elementary forms of relus life by durk 12

The Elementary Forms of Relus Life by e. durk 12, this translation by Karen e. fields and intro 95

“Translator’s Intro: Rel as an Eminently Social Thing”
xvii-durk insists “that rels r founded on and express ‘the rea’” and durk says no rels r “false” and “grounded in the nature of things”’ (xviii) tho even critics since his time said that meant durk’s search for an underlying reality does not rest on a logical basis
xviii-and rel meets ppls’ “needs”; durk says totemism is a “system of collective reprtations”, (xix) w/ which society and indv mentality constitutes itself—these became real for indv—b/c humans r social beings
-rel/symbols helps to connect ppl to non human objects and other ppl (mutal idy)—and it only works for ppl who believe it, “for things exist only thru reprtation”—and humans have a distinct way of knowing
-eg human sociability, and “rel is reason’s first harbor”, the mind is a collective product and science as an offspring of rel via ‘abstract thot’ (xx), and thru the “social treasurey of lang”
xx-def of rel: “above all, a system of ideas by which men imagine the society of which they r members and the obscure yet intimate relations they have w/ it” (see p227); rejected every theory of rel and wouldn’t have survived if hadn’t been grounded in the real
xxii-formes is a classic in socy and anthrogy; xxiii Foucault (see note #25) acknowledges a debt to durk, so then do other pomosts

xxiv-why read calssics? Says “b/c it presents the opportunity to encounter a dazzlingly complex soul whose burden of life animates the work”, like great art it “leaps beyond technical limits of the artist’s discipline…into a felt reality of elemental truth”; and durk was a “hard-nosed” on “positive science”, (xxvi) tho says “the man who has command w/ his god…is stronger” (441)

xxvii-durk comments on e. b. tylor’s idea that many ppl believed in a soul that it was rt and necessary to understand real, unlike st. Augustine who said ppl believed in absurd, tylor said idea of soul was to explain dreams
xxviii-durk criticized tylor asking why humans insist on understanding dreams so fast, when it took them centuries to understand what the sun was; durk says soul is to explain why communities live on after someone’s death, (xxix) the soul stood for the social part of man, picked up only before, fouc 71 (xxx) durk said it thusly also repd a sense of a “spark of the divinity”’ (xxxi) and implies that even science is rel b/c it has same funct—“to make us act and to help us live” (p419), she says durk’s vackground influenced him; (xxxiii)says swain’s translation made things unclear

xxxiv-real def of rel: “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one singe moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them” (p44)—rel is not defined in terms of any unobservable phena, system means it’s “internally ordered”, and its done by community

xxxv-breaking down the famous line: “Is it not that the god and the society r one and the same”” (p288)—which many have taken to mean god=society, (xxxvi) but no. Durk thot belief in rel is fundamntl for society, not god
xxxvii-belief in what’s real and stuff beyond reality and even science needs that, too (xxxviii) but rites r more important (social) b/c rel, just on faith would die w/ doubt, (xxxix) and any form of rel is still rel, tho he ?s it; criticized for seeing the Australians as “tradl” (evory), he didn’t think that, it appears like that cuz he used them as a “simple” example
*xli-Durk: ppl exprc a force that is greater than them (mana), and that it is also in an object—they start to think that, soon, the object starts to remind them of that feeling, and ritual renews that feeling in the object b/c it always fades (xlii), ; what this exprc is is of xsociety’s “pulling itself together”, it’s a real power, felt by indv and “collective conscience”—durk says all ppl exprc this

xiv-sacredness is not an inherent quality, (xlvi) “it is a quality that objects axquire when they r, in the phrase from durk’s def, ‘set apart and forbidden’”, and if its thot of as real, it is
xvii-“The truth of the mind is in the fictions that, via conscience collective, construct the real”’ so (xlix) many “nonrelus” domains could b called relus
-and after man not trad social force, he noticed forces in nature, then incorpd nature, then started to imitate it—science and morality relate as ppl try to mold interaction based off nature
*li-and unfortunately this means monstrosities commited by ppl r not aberrations but normal and “socially responsible”
1-says he’s studying most primitive and simple rel—tho not #1 says it’s a vague term, but it can be helpful if used carefully; uses it b/c it appears no other rel has preceded it in that society
-ed. Notes durk’s use of “positive science” refers to comte (1798-1857) who saw it also as “empirical”, it’s the progression from theology to metaphysics to sicence
-durk says diffc btwn history/ethnoy to sociology is that they simply become “acquinted w/ bygone civilizations”, socy’s “purpose above all is to explain present reality that is near to us and thus capable of affecting our ideas and actions…that reality is man” and studies “archaic rel…b/c it seems better suited than any other to help us comprehend the relus nature of man, that is, to reveal a fundamntl permanent aspect of humanity”
-says most ppl think rels have unequal value
2-a “fund postulate of socy [is] that a human instittn could not rest upon error and falsehood. If it did, it could not endure”, they r “grounded in the nature of things” so those who c rel as false must b mistaken
-they dislike rel b/c its myths seem impossible, “But we must know how to reach beneath the symbol to grasp the reality it reps and that gives the symbol its true meaning”
-so ppl may b mistaken in how they justify their beliefs, but “there r no rels that r false”—“All fulfil given conditions of human exprc, tho in diff ways”---and all rels “r equally relus”
3-all rels “fulfill the same needs, play the same role, and proceed from the same causes”

