You are on page 1of 8

A Letter to E. E.

Evans-Pritchard
Author(s): L. Lvy-Bruhl
Source: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Jun., 1952), pp. 117-123
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political
Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/587489
Accessed: 18/08/2010 14:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

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 support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and The London School of Economics and Political Science are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org
A Letter to E. E. Evans-Pritchard

L. LEVY-BRUHL

- ' N I934 I publisheda paper," Levy-Bruhl'stheoryof PrimitiveMentality",


in the B"lletinof theFacultyof Artsof the EgyptianUniversity. I sent
= .a copy of the article to Levy-Bruhl,whom I had met previously,and I
receivedfromhim a letter vfhichI novvpublishfor severalreasons. Firstly,
becauseit is in itself of value for students of Levy-Bruhl'swritings. Some
of those who have read my article may have vfondered57vhatLelry-Bruhl
mrouldhave said in reply to my exposition and criticism of his theory.
Secondly,becauseit is interestingto knowthat he was turningoverin his mind
in I934 some of the reformulationsof his theory which appearin the post-
humousCarnets.Thirdly,becauseit showsLevy-Bruhlto have been as great
a man as he was a scholar- tolerant,open-minded,and courteous. His letter
is a modelforany seniorscholarreplyingto criticismsof his vievfsby an inferior
in years, knonrledge,and ability. My explanatorycommentsare in square
brackets. Wordsin italicsarethoseunderlined,andphrasesin singlequotation
marks are those in English in Levy-Bruhl'sletter.
The letter was translatedby Mr. Donald G. MacRae.
E. E. E.-P.

