Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 27

Society for Comparative Studies in Society and History

Troubles with Materiality: The Ghost of Fetishism in the Nineteenth Century


Author(s): Tomoko Masuzawa
Source: Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 242-267
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2696606 .
Accessed: 19/12/2014 00:27

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

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Ghost
TroubleswithMateriality:
ofFetishism Century
in theNineteenth
TOMOKO MASUZAWA
UniversityofMichigan

couldbeginno otherwise
The theologicalperiodof humanity thanby a completeand
usuallyverydurablestateof pureFetichism[sic],whichallowedfreeexerciseto that
tendency ofournaturebywhichMan conceivesofall externalbodiesas animatedbya
lifeanalogoustohisown,withdifferencesofmereintensity.
AugusteComte,Cours(1830-1842)

The formofwood,forinstance, is alteredifa tableis madeoutofit.Nevertheless the


tablecontinues tobe wood,an ordinary, sensuousthing.Butas soonas itemergesas a
commodity, it changesintoa thingwhichtranscends It notonlystands
sensuousness.
withitsfeetontheground, but,inrelation itstandson itshead,
toall othercommodities,
andevolvesoutofitswoodenbraingrotesque ideas,farmorewonderful thanifitwere
tobegindancingofitsownfreewill.
KarlMarx,Capital,vol. 1 (1867)

I. SCANDAL OF A PRACTICALLY EXTINCT THEORY

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

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE GHOST OF FETISHISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 243

As speculation on theoriginanddevelopment of religionincreasingly for-


agedthrough thematerial madeavailablebyethnography-thereby becoming,
ifonlyvicariously, empirical toa degree-it appearsthat"fetishism" as a clas-
sificatory category provedno moreserviceable forReligionswissenschaft than
suchflagrantly prejudicial termsas "superstition," "idolatry," or"heathenism."
Ifwe lookfurther intothedetailsofthisdisciplinary history,we willlearn,for
example,thatin an influential two-part entitled
treatise "TheWorshipofAni-
malsandPlants"published in 1869and1870,JohnF. McLennanoffered anen-
tirelynewperspective onthesubjectbysuggesting thatso-calledfetishism was
butone aspectoftherealelementalformofreligion, totemism, whichhe de-
finedas animal(orsometimes plant)worshipplus matrilineal exogamy.4 Some-
timethereafter, hisfriend andfellowScotsmanW.Robertson Smithcarriedthis
idea further andproposedthattheancientsacrificial ritesoftheSemites-in-
cluding many that aredocumented in theHebrew Bible-could be understood
in lightof suchprimitive totemism.5 Meanwhile,EdwardB. Tylor-who was
destinedto becomethemostcelebrated Victorian anthropologist-shifted at-
tentionawayfromthefetishobjectto thesupposedspiritual entity which,he
said,thesavagefalselyassumedtobe animating suchan object;Tylorthuses-
tablishedthetheory of animismas themostrudimentary religion.6 These and
otherdevelopments, so thestorygoes,effectively dashedanyhopeofa serious
scholarly careerfor"fetishism."
It is all themoresurprising, therefore,thattalkoffetishism is in factevery-
wherein theVictorian literature,in ethnography as well as in history of reli-
gions.7To be sure,thesubjectdoesnotusuallyoccupya conspicuous place,nor
does it alwaysseema particularly welcometopicevento authors, whomight
obligingly treatthematter as an unavoidablesubject,sometimes criticizingit
as a regrettably confused notionwhichoughttobe reclassified undersomeoth-
ercategory, or whichmightbe bettercontrolled bymeansofa morestringent
definition. Sufficeitto say that,by theturnof thecentury, fetishism was not
muchofa theory anymore, butevidently remained a problemnonetheless. The
troublewas-and thereseemstohavebeennearconsensuson thispoint-the
use oftheterm"fetishism" tendedtobe tooliberally expansiveanduncritical-
ly inclusive,such thatjust about anything could countas an instanceof
fetishism fortheadvocateof fetishism-theory, just as anypiece of rubbish,
trifle,or trinket was said to be a potential fetishforthepractitioner of fetish-
religion.
accountoffetishism
A typicalVictorian wouldrehearse ofthe
theetymology
word,in thecourseof whichwe aretransported backto thesceneofthefirst
encounterbetweenPortuguese sailorsandthesavages8oftheGold Coast.At
thispointwe wouldbe led to examinethePortuguese wordfeitico,meaning
"charm,""amulet,"or"talisman," whichinturnmight leadusbackthroughme-
dievalChristianhistoryto a Latintermfactitius,
meaning,variously,"manu-
"enchanted,"
"artificial,"
factured," Thenthenarrative
or "magicallyartful."

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
244 TOMOKO MASUZAWA

wouldlikelygo forward to 1760,whentheFrenchEnlightenment thinkerand


acquaintanceof Voltaire,PresidentCharles de Brosses, coined the term
"fetishism"in thenowcelebrated monograph, Du culte des dieuxfetiches.At
thesametimeitwouldbe notedhowde Brosseshimself preparedthewayfor
thefuture abuseofthetermandtheerosionofitsoriginaldefinition, suchas it
was, becausehe choseto includein thesamecategorynotonlythoseobser-
vancesmorein linewiththeetymological senseoftheterm-i.e.,customsin-
volvingcertainportableobjects,eithernaturally foundor "manufactured"-
butalso suchdivergent andheterogenous practicesas animalworship(zoola-
try),starworship(Sabeism),andtheveneration ofthedead.9
In sum,notonlywas thereabundant discussionon thetopicoffetishism dur-
ingtheVictorian period,therewas also a standardlitanyforchastisingthispro-
lificandunruly discourse.In anyevent,talkaboutfetishism theydid,evenif
in a manner thatwouldsuggestthatthiswas a vaguelyillegitimate bitofbusi-
nessleftoverfrompreviousgenerations, an embarrassing remnant ofhumbler
timeswhenthediscriminating terminology ofscholarship hadnotbeendevel-
oped.In effect,"fetishism"was an obsoletepiece of languagethatrefusedto
fallaway,despitetheprogressive retooling ofscientificdiscourse.
Indeed,"fetishism"remaineda regularnuisanceformanydecadesafterthe
scienceofreligionhadsoundlydenouncedit.Thuswe find,as lateas 1948,in
a popularsurveytext,thefollowing disclaimer:
The magiccharmtakesinnumerable forms.... One wordthathas been appliedto
charmsisfetish, andnotermhasprovedmoretroublesome thanthisanditscompanion,
fetishism.The derivationis fromthePortuguese feitiCo,"something made,"and was
usedbytheearlyPortuguese todenotethecharmsandimagesofAfrican peoples.These
termsarementioned herebecausetheyareencountered so oftenintheliterature,
as when
itis saidthat"fetishism
is thereligionofAfrica."Whenusedat all,theyshouldbe em-
ployedin thesenseof "charm"and "magic";buttheyare farbetteromittedfromany
discussionofthemeanswhereby mancontrolsthesupernatural. 10

Here,again,is thefamiliarmantraof Religionswissenschaft dispellingthe


evil oftheconfounding fetishismdiscourse.A somewhatabbreviated formula
thismaybe,butall theessentialingredients arethere:thePortuguese etymol-
ogy,thehistorical
Africanconnection, thesubsequent oftheterm's
proliferation
indiscriminate
use,andfinallytheblanketstatement aboutitsgeneraluseless-
ness.Yet,theveryrepetition of thesamemantra, intendedto disenchant the
powerfuldiscourse,testifiesto just how ineffectual such disciplinarypro-
nouncements reallywereagainsttherampant circulation
ofthismade-upterm.
Likebadmoney, itwas goingaroundfaster thananytheoreticalcategoriesfrom
morecreditablemints.

