Winch Understanding Primitive Society PDF

North American Philosophical Publications
Understanding a Primitive Society

Author(s): Peter Winch
Source: American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 4 (Oct., 1964), pp. 307-324
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the North American Philosophical Publications
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20009143 .
Accessed: 12/09/2013 09:53
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
University of Illinois Press and North American Philosophical Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to American Philosophical Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
American Philosophical Quarterly
Volume i, Number 4, October 1964
III. UNDERSTANDING A PRIMITIVE SOCIETY

PETER WINCH
essay will pursue further some questions adopt the following posture :We know that Zande
THIS raised in my book, The Idea of a Social Science.1 beliefs in the influence of witchcraft, the efficacy of
That book was a general discussion of what is magic medicines, the role of oracles in revealing
involved in the understanding of human social life. I what is going on and what is going to happen, are
shall here be concerned more specifically with mistaken, illusory. Scientific methods of investiga?
certain issues connected with social anthropology. tion have shown conclusively that there are no
In the first part I raise certain difficulties about relations of cause and effect such as are implied by
Professor E. E. Evans-Pritchard's approach in his these beliefs and practices. All we can do then is to
classic, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the show how such a system of mistaken beliefs and
Azande.2 In the second part, I attempt to refute inefficacious practices can maintain itself in the face
some criticisms recently made by Mr. Alasdair of objections that seem to us so obvious.3
Maclntyre of Evans-Pritchard and myself, to Now although Evans-Pritchard goes a very great
criticize in their turn Maclntyre's positive remarks, deal further than most of his predecessors in trying
and to offer some further reflections of my own on to present the sense of the institutions he is discussing
the concept of learning from the study of a primi? as it presents itself to the Azande themselves, still,
tive society. the last paragraph does, I believe, pretty fairly
describe the attitude he himself took at the time of
writing this book. There ismore than one remark
I. The Reality of Magic
to the effect that "obviously there are no witches";
Like many other primitive people, the African and he writes of the difficulty he found, during his
Azande hold beliefs that we cannot possibly share field work with the Azande, in shaking off the
and engage in practices which it is peculiarly "unreason" on which Zande life is based and
difficult for us to comprehend. They believe that returning to a clear view of how things really
are.
certain of their members are witches,
exercising
a This attitude is not an unsophisticated one but is
malignant occult influence on the lives of their based on a philosophical position ably developed in
fellows. They engage in rites to counteract witch? a series of papers published in the 1930's in the
craft; they consult oracles and use magic medicines unhappily rather inaccessible Bulletin of theFaculty
to protect themselves from harm.
of Arts of the University of Egypt. Arguing against
An anthropologist studying such a people wishes L?vy-Bruhl, Evans-Pritchard here rejects the idea
to make those beliefs and practices intelligible to that the scientific understanding of causes and
himself and his readers. This means presenting an effects which leads us to reject magical ideas is
account of them that will somehow satisfy the evidence of any
superior intelligence
on our
part.
criteria of rationality demanded by the culture to Our scientific approach, he points out, is as much a
which he and his readers belong: a culture whose function of our culture as is the magical approach
conception of rationality is deeply affected by the of the "savage" a function of his.
achievements and methods of the sciences, and one
The fact that we attribute rain to meteorological causes
which treats such things as a belief inmagic or the or
alone while savages believe that Gods or ghosts
of oracles as almost a can
practice consulting paradigm magic influence the rainfall is no evidence that
of the irrational. The strains inherent in this situa? our brains function from their brains. It
differently
tion are very likely to lead the anthropologist to does not show that we "think more logically" than
1London and New York (Routledge & Kegan Paul; Humanities Press), 1958.
2
Oxford (Oxford University Press), 1937.
3At this
point the anthropologist is very likely to start speaking of the "social function" of the institution under examination.
There are many important questions that should be raised about functional and their relations to the issues
explanations
discussed in this essay; but these questions cannot be pursued further here.
307

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY
308
savages, at least not if this expression suggests some

reality." Despite differences of emphasis and
kind of hereditary psychic superiority. It is no sign of Evans-Pritchard is in fact hereby put
phraseology,
on my that I attribute rain
superior intelligence part into the same metaphysical camp as Pareto: for
to physical causes. I did not come to this conclusion
both of them the conception of "reality" must be
myself by observation and inference and have, in fact,
little of the meteorological that regarded as intelligible and applicable outside the
knowledge processes
context of scientific reasoning itself, since it is that
lead to rain. I merely accept what everybody else in
that rain is due to natural
to which scientific notions do, and unscientific
my society accepts, namely
causes. This idea formed notions do not, have a relation. Evans-Pritchard,
particular part of my culture
long before I was born into it and little more was although he emphasizes that a member of scientific
required of me than sufficient linguistic ability to learn culture has a different conception of reality from
it. Likewise a savage who believes that under suitable that of a Zande believer in magic, wants to go
natural and ritual conditions the rainfall can be this fact and the
beyond merely registering making
on
influenced by use of appropriate magic is not
differences and to say, finally, that the
to be
explicit,
account of this belief considered of inferior
scientific conception agrees with what reality
intelligence. He did not build up this belief from his is like, whereas the magical
own observations and inferences but it in the actually conception
adopted
does not.
same way as he adopted the rest of his cultural
born into it. He and I are It would be easy, at this point, to say simply that
heritage, namely, by being
both in patterns of thought for us the difficulty arises from the use of the unwieldy
thinking provided
we and misleadingly
by the societies in which live. comprehensive expression "agree?
It would be absurd to say that the savage is think? ment with reality"; and in a sense this is true. But
ing mystically and that we are thinking scientifically we should not lose sight of the fact that the idea
about rainfall. In either case like mental processes are that men's ideas and beliefs must be checkable by
involved the content of is
and, moreover, thought reference to something independent?some reality
derived. But we can say that the social
similarly ?is an important one. To abandon it is to plunge
content of our thought about rainfall is scientific, is in
into an extreme relativism,
social content straight Protagorean
accord with objective facts, whereas the
with all the paradoxes that involves. On the other
of savage thought about rainfall is unscientific since
it is not in accord with and may also be mystical hand great care is certainly necessary in fixing the
reality
where it assumes the existence of precise role that this conception of the independ?
supra-sensible
forces.4 ently real does play in men's thought. There are
two related points that I should like to make
In a article on Pareto, Evans-Pritchard about it at this stage.
subsequent
distinguishes between "logical" and "scientific." In the first place we should notice that the check
of the independently real is not peculiar to science.
Scientific notions are those which accord with objective The trouble is that the fascination science has for
reality both with regard to the validity of their us makes it easy for us to adopt its scientific form as
premisses and to the inferences drawn from their a paradigm against which to measure the intel?
. . . notions are those in which
propositions. Logical lectual respectability of other modes of discourse.
to the rules of inferences would be
according thought Consider what God says to Job out of the whirl?
true were the premisses true, the truth of the premisses
wind: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by
irrelevant. . . .
being
words without knowledge ? . . Where
. wast thou
A pot has broken during firing. This is probably
due to grit. Let us examine the pot and see if this is when I laid the foundations of the earth ? declare,
the cause. That is logical and scientific if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the
thought.
Sickness is due to witchcraft. A man is sick. Let us measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath
consult the oracles to discover who is the witch stretched the line upon it. . . . Shall he that con
responsible. That is logical and unscientific thought.5 tendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that
reproveth God, let him answer it." Job is taken to
I think that Evans-Pritchard is right in a great task for having gone astray by having lost sight of
deal of what he says here, but wrong, and crucially the reality of God ; this does not, of course, mean
wrong, in his attempt to characterize the scientific that Job has made any sort of theoretical mistake,
in terms ofthat which is "in accord with objective which could be put right, perhaps, by means of an
4 E. E. of Egypt,
Evans-Pritchard, "L?vy-BruhPs Theory of Primitive Mentality," Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, University
1934
6 "Science and Sentiment," Bulletin of theFaculty of Arts, ibid., 1935.

