EXOGAMY AND TOTEMISM DEFINED: A REJOINDER I By A. A. GOLDENWEISER T may be deemed unfair to find fault with a review as appreciative as Dr Lowie's examination of my paper on Totemism but I trust he will realize that the following remarks are not made in the interests of the writer but for the sake of future totemic discussion. Dr Lowie takes exception to what he calls my conception of exogamy. He clings to the accepted use of the term "exogamy" as "the rule against members of a group marrying among themselves in other words, the rule of the incest group." If this definition be adopted "then exogamy may be ascribed to any group prohibiting marriage among its members. In this case, the exogamy of the Kamilaroi class, as well as the exogamy of the Arábana clan, is a derivative feature,-a logical consequence of phratric exogamy. In addition to this derivative (and therefore relatively unimportant) exogamic trait, the Kamilaroi class and the Arábana clan have certain positive marriage-regulating functions, which, however, have nothing to do with exogamy, of which the functions are only prohibitory." If, on the other hand, my conception of exogamy be adopted "an exogamous relation is fully represented only when both the group within which marriage is prohibited, and the one into which it is permitted or prescribed are given "-then "the mutual relationship of intermarrying classes with rules against intra-class marriage would form the standard illustration of exogamy; phratries would formally, but for reasons just given, might only formally, exemplify exogamy; and it would be inadmissible to speak glibly of four exogamous Tsimshian clans, of a great number of exogamous Khasi clans, of fourteen exogamous Bahima clans 1 American Anthropologist, April-June, 1911, p. 196. 2 Ibid., p. 197. Ibid., p. 196. and forty-one exogamous septs."'1 Dr Lowie particularly insists that wherever we have only two exogamous intermarrying groups the positive marriage-regulation need not, although it may, be a psychological factor; for in such cases, whether there be any positive regulation or not, "intermarriage follows as a physical necessity; the group into which marriage is permitted or prescribed is determined by the mere statement of the prohibitory regulations." On page 237 of my article on totemism, I write: "Exogamy, of course, literally, means 'marriage without or outside of' (a certain group)—an imperative which has its negative correlate in the prohibition of marriage within the group." This statement is somewhat misleading for, contrary to the etymological connotation of the term, it is the prohibitory aspect of exogamy which is emphasized in current usage, as Dr Lowie correctly notes. Throughout my paper, however, I stick to this customary use of the term (see, e. g., page 187 with reference to the Tsimshian; page 231 with reference to the Khasis, Meitheis, Mikirs, Nandi, Gros Ventres, etc.; page 236 with reference to the Todas; etc.). This use of the term "exogamy" does not, however, compel us to regard the exogamy of the Kamilaroi class or the Arábana clan as a derivative feature, "a logical consequence of phratric exogamy." From the genetic point of view Dr Lowie may be right; the class and the clan in the above instances may have been exogamous as parts of phratries before they themselves became marriage-regulating units. But speaking psychologically-and, Dr Lowie will admit, we must here speak psychologically-the marriage prohibition within the Kamilaroi class and the Arábana clan is an independent, not a derivative, feature. Internal evidence apart, this follows from the function of these groups as social units into which marriage is prescribed. Negative marriage regulation does not involve definite, positive marriage regulation: an incest group may have the most varying positive marital rights. The reverse, however, is not true; positive marriage regulation deter 1 Op. cit., pp. 196-197. 2 Ibid., p. 196. To find corresponding page of the reprint, substract 178. mines definite negative marriage regulation, for the prescription for all members of a group to marry into another equivalent group, and vice versa, carries with it as a psychological correlate the prohibition of marrying within the group. To speak of positive marriage-regulating functions as having "nothing to do with exogamy, of which the functions are only prohibitory," is to close one's eyes on the facts. This is no longer a matter of terminology. Positive and negative marriage regulations, as we find them in innumerable communities, are most intimately correlated. This is conspicuously true of those instances in which marriage is regulated by degrees of relationship, as in Central Australia, among the Toda, the Gilyak, etc. To definite relationship groups within which marriage is prohibited correspond definite relationship groups into which marriage is prescribed. From these are sharply dif ferentiated those groups within which marriage is simply approved of or disapproved of. The correlation between these negative and positive regulations is scarcely less complete in the case of two intermarrying phratries or classes, as in British Columbia, in ancient times probably among the Iroquois and many Siouan and Algonkin tribes, in wide cultural districts of Australia and Melanesia. Of course, we must admit