It is a different matter with society. This is possible only when the individuals and things which compose it are divided into certain groups, that is to say, classified, and when these groups are classified in relation to each other. Society supposes a self-conscious organization which is nothing other than a classification. This organization of society naturally extends itself to the place which this occupies. To avoid all collisions, it is necessary that each particular group have a determined portion of space assigned to it: in other terms, it is necessary that space in general be divided, differentiated, arranged, and that these divisions and arrangements be known to everybody. On the other hand, every summons to a celebration, a hunt or a military expedition implies fixed and established dates, and consequently that a common time is agreed upon, which everybody conceives in the same fashion. Finally, the co-operation of many persons with the same end in view is possible only when they are in agreement as to the relation which exists between this end and the means of attaining it, that is to say, when the same causal relation is admitted by all the co-operators in the enterprise. It is not surprising, therefore, that social time, social space, social classes and causality should be the basis of the corresponding categories, since it is under their social forms that these different relations were first grasped with a certain clarity by the human intellect.
In summing up, then, we must say that society is not at all the illogical or a-logical, incoherent and fantastic being which it has too often been considered. Quite on the contrary, the collective consciousness is the highest form of the psychic life, since it is the consciousness of the consciousnesses. Being placed outside of and above individual and local contingencies, it sees things only in their permanent and essential aspects, which it crystallizes into communicable ideas. At the same time that it sees from above, it sees farther; at every moment of time, it embraces all known reality; that is why it alone can furnish the mind with the moulds which are applicable to the totality of things and which make it possible to think of them. It does not create these moulds artificially; it finds them within itself; it does nothing but become conscious of them. They translate the ways of being which are found in all the stages of reality but which appear in their full clarity only at the summit, because the extreme complexity of the psychic life which passes there necessitates a greater development of consciousness. Attributing social origins to logical thought is not debasing it or diminishing its value or reducing it to nothing more than a system of artificial combinations; on the contrary, it is relating it to a cause which implies it naturally. But this is not saying that the ideas elaborated in this way are at once adequate for their object. If society is something universal in relation to the individual, it is none the less an individuality itself, which has its own personal physiognomy and its idiosyncrasies; it is a particular subject and consequently particularizes whatever it thinks of. Therefore collective representations also contain subjective elements, and these must be progressively rooted out, if we are to approach reality more closely.
But howsoever crude these may have been at the beginning, the fact remains that with them the germ of a new mentality was given, to which the individual could never have raised himself by his own efforts: by them the way was opened to a stable, impersonal and organized thought which then had nothing to do except to develop its nature.
Also, the causes which have determined this development do not seem to be specifically different from those which gave it its initial impulse. If logical thought tends to rid itself more and more of the subjective and personal elements which it still retains from its origin, it is not because extra-social factors have intervened; it is much rather because a social life of a new sort is developing. It is this international life which has already resulted in universalizing religious beliefs. As it extends, the collective horizon enlarges; the society ceases to appear as the only whole, to become a part of a much vaster one, with indetermined frontiers, which is susceptible of advancing indefinitely. Consequently things can no longer be contained in the social moulds according to which they were primitively classified; they must be organized according to principles which are their own, so logical organization differentiates itself from the social organization and becomes autonomous. Really and truly human thought is not a primitive fact; it is the product of history; it is the ideal limit towards which we are constantly approaching, but which in all probability we shall never succeed in reaching.
Thus it is not at all true that between science on the one hand, and morals and religion on the other, there exists that sort of antinomy which has so frequently been admitted, for the two forms of human activity really come from one and the same source. Kant understood this very well, and therefore he made the speculative reason and the practical reason two different aspects of the same faculty. According to him, what makes their unity is the fact that the two are directed towards the universal. Rational thinking is thinking according to the laws which are imposed upon all reasonable beings; acting morally is conducting one's self according to those maxims which can be extended without contradiction to all wills. In other words, science and morals imply that the individual is capable of raising himself above his own peculiar point of view and of living an impersonal life. In fact, it cannot be doubted that this is a trait common to all the higher forms of thought and action. What Kant's system does not explain, however, is the origin of this sort of contradiction which is realized in man. Why is he forced to do violence to himself by leaving his individuality, and, inversely, why is the impersonal law obliged to be dissipated by incarnating itself in individuals? Is it answered that there are two antagonistic worlds in which we participate equally, the world of matter and sense on the one hand, and the world of pure and impersonal reason on the other? That is merely repeating the question in slightly different terms, for what we are trying to find out is why we must lead these two existences at the same time. Why do these two worlds, which seem to contradict each other, not remain outside of each other, and why must they mutually penetrate one another in spite of their antagonism?
