Among theKpelle people of Liberia there is not only group totemism but also individual totemism. Both kinds of totems are referred to variously as “thing of possession,” “thing of birth,” or “thing of the back of men.” These phrases express the idea that the totem always accompanies, belongs to, and stands behind one as a guide and warner of dangers. The totem also punishes thebreach of anytaboo.

Kpelle totems include animals, plants, and natural phenomena. The kin groups that live in several villages were matrilineal at an earlier time, but during the 20th century they began to exhibit patrilineal tendencies. The group totems, especially the animal totems, are considered as the residence of the ancestors; they are respected and are given offerings. Moreover, a great role is played by individual totems that, in addition to being taboo, are also given offerings. Personal totems that are animals can be transmitted from father to son or from mother to daughter; on the other hand, individual plant totems are assigned at birth or later.

The totem also communicates magical powers. It is even believed possible to alter one’s own totem animal; further, it is considered an alter ego. Persons with the same individual totem prefer to be united incommunities. The well-known leopard confederation, a secret association, seems to have grown out of such desires. Entirely different groups produce patrilineal taboo communities that are supposedly related by blood; theycomprise persons of several tribes. The animals, plants, and actions made taboo by these groups are not considered as totems. In a certain respect, the individual totems in thiscommunity seem to be the basis of group totemism.

McLennan to Thurnwald

There are a number of theories orhypotheses concerning totemism. Many of them are marked by methodological deficiencies, preconceived ideas, and aprejudiced selection of source documents; nevertheless, some of these theories contain points of view that deserve consideration.

The first theory was proposed by the ScottishethnologistJohn Ferguson McLennan. Following the vogue of 19th-century research, he wanted to comprehend totemism in a broad perspective, and in his studyThe Worship of Animals and Plants (1869, 1870) he did not seek to explain the specific origin of the totemistic phenomenon but sought to indicate that all of thehuman race had in ancient times gone through a totemistic stage.

In 1899 McLennan’s theories were criticized bySir Edward Burnett Tylor, an English anthropologist who rejected the confusion of totemism with mere worship of animals and plants. Tylor claimed to find in totemism the tendency of the human spirit to classify the world and its things. He thus viewed totemism as a relationship between one type of animal and aclan. But he was opposed to the idea of seeing totems as the basis ofreligion.

Another Scottish scholar,Andrew Lang, early in the 20th century advocated a nominalistic meaning for totemism, namely that local groups, clans, or phratries, in selecting totemnames from the realm of nature, were reacting to a need to bedifferentiated. If the origin of the names was forgotten, there followed a mystical relationship between the objects—from which the names were once derived—and the groups that bore these names. Lang wanted to explain the relationship through naturemyths according to which animals and natural objects were considered as the relatives, patrons, or ancestors of the respective social units. He felt that thoughts by the tribes on these matters led eventually to taboos, and that group exogamy (out-marriage) first originated in the formation of totemistic associations.

The firstcomprehensive work on totemism wasTotemism and Exogamy, published in 1910 in four volumes by the British anthropologistSir James George Frazer. It presented a meritoriouscompilation of the worldwide data then available on the subject.

Basing his view on research done amongindigenous peoples in Australia and Melanesia, Frazer saw the origin of totemism as an interpretation of theconception and birth of children, abelief he called “conceptionalism.” According to Frazer, conceptualistcultures explain that women become impregnated when a spirit of an animal or a spiritual fruit enters into their wombs. As children therefore participate in the nature of the animal or plant, these plants or animals take on significance. Frazer thought that conceptualist explanations of conception resulted in the beginning of totem clans derived from a particular natural creature.

A Russian American ethnologist,Alexander Goldenweiser, subjected totemistic phenomena to sharpcriticism. Hiscritique had lasting importance, especially in theUnited States, where it engendered a skeptical attitude concerning totemism. Goldenweiser saw in totemism three phenomena that could exist singly and actually coincided only in the rarest of cases. These phenomena were: (1) clan organization, (2) clans taking animal or plant names or having “emblems” obtained from nature, and (3) belief in a relationship between groups and their totems. Goldenweiser did not perceive these phenomena as a unity, since any of them could exist apart from the others.

In anothertreatise published in 1910, a German ethnologist,Richard Thurnwald, claimed to recognize in totemism the expression of a specific way of thinking among nonindustrial societies. He felt that such groups judge the naturalenvironment according to its external appearance without analyzing it any closer and assume that there are sympathetic connections and combinations of natural things; from these ideas come lasting rules of behaviour such as taboos, respect, and social relationships. For the psychology of totemism, Thurnwald later (1917–18) put forth a detailed, systematic presentation; by means of concrete examples, he also raised questions about the connections of totemism with ancestor worship, notions of souls, and beliefs in power,magic, offerings, and oracles.