not actually unacceptable. To be sure, one can always save any hypothesis with enough ad-hoc qualifications. The soul might hurry to another totem animal, or something.”
“That seems unlikely,” said Brenner. “They do speak, however, of the totem as “primal father,” as “ancestor,” and such.”
“But that, too, upon reflection, is a clear mark against the multiple-souls theory,” said Rodriguez. “Not all departed souls would be those of males, let alone of fathers. Too, even of fathers, presumably there would be many fathers, not just one.”
“True,” mused Brenner.
“No,” said Rodriguez. “We may regard the totem animal as ensouled, so to speak, but it would have its own soul, so to speak, not someone else’s soul. It is its own thing.”
“That seems to me most likely,” said Brenner. “What of the theory that the totem animal is a guardian spirit acquired by an ancestor, say, in a dream, and handed down to descendants?”
“Such things are seldom bequeathed,” said Rodriguez. “They must be earned independently, often in fasting, prayer, and visions. The medicine animal of the father is seldom that of the son. Too, such things would presumably be handed down, if at all, through a given line of descent, not within an interrelated complexus of descent lines, such as those, say, of phratries and subphratries. Similarly the medicine animal is not regarded as an ancestor, or father. It is more in the nature of a tutelary ally.”
“What is your theory?” asked Brenner.
“That the totemistic peoples mean what they say,” said Rodriguez. “That they conceive the totem literally as the progenitor of their people, that they think of it, truly, as the primal ancestor, as the father.”
“Surely they understand procreation,” said Brenner.
“What is clear to you may not be clear to someone else,” said Rodriguez, “and, if you were in their place, it might not be clear to you. Procreation is undoubtedly mysterious to many primitive groups, in particular, in societies practicing group marriage, and in societies where descent is traced matrilineally, and so on.”
“It is easier to know the mother than the father,” smiled Brenner.
“More importantly,” said Rodriguez, “it is easier to know that there is a mother than that there is a father.”
“Interesting,” said Brenner.
“Animals are presumably unclear about the nature of procreation,” said Rodriguez.
“Surely,” said Brenner.
“And often children,” said Rodriguez.
“True,” said Brenner.
“Consider the matter,” said Rodriguez. “Coition and birth are not resembling events. Too, they are separated in time, often by months. The discovery that they are related, as cause and effect, if you stop to think about it, is actually an intellectual achievement of the first magnitude. Indeed, it is not even possible, obviously, to trace descent patrilineally until this discovery has been made.”
“The Pons trace descent matrilineally, supposedly,” said Brenner.
“That is universal with totemistic groups,” said Rodriguez.
“You think they do not understand procreation?” asked Brenner.
“No,” said Rodriguez. “I think it is rather because of the great importance of the totem and the fact that it is easier, as you pointed out, to know the mother than the father. In such a group it is extremely important for the child to know his totem. You must understand that. Too, considering the exogamy regulations it is important that the group know his totem, as well. Without the totem an individual in a totemistic society is lost, so to speak, placeless, homeless, metaphysically orphaned, a creature who does not know himself, a refugee, a wanderer, a stranger, an outcast, something without identity or meaning, one who is without status, one who is, in effect, nothing. He will be scorned. He will be held in contempt. He may even be driven out. In totemistic cultures, thusly, it is natural for descent to be traced matrilineally, that it be to the totem of the mother, and not that of the father, who may not be known, that the child belongs.”
“I see,” said Brenner.
“You will note the anomaly,” said Rodriguez, “that the primal ancestor is referred to as “father,” although descent is traced matrilineally.”
“They do understand procreation then,” said Brenner.
“Or have come to understand it,” said Rodriguez. “We may be dealing with cognitive retrojections.”
“I do not understand,” said Brenner.
“The original concept may not have been, and quite possibly was not, that of a father in the simple biological sense of a progenitor, that might not even have been understood, but of something else, perhaps that of a large, powerful, feared, dreaded, dominant male, a tyrant, a governor, an overlord, a claimer of, herder of, and possessor of, and perhaps a jealous and ruthless possessor of,