I. DEFINITION
The word Fetishism has been so misused of late that ethnologists are apt to view it askance and hesitate to employ it in religious classifications. It has been stretched to such an extent in various directions that it has lost the definition and precision necessary for a scientific term. Starting from a humble origin, referring in its native land (Portugal) to the charms and amulets worn ‘for luck,’ and to relics of saints, ‘fetish’ grew to such amazing proportions when transplanted to West African soil, that at last there was nothing connected with West African religion to which it was not applied. De Brosses introduced Fétichisme as a general descriptive term ([8]), supposing the word to be connected with chose fée, fatum. Comte[1] employed it to describe the universal religious tendency to which Dr. Tylor has given the name of Animism ([71, chaps. xi.-xvii.]). Bastholm claimed ‘everything produced by nature or art, which receives divine honour, including the sun, moon, earth, air, fire, water, with rivers, trees, stones, images and animals, considered as objects of divine worship, as Fetishism;[2] and Lippert ([46]) defines Fetishism as ‘a belief in the souls of the departed coming to dwell in any thing that is tangible or visible in heaven or earth.’
Although Miss Kingsley ([39, 139]) expresses regret that the word Fetish ‘is getting very loosely used in England,’ she scarcely helps forward the work of distinction and arrangement when a few lines further on she announces ‘When I say Fetish, or Ju Ju, I mean the religion of the natives of West Africa.’ Subsequently she overstepped her own definition, describing the secret societies as ‘pure fetish’ ([41, 139]), although they ‘are not essentially religious,’ but ‘are mainly judicial.’
The Rev. R. H. Nassau perpetuates this vague use of the word, grouping under the name of Fetishism all native customs even remotely connected, as everything is in West Africa, with religious or magical beliefs, until the ejaculation uttered when one sneezes or stumbles receives the sounding title, ‘fetish prayer’ ([53, 97]).
These ‘lumpings’ are all the more to be regretted since Miss Kingsley and the Rev. R. H. Nassau are among the chief authorities on West African Fetishism in its most characteristic forms, and a clear definition of the use of the word, with a rigid adherence to its proper meaning, would have done great service in preventing many misconceptions.
The meaning of any word depends upon its definition, and it may be defined in three ways: 1. etymologically; 2. historically; 3. dogmatically.
1. The word fetish is derived through the Portuguese feitiço from the Latin facticius—facere = to do. This shows the original conception at the root of the word.
2. The historical definition shows the growth or evolution of the meaning of the word, starting from its original conception. Dr. Tylor has pointed out how magic has appropriated to itself the derivatives of ‘to do,’ such as feitiço in Portuguese, fattura in Italian, faiture in Old French, and many more, thus claiming to be ‘doing’ par excellence ([70, 135]). This tendency is already noticeable even in classical times (‘potens et factiosus,’ possessed of power and influence, Auct. Her. 2, 26, 40), and is well marked in Plautus, who uses various derivatives of facere to mean ‘powerful’ or ‘influential,’ especially with reference to influence due to family connection or to riches (factiones, Aul. II. i. 45; factiosus, ib. II. ii. 50; factio, Cist. II. i. 17, etc.). From this sense of potent politically, later Latin developed the meaning of potent magically, as seen in facturari, to bewitch, factura, witchcraft, from which latter is descended the Old French faiture, witchcraft, and perhaps our slang word ‘fake.’ Fetish as derived from the passive form facticius, meaning made by art, artificial, was probably first applied to images, idols or amulets made by hand, and later included all objects possessing magical potency, i.e. bewitched or ‘faked.’[3]
3. The dogmatic definition of a word is the meaning attached to it by individuals of authority.
Fetishism is defined as ‘the worship of inanimate objects,’ the worship of stocks and stones, ‘the religious worship of material objects’ ([61, 61]), ‘tangible and inanimate objects worshipped for themselves alone’ ([15, 196]), and a fetish is defined as ‘differing from an idol in that it is worshipped in its own character, not as the symbol, image, or occasional residence of a deity’ (New English Dictionary, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1901).
