Early anthropological theories of religion have developed from theories relating to unilineal social evolution to more critical studies regarding its social importance in the context of its particular culture. The roots of early anthropological thinking is structured in the belief of unilineal social evolution but as time went on, anthropologists shifted their focus to the functionality and importance of religion in a social context which laid the groundwork for anthropological views that are more widely accepted to this day. These three aspects of anthropological development show how deep-rooted beliefs can shape the lens through which one views and understands concepts such as religion. It is through examining the ways in which anthropological theories have moved passed the generalized assumptions put forth by theories of unilineal social evolution that one is able to better comprehend how these ideas influence how religion is thought of today.

The long-held belief of unilineal social evolution stems from the period of early anthropology that placed heavy importance in determining the “origins” of religion. Anthropologists such as E.B Taylor developed this theory of unilineal social evolution through assumptions that make certain aspects of religion out to be part of a “primitive” culture. It details the notion that all societies develop and evolve through a universal set of stages. As these theories focused on cultural and social differences, it was believed that the more evolved a culture was, the more European it would become. To that extent, the stereotypical association of religion and ancient or older, more “primitive” beliefs and practices are tied to these early theories of anthropology and unilineal social evolution.

The dominant social beliefs that shape the relationship between early anthropology and its approach to cultural differences with regards to religion are demonstrated through works such as E.B Taylor’s research on animism. In his own words: “Animism is, in fact, the groundwork of the philosophy of Religion, from that of savages up to that of civilized men” (Taylor, p.426). Anthropologists such as James Frazer were influenced by Taylor’s research as is reflected in his work regarding magic, which he associated with primitivity. Like Taylor, who associated aspects of religion such as animism and the belief of a spirit or higher power with primitive, less evolved culture, Frazer focused on the idea that magic as a factor in religious belief was based on faulty associations of actions and their effect on the world. As Frazer describes it:

“The shrewder intelligences must in time have come to perceive that magical ceremonies and incantations did not really effect the results which they were designed to produce, and which the majority of their simpler fellows still believed that they did actually produce” (Frazer, p.237).

These beliefs essentially framed facets of religion and religious beliefs such as ritual practices, magic and belief in a spirit or soul as hallmarks of less evolved, primitive societies. E.B Taylor and his speculative theory on animism might have pointed Anthropologists in a certain direction but his overall views and assumptions, the likes of which were shared by James Frazer when it came to a society’s ability to evolve past a “primitive” state and towards a more developed, European culture, were rather problematic. Later anthropologists took a more practical approach to religion. Instead of dismissing the aspects of religion uncommon to Western society as “primitive” or mistaken attempts at scientific explanations, later anthropologists sought to examine religion in the context of what it meant socially for a particular culture. Thus, we see a shift in how religion is viewed in a way that directly opposes that of unilineal social evolution.

Religion and Functionalism. 258Please respect copyright.ＰＥＮＡＮＡFY44UHsXLy

Religion not only plays a role in regulating social relationships and structure but also provides different dimensions in which an individual may experience personal and social growth. Anthropologists such as Victor Turner build upon the works of those like Emile Durkheim, which view religion as an important component in how a society functions. The main problem with theories of unilineal social evolution is that they often make assumptions that attempt to categorize religion and culture through the ideals of European society and fail to take into account the significance of religion and religious traditions in the context of a given culture. One could say that the notion of progress preoccupied the framework of unilineal social evolution due to the fact that these theories of early anthropology arose in a time where the dominant social values reflected the ideals of European society being at the top when it came to cultural evolution. It is ultimately these dominant theories of nineteenth century Europe that shaped how culture and cultural difference were perceived where religion was concerned.

While Taylor and Frazer focused more on the belief that people started in a simple, primitive state and gradually evolved into a more complex, civilized society, the works of later anthropologists shifted focus from the thought process behind religion, to its function in society. A certain level of ethnocentrism contributes to how religion is viewed in the context of unilineal social evolution. By examining the importance of the various components of religion in the context of its particular culture, one can gain a better understanding of religion not as something that denotes how complex or less evolved a society is, but rather how it contributes socially.

Early anthropological theories of religion began in the context of unilineal social evolution as anthropologists attempted to determine the earliest forms of religion. While these theories shaped the dominant beliefs about cultural differences at the time, later anthropologists rejected its problematic assumptions about “primitivity” in relation to culture. Some of these ideas do have some influence on how religion is thought of today. For example, there is often the tendency to associate religion with the “old” or “ancient,” which relates it back to a simpler time and perhaps simpler societies. However, religion today is widely understood in the context of its given culture and the significance it bears for a particular society when it comes to how people interact with each other and the world around them.

While the roots of early anthropological thinking are structured in the belief of unilineal social evolution, anthropologists have gradually shifted their focus to the functionality and importance of religion in a social context which has laid the groundwork for anthropological views that are more widely accepted to this day. These aspects of anthropological development demonstrate how dominant ideals shape the lens through which one views and understands concepts such as religion. By distinguishing theories of today from the generalized assumptions put forth by theories of unilineal social evolution one is able to see how anthropological theories regarding religion has moved passed thoughts of the “primitive” and focus more on cultural difference as another facet of human civilization as opposed to a way to dismiss the validity of a particular culture’s way of being.

Frazer, James G. (excerpts) Chapter IV “Magic and Religion.” The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. pp. 220-243. 1929

Tylor, E.B. “Animism”. In Primitive Culture Vol. 1, pp. 417-434. 1924