Trobrianders And The Azande Analysis

While the Trobrianders and the Azande that Bronislaw Malinowski and E.E. Evans-Pritchard describe in their respective ethnographies are miles apart in terms of physical distance, both groups place a great emphasis on magic in their society. In describing such a concept that in Western terms is associated with fiction and skepticism, Malinowski and Evans-Pritchard differ in the way they explain the role magic has in each community.

When describing how important magic is to the Trobrianders, Malinowski continuously points out how essential it is to their lives. They attribute every facet of their life to magic; it has an “overweening influence” over them (Malinowski 392). Malinowski starts his in-depth analysis of magic with emphasizing how

reliant Trobrianders are on magic. He objectifies it by calling it a “weapon and armour”(393).

Their dependence on magic is similar to very religion-like. It is akin to how a pious group of people consider their faith as sort of a protection. But the Trobriander magic extends to more realms than most religions. Malinowski mentions the varied aspects of their lives that magic plays a part in. It is used to explain death. Physical ailments and illness can be attributed to magic. There is a team of human sorcerers, the bwaga’u, who induce the “deepest dread and most constant concern of the natives” because of how magic can extinguish human life (393). Health is closely tied to magic as it can ruin or improve one’s health. Magic also plays a part in social events such as “ambition in gardening, ambition in successful Kula, vanity and display of personal charms in dancing” (394). Individuals can perform magic to improve the chances of success for their gardens while also casting black magic on the gardens of their rivals. Magic governs the weather. One of the more interesting aspects of

Trobrianders society that magic is an essential part in is the economy. Malinowski states that magic plays a “psychological” force that organizes the “economic effort in the Trobrianders” (395). The Trobrianders are driven to do their work because of magic. Another one of the interesting aspects magic contributes to is passions like hatred, envy, and jealousy. Magic can ruin a marriage. These were some of the aspects of life magic affects.
Malinowski then tries to sum up their “essential conception of magic” (396). But he does not want to use the words of the Trobrianders to describe it. He thinks that at their “stage of development” they will not be able to give a “definite, precise, and abstract statement” because they do not have a “philosopher” in their community (396). He thinks it is beyond their level of thinking to describe to him the essence of their system of magic. Malinowski states how the Trobrianders take the observations about their life he has drawn “for granted” and any further questioning will be for “details and concrete applications” (396). He does not want a grand statement from them because he considers it beyond their capabilities; Malinowski does not want to ask the questions that will make him “have to introduce words and concepts essentially foreign to the native” (396). Therefore, he puts the onus on himself, referring to himself in the third person as “the Ethnographer” and having to formulate statements on their behalf (396). Malinowski thinks that he has collected enough evidence to draw conclusions. Then he can “test” his conclusions with “direct questionings” because he knows the thought process of the natives and rather than mislead them with his questioning he can be the lead himself (397). According to him, the Ethnographer will be able to articulate the things he sees better than anything the actual actors can say. This enables Malinowski to deem his work as “creative work” because he presents “phenomena of human nature” that would have “remained hidden” without his contributions (397). This is one of the moments of Malinowski’s ethnography that he lets his expectations of the Trobrianders take away an opportunity to make an important observation of the natives. He deems asking these hard questions about abstract ideas as pointless; he will just confuse his subjects. But, that in itself, is a moment worth recording and analyzing. It would be an interesting moment in his ethnography to see the interaction between him and a native trying to fathom the existential question. Malinowski did not hesitate to deem the Trobrianders as savages and this was an opportunity to see if they truly deserve that term. It was also a chance to get a first-hand look at their stage of development, whether or not the natives are close to understanding these abstract questions that Malinowski is pondering for them.
E.E.