Paris, I4th November,


I934. 7, RueLincoln.
Dear Colleague and if you will allomrme to add- friend, allow me to
write in French,in orderto save time. ' I know that it is quite safe to do
so, and that you are accustomedto my style of writing.'
Your offprintsreachedme just at the time when I was leaving for a
short trip to Holland,and your letter reachedme at the Hague. I do not
know how to thank you enough for the trouble which you have taken in
orderto arriveat the exact significanceof my work,and to make it under-
stood by English-speaking and ethnologists,who, for the most
anthropologists
part, appearhostile to it. Your article does my theory the most valuable
of services,and only a scholarsuch as you, EnglishhimselfJcould explainto
Englishscholarsthat they are wrongin lookingdownon lvorks(whosefaults,
on the otherhand,you do not disguise),whichpossessscientificinterest,which
can be useful to them, and svhichhave truly been ' rnisrepresented'.My
lectureat Oxford[HerbertSpencerLecture,I93I] has appearedto be merely
II7
A LETTER TO E. E. EVANS-PRITCHARD
a plea prodomo: one distruststhe advocatewho pleadshis own cause. If
anythmgis capableof effectivelycombatingthe prejudiceagalnstme which
exists in li:ngland,it is the expositionknd examinationof my theoryto which
you have devoted this article. I can imaginethe work and the time which
it has takenyou, and I am profoundlygratefulto you for it. It will certainly
do much good, and has done it already,and I believethat it was necessary.
Withoutit this theoryran the nsk of remainingfora longtime misunderstood,
if not lmknowrn,ln the world of English-speakingscholars. You ask if I
think that you have understoodme properly-I do not hesitate to answer
" Yes", and I consideryour articleat least equalJfrom this point of new,
to the best that has been written on my conceptionand my explanation
(in so far as I try to explaln)of primitivementality. I do not find that you
are ' over-critical', save in one or two places which I will point out to you.
If you will allowit, in orderto be as preciseas possible,I am goingto follow
your articlepage by page, submittlngmy doubts,when I have any, to you,
and my reflections. This is, I believe,the best way of confrontingthe idea
which you have of this theorywth that which I have tried to pve.
P. 2. [AiVhere I remarkthat the receptionof Levy-Bruhl'sviews among
Englishanthropologists is perhapsduepartlyto the unfamiliarkey expressions
he used in his writings,such as pre'logique, representations
collectivest
mystique
and participations.] Like you I think that my termmologyhas greatlycon-
tnbuted to makingEnglish anthropologistsill-disposedand to giving them
a distaste for readingme. However,this reason, althoughseriousenough,
cannotbe the only one. But this is not the place to examinethis question.
P. 3. (At the bottomof the page.) " Neverthelessit may be said . . ."
[Thepassageis: " Neverthelessit may be said at the outset that Levy-BruS
in his worksdoes not attemptto correlatethe beliefswhichhe descnbeswith
the social structuresof the peoplesamongwhomthey have been recorded.t']
A just remark. I have madeit myself,and I explainedmyself on this point
in H.S.L. [HerbertSpencerLecture]. I had to changemy positionwhen I
came to know the facts better.
Pp. 7. [In which I sta-tethe characteristicdifferences,accordingto
Ldvy-Bruhl,betweenthe thought of primitive,and the thought of civilized,
societies.] No objection. You have enteredthoroughlyinto my thought.
P. 8. " It seldomtouches . . ." [Thepassage,whichrefersto criticism
of Ldery-Bruhl's writingsby vanous authors,is: " It seldomtouchesLevy-
Bruhl's main propositions."] ' Quiteright.'
P. 8. <'He makes savage thought far more mystical than it is . . ."
This is an importantpoint. ' I pleadguilty', and I recognlzethat your
cnticisms appearjust (you developthem on pp. 274), but I can say some-
thing in my defence. My intentionwas to introducethe idea (vrhichseemed
to me to be new), that there is a real difference betweenpnmitive mentality
and that of moredevelopedcivilizations,particularlythose of the West, and
consequently,I wvasnot obligedto give the most completepicture of this
primitivementality,includingin it svhat is commonto our own which is
L . LE VY - B RU H L II9
considerableand which I in no way try to deny-but to insist continually
on that which is charactensticof it and constitutesthe specificdifference.
All the same, I do not at all deny mysticalelementsexist in the mentality
of the English and French peoples, etc.: but I thought I ought to insist
on the rationalcharacterof this mentalityin orderthat its differencesfrom
the primitivemight emergeclearly.
I admit that in my work(andit is here that ' I pleadguilty') the savage
is presentedas moremysticaland the civilizedman as morerationalthan they
in fact are. But I have done this ' on prpose': I intendedto bringfully
to light the mysticalaspect of primitivementalityin contrastwith the rational
aspect of the mentalityof our societies. Oncethis differenceis recognized-
but 25 years ago nobodyhad pointedit out I have no objectionto all that
you say; that the savage is not so exclusivelymystical, that the civilized
