cultural anthropology theories

8/10/2019 Cultural Anthropology Theories

1/26

Peter FerdinandoApril 2001

This paper is an exploration of cultural anthropology theory from the founding of

the discipline until the third quarter of the 20 th century. To allow for a coherent analysis

this paper has been di ided into se eral schools of thought or foci of interest! but these

designations need brief explanation. The indi idual members of each school do not

prescribe to precisely to the same theoretical orientation. A. ". "adcliffe#$rown! who

has been identified as a member of the Functionalist %chool! stated &1'(2)1**+ that

,- ha e been described on more than one occasion as belonging tosomething called the Functional %chool of %ocial Anthropology/ .ThisFunctional %chool does not really exist it is a myth.

These schools may not exist in a rigid sense! but 3el ille 4. 5ers6o its stated &1'72)80(+that

,9-:ts use is admissible if we assume school/ to mean a group of scholarswho! by and large! hold to a gi en general point of iew! and who ha e come outof a single stream in their training.

-n this wor6! the term school is used loosely to pro ide a framewor6 for the organi;ation

of my in estigation of the de elopment of cultural theory. "adcliffe#$rown continued

&1'(2)1**!1*'+ that

,9or members of each proposed school for their

contribution/ to cultural theory and the de elopment of ideas o er epoch of

anthropology.

Classical Evolutionism

The first school of thought emerged in the middle of the nineteenth century along

with the founding of anthropology. The founders of the =lassical < olutionist school are

1


2/26

also the fathers of the science of culture in it modern definition. 5ers6o its stated

&1'72)80*+ that

,the classical e olutionists agreed on the orderly progression of humanci ili;ation as a guiding principle! and on the le el of method! that we could

determine the early forms of human ci ili;ation.

The =lassical < olutionists too6 the amassing data about human societies and borrowed

the concept of biological e olution and applied both to a concept they defined as culture.

The idea of a progressi e nature to human society had long been recogni;ed! but with

=harles ?arwin/s de elopment of a feasible concept of biological e olution this idea was

applied to all fields of study. @owie asserted &1' B)1'+ that

,9$:oth biological theory and archaeological research powerfullystimulated the study of culture! but not without creating gra e misunderstanding.

This school applied these principles with the use of the classical comparati e method.

The classical comparati e method in ol ed the comparison of particular cultural traits

not whole cultures.

5erbert %pencer de eloped e olutionary concepts about many fields of study. 5e

had been wor6ing on ,a theory of human social e olutionary change a few years before

?arwin published On the Origin of Species &3cCree and Darms 1''7)B+. 5e belie ed

that e olution was the progression from simple to more complex. This e olutionary

change was unilineal and culture progressed through ,successi e stages of ci ili;ation

&%pencer 1*' a)11B+. 5e defined three types of e olution) -norganic! Erganic and %uper#

organic. The %uper#organic is the phenomena that emerges from the actions of groups

the actions of a culture. 5e belie ed that the %uper#organic phenomena are only found in

the upper ertebrate animals &%pencer 1*' b+.

or principles. First! he argued for uniformitarianism in culture because he thought that

culture had been ,created by uni ersally similar human minds and go erned by the same

basic laws of cognition &3oore 1''B)21+. %econd! the concept of the sur i al emerged

as important in his scheme. 5e belie ed that certain cultural traits may ha e sur i ed

2


3/26

from an earlier culture! but the meaning has changed! or lost. Thus! as certain cultural

traits represent earlier stages of culture! then some simpler cultures also represent these

earlier stages &3oore 1''B)28+. 5e also asserted the concept of diffusion as another way

that culturally disconnected traits may appear in a culture &Tylor 1'(*) '! ( +.

Along with his ideas on cultural e olution! three further points must be mentioned

about Tylor. First! 5e de eloped the classical comparati e method that was used by the

=lassical < olutionist and was attac6ed by the American 5istorical %chool. %econd! it

was Tylor/s ,concept of culture that is most enduring &3oore 1''B)2B+. 5is definition of

culture stated &Tylor 1'(*)1+ that

,9=:ulture or ci ili;ation! ta6en in its wide ethnographic sense! is thatcomplex whole which includes 6nowledge! belief! art! morals! laws! customs! andany other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.

Finally! much of Tylor/s wor6 in ol ed the study of the origins of religion! which

stimulated others including 4ames Fra;er &3oore 1''B)2B+.