The account of the native of Fida given by Bosman ([54, xvi. 493]) is often quoted as the classic example of fetishism:—
‘I once asked a negro with whom I could talk very freely ... how they celebrated their divine worship, and what number of gods they had; he, laughing, answered that I had puzzled him; and assured me that nobody in the whole country could give me an exact account of it. “For, as for my own part, I have a very large number of gods, and doubt not but that others have as many.” “For any of us being resolved to undertake anything of importance, we first of all search out a god to prosper our designed undertaking; and going out of doors with the design, take the first creature that presents itself to our eyes, whether dog, cat, or the most contemptible creature in the world for our god: or perhaps instead of that, any inanimate that falls in our way, whether a stone, a piece of wood, or anything else of the same nature. This new-chosen god is immediately presented with an offering, which is accompanied by a solemn vow, that if it pleaseth him to prosper our undertakings, for the future we will always worship and esteem him as a god. If our design prove successful, we have discovered a new and assisting god, which is daily presented with a fresh offering; but if the contrary happen, the new god is rejected as a useless tool, and consequently returns to his primitive estate.” “We make and break our gods daily, and consequently are the masters and inventors of what we sacrifice to.”’
Bosman goes on to say:—
‘I was very well pleased to hear the negro talk in this manner concerning his country gods; but, having conversed with him for some time, I observed that he ridiculed his own country gods, for, having lived amongst the French, whose language he perfectly understood and spoke, he had amongst them imbibed the principles of the Christian religion, and somewhat towards a just notion of the true God and how he is to be worshipped, ... wherefore he no further concerned himself with the gods of the country than as engaged to it for quietness’ sake, or to make his friends easy.’
A sceptic is scarcely likely to give a sympathetic report of a religion he has discarded, and Bosman’s negro is no exception to the rule. He describes the outward tangible aspect of fetishism, but ignores its spiritual interpretation, and the dogmatic definitions above follow in the same path of error.
Fetishism and the fetish, as thus defined, do not exist, except in ‘incomplete observations’; they certainly are nowhere to be found in West Africa, the typical land of fetishism.
‘Every native with whom I have conversed on the subject,’ writes Ellis, ‘has laughed at the possibility of it being supposed that he could worship or offer sacrifice to some such object as a stone, which of itself it would be perfectly obvious to his senses was a stone only and nothing more’ ([15, 192]). So the Maori wakapakoko were only thought to possess virtue or peculiar sanctity from the presence of the god they represented when dressed up for worship; at other times they were regarded only as bits of ordinary wood ([69, 212]), and Brinton affirms that ‘nowhere in the world did man ever worship a stick or a stone as such’ ([6, 131]).
All cases of Fetishism, when examined, show that the worship is paid to an intangible power or spirit incorporated in some visible form, and that the fetish is merely the link between the worshipper and the object of his worship. Any definition therefore which takes no account of the spiritual force behind the material object is seen to be incomplete and superficial, as it ignores the essential conception of the worship.
Dr. Tylor enlarges the scope of the word, classing Fetishism as a subordinate department of Animism, and defining it as the doctrine of spirits embodied in, or conveying influence through, certain material objects. He includes in it the worship of stocks and stones, ‘and thence it passes by an imperceptible gradation into idolatry’ ([71, ii. 144]).
It is these imperceptible gradations which blur all the outlines of the rigid systematist, and make an exclusive classification impossible. Encouragement is found in the reflection that exclusive classifications are almost unknown to science, and, where met with, are generally due to ignorance, waiting for greater knowledge or further research to provide the intermediate links which everywhere blend class with class, species with species. But when the group is studied in its area of characterisation, certain features stand prominently forward, and by a study of these the essential characteristics of the whole class can be determined.