man is not so consistentlyrational. PerhapsI have been vvrongin insisting
so stronglyon these differences. I thought that the anthropologicalschool
had done enough to make the similaritiesevident. On this point, I think
those who will followus will know how to keep the right balance.
Pp. W9. [WhereI criticizedLevy-Bruhl'swtitings on the groundsof
the insufiiciencyof the recordswhichhe usedand of his use of the comparative
method.] " The poorqualityof the facts of whichI makeuse the weakness
of the comparativemethodas I use it." Morethan once I have had occasion
to explainmyselfon this matter (forexamplein replyto Maussat the Societe
de Philosophie). I knovvwell that one can considertravellers'tales and the
memoirsof missionariesas very little to be relied on. And for a work of
technical anthropology for example on the institutions of some tribe or
other I wouldagreewith you that it is preferablenot to makeuse of them.
But for the kind of researcheswhich I intended (concerningthe essential
and generalcharacterof primitivementality)I thought it legitimatenot to
disregardthe evidences, often involuntary,which were furnishedby such
peopleas the Jesuitsof New France,or Dobrizhoffer, etc. I knonrtheirminds,
I can understandthe factorsof their personalities,and behindwhat they say
I can findhat they have seen. I have no needthat they shouldhave under-
stood what they saw nor even of their having had some sort of scientific
educatiorl. On the other hand more than one mrorker has gone off to do
'fieldbork', arrnedwith a questionnairefurnishedby an eminent anthro-
pologist,and havingfollowedit to the letter, has reportednothinginteresting,
at least to me.
Pp. eIO. " A secondaryselectionhas taken place . . ." [Thepassage
is: " Out of a vast numberof social facts observershave tended to select
facts of the mystical type rather than of other types and in Levy-Bruhl's
ritings a secondaryr selectionhas taken place throughwhich only facts of
a mystical type have been recorded,the final result of this doubleselection
being a picture of savages almost continuallyand exclusivelyconsciousof
mysticalforces. He presentsus with a caricatureof prirnitivementality."]
I admitthis, but it was donedeliberately,and I have not hiddenit.... No,
A LETTER TO E. E. EVANS-PRITCHARD
I20
this is not a caricatureof primitivementality. But it is an
image through
which I have wishedto bnng out stronglya dominanttrait,
in the shadow (and indeed cartoonistsoften work like this).leaving the rest
I told you
above the motives which led me to proceedlike this. I have
to give a completeanalysisand descriptionof primitive not claimed
I vvastrying to bring furtherinto the light what mentality-above all
distinguishesit from our
own.
Pp. IO-II. " To describethe collectiverepresentations of Englishmen
and Frenchmenwith the same impartialityand
minuteness...."
passageis: " Clearlyit is necessaryto descnbethe collective [The
of Englishmenand Frenchmenwith the same impartiality representations
and minuteness
with which anthropologistsdescnbe the collective
representations
nesians,Melanesians,and the abonginesof Centraland Northern of Poly-
if mreare to make a compansonbetween the two."] This Australia,
would be a fine
piece of work whose resultswould be most interesting. . . but
all conscience,to undertakeit in orderto realize my design? ought I, in
take it as agreedthat our patternsof thought(an excellent Can I not
I borrowfromyou, andwhichcomescloseto whatI call" expression svhich
habitudesmentales"
dependingon " l'onentationde la pensee") are sufficientlyknown
to comparethem with the " patterns of thought for me
of the savage" ?
You find, and not without good reason, that I ask
goodwill and patienceof the readerin presentinghim with four much of the
(I scarcelydare admit that they are going to be followedby a thick volumes
fifth). What
wouldit be if I ought to have conducteda parallelinquirvinto the
of our compatriots! mentality
I now go on to the five questionswhichyou exaJninein
ning on p. I3). sequence(begin-
(a) [I cited vanous authontiesto show that
Levy-Bruhl
intoa genuineproblemin investigatingthe differencesbetweenwas inquiring
civilizedmodes of thought.] Agreed. primitiveand
(b) Pp. I5-I9. [I discussedwhat Levy-Bruhlmeans by "
andshowedthat he does not mean that savages are incapableprelogical"
of thinking
coherentlyor are intellectuallyinferiorto civilizedman.] Amongthe
ofyour articlewhich have given me most pleasureand svhich parts
will sufficeto
showthat you have thoroughlyunderstoodme on this most
Thepassage concerningMr. Dnberg has amusedme [whereI important point.
Dnbergin criticizingLevy-Bruhlsays the same as he in differentshowedthat
because,in readingThe Savageas He ReallyIs, I had the same words]
you: if I had knownhow to expressmyself so as to be thoughts as
Driberg, understood by Mr.
he svouldsee that we are in agreement. As you say, he
mytheory the supportof his great experiencein Africa. I bringsto
have
muchprofithis Langoand most of his other vvorks. I admit that read vYith
"prelogique" svas ' ratherqxnfortxtate the term
'. You have also seen very clearly
thataccordingto me " pnmitive thought is eminently
coherent,perhaps
over-coherent ".
L. LiVY-BRUHL I2I

