Abstract

Somehow rounding off an intellectual season in which humanities strongly lament the loss of Darwinian incitements, while exploiting both Wilson’s biophilia hypothesis and Rappaport’s engaged anthropology as springboards, this article wants to cast light on how two anthropologically undervalued manifestos of the Cambridge School – Harrison’s Themis and Cornford’s From Religion to Philosophy – laid the foundation of post-modern science. It highlights, in other words, how within evolutionary anthropology, to which we owe the birth of the comparative study of religions, were surreptitiously raised significant issues against eco-systemic disfunctionalities due to the scientific pattern rooted in Atomism and modern Cartesianism itself. In order to counteract the conventional belief that evolutionary anthropology was entirely shaped by the kind of Positivism of Illuministic inspiration, the association between the “mystic” and the “savage” will be once more taken into consideration. In this regard, a quite unreleased focus on Lévi-Strauss’ paradigm “le totémism du dedans” is deemed also essential. As a consequence, the unfairly forgotten Cambridge Ritualists, Harrison and Cornford, will be especially rehearsed in the light of their adoption of the philosophical Bergsonian concept of durée as a means of probing into the monist vision enshrined in the mysteric religion of Ancient Greece. It is basically the special attention allotted to the mystic’s incorporation of a limitless cyclic time which helps us to detect the extent to which both Harrison and Cornford aimed at propounding an ethical anthropology eager to denounce the forward end because of the obdurate human projection outside the sphere of Life itself. What this essay thus propounds is not a rehearsal of the Cambridge School for the sake of it. While advocating cumulative knowledge around the very same foundation of the “scientific study of religions” through a constant and critical intertwining of past and present within the history of ideas, the essay as a whole speaks about interdisciplinary possibilities for humanizing Humanities. Although here the dire live issue of cultural genocide is not duly dealt with, the reader will find proof of the engagement of the anthropology of monistic religions to bring to the fore the breathtaking disconnection between liberal “developmental” economy and ecology.