There are many factors that can drive an inquisitive
student into the field of anthropology.
One reason is the feeling of superiority that comes through judging
other savage and inferior cultures. The
other and more politically correct answer is to explore big ideas and
questions. These questions usually take
the form of what is culture and why are their cultural differences around the
globe. Some questions can be answered in
a five to seven page essay. Others
require eight pages. But some anthropologists
have devoted their lives to these questions and for budding anthropology and
students of other disciplines, their theories are much appreciated. Using the theories and research of
“life-devoters” Lewis Henry Morgan, Franz Boas, and Edward Sapir, these
questions will be answered and they will be answered in five to seven
pages. So let’s get on with it.
We start our getting on with it (in the most non-sexual
meaning of the phrase) with the work of Lewis Henry Morgan. Lewis Henry Morgan took a very active
approach to anthropology and did his most significant work with the members of
the Iroquois nation. He looked at
culture through an evolutionary lens. He
believed that culture followed one evolutionary path and was a linear process. He said that “it may be remarked finally that
the experience of mankind has run in nearly uniform channels…” (Morgan 18). There were cultural differences between
different societies because they were on different points on the line of
cultural progression. Cultural
differences were not due to racial inferiority (Moore 23). To him, the West was more down the
evolutionary line than any other culture, but never fear, those other cultures
would be able to get there (possibly over a rainbow). Many considered this a progressive idea back
in the day. Oh how the times have changed. Furthermore, he divided the line of progress
into three sections. There was savagery,
barbarism, and civilization. The main
way to progress into each state was through inventions and discoveries. Other factors like the idea of government,
family organization, and concept of property were used, but they were not as
important (Moore 23-24).
Technological
invention for Morgan was the mechanism of cultural change. With his classification of savagery,
barbarism, and civilization, he furthered divided these status into upper,
middle, and lower echelons to display the linear progress a culture needed to
make to reach a civilized state. For
example, the middle status of savagery begins “from the acquisition of a fish
subsistence and a knowledge of the use of fire…” (Morgan 21) and ends with the
invention of the bow and arrow. From
there, we have entered the stage of upper savagery which ends with the
invention of pottery. Invention was the
chief catalyst of cultural change and movement through the various stages. It was the clearest form of advancement that Morgan
had detailed and the one that could be most easily traced throughout history. His theory had a common sense approach. Many primitive societies across the globe had
similar tools and inventions.
Domestication of animals was not a progression made by one society. It occurred around the globe at around the
same time. To Morgan and his colleagues
the simple answer of coincidence would not suffice. How could it suffice when Morgan had already
drawn up his neat classification charts.
They had to be used.
Morgan’s
own definition of culture was similar to a previous anthropologist, Edward
Tylor, in that he thought culture was “rationalizations about reality made by
‘savage philosophers,’” (Moore 21).
Whether they were upper or middle savage philosophers nobody will ever
know. Culture was always progressing
towards the singular path of the Western hemisphere norm. That fate could not be avoided. By drawing on the work of Darwin and his own
prejudice as a 19th century western man (with fantastic facial hair),
he saw progress and culture as a linear evolutionary process.
Not
everyone agreed with Morgan and that brings us to the theories of Franz
Boas. Boas took exception to the works
of Morgan, but that is probably due to Boas’ jealousy over the perfection that
was Morgan’s facial hair. Boas could
only grow out a distinguished mustache which caused him great shame. Boas did not believe in the evolutionary
framework of cultural progress. On this
issue he said that “as soon as we admit that the hypothesis of a uniform
evolution has to be proved before it can be accepted, the whole structure loses
it’s foundation’”. (Boas 27). The problem with uniform evolution was that
it could not be proven historically or through any type of research. There was no evidence that cultural changes
occurred under a specific format. It was
all based on assumption. Boas described culture
as being understood from detailed studies of specific cultures (Moore 31). Cultural practices could only be understood
in their own cultural context. Cross
cultural similarities and differences existed due to specific cultural
contexts. Boas believed in a specified
view to culture. One can only analyze a
culture based on its’ own elements. Differences
between cultures existed because each society developed under different
circumstances. They lived under
different environments, had different resources, and had different problems to
face. No two cultures existed under the
same circumstances. It would be foolish
in Boas’ eyes to say they were all part of a grand evolutionary scheme. Cross cultural similarities were viewed in
the same vein. Societies could have similar tools, but they did not arise due
to them being on the same evolutionary path.
