Lévy-Brühl And Boas [The Course Of French Philosophy And The Primitive Mind]

7/28/2019 Lvy-Brhl And Boas [The Course Of French Philosophy And The Primitive Mind]

1/6

Lucien Lvy-Bruhl: The Course of French

Philosophy and the Primitive Mind

November 17, 2009

Posted by Christopher Donohue in Primer.

Tags: Franz Boas, Lucien Lvy-Bruhl

Lucien Lvy-Bruhl was born in 1857 in Paris. In 1876, he entered the Ecole Normale

Superieure, specializing in philosophy. Lvy-Bruhl taught at secondary schools until

1895. Obtaining his doctorate in 1884, from 1886 onwards he lectured at Ecole Libre

des Sciences, and from 1895 onwards, at Ecole Normale and the Sorbonne. At the

Sorbonne, in 1904, Lvy-Bruhl became professor of philosophy. In 1917, Lvy-Bruhl

became the editor of Revue Philosophique and in 1925 founded the Institut

dEthnologie, together with Paul Rivet and Marcel Mauss. In 1927, he retired from the

Institute as well as the Sorbonne. He was a visiting professor at Harvard from 1919 to

1920. Levy-Bruhl died in Paris in 1939.

Lvy-Bruhl considered the history of French philosophy, from Descartes to the 1890s, to

demonstrate specific features connected to the French national character and

intellectual life. For Lvy-Bruhl, it was of utmost significance that many French

philosophers began their studies in either mathematics or the natural sciences. Voltaire

became the herald of Newton in France, while Condillac wrote on the language of the

calculus. It seems allowable to infer, Lvy-Bruhl concluded, not that Frenchphilosophy was based upon mathematics, but that there has been in France a close

affinity between the mathematical and the philosophical spirit (History of modern

philosophy in France, 470.)


2/6

Due to the legacy of Descartes as well as mathematics, philosophers took it for granted

that among the various ways of representing reality, there is one which is adequate and

recognizable on account of its clearness and sufficient evidence (ibid.) The connection

of French philosophy to mathematics explained why French philosophers have nearly

always taken care to show that their doctrines were in perfect accord with commonsense and that method was a mere application of the rules of common sense

(474,475.)

Consistent with Lvy-Bruhls coupling of French philosophy with the rational and the

scientific was his privileging of the Cartesian tradition over that exemplified by de

Maistre. Lvy-Bruhls association of French philosophy with a particular kind of system

and a particular kind of intellectual work forced him to gloss over some of the moreextravagant features of the French socialists and Utopians, such as Saint-Simon and

Fourier, as well as the more extreme ideologues of the French Revolution. For Lvy-

Bruhl, the history of philosophy was the steady growth of reason itself. Any derivation

from such a growth was explicable by either a falling away from tradition or to a

concern for justice which obviated reason.

According to Lvy-Bruhl, French philosophy strove towards totalizing explanations, and

accordingly, considered practicality and utility objects of its inquiry, as well as developed

a belief of mankinds power over nature (476.) Referring to French socialists and

Utopians, Lvy-Bruhl noted that in the first half of the nineteenth century, French

thinkers were not over-timid in their political and social conceptions, wishing to find in

society, as well as in nature, a clear and logical order, justifiable in the eyes of reason.

When philosophers did not find order in society, they attempted to establish it. For

Lvy-Bruhl, such an effort revealed a lapse of judgment that was all the more surprising

given philosophers knowledge of the history of philosophy and the fate of utopian

schemes. The move towards a priori social constructions, despite of the lessons of the

history of philosophy, was due to French philosophers desire for both justice and order.

French philosophy, from the seventeenth century until the closing decades of the

nineteenth, was defined by the undulations of the Cartesian spirit. The Cartesian spirit


3/6

was that of criticism incumbent upon modern philosophy when out of the Middle Ages

and past the Renaissance and the Reformation, whose main object was the separation

of scientific or philosophical speculation from theology, as well as to overthrow the

entire body of institutions based on historical tradition which was often indefensible.

(477.) This spirit, Lvy-Bruhl continued, which had become predominant by the endof the seventeenth century, was transmitted in the eighteenth through Fontenelle and

Montesquieu, prevailed among the philosophers (of the Enlightenment), and even in

Condillac, and spent itself in the French Revolution. This Cartesian spirit was revived

in the philosophy of Auguste Comte.

Lvy-Bruhl contended, however, that recent philosophy was defined by the spirit of

cosmopolitanism, whereby national philosophies are on the decline. Both positivescience, sociology, logic, epistemology, and psychology were cultivated at the same

time and by similar methods, in Germany, the United States, England, and France.

Lvy-Bruhl foresaw only one philosophy common to civilized mankind (480.) Lvy-

Bruhl also argued in his history of French philosophy that with the progress of

civilization comes the universality of reason. As noted below, this conception of

universality becomes important as a background element in his conception of the

primitive mind. When speaking of primitives, Lvy-Bruhl underscored the provincial

character of their rationality.

