Why did Radcliffe-Brown reject the idea that totems were chosen mainly because they were useful for food?

A.R. Radcliffe-Brown initially shared the view held by Bronisław Malinowski that an animal became a totem because it was "good to eat." However, he later rejected this utilitarian explanation because it failed to account for the many totems—such as crocodiles and flies—that are dangerous, unpleasant, or otherwise not useful as food sources.1

Instead, Radcliffe-Brown shifted his focus toward a structural perspective. He concluded that totemism functions by translating the similarities and differences observed in nature into social concepts of friendship, conflict, and opposition. By using natural species to characterize segments of a community, totemism serves as a system for expressing interrelationships and antitheses within the social order.1