-believes in evory theory and Australian reps a primitive rel that became more complex [tho not more relus], looks at history to explain dvlpmnt
-based on “Cartesian” method of linking historical and observable idea together to get scientific truth, all directed by an unproven hypothesis—“even the most specialized scholars must” do this
4-says understanding rel has always been a prob for philsophs and they ususly just take their idea and use examples to prove it, but he says look at similarities outward, then figure out deeper ones, that all symbols and rituals serve same funct, but rels r too complex and diverse to simply observe commonalities (5) but “lower societies” r not as complex, not as many power struggles, division of labor, classes
6-it was by studying primitives that ethnographer bachofen (mid 19th ce) proved that not all societies have male head of house; and idea of divinity was provent not to b ubiquitous (eg australisans)
-“ethnogy has often brot about the most fertile revs in the various braches of study” despite it not being respected by historians
7-so he is looking at the origins of rel—tho not in its historical sense, “there is nothing scientific about the ?, and it resolutely must b set aside. There is no radical instant when rel began to exist…Like every other human instittn, rel begins nowhere. So all speculation in this genre r rtly discredited; they can consist of only subjective and arbitrary constructions w/out checks of any sort” [geertz expands on this]
*-durk instead looks at “the ever-present causes on which the most basic forms of relus thot and practice depend”—and thses “r more easily observable” in less complex societies
-note #3 says when durk says origin of primitive he uses those in “an entirely relative sense”—not an “absolute” evory idea

8-“It has long been known that the first systems of reprtations that man made fo the world and himself were of relus origin”, all rels have “both a cosmology and a speculation about the divine”—sicence and philosophy came from them

9-arist’s cats of thot r found in austrailans rel—proving these ideas came from rel—(10) b/c they r social ideas—need to relate things w/ other ppl, time and space have relus significance
12-also conceptions of “genus, force, personality, and efficacy”
15-since for the indv the sensing of objects is subjective, the social/rel brings them together to form reality (16) so when an indvthinks and acts, he transcends himself—b/c in talking or thingking about things, consensus is necessary—*and if this is left up to free choice of indv, society would dissolve—that’s societiy’s pull to conformity, judgment
17-and thse r more than “just symbols”, they r very close to what the reality is, the symbols “closely follows nature”—(18) the concepts r not completely subjective, he says this combines apriorism and empriricism [bu doesn’t this reject empriricsm really?]
23-says the idea that rel is belief in supernat/ mystery/ incomprehensible (h. spencer, m. muller) is wrong b/c its not in all rels and primitives didn’t think rel was stuff beyond reason—even tho to uis it would b
24-not even belief in spuernat bodies that force things in universe is gainst apriori reason, tho it’s not directly supported by sicence; “universal determinism” is a new idea (laws of all nature)
25-u can c examples when looking, socieal sciences—only a few ppl believe society is guided by laws—common undertandigns of society r oversimplifications, like primitieve resl
-agrees w/ Jevons 1896
27-another common way to describe rel is belief in divinities; “spiritual beings”=”unconscious subjects that have capacities superior or to those of ordinary men” (see tylor, revile, frazer, brueses)
28-but many rels where spiritual beings r absent or play only small role (eg bud, cf burnof, barth , bilderberg?); (31) also Jainism; (32) and their rites void of idea of god in deistic rels)
32-eg dietary restrictions, (33) and relus formalism done for its own sake

-“rel is a whole composed of parts—a more or less complex system of myths, dogmas, rites, and ceremonies…Since a whoel can b defined only in relationship to the parts that compromise it, a better method is to try to characterize the elementary phena from which any rel reulsts, and then characterize the sytem produced by their union”
34-says folklores aren’t rel—but “jumbled survivals”

-2 basic cats of relus phena: beliefs and rites
-what distinguishes rites from moral practices is it addresses a diff object (which is defined by belief)
-“all known relus beliefs” “presuppose a classification of 2 distinct things”: sacred and profane, (35) even Bud (4 noble truths); its not necessarily based on hierarchy b/c sometimes gods r treased as =s

39-magic is rel that is more in pursuit of utilitarian ends, myths and beliefs less well dvlpd—what distinguishes them:
41-“Relus beliefs proper…[r] indvlly accepted by all members of that grp, but they also belong to the group and unify it. The indvs who comprise the grp feel joined to one another by the fact of common faith. A society whose members r united b/c they imagine the sacred world and its realtions w/ the profane world in the same way, and b/c they translate this common reprtation into identical practices, is what is called a Church. In history we do not find rel w/out Church”, churches can b many sizes and b governed or not, “But wherever we observe relus life, it has a definitive grp as its basis” (he includes ‘private cults” like a fam or corp)—and says these r more “like chapels to the society’s larger church”
42-magic, otoh, “do not bind men who believe in them to one antoehr and unite them into the same grp, living the same life. There is no church of magic.” No ties comparable to rel’s, just clients. “The official and public character w/ which the magician is sometimes invested makes no diffc”, and magic grps “r not at all indespensible for the functng of jagic”, rare, while “rel is inseperable from the idea of Church”—rels have a “moral community”, magic doesn’t
43-and as for ppl who chose their own gods w/in a relus trad, durk says they r still w/in church—tho h. spencer 1896 and a. Sabatier 1897 predicted these indv rels would b how rel is all practiced in the future
44-and as for “present-day”, “entirely interior and subjective” rel “freely constructed by ea one of us”—thi is “of uncertain possibilities”, not “real, accomplished facts”’ tho *“It is possible that this relus indvlsm is destined to become fact” but to understand we must understand first “what rel is”
44- def of rel: “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one singe moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them”
45-says even primitive rels r complex “…that it has seembed impossible to regard them as anything but a product of a rather long evo”
-so scholars have tried to find shared elements to all rels and have came upt w/ 2 contrary sols “natureism” and “animism” (worship of spirits)—they ea say the other derived from them

