Animism has long intrigued anthropologists and scholars of religion, not least because of its association with the earliest expressions of human spirituality.

This article explores how animism was first framed by Sir Edward Tylor in the nineteenth century and how contemporary anthropologists like Nurit Bird-David and Tim Ingold have reinterpreted it.

If you’ve ever wondered how people once understood the world as alive with spirits, or how this worldview continues to shape indigenous belief systems, this is a topic worth exploring.

What Is Animism?

Animism is a belief system in which natural phenomena, landscapes, and even inanimate objects are perceived as animated or person-like.

Traditionally, it was framed as the belief that spiritual beings inhabit all things.

The term animism was coined by Sir Edward Tylor, who defined it as “the belief in spiritual beings” and considered it the foundation of all religious thought (Tylor, 1871, p. 260).

Was Animism the First Religion?

Tylor’s groundbreaking work Primitive Culture (1871) argued that animism was the earliest form of religion practiced by humanity.

For him, religion began not with temples or sacred texts but with a belief in spirits present in nature and inanimate matter.

He considered animism a “primitive culture” but a foundational step in the development of more complex religious systems (Tylor, 1871, pp. 258–265).

How Did Tylor Define Animism in 1871?

Tylor proposed that animism stemmed from early human attempts to understand dreams, death, and consciousness.

Observing life and death, early humans inferred the presence of a spirit or soul that could leave the body.

Over time, this notion was extended to animals, plants, and objects.

Tylor viewed this as a rational, if simplistic, explanation for natural processes, forming the “minimum definition of religion” (Tylor, 1871, p. 258).

What Are the Problems with Tylor’s Definition?

Modern anthropology challenges Tylor’s assumption that animism is a stage of intellectual development superseded by science or monotheistic religion.

Scholars argue that Tylor viewed animists as inferior, overlooking the sophistication of their worldviews.

As Nurit Bird-David explains, Tylor treated animism as a belief about spirits rather than a way of being in the world (Bird-David, 1999, p. S69).

What Is the “New Animism”?

Contemporary scholars like Bird-David and Graham Harvey advocate for the “new animism,” a shift away from belief-centered definitions.

The new animism treats animism as a relational practice and worldview where humans engage with the world as composed of other persons, i.e., human and non-human alike.

This move redefines animism as a system of beliefs grounded in mutual responsiveness and respect (Harvey, 2005, pp. 17–21).

How Do Modern Scholars View Animistic Beliefs?

Anthropologists such as Tim Ingold frame animism within the framework of relational ontology.

He argues that animism is not about attributing spirits to things but about relating to the environment as a mesh of interrelated beings (Ingold, 2000, p. 97).

This understanding of animism resonates with indigenous peoples’ own descriptions of their spiritual practices, particularly in Oceania and the circumpolar North, where everything in the world is considered to have agency (Bird-David, 1999, pp. S68–S71).

What Is Relational Ontology in Animism?

Relational ontology is the idea that personhood arises through relationships rather than being a static attribute.

In animist healing and belief-systems, inanimate objects like stones or rivers may be understood as persons because of the ways humans interact with them.

According to Bird-David, animists do not believe everything has a spirit but that everything participates in a web of relational personhood (Bird-David, 1999, p. S73).

Do Animists Really Believe Inanimate Objects Are Alive?

Tylor assumed animists ascribed life to inanimate objects out of intellectual error.

Yet ethnographic studies have shown that animist beliefs and practices involve deeper engagements, for example circumpolar bear-ceremonialism.

For example, shamans in indigenous Siberian communities interact with stones and rivers not as passive things, but as co-participants in spiritual practice (Ingold, 2000, p. 55).

The term animism encompasses a practice of respect, communication, and reciprocal care. This is not simple superstition.

Is Animism Still Practiced Today?

Animistic beliefs are alive among many indigenous communities, from the Amazon to Southeast Asia.

Religious traditions such as Shinto in Japan retain animistic elements, as they venerate kami (spirits) residing in natural features like trees and waterfalls.

Even in globalized societies, people increasingly turn to animism-inspired philosophies that see the world as alive and interconnected (Harvey, 2006, p. 9).

Why Does Animism Matter in Religious Studies?

Animism challenges dominant religious frameworks by presenting an alternative view of sacredness.

It emphasizes relationality, mutuality, and embeddedness in the natural world.

For students and scholars of religion, understanding animism expands our appreciation of how humans conceptualize the divine and the spiritual, especially outside the bounds of monotheistic or scriptural traditions.

References

Bird-David, N. (1999). “Animism” Revisited: Personhood, Environment, and Relational Epistemology. Current Anthropology, 40(S1), S67–S91.

Harvey, G. (2005). Animism: Respecting the Living World. Columbia University Press.

Harvey, G. (2006). Readings in Indigenous Religions. Continuum.

Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Routledge.

Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom (Vol. 1). John Murray.