Evans-Pritchard does a more encompassing analysis of the magic used by the Azande by trying to understand the abstract questions from their perspective. Magic, in the case of the Azande being witchcraft, runs their society. It is their “natural philosophy”, used to explain occurrences instead of rationalism (Evans-Pritchard 18). It runs their system of values. Evans-Pritchard describes how it affects every aspect of Azande life from domestic life to fishing. Their misfortunes are due to witchcraft unless it was done by sorcery. Witchcraft is the “idiom in which Azande speak about them and in which they explain them” (19). Evans-Pritchard is quick to explain this facet about the Azande and it shapes how he observes a Zande. He was able to learn their idiom and apply the “notions of witchcraft as spontaneously as themselves in situations where the concept was relevant” (19). Like Malinowski, Evans-Pritchard states that he cannot expect to ask a Zande to analyze his or her own “doctrine” (23). It would be beyond their capabilities. But, Evans-Pritchard provides a solution. By observing many situations that involve witchcraft, he can “extract the principles of their thought” (23). He hopes that by watching the Azande and the witchcraft he will get a better idea of how their logic system works. He clarifies that the Azande’s use of witchcraft does not account for “the existence of phenomena” (21). Evans-Pritchard gives scenarios that explain a Zande’s chain of thought. If an

old granary collapses, it was not just the forces of nature that caused it. Witchcraft plays a part in the collapse. A Zande might say that the granary fell because there were witchcraft people sitting under the granary.
He finds the advantages the Azande way of thinking has over the Western one. One thing that Western minds lack is explaining why “two chains of causation intersected at a certain time and in a certain place” because there is “no interdependence between them” (23). A Zande has witchcraft as the missing link to connect two independent caused facts. Evans-Pritchard gives his opinions on the Azande doctrine by stating that their “theory of witchcraft offers a satisfactory explanation” for coincidences (23). According to Evans-Pritchard, ethnographers can fully understand Zande logic but they need to fill some gaps themselves. If they were to ask the Zande the right questions about an event then they could understand the gist of it. Only if the Azande cannot explain something in acceptable, in Western terms, then they resort to the “idiom” of witchcraft (24). Witchcraft is combined with natural causation to describe occurrence with the former being the “second spear” (25). Not every action can be attributed to witchcraft though. If a member of society were to commit a crime like adultery, theft, or murder, witchcraft cannot be cited as the reason as explicitly stated in their doctrine. Evans-Pritchard describes a moment he witnessed a Zande pleading witchcraft as the reason for an offence only to receive laughter in reply from his fellow tribesmen. He mentions how there are nuances of stating witchcraft as a reason for an event. It depends on the social situation; some might exclude it as a possibility other times there is “no attention to natural agents” (26). Evans-Pritchard explains how there even are moments when witchcraft is deemed “irrelevant” because it “conflicts with social exigencies expressed in laws and morals” (27). He covers several scenarios that can be encountered in Azande society and it presents a comprehensive picture of their way of life.
Evans-Pritchard does not only present the boons of the system. He presents moments where even the Azande does not believe in the system especially regarding the witch-doctors in the community. Skepticism in witch-doctors is “not socially repressed” (107). A Zande is not obligated to stay with one witch-doctor because of the “absence of formal and coercive doctrines” (107). Having a skeptical attitude is actually beneficial for them because it helps a Zande understand the shortcomings of a witch-doctor while also certifying the reputations of other doctors. It was an interesting observation when he mentioned that if one witch-doctor failed to cure a Zande, he can go to another doctor for better treatment. The level of commitment they show to their doctors is evident when Evans-Pritchard tries to cure one of them with Western medicine and they think it has had no effect on them. This shows how embedded the Azande are to their system even when introduced to a possible alternative.
In evaluating the value of magic in these two societies, Malinowski and Evans-Pritchard both have different ways of understanding their subjects. Malinowski’s work is more focused on the technical details of the Trobrianders rather than trying to understand from their perspective why they live the way they do. On the other hand, Evans-Pritchard has several moments in his ethnography where he makes keen observations by thinking like a Zande. It made trying to understand the Azande’s attachment to magic more understandable.