Tylor vs. Frazer: Competing Accounts of Religion's Origins

Introduction: Two Theories, One Subject

In comparing and contrasting the accounts of religion offered by E.B. Tylor and J.G. Frazer, it is worth noting that these two scholars were not contemporaries. Frazer's ideas on the history and evolution of religion were preceded by Tylor's, and certain tenets propagated by the latter were incorporated into the ideas of the former, which helps explain some of the similarities between their work. The relationship between their conceptions is discussed at length in the opening section of Seven Theories of Religion by Daniel Pals.

One of the crucial distinctions between the two accounts is that whereas Tylor's is grounded in the notion of animism, Frazer's largely explains religion as a product of magic. Frazer's ideas are more consistent with the major forms of religion dominating contemporary life — specifically the monotheistic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. A thorough analysis of both accounts reveals that, because of its relevance to modern religious practice, Frazer's account of religion is the more credible of the two.

Tylor's Animism and Its Foundations

It is notable that Frazer's account of religion came after Tylor's, not least because he drew on many of the same academic disciplines — primarily anthropology and history rather than contemporary sociology. This shared methodological basis represents the principal point of similarity between their respective accounts.

Tylor's account is largely built on the concept of animism, which is essentially the belief that all living things possess a spirit that animates them. As Tylor points out, Native Americans were among the chief proponents of this notion, believing that virtually everything in existence had a spirit. The key idea behind animism is that the spirit animating all things is decidedly human-like in nature. Tylor substantiated this claim by arguing that animism evolved from early human reflection on death and dreams.

Frazer's Account: From Magic to Religion

Frazer's account of religion, by contrast, begins with magic. He argues that magic was initially conceived as a means of survival: early peoples engaged in elaborate rituals to secure the necessities of life, such as favorable weather for crops and successful hunting. It is notable that Frazer focuses primarily on the aspects of magic rooted in superstition, devoting relatively little attention to any genuine effects attributed to magical practice.

His central premise is that people eventually discovered that the entire system of magic was tenuous — if not an outright farce — and that its role as an explanation for worldly and supernatural events was displaced by the concept of religion. Frazer argues that religion proved a more suitable alternative precisely because it is more imperfect in its procedures than magic. The crucial distinction is that religion depends on supernatural beings or gods to bring about events, rather than on rituals and shamans alone, which makes it more congruent with the unpredictability of real life.

Conclusion: Frazer's Enduring Account

Frazer's account of religion is more enduring than Tylor's because it directly relates to modern religions, whereas elements of Tylor's animism do not. The implications of this conclusion are considerable. They suggest that humanity — whose religions serve as an integral part of social control — may not be as thoroughly evolved beyond its earliest belief systems as it would prefer to believe. The vestiges of magic discernible in modern religion attest to a certain superficiality in this institution, and raise the possibility that religion carries within it some of the same elements of falsehood that Frazer identified in the magic that preceded it.

Works Cited

Pals, Daniel. Seven Theories of Religion.