UNDERSTANDING A PRIMITIVE SOCIETY 309
experiment.6 God's reality is certainly independent in terms relevant to the hypothesis being tested;
of what any man may care to think, but what that and it is really only in such terms that we can
reality amounts to can only be seen from the sensibly speak of the "results of the experiment" at
religious tradition in which the concept of God is all. What Evans-Pritchard wants to be able to say
used, and this use is very unlike the use of scientific is that the criteria applied in scientific experimenta?
concepts, say of theoretical entities. The point is tion constitute a true link between our ideas and an
that it is within the religious use of language that the independent reality, whereas those characteristic
conception of God's reality has its place, though, I of other systems of thought?in particular, magical
repeat, this does not mean that it is at the mercy of methods of thought?do not. It is evident that the
what anyone cares to say; if this were so, God expressions "true link" and "independent reality"
would have no in the sentence cannot themselves be
reality. previous
My second point follows from the first. Reality is explained by reference to the scientific universe of
not what gives language sense. What is real and discourse, as this would beg the question. We have
what is unreal shows itself in the sense that langu? then to ask how, by reference to what established
age has. Further, both the distinction between the universe of discourse, the use of those expressions is
real and the unreal and the concept of agreement to be explained ;and it is clear that Evans-Pritchard
with reality themselves belong to our language. I has not answered this question.
will not say that they are concepts of the language Two
questions arise out of what I have been
like any other, since it is clear that they occupy a saying. First, is it in fact the case that a primitive
commanding, and in a sense a limiting, position system of magic, like that of the Azande, consti?
there. We can imagine a language with no concept tutes a coherent universe of discourse like science,
of, say, wetness, but hardly one in which there is no in terms of which an intelligible conception of
way of distinguishing the real from the unreal. reality and clear ways of deciding what beliefs are
Nevertheless we could not in fact distinguish the and are not in agreement with this reality can be
real from the unreal without understanding the way discerned ? Second, what are we to make of the
this distinction operates in the language. If then possibility of understanding primitive social insti?
we wish to understand the significance of these tutions, like Zande magic, if the situation is as I
concepts, we must examine the use
they actually have outlined ? I do not claim to be able to give a
do have?in the language. satisfactory answer to the second question. It raises
Evans-Pritchard, on the contrary, is trying to some very important and fundamental issues about
work with a conception of reality which is not the nature of human social life, which require
determined by its actual use in language. He wants conceptions different from, and harder to elucidate,
something against which that use can itself be than those I have hitherto introduced. I shall offer
appraised. But this is not possible; and no more some tentative remarks about these issues in the
possible in the case of scientific discourse than it is second part of this essay. At present I shall address
in any other. We may ask whether a
particular myself to the first question.
scientific hypothesis agrees with reality and test It ought to be remarked here that an affirmative
this by observation and experiment. Given the answer to my first question would not commit me
experimental methods, and the established use of to accepting as rational all beliefs couched in
the theoretical terms entering into the hypothesis, magical concepts or all procedures practiced in the
then the question whether it holds or not is settled name of such beliefs. This is no more necessary than
by reference to something independent of what I, or is the corresponding proposition that all procedures
anybody else, care to think. But the general nature "justified" in the name of science are immune
of the data revealed by the experiment can only be from rational criticism. A remark of Collingwood's
specified in terms of criteria built into the methods is apposite here :
of experiment employed and these, in turn, make are no more exempt from human folly than
sense someone Savages
to who is conversant with the
only civilized and are no doubt liable to the
men, equally
kind of scientific activity within which they are error of thinkingthat they, or the persons they regard
employed. A scientific illiterate, asked to describe as their can do what in fact cannot be done.
superiors,
the results of an experiment which he "observes" But this error is not the essence of magic; it is a per?
in an advanced physics laboratory, could not do so version of magic. And we should be careful how we
6 one way of expressing as going
Indeed, the point of the story of Job is to say that in it Job is shown astray by being induced
to make the reality and goodness of God contingent on what happens.

310 AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY
attribute it to the people we call savages, who will one such a way that its irrational character can be
day rise up and testify against us.7 shown in terms of this when
dependence. Hence,
we of such as
speak practices "superstitious,"
It is important to distinguish a system of magical "illusory," "irrational," we have the weight of our
beliefs and practices like that of the Azande, which culture behind us; and this is not just a matter of
is one of the principal foundations of their whole being on the side of the big battalions, because
social life and, on the other hand, magical beliefs those beliefs and practices belong to, and derive
that might be held, and magical rites that might be such sense as
they
seem to have, from that same
practiced, by persons belonging to our own culture. culture. Thisenables us to show that the sense is
These have to be understood rather differently. only apparent, in terms which are culturally
Evans-Pritchard is himself alluding to the difference relevant.
in the following passage: "When a Zande speaks of It is evident that our relation to Zande magic is
witchcraft he does not speak of it as we speak of the quite different. If we wish to understand it, we must
weird witchcraft of our own history. Witchcraft is seek a foothold elsewhere. And while there may well
to him a commonplace happening and he seldom be room for the use of such critical expressions as
a without it. . . . To us and "irrationality," the kind of
passes day mentioning "superstition"
witchcraft is something which haunted and rationality with which such terms might be used to
our
disgusted credulous forefathers. But the point a contrast remains to be elucidated. The
Zande expects to come across witchcraft at any remarks I shall make in Part II will have a more
time of the day or night. He would be just as sur? positive bearing on this issue. In the rest of this
prised if he were not brought into daily contact with Part, I shall develop inmore detail my criticisms of
it as we would be if confronted by its appearance. Evans-Pritchard's approach
to the Azande.
To him there is nothing miraculous about it."8 Early in this book he defines certain categories in
The difference is not merely one of degree of terms of which his descriptions of Zande customs
familiarity, however, although, perhaps, even this are couched.
has more importance than might at first appear.
Concepts of witchcraft and magic in our culture, at ... are
MYSTICAL NOTIONS patterns of thought
least since the advent of Christianity, have been that attribute to phenomena supra-sensible qualities
on, and a of other orthodox or part of which, are not derived from obser?
parasitic perversion which,
concepts, both and, scien? vation or cannot be inferred from it, and
religious increasingly, logically
tific. To take an obvious you could not which they do not possess.9 COMMON-SENSE NO?
example,
a . . . attribute men
understand what was involved in conducting TIONS to phenomena only what
Black Mass, unless you were familiar with the observe in them or what can logically be inferred from
conduct of a proper Mass and, therefore, with the observation. long as a notion
So does not assert some?
thing which not been observed,

has it is not classed as
whole complex of religious ideas from which the
mystical even though it is mistaken on account of
Mass draws its sense. Neither would you under?
observation. . . . SCIENTIFIC NO?
incomplete
stand the relation between these without taking TIONS. Science has developed out of common-sense
account of the fact that the Black practices are but is far more methodical and has better
techniques
rejected as irrational (in the sense proper to religion) of observation and Common sense uses
reasoning.
in the system of beliefs on which these practices experience and rules of thumb. Science uses experi?
are thus parasitic. Perhaps a similar relation holds ment and rules of Logic. . . . Our
body of scientific
between the contemporary of astrology knowledge and Logic are the sole arbiters of what are mystical,
practice
common sense, and scientific notions. Their are
and astronomy and technology. It is impossible to judgments
never absolute. RITUAL BEHAVIOUR. be?
keep a discussion of the rationality of Black Magic
Any
haviour that is accounted for by mystical notions.
or of astrology within the bounds of concepts
There is no objective nexus between the behaviour and the
peculiar to them; they have an essential reference event it is intended to cause. Such behaviour is usually
to something outside themselves. The position is like to us we
intelligible only when know the mystical
that which Socrates, in Plato's Gorgias, showed to notions associated with it. EMPIRICAL BEHAV?
be true of the Sophists' conception of rhetoric: IOUR. Any behaviour that is accounted for by
namely, that it is parasitic on rational discourse in common-sense notions.10
7R. G.
Collingwood, Principles of Art (Oxford, Oxford University Press, Galaxy Books, 1958), p. 67.
8
Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande, p. 64.
9The 10
italics are mine throughout this quotation. Op. cit., p. 12.

