| Anthropology has long been recognized as a useful discipline for mission studies. But what ideas does anthropological theory generate? What effects do these ideas have on mission? This article examines the concept of "primitive" and "primitiveness, " important in past anthropological theories. It shows that though it is now discarded by anthropologists, the idea of "primitiveness" continues to exert much influence today. Since the "primitive" was an erroneous construct, its influence can only be detrimental to the cause of mission. Consequently, after pointing to speck examples, the article recommends that we avoid developing strategies based on stereotypes The present essay is an inquiry on the power of erroneous ideas which have been elevated to the rank of explanatory theories. Particularly, I purpose to show that a fiction of anthropological theory, namely the category "primitive," continues to exert much influence in mission even though it has been discarded by most anthropologists. In mission circles, the idea of the "primitive" is the cradle of many a stereotype used for describing missionized people. We will see, in the course of the inquiry, that this invention which belongs to anthropology's past still has a corrosive effect on all of us who participate in contemporary global Christianity. It creates a superiority complex in those of us who have always known that they are not "primitive," even though the same people may continue to romanticize the "primitive." For those of us whose societies have been described as "primitive," it causes us to acquire an inferiority complex. Either way, we are still working out the consequences of a legend of anthropological theory. The category "primitive" illustrates in missiology and at the popular level what William E. H. Lecky wrote many years ago in his Historical and Political Essays: "Legends which have no firm historical basis are often of the highest historical value as reflecting the moral sentiment of their time.... The facts of history have been largely governed by its fictions" (1908:20). Discussing the "primitive" is therefore still relevant in mission studies today because it is often the basis on which distinctions are made between peoples, and on which strategies are developed for world evangelization. Were the "Primitives" Really Invented? In what sense can one claim that the category "primitive" is an invention or a fiction of anthropological theory? After all, particularly in the West, we know that Stone Age Aborigines do exist. What are we to call them if they are not "primitive"? A brief look at the history of anthropological theory will help elucidate what is meant by "invention of the primitive." It is a well-known fact that anthropology is a relatively young academic discipline. It acquired its lettres de noblesse in European and American universities only during the latter part of the nineteenth century. For good or ill, the rise of anthropology as a respectable academic discipline coincided with worldwide European expansionism in every way: commerce, culture, government, religion, and technology. This was a time when most Europeans and Westerners believed, without a doubt, that their societies represented the apex of human societies. Theirs was the norm and any deviation was considered "lower." Moreover, the internal changes which were occurring at the time within European societies may help us understand how the invention of the "primitive" became a necessity for European anthropologists. As Adam Kuper explains, In the second half of the nineteenth century, Europeans believed themselves to be witnessing a revolutionary transition in the type of their society.... [They] conceived the new world in contrast to "traditional society"; and behind this "traditional society" they discerned a primitive or primeval society. (1988:4) The Europeans' belief in their own superiority, coupled with their views on how the transformation of their societies was achieved, provide the background for the possibility of the invention of the "primitive." Indeed, as Adam Kuper contends, "The anthropologists took.. . primitive society as their special subject, but in practice primitive society proved to be their own society (as they understood it) seen in a distorting mirror" (1988:5). In essence, then, primitive society was the antithesis of modern European society. It is in that sense that the category "primitive" is an invention. As a concept, it is more useful in studying difference than in explaining "exotic" societies in and for themselves. The invention of the "primitive" made anthropology a discipline which focused much attention on difference and antithesis. Such a focus required that anthropologists justify their discipline time and again. For example, several years ago, Jacques J. Maquet, an anthropologist, wrote that anthropology is the study of non-literate societies and their cultures (that is, it is the discipline for the study of simple, pre-industrial, small-scale societies) whereas sociology is reserved for the analysis of advanced, complex, industrial, literate, large-scale societies. (1964:50) He sought to find a justification for the distinction he made by calling attention to special research techniques needed by anthropologists and their focus on "foreign" societies which necessitated a new attitude. None of his justifications are, however, as convincing as Kuper's contention noted above. Maquet's characteristics of anthropology are after the fact descriptions of the discipline. They do not explain why "primitive" society should be the special object of anthropological study. So, while "the history of the theory of primitive society is the history of an illusion ... [and it is] about something which does not and never has existed" (Kuper 1988:8), the basic distinction in types of societies remains unquestioned by many. Moreover, most of the major schools of anthropological theory-evolutionism, diffusionism, functionalism, and structuralism-have been preoccupied with the concept of "primitive." This may be due to the fact that we like our fictions more than cherished facts. Or worse, we may be convinced that fossil societies really exist; after all, these are the people we try to enlighten, advance, and develop. In this case we are loath to agree that the "primitives" are a figment of someone's imagination. For one thing, we all do know a place with a very high concentration of these rare species. Africa, of course, is that place for many people. Is Africa the Cradle of Primitiveness? For years the so-called Dark Continent provided Europeans with a laboratory for the study of the antithesis to their societies. If one lived during the latter half of the nineteenth century in Europe and wanted to see the exact opposite of European society, where would be the logical place to go? Where would an intellectual of that society at that time look for an experience of something radically different? Africa! Africa again! Africa always!
|