46-tylor came up w/ animism in primitive culture 1871, h. spencer adopted it in principles of socgy 1886, (51) but not enough rels believe it to be real, (52) tho tylor was first to apply history to idea of soul, philosophiers had taken it for granted before, (53) tho that the dream state is necessarily antoher soul is not apriori; (59) and if u say that rels just got more complex since its primitieve version, then all low societies would have grp worship as predominant; (68) animists r primarily anthros/ethnos—and animism does not really express reality

69-ppl started seeing similarities in indo-euprn myths and started looking for origins, esp in the Vedas (m. muller 1856, a. Kuhn 1850J, (70) muller believes in the empiricist adage that there is nothing in the mind which was not first in the senses—and they r firstly nat phena, (71) gods were named after them, (72) and b/c nature feels so infinite and powerful man feels completely dominated by it
72-when man tried to describe this exprc he put them into words, (74) but worlds r very bague (and actions resemble human action, cuz that’s all he can relate it to eg “wind pushes”) and this metaphor was (mis)taken literally
76-m. muller thot similar rel spread w/ indo erupn lang (wrds), tho others said there have been borrowings everywhere
77-durk says that b/c naturism said ppl said ppl wanted theories of nature, tests of these theories would have proved otehrwaise and ended rel
-errors can only perpetuate unless it “proves to b practically ture” –good enough—or “clever ticks prevented [ppl] from noticing that it did not give them what they expected of it”, (78) and if that’s the case, that’s like like a simplistic 18th ce explanation (rel is delirium, wrong); for muller lang and thot r inseparable
79-muller also distinguished btwn myth and rel—rel only dealt w/ morality, everything else is myth, but then, durk says, u must also subtract rts from rel b/c they r mostly to embodied dieties, and it wouldn’t then explain cults (80) so durk warns against “differentiating among relus beliefs”’ (81) durk also criticizes idea that primitives “marvels” at nature, calling it divine—he says that’s a mod idea put on them, (82) and that primitives saw nature infinite a distinct from profane; (83) beises, man feels he has control over nature (rites do that),a dn he says his study discproves the primacy of cosmic divinities—says the first were actually of plants and animals

85-word “totemism” first appeared late 18th ce on nat amers, then mclennan applied it to all humanity 1870, and others had noted its linked w/ social org
86-robertson smith then explained it thoroughly that humans saw animals as same
91-frater ? made a compendium of totems—throughout world and ages, following the “aim” of anthrogy, “not 2 situate rels in the social milieu of which they r apart”
-notes that even tho both he and anthrogy r looking for smthing universal to man, they c rel “as an innate given”, he sees it as “a product of social causes” and social history is therefore necessary
92-and so even when things from 2 cultures appear similar, they often have diff import (eg equating primitives and w. democracy, collectivism, monogamy)
-can only compare “the fact we know well”, u must know a society thoroughly, quality over quantity, and at most only compare 1 or 2 places (after thoro research)
99-ritual and beliefs r so closely related that they can’t be truly separate, “Altho in principle derived from the beliefs, the cult nevertheless reacts upon them, and the myth is often molded on the rite”, But “still, they r often of such a diff order that separate study of them is indepensible and sicne it is impossible to understand anything about a rel w/out knowing the ideas on which it rests, we must first beome acquinted w/ those ideas”
-doesn’t look at all details, just “elementary ideas”

100-for Australians, the clan is the grp “that has a dominant place in collective life”, ea person in it feels they r kin, and it bears the name “of a definite species or material things w/ which it thinks it has special relations” (esp kinship relations)—this is the clan’s totem, as well as ea indv member’s—and not 2 clans have same 1, (101) and members can live in diff areas
101-word “totem” comes from ojibway and Algonquin tribe to mean what durk said
102-totems can b named after parts of objects (rare), or (103) mythical ppl (rare), or a cosmic body (rare); (104) sometimes totem is passed thru mother (tho in that case child still lives w/ father’s fam), sometimes fathers all must marry outside clan
104-rarely, a child get neither parent’s totem but that of a mythical ancestor
105-w/in clans, there r no more than 2 phratries (fraterneties)—apparently old clans that have been brot together by new clas; (107) and thse r further broken down into marriage classes
109-there r a lot of clans in a tribe (compared to nat amers who have only a few # of clans in a tribe, but bigger pops for ea), says (110) australian’s clan disorg is due to whites