It will be seen from the phrases which I have "no." The answer is then checked by administer?
italicized that Evans-Pritchard is doing more here ing benge to another fowl and asking the question
than just defining certain terms for his own use. the other way round. "Is Prince Ndoruma res?
Certain metaphysical claims are embodied in the ponsible for placing bad medicines in the roof of
definitions: identical in substance with the claims my hut? The fowl DIES giving the answer
embodied in Pareto's way of distinguishing between fiYes.' . . .Did the oracle speak truly when it said
"logical" and "non-logical" conduct.11 There is a that Ndoruma was responsible? The fowl SUR?
very clear implication that those who use mystical VIVES giving the answer cYes'." The poison
notions and perform ritual behavior are making oracle is all-pervasive in Zande life and all steps of
some sort of mistake, detectable with the aid of any importance in a person's life are settled by
science and logic. I shall now examine more reference to it.
closely some of the institutions described by Evans A Zande would be utterly lost and bewildered
Pritchard to determine how far his claims are without his oracle. The mainstay of his life would be
justified. lacking. It is rather as if an engineer, in our society,
Witchcraft is a power possessed by certain were to be asked to build a bridge without mathe?
individuals to harm other individuals by "mystical" matical calculation, or a
military commander to
means. Its basis is an inherited organic condition, mount an extensive co-ordinated attack without
"witchcraft-substance" and it does not involve the use of clocks. These are mine, but a
any analogies
special magical ritual or medicine. It is constantly reader may well think that they beg the question
appealed to by Azande when they are afflicted by at issue. For, he may argue, the Zande practice of
misfortune, not so as to exclude explanation in consulting the oracle, unlike my technological and
terms of natural causes, which Azande are perfectly military examples, is completely unintelligible and
able to offer themselves within the limits of their rests on an obvious illusion. I shall now consider
not inconsiderable natural knowledge, but so as to this objection.
supplement such explanations. "Witchcraft ex? First I must emphasize that I have so far done
plains why12 events are harmful toman and not how12 little more than note the fact, conclusively estab?
they happen. A Zande perceives how they happen lished by Evans-Pritchard, that the Azande do in
just as we do. He does not see a witch charge a fact conduct their affairs to their own satisfaction
man, but an elephant. He does not see a witch in this way and are at a loss when forced to
over the granary, but termites abandon the for instance,
push gnawing away practice?when, they
its supports. He does not see a psychical flame fall into the hands of European courts. It is worth
igniting thatch, but an ordinary lighted bundle remarking too that Evans-Pritchard himself ran
of straw. His perception of how events occur is as his household in the same way during his field
clear as our own."13 researches and says: "I found this as satisfactory a
The most important way of detecting the influ? way of running my home and affairs as any other
ence of witchcraft and of identifying witches is by I know of."
the revelations of oracles, of which in turn the most Further, I would ask in my turn: to whom is the
important is the "poison oracle." This name, practice alleged to be unintelligible ? Certainly it is
though convenient, is significantly misleading difficult for us to understand what the Azande are
insofar as, according to Evans-Pritchard, Azande about when they consult their oracles ;but itmight
do not have our
concept of a
poison and do seem just as incredible to them that the engineer's
not think of, or behave toward, benge?the sub? motions with his slide rule could have any con?
stance administered in the consultation of the nection with the stability of his bridge. But this
oracle?as we do of and toward poisons. The riposte of course misses the intention behind the
gathering, preparation, and administering of benge objection, which was not directed to the question
is hedged with ritual and strict taboos. At an whether anyone in fact understands, or claims to
oracular consultation benge is administered to a understand, what is going on, but rather whether
fowl, while a question is asked in a form permitting what is going on
actually does make sense: i.e.,
a yes or no answer. The fowl's death or survival is in itself. And it may seem obvious that Zande
specified beforehand as giving the answer "yes" or beliefs in witchcraft and oracles cannot make any
11For see Peter Winch,
further criticism of Pareto The Idea of a Social Science, pp. 95-111.
12
Evans-Pritchard's italics.
13
Op. cit., p. 72.

sense, however satisfied the Azande are the main criteria for classifying
may be with something as a
them.
mystical force in the first place. Here we have one
What criteria have we for saying that something reason why the possibilities of "refutation by
does, or does not, make sense ?A
partial
answer is experience" are very much fewer than might at
that a set of beliefs and practices cannot make first sight be supposed.
sense insofar as involve contradictions. Now There is also another connected reason.
they closely
it appears that contradictions are bound to arise in The spirit in which oracles are consulted is very
at least two ways in the consultation of the oracle. unlike that in which a scientist makes experiments.
On the one hand two oracular Oracular revelations are not treated as
pronouncements hypotheses
may contradict each other; and on the other hand and, since their sense derives from the way they are
a self-consistent oracular pronouncement may treated in their context, they therefore are not
be contradicted by future experience. I shall hypotheses. They are not a matter of intellectual
examine each of these apparent possibilities in interest but the main way in which Azande decide
turn. how they should act. If the oracle reveals that a
Of course, it does happen often that the oracle proposed course of action is fraught with mystical
first says and then "no" to the same from witchcraft or that course
"yes" question. dangers sorcery,
This does not convince a Zande of the futility of of action will not be carried out; and then the
the whole operation of consulting oracles: ob? question of refutation or confirmation just does
viously, it cannot, since otherwise the practice not arise. We might say that the revelation has the
could hardly have developed and maintained itself logical status of an unfulfilled hypothetical, were it
at all. Various explanations may be offered, whose not that the context in which this logical term is
possibility, it is important to notice, is built into generally used may again suggest a misleadingly
the whole network of Zande beliefs and may, close analogy with scientific hypotheses.
therefore, be regarded as belonging to the concept I do not think that Evans-Pritchard would have
of an oracle. It may be said, for instance, that bad disagreed with what I have said so far. Indeed, the
benge is being used ; that the operator of the oracle following comment is on very similar lines :
is ritually unclean; that the oracle is being itself
Azande observe the action of the poison oracle as we
influenced by witchcraft or sorcery; or it may be
observe it, but their observations are always subor?
that the oracle is showing that the question cannot
dinated to their beliefs and are incorporated into their
be answered straightforwardly in its present form,
beliefs and to explain
made them and justify them.
as with "Have you stopped beating your wife Let the reader consider any argument that would
yet?" There are various ways in which the demolish all Zande claims for the power of the
utterly
behavior of the fowl under the influence of benge oracle. If it were translated into Zande modes of
may be ingeniously interpreted by those wise in the thought it would serve to support their entire structure
ways of the poison oracle. We might compare this of belief. For their mystical notions are eminently
situation perhaps with the interpretation of dreams. coherent, being interrelated a network of logical
by
In the other type of case: where an internally ties, and are so ordered that they never too crudely
con? contradict sensory experience but, instead, experience
consistent oracular revelation is
apparently seems to justify them. The Zande is immersed in a
tradicted by subsequent experience, the situation
sea of mystical notions, and if he about his
a speaks
may be dealt with in similar way, by references
poison oracle he must speak in a mystical idiom.14
to the influence of witchcraft, ritual uncleanliness,
and so on. But there is another important
con? To locate
the point at which the important
sideration we must take into account here too. The philosophical issue does arise, I shall offer a parody,
chief function of oracles is to reveal the presence of composed by changing round one or two expres?
"mystical" forces?I use Evans-Pritchard's term sions in the foregoing quotation.
without committing myself to his denial that such observe the action of the poison oracle
Europeans just
forces really exist. Now though there are indeed as Azande observe are always
it, but their observations
ways of determining whether or not mystical
subordinated to their beliefs and are incorporated
forces are these do not
operating, ways correspond into their beliefs and made to them and
explain
to what we understand confirma? a Zande
by "empirical" justify them. Let consider any argument that
tion or refutation. This indeed is a tautology, would utterly refute all European about
scepticism
since such differences in "confirmatory" procedures the power of the oracle. If it were translated into
14
Ibid., p. 319.

European modes of thought it would serve to support exclude certain possibilities, and this cannot be the
their entire structure of belief. For their scientific case since logic must
otherwise get outside the limits
notions are eminently coherent, being interrelated by of the world : that is, if it could consider these limits
a network of logical ties, and are so ordered that from the other side also.15
they
never too crudely contradict mystical experience but,
instead, experience seems to justify them. The Euro? Evans-Pritchard discusses the phenomena of belief
pean is immersed in a sea of scientific notions, and if and scepticism, as they appear in Zande life.
he about the Zande oracle he must
speaks poison There is certainly widespread scepticism about
speak in a scientific idiom.
certain some of the
things, for instance, about
this too would be acceptable to Evans powers claimed by witchdoctors or about the
Perhaps
Pritchard. But it is clear from other remarks in the efficacy of certain magic medicines. But, he points
book to which I have alluded, that at the time of out, such scepticism does not begin to overturn the
writing it he would have wished to add: and the mystical way of thinking, since it is necessarily
is right and the Zande wrong. This expressed in terms belonging to that way of
European
addition I regard as illegitimate and my reasons for thinking.
so thinking take us to the heart of the matter.
In this web of belief every strand on every
It may be illuminating at this point to compare depends
other and a Zande cannot itsmeshes
the disagreement between Evans-Pritchard and me strand, get outside
because this is the only world he knows. The web is
to that between the Wittgenstein of the Philo? an
not external structure in which he is enclosed. It
sophical Investigations and his earlier alter ego of the is the texture of his thought and he cannot think that
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. In the Tractatus his is wrong.16
thought
Wittgenstein sought "the general form of propo?
sitions": what made propositions possible. He said and Evans-Pritchard are concerned
Wittgenstein
that this general form is: "This is how things are"; here with much the same problem, though the
the was an articulated con? difference in the directions
proposition model, from which they
sisting of elements standing in a definite relation to approach it is important too. Wittgenstein, at the
each other. The proposition was true when there time of the Tractatus, spoke of "language," as if all
existed a of elements same
corresponding arrangement language is fundamentally of the kind and
in reality. The proposition was capable of saying must have the same kind of "relation to reality";
something because of the identity of structure, of but Evans-Pritchard is confronted by two langua?
logical form, in the proposition and in reality.
ges which he recognizes as fundamentally different
By the time Wittgenstein composed the Investi? in kind, such that much of what may be expressed
gations he had come to reject the whole idea that in the one has no possible counterpart in the other.
there must be a general form of propositions. He One might, therefore, have expected this to lead to
emphasized the indefinite number of different a position closer to that of the Philosophical Investi?
uses that language may have and tried to show that than to that of the Tractatus. Evans
gations
these different uses neither need, nor in fact do, Pritchard is not content with the
elucidating
all have something in common, in the sense differences in the two concepts of reality involved ;
intended in the Tractatus. He also tried to show that he wants to further and our of
go say: concept
what counts as or with is the correct the Azande
"agreement disagreement reality one, are mis?
reality" takes on as many different forms as there taken. But the difficulty is to see what "correct"
are different uses of and cannot, there? can mean
language and "mistaken" in this context.
fore, be taken as given prior to the detailed investi? Let me return to the subject of contradictions. I
gation of the use that is in question. have noted that contradictions we
already many
The Tractatus contains a remark strikingly like
might expect to appear in fact do not in the context
that Evans-Pritchard says. of Zande
something thought, where provision is made for
avoiding them. But there are some situations of
The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.
fills the world : the limits of the world are also which this does not seem to be true, where what
Logic
its limits. We cannot therefore in logic: This and appear to us as obvious contradictions are left
say
this there is in the world, and that there is not. where they are, apparently unresolved. Perhaps
For that would apparently presuppose that we this may be the foothold we are lookins: for, from
15
Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, paras. 5.6-5.61.
16
Evans-Pritchard, op. cit., p. 194.