II. F. MAX MULLER ON FETISHISM

The problematicstatusof fetish-discourse


duringtheVictorianera is well at-
seriesoftheHibbert
testedbytheinaugural Lectures, in 1878atWest-
delivered

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE GHOST OF FETISHISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 245

minster AbbeybyF. Max Miiller."IAlreadyanointedas thepatriarch ofReli-


gionswissenschaft, Mulleraddressed himself inthesecondofhissevenlectures
specifically tothetopic:"Is Fetishism a Primitive FormofReligion?"Ina word,
Muller'sanswertothisquestionwas "no,"andtherewas notmuchambiguity
aboutit.To putitin a fewmorewords,Muller'spositionwas thefollowing.
Fetishismis nota formof religion,nora stageof religiousdevelopment, let
alonetheoriginalstage,buta meretendency, a certain inferior disposition or
weaknesstowhichanyoneatanyplace orany time is, in principle, susceptible.
We humanshave a proclivity fordevelopinga fetishistic attachment to what
Mullercalls "casual objects,"clutching whatever is thrown uponourpathby
happenstance, because fleshis weak, because our intellectual conceptions
a
oftenrequire tangible reminder or a material abode which can provide thein-
tangibleidea withsolace andsafe haven. A fetish is that which even our most
sublimespiritual ideas seek,and from time to time find, to lean on: In effect,
it's a prop.As such,thissecondary objecthas no essentialplace in theorigin
anddevelopment ofreligion.It is alwaysincidental, alwaysdispensable.
Thisdefinitive opinion, pronounced from so exalted a positionbyso eminent
a scholar,ultimately didnothing toquietthetalkoffetishism. On thecontrary,
Muller'shigh-profile performance immediately eliciteda pointedly criticalre-
sponsefromAndrewLang,another Victorian mythologue-folklorist-historian
ofreligion, whowas risingin prominence. Lang singledoutthefetishism lec-
turetomounta wholesaleattackonMuller'stheory ofreligion, hismethod, and
hisauthoritative andprivileged accessto,andrelianceon,theRigVedaas a pre-
eminentsourceof ancienthistory.12 This objectionand othercriticisms led
Mullertoqualifyhispositionontheissueoforiginalreligionvs. secondary cor-
ruption, and-at leastaccordingto Gobletd'Alviella,whohimself roseto the
podiumas the1891 appointeeoftheHibbertLectures 13-Muller presented a
revisedexpression ofhisviewsat another prestigious lectureseriesthathe in-
augurated, theGifford Lecturesof 1888,1889,1890,and 1891.14Whether or
nothis stancewas modified in anysignificant way,Mullerwas to continueto
address,ifonlyincidentally andobliquely, theproblemoffetishism foranoth-
er twodecades,whichis tantamount to sayinguntilhe died.Whatis more,a
number ofhissuccessorsattheHibbertandtheGifford Lectures, as wellas oth-
erwriters whoappropriated "history ofreligion"as theirtopicortheirbookti-
tle-Goblet d'Alviellabeingbutoneexample-keptonreferring tofetishism,
sometimes dismissing, othertimesseekingto improveupon,thenotion.This
explicitdiscussionoffetishism continued wellintothe1920sand 1930samong
EuropeanandAmericanscholarsofutmost respectability.15
In markedcontrast to thisstateof affairs, theconventional wisdomperpe-
tratedand reproduced by today'sdisciplinary historians of religiousstudies
holdsthattheidea of fetishism, thoughundoubtedly originating in theexplo-
rationof primitive religionandthushavingprovenance in thehistory ofreli-
gion,lostmuchof itsefficacy by themiddleof thenineteenth century. Sup-

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
246 TOMOKO MASUZAWA

posedly,fetishism gave wayto other,newer,andsupposedlymoreexactcon-


cepts,orvariousnew"isms";meanwhile, fetishism's principal
arenaofopera-
tionshifted to otheremergent discursivedomains-above all, Marxistpoliti-
cal economy,thescientific sexologyof Binet,and Freudianpsychoanalysis,
whereit thrives to thisday.16Yet,ifwe wereto observethishistory fromthe
vantagepointof Muller'slecturein 1878,it wouldappearthatfetishism had
beendominating thedebateon theoriginofreligionfora century17, and,far
fromundergoing thequietdeathofobsolescence,it was to liveon forat least
another halfcentury.
ThequestionsI shouldliketoentertain inlightofthisincongruity arethefol-
lowing.If Mullerwas rightin thefirstplace whenhe claimedthatprimitive
fetishism hadbeen,andwas still,"dominating" thedebateon theoriginofre-
ligion,thenwhatwas themodeofthisdomination? How do we explaintheal-
legedpredominance offetishism theorywhenrelatively fewtreatises ontheori-
ginanddevelopment ofreligionexplicitly upheldtheposition-as hadearlier
writers fromde Brossesto AugusteComte-thatfetishism was theoriginal
formof religion?Secondly,how do we accountfortheeasy dismissalof the
fetishism discoursebyhistorians ofthestudyofreligions(as earlyas Jordan in
1905),despitethepalpablefactthata good manypeoplekepton mentioning
fetishism,especiallyin associationwiththesavage,theprimitive, andthe"de-
generate races"?Combining thetwoquestions, we mayarriveatthefollowing
formulation: Giventhatthetheory ofprimitive fetishismreputedly hadalready
lostmuchofitscredibility-or, perhapsmoretothepoint,itsrespectability-
by the 1870s,whatwas doingthe"dominating" in thenameof "fetishism"?
Whydid it continueto be usefulor necessaryto mention fetishism, and why
did fetishism continueto be consistently associatedwiththerudimentary, the
degraded,or thelowest,despite-or possiblybecauseof-the devaluation of
theconceptitself?Is thegeneraldisrepute of "fetishism"amongtheethnolo-
gistsandReligionswissenschaftler insomewaydirectly relatedtothefactsthat,
ontheonehand,the19th-century sexologistsfoundita suitablenamefora cer-
taintypeofpsychosexual disorder and,ontheotherhand,Marxusedittoname
ananalogously aberrant andpathological object-relationendemictosocialpro-
ductionundercapitalism?
Here,I mustnotdelayin concedingthatmyaimin thepresentessayis not
nearlyas ambitious as anoffer ofdefinitiveanswerstothisclusterofquestions.
Rather, myimmediate objectiveis torecover, bymeansof an efficacious mix
ofempathy andsuspicion, thelogicandsentiment thatseemtohavebeensus-
tainingandmobilizing theself-deprecating fetishism discourseoftheVictori-
an era.For,as we beginto examinethenatureof therampant, imprecise,and
disorderly talkoffetishism (whichthebestscientific mindsofthetimerepeat-
edlytriedandfailedto control), ourattention is invariablydrawnto a broader
domainofsocialandculturalpracticeswellbeyondtheacademicscruplesen-
demicto a particular humanscience.In short, thesubjectoffetishism calls for

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE GHOST OF FETISHISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 247

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.

III. FETISHISM AU FOND

Whichever sideone stoodon in theprimitive fetishismdebate,one thingwas


certainaboutthesubject:fetishism was low.Whetherthisdebasedstate,or
stage,was presumedto be at theverybeginning of humanevolution21, right
nextto theabsolutezero-point of culturaldevelopment, or at somelaterde-
generativeperiodin theimaginedchronology, fetishism alwaysmarkedthe
value,thepolaroppositeofthetelosofthecivilizingprocess.
nadirofcultural
Moreover,fetishism as a categoryis repeatedlyandconsistently characterized
as inchoate, andunprincipled.
erratic, In effect,
fetishism is saidtobe no more
thanan incidental
assortment of"theworshipofoddsandendsofrubbish,"22
a misguidedadorationof objectsthatare intrinsically worthless,such as

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
248 TOMOKO MASUZAWA

"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

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE GHOST OF FETISHISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 249