111-totem is an emblem, every person is reqd to wear it, (112) on housing, weapons (durk relates to eupn feudal lords), (113) burial sites , (115) intentional scarring, hair styles

118-used in relus ceremonies—and they classify things as sacred (eg the churinga)
127-prohibition against eating totemic animal or plant, except for mystical/ritual eating, (128) tho there r exceptions
133-“the images of the totemic being r more sacred than the totemic being itself” b/c they have more restrictions
-a person believes he is also the totemic object—so he is partially sacred—(134) believe he and animal r genealogically related and (135) evolved into man
136-human blood is hold, (137) so is hair
139-the totem and man r seen as relatively equal, not like a god man

141-durk warns of applying eurpn ideas to Australians—eg thinking clans r simply small grps of men w/in tribe, (142) but they really c everything as part of the tribe, like body parts, and certain things belong to ea phratry and ea clan
*145-says this is how all humans first tarted, says the ideas of classification is “modeled on social org”, “It is b/c men formed grps that they were able to grp things”, (146) “The unity of these first logical systems merely reproduces that of society”, tho does not discount indv seeing similar and dissimilar things
147-“But a feeling of similarity is one thing; the notion of kind is another” Kind is a framework, and their “content cannot itself provide the framework in which it is placed”, (148) “The only groupings of that kind w/ which exprc acquints us r those that man form by coming together”; (149) include hierarchy
149-“Neither the panorama of physical nature nor the mechanisms of mental assoc could possibly give us the idea of it. Hierarchy is exlusively a social thing. Only in society do superiors subordinates, and equals exist”—[why not nature, sun?]
151-all things under a totem “Really r of the same flesh”, kin; (152) subtotems/clans can emerge when ppl have friendships or other ties
154-and sicne everything is classified under some totem, everything is somewhat relus; and (155) the toems for nat phena will (as in some societies) become divine personalities
155-and everyone shares the beliefs of diff clasn—as one whole (goes thru rutials to use objects from others’ totems)

158-a person’s name is also his indv totem (160) and he has that animal’s quilities and faults, and destinies r indpndnt—more prohibitions for this animal, (161) and has power to control there and its not a whole species but a special indv one, tho sometimes it’s the spicies, called (162) “indv totemism”—phrase invented by frazer
163-diffc btwn caln and ind totem—indvl does not believe he is descended from it and he tries to prevent others from eating it, and its not hereditary, but deliberate thru rites, and is not always (166)

166-sexual totemism is btwn ind and collective (only in Australia), not in all tribes too, (167) men and women have animals for ea sex which is a protector, (168) sexes live apart

169-says Australian rel is “in all probability the most primitive that has ever existed, for it is insepearable from social org based upon clans, and, futehermore, that clans, in the form they take in a great many Australian societies, could not have come into being w/out the totem”—the dispersion of clansppl
-there has never been a society w/ only 1 clan “yet been found”, and so a society w/ 2 clans is simplest

171-says tylor’s and wilkens examples of groups who totemism as derived from anscetor worship, that their evidence come from ppls that have “a relatively high level of culture”, and “have gone beyond the phase of pure totemism”, they have families, not clans, (170) and they don’t explain why ppl distinguish btwn animals but souls don’t, tylor and wundt c it as animal worship: and (174) jevons’ theory that man sought animals for protection doesn’t explain why clans only have 1 animal

177-if indv totemism came first—others have thot it “but they r totally w/out indv support” (177) (eg used it for protection for indv then others), (181) and if indv totems is the most primitive, then Australians would b doing it most, but it is in fact rare; and indvl totemism presupposes the clan—and 3rd partygrants th ppl their totems—and that totem becomes part of the clan
183-frazer changed his original hypothesis and said totemism started w/ holy geography, where children r born, then later (184) detached from territory by imagining soul travel and gollow their ppl
184-but still, why does man distinguish himself from animal?
185-durk reemphasizes diffc btwn rel and magic is rel’s distinction btwn sacred and profane
186-lang said totemism emerged as easily identifieable names needed to distinguish ea clan; 1872 and like frazer denies totemism is a rel, and were later added to rels

*191-def of totem: “the tangible form in which that intangible substance is repd in the imagination; diffused thru all sorts of disparate beings, that energy alone is the real object of the cult”, (192) it is a force, and has a moral nature (moral obligation for reverence)
193-tho admits has not sure if Australians think of totems in these terms—but idea is “no way beyond the primitive”

194-some believe in an all unifying spirit (durk says this came from totemisms unifying) (eg Sioux wkan—tho it’s not a supreme being, (187) and mana)
195-defends australians’ ability to think in abstracts; (199) but reason why a universal rel didn’t really dvlp in Australia is it needs a large centralized trib

201-says his theory is based “on the grounds that man is at first ruled mainly by his senses and by sensuous repretation”
-says this totemic idea is the basis for “rels of all time”—(200) and mana (and therefore totemism) is used to describe the force that causes things to happen

