CAT ARTICLE DOSE – 50

A possibility of insightful comparisons is offered by the concept of soul. When Descola worked on the field study of the
Achuar in the Amazon, he translated the indigenous word “wakan” with French “âme” (from Latin “anima”), i.e., “soul”.
Not only did the people of this group possess such a soul, but also the majority of plants, animals and celestial bodies.
However, not all of them were endowed with it in the same way. Depending on the possibilities of the communicative
exchange between them, there were fine gradations. The dialogues were not only dependent on the production of
sounds and the sense of hearing. According to Descola, intersubjectivity was also expressed in a “discourse de l’
âme” (speech from the soul) that overcame language barriers and transformed plants and animals into meaning-
producing subjects, except when communication could not function due to a defect of the soul or for reasons of
distance.

In Beyond Nature and Culture Descola returns to this more-than-human concept of soul of the Achuar and underpins
with it his ontology of animism. At a theoretical point, however, he now relativizes the close relationship and assumes a
universal separation between a level of “interiority” and a level of “physicality”. These concepts are introduced by him
in order to schematize his four ontologies in a matrix of difference and similarity. A gradual difference between
European naturalism and the other ontologies remains, however, because the universal and universally variable
dualisms of interiority and physicality are, according to Descola, most pronounced in Western modernity.

But who had a soul in this “most dualistic” Western modernity? Keith Thomas reports that the conception of the soul of
ancient philosophers was taken over by medieval scholasticism and fused with the Judeo-Christian doctrine according
to which human beings were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). “Instead of representing man as merely a
superior animal, it elevated him to a wholly different status, halfway between the beasts and the angels. In the early
modern period it was accompanied by a great deal of self-congratulation” (Thomas 1983, p. 31). Nevertheless, there
was a striking disagreement in the period as to what exactly constituted this unique superiority of humans over
animals. The intellectuals brought into play the most diverse characteristics. One of the most remarkable attempts to
magnify the difference came in the 1630s from René Descartes. The bodies of humans and animals were machines or
automata; only humans possessed additionally an immaterial soul. Among the reasons for the resonance of this theory,
according to Thomas, were its religious harmlessness (animals were therefore not immortal) and its justificatory
character for a brutal treatment of animals in everyday life. However, Cartesianism remained controversial and
temporary. In England, many later intellectuals followed John Locke and John Ray, who rejected the notion of animal-
machines as “against all evidence of sense and reason” (Thomas 1983, pp. 33–35).

As Thomas goes on to explain, this tendency toward a more animal-friendly worldview was fostered from the 17th
century onward by the increasing keeping of pets and domestic animals. First in the aristocracy, then in wider circles,
these personal animals, dogs in particular, took up more and more space. Thus, the last bastion of an unbridgeable
barrier between humans and animals also began to falter: the uniqueness of the human soul. On the level of popular
religiosity, this was not a problem, because the intellectual distinction between creatures with and without souls had
never really penetrated the peasant population. Even on the theological level there were possible approaches. Had not
Paul spoken in Romans (8:21) of the entire creature being redeemed on the last day? Could animals therefore be
immortal? In the 17th century, such an interpretation was considered an affront; in the course of the Enlightenment, it
became more acceptable. In the 1770s, an Anglican clergyman declared that animals possessed real souls, stating
“that he had never heard an argument against the immortality of animals which could not be equally urged against the
immortality of man” (Thomas 1983, p. 140).

Page 1 of 5
PASSAGE DETAILS
• Source: JOURNAL: Mathieu, J. How Great Was the “Great Divide of Nature and Culture” in Europe? Philippe
Descola’s Argument under Scrutinity. Histories 2022, 2, 542-551. https://doi.org/10.3390/histories2040036
• Length of the Extract: 678 words
• Flesch Kincaid Grade Level: 13.1
• Genre: Cultural Anthropology

MIND MAPS

After carefully reading the passage, evaluate your understanding through the following exercises:

Comprehension Check: This part is focused on identifying and summarising the main ideas in the passage.
Look for pivotal sentences or groups of sentences that encapsulate the core themes in each paragraph.
Summarise these main ideas using your own words. Your goal is to capture the essence of the passage
accurately.