and it formsa basis fromwhichmanyothermodesof religious


civilization,
thought havedeveloped,so thatitis difficulttopointoutwherefetishism ends
andnatureworship, ancestorworship, totemism, polytheism, andidolatry be-
gin,orto distinguish betweena fetish,an idol,anda deity."3'
As difficult
as itmaybe tomakethesedistinctions empirically, thehierarchy
of valuefromthemostmaterialto themostspiritual does notseemto be af-
fectedbythisdifficulty, butratheritremainsparadigmatic in all thesetexts.It
reflectsa generalassumption thathas neverbeenrelinquished, andwhichhas
to do witha particular ideologyof cognitionand,concomitantly, a particular
epistemic order.Thisorderofknowledgeis predicated on a logicofrepresen-
tationwhichpositstheknowingsubjectandtheobject-to-be-known, mindand
matter,ina specific,hierarchical
relation.In contrast
tous moderns, Washburn
Hopkinssuggested, in 1923,theinabilityto discernthisrelationin theproper
mannercharacterizes our primevalancestorsand thecontemporary savages
alike:
Whatis reallyfound inthelowestmental stateis notlackoflogicbutinabilitytodis-
tinguish between mindandmatter. Toearlymanallsubstance is thesame,neitherma-
terial
norimmaterial. Themostprimitivesavagesdonotregard thetwoas separate.
All
matter is sentient
andhasmentality;allspirits
areanalogous totheminds ofmen,that
is,encased inbody,orratherindissolubly
onewith thematerialinwhich they
appear. It
is nota distinct ina thing
spirit whichsuchsavagesrecognize but,so tospeak,a spiri-
tizedthing, anobjectimbued withpower.32
As faras thesewriters areconcerned, theprimitiveconfounding orindiffer-
entiationofmatterandspirit/mind doesnotresultin an alternative ontology-
say,a mysticalmonismas an alternative toCartesiandualism-anymorethan
magicis an alternativescience.Rather, accordingto theiropinion,anysystem
based on a mind-matter confusion is boundto getmiredin unreality, evenif
suchan illusionmayoffera secondary dividendofpsychological comfort.
Thisgeneralidea,ofcourse,was laterelaborated byJ.G. Frazer(inconnec-
tionto"sympathetic magic"),SigmundFreud("theomnipotence ofthought"),
andLucienLevy-Bruhl ("primitive mentality").Earlyin The GoldenBough,
Frazerfamously characterized magicas "a falsescience,as wellas an abortive
art,"whichis tosay,a spurioustheory andpracticepredicated on "misapplica-
tionsoftheassociationofideas."33Freud,drawinga complicated analogybe-
tweenobsessiveneurotics and savages,theorizedthisnotionmoreexplicitly
and proposedthattheproclivity to confusewhatoccurredmerelyin thought
andwhatactuallytookplace-i. e., conflation ofa psychical/subjectivereali-
tyanda material/objective reality-werecommonto bothsortsofpeople.In
accordingto Freud,magic,taboo,andothersuchsuperstitions-that
effect, is
to say,observancesobviouslyinefficacious yettenaciously adheredto-owe
theircompellingpowertotheinfantile tendencyforthought-reality confusion,
foreasypsychictransfer fromsubjective toobjective,froma mentalwishtoits
materialfulfillment.34
Itis therefore evidentthattheprimitive undifferentiation

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
250 TOMOKO MASUZAWA

ofmatter andspirit/mind is moreorless a directechoofwhatE. B. Tylorhad


identifieddecadesearlier:"Amongtheless civilizedraces,theseparationof
subjectiveandobjectiveimpressions, whichinthis,as in severalothermatters,
makesthemostimportant difference betweentheeducatedmanand thesav-
age,is muchless fullycarriedout."35
Theclarity andlucidity ofthedemarcation betweenthesubjectandtheobject
ofrepresentation is presumed tobe essentialtothemodernepistemic order, es-
peciallyto science. As Frazerputitbluntly: "Theprinciples of association[of
ideas]areexcellent inthemselves, andindeedabsolutely essentialtotheworking
of thehumanmind.Legitimately appliedtheyyieldscience;illegitimately ap-
pliedtheyyieldmagic,thebastardsisterofscience."36 Fromthepointofview
of thesemental/spiritual developmentalists, theabilityto extricate thesubjec-
tivityof theknowerfromthematerial contingency of theobjectandfromthe
physicalandcorporeal immediacy oftheexperience ofcognition is thehallmark
ofreasonandcivilization, andthisabilityis equatedwiththepowerofabstrac-
tion, generalization, and universalization. Like its concomitant, "magic,"
fetishism-whether itis believedto be an empirically extantcondition among
tribespeople somewhere ormerelya virtual pointofreference-isconsistently
markedas theoppositeextreme tothisidealoftrueknowing.
Beyondtheinvariablebasenessof "fetishism," thescholarsof theperiod
fromthemid-nineteenth century to theearlytwentieth opinedmoreor less in
unisonthattherewas no clearlyarticulable, logicallycoherent principle forits
definition.Consequently, theconceptoffetishism was considered inherently li-
abletoconfusion andabuse.Writer after
writer wouldwarnthereaderthatthere
was something incorrigibly imperfect orincomplete abouttheconcept,thatthe
conceptitselfwas rather"common"and "unscientific," andthusthatitsvery
entry intothescholarly vocabulary was somehow"unfortunate."37 In short,if
a fetishwas a contemptible littleobjectintheeyesofreasonandscience,itsin-
iquityseemsto have beentransferred to thetheory of fetishism itself,as this
latterwas also spokenofas beingbeneaththedignity ofscience.Yet,somehow,
sciencecouldnotmakefetishism go away.Tenaciousattachment indefianceof
commonsenseandreasonappearstobe thedefining characteristic notonlyof
thefetish, butalso offetishism theory. Alreadybeyondsuchobsessionhimself
(or so we areled tobelieve),Mullerdescribestheironyin thisway:"It willbe
indeedtoeradicatetheidea ofa universal
difficult primevalfetishism fromthe
text-books ofhistory. Thatverytheory has becomea kindof scientific fetish,
though, likemostfetishes, it seemsto owe itsexistenceto ignoranceand su-
perstition."38
Curiously, thoseverysameauthorswhodespisedthefetishism conceptand
denounced thetheory ofprimitive fetishism inonebreathseemtohavebelieved
thattherewas a waytorestoresomething liketheoriginalmeaningof"fetish,"
thatis,thetruedefinition offetishism, whichhadeludedevende Brosseshim-
selfwhoinvented theterm.Theysoughttoascertain thisproper, authentic con-

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE GHOST OF FETISHISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 251

ceptoffetishism bymeansofetymology. It is largelyon accountofthisdesire


of
fora correctdefinition an flawed
inherently conceptthatwe are referred
back,againand again, to the Portugueseand thesavagesof theGold Coast,
recalcitrantly
theirsharedsuperstitions attached to in itsmosttriv-
materiality
ial forms,theiruncannyexchange rooted in misrecognition, theirshadytrade
basedon bogusvaluesthatwereheaped upon rubbish, and
trinkets, unfamiliar
of
objects foreign manufacture.

IV. FETISHISM IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

In all theserespects, Muller'sattitude towardtheproblemoffetishism is rather


moretypicalofhistimethanitis exceptional. Whatis notso typical, however,
is hiswayofaccounting fortheconceptualoriginoffetishism: i.e.,hisexpla-
nationas to how theinitial, erroneous estimation of an insignificant material
objectcouldhavetakenplace.There is something slightlyeccentric about his
of
account how such prodigious values and powers came to be ascribed, quite
irrationally ofcourse,to thathumblemateriality thatis thefetish. As we have
seen, innineteenth-century discoursea fetish is a "mere object," taken fora sin-
gularbeingendowedwithsupernatural and superlative virtuesand efficacy.
How couldaninanimate, intrinsicallyvaluelessobjectcometobe chargedwith
suchnon-material, almostghostlike, "spiritual" values?How couldthispurely
material objectcomealive,as itwere,in thisway?
In a nutshell, Muller'sargument amountsto this:theinitialmisrecognition
ofan inertmaterial objectas a fetish, as something believedtobe animateand
powerful in and of itself,lies ultimately on theside of theEuropeantravelers
rather thanthesavagenativesofAfrica.To be sure,in Muller'sestimation, the
Europeansin questionwerenotexactlyChristians ofthemodern, rational,en-
lightened sort.Indeed,heimplies,itwastheirimpureChristianity andtheirown
residualsavagerythatwas responsible forthemistaken conception:
WhydidthePortuguese whowereChristians,
navigators, inthatmeta-
butChristians
morphic statewhichmarksthepopularRomanCatholicism ofthelastcentury [empha-
sis added]-why did theyrecognizeat once whattheysaw amongthenegroesof the
GoldCoast,asfeitios? Theansweris clear.Becausetheythemselves wereperfectlyfa-
miliarwithafeiti o, an amulet,ora talisman;andprobablyall carriedwiththemsome
beads,or crosses,or images,thathad beenblessedby theirpriestsbeforetheystarted
fortheirvoyage.Theythemselves in a certainsense.(58-59)
werefetish-worshippers

As Mullergoes on to suggest,thisapprehension of sameness-thatis, the


instantaneousrecognitionof theidentity betweentheEuropeanselfand the
Africanotherwithrespecttocertainreligiousobservances-iscoupledwithan
equallyinstantaneousapprehension ofdifference,
orrather,an immediate pre-
sumption betweenthecivilizedselfand thesavageother.
of radicaldisparity
Although theyareostensibly similarin thattheybothperform certainactsof
venerationtowardspeciallittleobjects,thePortuguese ofcourse"knew"that
therewas moreto theirown religionthanthisparticular typeof personal

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
252 TOMOKO MASUZAWA

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,

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE GHOST OF FETISHISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 253

on thebasis ofthisclosureandthetriumph of theInfinite,Mtillerwas to en-


genderan altogetherdifferent
kindofdiscursive tradition:
an idealisthistoryof
thespiritual-i.e.,theHistoryofReligionsas we knowittoday.
All thesame,itis noteworthy that,fromhispositionin thenineteenth cen-
tury,Mullerhas remindedus thatit was on thevolatilegroundof disjointed
colonialexchangebetweenincommensurable systemsthatthefetish,at once
an idea andan object,was born.