208-the totem is the symbol of g and society—they r the same; society “undoubtedbly has all that is reqd to arouse the sensations of the divine”
209-like g, “society also fosters in us the sense of perpetual dependence. Precisely b/c society has its own specific nature that is diff from our nature as indvls, it pursues ends that r also specifically its own; but b/c it can achieve those ends only by working thru us, it categorically demands our cooperation. Society reqs us to make ourselves its servants, forgetful of our own intererests…[it imposes rules]. And so, at every instant, we must submit to rules of action and thot that we have neither made nor wanted and that sometimes r contrary to our inclinations and to our most basic instincts”—and we submit out of “genuine respect” for it—this is its “moral influence”—(210) and the fact that this is shared by everyone makes it more dominant that petty thots
210-this is manifested in ppls opinions—giving it authority, and tho science tries to get correct opinion, it can only do so b/c it has authority and that authority is granted by opinion, so if public opinion was against science, “it would run the risk of seeing its credibility erode”
*211-evidence is one gets the same elevated emotion in rel and social situs, (213) social mvmnts; in all actions, b/c they relate to others and therefore society, esp when we feel we have same morality as others, (214) using instittns from previous ppl (rts, tools, knowledge)
214-and since “man is man only b/c he is civilized…he could not escape the sense of mighty causes existing outside him”—man sees it as the force of society and nature; and physical things wouldn’t b as respected w/out seeing this force—that’s the distinction btwn the sacred and profane
*215-and things society feels res its “deepest aspirations as well as the means of fulfilling them” can become sacralized—that’s why pols is so close to rel—even totems (216) like liberty, reason, etc.
216-tho passion may wane as causes end

217-“Since the emotional and passionate faculties of the primitive r not fully subordinated to his reason and will, he easily loses self control” (gives examples of running around, throwing)
216-“Prolly b/c a collective emotion cannot b expressed collectively w/out some order that permits harmony and union of mvmnt, these gestures and cries tend to fall into rhythm and regularity, and from there into song and dance” [problematic]—describing the clan coming together for the corroboree in which they break several taboos
220-these parties r where most Australian relus activity takes place—so durk says this is where “the relus idea seems to have been born”
221-tho admits some rites happen other times
-thinks that moving from such opposite social situs—“utter colorlessness, one of hyper excitement”—was done in order to “realise the exprc” [but y?]
-“It is, in fact, a will-known law that the feelings a thing arouses in us r spontaneously transmitted to the symbol that reps it” says eg black is a sign of mourning and therefore “evokes sad thots”—its b/c both “idea of the thing and the idea of its symbol r closely connected in our mind”
*-and its easier to imagine smthing when its clear than if its complex—that’s why symbols r used; (222) the totem is the flag of the clan
223-the community effervescense, “lifts them up to a higher life”—these “moral pwers” (224) r also the “life-principles of things…that make the plants grow and the animals multiply”—so things (225) that perpetuate moral life (law, morals, fine arts) and those that r useful to material life (nat sciences, industrial techniques)—sprang? From rel, directly or indirectly”

*225-rejects the theory that rel started w/ mans fear of nat forces—says its not proven by facts , totemists c gods as friends and protectors
*-says “jealous and terrible gods” don’t, come later in rel’s evo (226) b/c that’s when societies r harsh and oppressive Leviathans, but in primitive societies, they surrender w/out resistence to society—and rel couldn’t justi from physical nature b/c that doesn’t have idea of something unseen
227-and this force is real, so rel contains “a sense and a reasonableness”; (228) but rel cannot cause delirium—men predisposed to extreme psychological conditions become important ppl for rels—and that’s why liquor is used in rts—what rel brings is simple exciteemtn, but it allows for delusions b/c they think it will expose a true seer
228-then again, everything is a delusion—thinking tha something is something else is what a symbol is—and even (229) tho symbols r “purely ideal, the powers thereby conferred on that object behave as if they were real…b/c social thot, w/ its imperative authority, has a power that indv thot cannot possible have”—230 “peudo-delirium”
*230-“Relus force is none other than the feeling that the collectivity inspires in its members, but projected outside the minds that exprc them, and objectified. to become objectified, it fixes on a thing that thereby becomes sacred…Where relus force become objectified depends entirely upon what circumstances cause the feeling that generates relus ideas to settle here or there…”

231-that an emblem can b a rallying pt for ppl is b/c “By expressing the social unity tangibly, it makes the unit itself more tangible to all”

*-“By themselves, indv consciousnesses r actually closed to one another, and they can communicate only by means of signs in which their inner states come to express themselves”

232-w/out symbols the feelings from social gatherings would fade w/ memory and ppl will revert to indv thots, but a symbol can keept that idea
233-one of the most basic and common symbols is the tattoo-(234) it is “the most direct and expressive means by which the communion of minds can b affirmed”
234-that’s why totems r not of the actual animal—their purpose is to show their community, moral life
*-the clan, of all society forms, lacks the most cohesion, so it needs most emblems to keep it together

235-y r most the emblems animals or plants? 1) b/c they needed an emblem—it had to b smthing they could draw 2) should b smthing ppl were “most closely and habitually in contact”--animals r best, exp b/c of their ecoc import, and they have a more “kindered nature” w/ man than plants, and cosmic things weren’t distinct enough from ea other; *(236) cites research that found that “totemic centers r most often situated near a mountain, spring, or gorge where the animals that serve as the groups totme r found in abundance…”—so they also could of got the totem during assemblies

