The Mind of Primitive Man

One of the chief aims of anthropology is the study of the mind of man under the varying conditions of race and of environment. The activities of the mind manifest themselves in thoughts and actions, and exhibit an infinite variety of form among the peoples of the world. In order to understand these clearly, the student must endeavor to divest himself entirely of opinions and emotions based upon the peculiar social environment into which he is born. He must adapt his own mind, so far as feasible, to that of the people whom he is studying. The more successful he is in freeing himself from the bias based on the group of ideas that constitute the civilization in which he lives, the more successful he will be in interpreting the beliefs and actions of man. He must follow lines of thought that are new to him. He must participate in new emotions, and understand how, under unwonted conditions, both lead to actions. Beliefs, customs, and the response of the individual to the events of daily life give us ample opportunity to observe the manifestations of the mind of man under varying conditions.

The thoughts and actions of civilized man and those found in more primitive forms of society prove that, in various groups of mankind, the mind responds quite differently when exposed to the same conditions. Lack of logical connection in its conclusions, lack of control of will, are apparently two of its fundamental characteristics in primitive society. In the formation of opinions, belief takes the place of logical demonstration. The emotional value of opinions is great, and consequently they quickly lead to action. The will appears unbalanced, there being a readiness to yield to strong emotions, and a stubborn resistance in trifling matters. [ . . . ]

The third point in which the mind of primitive man seems to differ from that of civilized man is in its power of choosing between perceptions and actions according to their value. On this power rests the whole domain of art and of ethics. An object or an action becomes of artistic value only when it is chosen from among other perceptions or other actions on account of its beauty. An action becomes moral only when it is chosen from among other possible actions on account of its ethical value. No matter how crude the standards of primitive man may be in regard to these two points, we recognize that all of them possess an art, and that all of them possess ethical standards. It may be that their art is quite contrary to our artistic feeling. It may be that their ethical standards outrage our moral code. We must clearly distinguish between the aesthetic and ethical codes and the existence of an aesthetic and ethical standard.

Our brief consideration of the phenomena of abstraction, of inhibition, and of choice, leads, then, to the conclusion that these functions of the human mind are common to the whole of humanity. It may be well to state here that, according to our present method of considering biological and psychological phenomena, we must assume that these functions of the human mind have developed from lower conditions existing at a previous time, and that at one time there certainly must have been races and tribes in which the properties here described were not at all, or only slightly, developed; but it is also true that among the present races of man, no matter how primitive they may be in comparison with ourselves, these faculties are highly developed.

It is not impossible that the degree of development of these functions may differ somewhat among different types of man; but I do not believe that we are able at the present time to form a just valuation of the power of abstraction, of control, and of choice among different races. A comparison of their languages, customs, and activities suggests that these faculties may be unequally developed; but the differences are not sufficient to justify us in ascribing materially lower stages to some peoples, and higher stages to others. The conclusions reached from these considerations are, therefore, on the whole, negative. We are not inclined to consider the mental organization of different races of man as differing in fundamental points. [ . . . ]

This leads us to the third problem, which is closely associated with the difference between the manifestation of the power of civilized man and of primitive man to inhibit impulses. It is the question of choice as dependent upon value. It is evident from the preceding remarks that, on the whole, we value most highly what conforms to our previous actions. This does not imply that it must be identical with our previous actions, but it must be on the line of development of our previous actions. This is particularly true of ethical concepts. No action can find the approval of a people which is fundamentally opposed to its customs and traditions. Among ourselves it is considered proper and a matter of course to treat the old with respect, for children to look after the welfare of their aged parents; and not to do so would be considered base ingratitude. Among the Eskimo we find an entirely different standard. It is required of children to kill their parents when they have become so old as to be helpless and no longer of any use to the family or to the community. It would be considered a breach of filial duty not to kill the aged parent. Revolting though this custom may seem to us, it is founded on an ethical law of the Eskimo, which rests on the whole mass of traditional lore and custom.