On the Totems of Science and Capitalism

or, Why We Are All “Religious"

Authors

  • Craig Martin St. Thomas Aquinas College

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/imre.v15i1.25

Keywords:

totemism, religion, Implicit Religion, science, secularism, Claude Levi-Strauss, structuralism, Marshall Sahlins, class, primitive religion, modern religion

Abstract

In Totemism, Claude Levi-Strauss alleges that the modern scientific world is just as marked by “totemism” as were so-called primitive societies. Despite the fact that the modern distinction between “science” and “religion” (or even between “civilized religions” and “primitive religions”) is premised on the idea that “they” have totems while “we” are rational and scientific, this distinction is itself totemic, so to speak. In a sense, Levi-Strauss is claiming that we are all (perhaps implicitly) religious, even we secular moderns. In making this claim, Levi-Strauss seems to want to close the gap between modern western culture and its “others”—“we” are not, upon reflection, so different from “them.”1 Although coming from a radically different theoretical position, Marshall Sahlins picks up the thesis of Totemism and extends it to argue that the modern western world is totemic, although our totems are imbricated with the means of production in late capitalism rather than kinship systems. In this paper I will reflect on Levi-Strauss’ and Sahlins’ theses by considering the extent to which it is useful to think of late capitalism as totemic or religious. This bears on the concept of “implicit religion,” insofar as it contributes to the argument that fundamental distinctions between “secularism” and “religion” fall apart upon close scrutiny, as many “implicit religion” theorists (and others within the Durkheimian tradition) have been claiming for years.

References

Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

———. 1999. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble. London: Routledge.

Douglas, Mary. 1986. How Institutions Think. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Fausto-Sterling. 2000. Sexing the Body: gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.

Fine, Cordelia. 2010. Delusions of Gender: how our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Fitzgerald, Timothy. 2007. Discourse on Civility and Barbarity: a critical history of religion and related categories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hacking, Ian. 1999. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

———, and Mark Johnson. 1981. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1963. Totemism. Translated by Rodney Needham. New York: Beacon.

Lorber, Judith. 1994. Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Needham, Rodney. 1979. Symbolic Classification. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company.

Putnam, Hilary. 2004. Ethics without Ontology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sahlins, Marshall. 1976. Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Weber, Max. 1992. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. London: Routledge.

Williams, Raymond. 1977. Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Published

2012-03-27

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Martin, C. (2012). On the Totems of Science and Capitalism: or, Why We Are All “Religious". Implicit Religion, 15(1), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1558/imre.v15i1.25