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. Almost everything that has been written under the heading records a judgment passed from one side of an encounter onto the other, and the duty of any honest account is to keep the judgment and the practices it was aimed at firmly apart.

A Kongo nkisi nkondi from the Mayombe region of Lower Congo, its surface driven with iron blades to seal oaths and prosecute wrongs — the kind of consecrated object European observers labeled a fetish — Royal Museum for Central Africa, photographed by Daderot, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

The term has a traceable origin in trade and mistranslation. Portuguese sailors and merchants on the West African coast in the sixteenth century used feitiço — from the Latin facticius, “made by art,” “artificial,” and so by extension “charm,” “sorcery,” a word that in Portuguese already named the witchcraft objects of their own home Christianity — for the bundles, figures, and charged things that coastal peoples handled with care and ceremony. The choice of word mattered: it filed an unfamiliar relation to matter under a category Europe already possessed, the illicit made object, the counterfeit sacred. Out of the pidgin of those long littoral encounters came the trade word fetisso, and from it the French fétiche. The thing named was new on both sides — neither a straightforward African idea nor a straightforward European one, but a creature of the contact zone where the two value-systems met and failed to translate each other. The judgment of error was built into the name from the first.

From trade word to universal stage

Charles de Brosses (1709–1777), whose 1760 treatise turned a coastal trade word into a universal theory of religious origins — engraving after Charles-Nicolas Cochin, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

In 1760 the philosophe Charles de Brosses turned the noun into a system in Du culte des dieux fétiches, whose long subtitle promised a parallel between the ancient religion of Egypt and the present religion of West Africa. De Brosses argued that the worship of objects was not a degeneration from a higher religion but its earliest form — the same raw impulse he claimed to find in ancient Egypt, in the classical Mediterranean, and in the Africa of his own day. Against the Jesuit “figurist” reading, which treated the strange cults of distant peoples as allegories veiling a primal monotheism, de Brosses insisted on taking them literally: people worshipped the stone as a stone, the snake as a snake. The book gave the Enlightenment a universal stage of religious infancy, and a single word for it. With that move fetishism stopped being a coastal trade term and became a rung on a ladder up which all peoples were imagined to climb — the lowest rung, the place where religion was supposed to begin.

Positivism fixed that stage into a law. In the law of three states, fetishism stands at the dawn of the theological age — humanity’s first move, projecting its own life onto inert things, the mind reading its own animacy back out of stones and trees before it learns to gather those scattered powers into the many gods of polytheism, then the one god of monotheism, and at last to set the gods aside for positive science. The sequence was meant to be a history of the whole species compressed into a diagram, and fetishism marked its zero. The point of origin doubled as a verdict: to call a practice fetishism was to date it to the childhood of the race.

From there the term passed into the new science of anthropology, where Edward Tylor folded it into his account of animism as a sub-variety — the cult of spirits lodged in particular objects — and from anthropology it leaked outward into territory its coiners never foresaw. In the analysis of capital the word named the “fetishism of commodities,” the way a manufactured thing seems to carry value as an inherent property, the social labor congealed in it appearing as a power radiating from the object itself. In the study of erotic life it named a turn of desire fixed upon a thing or a part standing in for the whole. Each migration carried the same core image — a thing wrongly invested with a power that does not belong to it — and each, by the act of borrowing, confirmed how portable and how accusatory the category had always been. Its long career across disciplines that otherwise agreed on nothing is the strongest single piece of evidence that the word tells more about its users than about its objects.

The category and its retirement

Modern scholarship treats the category critically, and largely as an artifact of the encounter rather than a finding about the world. The historian William Pietz, in a sequence of essays published in the journal Res between 1985 and 1988, argued that the fetish was not an African idea at all, nor a European one transplanted whole, but something genuinely new — born in the cross-cultural mercantile space of the West African coast, where Portuguese Catholic, northern Protestant, and a plurality of African systems of value collided over goods, oaths, and the worth of things. The fetish, on this reading, was from the start a European judgment about other people’s relation to matter, framed as error; and the very features it was accused of — its stubborn materiality, its fixation in a single charged object, its binding force over a person’s body and fortunes, its standing as a thing that holds social value and seals an agreement — were the features that made it unintelligible to merchants who wanted matter to be inert and value to be abstract. What looked to them like the absurd over-valuing of a trifle was, in the systems they were dealing with, a disciplined practice of binding power to a knowable place.