238-the reason primitives believed that pplplants, animals, etc could b part of ea other (like mythical ppl) was not thru simple observation, but b/c of totemism’s idea that all these things share the same essence (“Nowhere can a collective feeling become conscious of itself w/out fixing upon a tangible object; but by that very fact, it participates in the natureof that object, and vice versa”

239-reasoning (ie that a makes b, and c is related 2 d)—not just that everything is a distinct object) could only been produced by collective thot b/c it “would req a hyperextension of intellectual forces that is possible only in and thru society”
240-criticizes levi-bruhl’s critique of primitive ideas (that saying man is bird, is a violation of rule of law of contradiction) b/c science still does eg light is a vibration of the ether, etc—we still unify things, plus primitives won’t mix totems from dif clans—only diff criteria—(241) so that is the most basic “logical” thot

242-all known rels deal w/ “soul—its origin and destiny”, but its characteristics (244) r indefinite, esp from grp to grp, even in Australia, (249) tho they r genlly all similar
251-for Australians, “the soul is none other than the totemic principle incarnated in ea indv” esp b/c it started at beginning of time and is immortal
257-humans get the soul of ancestor and is also their totem (258)—passed thru reincarnation
266-and like relus ideas and divinities, the “idea of the soul is not w/out reality”—society does indeed enter us, “It arouses in us a whole world of ideas and feelings that express it but at the same time r an integral and permanent permanent part of ourselves”
270-denies the idea that a soul’s immortality stems from man’s own desire for immortality and retribution—says those ideas would b alien to primitives b/c of his self-view of insignificane compared w/ society—but lieks idea of seeing dead in dreams as explanation, and (271) births (their gods couldn’t create souls)

272-says for along time ppl have thot the soul was the source of a personality; (273) of philsophs, leibniz’s monad was the most vivid idea—indvl, autonomous part and these r reflections of the “universal consciousness” that is impersonal to us—similar to kant’s reason (impersonal) that is interpreted by our “will”
-soul doesn’t equal spirit, spirit is mostly tied to an object, not a body; (277) ghost is not a true spirit, less power
281-and research showed that some believed objects got sould b/c they rep the bodies of anscestors who died by them—and the souls chose to stay there (at least part of it)
284-durk makes it a pt. to note that harmful nat events could b explained by primitieves in ways other than by supernatural forces, but the relus principle was their system of explaining things—they r not inferior, (285) harmful spirits r outside normal social totemic, tho their magicians use them
286-altho many rites vary btwn clans, some r same (eg tooth extraction, circumcision, subincision, etc) and these rep universal ideas to a tribe—(287) and similar anscestor who is raised to a higher level, the founders of rites and several tribe even have (288) a supreme god, an (289) eternal being, creater of men, (292) sometimes the same god is recognized by multiple tribes at once
*292-tylor thot this was a xn import, lang thot it was a 2nd tribal rel, an advanced stage—(293) both shown to b false: its indigenous and occurs at same time as spirit worship
294-high god is explained w/ the higher level “civilizing heroes”—who gave arts of civilization—but the god is (297) creator of all (tho they may have characteristics of totemic spirits; its animal and human parts”—and they r only celebrated rites for intitiantion to tribe (where many clans meet), meetings of gods, sometimes the supreme gods are winners of battles btwn clan gods
298-an “internatl mythology”
305-“Every cult has 2 aspects; one negative, the other positive”

-“negative cult” is term to describe rites that prohibit it, sacred and profane beings (or sacred from sacred)” from encroaching on the other” , calls it “taboo” (304), tho says here only means “interdiction”, he only uses it b/c its so pop and to reject it “would b an excess of purism”—and there r punishments for violation tho not in magic
309-profane ppl cant talk to sacred or say their names—(310) smtimes foreign words r used instead, (311) profane activities like eating r prohibited during rts
313-weven time must b separate—holy days or weeks—all rels/societies have them
314-ppl must go thru rites of taboo to b able to interact w/ sacred—asceticism dvlpd (316) from this b/c there r so many things that req rites of prohibitions
319-and ritual pain is similar—and that pain is used to revitalize (320) in many rels is not “unfounded”—man subdues pain to rise above animal instincts—it’s a sign of his touch w/ sacred, social—“b/c he has silenced nature, he is stronger than nature”—and there needs to b extreme examples of these to keep the faith

*321-the reason these prohibitions exist is b/c sacred and profane cannot go together in our minds, they r very diff b/c collective vs. indv interests conflict
322-and b/c sacred things r often not objects, its easy for them to mix w/ profane, so rites r done to prevent this—sacred has “contagiousness”, “mere touch”
326-this still goes on in mod sacred things, (criticizes those who think primitieves do it b/c theyre dumber)—it is b/c (327) relus forces r collective, extend over many objects