(c) [I discussedwhat Levy-Bruhlmeansby " collectiverepresentations "


and showedthat whereashis cntics say that he contendsthat savagesthink
illogicallywhat he is reallysayingis that savagethoughtis mainlyunscientific
and also mystical. He refersto the content,or patterns,of thought social
factsand not to the processesof thinking psychologicalfacts.] Here the
discussionbecomesmorerefinedand it becomesnecessaryfor me to explain
exactly what I mean by pnmitive " thought". I can at any rate say that
at bottom it seems to me that there is no disagreementbetsveenus on this
question. The fact that the ' patternsof thought' are differentdoes not, once
the premiseshave been given, preventthe " primitive" from reasoninglike
us, and, in this sense, his thought is neithermore nor less " logical" than
ours. I have never made this appeardoubtfuland the way in which you
explainmy ideason this pointis of a sortto dissipatemisunderstandings which
have done me so muchwrongamongEnglishand Amencananthropologists.
(d) [Here I discussedwhat Levy-Bruhlmeans by " mystical": that
collective representationsof the supra-sensibleform integral parts of per-
ception. The savage cannot perceive objects apart from their collective
representations. He perceivesthe collective representationin the object.]
Yet here again you do me a great service. When I said that " primitives"
never perceiveanything exactly as we do I never meant to assert a truly
psychologicaldifferencebetweenthem and us; on the contraryI admit that
individualphysio-psychological conditionsof sensory perceptioncannot be
other amongthem than as amongus but I did intend to say, as you put
it (p. 25), ' " that a savage'sperceptionof, in the senseof noticing,or paying
attentionto, or beinginterestedin, a plantis due to its mysticalproperties" '.
As a resultI am inclinedto subscribeto the two propositionswhichyou your-
self accept and which are fotmulatedat the foot of p. s5. [The passageto
whichLevy-Bruhlrefersis: " A restatementof Levy-Bruhl'smaincontentions
about the mystical thought of savages is containedin the two following
propositions,both of whichappearto me to be acceptable: (I) Attentionto
phenomenadependsupon affectivechoiceand this selective interestis con-
trolledto a nery large extent by the values given to phenomenaby society
andthesevaluesareexpressedin patternsof thoughtand behaviour(collective
representations). (2) Since patternsof thought and behaviourdifferwidely
betweensavagesand educatedEuropeanstheir selectiveinterestsalso differ
widely and, therefore,the degreeof attention they pay to phenomenaand
the reasonsfor their attentionare also different."]
(e) Pp. 2S7. [I discussedhere what Levy-Bruhlmeansby " participa-
tions" mystical relationsbetween things. I believe that on this notion
of " participation" we are in agreementabout essentials. Besides, as you
remark,what I say about " participation" links up with what I have said
about the " mystical" characterof representations.
P. 28. " Mysticalthought is a function of particularsituations." I
have committed" a seriouserrorin failingto understandthis point ". [My
criticismof Levy-Bruhlhere was that he does not adequatelyappreciate
I22 A LETTE R TO E . E . EVAN S-PRITCHARD
that mysticalthoughtis often a functionof particularsituations. Collective
representationsof a mysticalkind may be evokedby sight of an object but
they may not be invanablyevoked. Savagethoughthas not the fixedinevit-
able constructionthat Levy-Bruhlgives it.] Here, ' I do not plead guilty'.
But I recognizethat in my firsttwo booksmy thoughtis perhapsnot expressed
svith sufficientprecisionand accuracy. It is better expressedI believe in
the introductionto " Le Surnaturel" and also in the H.S.L. [HerbertSpencer
Lecture]. I do not find the argurnentwhich you presentin the secondhalf
of p. s8 decisive. 'The resultingpatternof belief may be a Sction since it
may neverbe actuallypresentin a man'sconsciousrtess....' [Myargument
herewas that theremay be a big differencebetweena systemof nativebeliefs