Franz Boaz viewed Lvy-Bruhls Primitive Mentality as part of a tradition of discussions

on primitives in anthropology which had developed from Herder and a particular strand

of the German Romantics who emphasized the causal action of the environment over

inherent and heritable racial differences. Anthropologists and ethnographers of this

tradition, E.B. Tylor, Adolf Bastian, and James G. Frazer, as well as the sociologist Emile

Durkheim, have disregarded racial differences completely, instead using the similitude

of beliefs, mentalities, customs, rituals, and material culture as the basis for comparison.

In all of these writings, Boaz concluded, it is only the difference between culturally

primitive man and civilized man that is relevant. The central problematic in all of these

works was the process of the development of culture, narrated as the interaction


4/6

between psychological and social factors, common to all mankind, as well as the effects

of historical happenings (The Mind of Primitive Man, 33.) Lvy-Bruhl, however, saw

himself as inaugurating a new era in the study of anthropological man through his

realization of the cognitive and cultural gulf separating primitive and civilized man.

Lvy-Bruhls investigations led him to conclude that the primitives mentality was

essentially mystic. While both the primitive and the civilized mind began with sense

impressions, Lvy-Bruhl noted, at the point of intellection and abstract thought, the

primitive makes an abrupt turn (431.)

In opposition to the accounts of missionaries, Lvy-Bruhl argued that the principaldistinction between primitives and civilized individuals was not the absence of abstract

thinking among primitives, but the inappropriateness of the western conception of

abstract thinking to the cognitive processes of primitives. The accounts of missionaries

and an earlier generation of ethnographers were characterized by

conceptsencompassed by the logical atmosphere proper to European mentality.

(434.) The lack of progress and understanding among western observers was due to a

failure in the language used to describe the primitive mind, a mind distinct from that of

civilized man. Western concepts and taxonomies thus rendered primitive customs,

beliefs, and manners incomprehensible.

Thus, the school of ethnology guided by the thesis of an overall psychic unity of all

peoples was an exemplar of this failure of understanding. For Lvy-Bruhl, no similar

spirit or mind existed between Westerners and primitives. As importantly, primitive

social life contained no social organizations which could accurately be described

according to the Western signifiers of family, marriage, property, or money.

Money, to Western minds, was a question of a mediumwhich makes it possible to

exchange something. It signified a universal medium of exchange. The ideas of

natives are more concrete. Natives, such as the Melanesians, use shells for their

purchases, but always with a very definite specification (485.) These differences in

signification revealed distinct worldviews.


5/6

Lvy-Bruhl also underscored that the primitive mind, though like the civilized mind in its

search for causes, did not seek the reasons for what happens in the same direction

as the civilized mind. The primitive moves in a world where innumerable occult powers

are everywhere present and always in action or ready to act (487.) To the primitive

mind, there was the no circumstance which was purely physical.

In contrast, when the civilized mind sought the cause for something, we look for the

conditions which would be necessary to bring it about, in a series of similar

phenomenon. If the conditions are determined we ask no more; knowing the general

law, we are satisfied. The attitude of the primitive is such that he will always seek the

true cause in the world of unseen powers, above and beyond what we call Nature, in

the metaphysical. In short, Lvy-Bruhl concludes, our problems are not his, and his

are foreign to us (438.)

Lvy-Bruhl demonstrated his indebtedness not only to the history of philosophy but also

his commitment to the scientific rationalism and general progressive outlook of pre-war

French Third Republic. For Lvy-Bruhl, the civilized man occupied the highest, most

scientific stage. Lvy-Bruhl here appropriated Comtes account of rational and scientificprogress without paying any attention to the revolutionary or mystic elements of

Comtes system. Lvy-Bruhl achieved such a construction by also linking Comte to

Cartesian rationalism. Lvy-Bruhls earlier conception of the growth of the civilized

mind in his history of French philosophy then became the principle criteria by which he

judged the content and structure of the primitive mind. Accordingly, Lvy-Bruhls

conception of the primitive intellect corresponds roughly to the Metaphysical Stage of

Comtes account of the progress of the human mind from savagery to civilization. In

this second stage, which saw progress from the initial stage of animism and totemism,

primitive gods were abstracted into forces or vital principles.

The situation of primitives at the second stage and the emphasis on foreign quality of

their reasoning points to a lack of certainty regarding savage rationality, a mixture of


6/6

optimism and resignation that is characteristic of much of nineteenth and early

twentieth century anthropology. As primitives are at a particular stage in the

evolution of peoples, they will eventually reach civilization and universal reason.

However, the immediate character of their existence reveals so distinct a form of

civilization and psychic worldview that progress to the level of Western civility seemsimpossible. Thus, primitives were both progressing and fixed in a specific stage.

Lévy-Brühl And Boas [The Course Of French Philosophy And The Primitive Mind]

Documents

Transcript of Lévy-Brühl And Boas [The Course Of French Philosophy And The Primitive Mind]