which we can appraise the "correctness" of the Someone may now want to say that the irration?
Zande system.17 ality of the Azande in relation to witchcraft shows
Consider Zande notions about the inheritance of itself in the fact that they do not press their thought
witchcraft. I have spoken so far only of the role of about it "to its logical conclusion." To appraise this
oracles in establishing whether or not someone is a point we must consider whether the conclusion we
witch. But there is a further and, as we might are trying to force on them is indeed a logical one ;
think, more "direct" method of doing this, namely or
perhaps better, whether someone who does press
by post-mortem examination of a
suspect's this conclusion is being more rational than the
intestines for "witchcraft-substance." This may be Azande, who do not. Some light is thrown on this
arranged by his family after his death in an question by Wittgenstein's discussion of a game,
attempt to clear the family name of the imputation
our such that whoever begins can always win by a partic?
of witchcraft. Evans-Pritchard remarks: "to
ular trick. But this has not been realized?so
minds it appears evident that if a man is proven a simple
it is a game. Now someone draws our attention to it?
witch the whole of his clan are ipsofacto witches,
and it stops being a game.
since the Zande clan is a group of persons related What turn can I give to make it clear to my?
this,
biologically to one another through the male line. self??For I want to say: "and it a
stops being
Azande see the sense of this argument but they do "and now we see that it wasn't a
game"?not: game."
not accept its conclusions, and it would involve the That means, I want to say, it can also be taken like
whole notion of witchcraft in contradiction were this: the other man did not draw our attention
to any?
they to do so."18 Contradiction would presumably thing; he taught us a different game in place of our
own. But how can the new game the old
arise because a few positive results of post-mortem have made
one obsolete? We now see different, and
examinations, scattered among all the clans, something
can no longer naively go on playing.
would soon that was a
very prove everybody
On the one hand the game consisted in our actions
and a few results, scattered among
witch, negative on the and these actions I could
(our play) board;
the same would that was a
clans, prove nobody as well now as before. But on the other hand
perform
witch. Though, in particular situations, individual it was essential to the game that I blindly tried to win;
Azande may avoid personal implications arising and now I can no longer do that.20
out of the presence of witchcraft-substance in
deceased relatives, by imputations of bastardy and There are obviously considerable analogies
similar devices, this would not be enough to save between Wittgenstein's example and the situation
the generally contradictory situation I have we are
considering. But there is an equally impor?
sketched. Evans-Pritchard comments: "Azande tant difference. Both Wittgenstein's games : the old
do not perceive the contradiction as we perceive it one without the trick that enables the starter to
because they have no theoretical interest in the win and the new one with the trick, are in an
and those situations in which they express important sense on the same level. They are both
subject,
their belief in witchcraft do not force the problem games, in the form of a contest where the aim of a
upon them."19 player is to beat his opponent by the exercise of
It might now appear as though we had clear skill. The new trick makes this situation impossible
grounds for speaking of the superior rationality of and this is why it makes the old game obsolete.
European over Zande thought, insofar as the To be sure, the situation could be saved in a way
latter involves a contradiction which it makes no by introducing a new rule, forbidding the use by
to remove and does not even
recognize: the starter of the trick which would ensure his
attempt
one, however, is recognizable
which as such in the victory. But our intellectual habits are such as to
context of European ways of thinking. But does make us unhappy about the artificiality of such a
Zande thought on this matter really involve a device, rather as logicians have been unhappy
contradiction? It appears from Evans-Pritchard's about the introduction of a Theory of Types as a
account that Azande do not press their ways of device for avoiding Russell's paradoxes. It is note?
thinking about witches to a point at which they worthy inmy last quotation from Evans-Pritchard,
would be involved in contradictions. however, that the Azande, when the possibility of
17 I shall discuss this point in a more in Part II.
general way
18 19
Ibid., p. 24. Ibid., p. 25.
20L. Remarks on theFoundations Pt. whole discussion of "contradiction"
Wittgenstein, of Mathematics, II, ? 77. Wittgenstein's
in mathematics is directly relevant to the point I am discussing.

this contradiction about the inheritance of witch? the approach I have been criticizing is in principle
craft is pointed out to them, do not then come to the right one. This argument has been advanced
regard their old beliefs about witchcraft as obso? by Mr. Alasdair Maclntyre in two places: (a) in
lete. "They have no theoretical interest in the a paper entitled Is Understanding Religion Compatible
subject." This suggests strongly that the context with Believing? read to the Sesquicentennial
from which the suggestion about the contradiction Seminar of the Princeton Theological Seminar in
ismade, the context of our scientific culture, is not 1962.a2 (b) In a contribution to Philosophy, Politics
on the same level as the context in which the and Society (Second Series),2'* entitled A Mistake about
beliefs about witchcraft operate. Zande notions of Causality in Social Science. Next, I shall make some
witchcraft do not constitute a theoretical system in slightly more positive suggestions about how to
terms of which Azande try to gain a quasi overcome the difficulty from which I started :how
scientific understanding of the world.21 This in its to make intelligible in our terms institutions
turn suggests that it is the European, obsessed with belonging to a primitive culture, whose standards
pressing Zande thought where it would not natur? of rationality and intelligibility are apparently
ally go?to a contradiction?who is guilty of quite at odds with our own.
misunderstanding, not the Zande. The European The relation between Maclntyre, Evans-Pritch?
is in fact committing a category-mistake. ard, and myself is a complicated one. Maclntyre
Something else is also suggested by this dis? takes Evans-Pritchard's later book, JVuer Religion,
cussion: the forms in which rationality expresses as an application of a point of view like mine in
itself in the culture of a human society cannot be The Idea of a Social Science; he regards it as an object
elucidated simply in terms of the logical coherence of lesson in the absurd results to which such a
the rules according to which activities are carried position leads, when applied in practice. My own
out in that society. For, as we have seen, there criticisms of Evans-Pritchard, on the other hand,
comes a
point where we are not even in a
position
have come from precisely the opposite direction. I
to determine what is and what is not coherent in have tried to show that Evans-Pritchard did not at
such a context of rules, without raising questions the time of writing The Azande agree with me enough;
about the point which following those rules has in that he did not take seriously enough the idea that
the society. No doubt it was a realization of this the concepts used by primitive peoples can only be
fact which led Evans-Pritchard to appeal to a interpreted in the context of the way of life of those
residual "correspondence with reality" in dis? peoples. Thus I have in effect argued that Evans
tinguishing between "mystical" and "scientific" Pritchard's account of the Azande is unsatisfactory
notions. The conception of reality is indeed precisely to the extent that he agrees with Mac?
indispensable to any understanding of the point of lntyre and not me.
a way of life. But it is not a
conception which can be The best point at which to start considering
as Evans-Pritchard tries to it, is that at which he agrees with
explicated explicate Maclntyre's position
in terms of what science reveals to be the case; me?in emphasizing the importance of possibilities
for a form of the conception of reality must already of description for the concept of human action. An
be presupposed before we can make any sense of the agent's action "is identified fundamentally as what
expression "what science reveals to be the case." it is by the description under which he deems it to
fall." Since, further, descriptions must be intelligi?
ble to other people, an action "must fall under
II. Our Standards and Theirs
some description which is socially recognizable as
In Part I, I attempted, by analyzing a particular the description of an action."24 "To identify the
case, to criticize by implication a particular view of limits of social action in a given period," therefore,
how we can understand a primitive institution. "is to identify the stock of descriptions current in
In this Part I shall have two aims. First, I shall that age."25 Maclntyre correctly points out that
examine in a more formal way a general philo? descriptions do not exist in isolation, but occur "as
sophical argument, which attempts to show that constituents of beliefs, speculations and projects."
21
Notice that I have not said that Azande conceptions of witchcraft have nothing to do with understanding the world at
all. The point is that a different form of the concept of understanding is involved here.
22To be
published along with other papers, by the Macmillan Company.
28Edited
by Peter Laslett and W. G. Runciman (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1962).
24 25
Ibid., p. 58. Ibid., p. 60.

