The Non-religion of the Future: A Sociological StudyGuyau, Jean-Marie
Religion
The Non-religion of the Future: A Sociological Study
Guyau, Jean-Marie
Irreligion and sociology; Religion; Social sciences
[20] Fetichism, M. Réville also says, is logically a later
belief. “A fetich is a vulgar object, possessing no value in
itself, but which a negro preserves, venerates, adores, because
_he believes that it is the dwelling place of a spirit_. And
the choice of the said object is not absolutely arbitrary.
A fetich possesses this very special distinction, that it
is the property of the person who adores it. It is in this
element of individual ownership—ownership by the tribe or
the family—that the difference clearly appears between the
object of a naturist religion, and the fetich, properly so
called. However humble it may be—tree, rock, or rivulet—the
first is independent, is accessible to all, to strangers as
to indigenes, on the sole condition that they conform to the
exigencies of the ritual or the cult. The sun shines for
everybody, the mountain is accessible to all who scale its
sides, the spring refreshes the passer-by, whatever be his
tribe; the very tree which rises in the midst of the desert
asks of the traveller some mark of deference, and does not
trouble itself about his origin. One cannot appropriate a
natural object. It is otherwise with a fetich. Once adopted by
a family, it is in some sort in the service of that family and
has nothing to do with others.” This definition of fetichism is
quite special, and in no wise concerns _primitive fetichism_,
conceived as an ascription of something analogous to the human
will in all inanimate things.
[Sidenote: Children and even animals distinguish between animate and
inanimate.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account