Talk:Animism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

20th October - reversion to older version (of 19th October) due to vandalism on same day (the word SATAN!!! repeated over and over and over again, down the entire page). -- craig.lz (Australia)

Didn't read it through thoroughly, but the idea of "stages of religion" needs to be at least qualified properly, as an idea... It is not an accepted fact (funnily enough it often manages to culminate with Christianity as the final and ultimate "stage of religion"). The Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions says: "to the intellectuals of the 19th century, profoundly affected by Darwin's new biology, animism seemed a key to the so-called primitive mind- human intellect at the earliest knowable stage of cultural evolution. At present this view is considered to be rooted in a prfoundly mistaken premise, as all contemporary cultures and religions reflect a fully evolved human intelligence" That mistaken premise is "progress", from what one assumes to be primitive to what one assumes to be the peak of advancement (Western culture). Tyler's theory in particular has largely been rejected as ethnocentric and conjectural. Also besides the POV check, there are too few sources for this article (as with pretty much all the other religion articles, "comparative religion" in particular.

meta-Problem

There is a problem wiki-wide regarding religious terms which do not refer to organised churches. From Atheism thru maltheism thru Panentheism, animism, Cults, etc... there are problems definining these terms, since their is no organised group which claims them. I'm not sure what the answer is, but they certainly must be treated differently than say Roman Catholicism, or Sikhism, etc..., religions which are both organised and well defined. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 14:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I think that you are quite correct. I also think that the solution is not to attempt to provide a authoritative definition, but rather to adopt the approach of the Oxford Dictionary by giving the usage of the term on historical principles. Banno

There is considerable philosophical reason to doubt the practicality of attempting to give a definitive meaning to any term. But it is a simple thing to state how the use of a word has changed over time. Agnosticism does this fairly well; Atheism does not and suffers as a consequence. Banno

Placing the article in some historical sequence would be a good first step. Banno 21:46, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I very much agree, and think you strike at the heart of what a NPOV article is intended to be, a discussion of various historical facts, and the POV's of expert parties regarding those facts. W some concepts the list of facts is small, and the POV's quite large (a common problem in the Soft sciences ;), but that means we should strive all the harder for neutrality. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 23:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dispute header

I feel the dispute header here is unwarrented, and intend to remove it unless
a) specific needs are outlined, and
b) work is undertaken to resolve such needs.
Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 18:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There does seem to be a dispute though, I think one problem is that the vast majority of animists have no internet and so are unable to comment here. http://www.peoplegroups.org/SearchResults.aspx?PID=Animism&SelTbl=Religion

But I can see that there is a need to include the opinions of 'experts' too, in the interests of providing all points of view. Someone suggested doing it chronologically and this sounds like a good idea, but where would one start with a subject like this?

Animism is the antropologists' and missionaries' catch-all term for uncivilized people's 'beliefs', and few if any civilized experts have managed to set aside their world-view for long enough to even begin to understand what they are told by these people. Perhaps a good place to start then would be to find any things said by primitive people themselves, as near as civilized languages will allow.

We could then point out that originally animism was what all humans probably had, elabourate where possible with references to the less bigoted authors, and where possible to extensive quotes they have provided which give the source, before their interpretations were put in.

Next could come the encounters with civilization, the gross misunderstanding of most experts, the decimation and assimilation into western culture with its attendant mutations into modern third-world animism (though there are still uncontacted animists - and the fact that they are thus referred to is revealing) and the uptake of modern, civilized 'animism' which was based on the writings of those experts rather than any direct living with primitive animists on their own terms.

Not really understanding what the things our experts labelled as animism are is not necessarily an obstacle to an edifying article, so long as this truth is included in the article, and so long as it is made clear that the descriptions of it are necessarily vague. It is no more possible for us as civilized people to really understand what we call animism than it would be for us to understand aliens from Zog.

Anyway I'd better stop here to see if there is any feedback before saying more. I would really like to see a thorough description of our knowledge of this thing, and to get the idea across that it is not a religion, and from what I have heard from the very few I have met, not even a 'belief system'. Those terms come from the original misunderstandings of the people who first wrote about them.

I didn't get involved earlier because I found the interface a bit daunting and I don't want to do something that would appear rude or disruptive. But now I see the article is not getting the attention it deserves, seemingly due to there only being a small number of peole interested.

