Method in the Study of Totemism

In Short

Andrew Lang’s treatise defends the core logic of classical anthropological theory against modern empirical critiques. Writing in response to ethnologist H. H. Goldenweizer, Lang re-evaluates field reports from North-Western America and Central Australia to argue that true totemism normally combines an exogamous clan structure with an inherited animal or plant name. Rather than abandoning broad comparative models, Lang demonstrates how local wealth, heraldic crests, geographic settlement, and altered myths account for apparent exceptions to the rule. The work remains an influential snapshot of early Victorian and Edwardian debates over human social evolution.

The Story

The inquiry opens with a foundational challenge to anthropological methodology: can any human institution be soundly defined as "Totemism," or is the concept merely an artificial collage of unrelated tribal customs? Responding directly to H. H. Goldenweizer’s critical paper, Andrew Lang accepts the challenge to defend his lifelong work on early social organization. Goldenweizer had argued that features like exogamy, totem names, taboos, and myths of animal descent occur independently of one another across different regions, rendering any universal model of totemism logically impossible.

Lang begins his defense by establishing the totemic name as the only sound starting point for analysis, since the name alone identifies a clan as totemic. He pairs this with exogamy—the imperative to marry outside one's group—as the twin pillars of normal totemic organization. To resolve Goldenweizer's counter-examples, Lang launches into a granular examination of ethnographic field reports from British Columbia and Australia, arguing that differences between regions reflect varying levels of cultural development rather than fundamental flaws in anthropological theory.

Examining the Pacific Northwest, Lang unravels the confusion surrounding tribes like the Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, and Kwakiutl. He shows that advanced social conditions—such as accumulated wealth, hereditary gentry, fixed village architecture, and realistic art—have superimposed complex systems of heraldic crests and territorial place-names over older totemic structures. Conflicting reports from field observers like Franz Boas, John R. Swanton, and James George Frazer stemmed from mistaking modern heraldic emblems or village names for traditional clan totems. Lang traces how male-line inheritance and local property rights gradually displaced old animal names without invalidating the original totemic framework.

Turning to Central Australia, Lang confronts the perplexing case of the Arunta, who bear animal names but regularly marry within their totemic groups. Through statistical evaluation of field data gathered by Baldwin Spencer and F. J. Gillen, Lang proves that the Arunta’s non-exogamous arrangements are recent mathematical anomalies. Because vast majorities of specific animal totems—such as Witchetty Grubs or Kangaroos—remain clustered within single exogamous moieties, the Arunta must have once possessed normal hereditary totemism before adopting their unique "conceptional" myths.

Ultimately, Lang synthesizes these regional analyses to prove that exceptions reinforce rather than dismantle the general rule. Admitting that exogamy likely preceded totemism, he concludes that distinct social changes—such as heraldry in America or localized male descent in Australia—explain all known deviations from the norm.

How It Unfolds

The challenge accepted Lang frames his debate with H. H. Goldenweizer, insisting that a self-consistent hypothesis explaining all known facts is far superior to abandoning systematic anthropological definitions.

Parsing the Pacific Northwest Analyzing Tlingit and Haida social organization, Lang shows how ethnographic confusion arose when field researchers mistook heraldic crests and village location names for true totemic clan names.

The Kwakiutl transition Examining tribes with complex inheritance patterns, Lang refutes claims of random development by demonstrating how settled houses and wealth modified maternal line rules into paternal property rights.

Statistical proof in Australia By crunching field data from Spencer and Gillen on the Arunta tribe, Lang proves mathematically that the chance distribution of their totems reveals a past system of strict exogamous moieties.

Geography ousts the animal Surveying the Narran-ga, Narrinyeri, Apache, and Navaho, Lang traces how male descent and geographic settlement cause local territorial titles and nicknames to gradually replace original animal names.

The norm restored Lang closes by reiterating that while exogamy could exist without totemism, the historic pairing of animal names with outer-marriage rules remains the normal, foundational type across global societies.

The People

• Andrew Lang: The author and defensive theorist who seeks to preserve a unified, logical model of human social evolution. He wants to prove that comparative anthropology can account for regional variations without abandoning broad definitions. Guided by strict logic, he continuously cross-examines conflicting field data to establish that exceptions prove the rule.
• H. H. Goldenweizer: The primary antagonist in this scholarly debate, an American ethnologist who wants to dismantle sweeping evolutionary theories of totemism. He contends that features like taboos, exogamy, and animal descent are historically independent phenomena, standing in the way of Lang's unified hypothesis.
• Franz Boas and John R. Swanton: Prominent field ethnologists whose detailed reports on British Columbia tribes provide the raw data for the debate. They seek accurate descriptions of Pacific Coast societies, but their evolving terminology creates perplexity that Lang must untangle.
• James George Frazer: A central authority on global myth and religion whose extensive compilations of tribal customs serve as a baseline reference. Frazer aims to categorize global rituals, though his interpretations of taboo and crests frequently require refinement under Lang's logical scrutiny.

In Its Own Voice

"Is there any human institution which can be safely called 'Totemism'? Is there any possibility of defining, or even describing Totemism?"

Lang opens his study by confronting the radical skepticism threatening early twentieth-century anthropology, immediately setting up his effort to rescue the discipline's terminology.

"One thing is clear, the Tlingit and the other tribes being possessed of wealth, and of gentry, and of heraldry, cause almost inextricable confusion by their use of heraldic badges..."

In explaining discrepancies along the Pacific Northwest coast, Lang highlights how social advancement and material culture alter primitive institutions.

"Chance distribution does not keep on working in that way; and the chance conceptional distribution of totems could not put the great majority of, say, Kangaroos, Hachea Flowers, Wild Cats, and Little Hawks in the Bulthara-Panunga phratry..."

Lang relies on crisp, mathematical reasoning to demonstrate that the Arunta tribe's unusual marriage customs must have evolved out of standard totemic exogamy.

What It's Really About

Beneath its dense analysis of Australian moieties and Pacific Northwest crests, Method in the Study of Totemism is fundamentally an investigation into intellectual methodology itself. Lang grapples with how scientific disciplines ought to construct historical theories when direct observational history is impossible. He asks whether human cultures evolve through recognizable, logical stages or whether human customs are merely random, localized accidents without an underlying pattern. By asserting that economic factors like wealth, rank, and settled housing transform social structures, Lang defends an evolutionary model of anthropology that accommodates historical change. He insists that comparative science must distinguish between a normal, baseline institution and its subsequent variations, warning scholars against mistaking modified modern descendants for primitive starting points.

Why Read It Today

This volume offers readers an engaging front-row seat to a classic battle over how human history and culture should be interpreted. Lang’s writing is exceptionally crisp, marked by dry wit, razor-sharp logical deductions, and a complete absence of fluff. Rather than presenting abstract armchair theories, the text reads like a meticulous detective investigation, weighing field notes, statistical distributions, and conflicting observer reports from remote corners of the world.

Modern readers should be prepared for period-specific language, dense anthropological jargon, and exhaustive lists of tribal lineages, phratries, and moieties. The book assumes familiarity with early twentieth-century debates and frequently cites key ethnologists of the era without extensive introductory background. Yet for anyone fascinated by the history of social science, intellectual debates, or the early attempts to decode tribal kinship systems, Lang’s precise prose and masterclass in argument construction make for a surprisingly lively, rewarding read.