Evans-Pritchard states that
'In relating the order of their society I am, of course, relating abstractions to one another by a method of sociological analysis. It is not suggested that the Nuer see their religion in this sort o f way. Nevertheless, the structural configuration we abstract by this process is o f the same design as the symbolic configuration in which they think of their various kuth. The various spirits in their symbolic configurations occupy the same positions in religion to each other as they do in the structural configuration we perceive through sociological analysis' (1956a: 119).
Evans-Pritchard thereby summarises the complex interrelationship between the Nuer perception of the hierarchical array o f kuth and his sociological perception of the same reality. Nuer religious thought, while an important aspect of reality, is not autonomous. The use o f the term 'o f the same design', clearly suggests Evans-Pritchard's determination to keep his analysis within a sociological framework. His statement that he considers religion to be 'a subject o f study sui generis' does not sit harmoniously with this.
Evans-Pritchard discusses later the notion o f religion as ’...th e reciprocal relations between God and man' (1956a: 144). The study of Nuer religion is twofold. It concerns their conception o f kwoth, God, and of ran, man, and, the relations between these . According to Evans-Pritchard, these stand as opposites to each other, in an
of the salient contracts of Nuer thought' (1956a: 144).
This question is examined more fully later, but the point here is to emphasise the structural, abstract, mode of interpretation used by Evans-Pritchard. Earlier in his discourse he argues that the hierarchy of spirits is an interrelationship that is represented in the 'symbolism of height or space'. In this categorisation '...G o d is symbolised by the sky and the spirits of the air by the atmosphere, the clouds, and the breezes, the lesser ones being nearer to the earth than the greater ones...'. This perception of reality contains an im plicit evaluation '...in terms of light and darkness, ranging from the celestial brightness to subterranean darkness' (1956a:120). Evans-Pritchard states that
'We see, and in their own way of looking at the matter Nuer see, degrees of immanence in this symbolic configuration. The cosmological representation o f Spirit, and in particular the dichotomy between heaven and earth, the spirits of the above and those of the below, is further indicated by the mode and m anner o f appearance, the forms in which Spirit is m anifested to humans' (1956a: 120).
The statement has an air of cosy assurety. It also suggests that primitive as the Nuer may be, they have a refined and complex religious perception. The use of the term 'cosmological' highlights this. The Nuer do have a 'philosophy', that is, that they are able to relate entities to one another, and see them as parts o f a perceptual framework.They are able to project a view of the world for themselves and are able to make sense of it.
Evans-Pritchard continues this discussion, arguing that '...a n interpretation in terms of social structure merely shows us how the idea of Spirit takes various forms corresponding to departments of social life' (1956a: 121). The intrinsic nature of this idea, however, is not understood any better (1956a: 121). The notion o f Spirit is variously perceived and som etim es is view ed '...in te llec tu a lly and intuitively, as one, transcendental, pure S pirit...', and at other times is considered '...in relation to human affairs and interests, as one or other of a great number of figures through which it is made known, in varying degrees of materialisation, concretely to human intelligence' (1956a: 121). Evans-Pritchard is careful to distinguish the notion of the 'purely structural interpretation' asserting that such a procedure does not just mean that we are dealing with a 'm atter of social levels'. He states that '...G o d is also experienced unrefracted at all
in regard to the notion of popular religion and the relationship of personal piety to the collective expression o f orthodox practice. The experience of God in an unrefracted fashion also suggests, especially for the individual, that that experience will be a variable one, even in the midst of collective ritual activity. Evans-Pritchard argues, in relation to this, '...th a t a structural interpretation explains only certain characteristics of the refractions and not the idea of Spirit itself (1956a: 121).
The limitations asserted here, regarding the 'structural interpretation' of religious phenomena, especially of personal religious experience, is a m ajor aspect of Evans- Pritchard's critique o f Durkheim 's theoretical perspective. At the same time, the terminology is Durkheimian. The fundamental ambivalence is summed up, in Evans- Pritchard's own words,
'I have only tried to show that, and how, that idea [of Spirit] is broken up by the refracting surfaces of nature, o f society, of culture, and of historical experience' (1956a: 121).
The closing chapter of Nuer Religion brings this particular feature of Evans- Pritchard's thinking further into the open. On the one hand the literary assurance remains, but on the other, there is a type of doubt. Morris' brief account of this section of Evans- Pritchard's exploration of the concept of religion is quite critical. He is especially critical of Evans-Pritchard's conclusion that religion is ultimately an 'interior state', a conclusion which he considers to be 'inadequate and hardly enlightening...' (1987:203), and as an interpretation or explanation, a '...nonstarter' (1987:203). Morris earlier in his account applauds Evans-Pritchard's analysis. He states that Evans-Pritchard '...stressed that human thought and expression are inevitably constructed out of man's experience of the world around him ...', which indicates to Morris an '...essentially materialist perspective' (1987:202).
Morris does not explain which variety of 'materialist perspective' he means, but Evans-Pritchard is clearly not prom oting a m arxist view of human thought and expression. His perspective remains grounded in Dürkheim. Evans-Pritchard discusses the distinction in nature between the 'soul' of man and kwoth, Spirit. Soul is part of a human being and is created, whereas Spirit is extrinsic, invasive, operating from without' (1956a: 158). The conception of spirit '...cannot be derived from a conception of the