3l6
As these in turn "are continually criticized, modi? current in a society is ruled out by my earlier
fied, rejected, or improved, the stock of descrip? account (in The Idea of a Social Science) of the origin
tions changes. The changes in human action are in social institutions themselves of such standards.
thus intimately linked to the thread of rational I shall not now repeat my earlier argument, but
criticism in human history." simply point out that I did, in various passages,27
This notion of rational criticism, Maclntyre emphasize the open character of the "rules" which I
points out, requires the notion of choice between spoke of in connection with social institutions: i.e.,
alternatives, to explain which "is a matter of the fact that in changing social situations, reasoned
making clear what the agent's criterion was and decisions have to be made about what is to count
why he made use of this criterion rather than as "going on in the same way." failure
Maclntyre's
another and to explain why the use of this criterion to come to terms with this point creates difficulties
appears rational to those who invoke it."26 Hence for him precisely analogous to those which he
"in explaining the rules and conventions to which mistakenly attributes to my account.
action in a given social order conform (sic) we It is a corollary of his argument up to this point,
cannot omit reference to the or other? as well as being evident, that a new
rationality intrinsically
wise of those rules and conventions." Further, "the description of action must be intelligible to the
beginning of an explanation of why certain members of the society in which it is introduced.
criteria are taken to be rational in some societies is On my view the point is that what determines this
that they are rational. And since this has to enter is the further development of rules and principles
into our
explanation
we cannot
explain social already implicit in the previous ways of acting
behaviour independently of our own norms of and talking. To be emphasized are not the actual
rationality." members of any "stock" of descriptions ; but the
I turn now to criticism of this argument. Con? grammar which they express. It is through this that
sider first Maclntyre's account of changes in an we understand their structure and sense, their
existing "stock" of available descriptions of actions. mutual relations, and the sense of new ways of
How does a candidate for inclusion qualify for talking and acting that may be introduced. These
admission to the stock ?Unless there are limits, all new ways of talking and acting may very well at the
Maclntyre's talk about possibilities of description same time involve modifications in the grammar,
circumscribing possibilities of action becomes but we can only speak thus if the new grammar is
nugatory, for there would be nothing to stop any? (to its users) intelligibly related to the old.
body inventing
some arbitrary verbal expression, But what of the intelligibility of such changes to
applying it to some arbitrary bodily movement, and observers from another society with a different
thus adding that expression to the stock of available culture and different standards of intelligibility?
descriptions. But of course the new description must Maclntyre urges that such observers must make
be an intelligible one. Certainly, its intelligibility clear "what the agent's criterion was and why he
cannot be decided by whether or not it belongs to made use of this criterion rather than another and
an existing stock of descriptions, since this would why the use of this criterion appears rational to
rule out precisely what is being discussed: the those who invoke it." Since what is at issue is the
addition of new descriptions to the stock. "What precise relation between the concepts of rationality
can intelligibly be said" is not equivalent to "what current in these different societies it is obviously of
has been intelligibly said," or it would never be first importance to be clear about whose concept of
to say anything new. Mutatis mutandis it rationality is being alluded to in this quotation.
possible
would never be possible to do anything new. It seems that it must be that which is current in
Nevertheless the intelligibility of anything new the society in which the criterion is invoked. Some?
said or done does depend in a certain way on what thing can appear rational to someone only in terms
already has been said or done and understood. The o?his understanding of what is and is not rational.
crux of this problem lies in how we are to under? If our concept of rationality is a different one from
stand that "in a certain
way." his, then it makes no sense to say that anything
In Is Understanding Religion Compatible with either does or does not appear rational to him in
Believing? Maclntyre asserts that the development our sense.
through criticism of the standards of intelligibility When Maclntyre goes on to say that the observer
"Ibid., p. 61.
27
Pp. 57-65; 9r-94; 121-123.

"cannot omit reference to the rationality

or other? as we "detect" and "show" something, obviously we
wise of those rules and conventions" followed by do so in a sense intelligible to us; so we are limited
the alien agent, whose concept of rationality is now by what counts (for us) as "detecting," "showing"
in question :ours or the agent's ? Since the observer something. Further, itmay well be that the interest
must be understood now as addressing himself to in showing and detecting such things is peculiar to
members of his own society, it seems that the our society?that we are doing something in which
reference must here be to the concept of rationality members of the studied society exhibit no interest,
current in the observer's society. Thus there is a because the institutions in which such an interest
non sequitur in the movement from the first to the could develop are lacking. Perhaps too the pursuit
second of the passages just quoted. ofthat interest in our society has led to the develop?
Maclntyre's thought here and in what immedi? ment of techniques of inquiry and modes of
ately follows, seems to be this. The explanation of argument which again are not to be found in the
why, in Society S, certain actions are taken to be life of the studied society. But it cannot be guaran?
rational, has got to be an explanation for us; so it teed in advance that the methods and techniques
must be in terms of concepts intelligible to us. If we have used in the past?e.g., in elucidating the
then, in the explanation, we say that in fact those logical structure of arguments in our own language
criteria are rational, we must be using the word and culture?are going to be equally fruitful in
"rational" in our sense. For this explanation would this new context. They will perhaps need to be
require that we had previously carried out an extended and modified. No doubt, if they are to
independent investigation into the actual ration? have a logical relation to our previous forms of
ality or otherwise of those criteria, and we could do investigation, the new techniques will have to be
this only in terms of an understood concept of recognizably continuous with previously used ones.
rationality?our understood concept of rationality. But they must also so extend our conception of
The explanation would run :members of Society S intelligibility as to make it possible for us to see
have seen to be the case something that we know to what intelligibility amounts to in the life of the
be the case. If "what is seen to be the case" is society we are investigating.
common to us and them, it must be referred to The taskMaclntyre says we must undertake is to
under the same concept for each of us. make intelligible (a) (to us) why it is that members
But obviously this explanation is not open to us. of S think that certain of their practices are
For we start from the position that standards of intelligible (b) (to them), when in fact they are not.
rationality in different societies do not always I have introduced differentiating letters into my
coincide; from the possibility, therefore, that the two uses of "intelligible," to mark the complexity
standards of rationality current in S are different that Maclntyre's way of stating the position does
from our own. So we cannot assume that it will not bring out: the fact that we are dealing with
make sense to speak of members of S as discovering two different senses of the word "intelligible."
something which we have also discovered; such The relation between these is precisely the question
discovery presupposes initial conceptual agreement. at issue. Maclntyre's task is not like that of making
Part of the trouble lies inMaclntyre's use of the intelligible
a natural phenomenon, where we are
expression, "the rationality of criteria," which he limited only by what counts as intelligibility for
does not In the context to us. We must somehow ?S"s conception of
explain. present speak bring
thus is to cloak the real problem, since what we are intelligibility (b) into (intelligible!) relation with
concerned with are differences in criteria of ration? our own conception of intelligibility (a). That is,
ality. Maclntyre seems to be saying that certain we have to create a new unity for the concept of
standards are taken as criteria of rationality intelligibility, having a certain relation to our old
because they are criteria of rationality. But whose ? one and perhaps requiring a considerable realign?
There are similar confusions in Maclntyre's ment of our categories. We are not seeking a state
other paper :Is Understanding Religion Compatible with in which things will appear to us just as they do to
Believing? There he argues that when we detect an members of S, and perhaps such a state is un?
internal incoherence in the standards of intelligi? attainable anyway. But we are
seeking
a way of
bility current in an alien society and try to show at which goes beyond our
looking things previous
why this does not appear, or ismade tolerable to way in that it has in some way taken account of and
that society's members, "we have already invoked incorporated the other way that members of S have
our standards." In what sense is this true? Insofar of looking at things. Seriously to study another way