V. TROUBLES AT HOME

I reducethesystems ofphilosophyconcerning man'ssoultotwo.Thefirst


andmostan-
cientis materialism.Thesecondis spiritualism.
Thosemetaphysicians whosuggest that
mattermightmanifest ofthinking
thefaculty
havenotdishonored reason.
Whynot?Becausethey enjoytheadvantage(inthiscaseit
is one)ofexpressing themselves
poorly. Strictly
speaking,toaskifmatter
sheerlyinit-
selfcanthink islikeasking
ifmatter cantellthetime.
Already weseethatweshallavoid
thisreef,onwhich Mr.Lockehadthemisfortune torunaground.
Leibnizians,withtheirmonad,havesetupanunintelligible hypothesis.
Theyhave
matter
spiritualized rather
thanmaterialized thesoul.Buthowcanonedefine a being
whosenature is absolutely
unknown tous?
DescartesandalltheCartesians ... madethesamemistake. Theysaidmanconsists
oftwodistinct as though
substances, theyhadseenandcounted them.
JulienOffray deLa Mettrie,L'Hommemachine(I747)4l

Afterdaysandnights ofincredible I succeeded


labourandfatigue, indiscovering
the
causeofgenerationandlife;nay,more,
I becamemyselfcapableofbestowing
anima-
tionuponlifeless
matter.
MaryShelley,Frankenstein
(1818)
If we havelearntsomething fromMuller'sexplanation concerning thehybrid
formation of "fetishism,"we mayagainreformulate ourearlierquestion(see
p. 246) moreexactly:If fetishism continued to be a viabletopicafteritsoffi-
cial demise,thenwhatwas itinthenatureofthosenineteenth-century intellec-
tualsthatcouldnothelpresonating withthisseemingly exoticsubjectandthe
similarlyoutlandish theoryaboutit?
As we haveseen,thecontempt in whichboththefetishandfetishism theo-
rywereheld-hence theireasydismissal-stemsfromtheapparent absurdity
ofthenotionthatthepuremateriality of "stocksandstones"is inherently and
essentiallycommingled witha supra-material realityofsomesort letus call
thislatter forshort orfromtheevengreater
"spirituality" absurdity oftheno-
tionthatmaterialityinandofitselfgenerates spirituality
and,consequently, that
is ultimately
spirituality nothingbuta peculiarmutation of materiality.The
morewe lookintothematter, themoredifficult itseemsto differentiateclear-
lyanddistinctly thesuperstition
offetishism fromthesuperstition offetishism
theory-i.e.,on theone hand,thebeliefthatcertainmaterialobjectsaremore
than"merematter" butmagicallyspiritual, and on theother,thebeliefthata
merematerial encounterwithsomephysicalobjectofnoparticular significance

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
254 TOMOKO MASUZAWA

can instillin thesavagemindtheidea ofspirituality. In eithercase,themater-


ial objectseemstokeepgenerating itsownphantom other.Yetthisspecterdoes
notleavethebodybehind;rather itinheresin theverymateriality ofthebody
itself.Conversely put,itis as thoughmaterialityitself "deadmatter," theca-
daver begantomove,evento thinkandto speak,all on itsown.

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-

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE GHOST OF FETISHISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 255

ialismof"thenewscience"is exposedas a kindoffetishism, as a beliefinma-


terialobjects(here,atomicparticles)endowedwith,or inherently capableof
generating, supra-natural powers,insofaras natureis definedand determined
exclusively in termsof (inanimate) materiality.If theatomis a kindoffetish,
thenatomistic materialism wouldbe a formofscientific fetishism. Thusvague-
ly adumbrating thetrainofthought thatwe saw at workin Muller'sargument
againsttheprimitive fetishism theory, Martineau arrivesatthisobservation: "It
is notin thehistory of Superstition alonethatthehumanmindmaybe found
struggling in thegraspof somemerenightmare of itsown creation:a philo-
sophicalhypothesis maysituponthebreastwitha weightnotless oppressive
andnotmorereal.. ." (26-27).
Meanwhile, theeditorofPopularScienceMonthly steppedforward as a par-
tisanon thesideof thenewscience.In the"Editor'sTable"of theNovember
1874 issuehe defended Tyndallunequivocally, butin a languagethatdid not
necessarily contradict thetheologian'saccusations:"Prof.Tyndallclaimsthat
thereis a greatdeal more,in thismysterious and unfathomable something
whichwe call matter, thanhasbeenhitherto allowed;he seesinit 'thepromise
andpotency ofeveryformandqualityoflife.'Muchhorror hasbeenexpressed
at thisstatement, buttheexpressions seemto us quitegratuitous."45 Tyndall's
stirring languageofmaterial potencyandvitality quotedhereharksbacktothe
eighteenth-century Frenchmaterialism of JulienOffrayde La Mettrie.As a
matterof fact,followingthecue of therenegadeFrenchphysician,Baron
d'Holbachexpressedthefollowing opinionin 1770,entirely in linewithTyn-
dall's view:"A satisfactory definition of matter has notyetbeengiven.Man,
deceivedand led astraybyhis prejudices, formedbutvague,superficial, and
imperfect notionsconcerning it.He lookeduponitas a uniquebeing,grossand
passive,incapableof eithermovingby itself,of anythingby itsown.. . "46
Fromtheperspective ofthenineteenth-century materialists,itappears,thisun-
satisfactory conception ofmatter had notchangedappreciably in theinterven-
inghundred years.
In anyevent,thereis littleroomforconcessiontoChristian orthodoxy inthis
tradition ofmaterialism. We mightsafelysurmise, therefore,thatthesuspicion
oftheologians, farfrombeingquelled,was rather ominously compounded by
theeditor'sendorsement of thematerialistnew sciences.Their"horror" may
verywellhavebeenalreadyexacerbated byhisearlierreference toa sixteenth-
century Dominicanphilosopher andChurch-certified GiordanoBruno,
heretic,
whohadevoked,insteadofthealmighty Father-Creator andcerebralDesigner
oftheUniverse,something resembling theEarthMother.Brunobelieved,the
editorcomments approvingly, that"Matteris notthatmereemptycapacity
whichphilosophers havepictured hertobe,buttheuniversal mother whobrings
forth all thingsas thefruit ofherownwomb."47
We shallnotfollowherethefullextentof thisdebate48which,in variously
transmuted forms, continuesto thisday.49Sufficeit to saythattheinitialrift

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
256 TOMOKO MASUZAWA

was established conceptions


(and contradictory)
on thebasis of divergent of
andoverthequestionofwhether
materiality, as suchwas inher-
or notmatter
entlyinert,blind,deaf,dumb,and generally dead. The
unfeeling in effect,
troublewas perhapsby irony,perhapsby necessity thatthemore"dead"
matterwas assumedtobe, themorehauntedthematerialworldseemedtobe-
come.