Page 2 of 5
COMPREHENSION CHECK
KEY IDEA
[1] A possibility of insightful comparisons is offered by the concept of soul. [2] When Descola
worked on the field study of the Achuar in the Amazon, he translated the indigenous word “wakan”
with French “âme” (from Latin “anima”), i.e., “soul”. [3] Not only did the people of this group
possess such a soul, but also the majority of plants, animals and celestial bodies. [4] However, not
all of them were endowed with it in the same way. [5] Depending on the possibilities of the
communicative exchange between them, there were fine gradations. [6] The dialogues were not
only dependent on the production of sounds and the sense of hearing. [7] According to Descola,
intersubjectivity was also expressed in a “discourse de l’ âme” (speech from the soul) that
overcame language barriers and transformed plants and animals into meaning-producing subjects,
except when communication could not function due to a defect of the soul or for reasons of
distance.

[8] In Beyond Nature and Culture Descola returns to this more-than-human concept of soul of the
Achuar and underpins with it his ontology of animism. [9] At a theoretical point, however, he now
relativizes the close relationship and assumes a universal separation between a level of “interiority”
and a level of “physicality”. [10] These concepts are introduced by him in order to schematize his
four ontologies in a matrix of difference and similarity. [11] A gradual difference between European
naturalism and the other ontologies remains, however, because the universal and universally
variable dualisms of interiority and physicality are, according to Descola, most pronounced in
Western modernity.

[12] But who had a soul in this “most dualistic” Western modernity? [13] Keith Thomas reports that
the conception of the soul of ancient philosophers was taken over by medieval scholasticism and
fused with the Judeo-Christian doctrine according to which human beings were created in the
image of God (Genesis 1:27). [14] “Instead of representing man as merely a superior animal, it
elevated him to a wholly different status, halfway between the beasts and the angels. [15] In the
early modern period it was accompanied by a great deal of self-congratulation” (Thomas 1983, p.
31). [16] Nevertheless, there was a striking disagreement in the period as to what exactly
constituted this unique superiority of humans over animals. [17] The intellectuals brought into play
the most diverse characteristics. [18] One of the most remarkable attempts to magnify the
difference came in the 1630s from René Descartes. [19] The bodies of humans and animals were
machines or automata; only humans possessed additionally an immaterial soul. [20] Among the
reasons for the resonance of this theory, according to Thomas, were its religious harmlessness
(animals were therefore not immortal) and its justificatory character for a brutal treatment of animals
in everyday life. [21] However, Cartesianism remained controversial and temporary. [22] In England,
many later intellectuals followed John Locke and John Ray, who rejected the notion of animal-
machines as “against all evidence of sense and reason” (Thomas 1983, pp. 33–35).

[23] As Thomas goes on to explain, this tendency toward a more animal-friendly worldview was
fostered from the 17th century onward by the increasing keeping of pets and domestic animals. [24]
First in the aristocracy, then in wider circles, these personal animals, dogs in particular, took up
more and more space. [25] Thus, the last bastion of an unbridgeable barrier between humans and
animals also began to falter: the uniqueness of the human soul. [26] On the level of popular
religiosity, this was not a problem, because the intellectual distinction between creatures with and
without souls had never really penetrated the peasant population. [27] Even on the theological level
there were possible approaches. [28] Had not Paul spoken in Romans (8:21) of the entire creature
being redeemed on the last day? [29] Could animals therefore be immortal? [30] In the 17th
century, such an interpretation was considered an affront; in the course of the Enlightenment, it
became more acceptable. [31] In the 1770s, an Anglican clergyman declared that animals
possessed real souls, stating “that he had never heard an argument against the immortality of
animals which could not be equally urged against the immortality of man” (Thomas 1983, p. 140).

[Analysis on the next page]

Page 3 of 5
 KEY IDEA
[1] A possibility of insightful comparisons is offered by the concept of soul. [2] When Descola Introduction to the concept
worked on the field study of the Achuar in the Amazon, he translated the indigenous word “wakan” of the soul among the
with French “âme” (from Latin “anima”), i.e., “soul”. [3] Not only did the people of this group Achuar, and how Descola
possess such a soul, but also the majority of plants, animals and celestial bodies. [4] However, not studied their unique
all of them were endowed with it in the same way. [5] Depending on the possibilities of the understanding of souls in
communicative exchange between them, there were fine gradations. [6] The dialogues were not plants, animals, and celestial
only dependent on the production of sounds and the sense of hearing. [7] According to Descola, bodies.
intersubjectivity was also expressed in a “discourse de l’ âme” (speech from the soul) that
overcame language barriers and transformed plants and animals into meaning-producing subjects,
except when communication could not function due to a defect of the soul or for reasons of
distance.

