Talk:Animism/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Needs attention 2 Animism in USA 3 Bigotry 4 Major deletion 5 Inadequacy 6 Aieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! 7 POV 8 Aha! 9 Making article less anachronistic 10 Differences between animism and religion? 11 RfC 12 Comments from Daniel Quinn on article

Needs attention

Much of the text has been copied directly from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica [1] and reflects the biases of the time (ex. "Red Indian"). I will make some changes, but more are probably needed. Hu 03:14, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

I'd be for starting the article from scratch to purge the Britannica text and then bring it back in by quoting it overtly. -- Christiaan 13:32, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Animism in USA

The presence of the Hmong community in Minneapolis/St Paul affords an occasion to meet persons raised in animism. Many have been attracted to or converted by Christian Churches. The same area is home to some recent Korean immigrants who have no recognizable religious affiliation, often a puzzle to those wondering which church they should be referred to in their new neighborhoods.

Bigotry

Hi, I'd like to try to find a way to keep the essence of the article, but remove the overall sense of civilized superiority that exists in many parts, no doubt as a result of the inclusion of stuff from 'brittanica'. A good example is "Education has brought with it a sense of the great gulf between man and animals; but in the lower stages of culture this distinction is not adequately recognized, if indeed it is recognized at all. The savage attributes to animals the same ideas, the same mental processes as himself, and at the same time vastly greater power and cunning", which reminds me of 1950's documentaries about the quaint nig-nogs in africa and elsewhere.

It seems a bit rude to just start hacking away without talking about it first, hence this posting. I read about NPOV and it sounds a good idea to me.

Andy

Undoubtedly worth doing, have at it, just don't be surprised if not every one of your edits sticks. Also, remember, it's OK to overtly quote the 1911 EB. That's sometimes a good approach when something there is well put, but POV. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:50, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Beh, hack it to bits. Britannica clearly has no worthwhile information on this subject. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 04:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Major deletion

I haven't particularly been involved in this article, so I am commenting only on a process matter: deleting the bulk of an article with an edit comment merely saying, "This greatly improves the article" and with no discussion on the talk page of one's objection to the content of the article at least borders on vandalism. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

It's a revert, actually, by about two months. To the last non-Britannica version. You don't think it's an improvement? ^_^ ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 07:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I haven't really looked closely. I'd be amazed if none of the Britannica material were worth mining; I'd be equally amazed if all of it were worth keeping. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:46, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is, the cultural bias which pervades the article really calls Britannica's credibility into question. How deeply flawed might their article be? Anthropology has developed quite a lot since the early 1900s; which parts of the article are derived from outdated interpretations? How do we know any of it is truthful and accurate? The article appears to contain a lot of information, but can we be certain it is not simply rococo?

Somebody will have to find credible sources which support the statements in the article. When such sources are found, will there be any need for Britannica's ethnocentric decadence? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 08:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1911 Britannica rocks!

Ethnocentric decadence is a pretty cool turn of phrase, BTW. Cheers, Example (talk · contribs) 12:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

^_^ ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 13:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Inadequacy

What support is there for the claims that John Barleycorn, Zaramama, and the other agricultural deities have their origins in animism? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 17:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't think the article claims that, it meerely implies the possibility. Example (talk · contribs) 19:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*nod*

But is it even worth mentioning? You won't find anything about animism in the deities' articles. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 20:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, clearly somebody thought polytheism came from animism. Thats an important idea, regardless of its acuracy. Besides, this portion ads far more value than its claim, it links to helpful articles like John Barleycorn and maize mother. Example (talk · contribs) 20:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The author contradicts himself, though. Pointing to polytheistic deities without any sort of contrast, he undermines the definition given earlier: animism concerns souls and spirituality, not religion. The inclusion of this paragraph blurs that distinction, suggesting the author might not know what he is talking about and probably doesn't care that he disparages animism in placing the focus on polytheism. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 21:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some of the many things I like about 1911 brittanica is that it is rambling, confusing and opinionated. Its our job to utilize our futuristic group editing process to refine these diamonds in the rough ;) The connection between animism and development of polytheism is common in anthropology BTW, altho I can't cite anything or explain it easilly. Example (talk · contribs) 21:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Deletionism is anti-wiki! Please stop hacking out chunks of the article for me to restore. There is clearly not concensus for such massive removals, and besides, information is good, thats why we edit an encyclopedia instead of burning banned books at KKK rallies... I'm not sure why you dislike the 1911 encyclopedia so much, but I am essentially an animist (I believe everything, from our universe to individual cells and quarks is conscious, alive and possessed of a soul) and I think its dandy. So what if it says "savage" alot, and thinks of religion as an evolutionary process. We can modify that into one among many POV's presented, but not by deleting huge chunks of delicious antiquarian info! Please wait for concensus in talk before any major deletions! If you have quality info you'd like to add instead, that would be beautiful. Example (talk · contribs) 19:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, if someone added pages from an 1890 physics textbook (prior to quantum mechanics and relativity) and then someone deleted them because they were no longer valid, would you complain? This text is no longer valid; it was written at a time when research on "animism" was in its infancy and much of the data was simply wrong. Slrubenstein 19:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cite your contridictory evidence. Sociology is not a hard science, and what is trendy today isn't necesarilly true. Cited info stays in the article, editors opinions stay in talk. Example (talk · contribs) 19:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mm.... A lot of the stuff I deleted was just speculation, which the author stated fairly explicitly.

If the phenomena of dreams were, as suggested above, of great importance for the development of animism, the belief, which must originally have been a doctrine of human psychology, cannot have failed to expand speedily into a general philosophy of nature. Not only human beings but animals and objects are seen in dreams and the conclusion would be that they too have souls. The same conclusion may have been reached by another line of argument.

If a regular editor had added all the material about dreams, they would surely be asked to refer to Wikipedia:No original research. Readers' eyes will glaze over as they try to connect the huge, wandering blocks of text in Origins to the rest of the article. I expect by the time they reach the comment about Dante they will already feel inclined to look for a less condescending source of information. (What in the world is the author trying to say?) ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 20:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can we agree to go at this slowly, and step by step? I am starting to wonder if a request for page protection is neccessary... i certainly hope not! :(

Example (talk · contribs) 20:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't want an edit war either; we oughtn't fight over this. I'm fairly animist myself, anyway; I just think the article needs a lot of improvement. While the 1911 Britannica may usually be a valuable source of information, in this case its article is terribly written and extremely biased.

According to Britannica, our beliefs are primitive; the author would consider us so far removed from civilization and science as to be little beyond savages or the animals we certainly must worship. Why are you willing to accept that? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 20:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually he thinks I'm only half stupid, since my beliefs are closely related to Brahminism, and you should see all the positive info I merged into that article from the 1911 Britanica ;). In fact, if I had the honor of talking to this guy, I would dazzle him w explanations of monism (I'm a monist as well) and the Absolute infinte which I assume he would have a good deal of respect for. Who knows. We do know one thing, he had an average turn of the century opinion of early man, indeed he strikes me as very acepting and openminded considering his demographic (turn of last century intellectual). I am fine w toning down the POV, I just don't want anything useful deleted. i am a steadfast inclusionist. Edits are fine, but lets hold back on the samuri sword work, please? Example (talk · contribs) 21:04, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW, animism doesn't imply worshipp of animals or items, only respect, understanding, and perhaps reverence. Actual animal or object worship (animal cult and idolotry respectively) are something different. I only worship the one God whose immanence within us all is our soul, or jiva. See Ātman. Example (talk · contribs) 21:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know; I was making an observation on the author's limited appreciation. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 21:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV

I think we can sum up the 1911 britannica authors POV quite neatly:

1. Savages (indigenous people specifically, early man, and perhaps animists generally) are stupid and backwards.
2. Animism was the first step towards religion, religion being something which evolved from one form to another in steps.

These POV's are just fine, so long as we make it clear that some hold these POV's, and perhaps others do not. I think most of us probably don't agree w the 1st POV, and that most experts do agree w the second. Contridictory opinions are fine as well, so long as they also are clarified as such. Once we get past this POV issue, I think we can begin to focus on things more amiably, like moving portions of the orgins section into new subsections. Cheers, Example (talk · contribs) 22:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I remarked above, often the main way to salvage 1911 Britannica material like this is to quote it overtly, rather than using it as part of the narrative voice of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:44, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea, except that we are using this for the vast bulk of the article. Apparently wikis arn't interested in contributing bluk original content on this subject. Sure would be cool if they did tho, as w most articles. Example (talk · contribs) 22:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But at least read through it and throw away some of it. On my quick read, not a lot of it looked worth having. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:57, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Please take a long read, I've read it maybe 5 times all the way thru, and I feel essentially everything there now is worth having. Example (talk · contribs) 23:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aha!

I decided to look into other encyclopedias, and I discovered something facinating. Tyler was the primary proponent of this term, and in some ways the last person to give it a great deal of use. See [2][3][4].

Tylor published the third edition of Primitive Culture in 1891, confident of having proved the evolution theory as to the origin of our civilization from a savage condition, the savage belief in souls and spirits as the germs of religion, and the continuity of this belief in its progressive forms of development up to Monotheism. Yet the hope was short-lived. More scientific research and severer criticism have deprived this theory of its former wide influence.

(1) The assumption that the lowest savages of to-day give approximately a faithful picture of primitive times is not true. Savages have a past and a long one, even though not recorded. "Nothing in the natural history of man", writes the Duke of Argyll, "can be more certain than that morally and intellectually and physically he can and often does sink from a higher to a lower level". Max Müller assures us that "if there is one thing which a comparative study of religions places in the clearest light, it is the inevitable decay to which every religion is exposed. . . . Whenever we can trace back a religion to its first beginnings, we find it free from many blemishes that affected it in its later states". Even Tylor admits that animism is everywhere found with the worship of a great God. Brinton holds that the resemblance of the savage mind to that of the child is superficial and likens the savage to the uncultivated and ignorant adult among ourselves.

See ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 13:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(2) It is opposed by the Philological and Mythological schools. Thus Max Müller explains much in animism by superstition, a poetical conception of nature, and especially by personification. He says that inanimate objects were conceived as active powers and as such were described as agents by a necessity of language, without, however, predicating life or soul of them; for human language knows at first no agents except human agents. Hence animism was a stage of thought reached slowly, and not by sudden impulses. "What is classed as animism in ancient Aryan mythology", he writes, "is often no more than a poetical conception of nature which enables the poet to address sun, moon, rivers and trees as if they could hear and understand his words." The same truth finds abundant illustration in the Psalms. "Sometimes, however," he adds, "what is called animism is a superstition which, after having recognized agents in sun, moon, rivers and trees, postulates on the strength of analogy the existence of agents or spirits dwelling in other parts of nature also, haunting our houses, bringing misfortunes upon us, though sometimes conferring blessings. These ghosts are often mixed up with the ghosts of the departed and form a large chapter in the history of ancient superstition." The ghost, or ancestor, theory received a fatal blow from Lang's "Making of a Religion ", where it is shown that the belief of the most primitive savages is in a High God, Supreme God, and Moral God. Lang thus confutes Tylor's contentions:

• that man could not have possibly started with a belief in a Supreme Being;
• that religion and morality must have separate origins.

Even in China, where ancestor-worship prevails, we find it distinct from the worship of gods, and there is no trace of an ancestor having ever become a god. Again, soul-worship and ancestor-worship are not identical, and with many tribes much attention is paid to conciliating the souls of the dead where ancestor-worship is unknown. Brinton holds the former to be older and more general. The aim is to get rid of the soul, to put it to rest, or send it on its journey to a better land, lest it trouble the survivors. Karl Mullenhöff maintains that folk-lore has no independent value and as a source of mythology is of only secondary importance.

(3) Animism is not the sole and chief source of religion. De la Saussaye says that the belief of the early Teutons consisted only to a small extent of animistic ideas concerning souls and spirits. Prof. F. B. Gummere teaches that in Teutonic mythology animism has not succeeded in annexing nature-mythology. F. B. Jevons holds that the religious idea is no part of animism pure and simple, and to make the personal agents of animism into supernatural agents or divine powers there must be added some idea which is not contained in animism, and that idea is a specifically religious idea, one which is apprehended directly or intuitively by the religious consciousness. E. Mogk, whose inclinations lean to Tylor, is yet constrained by a scientific mind to recognize nature-worship and the great gods as original; and he warns the student of Teutonic mythology that he must not allow himself to be seduced into disregarding the fact that the worship of the God of Heaven is one of the most original elements of the Teutonic belief. De la Saussaye and Pfleiderer hold that the supposition according to which every conception of an object--e. g. tree, sun, moon, clouds, thunder, earth, heaven--as a living being has an animistic character is undemonstrable and improbable. They show from Teutonic mythology that the power and beneficent influence of these objects of nature and their symbolic conception belong to another sphere of ideas and sentiments than that of animism.

(4) Prof. W. Robertson Smith and Prof. Frazer conclusively prove that the animistic religion of fear was neither universal nor primitive. According to Prof. Frazer, the primitive reason of sacrifice was communion with God. Even worship of the dead cannot be entirely explained animistically as the cult of souls. Animistic conceptions may enter into the worship of ancestors and heroes; but other ideas are so essential that they cannot be regarded merely as modifications of soul-worship.

(5) It is not primitive nor specific. Prof. Brinton says, "There is no special form of religious thought which expresses itself as what has been called by Dr. Tylor Animism, i. e. the belief that inanimate objects are animated and possess souls or spirits." This opinion, which in one guise or another is common to all religions and many philosophies, "is merely a secondary phenomenon of the religious sentiment, not a trait characteristic of primitive faiths". De la Saussaye holds that animism is always and everywhere mixed up with religion; it is nowhere the whole of religion.

the above is from the catholic encyclopedia

After my investigations, I now strongly object to any removal or diminishment of outdated ethnocentric POV, rather that should be a focus, since that seems to be the basis of this term. It would appear that Tyler practically (perhaps even literally) invented the term, and thus it is his interpretation of things we should rightly focus on. The 1911 encyclopedia was spot on, as usual! Example (talk · contribs) 01:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Except, of course, its lack of the context you've just given. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:08, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Well, it obviously couldn't have the context given above, this sort of criticism occured after 1911. Before 1911 the idea was criticised primarilly for being overly sympathetic to the "savages", for suggesting they had anything similar to a religion at all ;) Example (talk · contribs) 11:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To make Tyler's POV the focus of this article would be to diminish it to an etymology. An encyclopedia is an encyclopedia because it is comprehensive and etymology is only one aspect of a topic. Because Tyler apparently invented the term doesn't mean he invented that which the term attempts to point at. I think you're right in that we need to pay much attention to the fact that this term has been invented by one culture to describe something in another culture but we also need to make clear the shortcomings of this very process (see Daniel Quinn's comments below). -- Christiaan 14:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I dunno, this quote seems entirely to contradict the idea that animism is a belief held by "savages". It also makes claims about the connections between animism and religion difficult to defend. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 13:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would certainly suggest that the word "savages" does not belong in the article other than in a quotation. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:40, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

I would say it does not belong in the article at all. In modern science, savage is a term of no interest except for historians studying primitive anthropology. The only place where it belongs is in the anthropology article and in savage. Elsewhere it is an offensive and quaintly antiquated notion, a minority view where the vast majority of its proponents are dead. Would we include a quote which refers to a flat Earth in the cosmogony article? (It isn't even worth mentioning in religious cosmology.)

Arguing that it should remain in the article is very similar to an argument one might make about the civil rights article. That issue has a long history; say we go back about 100 years to its homeland — the American South. I'm sure we could find a lot of quotes about African Americans and their backward ideas about equality. Where do those quotes belong? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 08:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Making article less anachronistic

I was surprised to find how anachronistic this article is on animism. It's not what I've come to expect of wikipedia. Author Daniel Quinn has some interesting thoughts on animism which could be used to help to broaden out this article and give more of a NPOV. Check out his FAQ by choosing topic Animism. Here're a couple of his answers to questions that will give you a sense of where he's coming from:

"Animism has no dogma, no set of universally-accepted beliefs. You have to remember that if you were to visit an aboriginal people and ask them about animism, they wouldn't know what you were talking about. My description of animism (like every other description of it) is an abstraction of what I see in the attitudes of Leaver peoples scattered all over the world--peoples who aren't in communication with each other and who generally feel no need for precise theological answers. Although most that I know of are more or less constantly interacting with the spirit world (in a very casual way), I've never encountered any with elaborately developed notions of an afterlife as such."

"The religions of our culture (which your "religious processes" seems to refer to) are the religions of our culture because they support the mythology of our culture ("the world was made for man and man was made to conquer and rule it; there is one right way to live, and we have it; everyone in the world should be made to live the way we do). If this mythology ever disappears, then these religions will disappear as well. The assault on animism is of course being carried out primarily by Christian religionists working among aboriginal peoples, who (as a by-product of their work) bear the message that ours is the one right way to live and everyone should be made to adopt it, thus destroying native cultures wherever they find them. The destruction of these cultures is irreversible, of course; once they're gone, they're gone, just like extinct species. Animism itself is indestructible, at least as I've defined it. Anyone who views the world as a sacred place (and humans as worthy of a place in a sacred place) is an animist."

-- Christiaan 13:05 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Differences between animism and religion?

From article: Animism is commonly described as the most primitive form of religion, but properly speaking it is not a religion at all, for religion implies, at any rate, some form of emotion.

Animism is, of course, a religion in the sense that it is a sum total of answers given to humankinds relationship with the universe, which is religion in its broadest sense. That animism is a religion is also reflected in the fact that it is listed on Religion as such.

continues: Animism is in the first instance an explanation of phenomena rather than an attitude of mind toward the cause of them, a philosophy rather than a religion.

Except philosophy generally asks questions while religion generally answers them. In this sense animism is most certainly a religion.

continues: The term may, however, be conveniently used to describe the early stage of religion in which people endeavour to set up relations between themselves and the unseen powers, conceived as spirits...

Or rather between themselves and the Universe.

-- Christiaan 14:05, 31 Dec 2004

See the two sections prior to this. Animism is neither a religion nor a foundation of modern religions. It is a particular spiritual and philosophical standpoint which is often poorly distinguished from mythology. However, these passages are POV nonsense.

Animism is also not a unique shared belief system. There are many groups of people who hold animistic beliefs, but they do not practice a single religion called Animism. The word animism should not be capitalized. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 14:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the capilisation, yes I think you're right but I copied and pasted that from the article so you might like to fix the article. Regarding animism not being a shared belief system I think you are confusing "shared" with "organised". The very fact that something is shared by animists is the very reason for giving it a name in the first place. That whatever is shared is not organised does not preclude it from being a religion as this is not the definition of religion. -- Christiaan 14:45, 31 Dec 2004

I am afraid you guys are missing the context. Obviously this discussion hinges on how one defines religion (does it involve emotion or not?) When Taylor introduced the term animism, it was in the context of arguments among Western scholars over how to define religion. those who defined religion in terms of emotion (e.g. Marrett) dismissed Taylor, but Taylor was claiming that animism is the origin of religion which proves that religion is not necessarily about emotion. Today most scholars accept that religion may function as a way to express feelings (following Marrett) or may be a way to explain things (following Taylor). I'd say the article needs two parts -- one section on how the concept of animism arose in the late 1800s, providing all the context Sam Spade provides above; and second, a section on how people use animism today. Slrubenstein 19:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I concur totally with Slrubenstein. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:49, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Yep, while other encyclopdias seem to focus on the outdated origins, modern sources (like adherents.com) drop the term "animist" when refering to traditional religions of a certain type. I used to have alot of Hmong neighbors, and while they might mot describe their relgion as "animist", thats how it was described to me in the newspapers, etc... Explaining the history, modern uses, and variety of of POV's regarding the term is what were here to do. That will of course involve adding new content, rather than deleting what we already have ;) Example (talk · contribs) 23:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On how the concept arose in the late 1800s and on how people use animism today seems only to cover and very small part of the topic. It seems to me there needs to be another section that attempts to describe animism as divorced from of our own cultural values, i.e. along the line of Daniel Quinn's thinking. -- Christiaan 10:25, 1 Jan 2005

Attempting to describe things "as divorced from of our own cultural values" sounds like a fools errand to me, but if he has some relevant information, I can't see the downside to asking him to contribute. Cheers, Example (talk · contribs) 12:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I'd like to mention this page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. That or Wikipedia:Peer review — I'm not quite sure which. Mainly to just invite some more people to our discussion; I'm curious what other views there might be. Would anyone object to that? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 09:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I took the liberty of inviting Daniel Quinn to contribute. Christiaan 11:15, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments from Daniel Quinn on article

Although Mr. Quinn declined to contribute to the article itself, he did make the following comment, which he has given me permission to post here:

"Though it is based on better sources than Edward Tylor had at his disposal in 1871, my take on animism (summarized elsewhere on this discussion page) is still just my take. I'm not an authority on animism. All I've done in my own writing is to replace Tylor's definition of animism with my own. I can get away with this because there is no one to challenge me; just as I am not an authority on animism, neither is anyone else. One can become an authority on Methodism, Islam, or Roman Catholicism because the beliefs of Methodists, Muslims, and Roman Catholics are codified--systematized and authoritatively formulated in a definitive manner, which the beliefs of indigenous peoples never are. When I say that 'Anyone who views the world as a sacred place (and humans as worthy of a place in a sacred place) is an animist,' no one can say I'm wrong; but it's equally true that no one can say I'm right. So the question becomes, if there is such a thing as an animist worldview, which definition of it makes better sense--seems more credible--Tylor's or Quinn's?

"Personally, it seems to me a mistake to equate animism with indigenous spirituality in general. The spiritual universe of indigenous peoples includes many elements that have nothing whatever to do with animism (however defined)--shamanism, totemism, spirit worship, fetishism, and so on. If I were doing it, I'd bundle all these things together in the 'Indigenous Peoples' article (along with a discussion of animism) and replace the current article on animism with a cross-reference to this section."

-- Christiaan 00:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I still think there is material, not so much about animists themselves but about anthropogists and their use of the term animism, that better belongs here than in some article about Indigenous Peoples. (I'd also add, that I, personally, dislike the lumping category of "Indigenous Peoples". Again, that seems to me to be an anthropologists category more than a designation for a group of people with an indisputable common thread. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:35, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think that's worth making crystal clear from the beginning of the article. At the moment it reads as if it's the lowdown animism rather than the anthropogists use of the term. Christiaan 12:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both Quinn and Jmabel. "Animism" is not -- for the anthropologists who originally coined the term -- the name of a religion (like "Judaism," "Christianity," "Islam" etc.); it is a heuristic device used to classify a broad range of beliefs and practices found in many different cultures. Anthropologists need such heuristic devices in order to make comparisons or general claims about "human nature" (or in this case "religion"). As Quinn points out, doing this -- coming up with some abstract concept for the purpose of cross-cultural analysis -- necissarily means taking beliefs and practices out of their context, and also over-simplifying variation within any one culture. Clearly, anthropologists like Taylor thought they had good reasons for doing this -- they thought it would give them genuine insight into the nature of religion and the evolution of culture, and help Westerners understand non-Western religions. In other words, such anthropologists would claim that "animism" can really help them better understand another culture. But some anthropologists disagree. I do think this article can be very clear about "animism" as an analytical category in anthropology; say something about debates within anthropology over "animism" and thus over "religion;" and say something about how animism may help us better to understand non-Western cultures (or even our own -- the WWII myth of the gremlin that kept causing mechanical problems in aircraft is an example of animism). But we have to be careful to make clear that "animism" is not a "thing" in the same sense as apple pie or even Hinduism. Slrubenstein 18:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but that's not to say that animism is not a religion, just that it's not a religion like the major religions of our culture(s). It is a religion in the broad sense that it is a sum total of answers given to humankind's relationship with the universe. To clarify Quinn's POV, another answer on his FAQ:

It's easy to distinguish animism from paganism. Paganism is a farmer's religion ("pagan" means "of the country"). There were no farmers here until about ten thousand years ago. Before that, the religion of humanity was animism (and it still is among tribal peoples). It's not, in fact, a religion in the way most people think of religion. It's based on no "religious" belief. Rather, it embodies a worldview: the world is a sacred place, and humans belong in that sacred place. The religions of our culture (the "major" religions) perceive the world to be a place of illusion and evil--not a sacred place, but rather a place to to be escaped from in order to reach some "better" place that is our true home. At the same time, the religions of our culture perceive humans to be fundamentally flawed, so that if the world were a sacred place, humans wouldn't belong in it. In the view of our culture's religions, humans are miserable creatures living in a miserable place. When people ask me to explain animism, I tell them that if they're really interested, they should read The Story Of B. I wrote that book to explain animism.

-- Christiaan 21:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I disagree -- perhaps you miss my point. I certainly believe that different non-Western peoples like the Utku or !kung have or had their own religions. And anthropologists refer to these as animistic religions in order to classify them. But "animism" is an invention of the Western imagination. What Quinn writes is a fiction as well. Now, these fictions can have valuable uses -- they can make us question our own beliefs, or help open our minds to others' beliefs. But to claim that animism is a "real" religion in any sense is to suppress and damage the beliefs and practices of indigenous people who have been colonized or marginalized by the West. Slrubenstein 20:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm still missing the point maybe, because it seems to me you are contradicting yourself. You say it shouldn't be referred to as religion in any sense and then you explain why it's useful to refer to it as religion. I didn't call it "real" religion. I called it religion. The difference is important, as you imply. Quinn also refers to it as religion ("Before [agriculture], the religion of humanity was animism"). I don't think it would be useful to call animism not a religion (and remove it from Religion for instance). I think it would be useful to refer to it as religion but to qualify this label in the same way that Quinn has (and yourself). Christiaan 01:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not say that it is useful to refer to animism as a religion. I say that scholars of religion use "animism" as a heuristic devise to classify a variety of different religions. Animism is not a religion, period. It is a way that some people in the West talk about a huge number of non-Western beliefs and practices, which may have certain elements in common but are in other respects different. Slrubenstein 17:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes that's why I said you explained why it's useful rather than said it's useful. You've also used the term "animistic religions" yourself. Again, I think it would be useful to refer to it as religion but to qualify this label in the same way as Quinn. I think to say it is not a religion would be misleading in regard to the broad definition of religion. Maybe you could elaborate on what is different about animism and why these differences disqualify it from being referred to as religion. I'm not sure, either, that you've responded to the argument that it's a religion in the sense that it is a sum total of answers given to humankind's relationship with the universe. And I don't know how to respond to "animism is not a religion, period." Christiaan 11:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

People use the word "animist" to classify together different beliefs and practices of different societies. If you take people from two different societies, and ask them if they have the same religion, they will say no. If I then say, "but both of their religions are animistic," it means that the two different religions have something in common that is interesting or important to me. An analogy: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are three monotheistic religions. Monotheism is not a "religion ("period"), it is a kind of religion. The proposition "I am a monotheist" is not comparable to the proposition "I am a Christian." When I say, "I am a monotheist" I am not naming my religion, I am saying that my religion, as yet unnammed, has something in common with some other religions. When I say "I am a Christian," then I am naming my religion. Slrubenstein 22:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Slrubenstein that animism is a category comparable to monotheism rather than to Christianity. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:41, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I apologise, I believe I'm on the same wave length now. You are saying it is not a religion, however you are not denying that animism is religious in nature. Is this correct? Christiaan 14:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not quite -- "animism" is an abstract concept, a word; as such I am not sure it has any "nature." However, you can argue reasonably that it is "religious" in nature in that Taylor, when he first invented the word, was also developing a theory about the evolution of religion. Thus, beliefs and practices that he considered examples of "animism" were -- so he argued -- religions. So yes, you can argue this too. But please donot mistake the English word "animism" for beliefs and practices of thousands of different societies. Take for example the Zulu who, when sneezing, believes he is in close contact with spirits and thus often makes a wish (this is one of Taylor's examples). This is (or so Taylor claims) a real belief that is exemplified by real actions. But is this an example of religion? Taylor says yes it is -- an example of a primitive form of religion he calls animism. Others, however, consider this belief to be an example of "magic" which they do not consider religion. Others say it is a primitive example of science. So there are debates about whether this is religious or not. What do the Zulu think? That is a good question and I do not know. But Taylor uses "animism" to talk about hundreds or thousands of different cases in as many cultures. Some of those cultures may not even have a category "religion." Or they may have a notion of religion, but one that is different from what Taylor calls "animism." So I think it depends. But to figure out on a case by case basis, you have to distinguish between actuall events (including what people say) and our abstract words we use for talking about what other people do. Slrubenstein 18:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)