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

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE GHOST OF FETISHISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 257

thought andexplainedtheoriginofreligion. was also


As ithappens,thistheory
a wayoutofthebenighted problemof"fetishism."
Severalyearsbeforethepublication ofhismostfamouswork,Primitive Cul-
ture(1871),Tylorincrementally theory
usheredhissignature of"animism" into
beingthrough a seriesofarticles.50 ofthesearticlesmakes
A passageinthefirst
evidentthattheidea of "animism"initiallyemergedas a way of correcting
an earliermisconception thatwentby thenameof "fetishism." Here is what
appearsto be the inauguralmomentin the transformative overcomingof
"fetishism":
Readersfamiliar withthestudyofhumanthought in itslowerphaseswillerethishave
missedthefamiliar nameof"fetishism,"as denoting thisveryopinion"bywhichman
bodiesas animated
conceivesofall external bya lifeanalogoustohisown,withdiffer-
encesofmereintensity;" butthewordis so utterlyinappropriateandmisleading thatI
havepurposely avoidedit.Afetish(PortuguesefeitiCo,"charm,sorcery")is an object
usedinwitchcraft;andthemistakeofapplying thewordtoreligionatall hasarisenfrom
theimagesandotherinanimate objectsusedbysorcerers beingconfoundedwithidols,
whichwe thencefindcommonly, butverywrongly, The theorywhich
calledfetishes.
endowsthephenomena ofnaturewithpersonallifemight perhapsbe convenientlycalled
Animism.51

Clearly,thisemergent discourseon 'animism'is a virtualprototype, one


mightsay,forwhatwe referred to earlieras a mantraprotecting therational
mindagainstthedisorderly proliferation offetishism discourse.The language
hereis typicallydisdainfulanddismissive. Yetthisis notall. Whilethenewly
coined "animism"was above all meantto disable the unrulycurrencyof
"fetishism,"thisneologismwas also designedtoeschew,circumscribe, andin-
oculateus againstanother term/category namely, "Spiritualism."
As TylorlaternotedinPrimitive Culture, insofaras theminimum definition
ofreligionthathe settledforwas "thebeliefin spiritual beings,"thenaturally
appropriatetermforthemostprimitive formofreligionwouldhavebeen"spir-
itualism,"had it notbeenforthefactthat"thewordSpiritualism ... has this
obviousdefecttous,thatithas becomethedesignation ofa particular modern
sect."52Needlessto say,withhis newtheory ofprimordial religion, Tylordid
notwishto evokefirstand foremost theimagesof thosetable-tipping, self-
levitating regularly
parlorspiritualists observable inhisownsociety. Thisis not
to say,however, thatthisurbanSpiritualism unrelated
is entirely towhatTylor
has nowchosento call animism.He proposed"animism"in lieu of"spiritual-
ism"notinordertoisolateandexcludethelatter fromconsideration, buton the
contrary,in orderto includeandcontainitas a subcategory oftheformer, and
an exceptionally ludicrousone atthat.For,inhisopinion,thefactthatthiswas
verymucha modern"sect,"emerging in themidstofthemostcivilizedpopu-
lation,byno meansentailedthatitshouldbe presumed anyless savageorbar-
barous.As he declaressummarily: "Themodernspiritualism, as everyethnog-
raphermayknow,is pureandsimplesavagerybothin itstheory andthetricks

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
258 TOMOKO MASUZAWA

bywhichitis supported."53 AndTylorwas mostassuredly one ofthoseethno-


graphers whoknew-and knewatfirst hand.
Like manyanthropologists of his time,Tylor'stheoretical constructionof
"animism"was notbasedon his ownexperiencelivingamongthesavagesin
distantplaces,butmostlyon booksandreports madeavailabletohimsecond-
hand.Ofcourse,itis generally understood thatthisconditionis rathermoretyp-
ical ofthe"armchair anthropologists" ofhis timethannot,andthisfactoften
affordscontemporary anthropologistsinwhosecareer-formation "field-work"
is mandatory an occasion for condescension.As it turnsout, however,
Tylor-theparagonofVictorian armchair anthropology ifthereeverwasone-
was fora timeengagedin a certainkindof"field"observation afterall,though
nottoofarawayfromhome.
Welearnabouthisfirsthand ethnographic adventure thanks largelytoGeorge
Stocking's1971 article,"Animismin TheoryandPractice:E. B. Tylor'sUn-
published'Noteson "Spiritualism."'54 These notesproffer a view a better
view thanTylor'spublishedworkswould allow-of thebackground nego-
tiationsleadingto the ultimatetriangulation of the key terms"animism,"
"fetishism,"and"spiritualism."
Beginning in 1867,andespeciallyintensively in 1872,Tylorattended some
of themostprominent seancesin London55,out of scientific
spiritualist cu-
riosity,
one wouldassume,or,as he putsit,in order"to look intothealleged
manifestations."56 In effect,thesenotes,datingfromNovember4 through 28,
1872,area roughequivalentto thefieldnotesof"participant observation,"in
a ratherliteralsenseof theterm.To be sure,his modeofparticipation/obser-
vationwas significantly at variancewithwhatis meantby thattermin con-
temporary ethnographic methodology. He "wentup to London,"muchas a
news reporter might,to see "it" withhis own eyes, in orderto determine
whether itwas genuineora fraud.As a pieceofinvestigative reporting, there-
sultwas a rather disappointing one,as hislastentry reads:
Nov.28. Returned home.WhatI haveseen& heardfailsto convinceme thatthereis a
genuineresidue.Itall mighthavebeenlegerdemain, & was so ingreatmeasure.... My
judgment is in abeyance.I admita primafaciecase on evidence,& willnotdenythat
theremaybe a psychicforcecausingraps,movements, etc.Butit has not
levitations,
proveditselfbyevidenceofmysenses,andI distinctly thinkthecase weakerthanwrit-
tendocuments led me to think.Seeinghas not(to me) beenbelieving.I proposea new
texttodefinefaith:"Blessedaretheythathaveseen,andyethavebelieved.(Quotedin
Stocking,100)

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

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE GHOST OF FETISHISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 259

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

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
260 TOMOKO MASUZAWA

Unitarian JamesMartineauand,unlikeherbrother, a notedatheist.Theseare


buttwofigures representing altogether differentperspectives on thesubjectof
materiality andnon-materiality. Insteadoffollowing theirleadsandlaunching
on a newmission(sincean expedition in thisdirection wouldcertainly digress
fromthelimitedobjectiveof thisessay),I willconclude,forthetimebeing,
witha sketchofone morefigure: AlfredRusselWallace.
Todaymainlyremembered as a collaboratorandinterlocutor ofCharlesDar-
winandan advocateofcertaincontroversial ideasabout"race"andevolution,
Wallacehad seensomefarawayregionsoftheworldand,in thecourseofhis
turbulent career,hadespousedvarying positionswithregardtothequestionof
materialism and spiritualism.The productof a socialistexperiment in educa-
tionfortheworkingclasses,Wallacewas exposedto progressive ideas and
skillsof sciencein his adolescentyears,whenhe was beingtrainedas a land
surveyor, amateur geologist, andbotanist. Bythetimehereachedhisadulthood,
as he himself testified
decadeslater,he was a thoroughly scien-
non-religious,
tificmaterialist.57
All in all,he led an eventful lifewithlittleinsurance, mak-
inga precarious, oftenimpecunious living.His firstgreatmisfortune was an ac-
tualshipwreck in 1852,on hiswayhomefromfouryearsofexpedition in the
Amazon.Withnearlyall of his entomological andbotanicalspecimens-the
fruitofhisyearsoflaborinthetropics-lyingatthebottom ofthesea,hecould
do nothing butwriteaboutthewholeaffair, whichhedidinA Narrative ofTrav-
els on theAmazonandRioNegro(1853).58 Presently he cametorenouncethe
materialism ofhisyouthandbecamean ardentbelieverin Spiritualism during
the1860s.He was convincedthat"spiritual facts"wererealenoughto mani-
fest materiallyfromtime to time undercertainfavorablecircumstances,
through especiallysensitiveindividuals or instruments, suchas mediumsand
"spirit-photographs."Eagerto shedsomescientific lighton thematter, he per-
suadedthelikesofJohnTyndallandE. B. Tylorto attendseances.Ultimately,
he couldnotswayeitherofthem.59
Paradoxically yetperhapsinthelastanalysis,inevitably-Wallace'sspir-
itualismwas an almostperfect mirror imageofthatbrandof materialism, full
of mystery and wonder,endorsedby theeditorof PopularScienceMonthly.
Thereis an unmistakable symmetry betweenthesepositions:eitherseemingly
dead matter turnsoutto be intrinsically or potentially animate,or immaterial
spiritcomestopossess,disrupt, andintervene intheotherwise quiescent(dead)
material world.One ofTylor'spassingcomments in PrimitiveCultureis illu-
minating here:

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

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE GHOST OF FETISHISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 26I

Wallace'slife-course
andhischangingoutlookfrommaterialism to spiritu-
alismmaybe a fitting emblemforthisfundamental difficultyorimpossibil-
ity?-of tellingapart,onceandforall,intrinsic
(self)activation
fromextrinsic
(foreign)
possession.