@ewis 5. 3organ was different from the other =lassical < olutionists! not in his

theory! but in his method. 5e followed the idea of unilineal e olution in the model he

de eloped! but he went into the field and studied the -roquois &3oore 1''B)2'+. The two

ma>or accomplishments of his career are his cross#cultural analysis of 6inship in Systems

of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family and his elaboration of cultural

e olution using the ideas of %a agery! $arbarism and =i ili;ation found in Ancient

Society .

3organ studied 6inship to ,trace the connections and explore their progressi e

changes/ found in this system &3oore 1''B) 2+. Eut of this wor6 he de eloped 6inship

system terminologies that @owie called his ,main original contribution to ethnology

&@owie 1' B)(8+. 3organ saw six families of 6inship systems with two main distinctions

for all the 6inship systems) the descripti e system and the classificatory system. The

descripti e system is found in %emitic! Aryan and ralian families and it 6eeps ,linealrelati es distinct from collateral 6in &3oore 1''B) 2+. The classificatory system is

found among the 3alayan! Turanain and Canowanian families and this system treats

,lineal and collateral 6in as if they were the same. &3oore 1''B) 2+. 5e also asserted


4/26

that the descripti e system contained the ci ili;ed people and the classificatory contained

the unci ili;ed &3oore 1''B) +

3organ de eloped three systems of e olution using technology! society and the

family as his basis. 5e belie ed that as cultures became more complex the speed of

e olutionary progress increased. 5e stated &1'7 ) *+

,95:uman progress! from first to last! has been in a ratio not rigorously butessentially geometrical .progress was slowest in time in the first period! andmost rapid in the last.

5is main e olutionary scheme re ol ed around technologically defined stages of

%a agery! $arbarism and =i ili;ation! with the first two stages being sub#di ided into

lower! middle and upper &3organ 1'7 )12#1 +. 5is e olution of society in ol ed the

tribe and the state! or as he termed them societas and ci itas. As societas e ol ed newforms of society emerged! leading from sections to clans and matriarchy! then clans and

patriarchy and finally the ci itas. Finally! his e olution of the family in ol ed steps from

promiscuity! to group marriage! to polygyny and lastly monogamy &Deiss 2001+.

There were se eral other figures in the =lassical < olutionist %chool. 5enry

3aine de eloped a le el scheme that in ol ed the e olution of 6inship from patriarchy to

modern society! e olution of political actions from 6inship to ,local contiguity and of

>uridical power from status based to contract based &3aine 1*71+. 4ohannn 4acob

$achofen de eloped a unilineal scheme from promiscuity to matriarchy to patriarchy

&$achofen 1*71)18B+. Finally! 4ohn 3c@ennan de eloped an extremely complicated

e olutionary system that mo ed through many stages.

All the =lassical < olutionist ad ocated unilineal schemes of e olution. Dhile

they de eloped anthropology as a modern discipline their theories were flawed due to

their adherence to rigidly based stage models. There were three ma>or negati e reactions

to the =lassical < olutionists they were the ?iffusionists %chool lead by %mith and

%chmidt! the American 5istorical %chool founded by $oas and the later Functionalistslead by 3alinows6i and "adcliffe#$rown.

8


5/26

Diffusionism

The ?iffusionist %chool arose as a negati e reaction to the earlier =lassical

< olutionists. The concept of diffusionism &@owie 1' B)1(B+ states

,that each people experienced a distinct set of influences! specifically as aresult of unique contacts with neighbors.

This idea had been recogni;ed for some time e en Tylor discussed ,importations that is

diffusion &@owie 1' B)1(B+. The ?iffusionist %chool used and interpreted this idea and

too6 it to a radical le el. @owie &1' B)1(*+ stated that the ?iffusionists ,stress two

additional principles. First! they belie e that humanity is unin enti e! thus in entions

only occur in the paramount of en ironments and they cannot happen more than once.

%econd! the extreme ?iffusionists did not recogni;e ast distances as a problem for contact between cultures. A single#minded focus on the diffusionist concept led to the

de elopment of two different groups) the $ritish ?iffusionists and the Cerman#Austrian

?iffusionist.

The $ritish ?iffusionist %chool consisted of C. ecti e

simplifications! hence distortions of real e ents &@owie 1' B) 1(B+. %mith ad ocated

three tenets on which the $ritish form of ?iffusionism rested &@owie 1' B)171+)

1#3an is unin enti e and cultures arise only in fa orable circumstances.2#Those circumstances were only found in or reasons why the $ritish ?iffusionists saw


6/26

?iffusionist school belie ed that the or consideration of the $ritish ?iffusionist %chool was that if


7/26

to radiate mainly in the aggregate rather than by the spread of single elements.%uch wanderings successi ely carried primiti e modes of life as complexes to thefour quarters of the globe. @osses and modifications were ine itable.