Andy

I'm interested :) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 03:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with Andy. He suggests that the people who originated the term animism (really, EB Tylor) didn't "really" understand how non-westerner's think. to the extent that this is a valid criticism, it is simply a warning to anyone who writes about anyone else. Andy, Sam, and I can never be entirely confident we are "getting it right." But Andy makes a truly major mistake when he suggests "We could then point out that originally animism was what all humans probably had" -- remember, it was Tylor who coined the term. It's not like there was this real thing out there called "animism" and Tylor came along and interpreted this thing. He invented the very idea of animism. How can Andy suggest that Taylor's interpretations of animism are wrong without also criticizing the very concept of "animism?" In fact, I'd say that Andy is making exactly the same mistakes that Tylor made: first, both assume that isolated non-Western people today (well, for Tylor, in the 19th century) are "primitive" in the sence of "first" or "prior," and represent some "original" human condition, way of life, or belief-system (this is wrong -- so-called primitive people have as much history as we do, and just like us are two million years apart from the first hominids, two hundred thousand years apart from the "original" human beings); second, both assume that all so-called primitive people share the same religion (or if you prefer spiritual beliefs and practices) (this too is wrong -- just as wrong as it would be to claim that all people living in industrial societies have the same religion. Certainly, Muslims and Hindus do not agree about this). The fact is, since Tylor's time anthropologists (ethnographers) have very carefully documented the beliefs (e.g. cosmologies) of non-Western people, and have a very rich understanding -- not of one "primitive" religion, but of thousands of different, complex, cosmologies. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Both of you have interesting opinions, closer to one another than they are to mine. I consider myself an animist (seeing all things, animate, inanimate and etc.. to be alive, conscious, and possessed of a soul), and I happen to think Tylor was brilliant. I'm sure if you were to ask him, he would have had a term, or felt one was worthwhile to describe the religions of industrialized peoples as a whole, but thats conjecture of course. In any case, lets try to keep the anti-tylor, moral relitivist POV to a minimum in the article (the talk page is fair game of course), eh? I understand the word "savages" probably doesn't get alot of use at the universities you all have attended (are attending, will attend, whichever), but I am distinctly of the opinion that summing up similarities of concepts amongst "primitive" religions with a certain term has value. Even if not, its a valid enough encyclopedia topic, eh? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:06, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I am glad you like Tylor -- I didn't mean to say he was an idiot. But there are serious criticisms of him and his theory. I agree that this article should largely be an exposition of his ideas, and of those who followed him. But I also believe that there has to be a section on criticisms -- that is how we maintain NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I doubt you expect disagreement from me on that :) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't. But just to be clear, I do not think that providing a sympathetic view of animism would be negated by including the facts I presented above (contemporary animists are contemporary -- their beliefs and practices probably were not shared by people hundreds of thousands of years ago; contemporary people who were once identified as animists may not really be animists in the sense that you and Tylor share). I am honestly not sure what you mean by "cultural relativist POV" -- these two claims are factual. You can disagree with them if you think there is no empirical evidence to support them -- but these claims do not rely on any theoretical claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with balance and citations. If that is what you have in mind, I won't object. I just don't want the narrative expressing contempt for Tylor or his historical perspective (as has been the case in the past). (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aside

Sam, are you sure that the term you want to describe your own beliefs isn't hylozoism? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:30, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Its related, Jungian Panpsychism even more so, but the term I normally use when describing my beliefs is Pantheism / panentheism. Hylozoism has a bit much emphasis on materialism, and not enough on consciousness and individual volition. Animism itself has an excess of emphasis on ritualism, but:

Animism is the belief that personalized supernatural beings (or souls) inhabit all objects and govern their existence.

Animism (from animus, or anima, mind or soul), originally means the doctrine of spiritual beings, including human souls. It is often extended to include the belief that personalized, supernatural beings (or souls) endowed with reason, intelligence and volition inhabit ordinary objects as well as animate beings, and govern their existence (pantheism or animatism). This can be stated simply as "everything is alive" 'everything is conscious" or "everything has a soul".

is a pretty excellent explanation of my views. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I too describe myself as an animistic pantheist, but I feel there is a serious mistake in how we describe animism, that stems from our Victoria (Tylor's influence again) heritage. Having lived and worked in countries where animism is still the major belief (Papua New Guinea, with Australian Aboroginal people, in Indonesia and Africa) the separation of "soul" from "body", or "matter" from "spirit" is a Greek idea, ultimately derived from Iranian dualismn (i.e. pure soul, corrupt body) that has no place in animism. Thus rather than saying that animism is a belief system that believes that there is a soul in all bodies, even inanimate ones, it would be, I feel, better to say that animists do not accept the separation of body and soul, of spirit from matter. As Val Plumwood is fond of saying, to an animist - all food is souls.

