Marett, Robert Ranulph (1866–1943)

Contributions and Perspectives

Marett recognized the critical importance of Darwin in the discipline of anthropology. For Marett, Darwinian evolution was the essential theoretical or philosophical framework by which the scientific study of our species becomes possible. Although he did not assign philosophy under the domain of anthropology, Marett had acknowledged that philosophy is the thread by which science operates. In this manner, both critical thought and open scope of inquiry can lead to greater scientific explanations. The philosophical inquiry reduces the rigidity and dogmatic acceptance of unquestioned theoretical explanations, especially when it is applied within an historical perspective.

Marett's perspective on the scope of anthropology would be conducive with most modern perspectives on this topic. Condoning a holistic view, the anthropologist should be well versed in anatomy, geography, linguistics, and the adaptations that the arrays of culture have provided. Although rudimentary, the acknowledgment of variations in phenotypic expressions is by no means an indication of worth; the common psychological operations of our species can express its humanity within the domain of culture. In this process, the anthropologist can understand the uniting factors of both political and religious structures found throughout the world. Thus, the anthropologist can indirectly augment the practical art of “healing” the political and religious fracturing within the world. This inevitably would require that the anthropologist understand both his or her own deepest self and the society that is the object of study. This places the anthropologist beyond the constraints of ethnocentrism inherited in Western philosophical thought and proceeds into the realm of humanism.

One of the greatest contributions made by Marett concerned his unique perspective on magic and religion. With his philosophical perspective and developments in psychology, Marett's views on religion were contrary to the established and influential perspectives presented by James Frazer and Burnett Tylor. For Marett, these views on religion became too restrictive and intellectualized to accurately depict all of the processes involved in religion. The basis of the religion can be found in the subject awe of the individual toward the unknown or mysterious, a supernatural perspective prodded by both intellectual limitation and feelings. This primitive foundation of religion, aptly termed animatism, does not indicate a dualistic physical–spiritual existence. Rather, it should be seen in terms of powers constituted within or related to an object, all of which might not be associated with spirits. In this manner, there is a differentiation between the object and its power. Examples of these powers can be seen in the practice of witchcraft and the protective powers of objects or symbols, all of which do not constitute a spirit. Such a mysterious force gives religion a wider base than Tylor's animism.

...