This school identified many different culture circles and theori;ed where they had

originated. They saw that their had been multiple origins both in location and in time.

Thus! one can spea6 of primary and secondary circles! with the primary being the

temporally original ones and the secondary being later de elopments. %chmidt

&1' ')222#22 + named some of these primary culture circles including

,the culture circle of the &large+ animal#breeding herders .the mother#right agrarian culture circle .the totemistic higher hunters.

These culture circles were identified using two primary and two secondary criteria for

diffusion.The primary criteria were the criterion of quality and the criterion of quantity.

%chmidt stated &1' ')18 + that the criterion of quality had been defined by "at;el and

that

,9D:hen he found characteristic similarities between two cultureelements .he postulated an historical connection! e en though the particular culture elements were distributed o er wide and discontinuous regions.

The criterion of quantity was alternati ely called the criterion of form by Craebner

&%chmidt 1' ')18 +. %chmidt stated &1' ')1(0+ that,9T:he criterion of quantity consists in a multiplicity of criteria of quality

which! howe er! are independent of one another.

This concept was important because independent examples of cultural lin6s between

different populations pro ed a stronger case for the diffusion of culture. These two

criteria are used to pro e a relationship between two populations.

The secondary criteria were the criterion of continuity and the criterion of degree

of relationship. These were additional proofs of the primary criteria and were intended to

show that similar cultural areas were lin6ed geographically. The criterion of continuity

was de eloped to show &%chmidt 1' ')1(B+ that

the possi ility of a continuous migration from one place to the other must be demonstrated &original emphasis+.

B


8/26

Ence this criteria was demonstrated it made the cultural lin6s ,somewhat more credible

&%chmidt 1' ')1(B+. The criterion of degree of relationship stated &%chmidt 1' ')1('+

that

,9-:f two or more discontinuous regions ha e been pro en to stand inhistorically related similarity to one another .the proof for the same isstrengthened if the regions lying closer to one another show a more pronouncedcriterion of quality and a greater number of criteria of quantity than the regionsfarther apart.

This concept is a logical deduction that if a distant area is diffused from a particular

culture center! than the area in#between should show an increasing trend towards the

culture of the culture center.

-n a final appraisal! the ?iffusionist %chool too6 the diffusionist concept to a

radical and excessi e le el. The concentration on this concept led to the de elopment of two different groups) the $ritish ?iffusionists and the Cerman#Austrian ?iffusionist.

These groups stressed two points! humanity is unin enti e and ast distances are not

percei ed as a problem for cultural contact. @owie stated &1' B)1*8+ the biggest problem

with both extreme diffusionist theories

,95:ere lies the error common to all the extreme diffusionists) theymista6e analogies for homologous features.

-n their reaction against =lassical < olutionism as an inaccurate theory! they focused

exclusi ely on the diffusionist concept and this focus lead them to suggest schemes that

were also erroneous. Ether anthropologists easily adopted some of their thoughts on

diffusion! minus the extreme tenets that doomed their theories.

American Historical School

The American 5istorical %chool emerged as a negati e reaction to the classical

e olutionist and! in many ways! to the extreme ?iffusionists &5ers6o its 1'72)80*!

@owie 1' B)187+. This school belie ed that

*


9/26

,cultures were integrated wholes produced by specific historical processesrather than reflections of uni ersal e olutionary stages &3oore 1''B)8*+.

This school pro ided

,one of the most fruitful positions in stimulating the de elopment of ethnological they .The reason for this must be sought in the breadth of interestsof those who wor6ed out its basic tenets &5ers6o its 1'72)810+.

This school reconstructed history of a particular culture through strictly empirical means

&Deiss 2001+. The undeniable leader of the American 5istorical %chool was Fran; $oas

who taught a ast array of later anthropologists including Alfred Iroeber! "uth $enedict!


10/26

societies. This new focus in ol ed long term! intensi e fieldwor6 &3cCee and Darms

1''7)12*!12'+.

3oore states &1''B)(1+

,$oas demolished the e olutionary framewor6! pro ided methodologiesfor the in estigation of specific cultures .but ne er really answered ho! cultures

became integrated wholes.

