Breaking down the question
This is a short, focused question worth ten marks, so precision beats breadth. The command word is “Highlight”, and the structure is explicitly comparative — you must give both differences and similarities. An answer that covers only one side is incomplete.
Totemism and animism are two of the earliest forms of religious belief studied by anthropologists. The examiner wants clear definitions, a crisp contrast, and recognition that both belong to the sociology of religion’s enquiry into elementary forms.
Given the mark weight, aim for a tight answer: define each, then organise the comparison so that similarities and differences stand out at a glance. Named thinkers add authority.
How to approach it
Define animism first, following E. B. Tylor, as the belief that spirits or souls animate natural objects, animals and phenomena — his proposed minimum definition of religion. Then define totemism as the belief in a special, often kin-based relationship between a human group and a totem, typically an animal or plant treated as sacred.
For differences, contrast the object of belief (diffuse spirits versus a specific totem), the social basis (individual or general versus clan-based and collective), and the theorists (Tylor’s intellectualist account versus Durkheim’s sociological one). Émile Durkheim treated totemism as the elementary form of religious life, expressing the worship of society itself.
For similarities, note that both are early, non-literate religious forms, both blur the boundary between humans and nature, and both invoke the sacred. For grounding on how such forms are classified, see the types of religious practices note.
Model answer
Totemism and animism are two elementary forms of religious belief that figure prominently in the anthropological study of religion. Both attempt to explain how early and tribal societies relate to the natural and supernatural world, yet they differ in object, social basis and theoretical interpretation.
Animism, a term coined by E. B. Tylor, is the belief that a soul or spirit animates living beings and natural objects — trees, rivers, mountains, animals and even the dead. Tylor regarded animism as the minimum definition of religion, arising from early humans’ attempts to explain dreams, death and shadows by positing an immaterial spirit. It is thus a broad, diffuse belief in spiritual essences pervading nature.
Totemism, by contrast, is the belief in a special, sacred relationship between a social group, usually a clan, and a totem — most often an animal or plant. The totem serves as the emblem and ancestor of the group, and members typically observe taboos against harming or eating it. Émile Durkheim, studying Australian Aboriginal clans, treated totemism as the most elementary form of religious life, arguing that in worshipping the totem the clan was in fact worshipping society itself, the totem being a symbol of the collective conscience.
The differences are clear. Animism centres on diffuse spirits and is not necessarily tied to social groups, whereas totemism is essentially collective, bound to clan organisation and kinship. Tylor’s account of animism is intellectualist, seeing religion as a mistaken early philosophy, while Durkheim’s account of totemism is sociological, seeing religion as a representation of social solidarity. Animism explains the animation of nature; totemism explains group identity and the origin of the sacred. Claude Lévi-Strauss further argued that totems are chosen because they are “good to think with”, offering a logic of classification rather than mere utility.
The similarities are equally important. Both are early, pre-literate religious forms found among tribal societies. Both dissolve the sharp modern boundary between humanity and nature, attributing spiritual significance to natural objects and creatures. Both operate through the category of the sacred, marking certain beings or objects as set apart and surrounded by ritual and taboo. And both have served theorists as windows into the origins and elementary structure of religion itself.
In sum, animism and totemism share a common concern with the sacred in nature and a common rootedness in early society, but they diverge in their object of belief and in the theoretical traditions — Tylorian and Durkheimian — that have interpreted them.
Examiner's perspective
For a ten-mark question the examiner expects economy and balance. Both halves of the comparison must appear, since the question explicitly asks for differences and similarities; scripts that address only one side forfeit easy marks.
The discriminating factor is theoretical anchoring. Linking animism to Tylor and totemism to Durkheim, and adding Lévi-Strauss on classification, lifts an answer above a dictionary-style contrast. The sacred, the profane and the collective conscience are the concepts an examiner hopes to see used correctly.
Clarity of structure — definitions, then differences, then similarities — lets the marker award points quickly. Given the tight word budget, a disciplined, well-organised answer scores better than an overlong one.