Interested in your and others comments before I amend the article to reflect this point of view.

John D. Croft 14:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote credit

In the section Differences between animism and religion, a Dr. Frazer is mentioned but no link or full name. It would be nice if he was identified better.

Those Native American Romans

From the article: "For some of the Native Americans and First Nations the Roman custom of receiving the breath of a dying man…" Say what? Native Americans seem singularly unlikely to have been practicing a Roman custom. There may be a coincidence of custom, but that's not what the text says as it stands. Since I know nothing about the Native American custom in question, I leave it to someone else to edit. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:56, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

'Human' Souls

Under 'plants' it says "Just as human souls are assigned to animals..." Problem is, it doesn't say that HUMAN souls are assigned to animals, and I think that it is a mischaracterization of animism to indicate that the souls that are believed to inhabit animals, plants and rocks under animism are 'Human'. It may seem like splitting hairs, but I think that this is an important distinction. I think we would be better with 'human-like' souls in this description. Comments? Oh boogers, I am not logged in. ":) --68.239.134.78 02:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with what you said. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

"New animism"

How, exactly, is the "new animism" different from hylozoism? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think its useful to use the terms new animism and old animism. Are they used this way in the literature? It may be more useful to address this in several terms, e.g. to the lay public animism is a sort of proto-religion, the sociological definition is blank, and evolved from blank, blank and blank, etc. Comments?L Hamm 02:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the terms are used this way in the literature and, more importantly, by contemporary communities of self-identified animists (e.g. in Nigeria, the USA, and elsewhere). The theories are about two quite different matters - Tylor's definition of religion (all religion) as unscientific beliefs in non-empirical (i.e. nonexistent) beings versus the "new" approach to a style of religious culture that engages with a community of persons, most of whom are not human. One claims to explain religion, the other to aid discussion of ways of being human. Neither are about "proto-religion": the first is about all religion, the second about specific reliigous traditions or practices. Hylozoism is not the same as a belief in spirits, nor is about knowing how to distinguish persons with whom one might give and receive respect and gifts, but it is more closely synonymous with "panpsychism", the theory that matter is inherently consious in some sense. Hylozoism and panpsychism might be defined as "narrow animisms" (of the "new" kind). At least, that's what I do in my book and website: www.animism.org.uk - Graham Harvey, 4 January 2005.

Citations

"In recent anthropology the concept of animism has had a rather bad press, on account of its liberal use in the past to brand, as primitive superstition, systems of belief which allegedly attribute spirits or souls to things, living or non-living, which to any rational, thinking person are ‘obviously’ mere objects of nature (for a review 4of these usages, see Bird-David 1999: S67— 8). Philippe Descola, however, suggests a way of considering animism that is rather more respectful of indigenous understandings. Animism, he writes, is ‘a kind of objectification of nature [which] endows natural beings not only with human dispositions, granting them the status of persons with human emotions and often the ability to talk, but also with social attributes — a hierarchy of positions, behaviours based on kinship, respect for certain norms of conduct’ (Descola 1992: 6 114). . . Critically, in such a system, relations between persons — that is, social relations — can override the boundaries of humanity as a species. Thus, as Hallowell reports, ‘the world of personal relations in which the Ojibwa live is a world in which vital social relations transcend those which are maintained with human beings’ (OO, p. 43)." from Ingold, Tim. Perception of the Environment : Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London, , GBR: Routledge, 2000. p 106. [1]

This seems to be a reasonable expansion of the definition beyond that provided by EB, to include recent scholarship and contemporary anthropological views of 'animism'.L Hamm 03:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Tim Ingold is respected, as is Descola. It would be worth tracking down an article on this topic by Bird-David in Current Anthropology a few years ago, too ... Slrubenstein | Talk 22:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Bird-David's excellent article is reprinted in Graham Harvey (ed.) 2002. "Readings in Indigenous Religions", Continuum. pp. 72-105.

I'll attempt to find that citation, thank you. L Hamm 16:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The Nurit Bird-David article: "Animism" revisited: Personhood, environment, and relational epistemology. Nurit Bird-David Current Anthropology Feb 1999. p. 40. L Hamm 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment moved from article

The following remark was placed in the article itself; I have moved it here and added a pseudo-sig. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[Begin moved remark]

Actually it's just a side note, but animism starts with a small "a", and not like the so called "world religions" with a capital letter. (Unless, of course, you start a sentence with it or maybe use this word in a headline.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.196.251.200 (talk • contribs) 30 Oct 2005.