-t is true that $oas ne er o ertly asserted a cultural model! but it has been suggested that

he belie ed in fan shaped di ergence of cultures. This model has cultures originate at a

single point! then di erging and con erging along many lines. There are further allusions

to this origin model in the writings of many other members of the American 5istorical

%chool

"obert 5. @owie also attac6s both the =lassical < olutionists and the


11/26

psychological orientation are selected from the ,great arc of culture &Deiss 2001+. %he

assigns three different orientations to the societies that she studied) Apollonian!

?ionysian and Paranoia. -ndi iduals that lie outside the normal range of a particular

society are de iants in that society. The big problem with this theory is that it

,poses an interesting conflict between the indi idual and culture) on theone hand! culture is an expression of core alues which most people learn andabsorb on the other hand! there are indi idual personalities that lie outside the

particular segment of the arc of possibilities that define that culture &3oore1''B)*(+.

$enedict/s wor6 also emphasi;ed cultural relati ism she stated &1' 8)22 +

,these ends and these means in one society cannot be >udged in terms of those of another society! because essentially they are incommensurable.

5ence! she belie ed that cultures could not be compared.


12/26

dri en in estigation into culture was de eloped primarily in America in $ritain the

concept of Functionalism was being de eloped.

Functionalism/Social Anthropology

The Functionalist %chool emerged slightly later than the American 5istorical

%chool and was centered in $ritain. -n the Functionalist school two distinct figures

emerged! $ronislaw 3alinows6i and Alfred "eginald "adcliffe#$rown. $oth these

indi iduals used a concept they termed as function! but they had slightly different

interpretations of this idea. The concept of function had two main interconnected principles! first! ,the interaction between cultural elements was emphasi;ed &5ers6o its

1'72)811+ and second! that e ery cultural element had a function &Deiss HPb) +. @ater

"adcliffe#$rown retreated from this second notion and asserted that not e ery aspect of

socioJcultural life need ha e a function &"adcliffe#$rown 1'(2)1*8! Deiss HPb) +.

$ronislaw 3alinows6i had two distinct and separate contributions to

anthropology. First! his approach to fieldwor6 shaped how anthropologists undertoo6

their obser ations until the present day. %econd! his theoretical consideration

in estigated the function of different cultural elements. 5is focus was on humanity/s

basic and cultural needs and how culture had de eloped to ser ice these needs.

3alinows6i/s approach to fieldwor6 changed how anthropologist undertoo6

fieldwor6. 3oore stated &1''B)12*+

,3alinows6i set new standards for ethnographic research! influencing anentire generation of anthropologists.

3alinows6i established the concept of participant obser ation as one of the main

fieldwor6 tools in the anthropologist/s arsenal. 5e stated &1'(0)7+ that research should be

underta6en by

,cutting oneself off from the company of other white men! and remainingin as close contact with the nati es as possible! which really can only be achie ed

by camping right in their illages.

12


13/26

5e also recogni;ed three goals of research that are still rele ant to today/s research. 5e

affirmed &1'(0)28+ that

,1. The organi;ation of the tribe! and the anatomy of its culture must berecorded in firm! clear outline.

,2. the imponderabilia of actual life and the type of beha ior ha e to befilled in., . A collection of ethnographic statements .a corpus inscriptionum! as

documents of nati e mentality.

These three goals are still good echelon to stri e toward in anthropological field research.

=ultural anthropologists almost uni ersally accepted 3alinows6i/s fieldwor6

techniques! but his theoretical insights were not so sanctified. 5is central thesis deals

with the concept of needs and how humans meet these needs by the construction of a

secondary en ironment! culture. =ultures function to meet these basic needs! but! in turn!cultural needs de elop due to an imposed ,cultural standard of li ing &3alinows6i

1'88) B+. Thus! there are basic needs and cultural needs that human culture must meet.

Ene important consideration to contemplate is that cultural institutions do not function to

meet the requirements of one specific need! either basic or cultural. 3alinows6i belie ed

that institutions are ,integrated responses to arious needs &3oore 1''B)1 +.

3alinows6i belie ed that culture existed to meet the basic biological!

psychological and social needs of humanity. 5e thought that humans had se en basic

needs) metabolism! reproduction! bodily comforts! safety! mo ement! growth and health

&3alinows6i 1'88)'1+. -n reaction to these needs! culture de elops new responses! thus

,new en ironments are created &3oore 1''B)1 8+. These cultural responses are

commissariat! 6inship! shelter! protection! acti ities! training and hygiene and they

correspond with the basic needs as listed abo e &3alinows6i 1'88)'1+.

