The Rationality of Primitive Thought.
Levt-Bruhl made a distinction between logical and pre-logical thought that was
questioned by Evan-Pritchard who argued that the belief in witchcraft and magic is
logical but who also wanted to say that these beliefs are in essence wrong and that it is
only through science that we can have a rational view of the world.
The problem over the rationality of primitive societies revolves around the question of
whether primitive societies are irrational in believing in witches, magic etc. What is it
that rationality means? Jon Elster provides a distinction between “thin” and “broad”
rationality.
Thin rationality argues for a consistency between the beliefs, desires and actions of
individuals; If the Azande believe they can reveal the actions of witchcraft and those
responsible it is therefore rational to seek the oracle in order to reveal the witch (these
ideas follow on from those embodied in rational choice theory).
Broad rationality is the rationality of substantive beliefs and desires. It must be based
on the best available evidence and involve a rational judgement. Azande beliefs and
oracle judgements are irrational in that there are better explanations available that do
not involve the mystical or occult.
Evans Pritchard holds ideas similar to these; that in most respects the Azande are not
irrational (in the thin sense), in the way they carry out their everyday lives and in the
operation of the system of magic and oracles. Their substantive beliefs are also not
irrational in that they are based on common sense. But the Azande operate within a
system of witchcraft beliefs that can be thought of as irrational in the broad sense.
Thin rationality has a bearing on our ability to understand other beliefs and cultures.
The Azande belief in witchcraft as responsible for misfortune and the oracle as a
means of divining witchcraft use make it irrational for a Zande to go off to a
missionary church to ask for help, because this is seen as outside of their system of
belief. Instead they go to see the witch doctor. The Azande would consider going
outside the system for help to be irrational in both the thin and the broad sense. It
would be irrational to do anything other than see the witch doctor as they have their
own concepts of rationality.
Winch argues that every society must possess some concept of thin rationality
because of the nature of language. To establish the character of rationality we need to
be able to describe it in linguistic terms. Rationality is a concept every society needs
to have in order to make sense of one another. Most of our linguistic utterances must
be rational in the thin sense. Language must relate to beliefs and desires in order to
know what people mean, in order to understand and to be consistent.
Rationality is a necessary feature of all natural languages, without it meaning could
not be conveyed.
During the 1930’s tribes were discovered in the highlands of New Guinea that had
evolved language with no resemblance to any other language. The question of how
was this language to be translated led to an informed philosophical debate? There
were two alternative positions;
1. Quinne argued that one can never be certain our translation would capture the
true meaning intended by the speaker. That there was an indeterminacy in
translating that could never reach determinate understanding.
2. Davidson adopted the charity principle – that when people use language they
do what we do, that the language reflects their beliefs and desires in a thinly
rational way. In this way translation takes place and that even though we
cannot be 100% certain we can communicate with each other.
Rationality is seen as a necessary feature of language, that it is something shared with
other cultures. Evans Pritchard assumed this with the Azande. He easily translated and
expressed terms which the Azande used in terms which we can understand even
though he considered their substantive beliefs irrational. Winch contests Evans
Pritchard’s claim of Azande irrationality in the broad sense. At some levels he is
sympathetic to Evans Pritchard who did not consider the Azande stupid or less able
than people in the west. He saw their belief as the results of collective representation
and their belief system. People in the west accept science as a system because they
were brought up within that system and as a consequence consider it superior. The
problems with Evans Pritchard’s views are
1. He argues from the point of the established superiority of scientific notions
because they are in accordance with objective reality. These views can be
checked against an objective reality that exists independently of what we think
and talk about. It is not just science that posits an external reality against
which to check beliefs. This is also true of religion where the existence of God
does not rely on us (believers) for his existence, God exists external to us. The
Azande do something similar with regard to witchcraft which they consider
has real physical consequences.
2. Reality does not exist outside of language. Conceptions of reality are
constituted in language. The only way to know what is real and what is not
real is through language. Evans Pritchard says there is a reality that is outside
of language against which we check our beliefs. Winch argues that there is no
real world that exists independent of how we think and talk about it. We can
only understand reality through a system of theoretical beliefs – and this is as
true for science as for witchcraft.
Particle physics has a need for a complex language and its facilities in order for it
to be observed and understood. For Winch, Azande belief has something in
common with particle physics, both form a coherent system and have a reality
created within that system of belief. He is not interested in whether magic and
witchcraft exists but why we should consider a system that has a clear social
function as irrational or wrong. Evans Pritchard was therefore wrong to
characterise the Azande as broadly irrational because the problem is with the
conception of broad rationality. What for instance counts as the best available
evidence and what counts as rational judgement?
Any system of beliefs will only admit certain kinds of evidence as appropriate or
relevant. There is no rejection of the assumptions of the system just of the
evidence. Western science operates in a similar way, evidence contradicting the
underlying assumptions is either considered irrelevant or explained away.
It is difficult to think what constitutes rational judgement independent of the
system of beliefs. What does it take to make a judgement autonomous of the
system of belief? For Winch there can be no autonomous system of judgement,
any judgement depends on the system of belief from which the judgement is
made.
Relativists argue that judgements are a function of particular beliefs we hold, that
we have no way of steeping outside of that system in order to judge truth or
falsity. Truth is generated by the particular beliefs and social systems that generate
those beliefs.
Winch advises caution against treating beliefs and practices we don’t understand
as inferior or less rational than our own.