巫术、转喻与分类:弗雷泽图腾理论辨析及其思维研究价值

Magic,Metonymy and Classification: An Analysis of Frazer's Theories of Totemism By Researching His Thoughts

通过梳理弗雷泽对图腾制研究的思考与理论变化过程,重现他以图腾制为出发点通向巫术与思维研究的学术进路,旨在阐明,接触律在阿兰达人图腾类型中的应用,使弗雷泽的图腾理论成为转喻研究,与列维-施特劳斯的隐喻研究共同构成了基于图腾制的思维研究的两大核心。弗雷泽是由转喻推导出了隐喻的部分,列维-施特劳斯则试图以隐喻为基础推导出转喻的部分,在他看来,人与图腾之间的关系是伪装的,非要藉由人类社会与自然秩序两种既有分类系统之间的隐喻关系为前提,是人类群体的相互性及婚姻交换的实在性,经历了命名程序中部分与整体的替换,也就是说,交换女人之群体间的区别性特征被替换为人群与自然物种之间的诸多类聚关系,才重现为图腾制表面看起来呈现出的人与图腾之邻近关系。而对于弗雷泽而言,列维-施特劳斯描述的人类群体与自然分类系统之间的整体性隐喻关系,是要基于图腾制的转喻才得以发生的。我们目前只能够把转喻和隐喻都看作是最基本的思维结构之必然组成部分。

