Fetishism

← Encyclopedia

Fetishism is the name long given, in the European study of religion, to the attribution of power or agency to a particular material object — a carved figure, a bundle, a stone — treated as itself potent rather than as a sign of something else. The word is better understood as a category than as a thing: it describes less what anyone practiced than how outside observers classified what they saw.

The term has a traceable origin in trade and mistranslation. Portuguese sailors and merchants on the West African coast used feitiço — from a root meaning “made,” “artificial,” and so “charm” or “sorcery” — for the objects local people handled with care and ceremony. Out of the pidgin of those encounters came the word fetisso, and from it the French fétiche. In 1760 the philosophe Charles de Brosses turned the noun into a system in Du culte des dieux fétiches, arguing that the worship of objects was not a degeneration from higher religion but its earliest form, the same impulse he claimed to find in ancient Egypt and in the Africa of his own day. The book gave Europe a universal stage of religious infancy, and a word for it.

Auguste Comte fixed that stage into his law of three states, where fetishism stands at the dawn of the theological age — humanity’s first move, projecting its own life onto inert things before advancing to polytheism, then monotheism, then positive science. From there the term passed through the anthropology of Tylor and others and into wider use: Marx borrowed it for the “fetishism of commodities,” Freud for a turn of erotic life, each carrying the same core image of a thing wrongly invested with power. The word’s long career is itself the strongest evidence that it tells more about its users than its objects.

Modern scholarship treats the category critically, and largely as an artifact. The historian William Pietz argued that the fetish was not an African idea at all but one born in the cross-cultural space of the coast — a European judgment about other people’s relations to matter, framed from the start as error. Anthropology has since retired “fetishism” as a stage of belief, noting that the objects so labeled were embedded in particular cosmologies that the term flattened, and that no coherent class of practice underlies the name. Where the word survives in the study of esotericism, it tends to mark amulets, talismans, and consecrated objects — things made or charged to hold and direct power. Yet even there the label imports its old freight: it presumes a settled line between a thing and what a thing can carry that the traditions in question did not draw the same way.

What endures beneath the discredited category is the older, unsettled question it tried and failed to answer — why human beings make objects they then treat as more than objects, and what they take to pass between the hand and the made thing.

→ Related: Naturalism · Esotericism · Modern Paganism · Ritual