Abbildungen der Seite


in a way that, to my mind, provides an excellent programme for future research. It is true that considerations of relevancy make him limit his attention to one, and that the simplest, case of the diffusion of culture, namely, where the representatives of different cultures not only come into direct contact, but actually combine to form one society. How, then, may we classify the general

. conditions governing culture-contact in this special but highly typical case ?

First, there are the various geographical conditions that may be summed up under the heads of route and habitat. It god without saying that these must be studied in their influence on the cultural as well as on the purely physical life of the people, so as to bring out all the sociological and psychological effects that such influence involves. Thus, to illustrate the latter only, route must be taken into account in explaining the beliefs of a band of immigrant sea-rovers; 50 or, again, habitat will have a bearing if we try to show that fauna and flora, a special type of weather, a volcanic environment, and so forth, can give a peculiar turn to religious ideas. 31

In the next place, the material culture of the peoples who intermix, comprising all appliances brought into play by their arts, whether industrial or aesthetic, may be distinguished as a special set of conditions. Here, again, though we treat these facts to some extent apart, we must never lose sight of their relation to the rest. Thus, on the one hand, they must be connected with route and habitat ; sea-farers may have no use for the bow in warfare,32 while inland-dwellers will hardly be expert in sea-fishing. On


29 The History of Melanesian Society (Cambridge, 1914), ii. 292-303. Compare Hist. Mel. Soc. ii. 262.

31 As regards the effect of volcanic surroundings on belief, see Hist. Mel. Soc. ii. 263, 479; compare Sir J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough (3rd ed.), v. 188 f.

“ volcanic religion." 32 Compare Hist. Mel. Soc. ii. 447.


the other hand, they affect, and are affected by, the sociological and psychological conditions ; so that, for instance, religion will retain otherwise useless appliances for ceremonial purposes, or, conversely, as Dr. Rivers has so brilliantly suggested, useful arts will be discarded because the accompanying ceremonies are somehow lost. 33

Thirdly, the social organization of the interacting parties involves a most important class of conditions. Whether the immigrants are few or many, whether they are organized for war or come as peaceful traders or settlers, whether they have chiess and a social system that will bear transplanting, whether they bring women with them, and these women of their own race and culture—all these, and many more, are matters that must largely determine the whole conception of the mixing process; while the social arrangements of the indigenous population form a no less im- . portant element in the problem. Kinship and marriage, government and law, and, hardly less directly, the organization of the economic and of the religious life, are dependent on these facts in such a degree that to consider them abstractly as functions of the social order is quite allowable on the part of a trained thinker; for he will know that the value of a given abstraction is in inverse ratio to the importance of what is for the moment put out of sight.

Fourthly, there are psychological conditions that can and must be considered apart in estimating what the combining units severally contribute to the blend. Thus, whether the immigrants have a peaceful or warlike disposition, and whether the local population receive them in the one spirit or the other, is not wholly a matter of numbers and organization, however much the pure sociologist might wish to simplify the problem by supposing so. Again, the facts relating to language, and to oral tradition, are most naturally dealt with under this head. But I need

33 Compare W. H. R. Rivers, “The Disappearance of Useful Arts," in Festskrift tillegnad E. IVestermarck (Helsingfors, 1912), 109 f.

[ocr errors]

not insist further on a point which Dr. Rivers has amply stated, if indeed he has not overstated it; since he says "the only way in which the culture of an immigrant people can be carried about the world is in a psychological form, in the form of sentiments, beliefs, and ideas." 34

Lastly, we come to the most interesting of all the conditions involved in culture-contact, namely, the new conditions brought into play by the actual contact itself. Dr. Rivers finds fault with Dr. Graebner for conceiving ethnological intermixture as a mechanical process, and suggests that the notion of a chemical process comes nearer to the mark.35 I confess that such analogies drawn from the physical sciences and redolent of the “lower categories" seem to me one and all misleading. We must keep steadily in view the fact that culture-contact is, for the science of culture, essentially a psychical process. Only by applying the conception of soul, taken in its individual and social aspects together, can we do justice to such development as is brought about by a synthesis of spiritual elements—such as culture-contact truly is when viewed, not from some lower standpoint, but from the standpoint of culture itself. Now, as regards psychological“ laws,” Dr. Rivers writes: "I have never heard of them, and I am afraid I should not believe them if I heard.” 3 I dare not, then, offer him one, but would nevertheless call attention to what is at least an accepted working principle in the domain of individual psychology. It is this, that the occasion of the development of the higher processes of thought is conflict arising among our sense impressions. I would venture, then, to suggest that some very similar principle ought to be provided in the domain of social psychology to account for the spiritual awakening which a clash of cultures in circumstances otherwise favourable may


34 Sociological Review, ix. (1916), 8.
35 History of Melanesian Society, ii. 585.
36 Sociological Review, ix. (1916), 9.


occasion. I deliberately say "occasion," not “cause," because I regard soul as a prime-mover—the only one.

For the rest, the specific conditions brought into play by virtue of the culture-contact itself need to be subjected to detailed analysis, and to be classified according to the aspects of culture involved. Here, then, is the chosen ground to which I would point as the meetingplace and joint laboratory of the evolutionary and historical methods. While the historical method will attend chiefly to the assemblage of pre-existing conditions, the evolutionary, which is likewise essentially a psychological, method will be mostly concerned with the spontaneous origination, the live and truly evolutionary movement of spiritual awakening, that ensues upon the fact of cultural contact and cross-fertilization. Sometimes, the result of this quickening will wear an institutional and sociological guise, as in the startling case, regarded as by no means impossible by Dr. Rivers, of father-right resulting from the fusion of two matrilineal stocks.37 Even in such a case, however, when Dr. Rivers comes to formulate a “mechanism ”—by which sinister expression he simply means a scheme-he frankly resorts to psychology in order to exhibit the true nature of the process. In other cases, the product of contact will be on the face of it a psychological fact, to which a psychological explanation may be applied without more ado. Thus, an aetiological myth may be generated to account for some unfamiliar importation, a process attributable to the stimulating effect on the imagination of the new and strange. As regards this last example, I am thinking, of course, of the illuminating paper on “The Sociological Significance of Myth " which Dr. Rivers read before this Society some five years ago.38

37 Hist, Mel. Soc. ii. 320.

38 Folk-Lore, xxiii. (1912), 07f. Let me confess that I reciate the psychological principle as to the effect of the unfamiliar all the more because my own theory of pre-animistic religion is based largely on a like presupposition. R. R. MARETT.

I have exhausted your patience, without by any means exhausting a theme which takes us down to the roots of the science of culture, the science of Tylor and Gomme. It must suffice to have tried to show two things : firstly, how in the past the evolutionary and historical methods, with which the names of Tylor and Gomme are severally associated, were used by them, yet never abused; and, secondly, how in the future we might hope to bring these methods into closer co-operation by concentrating on the general conditions, and especially on the psychology, of culturecontact. If I have sounded the psychological note too strongly, I would ask you to bear with my individual bent or bias. For, as compared with sociology, psychology has always seemed to me to have the first word and the last; just as thought comes first and last as compared with speech. A meaning is there before we try to put it into words, and, though the words help it out, yet they always lag a little behind our ideal meaning. So too, then, I conceive the soul of man, in its individual and social capacities taken together, to be a self-active power which both originates institutions, and, though developing through their aid, ever transcends them, ever seeks to transmute them so that they may subserve still higher and more ideal ends. Tylor called our science the science of culture, and it is a good

But let us not forget that culture stands at once for a body and a life, and that the body is a function of the life, not the life of the body.


« ZurückWeiter »