3l8
of life is necessarily to seek to extend our own?not apply to his talk about "our norms of rationality,"
simply to bring the other way within the already if these norms are taken as
forming
some finite set.
existing boundaries of our own, because the point Certainly we learn to

think, speak, and act
about the latter in their present form, is that they rationally through being trained to adhere to par?
ex hypothesi exclude that other. ticular norms. But having learned to speak, etc.,
There is a dimension to the notions of rationality rationally does not consist in having been trained to
and intelligibility which may make it easier to grasp follow those norms; to suppose that would be to
the possibility of such an extension. I do not think overlook the importance of the phrase "and so on"
that Maclntyre takes sufficient account of this in any description of what someone who follows
dimension and, indeed, the way he talks about norms does. We must, if you like, be open to new
"norms of rationality" obscures it. Rationality is possibilities of what could be invoked and accepted
not fust a concept in a language like any other; it is under the rubric of "rationality"?possibilities
this too, for, like any other concept it must be which are perhaps suggested and limited by what
circumscribed by an established use : a use, that is, we have hitherto so accepted, but not uniquely
established in the language. But I think it is not a determined thereby.
concept which a language may, as a matter of fact, This point can be applied to the possibilities of
have and equally well may not have, as is, for our grasping forms of rationality different from
instance, the concept of politeness. It is a concept ours in an alien culture. First, as I have indicated,
necessary to the existence of any language : to say these possibilities are limited by certain formal
of a society that it has a language28 is also to say requirements centering round the demand for
that it has a concept of rationality. There need not consistency. But these formal requirements tell us
perhaps be any word functioning in its language as nothing about what in particular is to count as
"rational" does in ours, but at least there must be consistency, just as the rules of the propositional
features of its members' use of language analogous calculus limit, but do not themselves determine,
to those features of our use of language which are what are to be proper values of p, q, etc. We can
connected with our use of the word "rational." only determine this by investigating the wider
Where there is language itmust make a difference context of the life in which the activities in question
what is said and this is only possible where the are carried on. This investigation will take us
saying of one thing rules out, on pain of failure to beyond merely specifying the rules governing the
communicate, the saying of something else. So in carrying out of those activities. For, as Maclntyre
one sense Maclntyre is right in saying that we have quite rightly says, to note that certain rules are
already invoked our concept of rationality in saying followed is so far to say nothing about the point of
of a collection of people that they constitute a the rules; it is not even to decide whether or not
society with a
language
: in the sense, namely, that they have a point at all.
we imply formal analogies between their behavior Maclntyre's recipe for deciding this is that "in
and that behavior in our society which we refer to bringing out this feature of the case one shows also
in distinguishing between rationality and irration? whether the use of this concept is or is not a
ality. This, however, is so far to say nothing about possible one for people who have the standards of
what in particular constitutes rational behavior intelligibility in speech and action which we
in that society; that would require more particular have."29 It is important to notice that his argument,
knowledge about the norms they appeal to in contrary to what he supposes, does not in fact show
living their lives. In other words, it is not somuch a that our own standards of rationality occupy a
matter of invoking "our own norms of rationality" peculiarly central position. The appearance to the
as of invoking our notion of rationality in speaking contrary is an optical illusion engendered by the
of their behavior in terms of "conformity to fact that Maclntyre's case has been advanced in the
norms." But how precisely this notion is to be English language and in the context of 20th
applied to them will depend on our reading of their Century European culture. But a formally similar
conformity
to norms?what counts for them as argument could be advanced in any language
conformity and what does not. containing concepts playing a similar role in that
Earlier I criticized Maclntyre's conception of a language to those of "intelligibility" and "ration?
"stock of available descriptions." Similar criticisms ality" in ours. This shows that, so far from over
281 shall not discuss here what justifies us in saying this in the first place.
29 Is
Understanding Religion Compatible with Believing?

coming relativism, as he claims, Maclntyre evaluation that are here in question are
sophisti?
himself falls into an extreme form of it. He disguises cated philosophical activities. But this is not to
this from himself by committing the very error of say that Zande forms of life are to be classified and
which, wrongly as I have tried to show, he accuses evaluated in the way Maclntyre asserts : in terms of
me: the error of overlooking the fact that "criteria certain specific forms of life to be found in our
and concepts have a history." While he emphasizes culture, according
as
they do or do not measure up
this point when he is dealing with the concepts and to what is required within these. Maclntyre con?
criteria governing action in particular social fuses the sophistication of the interest in classifica?
contexts, he forgets it when he comes to talk of the tion with the sophistication of the concepts em?
criticism of such criteria. Do not the criteria ployed in our classificatory work. It is of interest to
appealed to in the criticism of existing institutions us to understand how Zande magic is related to
equally have a history? And in whose society do science; the concept of such a comparison is a very
they have that history ?Maclntyre's implicit answer sophisticated one; but this does not mean that we
is that it is in ours; but if we are to speak of have to see the unsophisticated Zande practice in
difficulties and incoherencies appearing and being the light of more sophisticated practices in our own
detected in the way certain practices have hitherto culture, like science?as perhaps
a more
primitive
been carried on in a society, surely this can only be form of it. Maclntyre criticizes, justly, Sir James
understood in connection with problems arising in Frazer for having imposed the image of his own
the carrying on of the activity. Outside that culture on more primitive ones ; but that is exactly
context we could not begin to grasp what was what Maclntyre himself is doing here. It is
problematical. extremely difficult for a sophisticated member of a
Let me return to the Azande and consider some?
sophisticated society to grasp a very simple and
thing which Maclntyre says about them, intended primitive form of life : in a way he must jettison
to support the position I am criticizing. his sophistication, a process which is itself perhaps
the ultimate in sophistication. Or, rather, the
The Azande believe that the performance of certain
distinction between sophistication and simplicity
rites in due form affects their common welfare; this
belief cannot in fact be refuted. For
becomes unhelpful at this point.
they also believe
that if the rites are ineffective it is because someone It may be true, as Maclntyre says, that the
present at them had evil Since this is always Azande do not have the categories of science and
thoughts.
there is never a year when it is unavoidable non-science. But Evans-Pritchard's account shows
possible,
for them to admit that the rites were duly performed, that they do have a fairly clear working distinction
but they did not thrive. Now the belief of the between the technical and the magical. It is
Azande is not unfalsifiable in principle (we know neither here nor there that individual Azande may
perfectly well what would falsify it?the conjunction sometimes confuse the for such con?
categories,
of the rite, no evilthoughts and But in
disasters). fusions take in any culture. A much more
may place
fact it cannot be falsified. Does this belief stand in need
important fact to emphasize is that we do not
of rational criticism ? And if so by what standards ? It
initially have a category that looks at all like the
seems to me that one could only hold the belief of the
Azande rational in the absence of science Zande category of magic. Since it iswe who want to
of any practice
and in which criteria of effectiveness, understand the Zande category, it appears that the
technology
ineffectiveness and kindred notions had been built up. onus is on us to extend our
understanding
so as to
But to say this is to recognize the appropriateness of make room for the Zande rather than to
category,
scientific criteria of judgment from our standpoint. insist on it in terms of our own
seeing ready-made
The Azande do not intend their belief either as a piece distinction between and
science non-science. Cer?
of science or as a piece of non-science. do not
They
tainly the sort of understanding we seek requires
possess these categories. It is only post eventum, in the
that we see the Zande category in relation to our
light of later and more sophisticated understanding own already understood categories. But this
that their belief and concepts can be classified and
evaluated at all.30 neither means that it is right to "evaluate" magic in
terms of criteria belonging to those other categories ;
Now in one sense classification and evaluation of nor does it give any clue as to which of our existing
Zande beliefs and concepts does require "a more categories of thought will provide the best point of
sophisticated understanding" than is found in reference from which we can understand the point
Zande culture; for the sort of classification and of the Zande practices.
30 Ibid.