[8] In Beyond Nature and Culture Descola returns to this more-than-human concept of soul of the Descola's theoretical
Achuar and underpins with it his ontology of animism. [9] At a theoretical point, however, he now development of animism,
relativizes the close relationship and assumes a universal separation between a level of “interiority” with a discussion of the
and a level of “physicality”. [10] These concepts are introduced by him in order to schematize his universal separation
four ontologies in a matrix of difference and similarity. [11] A gradual difference between European between interiority and
naturalism and the other ontologies remains, however, because the universal and universally physicality, especially in
variable dualisms of interiority and physicality are, according to Descola, most pronounced in Western modernity.
Western modernity.

[12] But who had a soul in this “most dualistic” Western modernity? [13] Keith Thomas reports that Historical overview of the
the conception of the soul of ancient philosophers was taken over by medieval scholasticism and concept of the soul in
fused with the Judeo-Christian doctrine according to which human beings were created in the Western thought, including
image of God (Genesis 1:27). [14] “Instead of representing man as merely a superior animal, it the influence of Descartes
elevated him to a wholly different status, halfway between the beasts and the angels. [15] In the and debates over human
early modern period it was accompanied by a great deal of self-congratulation” (Thomas 1983, p. superiority and the
31). [16] Nevertheless, there was a striking disagreement in the period as to what exactly treatment of animals.
constituted this unique superiority of humans over animals. [17] The intellectuals brought into play
the most diverse characteristics. [18] One of the most remarkable attempts to magnify the
difference came in the 1630s from René Descartes. [19] The bodies of humans and animals were
machines or automata; only humans possessed additionally an immaterial soul. [20] Among the
reasons for the resonance of this theory, according to Thomas, were its religious harmlessness
(animals were therefore not immortal) and its justificatory character for a brutal treatment of animals
in everyday life. [21] However, Cartesianism remained controversial and temporary. [22] In England,
many later intellectuals followed John Locke and John Ray, who rejected the notion of animal-
machines as “against all evidence of sense and reason” (Thomas 1983, pp. 33–35).

[23] As Thomas goes on to explain, this tendency toward a more animal-friendly worldview was Evolution of attitudes
fostered from the 17th century onward by the increasing keeping of pets and domestic animals. [24] towards the human soul and
First in the aristocracy, then in wider circles, these personal animals, dogs in particular, took up animal immortality from the
more and more space. [25] Thus, the last bastion of an unbridgeable barrier between humans and 17th century onwards,
animals also began to falter: the uniqueness of the human soul. [26] On the level of popular reflecting changes in
religiosity, this was not a problem, because the intellectual distinction between creatures with and religion, pet-keeping, and
without souls had never really penetrated the peasant population. [27] Even on the theological level popular beliefs.
there were possible approaches. [28] Had not Paul spoken in Romans (8:21) of the entire creature
being redeemed on the last day? [29] Could animals therefore be immortal? [30] In the 17th
century, such an interpretation was considered an affront; in the course of the Enlightenment, it
became more acceptable. [31] In the 1770s, an Anglican clergyman declared that animals
possessed real souls, stating “that he had never heard an argument against the immortality of
animals which could not be equally urged against the immortality of man” (Thomas 1983, p. 140).

Page 4 of 5
Central Theme: The central theme of this passage is the exploration of the concept of the soul and how it is understood and
interpreted across different cultures and time periods, particularly focusing on the Achuar people, Western modernity, and
historical shifts in thinking about the soul’s relationship to humans and animals.

Tone: The tone of the passage is scholarly and analytical, presenting an intellectual exploration of the concept of the soul
with a focus on historical and cultural contexts.

Structure of the Passage: The flow of ideas in the passage begins with an exploration of the concept of the soul among the
Achuar people and how Descola translated it into the study of intersubjectivity (Para 1). The discussion then shifts to
Descola’s more-than-human ontology of animism, along with a universal separation between “interiority” and “physicality”
(Para 2). The passage moves into a historical review of the understanding of the soul in Western thought, beginning with
ancient philosophers and culminating in Descartes’ theory (Para 3). Finally, the passage concludes with a consideration of
shifting attitudes towards animals, the human soul, and the growing acceptance of animal immortality in more recent
centuries (Para 4).

Page 5 of 5