceto thespiritualistphenomenon. On thecontrary, especiallyin thecase of
Tylor,one mightsurmisethathis unyielding disbeliefand high-handed dis-
missalofthespiritualist phenomenon was in partan expression ofhis annoy-
ance at thesenseless yetall themoresymptomaticfadragingall around
him.As he saw thematter, so-calledSpiritualismwas notonlyinstigating false
hopesandfearsamongthegullibleandtheweak-minded butalso threatening
tocauseundueconfusion ofthescientific Thepointofcontroversy
categories.
here which,in fact,mirrors thatof thematerialist debatein reverse was
whethersome essentiallyimmaterial power(or disembodied"spirit")could
temporarily activateinanimate objects(includingsuchquotidianitemsas ta-
bles andchairs,orevena wholehouse)orcommunicate through foreignbod-
ies (spiritmediums).As a wayoutof theconceptualmireand as a definitive
moveagainstthis(forhim)alarming insurgence ofprimitive Ty-
irrationality,
lor proposeda new theorythatat once describedtheprecivilizedmode of
In thelastanalysis,then,as intrigued
as hehadbeenbythespiritualist
vogue,
anddespiteempiricalevidenceseemingto support itsauthenticity
(thatis, de-
spitewhatever itwas thathe "saw"),Tylorgainedthesameskepticaldistance
fromthis"modernsect" as fromtheindigenousanimismof distantsavage
tribes.He regardsbothas resultsof theunconsciouscomplicity betweenthe
ofthemanyuncritical
gullibility mindsandthedeceitfulnessof a cynicalfew
whowouldmanipulate thecredulous.Tylor'snewscientific
ethnographythus
standsapartequallyfromprimitiveanimistsandfrommodernspiritualists,as
wellas fromthepreviousgeneration miredinthe"utterly
ofanthropologists in-
appropriateand misleading"notionof fetishism. summa-
Stockinghelpfully
rizesthisoutcomein thisway:
Intellectually,
[Tylor'stheoryofanimism] haditsroots... inComte, andmoreespe-
ciallyinDe Brosse'sconcept offetishism.
Empirically,
Tylor seemstohavedrawn on
theobserved behaviour as wellas onhisownextensive
ofchildren, ethnographic
read-
ing.Nevertheless,itis worth thatbetween
noting 1866and1871,theconcept moved
awayfrom itsrootsinthenotionoffetishism,andthatitdidso inthecontextofanin-
creased inmodern
interest spiritualist
analogues....Indeed,theessay"Onthesurvival
ofsavagethought" wouldsuggestthatthespiritualist
movement provideda major
source
oftheempirical datainterms ofwhichthatconceptwasdeveloped. (90-91; emphasis
added)
In effect,
it appearsthatTylorsoughtto achievescientific equilibrium by
meansofhisnewtheory, whichobjectified-andthereby distanced-nottwo
butthreeformsofsuperstition: (1) thefetishism/animismoftheprimitive sav-
ages,whichis predicated on a misguidednotionof materialityandvitality, as
well as on thefundamental inability thesubjectivefromtheob-
to distinguish
jective;(2) Spiritualism fashionableamongthefellowVictorians, whichfor
himwas nothing otherthanan atavistic returnofprimitive
animismandwhich,
no less thantheanimismof thesavages,conflatedand confusedsubjective
thought and objectiverealitybypositingcertaindubiousnotionsofthemate-
rialand thespiritual and an improbable idea abouttheirrelation;and (3) the
fetishismtheory, also popularamongtheVictorians, whichfailedtoresolvethis
confusion andultimately compounded itbyrepeatingit.
It'sAlive!
Forthetimebeing,a certainaspectofourhistorical mayrestsatisfied
interest
bytheknowledgethatat leasttworepresentatives oftheVictorian humansci-
ences,Tylorand Muller,resolutely rejectedthevagariesnotonlyof modern
Spiritualismbutalso ofthemoderntheoryofprimitive To be sure,
fetishism.
theirviewsdo notspeakforthewhole,norprobably evenforthedominant ma-
jorityofthelearnedopinionsofthetime.Indeed,thereweremanyotherpossi-
blepositionstooccupyas Victorian menandwomenofletters alternately
strug-
gled and consortedwiththeproblemof materiality, or withwhateverwas
supposedlyotherthanmateriality.In orderto projecta compellinghistorical
pictureoftheculturaldiscourseofthetime,itbehoovesmetotakeintoaccount,
andsuperimpose ifneedbe, thosealternativeanddissonantpositions.
Among
theconverts andcommitted enthusiastsformodernSpiritualism were,forin-
stance,thefolkloristand novelistAndrewLang,who at different timesposi-
tionedhimselfas a conspicuousopponent tobothMullerandTylor,andHarri-
etMartineau, a celebrated ofComte,thesisteroftheaforementioned
translator
It is extremely
difficult
todrawa distinctlineofseparation betweenthetwoprevailing
setsofideas relatingto spiritual
actionthroughwhatwe call inanimate objects.Theo-
reticallywe candistinguishthenotionoftheobjectactingas itwerebythewillandforce
ofitsownpropersoulor spirit, fromthenotionof someforeign itssub-
spiritentering
stanceoractingon itfromwithout, andso usingitas a bodyorinstrument.Butinprac-
ticetheseconceptions blendalmostinextricably.60
Wallace'slife-course
andhischangingoutlookfrommaterialism to spiritu-
alismmaybe a fitting emblemforthisfundamental difficultyorimpossibil-
ity?-of tellingapart,onceandforall,intrinsic
(self)activation
fromextrinsic
(foreign)
possession.
NOTES
1. Variousnamesandphrasescommonly usedto refertothestudyofreligion,such
as "religiousstudies,""scienceof religion,"Religionswissenschaft, "historyof reli-
gions,""comparative religion,"and theircognatesin variousEuropeanlanguagesare
notexactlyinterchangeable in all occasions,butin thisessayI willbe usingsomeof
theseas moreorless equivalent.
2. Amongthenotableexceptions-i.e.,thosewhoheldontothetheory offetishism
as themostoriginal/primitive formofreligion-was Frederick Harrison,Comte'spro-
tegein England.His publicdebatewithHerbertSpencerovertheallegedprimitive
knowledge oftheInfinite(first
published as a seriesofarticleinPopularScienceMonth-
ly)was latercollectedin one volume(editedbyEdwardYoumans,TheNatureandRe-
alityofReligion:A Controversy between Frederick HarrisonandHerbert Spencer,New
York:Appleton,1885): "WilstI findin a hundred booksthatcountlessracesofAfrica
and theorganizedreligionof Chinaattribute humanqualitiesto naturalobjects,and
growup toregardthoseobjectswithveneration andawe,I shallcontinueto thinkthat
fetishism,orthereverent ascription offeelingandpowertonaturalobjects,is a sponta-
neoustendency ofthehumanmind"(123).
3. Comparative Religion:Its Genesisand Growth(Edinburgh, T.&T. Clark,1905),
532-33.
4. "Thisanimation hypothesis, heldas a faith,is attherootofall themythologies.It
has beencalledFetichism;which,accordingto thecommonaccountsofit,ascribesa