[End moved remark]

Childhood Mental Development

Isn't there a stage in childhood mental development where the child regards anything that moves of itself as being alive? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmurray bigpond.com (talk • contribs) 15 Nov 2005.

Ouspensky would certainly have thought so, but I would guess that this is a misuse of terms: I would guess that a child at that stage of development simply does not yet have a concept that corresponds to an adult notion of "alive". -- Jmabel | Talk 03:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Piaget also thought that the stage before concrete operations was "animistic". John D. Croft 14:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition

The lead section of the article (introduction) is unreferenced and doesn't appear to give a precise definition of what animism is. I propose replacing it with the definition here:

"Animism is the belief in personalized, supernatural beings (or souls) that often inhabit ordinary animals and objects, governing their existence."

Any takers? Sofeil 04:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally feel this definition is in error, as it makes a separation which is Europo-centric, about separation of "ordinary" and "extraordinary". Animism lived in a world that was totally extra-ordinary, in which there was no separation between supernatural and natural. The definition is thus falling back into the Victorian views. John D. Croft 14:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I believe this definition is an improvement over the old one. Could it be Eurocentric? Sure, but I don't think any good will come from discussing this to death. I am however open to discussing any alternative definitions as long as they come from reliable sources. Sofeil 17:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edward Burnett Tylor

It seems that the section on Tylor might benefit from including some of the specific observations of the development of his theory: "As he developed his theory of animism, Tylor took an interest in the modern spiritualist movement, fashionable at the time. He even went to London from Somerset for a month to investigate spiritualist seances. In 1869 he argued that "modern spiritualism is a survival and a revival of savage thought"." p. S69 of Nurit Bird-David's article "Animism" Revisited. According to Graham Harvey (Animals, Animists, and Academics in the journal Zygon) "Tylor's theory of the nature of religion was swiftly mischaracterized for a theory of the origins of religion".

Does Tylor ever make reference to el or al as the article currently stands? Unless there is a supporting citation I'd advocate striking that portion from that section. L Hamm 22:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Liver != Omen

"Other familiar conceptions identify the soul with the liver (see omen)"

going to Omen after it is mentioned in reference to the Liver gives no information about the topic. i would strongly suggest removing it, or trying to figure out if there is an alternate page that was supposed to be linked. -Skp2y F thorax 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Pinto?

I don't know why "pinto" is linked as a similar concept - the link simply goes to the disambiguation page for the word "pinto". If it's supposed to link to an actual concept, it should link directly - if not, it's a joke or error and should be deleted. 18:51 3, March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.33.14 (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

In Europe the corn spirit, sometimes immanent in the crop, sometimes a presiding deity whose life does not depend on that of the growing corn, is conceived in some districts in the form of an ox, hare or cock, in others as an old man or woman. In the East Indies and Americas the rice or maize mother is a corresponding figure; in classical Europe and the East we have in Ceres and Demeter, Adonis and Dionysus, and other deities, vegetation gods whose origin we can readily trace back to the rustic corn spirit.

-What? How could Demeter, Andonis, Dionysus, and Ceres correspond to "the rustic corn spirit"? Maize was not introduced to Europe until the late fifteenth century. --??? [Who wrote this comment? I don't see a signature. --Phatius McBluff 18:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)]

At least in Britain, "corn" means cereal grain in general. Some European scholars, such as Sir James Frazer, called gods of the crops, such as Demeter and Dionysus, "corn gods". Only in America does "corn" specifically refer to maize. --Phatius McBluff 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

This page needs to be revised. There are far too many subheadings of little content. 71.82.161.14 06:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I have inserted citaions and references to one of the sections needing them, and deleted the "citations needed" tag. John D. Croft 09:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Souls" vs. "spirits"

I object to the use of "souls" in the lead, when "spirits" is more appropriate. At least both terms could be given. Badagnani 03:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume that you're objecting because we nowadays use "soul" to mean specifically a spirit animating a physical body, whereas "spirit" is more inclusive.

Well, if I remember correctly, "soul" is the traditional English translation of Latin "anima" (the basis of the word "animism"). When Tylor created his theory of "animism", he was using the word "soul" the way most of us use the word "spirit".

However, your suggested change seems relatively uncontroversial. I will change the lead's wording accordingly. --Phatius McBluff 05:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)