Based on his three theories of totemism,this paper aims to analyze Frazer's preliminary thoughts on totemic society and his later modifications in response to new evidence from the tribes of Central Australia provided by Baldwin Spencer and F.J.Gillen.Frazer's theory exhibits a tendency towards magic and thought with a focus on ethnographic data from the Arunta totemic group,a typical totemic group in Central Australia.The results show that the law of contagion applied in explaining Arunta totemism helped Frazer establish his third theory about totemism as metonymy.This contrasts with Levi-Strauss whose theory of totemism is that it should be constructed as metaphor.When Frazer published Totemism in 1887,he did not intend to develop a theory,although when he was organizing his materials,certain clues emerged between the lines.He regarded totemism as both a religious and a social system,and the two systems seemed inseparable.In Frazer's description,the concept of totemism as a religious system was mainly based on the belief in the magic power of the totem.This consisted of respecting totemic animals and plants and totemic taboos,as well as the integration of men with their totems.This is seen especially by the representation of the totem on one's body and putting the clan mark on other precious properties.This later was taken by Durkheim as evidence for totem worship.Frazer insisted that the relationship between a man and his totem was mutually beneficial,whereas Durkheim believed that the sacredness of the totem has its origin in society which is represented by the collective conscience.In addition,Frazer considered initiation ceremonies as rituals which admitted the novices into clan life.This led Durkheim to build a connection between society itself and the totemic symbol.In Frazer's description,totemism as a social system consists of three parts.These include the blood feuds shared by clansman,exogamy and inheritance of the totem,of which exogamy is the main part.At that time,Frazer regarded these aspects of totemism inseparable and irreducible.Thus,at this juncture,he introduced another rule of classification that differs from the former,in which he defines totemism as a relationship between a group of people and a group of things.In a word,it is a classification led by the religious(magical)aspect of totemism which is based on metonymy,whereas the social aspect is based on dichotomy due to exogamy being superimposed metonymy.Frazer published his second theory of totemism at the moment Spencer and Gillen published The Native Tribes of Central Australia,in 1899,in which a complete and accurate record of the totemic system among the Central Australian tribes is provided.Considering the discrepancy between the traditions and practices among these natives,Frazer re-evaluated the former criteria of his theory of totemism,among which the first rule was that a man may not kill or eat his totem animal and plant,and the second was that a man may not marry or cohabit with a woman of the same totem.It appeared that in the Central Australian tribes,their ancestors killed and ate their totems regularly and always married woman of the same totem as themselves.The obvious evidence of the Intichiuma ceremonies,widely prevalent among the Central Australian tribes,convinced Frazer that totemism was a system of magic rather than a religious system.For the first time Frazer distinguished magic from religion in totemism,and asserted that the attitude a man held with regard to his totem was certainly magic.Because the objective of Intichiuma ceremonies was clearly the proliferation of totemic species,it seems that one function of a totemic clan was to provide a supply of its totemic animals or plants for consumption by the rest of the tribe.Thus,Frazer offered his second theory of totemism,which suggested that totemism should be considered an organised and co-operative system of magic benefiting the whole community,and he considered Intichiuma ceremonies as perhaps providing the key to totemism.It is in the Central Australian tribes that Frazer'saw for the first time that the exogamous unit does not coincide with the totemic clan.Thus,he could firmly assert that exogamy was imposed upon the existing system of totemic clans in Central Australia.Frazer then turned his attention to understanding the principles of the ways a man identified with his totem.The Central Australian tribes seem to identified themselves with their totems first,by eating them,and second through certain magical instruments called churinga and nurtunjas.Frazer abandoned his second theory of totemism no later than 1905.Further reflection led him to the conclusion that the magical ceremonies held for either the increase or diminution of the totems were more likely to be a later development of totemism rather than part of its original roots.A long period of reflection helped Frazer find the key for understanding totemism among the Arunta– namely that it was a primitive explanation of conception and childbirth.Frazer's final theory of totemism is derived from the beliefs of the Central Australian aborigines.The belief is that a spirit child makes its way into the mother from spirits in those trees,rocks,water-pools or other natural features in which the spirits of the dead are waiting to be reborn,and that only the spirits of people of one particular totem are believed to congregate at any one spot.Because the natives well know what totemic spirits haunt each hallowed plot of ground,a woman has no difficulty in determining the totem of her unborn child.Frazer was convinced that this kind of conceptional totemism perfectly explained the essence of totemism,the identification of a man with a thing.Although it does not explain totemism itself,in Frazer's conjecture,the beliefs of the Central Australian tribes with regard to conception are but one step removed from pure,primitive totemism.Frazer considers this mode of determining the totem as the most ancient,and called it conceptional totemism as distinguished from hereditary totemism.Assuming pure conceptional totemism as the first stage in the evolution of totemism,Frazer made the existing system of totemism among Central Australian tribes intelligible.He found that Umbaia and Gnanji groups were changing from conceptional to hereditary totemism.Unlike the Arunta and Kaitish,they almost always assigned the father s totem to the child even though the infant may have shown the first signs of life at a place haunted by spirits of a different totem.This discussion about the shift from conceptional to hereditary totemism suggests that Frazer is aware of how hereditary rule appears in totemism,which coincidentally responds to Mauss who pointed out that effectiveness of the law of contagion of magic ritual is based upon the premise that pre-existence of a“conception of quality”must arise from a rational classification.In other words,there is no a stage in which the pure law of contagion works.As we see,according to Frazer's final theory of totemism,a stage of a pure law of contagion,represented by the conceptional totemism of the Arunta,does exist.The classification in Mauss's sense,the hereditary line,only determines the effect of the law of contagion afterwards when some kind of hereditary institution has developed like with the Umbaia and Gnanji.For the Arunta the totem of a child was purely accidental,being determined only by the law of contagion.Only once the hereditary rule for acquiring a totem had been shaped by acquiring the totem based on the law of contagion did the law need to be controlled as to which quality should be transferred.Frazer's final theory of totemism,however,still could not reasonably explain exogamy.Frazer,thus,confirmed that exogamous classes or phratries are a totally different kind of social organisation than totemic clans.They are later in origin than totemic clans,and have been superposed upon them.Because Frazer regarded the law of contagion,as expressed by the conceptional totemism among the Arunta,as fundamental,his final theory of totemism,which is based on it,parted ways completely with exogamy after more than ten years of reflection.Frazer's theories of totemism show the process of how he turned more attention to researching magic during his more comprehensive consideration of on totemism,especially among the Central Australian tribes.There is no doubt that when all the evidence from Australian totemic societies was considered,Frazer proposed a theory of totemism on the basis of the law of contagion,an approach taken via“thought”rather than social,and which was the most satisfying one so far.From an analysis on Frazer's three theories of totemism,this paper concludes with two points.One,Frazer's final theory actually limits totemism as a research of thought and left“exogamy”up in the air.Frazer considered the delivery of vitality implied by the Arunta's conceptional totemism as the essence of contagious magic.Through this kind of contagious magic,the close relationship between a man and his totem is achieved immediately.At the same time,it made people unable to distinguish totem from his actual fellow mankind.As for the other point,this paper attempts to indicate that by taking the Arunta as the main source of his anthropological theories,Frazer made his most effective explanation by adopting the law of contagion.Through this,totemism can be considered as metonymy.Levi-Strauss discussed totemism,mainly on the basis of the Warramunga and Raymond Firth's work Totemism in Polynesia,as subjective of exchange,which thus formed the concept of reciprocity in a broad sense.However,Levi-Strauss's theory cannot explain the Arunta at all.Because among the Arunta,reciprocity depends on a system of marriage,in which the totem,being random in nature,takes no part.On the other hand,Frazer's theory of totemism as metonymy can make the transition from random-or statistical,quoting Levi-Strauss's term-to one regulated by hereditary rule,and hence,enters into a stage in which totemism and exogamy are coupled.Essentially,Frazer approaches by way of metonymy with constructed metaphor,whereas Levi-Strauss argues the opposite.For Levi-Strauss,the relationship between a man and his totem only possessed substantiality on the premise of reciprocity of human groups exchanging women.Although Frazer's theories are incapable of explaining this wide spread dichotomy caused by marriage system of classes,Levi-Strauss's theory can do nothing but remain within a binary symmetrical mechanism.This makes it impossible to find any means of breaking the balance,which thus enters into the process of the objectification of politics.So far,what we can do is to consider both metonymy and metaphor as inevitable parts of our fundamental structure of thinking.