The only explanation which has ever been given of this singular necessity is the hypothesis of the Fall, with all the difficulties which it implies, and which need not be repeated here. On the other hand, all mystery disappears the moment that it is recognized that impersonal reason is only another name given to collective thought. For this is possible only through a group of individuals; it supposes them, and in their turn, they suppose it, for they can continue to exist only by grouping themselves together. The kingdom of ends and impersonal truths can realize itself only by the co-operation of particular wills, and the reasons for which these participate in it are the same as those for which they co-operate. In a word, there is something impersonal in us because there is something social in all of us, and since social life embraces at once both representations and practices, this impersonality naturally extends to ideas as well as to acts.
Perhaps some will be surprised to see us connect the most elevated forms of thought with society: the cause appears quite humble, in consideration of the value which we attribute to the effect. Between the world of the senses and appetites on the one hand, and that of reason and morals on the other, the distance is so considerable that the second would seem to have been able to add itself to the first only by a creative act. But attributing to society this preponderating rôle in the genesis of our nature is not denying this creation; for society has a creative power which no other observable being can equal. In fact, all creation, if not a mystical operation which escapes science and knowledge, is the product of a synthesis. Now if the synthesis of particular conceptions which take place in each individual consciousness are already and of themselves productive of novelties, how much more efficacious these vast syntheses of complete consciousnesses which make society must be! A society is the most powerful combination of physical and moral forces of which nature offers us an example. Nowhere else is an equal richness of different materials, carried to such a degree of concentration, to be found. Then it is not surprising that a higher life disengages itself which, by reacting upon the elements of which it is the product, raises them to a higher plane of existence and transforms them.
Thus sociology appears destined to open a new way to the science of man. Up to the present, thinkers were placed before this double alternative: either explain the superior and specific faculties of men by connecting them to the inferior forms of his being, the reason to the senses, or the mind to matter, which is equivalent to denying their uniqueness; or else attach them to some super-experimental reality which was postulated, but whose existence could be established by no observation.
What put them in this difficulty was the fact that the individual passed as being the _finis naturæ_--the ultimate creation of nature; it seemed that there was nothing beyond him, or at least nothing that science could touch. But from the moment when it is recognized that above the individual there is society, and that this is not a nominal being created by reason, but a system of active forces, a new manner of explaining men becomes possible. To conserve his distinctive traits it is no longer necessary to put them outside experience. At least, before going to this last extremity, it would be well to see if that which surpasses the individual, though it is within him, does not come from this super-individual reality which we experience in society. To be sure, it cannot be said at present to what point these explanations may be able to reach, and whether or not they are of a nature to resolve all the problems. But it is equally impossible to mark in advance a limit beyond which they cannot go. What must be done is to try the hypothesis and submit it as methodically as possible to the control of facts. This is what we have tried to do.
_Alcheringa_, or mythical period, 247.
Ambiguity of sacredness, 409 ff.; explanation of, 412 ff.
Animism, as expounded by Tylor and Spencer, 49 ff.; how it explains the origin of the idea of the soul, 50 f.; of spirits, 51 f.; their cult, 52; and the nature-cult, 53 f.; criticism of these theories, 55 ff.; implies that religions are systems of hallucinations, 68; which is its best refutation, 70.
Anthropomorphism, not found among primitives, 67 f.; denied by Spencer, 53 ff., 65; cannot explain totemic view of world, 235, or primitive rites, 406 f.
Art, why principal forms of, have been born in religion, 381; dramatic, in totemic ceremonies, 373, 380; totemic emblems first form of, 127 and n. 4.
