What Are Savages to Us?

The assumption that all societies follow the same evolutionary process and progress toward a single goal is a false presumption that does not reflect reality. Societies have developed different ways of life to adapt to their environments. For instance, while some communities engaged in hunting and gathering, others opted for agriculture. However, the belief that the sole purpose of all societies is to evolve in line with the myth of progress renders history static and linear.

The term “primitive,” rooted in Western-centric thought and burdened with biases, is one of the most significant distinctions in world history. When we examine this concept, ween counter an ideology that labels everyone outside of itself as rudimentary and, therefore, savage. With the Enlightenment period, Western thinkers began to view human history as a process of progress, positioning themselves at the pinnacle of this process. This perspective, which has gained prominence in the social sciences, is shaped by the “us” versus “them” dichotomy central to modernity. Social sciences were built on this framework, with fields such as sociology and economics positioned as disciplines specific to Western societies, while anthropology emerged as a field to study “the others.” From this perspective, societiespredating written history were characterized as “primitive, barbaric, irrational, and savage.” This approach laid the groundwork for Western societies to demean and exploit other cultures.

This mindset, which associates societies other than its own with deprivation, formed theintellectual foundation of colonialism. Western states exploited large parts of the world underthe guise of “civilizing” them and forcibly imposed their own cultures. In this process, indigenous cultures were deemed “primitive” and “underdeveloped,” and the values and waysof life of others were dismissed. Today, while the term “developing” is used to soften this perspective, the underlying viewpoint remains fundamentally unchanged. Although cultural relativism and post-colonial theories claim that every society and the culture it produces is unique and valuable, ongoing crises demonstrate that little has actually changed. In thiscontext, the disparity observed by Europe between Gaza and Kyiv serves as a striking contemporary example that exposes the issue in its entirety.

The greatest obstacle to accurately understanding the past is the prejudice that people living in the distant past were “inadequate.” It can be said that, equipped with the advantages of modern technology, humans tend to view the past with condescension and as inherentlylacking. But is this truly the case? A wretch fighting for survival, constantly at risk of being killed by a predatory animal as “savage” as themselves, hunting out of fear of starvation andrelying on magical practices—such is the perception of those labeled as savages. From this perspective, the lives of these people were reduced to subsistence economies, leaving them notime to engage in art or religion until the advent of agriculture. After surplus production became possible, people turned to these pursuits for various reasons. However, the reality is quite different. For example, the Yanomami people of Venezuela work an average of only 4-5 hours a day to meet their subsistence needs. This demonstrates that the so-called “primitive human” was not merely a being focused on food and shelter but could have a lifestyle as complex as ours and even more time to reflect than we do.

The primary motivation behind research on “savages” (!) has not solely been scientific curiosity but has also been shaped by ideological concerns. In particular, the 19th-century struggle against the Catholic Church laid the groundwork for adopting a radical stanceregarding the origins of religion. By producing myth-based explanations of humanity’s early periods, it was believed that once the fragility and superstitious nature of religious beliefs were exposed, the Church would lose its legitimacy. Although theories on the origins of religion have largely lost their validity today, they sparked significant debates in the 19th century and contributed greatly to the development of disciplines such as archaeology, anthropology, and the history of religions.

Notable figures of this period include Max Müller (1823–1900), who linked the origins of modern religions to “nature.” Edward Tylor (1832–1917) explained the origins of religionthrough spirits, arguing that this belief evolved over time and became institutionalized. Similarly, Herbert Spencer posited that ancestor worship was the source of all religions. Emile Durkheim, on the other hand, viewed religion as a social phenomenon rather than an individual experience and defined totemism as a symbol of both society and religion. Wilhelm Schmidt claimed that monotheism was the oldest form of religion, while August Comteargued that institutional religions had become obsolete and that a religion of humanity basedon positivism would eventually prevail.

Following World War II, a paradigm shift in the social sciences led to significant criticism of the knowledge produced by Victorian-era “armchair” theorists. In this context, the term“primitive,” which had long been used to describe non-Western cultures that had not engaged with modernity, faced extensive criticism due to its numerous negative connotations. As a result, alternative terms perceived as more neutral and culturally sensitive, such as “non-literate peoples,” “indigenous peoples,” “traditional societies,” “archaic societies,” and“small-scale societies,” began to be employed. However, it is evident that these terms also carry implicit biases and burdens, perpetuating reductionism through generalization.

Criticism has focused on the Western-centric nature of these concepts, their role in serving colonialism, and their simplistic, uniform portrayal of societies and institutions outside of theWest. Particularly after the 1950s, anthropological research revealed that communities labeledas “savages” actually possessed highly complex social structures, profound knowled gesystems, and advanced cultures. Moreover, it became evident that these “savages” were not solely driven by pragmatic concerns in their interactions with their environment. For instance, it was observed that a young individual from the Dogon tribe in Africa categorized plants into22 families and further subdivided them into specific categories. Similarly, although North American Indigenous peoples did not consume snakes as food, they were found to havedetailed knowledge about them. This demonstrates that they did not approach plants and animals merely as resources for hunting and sustenance.

Thus, the assumption that all societies follow the same evolutionary path and progress towarda single goal is fundamentally flawed. Societies have developed different ways of life to adapt to their environments. For example, while some communities relied on hunting and gathering, others preferred agriculture. However, the belief that all societies aim to develop in accordance with the myth of progress renders history static and linear.

However, many of these theories have been criticized for being based on the views of researchers who had no direct contact with “savage” communities. As Evans-Pritchardremarked, these theorists conducted “armchair studies,” akin to a chemist developing a theory without ever stepping into a laboratory. At the core of theories on the origins of religion liesthe underestimation of individuals labeled as primitive. According to the progressive understanding of evolution, “Stone Age” humans were depicted as childlike beings withempty beliefs, devoid of reason, and seeking refuge from the anxieties of a fearful anduncertain life through magic and prayer.

To fully grasp these perspectives, one must consider the mindsets of the theorists and the religious traditions in which they lived. While most of these theorists belonged to Jewish orChristian denominations, nearly all, with few exceptions, adhered to agnostic or atheisticworldviews. These thinkers, who regarded religion as a delusion of humankind, assessed“primitive religions” within this context as well.

In the modern era, there have also been tendencies to excessively glorify primitive thought. Some thinkers, like John Zerzan, idealized pre-agricultural societies, presenting them as examples of peaceful living in harmony with nature. However, such romanticized approaches also carry significant problems. It seems that the past is not merely the past; it holds the potential to shape both the present and the future. For years, Westerners have sacrificed  countless soldiers to “civilize” the savages in Afghanistan and Iraq(!). What a grand service, isn’t it? Introducing the savages to democracy and civilization…