As we attempt totakestockofthesituation, we arelefttowonderwhythemat-


ter-spirit
relation hascometoseemso problematic, so permeated withthesmell
ofdeath.Whendidmatter as suchbecomeso dead,anditsanimation so ghoul-
ish?Has itbeenalwaysthisway?
Of course,therewouldbe a materialist answerand a spiritualist answerto
thisquestion.Spiritualists mightsaythatitis themechanistic, tech-
scientistic,
nologizedideologyof materialism (and theindustrialization beholdento this
ideology)thathas beenchokingall thelivingspiritoutoftheworld.Material-
istsmightinturnblamethemystifying theological obscurantism ofthespiritu-
alistsforcadaverizing thebodyandmatter, formakingitimpossible toreadany
pulseandappreciate anysignoflifein thematerialworld,theworldof"flesh
andblood,"as Feuerbachonceputit.Clearly,thesearenotpropositions to be
fairlycomparedor easilymediatedandreconciled.In fact,thecontention has
gottenconsiderably morecomplicated overtheyears,becauseneither "theolo-
gians"and"scientists," nor"religionists"and"secularists" fallneatlyintoop-
posingsides,butrather crossoverthematerialism-spiritualism dividein mul-
tiple,confusing ways.
Thereis stilla littleroomforan alternative speculation, a wager,anideatobe
thrown intothefray. Thisspeculation hasanaffinity withwhatmight be described
as dialectical
materialism, or,beforethistermwas coinedin thelatenineteenth
century,whatEngelscalled"Marxistmaterialism" fromthe"vulgar
(as distinct
materialism" of someofhis contemporaries), andwhatwas forMarxsimplya
"newmaterialism." In anyevent,thespeculation willbe inthespiritofMarx.
Ifmateriality was becoming"deadmatter" as modernity progressed,and,as
is oftensaid,we humanswerebecomingincreasingly abstract-
differentiated,
ed, andalienatedfromtherestoftheworld,itwas also in thecourseofthese
changes,as manyhistorians of modernity have observed,that"we" werebe-
comingsolidifiedand disciplinedintosubjectivity, and agency.
individuality,
Atthesametime,therestoftheworldotherthan"us" was becomingprogres-
sivelytheworldof things, and,as Marxwouldpointout,underthespellof a
capitalisteconomycertainthingsneverremained justthingsbutweredestined
to enteran altogether newanddifferent systemofvalueandcirculation-that
is, theybecamecommodities. As a commodity, a thing,dead or alive,leads a
kindofdoublelife:on theonehand,inits"natural," intrinsic
being(use value)
andon theother,in itscapacityas a measureof equivalencyin relationto all
othercommodified things(exchangevalue).As commodities, then,material or

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
262 TOMOKO MASUZAWA

embodiedobjectsareessentially non-subjective,non-human, inertbeingsthat


arenevertheless endowedwitha seemingly mysterious powerto circulateand
substitute, eitheractuallyorvirtually.
Butthispowerappearsmysterious, Marx
wouldargue,onlyinsofaras itsreal natureis hiddenfromourview.For,ac-
cordingtoMarx,theexchangevalueofcommodities is noneotherthantheef-
fectofourmaterial andsocialrelationtotheworldandtoourfellowhumanbe-
ingsthrough theprocessof laborand social intercourse. It is therefore
our
alienationfromour social production undercapitalismthatmaterialbeings-
qua-commodities cometo seematonceinert(dead) andanimated(possessed).
HavingexaminedseveralscenesfromVictorian scienceandculture moreor
less anecdotally, I do notofcourseimaginemyselfto be in a positionto con-
cludedefinitively, forexample,thatitwas capitalism thatrendered materiality
atoncedeadandpossessedwhileturning certainmaterialobjectsintoveritable
fetishes, evenifthatseemsto be just whatMarxdoes suggestwhenhe refers
to thefetishism of commodities. Let me insteadconcludeby observingthat
therewas nothing merely metaphoricalaboutMarx'sappropriation ofthecon-
ceptof fetishism. For,if theproblemof materiality in thenineteenth century
turnsouttobe theproblemofcommodified things,andiftheproblemoffetish
embodiestheproblemofmateriality as such,thenwe havereasonto suspect
thattheuncannyobjectfirstconjuredup in theencounter withAfricanprimi-
tiveswas directly, i.e., non-figuratively,
relevantto theunderstanding of the
everyday mystery ofmoderneconomy.
It is no wonderthatthefetishdiscoursecouldnotbe shed,andthatitcon-
tinuedtohauntthescienceofreligionfordecadeson end.

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

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE GHOST OF FETISHISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 263

lifeandpersonality resembling ourown,notonlyto animalsand plants,butto rocks,


mountains, streams,winds,theheavenlybodies,theearthitself,andeventheheavens.
Fetichism thusresembles Totemism; which,indeed,is Fetichism plus certainpeculiari-
ties.Thesepeculiaritiesare,(1) theappropriation ofa specialFetichtothetribe,(2) its
hereditarytransmission through mothers, and (3) itsconnection withthejus connubii.
Ourownbeliefis thattheaccompaniments ofFetichism havenotbeenwellobserved,
andthatitwillyetbe foundthatin manycases theFetichis theTotem."J.F. McLen-
nan,"The WorshipofAnimalsand Plants,"Fortnightly Review(London),12 (1869),
422-23.
5. W. Robertson Smith,TheReligionsoftheSemites(1889).
6. The firstarticulationoftheanimismtheory seemstohaveoccurred in "TheReli-
gionofSavages"(TheFortnightly Reviews,vol.6, 1866,71-86), anditwas fullyelab-
oratedinPrimitive Culture(1871 and 1873).See below.
7. Cf.,forinstance,FrankByronJevons'sAnIntroduction totheHistoryofReligion
(London:Methuen,1896); Daniel G. Brinton, Religionsof Primitive Peoples (New
York:G. P. Putnam,1897);AlfredC. Haddon,Magic and Fetishism (London:Consta-
ble, 1921);E. Washburn Hopkins,Originand EvolutionofReligion(New Haven:Yale
University Press,1923);WilhelmSchmidt, TheOriginand Growth ofReligion:Facts
and Theories,trans.H. J.Rose (London:Methuen,1935;based on Der Ursprung der
Gottesidee, 1926-1955).
at theperiodin question-roughlyfromthemid-nineteenth
8. In theliterature cen-
turytothe1920sand 1930s-the convention amongscholarswas torefertotheircon-
temporary inhabitantsofthe"uncivilized" partsoftheworldas "savages,"whereasthe
word"primitive" was reserved fortheprehistoric ancestorsofthecivilizedworld,also
called"earlyman."Thesescholarstendedtoaverthattheprimitive andthesavagewere
notthesamething,becausethelatterunderwent a longcourseof history just likethe
civilizedpeoplestoday(thoughthesavage's"history" was generally
considered degen-
erativeor stagnantratherthanevolutionary or progressive),and that,despitethisdif-
ference,thesavageof todaystilloffered muchto teachus about"our"prehistory, be-
cause of some important commonalities theysharewiththeirprimordial ancestors.
Throughout thispaperI conform to thisterminology of thesavageand theprimitive,
whichis at variancewiththecontemporary use oftheseterms.
9. Sometimes thisindiscriminate conflation andexpansionofthedefinition is attrib-
utedtoAugusteComte,Herbert Spencer,E. B. Tylor, AdolfBastian(Der Menschinder
Geschichte: zurBegriindung einerpsychologischen Weltanschauung, Leipzig,1860),or
FrizSchultze(Der Fetischismus, Leipzig,1871;Englishtranslation, Fetishism: A Con-
tributiontoAnthropology and theHistoryofReligion,trans.J.Fitzgerald, New York,
1885),rather thantode Brosses.
10. MelvilleJ.Herskovits, Man and His Works:theScienceofCulturalAnthropolo-
gy(New York:Knopf,1948) 368.
11. FriedrichMax Muller,Lectureson theOriginand GrowthofReligionas Illus-
tratedbytheReligionsofIndia; deliveredin thechapterHouse,Westminster Abbey,in
April,May,and June,1878 (London:Longmans,Green,1879).
12. Thiswas Lang in hisTylorian phase.By thetimehe was advocatingthetheory
ofprimitive monotheism, hisopinionon thismatter seemstohavechangedsignificant-
ly.Cf. GeorgeW. Stocking,Jr.,AfterTylor:BritishSocial Anthropology 1888-195]
(Madison:University ofWisconsinPress,1995),50-63.
13. EugeneComteGobletd'Alviella,Lectureson theOriginandGrowth oftheCon-
ceptionofGodas Illustrated byAnthropology andHistory(London:WilliamsandNor-
gate,1892).
14. Respectivelypublishedas NaturalReligion(1889), PhysicalReligion(1890),