as a logical possibility Dr Lowie's point that, whenever we have merely two intermarrying groups, they "might only formally exemplify exogamy" for in such cases "intermarriage follows as a physical necessity." I doubt, however, whether this logical possibility is ever realized. Without here furnishing the evidence, I contend that in Australia as well as in Melanesia the positive regulation would, on inspection, be found to be a psychological factor in the marriages of the two moieties, just as it is among the Haida where the two "sides" 'show respect" to each other by intermarrying. Finally, in such cases as are presented by the Toda clans, or the Indian gotras, or, in North America, by the clans of the Indian tribes of the Southwest, each exogamous group may marry into any of the others. Only in the latter instances is the positive side, as a psychological factor, either vague or absent. To this I should like to add, for the present merely as a suggestion, that the numerous instances of progressive extension of marriage regulations (see Totemism, pp. 243-5), may perhaps be conceived as a general tendency for relatively indefinite marriage regulations to become definite and standardized. I feel that the terms "exogamous relation" and "exogamous unit," as used in my article, do not suffice to cover the concepts involved in the various phases of marriage regulations. It may not be out of place to submit here a few terms and definitions. A group which does not marry within itself is exogamous. If a group is exogamous in its own right, it is an exogamous unit.1 An exogamous unit of which only the prohibitive functions are in evidence, is a negative exogamous unit. If the positive regulations are also 'defined the group is a definite exogamous unit.2 Intermarrying exogamous groups stand to each other in an exogamous relation. If the positive regulations are vague or absent, we have an indefinite exogamous relation. If the negative and positive regulations are fixed, we have a definite exogamous relation. If a group is not exogamous in its own right, its exogamy is derivative. The following self-explanatory terms may also prove useful: positive and negative marriage regulations, or matrimonial restrictions and matrimonial prescriptions. Dr Lowie's second stricture refers to my definition of totemism as a process of specific socialization. Says Dr. Lowie: "He does not merely hold that totemism is the result of a secondary association of social units with various factors. He holds in addition, that the association resulted from the fact that objects and symbols which were originally of emotional value only to individuals became, through descent, values for definite social groups." Having thus put before the reader my conception of totemism as expressed in the definition, Dr Lowie asks two questions: "In how far does it accurately represent the phenomena commonly designated as totemic? And, to what extent does it represent the totality of phenomena which seem psychologically and sociologically related 1 In this sense the term is used in Totemism, p. 237. 2 This term corresponds to "exogamous unit" in my Totemism, except on p. 237. Ibid., p. 203. with these totemic phenomena?" I shall not here attempt to answer the second query, beyond noting that I am inclined to agree with Dr Lowie's remarks on the relation between totemic phenomena and religious societies. However, as I intend in due time to deal with this subject at some length, I prefer to leave the question open for the present. The first query Dr Lowie answers in the negative; my definition does not accurately represent totemic phenomena for, although "it must be admitted that the author's definition outlines a plausible course of development, it is possible to conceive that conditions other than those defined by Dr Goldenweiser may lead to typical totemism." "What evidence is there," protests my critic, "to show that among the Iroquois the clan name was originally an individual possession which, through descent, became socialized?" And again, "If we assume the association of name and social group as the starting point of totemism, and, as the author himself has shown, this combination sometimes exhausts the content of totemism, it is, in our ignorance of the actual history of the development, impossible either to prove or to refute the theory that the group names, not only in the Iroquois, but in the Australian cases as well, ever served to designate individuals." The same reasoning would apply to taboos. In a word, socialization as a factor in totemic associations, is not a Denknotwendigkeit. "The critic is therefore of opinion," he concludes, "that a non-committal attitude on the process of association (so far as it eludes observation) is highly advisable. Totemism would then be defined, not as a socialization of various elements of (at least potentially) emotional value, but merely as the association of such elements with social groups."4 It is unfortunate that Dr Lowie should have misunderstood me on this point. I do not hold the view of socialization he attributes to me, nor was I in the least aware when defining totemism as a process of specific socialization, of propounding a theory of the origin of totemism. 1 Totemism, p. 204. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. Ibid., p. 205. |