as put together by a Europeaninquirerand what any individualnative
believes,just as thereis a differencebetweenthe formalizedbody of Christian
theologyand what an individualmay know of it. Religiousbeliefsare held
by the individualas isolated bits, as it were, and not as entire systems.]
Wouldyou say that the OxfordDictionary' " may be a fiction" ' and cannot
give a true idea of the Englishlanguage? The content of the OxfordDic-
tionary however has never been ' " actually present in an Englishman's
consciousness"'* On the otherhand in every humanmmd thereare always
ineradicablyfundamentalmysticalelements,which moreovercan only mani-
fest themselvesthroughbeliefs and practiceswhich are necessarilysocial;
and if one perhapssees them most easily in " pitive " societies,they are
by no meansabsentin othercivilizations. If we couldtalk aboutthis together
it seems to me that we could amve at agreement.
P. 30. " Savage thoughthas not the fixed inevitableconstructionthat
Leary-Bruhlgives it."-Agreed. But if I give this irnpressionit is because
I have expressedmyself badly-as ever throughmy attempt to make what
is mysticaland " prelogical" (in the good sense of this word,if I am under-
stood as I wish to be) in pnmitivementalitystand out. I completelyadmit
that numerousinterestsof every kind attract the attentionof the primitive,
that he is continuallyattentive to all the claimsthat are madeupon him by
the practicallife, and the necessityof satisfyinghis needs, of nourishment,
etc. etc., and that he is not uniquelypreoccupiedsnth the mysticalpowers
of beings and objects. Far from that: he must live. I thereforeaccept
what you say (pp. 30-I), and I believe that it can be reconciledwith what
I maintatn.
P. 32. The relationsof my theory with those of Tylor and of Frazer.
[I discussedhere some of the main differencesin approachbetween Levy-
Bruhlon the one hand and Tylor and Frazeron the other, saying, among
otherthings, that Levy-Bruhlhad no need to make a distinctionbetween
categoriesof magic and religion,and that whereasto Tylor and Frazerthe
savagebelieves ln magic becausehe reasonsincorrectlyto Levy-Bruhlhe
reasonsincorrectlybecausehe believesin magic.] Anotherpassagefor which
I am very gratefulto you andwhichshowsthat you have correctlyunderstood
me. I admirethe GoldenBologhandalwaysrecallthe extraordinary impression
L. LEVFY-BRUHL I23
which it made on me; to me it vvasa revelation. A new vYorldappeared
beforemy eyes. But I halreneverbeen able to interestmyselfin discussions
about the relationsof magic and religionand you vPeryclearlyexplainwhy.
He, Tylor,and their schoolbase themselveson postulatesand an over-simple
psychologywhichseemto me little to conformto the factsandto be untenable.
I have thoughtit a duty to take up a differentpositionand I have tried to
follow anotherpath which seemed to me to lead more closely to an exact
descnptionof so-calledprimitivementality. I am no doubt not altogether
wrong since, from the point of viesv of an anthropologistwith expenence
of field work,you concludethat my theoryis not withoutuse. But I regret
that it has exacted from you prolongedand painfuleffort vvhileconsidering
it very fortunatefor me that you have not recoiledfrom this task. And I
wish to close this over-longletter in again thankingyou with all my heart.
L. LEVYBRUHL.
PS. What can explainto a certainextent the evident misunderstanding
amongmanyanthropologists of my theoryis the differencebetweenthe points
of new in which they and I place ourselves. They relate what I say to the
particularpoint of view of their science(whichhas its tradition,its methods,
its achievedresults,etc.). What has led me to write my books is not the
desireto add, if I could,a stone to the edificeof this specialscience(anthropo-
logy, ethnology). I had the ambition to add somethingto the scientific
lsnonvledgeof humannature,usmg the findingsof ethnologyfor the purpose.
My trainingwas philosophicalnot anthropological.I proceedfrom Spinoza
and Hume rather than from Bastian and Tylor, if I dare evoke such great
names here.

You might also like