Ence culture de eloped responses to these basic needs! these cultural responses

create a ,cultural standard of li ing &3alinows6i 1'88) B+. These cultural responses

become new needs! which are equally as necessary as the basic needs. 3alinows6i stated&1'88)121+ that humans do not

,need to hunt with spears or bows and arrows use poison darts nor defend himself by stoc6ades! by shelter! or by armor. $ut the moment that suchde ices ha e become adopted! in order to enhance human adaptability to theen ironment! they also become necessary conditions for sur i al.

1


14/26

This idea is central to the concept of culturally deri ed needs. 3alinows6i/s deri ed

needs are production! regulation! training and authority. The new set of cultural response

to these deri ed needs are economics! social control! education and political organi;ation

&Deiss HPb)7+. -t is through the fulfillment of both the basic and the cultural needs that

an integrated culture functions.

At the same time as 3alinows6i! another indi idual was writing about

functionalism! but A. ". "adcliffe#$rown/s interpretation of this concept is noticeably

different. "adcliffe#$rown was an intellectual descendent of ?ur6heim and %pencer and

he proposed a different anthropology from that performed by $oas. "adcliffe#$rown

defined social anthropology as ,the comparati e theoretical study of forms of social life

amongst primiti e peoples &"adcliffe#$rown 1'(2)8+ or as ,the in estigation of social

phenomena by methods essentially similar to those used in the physical and biologicalsciences &"adcliffe#$rown 1'( )1*'+. 5is comparati e method was different than the

one used by the =lassical < olutionists. 5e stated &1' 1)*0+ that

,9$:y comparing a sufficient number of di erse types we disco er uniformities that are still more general! and thus reach to the disco ery of

principles or laws that are uni ersal in human society.

5is social anthropology loo6ed for generali;ations and laws about society as a whole.

?uring his career he de eloped different theories to explain indi idual aspects of society

such as 6inship! religion and sanction.

"adcliffe#$rown used theories from arious sources to aid his de elopment of

social anthropology. From the political philosopher 3ontesquieu he used the theory of

social systems! which said all elements of social life united into a complete system.

"adcliffe#$rown belie ed that this theory allowed the study of human society! because a

systematic study of the connections between different aspects of human life would lead to

a iew of the entire social system &"adcliffe#$rown 1'(2)7+. -n his ma>or wor6!

Structure and Function in "rimiti#e Society ! he described three components that he usedto interpret these social systems. The first component is process! which he described

&"adcliffe#$rown 1'(2)8+ as

,the concrete reality with which the social anthropologist is concerned inobser ation! description! comparison and classification! (it) is not any sort of entity but a process! the process of social life.

18


15/26

The second component he described &"adcliffe#$rown 1'(2)10+ is structure! which is

how a society de eloped

,The established norms of conduct of a particular form of social life it is

usual to refer to as institutions.

The final component is function! which he stated &"adcliffe#$rown 1'(2)12+ is

,the interconnection between the social structure and the process of sociallife.

These three concepts are what "adcliffe#$rown belie ed social anthropologists should

study.

Finally! "adcliffe#$rown used %penser/s concept of social e olution to both

analy;e how a society has adapted and to further his interpretation of social systems."adcliffe#$rown asserted how humans ha e adapted to their en ironment through

internal adaptation &biological e olution+ and external adaptation &society+ and it was the

later he was interested in studying. 5e illustrated &"adcliffe#$rown 1'(2)'+ three aspects

of this external adaptation

,There is the way in which the social life is ad>usted to the physicalen ironment . (the) ecological adaptation. %econdly! there are the institutionalarrangements by which an orderly social life is maintained .Thirdly! there is thesocial process by which an indi idual acquires habits and mental characteristics

that fit him for a place in the social life and enable him to participate in itsacti ities .cultural adaptation.

These three aspects! ecological adaptation! institutional adaptation and cultural

adaptation! are different angle from which to study society &"adcliffe#$rown 1'(2)'+.

5e further de eloped the concept of social e olution by describing how social structures

ha e di ersified through time! leading to many different forms or how complex form

ha e either ,de eloped out of! or replaced less ad anced structures &"adcliffe#$rown

1'(2)20 +.

-n a final re iew! the Functionalist %chool too6 the concepts of function and

de eloped it extensi ely. The concentration on this concept led to the de elopment of two

different premises. $ronislaw 3alinows6i de eloped his theories of basic and cultural

needs using the functional concept and he ,set new standards for ethnographic research

&3oore 1''B)12*+. Alfred "eginald "adcliffe#$rown used theories from ?ur6heim!