330-“positive cult” r rites that draw men closer to the sacred, teach him, protect sacred (331), fertility (333) for land—if don’t work (337) he thinks they’ve just been cancelled out by another hostile clan—these r the foundations for relus (340) sacrifice, giving (341) regenerative food to the spirit to live long and helup us, (342) replenish the social energy, and thru rites (343) the sacrificed thing is made divine—tho admits (344) there is no proof that its inherent in totemism or the seed of all other rels
345-criticizes rob smith’s view that men sacrifice food to gods b/c they view them as kings, durk says they r just giving back what they were given b/c gods r everything and can take anything—gods r esp like an animal)—(346)—so sacrifice has 2 important functs—communion and offering (commune by eating some food)
*351-take away society and culture (“laws, sciences, arts, and moral beliefs”) from ppl and they r just animals—(352) but seeing this does not mean we’re past it b/c society still exists
353-and the rhythm of having rites is need of society—it cannot stay doing rites b/c it needs time to work to survive so constantly has to come back together
-“manifest funct of the cult is initially to regularize the course of nat phena”—nat life helped shaped which rites held eg harvests—tho exact form varies
*354-“The more societies dvlp, the less is their tolerance for interruptions that r too pronounced”

355-other rites “mimic the behavior or traits of the animal whose reproduction is hoped for”—“animetic rites”—based (360) on idea that “like produces like”—imitatic totem will produce it (the animal/object itself)—(363) and primitives thinks it works b/c after doing it they “come away from it with an impression of well-being whose causes they do not see clearly but that is well founded”—esp since the only goal is reproducing animal
364-says this is why mod faithful intellectual arguments against ritual as inadequate—they get the emotion (365 says xn is “superior” b/c he knows that this is a psychic process—salvation by “faith alone”), and even if it doesn’t produce results rt away—they don’t just discard it, like in science they have to have lots of evidence before they change beliefs
366-magic is derived (and detached) from rel, not other way around

367-this is of “direct interest to the theory of knowledge: In effect, it is a concrete statement of the law of causality and, in all likelihood, one of the earliest statements of it to have ever existed” eg in “like produces like”—based on the idea of “force”, the “collected force” (eg man, wakan, the totemic principle, etc) is “objectified and projected into things” and durk insists again (368) that nothing besides the social “can give us the idea of that constraining and determinative influence”…”Nothing [of the sense] can teach us can possibly suggest to us the idea of smthng that is an influence or an efficacy” [I disagree]

*-“Granted, physical forces have the same property, but we cannot have direct consciousness of them…we perceive its effects but not the force itself…[but social forces] we not only know the results of their action but c them in action. The force that isolates the sacred being—hodls the profane ones at a distance is, in reality, not in that being; it lives in the consciousness of the faithful. The? Faithful feel it at the very moment that it acts on their wills to to prohibit certain actions and prescribe others…of course, we do not always interpret that influenc adequately, but we cannot fail to b conscious of it”—and it entails ideas of power, domination and subordination
370-this produces idea of cause and effect and it is taken as a priori “in advance of any proof”
371-b/c social interest is at stake, society can’t leave itself up to “mercy of circumstances” and intervenes –so if u reject “like produces like” u reject society
372-says empriricsm tries to prove cause and effect by using cause and effect—durk shows how it started [but doesn’t connect it w/ genetic evo]
*373-and admits its not “a complete theory of the concept of causality”, it varies from place to place “Therefore, one cannot possibly determine what causes and conditions lie behind it after considering only one of the forms it has taken historically. The views that have just been set forth must be regarded as only indicative; they will have to b tested and fleshed out”—tho since this is a primitive society here, it must have played “an important role in the dvlpmnt of human thot and industry, it constitutes a choice expermnt” as so should be generalize alone? “in some measure”

374-tho the tribesmen don’t say they do these rts for moral reasons, (375) they do say they do it b/c ancestors did it—this is thus revitalizing trad, socity

378-other rites depict mythical history, (379) they r only to “make the clan’s mythical past present in ppls’ minds”

384-these rites r like plays, r often fun for observers (recreation) and make men forget about day-to-day (entertainment)—these are 2 other functs of rts
-and they easily blend into acts of pure recreation plays—so (385) plays and art were born form rel; and some rts serve no purpose toehr than need to act, gesticulate
385-all serve as zones for “free comos” “to refresh a spirit worn down by all that is overburdening in dy-to-day labor”
386-so mythology and poetry r part of rel
390-and rts purposes an change, and several rts can b used for same end

392-for rts of mourning, fear—durk calls them “piacular rites”, from “expiate”, similar to “misfortune”, (394) extreme self-wounds, silence, appearance, (396) can even cause death, (397) and a “kind of anger is mingeled w/ it” , fights of revenge and other beatings
400-mourning is doen also by ppl not too close to deceased, says often u talk to them about smthing else during this, they suddenly turn “cheerful”—ppl r obliged to lament—(403) if don’t’, there r social punishments—(403) says it’s b/c if they were indiff, it would b like saying that he/she “does not hold its rightful place in their hearts…for a fam to tolerate that one of its members should die w/out being mourned would give witness there by that it lacks moral unity and cohesiveness: It abdicates, it renounces its existence”
406-also “When enemies or white men “ see their sacred relus objects eg churingas, (407) bad harvests, drought