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
264 TOMOKO MASUZAWA

Anthropological Religion(1891),andPsychicalReligion(1892). The natureoftheGif-


fordLectureswas suchthatfourdifferent individuals weretodeliverrespectively a series
oflectures inoneofthefourScottish universities (Edinburgh,Glasgow,Aberdeen, andSt.
Andrews). Intheinaugural year(1888-1889),MullergavehisatGlasgow,whileAndrew
LangdidlikewiseatSt.Andrews underthetitle,TheMakingofReligion.A yearlater,E.
B. Tylorinaugurated theseriesatAberdeen. Cf.Jordan, Comparative Religion,570-71.
15. See note7 above,as well as Gobletd'Alviella,Lectures.I am assumingherea
certainlevelofrespectability onthebasisoftheprestige ofthepublishers, as wellas the
academicappointments heldby theseauthors.Jevonwas a classicaltutorin theUni-
versityofDurham,describedbyEricSharpeas thebestknownEnglish-speaking liber-
al Christian among-the"founding fathers ofcomparative religion"(Sharpe,Compara-
tiveReligion,148-49); Brinton wasprofessor ofAmerican Archaeology andLinguistics
atUniversity ofPennsylvania; Haddon,University LecturerinEthnology atCambridge
University; Hopkins,Professor ofSanskrit andComparative PhilologyatYale Univer-
sity;Schmidt, University ofVienna;Gobletd'Alviella,University ofBrussels.
16. This"conventional wisdom"is intelligently summarized in Handbuchreligion-
swissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe, Bd. II, hrsg.von HubertCancik,Burkhard Gladi-
gow,MatthiasLaubscher(Stuttgart: Kohnhammer, 1990),"Fetisch/Fetischismus, " s.v.
17. As Mullerputit:"Ifyouconsultedanyofthebooksthathavebeenwritten dur-
ingthelasthundred yearsonthehistory ofreligion, youwillfindinmostofthema strik-
ingagreement on at leastonepoint,viz.,thatthelowestfromofwhatcan be calledre-
ligionisfetishism, thatitis impossible toimagineanything lowerthatwouldstilldeserve
thatname,andthattherefore fetishism maysafelybe considered as theverybeginning
ofall religion."Originand Growth ofReligion,53.
18. C. P. Tiele and Daniel G. Brinton respectively gave prominent lectureseriesin
1896and 1897-the former theGifford LecturesatEdinburgh, thelatterthesecondse-
riesofthenewlyestablished AmericanLectureson theHistoryofReligions(delivered
at sevenNortheast Americancities)-and spokefroma viewpoint explicitly assuming
theuniversality ofreligion, in thelanguageofthecommonessenceanditsgreatly var-
ious manifestations "fromthelowestto thehighest." Tiele,ElementsoftheScienceof
Religion,2 vols. (London:Blackwood,1897-1898); Brinton, Religionsof Primitive
Peoples(NewYork:Putnam,1897).A fewdecadeslater,thisuniversalist conception fa-
mouslyculminated inGerardus vanderLeeuw'sPhanomenologie derReligion(Tuibin-
gen,1933),whichwas translated intoEnglishunderthetitle,ReligioninEssenceand
Manifestation (London,1938).
19. I arguethispointmoreextensively in a monograph-length studyunderway, enti-
tledTheInvention ofWorldReligions, orHow theIdea ofEuropeanHegemony cameto
be ExpressedintheLanguageofPluralismand Diversity.
20. Despitethecurrent use ofthissingular/plural todemarcate
distinction thediffer-
entphilosophies involvedin theearlierandthelatergenerations of scholars-theuse
madeandinsisted onbyEliade,Kees Bolle,andothers-nineteenth- andearlytwentieth-
century writersseemto haveusedbothformsindiscriminately. In English,thefollow-
ingdesignations seemto havebeenusedmoreor less interchangeably: history ofreli-
gion,history of religions,scienceof religion,comparative religion,studyof religion,
historicalstudyofreligions(MorrisJastrow), comparative history ofreligions(James
Moffatt). In otherwestern EuropeanlanguagesI havealso encountered: 1'histoiredes
religions,sciences religieuses,scienza delle religioni,Religionswissenschaft, Ver-
gleichendeReligionswissenschaft, Geschichte dervergleichenden Religionsforschung,
allegemeineReligionsgeschichte, and allegemeinekritische Geschichteder Religion,
amongothers.Individualwriters oftenmaketheirown case aboutthedifference be-
tween,forinstance, history ofreligion(s)andcomparative religion, orbetweenhistory
ofreligionand"anthropology" (by whichAndrewLang meantthedifference between

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE GHOST OF FETISHISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 265

thestudyofreligionbased on "historical" cultureswithwritten sources-such as In-


dia-and thatbased on ethnographic studyof savages);butthesedistinctions are not
consistentandtendtobe idiosyncratic.
21. Here,as inmostcontemporary discussionconcerning thenineteenth-century the-
oryoftheoriginofreligion, theword"evolution" is usedina non-technical, rather loose
senseof "development" or "improvement." Sufficeitto saythatthis"popular"notion
ofevolutionis infactcontrary tothenon-teleological thrust oftheDarwiniannotionof
naturalselection,accordingto whichthesurvivalofthefittest is a contingent process
andthetransmutation ofthespeciesitselfis essentially random.
22. AndrewLang,"Fetichism andtheInfinite," in Customand Myth,newed. (Lon-
don:LongmansGreen,1893),212.
23. Muller,Originand Growth ofReligion,116-17; emphasisadded.
24. In an extraordinary seriesof articlespublishedin the1980sentitled "The Prob-
lemoftheFetish,"WilliamPietz,a historian ofreligionwithno connection to theEli-
adeantradition ofHistory ofReligions,hasdocumented thegenealogyofthisproblem/
idea,recovering itsdisjunctive "history"fromthesixteenth century to theEnlighten-
ment("TheProblemoftheFetish,"I, II, andIlla, respectively published inRes9, Spring
1985; 13, Spring1987; and 16, Autumn1988). I derivethesecharacterizations of
fetishism fromhis elucidation. Perhapsthisis as good a place as anyto acknowledge
thenot-easily-calculable extentofmyindebtedness tohismonumental work.
25. We recallthatidolatryand polytheism were interchangeable termsin David
Hume'sNaturalHistory ofReligion(written butpublication suppressed in 1756,posthu-
mouslypublished in 1777).Fora usefulhistorical accountofhow"polytheism"-aterm
invented byPhiloofAlexandria, andrediscovered inthesixteenth century byJeanBod-
in-came to replace"idolatry," see FrancisSchmidt,"Polytheisms: Degeneration or
Progress?" HistoryandAnthropology, vol 2 (1987),9-60.
26. In thenineteenth century thishierarchical dichotomy wasprominently playedout
in theformofa radicaldifferentiation betweenlocal (orethnic)religionsanduniversal
religion(s).For instance,JamesFreemanClarkedifferentiated the"catholic"religion
(Christianity)from"ethnic"religions(all therest)in his widely-read TenGreatReli-
gions:AnEssayinComparative Theology(Boston:Houghton, Mifflin, 1871),andCor-
neliusPetrusTieledrewanimportant distinction between"nationalnomistic" (ornomo-
thetic)religionsand "universalistic" religions(or "worldreligions")in "Religions,"
Encyclopaedia Britannica, s v.,9thed.,1884.Cf.alsoJonathan Z. Smith,"Religion,Re-
ligions,Religious"in MarkC. Taylor,ed.,CriticalTerms forReligiousStudies(Chica-
go: University ofChicagoPress,1998).
27. To be exact,according toComte,theprogressive stagesoffetishism, polytheism,
andmonotheism together constitutethetheological-fictive phaseofevolution, tobe su-
persedednextbythemetaphysical-abstract phase,andfinally bythepositive-scientific.
Cf.AugusteComte,PositivePhilosophy, trans.Harriet Martineau, chapters VII-IX.
28. JohnLubbock,The Originof Civilization and thePrimitive ConditionofMan
(London,1870).
29. WilhelmSchmidt, Originand Growth ofReligion:Factsand Theories,59.
30. All allegedcases of fetishism, Haddonclaims,"whenexamined,showthatthe
worship is paidtoanintangible powerorspirit incorporated insomevisibleform";there-
fore,a fetishis merelya mediating objectbetweentheworshipper andthepower"be-
hindthematerialobject."Magic and Fetishism, 70.
31. AlfredC. Haddon,Magicand Fetishism, 91-92. Haddongoeson to suggestthat
thechoiceofobjectstobe worshipped-andthedegreeofmateriality attached totheob-
ject-may verywelldependon suchfactors as climate:"Thecold,practical, phlegmatic
Northerners worshipwithinbarewalls,whilethefervour of theimaginative Southde-
mandsexpression inanelaborate withrichness
ritual, ofdecoration, warmsofcolour,dim