The most exacting correction has come from the ethnography of West-Central Africa, where the objects most often labeled fetishes can be set beside their makers’ own accounts of them. Among the BaKongo, the minkisi (singular nkisi) are consecrated containers, bundles, and figures charged with bilongo — selected medicines of mineral, vegetable, and graveyard matter, chosen for the metaphors and likenesses they carry — and operated by ritual specialists, the banganga, to seal oaths, prosecute theft, adjudicate conflict, treat affliction, and bind communities. The studied nail figures, the minkisi minkondi into which iron blades are driven to fix an agreement, are not idols receiving worship but instruments of knowledge and power, technologies for making the unseen answerable.

Bakongo nkisi nkondi figures, into which iron nails and blades were driven to fix agreements and prompt the figure to act — Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)

The anthropologist Wyatt MacGaffey, working from early-twentieth-century Kikongo notebooks in which Kongolese authors describe these objects in their own words, reframed them precisely against the old label: to call an nkisi a fetish is to perpetuate the sixteenth-century mistranslation, to flatten a worked-out cosmology into a foreigner’s error and to miss the social and political work the object actually does. The word imported a settled opposition — between a thing and what a thing can carry, between dead matter and the powers laid into it — that the traditions in question simply did not draw the same way.

For these reasons anthropology has retired fetishism as a stage of belief or a class of practice. There is no coherent thing in the world that the noun picks out; the objects it gathered belonged to particular cosmologies it never grasped, and the grading of religions by which fetishism sat at the bottom was a projection of the graders. To apply the word to a living West or Central African practice is not to describe that practice but to repeat an old classification forged on the coast and weaponized in the colonial library — an outside verdict of error, never anyone’s name for their own devotion. Held to that history, the term is most honest when it is named as a charge and set down.

Etymological and scholarly record

The semantic core of feitiço — from Latin facticius, the artificial as against the natural, the made thing as against the given — is preserved in standard reference lexica, and the word’s passage through the Portuguese witchcraft sense into the coastal trade term is the hinge on which the whole later history turns. De Brosses’s founding text of 1760 survives in full, in the digitized first edition held by the Bibliothèque nationale de France, and remains the document in which a casual term of contempt was first promoted to a category of universal religious history. The decisive modern reframing is William Pietz’s, whose first installment of “The Problem of the Fetish” (Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 9, Spring 1985, 5–17) sets out the contact-zone thesis, with the third installment on Bosman’s Guinea and the Enlightenment theory (no. 16, Autumn 1988, 105–124) tracing how the coastal observation hardened into philosophy. The Africanist correction runs through Wyatt MacGaffey’s Religion and Society in Central Africa: The BaKongo of Lower Zaire (Chicago, 1986) and his edition of the Laman notebooks, Art and Healing of the BaKongo Commented by Themselves (Indiana, 1991), where the people whose objects Europe called fetishes give, at last, their own description of what the objects are for. The collected Pietz essays were reissued, with critical apparatus, as The Problem of the Fetish (University of Chicago Press, 2022).

The afterlife in esotericism

Where the word survives outside the academy it has slipped its colonial moorings and become a loose technical term in the study of esotericism, where it marks the made-and-charged object: the amulet worn against harm, the talisman manufactured to draw a specific power into itself, the object brought through consecration into a status apart from ordinary use. These are the working objects of magic, of ritual, of divination, and of the revived object-practices of modern paganism; the same field that studies the charged thing also keeps the term idolatry and the term witchcraft as the near-neighbors it must be told apart from — idolatry the charge of worshipping the image as a god, witchcraft the charge of working harm, fetishism the charge of mistaking a thing for a power. Even in this milder use the label brings its old freight: it still presumes the settled line between a thing and what a thing can hold that the makers of charged objects have never quite drawn, and it still arrives sounding faintly like a verdict on someone else’s relation to matter.

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, why a hand lays power into a stone and expects to find it there again, and what they take to pass between the maker and the made thing in the moment the thing begins to act.

→ Related: Naturalism · Esotericism · Modern Paganism · Ritual · Amulet · Talisman · Consecration · Idolatry · Positivism · Ancient Egypt · Magic · Religion · Divination · Witchcraft