412-says rob smith pointed out vagueness of sacred—good and evil spirits r opposites, but neither r profane (413), (414) and can change to both
415-durk says “pure and impure r …2 varieties of the same genus that includes all sacred things”
416-evil spirits still “rep society, but society captured in a very diff positive”—that it has to affirm itself
“Concl”
419-the believer is “stronger” and more confident than nonrelus, and this can’t be accomplished or w/ just ideas (tho most rel sciencests say rites r unimportant), thot only brings out own emotions, (420) action is necessary b/c that is participation w/ social
420-relus beliefs, from “a definite exprc”, “not inferior to that of scientific expermnts, tho it is diff”, “it by no means follows that the reality which grounds? It should conform objectively w/ the idea the believers hav of it” –proof is the infinitely diff views of reality
421-b/c “society is above all an active cooperation”—so the action dominates relus life
-“nearly all the great social instittns were born in rel”…”b/c the idea of society is the soul of rel”

424-“Collective life awakens relus thot”: “effervescence,” “vital energies become hyperexcited, the passions more intense, the sensations more powerful”, man feels “somhow transformed and in consequence transforms his surroundings” and to account for this he imputes to the things nearby w/ “exception powers and virtues that the objects of ordinary exprc do not possess”—“ideal conceptions”—and we refer to that object during everyday life (425), *and sometime society doesn’t know which way to go--”conflict breaks out”
425-this “faculty” is “a condition of his existence” –w/out it, he would not b social, a man—and then collective ideas r indvlzd
*426-so this creates all sorts of feelings, ideas, laws, etc that “mutually attract one antoehr, repel one another, fuse todether, subdivide and proliferate”—none is “directly commanded and necessitated by the state of the underlying reality”—even somte things happen w/ no purpose other than pleasure or self affirmation
427-indv cults r just like totemism; but cannot b sustained alone
*428-prdicts that the more important intl grouping become, the more a “universalistic tendency could dvlp and the pt. of affecting not only the highest (429) ideas of the relus system but also the very principles on which it rests”

-“there is something eternal in rel that is destined to outlive the succession of particular symbols in which relus thot has clothed itself
-all societies renew themselves in ceremonies, evne if ty aren’t called same thing
-“If today we have some difficulty imagining what the feasts and ceremonies of the futre will b, it is b/c we are going thru a period fo transition and moral mediocrity”, old ways lost their power b/c they r common sustom, or we’ve forgotten them, or “they no longer syuit our aspirations”, and xnty seems to leave too much room for unjest inequalities. (and comte was trying to bring them back) but it won’t b “artificially revied. It is life in itself, and not a dead past, that can produce a living cult”
- “But that state of uncertainty and confused anxiety cannot last forever. A day will come when our societies once again will know hours of creative effervescence during which new ideasl will again spring forth and new formulas emerge to guide humanity for a time” and there (430) will b celebrations, revivals (eg fr rev)

430-“Never, perhaps, has the contrast btwn reason and faith been so pronounced” than now
431-but rel and science have same goals: “scientific thot is only a more perfected form of relus thot. Hence it seems nat that rel should lose ground as science becomes better at performing its task”—tho this is seen as profanation by some
*432-this is the real conflict—but “pple often have a mistaken idea of it”, they say science denies rel, but it cant deny reality; and sicence can’t really replace rel b/c it can’t offer a substitute “means of making men live”—science “does not create life”, “rel seems destined to transform itself rather than disappear” and rel must always be justified for men—and sicence can do this

434-sense perceptions r elusive and so we also can’t know what others sense, (436) but w/ so many ppl thinking about the same thing there becomes a “type” of thot or action—from the collectivity (eg most words talk about stuff we never expercd and who knows all the wrds and their meaning in his lang?)
-so concepts r collective rertations—and they relect what a society thinks about it eg if its vague
437-so when indv tries to use a concept, he uses it w/ one particular meaning while someone else might use it w/ another
-logical thot is “when man has managed to go beyond the fleeting reprtations he owes to sense exprc and in the end to conceive a whole world of stable ideas, the common ground of intelligences”—it is impersonal—(438) grks were first sonscious of it, in formulas, others had known vaguely; (439) and things wouldn’t b collective if they didn’t think they were true
*439-msot concepts today still come from exprc—not scnece, but they genlly agree w/ “the nature of things” they refer to, and gives confidence b/c it can b tested methodically—and this is what our faith is in, “not essentially diff to relus faith”, but in the end (440) science rests on opinion
440-theory, “logical thot has always existed”, tho it does evolve

441-and the ideas thots describe r social creations eg genus, causality, time, space, (442) totality—and that necessritly reqs collective thot b/c I know mine and his sense exprcs r diff—so (445) we depend on others for ideas, logic
444-and we don’t’ need this to survive by ourselves b/c even animals can c one thing resembles another
-and society in natlly n groups, so our concepts r too
446-objectivity was created by intlsm—communicating w/ others—and this thot then no longer coordinates w/ social structure and becomes detached
-kant understood science and rel came from same, but kant couldn’t explain why man must limit/hurt/”do violence” himself to “transcend his indv nature”
447-the answer is that “impersonal reason is but collective thot by antoehr name”—b/c “there is somtng impersonal in us”—the social

*448-“…it cannot b said at this moment how far these explanations can b extended and if they can lay every prob to rest…What must b done is to try out the hypothesis and test it against the facts as methodically as possible”