1(


16/26

%pencer and 3ontesquieu to de elop generali;ations about social systems. 5e also

de eloped a new scheme for social anthropology which was ,generali;ing and thus a

science &3oore 1''B)181+. Dhile the extreme form of Functionalism may ha e

disappeared from the mainstream! the concept of function and how it relates to different

parts of culture is still part of anthropological thought &Deiss HPb)*+. Dithout the wor6

of the Functionalist school the concept of function would not ha e recei ed the attention

and de elopment that it recei ed from this exposure.

Structuralism

This section includes two important de elopments in the school of structuralism.

This school was founded by =laude @e i#%trauss and studied ,the underlying patterns of

human thought that produce those (people$s) categories &3cCee and Darms 1''7) 10+.


17/26

can be defined as a collecti e conscience. This is not a group mind! but this collecti e

conscience is a coerci e force on humans &Deiss 2001+.

Finally! he de eloped a ,building#bloc6 theory of social e olution &Deiss 2001+

that combined simple structures in a culture with other simple structures to produce more

complex ones. ?ur6heim/s theory lead from the horde &band+! to the clan! to the

,polysegmental societies simply compounded! and finally to ,polysegmental societies

doubly compounded or the state &?ur6heim 1' *)*0#*7+

@e i#%trauss saw culture as a pro>ection of the structure of the mind. 5e saw

three le els to culture) sociological circulation of women! technological circulation of

artifacts! and the ideological circulation of ideas. @e i#%trauss belie ed that there was a

basic structure to the human mind! which was the same for all humans. This mental

structure caused human thought a tendency of thin6ing in binary oppositions &Deiss2001+. 5e adapted ?ur6heim/s ideas of mechanical and organic solidarity as binary

oppositions of strict rules and loose rules in a society &@e i#%trauss 1'( )2* #2*8+.

5e used se eral examples to show his structuralist idea of binary opposition!

including a study of myth. 5e belie ed that myths intellectually resol e a problem of a

single binary problem. Eccasionally! a myth may ha e a secondary binary opposition to

help further the primary one! or a myth may ha e a third part that sol es the problem by

combining the two opposing parts &Deiss 2001+.

The biggest criticism against @e i#%trauss/s in estigation of myth! and the binary

opposition concept as a whole! is that there are many occurrences of non#binary elements

in the world. Additionally! there are real! obser able binary opposition are day s. night

mentally constructedG Dithstanding these criticisms! =laude @e i#%trauss ,occupies a

unique position in the de elopment of anthropological theory &3oore 1''B)21(+ he has

become 6nown as an important figure in Destern thought.

1B


18/26

Culture and Personality

=ulture and Personality was a concentrated mo ement! rather than a new school

of thought. This group appeared after Dorld Dar - and had contributions from se eral

members of the American 5istorical %chool! including 3argaret 3ead! "uth $enedict

and or focus of the =ulture and Personality mo ement was on child training

techniques. These techniques were influenced by the culture! and thus persuade children

to de elop in certain ways. A later focus was on national culture containing certain

character traits! li6e $enedict/s concepts of dominant psychological orientations. These

national character theorists include Abram Iardiner! =ora ?u$ois and 5orace 3iner

&Deiss 2001+.

The biggest problem with this focus was that these anthropologists had an

inadequate definition of culture and personality. They defined culture as mentally based

ideas! excluding the material aspects. There idea of personality in ol ed a character

structure that contained many character traits! excluding the external iew of someone/s

personality &Deiss 2001+.

Community Studies

=ommunity studies emerged with the study of small communities! or sub#

cultures! in larger state societies. The two ma>or figures in this area of study are "obert

1*


19/26

"edfield and Escar @ewis. $oth of these indi iduals studied groups in 3exico. "edfield

de eloped the Fol6# rban continuum. @ewis asserted a new style of quic6 ethnographic

study! where each of subcultures was studied quic6ly and a fragmentary o er iew of the

society de eloped and he defined the culture of po erty.

"obert "edfield/s contribution to cultural anthropological theory is the Fol6#

rban =ontinuum. This theory contains a line with the ideal of Fol6 society and rban

society on either end. "edfield stated &1'8B)2' + that one

,assumption made here is that fol6 societies ha e certain features incommon which enable us to thin6 of them as a typeKa type which contrasts withthe society of the modern city.

"edfield placed a society on this continuum depending on multiple factors of

disorgani;ation! seculari;ation and indi iduali;ation &"edfield 1'81) '+. 5e describesfour different communities in the Lucatan to help show his idea.

