Fetichism is regarded by some as a stage of religious development, or
as the form of religion found amongst men at the lowest stage of
development known to us. From this the conclusion is sometimes drawn
that fetichism is the source of all religion and of all religious
values; and, therefore, that (as fetichism has no value) religion
(which is an evolved form of fetichism) has no value either. This
conclusion is then believed to be proved by the science of religion.
In fact, however, students of the science of religion disclaim this
conclusion and rightly {xv} assert that the science does not undertake
to prove anything as to the truth or the value of religion.
Much confusion prevails as to what fetichism is; and the confusion is
primarily due to Bosman. He confuses, while the science of religion
distinguishes between, animal gods and fetiches. He asserts what we
now know to be false, viz., that a fetich is an inanimate object and
nothing more; and that the native rejects, or "breaks," one of these
gods, knowing it to be a god.
Any small object which happens to arrest the attention of a negro, when
he has a desire to gratify, may impress him as being a fetich, _i.e._
as having power to help him to gratify his desire. Here, Hoeffding
says, is the simplest conceivable construction of religious ideas: here
is presented religion under the guise of desire. Let it be granted,
then, that the object attracts attention and is involuntarily
associated with the possibility of attaining the desired end. It
follows that, as in the period of animism, all objects are believed to
be animated by spirits, fetich objects are distinguished from other
objects by the fact--not that they are animated by spirits but--that it
is believed they will aid in the accomplishment of the desired end.
The picking up of a fetich object, however, is not always followed by
the desired result; and the negro then explains "that it has lost its
spirit." The spirit goes out of it, indeed, but may perchance be
induced or even compelled to return into some other object; and then
fetiches may be purposely made as well as accidentally found, and are
liable to coercion as well as open to conciliation.
But, throughout this process, there is no religion. Religion is the
worship of the gods of a community by the community for the good of the
community. The cult of a fetich is conducted by an individual for his
private ends; and the most important function of a fetich is to work
evil against those members of the community who have incurred the
fetich owner's resentment. Thus religion {xvi} and fetich-worship are
directed to ends not merely different but antagonistic. From the very
outset religion in social fetichism is anti-social. To seek the origin
of religion in fetichism is vain. Condemned, wherever it exists, by
the religious and moral feelings of the community, fetichism cannot
have been the primitive religion of mankind. The spirits of fetichism,
according to Hoeffding, become eventually the gods of polytheism: such a
spirit, so long as it is a fetich, is "the god of a moment," and must
come to be permanent if it is to attain to the ranks of the
polytheistic gods. But fetiches, even when their function becomes
permanent, remain fetiches and do not become gods. They do not even
become "departmental gods," for their powers are to further a man's
desires generally. On the other hand, they have personality, even if
they have not personal names. Finally, if, as Hoeffding believes, the
word "god" originally meant "he who is worshipped," and gods are
worshipped by the community, then fetiches, as they are nowhere
worshipped by the community, are in no case gods.
The function of the fetich is anti-social; of the gods, to promote the
well-being of the community. To maintain that a god is evolved out of
a fetich is to maintain that practices destructive of society have only
to be pushed far enough and they will prove the salvation of society .
. . 105-137