_Arungquiltha_, or magic force, in Australia, 197 f.; how it enables us to understand totemic principle, 198.
Asceticism, nature of, 39, 311; based on negative rites, 311; essential element of religious life, 311 f.; religious function of, 314 ff.; sociological import of, 316; implied in the notion of sacredness, 317, its antagonism to the profane, 39 f., 317, and its contagiousness, 318; not dependent upon idea of divine personalities, 321; positive effects of, 312 ff., 386.
Atonement for faults by rites, 385, 405, 408.
Authority, moral, of society, 207 f., 208 n. 4; based on social opinion, 208, 213.
Beliefs, how related to rites, 101, 403; translate social facts, 431, what they seem destined to become, 429 ff.; all contain an element of truth, 438.
Blood, human, sacredness of, 126, 137, 330 f.
Body, essentially profane, 262; explanation of this, 263.
Bull-roarers, definition of, 119.
Categories of the understanding, religious origin of, 9 ff.; social origin of, 10 ff., 439; necessity of, explained, 17 ff.; real function of, 440; only social necessity for, 443; modelled on social forms, 18 ff., 144 ff., 440.
Causality, law of, 362 ff.; first stated in imitative rites, 363; social origin, 363, 367 f., 443; imposed by society, 368; sociological theory of, and classical theories, 368 f., 443; varying statements of, 369 and n. 1.
Charms, magic, explanation of, 356.
Church, essential to religion, 44 ff.
_Churinga_, definition of, 119; eminently sacred character of, 120; due to totemic mark, 122 f.; as religious force, 198 and n. 4.
Civilizing heroes, 283 ff.; common to whole tribe, 284; tribal rites personified, 285; moral rôle of, 285; connecting link between spirits and gods, 290 f.
Clan, characteristics of, 102; basis of simplest social system known, 96, 167; how recruited, 106 f.; totem as name of, 102 f.; symbolized by totem, 206; implied by totemism, 167; basis for classification of natural things, 141 ff.
Classes, logical, religious origin of, 148 ff.; in higher religions, 144; based on social classifications, 141 ff.; collective life basis of, 147 ff., 443.
Communion, alimentary, essential to sacrifice, 337; found in Australia, 334 f., 337, 340; positive effects of, 337 f.
Concept, society's rôle in the genesis of, 432 ff.; not equivalent to general idea, 432; distinguished from sensations, 433; immutability of, 433; universality of, 433; essentially social nature of, 435; coeval with humanity, 438; objective truth of, 437 ff.
Contagiousness of sacredness, 222; at basis of ascetic rites, 318 ff.; not due to associations of ideas, 321, but to the externality of religious forces, 323 f.; at basis of logical classifications, 324 f.
Contradiction, idea of, religious nature of, 38 f.; social nature of, 12 f.; based on social life, 146; origin of, 234 ff.
Contraries, logical, nature of primitive, 235, 238 f.
Cosmology of totemism, 141 ff.; in all religions, 9, 428 ff.
Cult, needed by gods, 345 ff.; moral reasons for, 63, 346, 417 f.; social interpretation of, 347 ff.; real function of, 386; periodical nature of, 63; imitative rites first form of, 387; æsthetic nature of, 382.
Death, insufficiency of, to make a soul into a spirit, 60 f., 398, or give sacredness, 62.
Dreams, as origin of idea of double or soul, 50 f., 58 f., 264; inadequacy of this theory, 56 f.; as suggesting posthumous life, 268.
Ecstasy, in religion, explained, 226 f.
Efficacy, idea of, social origin of, 363 f.
Emblem, totem as, of clan, 206, 219 ff.; psychological need for, 220, 230; creates unity of group, 230; and maintains it, 231; incarnates collective sentiments, 232; why primitives chose theirs in animal or vegetable worlds, 233 f.
Eschatology, Australian, 245, 287.
Evil spirits, 281 ff., 420.
Expiatory rites, 406 ff.
Faith, religious, nature of, 360 f., 430 f.
Family group, based on totemism, 106 n. 2.
Fear, religion not based on, 223 ff., 406.