Escar @ewis wor6ed with small communities within a larger state society. 5e

also wor6ed in 3exico! which is where he de elops his idea of the culture of po erty.

The culture of po erty is a

,label for a specific conceptual model that describes in positi e terms asubculture of Destern society with its own structure and rationale &@ewis1'77)1'+.

@ewis briefly isited families in 3exico to de elop his idea of po erty as a subculture.Two ma>or criticisms ha e been le eled at the =ommunity %tudies %chool. First!

the Fol6# rban =ontinuum is too simple. This scheme does not include the ma>or

difference between peasant illage! as part of a larger state! and tribes! who are their own

society. %econd! @ewis/s quic6 ethnographic study is an acceptable method if used with

other! more traditional! methods &Deiss 2001+. This school did present a no el focus on

parts of our own state society and the notions it de eloped can be used carefully.

1'


20/26

Latter-Day Classical Evolutionism/ eo-evolutionism

This school is a combination of two different basic ideas. The @atter#?ay

< olutions! including M. Cordon =hilde and @eslie A. Dhite! continued the wor6 of the

=lassical < olutionists with cultural e olutionary concepts de eloped along unilineal

lines. Dhite stated &1'(')ix quoted in 3oore 1''B)17'+ that his theory of cultural

e olution

,does not differ one whit in principle from that expressed in Tylor/s Anthropology in 1**1! although of course the de elopment! expression anddemonstration of the theory mayKand doesKdiffer at some point.

Dhere#as! the Heo#e olutionists wor6ed with a multilinear scheme of cultural e olution!

as championed by 4ulian %teward. 5e belie ed &3oore 1''B)177+ that,cultures e ol ed as adaptations to the en ironment similar cultural

patterns reflect parallel adaptations to analogous en ironmental situations.

$oth of these e olutionary groups attempted to de eloped ,explicit! scientific laws

which lin6ed the material world to changing culture &3oore 1''B)17(+.

M. Cordon =hilde de eloped an e olutionary scheme based on the idea that

technological re olutions lead to ,an upward 6in6 in the population cur e &1'81)18+.

5e asserted a three stage e olutionary scheme) the Heolithic re olution! the rban

re olution and the -ndustrial re olution. The Heolithic re olution in ol ed the presence

of domestication. The rban re olution implicated the presence of the state. The

-ndustrial re olution in ol ed the in entions that lead to the industrial de elopment of

many of the western nations. 5e later re>ected this technologically based system because

he did not find similarities in cultures he studied &Deiss HPc)2# +. 5e later rewor6ed

these three technological stages to wor6 with 3organ/s sa agery! barbarism and

ci ili;ation. Technological re olution may represent the establishment of new stages! as

recogni;ed by 3organ &Deiss HPc)8+. =hilde compared societies to see if this newsystem wor6ed and he admitted that ,de elopment did not exhibit e en abstract

parallelism &=hilde 1'(1)1(*+! but he ne er dropped his ideas.

@eslie A. Dhite populari;ed six ideas that di ide into two distinct categories)

culturology and cultural e olution. -n the scope of culture he identified &Dhite 1'8')B7+

20


21/26

a ,class of super#psychological &cultural+ determinants of beha ior! which would be the

focus of his new science! =ulturology. 5e thought culture was a unique order of

phenomena and must be interpreted on its own le el &Dhite 1'8') 7 +. Finally! Dhite

belie ed culture was unique to humans due to our ability to use symbols &Dhite

1'8')2(+.

5is cultural e olution scheme in ol ed the structure and function of culture as an

integrated system! where he distinguished three subsystems to that structure! the

technological! the sociological and the ideological &Dhite 1'8') 78+. Technology is the

primary mo er because

,93:an must ha e food. 5e must be protected from the elements. And hemust defend himself from his enemies. These three things he must do if he is tocontinue to li e! and these ob>ecti es are attained only by technologicalmeans &Dhite 1'8') 7(+.

5e asserted that it is through technology that human6ind is able to increase the energy

sJhe is able to harness. Dhite expressed a formula that stated the relationship between

technology and energy. 5e stated &Dhite 1'8') 7*+ that

,9D:e may express this .with the following formula) < N T ### =! inwhich = represents the degree of cultural de elopment! < the amount of energyharnessed per capita per year! and T! the quality or efficiency of the toolsemployed in the expenditure of the energy.