Maclntyre has no difficulty in showing that if they take all kinds of practical "technological"
the rites which the Azande perform in connection steps, within their capabilities, to ensure that they
with their harvests are "classified and evaluated" do thrive. But that is no reason to see their magical
by reference to the criteria and standards of rites as a further, misguided such step. A man's
science or technology, then they are subject to sense of the importance of something to him shows
serious criticism. He thinks that the Zande "belief" itself in all sorts of ways: not merely in precautions
is a sort of hypothesis like, e.g., an Englishman's to safeguard that thing. He may want to come
belief that all the heavy rain we have been to terms with its importance to him in quite a
having is due to atomic explosions.31 Maclntyre different way : to
contemplate it, to gain some sense
believes that he is applying as it were a neutral of his life in relation to it. He may wish thereby, in
concept of "A affecting B," equally applicable to a certain sense, tofree himself from dependence on
Zande magic and western science. In fact, how? it. I do not mean by making sure that it does not
ever, he is applying the concept with which he is let him down, because the point is that, whatever
familiar, one which draws its significance from its he does, he may still be let down. The important
use in scientific and technological contexts. There is thing is that he should understand that and come to
no reason to suppose that the Zande magical
con? terms with it. Of course, merely to understand
cept of "A affecting 7?" has anything like the same that is not to come to terms with it, though perhaps
significance. On the contrary, since the Azande it is a necessary condition for so doing, for a man
do, in the course of their practical affairs, apply may equally well be transfixed and terrorized by
something very like our technical concept?though the contemplation of such a possibility. He must
perhaps in a more primitive form?and since their see that he can still go on even if he is let down by
attitude to and thought about their magical rites what is vitally important to him; and he must so
are quite different from those concerning their order his life that he still can go on in such circum?
measures, there is reason to stances. I stress once that I do not mean this
technological every again
think that their concept of magical "influence" is in the sense of becoming "technologically inde?
quite different. This may be easier to accept if it is pendent," because from the present point of view
remembered that, even in our own culture, the technological independence is yet another form of
concept of causal influence is by no means mono? dependence. Technology destroys some depen?
lithic: when we speak, for example, of "what made dencies but always creates new ones, which may be
married," we are not the same fiercer?because harder to understand?than the
Jones get saying
kind ofthing as when we speak of "what made the old. This should be particularly apparent to us.S2
crash"; I do not mean that the In Judaeo-Christian cultures the of
aeroplane simply conception
events of which we speak are different in kind but "If it be Thy Will," as developed in the story of
that the relation between the events is different Job, is clearly central to the matter I am discussing.
also. It should not then be difficult to accept Because this conception is central to Christian
that in a society with quite different institutions prayers of supplication, they may be regarded from
and ways of life from our own, there may be con? one point of view as freeing the believer from
cepts of "causal influence" which behave even more
dependence on what he is supplicating for.33
differently. Prayers cannot play this role if they are regarded as
But I do not want to say that we are quite a means of influencing the outcome for in that case
powerless to find ways of thinking in our own the one who prays is still dependent on the outcome.
society that will help us to see the Zande institution He frees himself from this by acknowledging his
in a clearer light. I only think that the direction in complete dependence on God; and this is totally
which we should look is quite different from what unlike any dependence on the outcome precisely
Maclntyre suggests. Clearly the nature of Zande because God is eternal and the outcome contingent.
life is such that it is of very great importance to I do not say that Zande magical rites are at all
them that their crops should thrive. Clearly too like Christian prayers of supplication in the positive
31 I have been helped but greatly, some notes made on Frazer,

In what follows indirectly, by unpublished by Wittgenstein
which Mr. Rush Rhees was kind enough to show me; and also by various scattered remarks on folklore in The Notebooks of
Simone Weil (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963).
32 is beautifully in her essay on "The Analysis of Oppression" in Oppression and Liberty
The point developed by Simone Weil
(London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1958).
33 I have been on of prayer
helped to see this point by a hitherto unpublished essay the concept by Mr. D. Z. Phillips.

attitude to contingencies which they express. What expression in other contexts (different language
I do suggest is that they are alike in that they do, games). Language games are played by men who
or may, express an attitude to
contingencies; one, have lives to live?lives involving a wide variety of
that is, which involves recognition that one's life different interests, which have all kinds of different
is subject to rather than an on each other. Because of a
contingencies, attempt bearings this, what
to control these. To characterize this attitude more man says or does may make a difference not
merely
specifically one should note how Zande rites to the performance of the activity upon which he
emphasize the importance of certain fundamental is at present engaged, but to his life and to the lives
features of their life which Maclntyre ignores. of other people. Whether a man sees point in what
Maclntyre concentrates implicitly on the relation he is doing will then depend on whether he is able
of the rites to consumption, but of course they are to see any unity in his multifarious interests,
also fundamental to social relations and this seems activities, and relations with other men; what sort
to be emphasized in Zande notions of witchcraft. of sense he sees in his life will depend on the nature
We have a drama of resentments, evil-doing, of this unity. The ability to see this sort of sense in
revenge, expiation, in which there are ways of life depends not merely on the individual con?
dealing (symbolically) with misfortunes and their cerned, though this is not to say it does not depend
disruptive effect on a man's relations with his on him at all ; it depends also on the possibilities for
fellows, with ways in which life can go on despite making such sense which the culture in which he
such disruptions. lives does, or does not, provide.
How ismy treatment of this example related to What we may learn by studying other cultures
the general criticsms I was making of Maclntyre's are not merely possibilities of different ways of
account of what it is for us to see the point of the doing things, other techniques. More importantly
rules and conventions followed in an alien form of we may learn different possibilities of making sense
life? Maclntyre speaks as though our own rules of human life, different ideas about the possible
importance that the carrying out of certain activi?
and conventions are somehow a of what
paradigm
it is for rules and conventions to have a point, so ties may take on for a man, trying to contemplate
that the only problem that arises is in accounting the sense of his life as a whole. This dimension of the
for the point of the rules and conventions in some matter is precisely what Maclntyre misses in his
other society. But in fact, of course, the problem is treatment of Zande magic: he can see in it only a
the same in relation to our own society as it is in (misguided) technique for producing consumer
relation to any other; no more than anyone else's
goods. But a Zande's crops are not just potential
are our rules and conventions immune from the of consumption: the life he lives, his
objects
danger of being or becoming pointless. So an relations with his fellows, his chances for acting
account of this matter cannot be given simply in or doing evil, may all spring from
decently
terms of any set of rules and conventions at all: our his relation to his rites constitute a
crops. Magical
own or anyone else's ; it requires us to consider the form of expression in which these possibilities and
relation of a set of rules and conventions to some? be and reflected on?
dangers may contemplated
thing else. In my discussion of Zande magical rites and perhaps also thereby transformed and deep?
just now what I tried to relate the magical rites to ened. The difficulty we find in understanding this
was a sense of the significance of human life. This is not its remoteness from science, but an
merely
notion is, I think, indispensable to any account of aspect of the general difficulty we find, illustrated
what is involved in understanding and learning from of thinking about such
by Maclntyre's procedure,
an alien culture ; Imust now to say more about it. matters at all except in terms of "efficiency of
try
In a discussion of Wittgenstein's philosophical that is, for
production"?production, consumption.
use of language games34 Mr. Rush Rhees This again is a symptom of what Marx called the
points
out that to try to account for the of "alienation" characteristic of man in industrial
meaningfulness
in terms of isolated own confusions about the
language solely language society, though Marx's
games is to omit the important fact that ways relations between and are
production consumption
of speaking are not insulated from each other in further symptoms of that same alienation. Our
mutually exclusive systems of rules. What can be blindness to the point of primitive modes of life is a
in one of much of our own
corollary of the pointlessness
said context the use of a certain
by expres?
sion depends for its sense on the uses of that life.
34
Rush 20 (i960),
Rhees, "Wittgenstein's Builders," Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. pp. 171-186.

I have now explicitly linked my discussion of the factor. In trying to understand the life of an alien
"point" of a
system of conventions with con?
society, then, it will be of the utmost importance to
ceptions of good and evil. My aim is not to engage be clear about the way in which these notions enter
in moralizing, but to suggest that the concept of into it. The actual practice of social anthropolo?
learningfrom which is involved in the study of other gists bears this out, although I do not know how
cultures is closely linked with the concept o? wisdom. many of them would attach the same kind of
We are confronted not just with different tech? importance to them as I do.
niques, but with new possibilities of good and evil, I speak of a "limit" here because these notions,
in relation to which men may come to terms with along no doubt with others, give shape to what we
life. An investigation into this dimension of a understand by "human life"; and because a
society may indeed require a quite detailed inquiry concern with questions posed in terms of them
into alternative techniques (e.g., of production), seems to me constitutive of what we understand by
but an inquiry conducted for the light it throws on the "morality" of a society. In saying this, I am
those possibilities of good and evil. A very good of course disagreeing with those moral philosophers
example of the kind of thing I mean is Simone who have made attitudes of approval and disap?
Weil's analysis of the techniques of modern factory proval, or something similar, fundamental in
production in Oppression and Liberty, which is not a ethics, and who have held that the objects of such
contribution to business management, but part of attitudes were conceptually irrelevant to the
an inquiry into the peculiar form which the evil of conception of morality. On that view, there might
oppression
takes in our culture. be a society where the sorts of attitude taken up in
In saying this, however, I may seem merely to our society to questions about relations between the
have lifted to a new level the difficulty raised by sexes were reserved, say, for questions about the
Maclntyre of how to relate our own

