Collected Works of E.B. Tylor

by George W. Stocking Jr.

First published in 1994. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

1752 pages, Hardcover

First published November 15, 1994

Reviews

[Elizabeth Vilchis · Rating 2 out of 5]

I would say that E.B. Tylor’s theory of religion was, for the most part, symbolic of his lifetime and the mindsets that dominated it, in his particular culture. Firstly, the ranking of races regarding their religious beliefs is more than racist. It encourages a labeling of other cultures and their respective beliefs as backwards, insufficient, less than, and inferior to the Eurocentric perspective, in which Tylor was speaking from, even if his intentions were not religious-based, but scientifically-driven. All of this is symbolic of his time though, because this was a period of great religious oppression and judgment upon colonized peoples. And while texts and other experts may say he traveled to Central America, he traveled to Mexico and Cuba, which are both part of North America. In addition, both of these countries had seen centuries of oppression, violence, colonization, gentrification, and turmoil in all aspects of its citizens’ lives. I argue that E.B. Tylor labeled them all inferior or “primitive” with an astounding lack of consideration for their peoples’ history of dealing with religious colonizers- yet another product of his time. Nearly any opposition to the mainstream colonial religious forces was seen as “primitive” or “barbarian”, historically speaking. This is especially true considering those who wrote the historical narratives of which many of these theorists studied weren’t going to paint the opposition in a positive light. Mexico had been colonized 300 years prior to Tylor’s adventure, while Cuba was colonized half a century prior. Tylor didn’t account for that when he was labeling them “primitive”. If they were still “primitive”, how could they have been colonized three centuries prior and still retain so much of what he was alluding to as savagery? Would that have not gone away with the colonization of the areas? Or could it be that he also didn’t account for religious syncretism of the Indigenous religions and Catholicism? All of this is very significant to other intellectuals of this time period. There was a real rush to label and summarize, but no effort to understand the complexity of a culture and its historical implications. And while Tylor may not have been driven on his own personal religion to do all of this, it was still a very big factor. The culture he was part of was a major colonizing force of the Western Hemisphere. This Eurocentric mindset was inescapable in his findings.
Tylor distinguished between “primitive” and “modern” religions by the characteristics of their deities. While he may not have been driven by religion, he certainly was molded by it. His Eurocentric perspective didn’t escape him in this area, either. He saw religions that were characterized by spirits, magic, myth, and omens as animistic and savage. He connected this to being an inferior people who couldn’t logically think like those of Abrahamic faiths. He saw the animism in these groups of people as something someone only did when they didn’t know better. He chalked this up to their cultures being untouched by the scientific and industrial revolutions and they were just trying to fulfill their ignorant curiosities of the world around them. He thought that since they weren’t technologically and academically equal to his culture that they confused dreams with reality, coincidence with divine, and inexplicable with sacred. Moving forward from that notion, Tylor saw it an advancement when spirits didn’t just house themselves in an inanimate object, but had their own significant space to dwell, like a heaven, for example. This was a sign moving toward intellectual progression and civilization, to him. This led to his next ranking of polytheist religions, where these multiple deities interacted with one another and were separate from inanimate objects at times, but still wielded their powers over humans, weather, and all over nature. Then his highest degree toward intellectual and civilized religious thought was characterized by one mighty deity who had a much more complex role, rules, and amount of subjects. This was how he equated his own culture being far superior to those he witnessed in his “studies” in Mexico and Cuba.
It’s unclear to me what part of Tylor’s work, if any- that would still be appropriate for researching religion today. I might argue that the best part of Tylor’s work exists purely in a historical perspective to show how mindsets have changed over time, much like this exercise. Tylor may not have been driven by a personal religious fervor, but everything in his life was constructed around those ideals and perspectives. He carried a great deal of bias into his work, which is why it is so evident in his findings. Other than the historical analysis and its implications to the field, I might suggest that Tylor was interesting in that he was trying to make some worthy connections between the origins and beginnings of religion to what was modern religion, in his time. Some initial characteristics of religion do linger. It’s interesting to see which ones those are. It’s usually the symbolic ones, that mirror magical rites. For example, drinking wine and eating bread in remembrance of some all important messiah. That goes back to the very beginning of Christianity, yet its purely symbolic. It wasn’t a moral teaching of said messiah. So, considering instances like that, I think Tylor’s work is somewhat relevant. He tried to make meaningful connections that all cultures can be compared, but he did so with great bias.