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
266 TOMOKO MASUZAWA

lightsandsoftmusic.The extraordinary vividimagination andthechildlike capacityfor


'make-believe' ofthenegro,leadhimfurther still;thelivelyfancyoftheWestAfrican de-
mandsa visibleobjecttowhichworship maybe directed. He wishesreallyandsensibly
tobeholdandeventopossesshisgod,so heincorporates himina tangible object.. ." (93).
32. Washburn Hopkins,Originand EvolutionofReligion,11.
33. J.G. Frazer,TheGoldenBough:A Studyin Magic and Religion,abridgededi-
tion(New York:Macmillan,1922),11-12.
34. SigmundFreud,"TotemandTaboo,"TheStandardEditionoftheComplete Psy-
chologicalWorks ofSigmund Freud,trans.JamesStrachey (London:TheHogarth Press,
1955),vol. 13.
35. Primitive Culture:ResearchintotheEarlyHistoryofMankindand theDevelop-
mentofCivilization, 2nded. (London:JohnMurray, 1870),6. Here,Tylor,is relegating
somecontemporaries fromhisownsocietytotherankofthemostsavage:"fornoGreen-
landerorKafirevermixeduphissubjectivity withtheevidenceofhissensesintoa more
hopelessconfusion thanthemodernspiritualist."
36. TheGoldenBough,50.
37. Cf.Lang,"Fetichism andtheInfinite."
38. Muller,Originand Growth ofReligion,93.
39. Muiller, Originand Growth ofReligion,59.
40. Inthatremarkable passage,Max Muiller madevisible,ifonlyinadvertently, a text-
bookcase oftheorientalist ofa phantom
construction other.Forfetishism turnsouttobe
a veritablemirror imageofone'sownpractice, an imageofone'slikenessbutinreverse.
To be sure,a criticalanalysisofthisspecter, generated bytheorientalist compulsion to
playoutthelogic of samenessand difference, does notendwiththisrecognition, but
rather beginswithit.Indeed,so longas theproblemofthefetishis regarded essentially
as an errorin theEuropeanperception, or as a flawin thewestern orderofknowledge,
ourcriticalthinking is boundtobe "self-reflective" onlyina narcissisticsense,boundto
circulate withinthedomainofWestern guiltandfantasy. Instead,thishegemonic repre-
sentation ofEurope'sother, thiscolonialorderofknowledgeoftheWestabouttherest,
mustbe understood andanalyzedas a component in thematerial history ofseveralcen-
turiesof colonialcontact,and notmerelyas a derivative of thishistory
effect or,con-
versely, as an iconof someabstract motivating forcebehindit.As Muiller'sunselfcon-
sciouslycriticalpassageitselftestifies,"fetishism" as a phantom object-as a cultural
hybrid ofa problem, a newbreedofmonster bornof a historical/accidental transmuta-
tion-presentsan obviouspointofdeparture forsuchan analysis.Forthepresent occa-
sion,however, myaimis farmoremodest;I willcontinueto dwellon theVictorian af-
terlifeoffetishism, thatis,thetimewhenfetishism hadalreadybecomea veritable ghost
ofan idea/theory, butstilltroubledlivingtheorists withitsstrange (im)materiality.
41. Englishtranslation in Man a Machineand Man a Plant,trans.RichardA. Wat-
sonandMaya Rybalka(Indianapolis:Hackett,1994),27.
42. Popular Science Monthly(New York). Spencer'sarticleswere publishedin
MarchandDecember,1875.
43. JohnTyndall,AddressDeliveredbeforeThe BritishAssociationAssembledat
Belfast(London:Longmans,Green,1874).
44. JamesMartineau, Religionas Affected byModernMaterialism: AnAddressDe-
liveredinManchester NewCollege,London,at theopeningofitsEighty-Ninth Session,
on Tuesday,October6, 1874 (NewYork:G. P. Putnam,1875).
45. "Editor'sTable,"PopularScienceMonthly (NewYork),November1874,vol.6,
110-12.
46. Paul-Henri Thiry, Barond'Holbach(Mirabeau),TheSystemofNature,or Laws
of theMoral and PhysicalWorld,Englishtrans.H. D. Robinson(New York:Burt
Franklin, 1868;reprinted 1970),24.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE GHOST OF FETISHISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 267

47. "Editor'sTable,"110.As we remember, whileBrunohasbeenmuchhonoredand


givenprideofplace in thehistory ofmaterialism andmodernreligiousthought in line
withthescientific spirit, thingsdidnotturnoutverywell forhimin his owndealings
withtheChristian authorities. He was imprisoned by theInquisition forthelastnine
yearsofhislife,attheendofwhich,intheyear1600,hewasburnt aliveas a condemned
heretic.
48. In additionto thethreeworksjust discussed,thereweresequels.Tyndallre-
spondedto Martineau in thenewprefaceto his Fragments ofScience,whichalso ap-
pearedintheDecember1875issueofPopularScienceMonthly. Martineau's further"re-
joinder"appearedin Contemporary, February,1876.TheeditoroftheMonthly devoted
another columnof"Editor'sTable"toanddiscussed"Martineau's ReplytoTyndall"in
theApril1876issue.As thedebateprogressed, itincreasingly becamea contention over
theterritorialityof"science"and"religion."
49. Today'sthriving industry in thefieldof "scienceandreligion"maybe regarded
as one ofitsoutcomes, thepredominant one on thesideoftheology.
50. "TheReligionofSavages,"Fortnightly Reviewvol.6 (1866),71-86; "OnTraces
oftheEarlyMentalCondition ofMan,"Proceedings, ofGreatBritain,
RoyalInstitution
vol.5 (1867),83-93; "OntheSurvivalofSavageThought inModernCivilization," Pro-
ceedings, RoyalInstitution ofGreatBritain,vol. 5 (1869),522-35; "ThePhilosophy of
ReligionamongtheLowerRaces ofMankind," JournalofEthnological Society(New
Series),vol. 2 (1870),369-79.
51. "TheReligionofSavages,"84.
52. Primitive Culture, I, 426.
53. "TheReligionofSavages,"85.
54. GeorgeW. Stocking,Jr.,"Animismin Theoryand Practice:E. B. Tylor'sUn-
published'Noteson "Spiritualism""' Man (New Series),vol. 5, no. 1 (March1971),
88-104.
55. "Of thetenmediumswithwhomhe had seances,all,withtheexceptionofMrs
Olive,are identifiable in thestandard historiesof thespiritualist
movement. Threeof
themwereamongitsmajorfigures: KateFox,oneofthefounding sisters;DanielHome,
itsmostglamorous publicpersonage;andtheReverendMoses,a country curatewhose
gradualconversion to spiritualism was accomplished justpriortoTylor'sacquaintance
withhim,andwhowas tobecomewhatonehistorian [Arthur ConanDoyle]called"the
bestmodernexponent" of spiritualistviewsin a seriesofarticlesandbookspublished
inthe'70s and'80s.Amongtheparticipants intheseancesareseveralofthemorepromi-
nentofwhatmightbe called"lay"figures ofthemovement...." Stocking, "Animism
inTheoryandPractice,"91-92.
56. In Stocking, "Animism inTheoryandPractice,"92.
57. AlfredRusselWallace,My Life:A Recordof Eventsand Opinions(London:
Chapman& Hall, 1908).
58. GeorgeW. Stocking, Jr.,VictorianAnthropology (New York:FreePress,1987),
96-97. Today,something ofWallace'slifehas beenfancifully memorialized in A. S.
Byatt'srecentnovellas,andina disquietingly beautiful filmbasedon oneofthestories,
Angelsand Insects.Admittedly, referencestoWallaceareeithertangential ormutated,
but"MorphoEugenia"refersto thenaturalist-entomologist aspectofWallace'scareer,
and"TheConjugialAngel"seemsto alludeto hisinterest Bothnovel-
in Spiritualism.
las arepublishedin a singlevolumeunderthetitle,Angelsand Insects(London:Chat-
to& Windus,1992).
59. Cf. PeterPels, "SpiritualFactsand Super-Visions: The 'Conversion'ofAlfred
RusselWallace,"Etnofoor VIII (2), 1995,69-91.
60. Primitive Culture, II, 153.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:27:04 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Вам также может понравиться