This idea is the basis for Dhite/s law of cultural e olution! which states &Dhite 1'8') 7*+

that

, culture e#ol#es as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year isincreased% or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting energy to !ork is increased& &original emphasis+.

Technological re olution leads to social and philosophical change and this allows Dhite

to outline arious stages that humanity progresses through. 5e de eloped a three stage!

technological based! cultural e olution scheme that is lin6ed with the disco ery of new

ways to harness energy. There is the primiti e stage! the agricultural stage and the fuel

stage &Dhite 1'8') B0! B +. Dhite describes how each time a new stage is achie ed the

social system is also changed! because it is closely related to technology &Dhite

1'8') B7+.

4ulian %teward approach to an e olutionary scheme

21


22/26

,was to find and explain similarities between societies without assumingthat all societies passed through identical stages of de elopment &3oore1''B)1*B+

5is theory was a new de elopment! thus Heoe olutionary! because it was multilineal! not

unilineal. =ultures e ol ed along different lines! not along ridged le els or stages. 5e

stated &1'(7)B +

,9T:he facts now accumulated indicate that human culture e ol ed along anumber of different lines we must thin6 of cultural e olution not as nilinear butas multilinear.

According to Deiss &HPa)1# + his theory in ol ed the integration of two concepts) le els

of socio#cultural integration and ma>or types of en ironment. 5is le els of socio#cultural

integration in ol ed concepts similar to %pencer and ?ur6heim and described the amount

of political integration of a culture. The type of en ironments %teward described

includes) desert! arctic! grassland! woodland. Dhen different cultures are identified by a

similar le el of integration and are found in a similar en ironment they can be addressed

as being the comparable cultural type. The reason that these similarities occur is because

the de elopment of cultures under similar conditions follows ,one line/ of multilinear

e olution which %teward proposed &3oore 1''B)1**+

=hilde and Dhite focused on unilineal schemes of cultural e olution that were

similar to the =lassical < olutionist theories. Their theories were based on technologicalfactors of culture e olution. %teward focused on en ironmental adaptations and political

integration and de eloped a scheme that in ol ed cultural types that de elop along

multiple lines. 5is focus on en ironmental adaptations prefigures the de elopment of

cultural ecology! which is the focus of the following section

Cultural Ecology

=ultural


23/26

,the science of the interrelation between li ing organisms and their en ironment! including both the physical and the biotic en ironment! andemphasi;ing interspecies as well as intraspecies relations.

4ulian %teward initially applied this idea to culture when he de eloped his multilinear

scheme of e olution. The most prominent member of this school is 3ar in 5arris! but

other members include 3ichael 5arner! "oy "appaport and Peter Mayda.

4ulian %teward set the basic ideas of the cultural ecology approach. These three

steps are to in estigate

1+the interrelationship of exploitati e or producti e technology anden ironment.2+the beha ior patterns in ol ed in the exploitati e of a particular area bymeans of a particular technology.

+&ho! + beha ioral patterns entailed in exploiting the en ironment affectother aspects of culture.

&%teward 1'B )80#82 as de eloped in 3oore 1''B)1*7+.

%teward/s ideas influenced the other members of the cultural ecology school.

3ar in 5arris added to these ideas by including in estigation of by the emic/ and

the etic/ iew. 5e in estigated cultures by analy;ing what they thought was the reason

for a cultural beha ior! and then he stated his ecological reasons for the beha ior. An

example he used was the sacred cattle of -ndian. The -ndians belie e the cows are sacred!

but 5arris thought that the ecological explanation was that li ing cows are more

important than dead cow for the sur i al of the culture &Deiss HPd)1+.

There ha e been se eral other ecological in estigations of food resources.

3ichael 5arris in estigated the 3iddle


24/26

Human Ethology/Socio!iology

5uman


25/26

"or#s Cited

$achofen! 4ohannn 4acob. &1 st edition) 1*71! reproduced and translated)1'7B+. 'as uterrecht . From3yth! "eligion! and the 3other "ight) %elected Dritings of 4. 4. $achofen. Princeton ni ersity Press)Princeton.

=hilde! M. Cordon. &1'81)re . ed.+. an akes Himself . Datts) @ondon.

=hilde! M. Cordon. &2 nd edition)1'7 ! 1 st edition) 1'(1+. Social #olution . The Dorld Publishing =o)=le eland.

?ur6heim!


26/26

%chmidt! Dilhelm. &1' '+. *he Culture Historical ethod of thnology . Fortuny/s) Hew Lor6.

%mith! C.

cultural anthropology theories

Documents