Fetishism, 175.
Folk-lore, how related to religion, 41, 83 n. 1; related to totemism, 90.
Force, religious, ambiguity of, 222; why outside object in which it resides, 229; as collective force, 221, 229; takes form from society, 336; represents how collective consciousness acts on individuals, 223; idea of, precedes that of scientific force, 203 f., 363; collective force as prototype of physical force, 365. See _Sacred_, _Totemic Principle_.
Formalism, religious, explanation of, 35; first form of legal, 35 f.
Free-will, doctrine of, how explained, 271 f.
Games, born in religion, 381 and n. 1.
Gods, religions without, 30 ff.; in Australia, 285 ff.; immortal, 286; creators, 287; benefactors, 287; connected with initiation rites, 288; international character of, 288, 294 f., 425 ff.; of indigenous origin, 289 f.; developed form of civilizing heroes, 290 f., 295; closely connected with totemic system, 191, 291 f.; first conceived in tribal assemblies, 293; expressions of tribal unity, 294, 426.
Hair, human, sacredness of, 64, 137 f.
Hazing, sociological import of, 313 n. 4.
Ideal, the, in religion, 420 ff.; formation of, a natural and necessary product of collective life, 422.
Idealism, essential, of social and religious worlds, 228, 345, 347.
Imitative Rites, 351 ff.; in Australia, 351 ff.; based on so-called sympathetic magic, 355 ff.; distinguished from charms, 356; reasons for, 357 ff.; material efficacy attributed to, 359; explained by moral efficacy of, 359 f.; first expression of law of causality, 363; original form of cult, 387.
Immortality of soul, idea of, not established for moral purposes, 267; nor to escape annihilation, 267; influence of dreams, 268; but this not enough to account for doctrine, 268; doctrine of, invented to explain origin of souls, 268 f., and expresses the immortality of society, 268 f.; moral value of, an after-thought, 269; doctrine of future judgment in Australia, 245, 287; influence of mourning upon, 402 f.
Individual totem, 157 ff.; relations of, to individual, 158 f.; his _alter ego_, 159; individual, not a species, 160; how related to collective totem, 161; how acquired, 161 ff.; how related to _genius_, 279; origin of, 280 f., 281 n. 1. See _Totemism, Individual_.
Individualism, religious, 157 ff., 172 ff., 179 f.; importance attributed to, by some, 45 ff., 172; how explained, 424 f.
Infinite, conception of, in religion, 74; not equivalent to sacred, 85; the, not characteristic of religion, 25.
Initiation into tribe by religious ceremonies, 39, 384; no special rites for, 385 n. 2.
Interdictions, or taboos, various sorts of, 300 ff.; forms of, in Australia, 302 ff.; of touch, 302; of eating, 303; of seeing, 304; of speech, 305; sexual, 304 and n. 1; of all temporal activity on certain days, 306 f., 334; ideas at the basis of, 308; positive effects of, 309 ff.; implied in notion of sacredness, 317.
_Intichiuma_, 326 ff.; description of among the Australians, 327-336; as elementary form of sacrifice, 336; material efficacy expected of, 331, 333; alimentary communion in, 334 f., 337; imitative elements in, 353; commemorative nature of, 371 f.; used for initiating young men into tribe, 385 and n. 1.
Knowledge, theory of. See _Apriorism_, _Empiricism_, _Sociological_.
Language, importance of, for logical thought, 75 ff., 434; social character of, 434.
Logic, related to religion and society, 234, 237 ff.; basis for, furnished by society, 18 ff., 148, 431 ff.
Magic, based on religious ideas, 42 ff., 361 f., 362 n. 1; distinguished from religion, 43 ff.; hostility of, towards religion, 43; sympathetic, 355 ff.
Majesty, essentially religious nature of idea of, 62, cf. 213.
Man, sacred character of, 134, explained, 221 f.; partakes of nature of totemic animal, 134 ff.; sacred to varying degrees, 138 ff.; double nature of, 263 f., 444 ff.
Mana, of the Melanesians, 194 f. See _Totemic Principle_.
Matrimonial classes, definition of, 109.
Metempsychosis, not found in Australia, 169, cf. 261 f.
Mourning, 390 ff.; nature of, determined by etiquette, 391; especially severe for women, 391 ff., 400 ff.; anger as well as sorrow expressed in, 393; how related to vendetta, 394; not the expression of individual emotions, 397, but a duty imposed by group, 397; classic interpretation of, unsustainable, 398 f.; not connected with ideas of souls or spirits, 398, 401; social interpretation of, 399 ff.
Mystery in religion, 25; idea of, not primitive, 25; absent from many religions, 29.
Myths, essential element of religious life, 82; distinguished from fables, 83 n. 1; as work of art, 82, 101; interpret rites, 101, 130; as a society's representation of man and the world, 375.
_Nanji_, rock or tree, 250 f.
Naturism, as expounded by Max Müller, 73 ff.; seeks to establish religion in reality, 73; teaches that gods are personifications of natural phenomena, 73; distinguishes between religion and mythology, 81; but makes religion a fabric of errors, 79 ff.; cannot account for origin of sacredness, 84 ff.
Negative rites, nature of, in Australia, 302 ff.; see also _Interdictions_; positive effects of, 309 ff.; as preparation for positive rites, 310 f.; basis of asceticism, 311; in mourning, 390.
Oblations, essential to sacrifice, 341; this denied by Smith, 340 f.; found in Australia, 341 f.; vicious circle implied in, 340 f., explained, 344 ff.; profound reasons for, 344 f.
Origins, definition of, 8 n. 1.
Pantheism, totemic, 153 f.
Part equal to whole, religious principle that, explained, 229; in magic, 229 n. 3; in sacrificial communions, 338.
Personality, idea of, double origin of, 270; impersonal elements in, 271; its alleged autonomy explained, 271; importance of social elements in, 272; represented by individual totem, 280.
Phratry, definition of, 107 ff.; predecessor of clan, 108 and n. 9, 109, 145; as basis for classifications of natural things, 141 ff., 145.
Piacular rites, definition of, 389; distinguished from ascetic rites, 396; based on same needs as positive rites, 399-403; material benefits expected of, 404 f.; as expiation for ritual faults, 405 f.; social function of, 407 f.
_Pitchi_, 334.
Primitives, definition of, 1 n. 1; best studied in Australia, 95; why especially important for us, 3 ff.
Profane, absolute distinction of, from sacred, 38 f.
Recreative elements of religion, 379 ff., 382 f.
Reincarnation of souls, doctrine of, in Australia, 169, 250, 253 f., 256, 265.
Religion, must have a foundation in reality, 2, 70, 225; none are false, 3, 417, 438; real purpose of, 416; eternal elements of, 427 ff.; as source of all civilization, 9, 70, 223, 418 f., 419 n. 1; source of science and philosophy, 9, 203, 238, 325, 362 ff.; so-called conflict of, with science, 416 ff.; speculative functions of, 430; recreative and æsthetic elements of, 379 ff.; as pre-eminent expression of social life, 419 ff.; said to be characterized by supernatural, 24 ff., or by idea of spiritual beings, 29 ff.; not based on fear, 223 ff., but happy confidence, 224; characterized by that which is sacred, 37; distinguished from magic, 42 ff.; none proceeds on any unique principle, 41; importance of primitive, 3 ff.; totemism most elementary form of, 167 f.; definition of, 47.
Representative rites, 370 ff.; value of, for showing real reasons for cult, 371, 378 f.; as dramatic representations, 373, 376 ff., 380; moral purpose of, evident, 375; expect no material benefits, 377 ff.
Respect, inspired by society, 207 f.
Rites, how related to beliefs, 101; totemic principle attached to, 200; social function of, 226; material efficacy attributed to, due to moral efficacy of, 346, 359 f.; moral and social significance of, 370 ff.; reasons for, as given by Australians, 371; as form of dramatic art, 373, 380; æsthetic nature of, 381; interchangeability of, 384 ff.
Sacred, the, characteristic of all that is religious, 37; not characterized by its exalted position, 37, but by its distinction from the profane, 38; superimposed upon its basis, 229; created by society, 206 ff. See _Totemic Principle_; double nature of, 301, 320, 409 ff.
Sacrifice, forms of, in Australia, 327 ff., 336; see _Intichiuma_; theory of Robertson Smith of, 336 ff., 340; alimentary communion essential part of, 337; how this strengthens one's religious nature, 337 f.; sacrilege inherent in, explained, 338 f.; oblations essential to, 341; why gods have need of, 38, 346; social function of, 347 ff.
Science, so-called conflict of, with religion, 416 ff., 430, 445; religious origin of, 9, 203, 238, 325, 362 ff.; supplants religious speculation, 429 ff.; but cannot do so completely, 431; authority of, 208, 431.
Sexual totems, 165 f.
Social life, basis for religious representations, 221, 316, 347; rhythm of, and religion, 219, 349; model for philosophical representations, 18, 19 n. 2, 144 ff.
Society, how forms of, determine character of religion, 94, 196 f., 234; characterized by institutions, 366 n. 1; ideal nature of, 288, 345, 420 ff., 422 f.; not an illogical or a-logical being, 444; how it recasts animal nature into human nature, 66; how it arouses sensations of divine, 206 ff., of dependence, 206 f., of respect, 207, of moral authority, 207 f., of an external moral force, 209, of kindly external forces, 212, of the sacred, 212 ff., 218; stimulating and sustaining action of, 209 ff.; how it gives men their most characteristic attributes, 212; how it exists only through its individual members, 221, 347; how this gives men their sacred character, 221 f.; foundation of religious experience, 418.
Sociological theory of knowledge, 13, 15 ff., 18 ff., 144 ff., 203 f., 234 ff., 269 ff., 321 ff., 362 ff., 431 ff., 439 ff.
Soul, idea of, found in all religions, 240; various representations of, 241 ff.; relation of, to body, 242 ff.; after death, 244 ff.; origin of, according to the Arunta, 247 ff.; reincarnation of, 250, 253 ff., 265; as totemic principle incarnate in the individual, 248 ff., 254 ff., 259 ff.; or parts of totemic divinity, 65, 249; close relations of, with totemic animal, 259 f; sacred character of, 262; notion of, founded in reality, 262 f.; represents the social part of our nature, 262 f.; reality of our double nature, 263 f., 444 ff.; coeval with notion of mana, 266 f.; how a secondary formation, 266; idea of immortality of, explained, 267 ff., see _Immortality_; how related to idea of personality, 269 ff., see _Personality_; distinguished from spirit, 273; form in which human force is represented, 366; social elements of, 366; how employed to explain mourning, 401; origin of idea of, according to animism, 50 f.
Space, category of, religious and social origin of, 11 f., 441 and n. 1.
Spirits, distinguished from souls, 273; from ghosts, 274; related to Roman _genius_, 275; relations of, to things, 275 f.; how derived from idea of soul, 277 f.; objective basis of idea of, 280 f.; spirits of evil, 281 f., 420; animistic theory of origin of, 51 f.
Spiritual beings, as characteristic of religion, 29; absent from many religions, 30, 137, or strictly religious rites, 35; not sufficient to explain religion, 35. See _Soul_, _Spirits_.
Spiritualism, Lang's theory of, as origin of idea of soul, 60 n. 1.
Suffering, religious rôle of, in inferior societies, 312 ff.; believed to give extra strength, 314; how this idea is well founded, 315.
Supernatural, the, as characteristic of religion, 24 ff.; conception of, quite modern, 26; not the essential element of religion, 28.
Sympathetic magic, so-called, at basis of imitative rites, 355 ff.; fundamental principles of, 356; why this term is inexact, 361 f.
Taboo, derivation of word, 300. See _Interdictions_.
Tattooings, totemic, 117, 232.
Time, category of, religious and social origin of, 10 f., 440 f., 441 n. 1.
Totality, concept of, could never be suggested by individual experience, 441; related to concepts of society and divinity, 442 n. 1.
Totem, derivation of word, 103; as name of clan, 102 f.; nature of things serving as, 103 ff.; species, not individuals, 104 f.; how inherited, 106 ff.; of phratries, 107 ff., 112; of matrimonial classes, 109 ff.; as emblem or coat-of-arms of group, 113; religious nature of, 119; relations of, with men and things, 150; sub-totems, 151; individual totems, 157 ff.; symbol of totemic principle of clan, 206; clan inseparable from, 167.
Totemic animals, interdiction against eating by men of that clan, 128 ff.; or by those of other clans of the same phratry, 131 and n. 1; and against killing, 132; less sacred and powerful than totemic emblems, 133; related to men, 134, 139, 259 ff.; sacredness of, due to resemblance to emblem, 222.
Totemic emblem, as collective emblem, 113; sacred character of, 122, 126; conventional nature of, 126 f.; more sacred and powerful than totemic animal, 133; as first form of art, 127 n. 4.
Totemic principle, or Mana, cause of the sacredness of things, 62 ff., 188, 199 f.; totem material representation of, 189, 206; as a force, 190; as source of moral life of clan, 190; compared to totemic god, 189; personified in gods of higher religions, 191, 199, 291 f.; as Wakan, 192 f.; as Orenda, 193 f.; as Mana, 194 f.; ubiquity of, 189, 193, 194; multiformity of, 193; used in magic, 198, 201 f.; attached to rites, words, etc., 200; as representation of clan, 206, 214 ff.; first conceived in the midst of great social effervescence, 218 f.; how it comes to be symbolized by totem, 219 ff.
Totemic system, unity of, 295 f.; work of whole tribe, 154 f., 283, 295.
Totemism, early theoricians of, 88 ff.; Australia as classic land of, 93 f.; importance of American, 96 f.; as most elementary religion, 88, 167; former universality of, unimportant, 95; religious nature of, unquestionable, 167; not animal-worship, 139, 170 f., nor nature-cult, 171 f.; contains all the elements of the religious life, 415; conceptional totemism, inadequacies of, 180 ff.
Tribe, totemic system work of whole, 154 f., 283, 295; unity of, expressed by great gods, 294 f.
Universalism, religious, 294 f.; how explained, 425 ff.
Vendetta, how related to rites of mourning, 394.
_Waninga_, 124.
FOOTNOTES: [1] In the same way, we shall say of these societies that they are primitive, and we shall call the men of these societies primitives. Undoubtedly the expression lacks precision, but that is hardly evitable, and besides, when we have taken pains to fix the meaning, it is not inconvenient.
[2] But that is not equivalent to saying that all luxury is lacking to the primitive cults. On the contrary, we shall see that in every religion there are beliefs and practices which do not aim at strictly utilitarian ends (Bk. III, ch. iv, § 2). This luxury is indispensable to the religious life; it is at its very heart. But it is much more rudimentary in the inferior religions than in the others, so we are better able to determine its reason for existence here.
[3] It is seen that we give a wholly relative sense to this word "origins," just as to the word "primitive." By it we do not mean an absolute beginning, but the most simple social condition that is actually known or that beyond which we cannot go at present. When we speak of the origins or of the commencement of religious history or thought, it is in this sense that our statements should be understood.
[4] We say that time and space are categories because there is no difference between the rôle played by these ideas in the intellectual life and that which falls to the ideas of class or cause (on this point see, Hamelin, _Essai sur les éléments principaux de la représentation_, pp. 63, 76).
[5] See the support given this assertion in Hubert and Mauss, _Mélanges d'Histoire des Religions_ (_Travaux de l'Année Sociologique_), chapter on _La Représentation du Temps dans la Religion_.
[6] Thus we see all the difference which exists between the group of sensations and images which serve to locate us in time, and the category of time. The first are the summary of individual experiences, which are of value only for the person who experienced them. But what the category of time expresses is a time common to the group, a social time, so to speak. In itself it is a veritable social institution. Also, it is peculiar to man; animals have no representations of this sort.
This distinction between the category of time and the corresponding sensations could be made equally well in regard to space or cause. Perhaps this would aid in clearing up certain confusions which are maintained by the controversies of which these questions are the subject. We shall return to this point in the conclusion of the present work (§ 4).