Abstract
The purpose of this research study was to compare the analyses of the anthropologist Edward Tylor’s animist theory of religion in the work of two major scholars of religion. At the beginning of the 20th century, Durkheim refuted Tylor’s classical explanation of the origin of religion, before he would proceed to develop his own sociological explanation. At the turn of the 21st century, from a postcolonial South African location, David Chidester offered a critical analysis of the triple mediation under colonial and imperial conditions that made Tylor’s evolutionary theory possible. By foregrounding definitions, making arguments explicit and comparing these two assessments, the two analyses shed light on each other as well as allowed us to view the issue of animism in a new light. This article concluded by highlighting points that emerged and need continuing attention in the academic study of religion.Contribution: This article, as part of a collection on re-readings of major theorists of religion, offers a comparison of Durkheim and Chidester’s analyses of Tylor’s classical animist theory of religion. By comparison, the analyses shed light on each other and on the theory of animism itself, highlighting critical issues that deserve the continuing focus of students of religion.
Highlights
Reflecting on ways to introduce Durkheim to students, Smith (2005a:1–11) outlined four rules that he followed in his teaching of Durkheim’s theory of religion
Turning to the heart of the animist explanation of the origin of religion, the transformation from the belief in a soul to a cult addressed to ancestral spirits, Durkheim centred his critique on the absolute difference between the sacred and profane as the distinctive feature of religion in his definition of religion
Durkheim found the animist argument invalid that early human beings ascribed life to inanimate things in their own image, as the evidence from aboriginal Australians as well as North American indigenous peoples showed that they imagined their ancestors and themselves in the form of animals rather than projecting their own image onto animals
Summary
Reflecting on ways to introduce Durkheim to students, Smith (2005a:1–11) outlined four rules that he followed in his teaching of Durkheim’s theory of religion. Turning to the heart of the animist explanation of the origin of religion, the transformation from the belief in a soul to a cult addressed to ancestral spirits, Durkheim centred his critique on the absolute difference between the sacred and profane as the distinctive feature of religion in his definition of religion.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have