Contrast of Eb Tylor and James Frazier Accounts of Religion

EB Tylor and James Frazier Accounts of Religion

In comparing and contrasting the accounts of religion offered by E.B. Tyler and J.G. Frazer, it is noteworthy to mention that they were not contemporaries of one another. Frazer's ideas on the history and evolution of religion were preceded by Tyler's. As such, there were certain tenets propagated by the latter that were incorporated into the ideas of the former which help to explain some of the similarities between these authors. The relationship between their conceptions is discussed at length in the initial part of Daniel Pal's Seven Theories of Religion. One of the crucial distinctions between the two works is the fact that whereas Tyler's account is based on the notion of animism and Frazer's largely explains religion as a progeny of magic is that the latter's ideas are more consistent with the major forms of religion dominating contemporary existence -- specifically the monotheistic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. A thorough analysis of this fact and others presented by the authors reveals that because of its relevance to modern religious practices, Frazer's account of religion is more credible.

It is extremely notable that Frazer's account of religion was subsequent to that of Tylor's for the simple fact that he utilized many of the same academic disciplines for his research as Tyler did. Actually, the fact that both authors chose to base their religion on various aspects of anthropology and history (and not much contemporary sociology) is the principle point of similarity between their respective accountings. Tylor's accounting is largely based on the conception of animism, which is essentially the belief that all living things have a spirit within them that animates them. As Tyler points out, Native Americans were some of the chief propagators of this notion, and believed that virtually all things in existence had a spirit. The key idea behind animism is that the spirt that animates all things is decidedly human-like in nature. The author substantiated his claim by claiming that animism evolved from studying various aspects of death and dreams.

In comparison, Frazer's account of religion is based on an inception related to magic. The author believes that magic was initially conceived as a means of fighting to stay alive, and that early people engaged in elaborate rituals to obtain their necessities of life such as weather amenable to crops and favorable hunting expeditions. It is interesting that he chooses to primarily detail the aspects of magic that are pure superstition, and does not devote very much writing to actual effects engendered by true magic. However, his main premises is that people initially discovered that the entire system of magic was tenuous if not a complete farce, and that its place as an explanation for worldly and supernatural events was soon displaced by the concept of religion. The author propounds the notion that religion was a much more suitable alternative because it is decidedly more imperfect in its procedures than magic -- the key distinction that it depends on supernatural beings or Gods to actuate events rather than simple rituals and so-called shamans --, which makes it more congruous with real life.

Obviously, the key terms in Tylor's account of religion are the notions of animism and its foundation in dreams and death. The author's arguments appear to be less stable when he expands the notion of animism to account for other facets of religion. The concepts of reincarnation, resurrection and immortality may pertain to the notion of an eternal soul, but have very little to do with the fact that all things have a spirit and need to be worshipped and treated accordingly. The key terms which fuels the argument for Frazer include the fact that early magic was based on both similarity of ritual or simple contact; each of these two methods was supposed to induce some supernatural (and desired) effect. Of course, it is also important to understand the implicit and explicit similarities between magic and religion, the other key terms in Frazer's article. Magic relies on both contact and similarity to work. In actuating each of these processes, individuals would engage in rituals. Rituals play a strong part in religion -- especially in organized religion today. They are not considered to be magic rituals, but they are still rituals in much the same way that prayer or verbally and mentally communing with the supernatural is like casting a spell in traditional magic.