conceptions of length people wear their hair, and vice versa. This
rationality to those of other societies. Here the seems to me incoherent. In the first place, there
difficulty concerns the relation between our own would be a confusion in calling a concern of that
conceptions of good and evil and those of other sort a "moral" concern, however passionately felt.
societies. A full investigation would thus require a The story of Samson in the Old Testament con?
discussion of ethical relativism at this point. I have firms rather than refutes this point, for the inter?
tried to show some of the limitations of relativism in dict on the cutting of Samson's hair is, of course,
an earlier paper.35 I shall close the present essay connected there with much else :and pre-eminently,
with some remarks which are
supplementary
to it should be noted, with questions about sexual
that. relations. But secondly, if that is thought to be
I wish to point out that the very conception of merely verbal quibbling, I will say that it does not
human life involves certain fundamental notions? seem to me a conventional matter that
merely
which I shall call "limiting notions"?which have T. S. Eliot's trinity of "birth, copulation and
an obvious ethical dimension, and which indeed in death" happen to be such deep objects of human
a sense determine the "ethical space," within which concern. I do not mean just that they
are made such
the possibilities of good and evil in human life can by fundamental psychological and sociological
be exercised. The notions which I shall discuss very forces, though that is no doubt true. But I want to
briefly here correspond closely to those which Vico say further that the very notion of human life is
made the foundation of his idea of natural law, on limited by these conceptions.
which he thought the possibility of understanding Unlike beasts, men do not merely live but also
human history rested :birth, death, sexual relations. have a conception of life. This is not something that
Their significance here is that they are inescapably is simply added to their life; rather, it changes the
involved in the life of all known human societies in very sense which the word "life" has, when
a way which gives us a clue where to look, if we applied to men. It is no longer equivalent to
are puzzled about the point of an alien system of "animate existence." When we are
speaking of the
institutions. The specific forms which these concepts life of man, we can ask questions about what is the
take, the particular institutions in which they are right way to live, what things are most important
expressed, vary very considerably from one
society in life, whether life has any significance, and if so
to another; but their central position within a what.
society's institutions is and must be a constant To have a conception of life is also to have a
35Peter 20
Winch, "Nature and Convention," Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. (i960), pp. 231-252.

conception of death. But just as the "life" it here. Considerthat isthat a lover in our society
about
here in is not the same
may carry as about a picture or lock of hair of the
animate
question
existence, so the "death" that is here in question is beloved; that this may symbolize for him his
not the same as the end of animate existence. My relation to the beloved and may, indeed, change
an event
conception of the death of an animal is of the relation in all sorts of ways: for example,
that will take place in the world; perhaps I shall strengthening it or perverting it. Suppose that
observe it?and my life will go on. But when I when the lover loses the locket he feels guilty and
speak of "my death," I
am not speaking of a future asks his beloved for her forgiveness : there might be
event in my life;36 I am not even speaking of an a parallel here to the aboriginal's practice of
event in anyone else's life. I am speaking of the anointing himself when he "loses his soul." And is
cessation of my world. That is also a cessation of my there necessarily anything irrational about either
ability to do good or evil. It is not just that as a of these practices? Why should the lover not
matter offact I shall no longer be able to do good regard his carelessness in losing the locket as a sort
or evil after I am dead; the point is that my very of betrayal of the beloved ? Remember how hus?
concept of what it is to be able to do good or evil is bands and wives may feel about the loss of a
deeply bound up with my concept of my life
as wedding ring. The aborigine is clearly expressing a
ending in death. If ethics is a concern with the concern with his life as a whole in this practice ; the
right way to live, then clearly the nature of this anointing shows the close connection between such
concern must be deeply affected by the concept of a concern and contemplation of death. Perhaps it
life as ending in death. One's attitude to one's life is precisely this practice which makes such a
is at the same time an attitude to one's death. concern for him, as sacraments
possible religious
This point is very well illustrated in an anthro? make certain sorts of concern possible. The point is
pological datum which Maclntyre confesses him? that a concern with one's life as a whole, involving
self unable to make any sense of. as it does the limiting conception of one's death, if
it is to be expressed within a person's life, can
to Spencer and Gillen some aborigines only be expressed
According necessarily quasi-sacramentally.
carry about a stick or stone which is treated as if it is The form of the concern shows itself in the form
or embodies the soul of the individual who carries it. of the sacrament.
If the stick or stone is lost, the individual anoints The sense I spoke also of sex as a
in which
himself as the dead are anointed. Does the of
concept" again has to do with the con?
concept
one's soul about with one" make sense? Of
"limiting
"carrying
cept of a human life. The life of a man is a man's
course we can redescribe what the are
aborigines
life and the life of a woman is a woman's life : the
doing and transform it into sense, and perhaps
masculinity or the femininity are not just com?
Spencer and Gillen (and Durkheim who follows them)
misdescribe what occurs. But if their reports are not ponents in the life, they are its mode. Adapting
erroneous, we confront a blank wall here, so far as Wittgenstein's remark about death, I might say
meaning is concerned, although it is easy to give the that my masculinity is not an experience in the
rules for the use of the concept.37 world, but my way of experiencing the world. Now
the concepts of masculinity and femininity ob?
Maclntyre does not say why he regards the con? viously require each other. A man is a man in
cept of carrying one's soul about with one in a relation to women; and a woman is a woman in
stick "thoroughly incoherent." He is presumably relation to men.38 Thus the form taken by man's
influenced by the fact that itwould be hard tomake relation to women is of quite fundamental impor?
sense of an action like this if performed by a tance for the significance he can attach to his own
twentieth-century Englishman or American; and life. The vulgar identification of morality with
by the fact that the soul is not a material object sexual morality certainly is vulgar; but it is a
like a piece of paper and cannot, therefore, be vulgarization of an important truth.
carried about in a stick as a piece of paper might The limiting character of the concept of birth is
be. But it does not seem to me so hard to see sense obviously related to the points I have sketched
in the practice, even from the little we are told regarding death and sex. On the one hand, my
36 Cf. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus,
Wittgenstein, 6.431 -6.4311.
37 Is
Understanding Religion Compatible with Believing?
38These are not converses. See Georg "Das Relative und das Absolute im Geschlechter
relations, however, simple Simmel,
Problem" in Philosophische Kultur (Leipzig, Werner Klinkhardt, 1911).

324
birth is no more an event in my life than is my provide a basis on which understanding may be
death; and through my birth ethical limits are set built.
for my life quite independently of my will : I am,
from the outset, in specific relations to other Now since the world of nations has been made by
people, from which obligations spring which can? men, let us see in what institutions men agree and
not but be ethically fundamental.39 On the other always have agreed. For these institutions will be able
hand, the concept of birth is fundamentally linked to give us the universal and eternal principles (such as
science must on which all nations were
to that of relations between the sexes. This remains every have)
founded and still preserve themselves.
true, however much or little may be known in a as well as
We observe that all nations, barbarous
society about the contribution of males and
civilized, though separately founded because remote
females to procreation; for it remains true that
from each other in time and space, keep these three
man is born of woman, not of man. This, then, human customs: all have some all contract
religion,
adds a new dimension to the ethical institutions in solemn all bury their dead. And in no
marriages,
which relations between the sexes are expressed. nation, however savage and crude, are any human
I have tried to do no more, in these last brief actions performed with more elaborate ceremonies and
than to focus attention in a certain more sacred than the rites of religion, mar?
remarks, solemnity
direction. I have wanted to indicate that forms of riage and burial. For by the axiom that "uniform
born unknown to each
these limiting concepts will necessarily be an ideas, among peoples other,
must have a common of truth," it must have
feature of human and that ground
important any society been dictated to all nations that from these institutions
conceptions of good and evil in human life will
humanity began among them all, and thereforethey
necessarily be connected with such concepts. In must so that
be most devoutly guarded by them all,
any attempt to understand the life of another the world should not become a bestial wilder?
again
society, therefore, an investigation of the forms ness. For this reason we have taken these three
taken by such concepts?their role in the life of the eternal and universal customs as the first principles of
society?must always take a central place and this Science.40
University College of Swansea,

University of Wales
39 For this reason, I think A. I. Melden is wrong to say that parent-child and have
among others, obligations rights nothing
to do with physical genealogy. Cf. Melden, Rights and Right Conduct (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1959).
directly
40Giambattista The New Science, ?? 332-333.
Vico,


Winch Understanding Primitive Society PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Winch Understanding Primitive Society PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Winch Understanding Primitive Society PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

North American Philosophical Publications

Understanding a Primitive Society

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

III. UNDERSTANDING A PRIMITIVE SOCIETY

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

savages, at least not if this expression suggests some

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

thing which not been observed,

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

"cannot omit reference to the rationality

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

existing boundaries of our own, because the point Certainly we learn to

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

31 I have been helped but greatly, some notes made on Frazer,

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

Maclntyre of how to relate our own

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

society?must always take a central place and this Science.40

University College of Swansea,

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.17 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:53:23 AM

You might also like