They only arose due to what was happening in each society at the
time. This idea was cultural particularism
and it was the name of the Boasian game.
How
did Boas describe culture? The answer of
course is that nobody cares. But that is
an answer for a more sarcastic and angry paper.
For the terms of this written essay, Boas saw culture as an interaction
between the individual and society. Everything
from behaviors to practices had to be considered in his definition of
culture. It could always be broken down
to the relationship between the individual and society. Boas looked at culture in separate entities
from minute elements to the larger wholes, but he was not able to articulate what
their relationship was to each other (Moore 39). He also was never able to answer the question
of how cultures became integrated wholes of the multiple elements he helped
described. He balked at the idea of
cultural laws citing that “cultural phenomena are of such complexity that it
seems to me doubtful whether valid cultural laws can be found” (Moore 38). Culture was too complex to make
generalizations about. So to generalize, Boas’ view was that culture was a
plethora of many cultural elements interacting with a cultural whole. There is nothing ironic about that last
sentence.
Finally,
the work of Edward Sapir must be discussed if only because it was mentioned in
the introductory paragraph. Sapir was a
great linguist and helped to revolutionize the field of culture and
personality. Like Boas before him, Sapir
was not a fan of broad generalizations and believed that “there are as many
cultures as there are individuals in a population” (Moore 85). Culture to him was a consensus of
opinion. Society and culture were not
static, but always changing and evolving.
He himself said that society is a “highly intricate network of partial
or complete understandings between the members of organizational units of every
degree of size and complexity…” (Moore 87).
Culture is a fluid idea that is not set in stone by tradition but one
that is heavily influenced by the individual.
Sapir uses the example of how in a study of the Omaha Indians, the
author would present a generalized statement and then quickly offer an
immediate contradiction by a member of the society, Two Crows (not to be mistaken
with present day rapper and chef Two Chains).
This call and response technique showed Sapir that normative and deviant
behaviors have equal weight as cultural behaviors. Aptly, this led to the idea of culture as a
consensus of opinion.
Another
key belief for Sapir was that language was a big factor in understanding
different cultures. His joint hypothesis
with his student, Benjamin Wharf, stated that “linguistic categories structure
and transmit culturally learned perception of existence” (Moore 89). He used the example that the west has many
words to mean a religious building, while another culture like the Hopi Indians
only have three, and two of those words refer to minor buildings. Through different definitions of objects and
other classifications of the external word, it shows how cultures interpret
their surroundings. It ascribes what a
culture sees as important and how they view the world. There is a cultural creation of memory and
what is important. Language is the
method for moving culture and is the main mechanism for cultural change. How we articulate and understand our
surroundings lead to what we value as important and what we as a society want
to become central to our culture. Cross
cultural changes and similarities can also be explained through these
linguistic means. Varying cultures place
emphasis on differing things based on their world views. Naturally, differences between cultures will
emerge. Individuals in societies will
place alternate value on what they want to become an accurate rendering of
their world. Their distinct consensus
about the nature of existence is how socio-cultural differences emerge (Moore
92). Language imposes structure to
perception which can lead to cross cultural similarities. Not everything is so distinct and separate
from each other. There are some
commonalities to be found here and there and back again.
In
conclusion, these three theorists have all come up with their own distinct
definitions of what culture is, what motivates cultural change, and why there
are cross cultural similarities and differences. They sometimes agreed with theorists that
came before them, or disparaged the work of dead men knowing that they could
not successfully retaliate. That man to
be specific is Franz Boas. He was a vengeful
soul. Morgan, Boas, and Sapir helped to
revolutionize their field of anthropology by both sitting on the shoulders of
the giants before them and also by creating their own paths. Their theories are now up for pretentious
cultural studies students to mock in supposedly insightful papers. This is an honor they would all appreciate in
their own unique way. But for right now
they can’t, because they are dead. Maybe
one day when cloning is possible they will able to see how their work and
facial hair is mocked in the future.
That day cannot come soon enough.
Works Cited
Moore, Jerry D. Visions of Culture: An Annotated Reader.
Lanham, MD: AltaMira, 2009. Print.
Moore, Jerry D. Visions of Culture: An Introduction to
Anthropological Theories and Theorists. 4th ed. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira,
2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment