Title: Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists
Author: Jerry D. Moore
TLDR: This book profiles 25 influential anthropologists, highlighting their key ideas, fieldwork experiences, and the intellectual contexts that shaped their theories, providing a comprehensive overview of the development of anthropological thought.
Part I: Founders
Chapter 1: Edward Tylor: The Evolution of Culture
Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917), the “founding father of British anthropology,” profoundly influenced the discipline’s trajectory. He held the first professorship in anthropology at Oxford, actively built anthropological institutions, and contributed significantly to the intellectual debates sparked by Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Tylor’s Definition of Culture:
Central to Tylor’s legacy is his definition of culture: “Culture or Civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.” This definition, first articulated in his seminal work Primitive Culture, moved the understanding of cultural difference away from biological determinism and towards a view of culture as a learned and shared phenomenon.
Uniformitarianism and Survivals:
Tylor’s approach to reconstructing the history of human culture, despite lacking prehistoric data, relied on two core principles: uniformitarianism and the concept of survivals. Uniformitarianism, borrowed from Charles Lyell’s geological principles, proposed that the same processes that shape the Earth today were also at work in the past. Applied to culture, it meant that human societies, guided by universally similar minds, developed along similar lines, with progress as a defining feature. This approach decoupled cultural differences from racial explanations, suggesting that similarities arose either from diffusion or parallel invention.
Survivals, defined as cultural practices carried from the past into the present, acted as “vestiges” of earlier cultural stages. Tylor argued that seemingly irrational customs like Halloween celebrations or saying “God bless you” after a sneeze were remnants of older beliefs. Survivals, he contended, were not simply quaint customs but evidence for reconstructing earlier cultural patterns and ultimately understanding the evolution of culture.
The Comparative Method and Progress:
To reconstruct this cultural history, Tylor employed the comparative method, a technique prevalent in nineteenth-century science, which sought to establish historical relationships between similar objects. Applying this method to cultural traits, Tylor meticulously classified and analyzed their geographical and historical distributions. He argued that similar cultural traits reflected analogous stages of cultural development, with “primitive” societies representing earlier stages of human evolution.
Progress was a fundamental assumption in Tylor’s framework. He envisioned human history as a trajectory from savagery to civilization, characterized by advancement in technology, knowledge, and social organization. He believed anthropology itself contributed to human progress by revealing the course of history and guiding societies towards improvement.
Tylor’s Legacy:
While some contemporary anthropologists argue that Tylor’s ideas are outdated, his contributions remain substantial. His comparative method, though later critiqued by Boas and other American anthropologists, influenced generations of scholars. His work on religion, particularly the concept of animism, remains relevant. Most importantly, Tylor’s definition of culture, which emphasizes learned and shared knowledge, forms the bedrock of modern anthropology, establishing the non-biological basis of social difference and giving new direction to comparative inquiry into human life.
Chapter 2: Lewis Henry Morgan: The Evolution of Society
Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881) was a unique figure among the Victorian evolutionists, known for his extensive fieldwork among the Iroquois and other Native American groups. This hands-on approach, combined with his comparative analysis of global ethnographic data, led him to propose a grand scheme of social evolution, later adopted and expanded by Marx and Engels.
Morgan and the Iroquois:
Morgan’s anthropological journey began with his personal fascination with Iroquois culture. In his 1851 book, League of the Ho-dé-no-sau-nee or Iroquois, Morgan presented a detailed ethnographic account of Iroquois society, covering their religion, material culture, social organization, and language. This early work, lauded as the “first scientific account of an Indian tribe given to the world,” revealed Morgan as a meticulous observer, setting the stage for his later theoretical contributions.
Kinship Systems and Evolution:
Intrigued by the intricacies of Iroquois kinship, Morgan expanded his research into a global inquiry, comparing kinship systems from 139 different groups. His groundbreaking work, Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family, identified two broad categories of kinship systems: descriptive and classificatory. Descriptive systems, like English, distinguish between lineal and collateral relatives, while classificatory systems, like those used by the Iroquois, treat lineal and collateral relatives similarly.
This distinction led Morgan to propose a bold, albeit flawed, connection between kinship systems and cultural advancement. He argued that classificatory systems, reflecting polygamous or communal marriage practices, were vestiges of a more primitive social organization, while descriptive systems, based on monogamous marriage, marked civilized societies. This unilineal scheme linked kinship to social evolution, a concept he elaborated in his influential book, Ancient Society.
Ancient Society and the Stages of Progress:
In Ancient Society, Morgan proposed a comprehensive framework of social evolution, arguing that humanity progressed from savagery to civilization through a series of distinct stages. These stages were marked by technological advancements, the development of government, the organization of the family, and the concept of property. Using technological achievements as his primary measure, Morgan divided human history into distinct “ethnical periods”, starting with Lower Savagery and progressing through Middle Savagery, Upper Savagery, Lower Barbarism, Middle Barbarism, Upper Barbarism, and finally Civilization.
Societas and Civitas:
Central to Morgan’s analysis was the distinction between two forms of social order: societas, based on kinship ties, and civitas, based on political ties. He argued that the gens (lineage) was the foundational unit of societas, with groups of gentes forming phratries (clans) and ultimately coalescing into tribes and nations. The evolution of government, according to Morgan, followed a trajectory from promiscuous hordes to brother-sister groups to gens and then progressively through phratry, tribe, and nation.
Property and Evolution:
Morgan also linked the evolution of property concepts to technological and social development. He argued that as property increased in quantity and variety with technological advancements, new forms of social organization emerged to regulate its possession and inheritance. From communal land ownership in earlier stages to state and individual ownership in Civilization, Morgan envisioned a direct relationship between property concepts and social evolution.
Morgan’s Legacy:
Morgan’s work has been both influential and controversial. His unilineal evolutionary framework and his assumptions about primitive societies representing earlier stages of development were heavily criticized by Boas and other anthropologists. However, his emphasis on the importance of kinship systems, his early application of the comparative method, and his attempts to organize anthropological data within a framework of cultural evolution remain enduring contributions. His work, particularly his ideas about property and social order, was adopted and expanded by Engels, ultimately influencing Marxist theory.
Chapter 3: Franz Boas: Culture in Context
Franz Boas (1858-1942), a pivotal figure in American anthropology, shaped the discipline’s trajectory in the twentieth century. He challenged the evolutionary schemes of his predecessors, advocating for a historical particularist approach that emphasized the specific historical contexts of cultural patterns.
Boas and the Critique of Evolution:
Boas’s anthropological vision emerged from his critique of the evolutionary frameworks proposed by Morgan, Tylor, and others. He argued that these frameworks were flawed because they assumed a unilineal progression of cultural development, treated modern societies as evolutionary survivals, and relied on flawed data and inappropriate criteria for classifying societies. Boas contended that similar cultural practices might arise from different historical processes and that cultural patterns could only be understood within their specific historical contexts.
Fieldwork and Holism:
Boas’s approach to anthropology emphasized fieldwork and a holistic perspective. He believed that anthropologists should immerse themselves in the cultures they studied, learning the native languages, observing social interactions, and collecting detailed ethnographic data. Boas argued that understanding a culture required considering the entire range of cultural behavior—from technology and social organization to language and art—and that explanations should be based on a thorough understanding of the specific historical processes that had shaped that culture.
Race, Racism, and Social Activism:
Boas was a vocal critic of racial determinism and racism. His research in physical anthropology, particularly his study of cranial form among immigrants, challenged the idea of fixed racial categories, demonstrating that traits thought to be inherited were actually influenced by environmental factors. Boas was an active social critic, publicly challenging racist policies, particularly those of the Nazi regime, and advocating for social justice and equality.
The Integration of Cultures:
Boas’s central contribution to anthropology was his insistence on viewing cultures as integrated wholes produced by specific historical processes. He argued that cultural patterns could not be explained simply by reference to universal evolutionary stages or by reducing them to isolated traits. Instead, Boas advocated for a historical particularist approach, which emphasized the importance of understanding the unique historical circumstances that had shaped a given culture.
Boas’s Legacy:
Boas’s ideas profoundly influenced the development of American anthropology. His emphasis on fieldwork, his critique of unilineal evolution, and his insistence on viewing cultures in context shaped the research and teaching of a generation of American anthropologists. His advocacy for cultural relativism and his rejection of racial determinism became central tenets of the discipline. While Boas himself did not fully articulate the relationship between cultural elements and cultural wholes, his emphasis on the integration of cultures and the importance of studying them holistically remains a foundational concept.
Chapter 4: Émile Durkheim: The Organic Society
Émile Durkheim (1858-1917), a French sociologist and educator, is a key figure in the intellectual tradition concerned with social integration. His ideas, particularly those on social solidarity and the conscience collective, profoundly influenced British social anthropology and continue to inform anthropological approaches to religion, social organization, and the evolution of social complexity.
The Science of Ethics:
Durkheim envisioned sociology as the “science of societies,” and he sought to establish a scientific approach to the study of ethics and morality, arguing that moral facts, like other social phenomena, were governed by rules and patterns that could be systematically studied. He focused on the relationship between the individual and social solidarity, exploring how individuals, while becoming more autonomous, also become more dependent on society.
Mechanical and Organic Solidarity:
Durkheim’s comparative approach involved contrasting entire societies to identify different forms of social integration. He proposed two distinct types of solidarity: mechanical and organic. Mechanical solidarity characterized societies where individuals shared common experiences and values but did not necessarily depend on each other for survival. In contrast, organic solidarity characterized societies with diverse and interdependent subdivisions linked by formal institutions, analogous to a complex biological organism.
Durkheim argued that the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity was driven by the increasing division of labor, which in turn resulted from population growth and intensifying competition for resources. This evolutionary model, with its roots in Darwinian principles, proposed that as societies became more complex, they transitioned from a homogenous social structure based on shared values to a more heterogeneous and differentiated structure based on interdependence.
The Conscience Collective:
Central to Durkheim’s thought was the concept of the conscience collective, a term that has been difficult to translate into English and frequently misunderstood by American anthropologists. Encompassing the notions of consciousness, conscience, and culture, conscience collective refers to the shared beliefs, values, and sentiments that bind individuals together in a society. Durkheim argued that in societies with mechanical solidarity, the conscience collective exerted a strong hold over individuals, with normative values overriding individual ones. In contrast, in societies with organic solidarity, the conscience collective was less rigid and more diverse, with greater room for individual expression.
Religion as a Social Phenomenon:
Durkheim emphasized the social basis of religion, arguing that religious representations were collective representations that ex-pressed shared beliefs and values. He rejected the idea that religion originated from individual attempts to explain natural phenomena, such as animism or naturism, instead contending that religion was a social construction that served to bind individuals together into a moral community. He analyzed totemism among Australian Aborigines as a prime example of the social nature of religion, showing how the totem, as a sacred symbol, represented and unified the clan.
Elementary Forms of Religious Life:
In his influential book, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Durkheim sought to identify the basic elements of religion by studying the “most primitive” society he knew of—the Aborigines of Australia. He argued that religion was a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, things set apart and forbidden, which united individuals into a moral community. The concept of the sacred, according to Durkheim, was a social construction that emerged from the collective representations of society.
Durkheim’s Legacy:
Durkheim’s work, though initially neglected by early American anthropologists, had a profound impact on British social anthropology. His concepts of social solidarity, the conscience collective, and the social basis of religion continue to inform anthropological thinking about social organization, religion, and the evolution of social complexity. His emphasis on the importance of studying society as a distinct realm of human existence remains a foundational concept.
Part II: The Nature of Culture
Chapter 5: Alfred Kroeber: Configurations of Culture
Alfred Kroeber (1876-1960), a student of Franz Boas and a leading figure in American anthropology, made substantial contributions across various subfields, from ethnology and archaeology to linguistics and cultural theory. His research, characterized by both meticulous detail and broad comparative scope, led him to pro-pose the concept of the superorganic, a force that shaped cultural patterns independently of individual influence.
Salvage Ethnography and Culture Element Lists:
Kroeber’s career began during a period of rapid change and dis-placement for Native American populations. His early work focused on “salvage ethnography,” documenting the languages and cultures of California Indians before their complete assimilation into Euro-American society. He meticulously compiled extensive data, culminating in his monumental work, the Handbook of the Indians of California.
To systematically analyze the diversity of California Indian cultures, Kroeber developed the “culture element distribution list.” This approach involved dividing culture into minimal units, such as specific practices or beliefs, and recording their presence or absence in different groups. These lists, compiled through extensive fieldwork, provided valuable information about cultural boundaries, interactions, and change, despite their inherent limitations.
Culture and Society:
Kroeber drew a sharp distinction between culture and society, arguing that society, as group life, was present even among social in-sects, while culture consisted of learned and shared customs and beliefs. He emphasized the supraindividual nature of culture, con-tending that cultural patterns existed independently of the individuals who held those beliefs.
The Superorganic:
Kroeber challenged both racial determinism and the Great Man theory of history, arguing that neither biology nor individual genius could adequately explain cultural patterns. Instead, he pro-posed the concept of the superorganic, a force that shaped cultural development independently of individual influence. The superorganic, according to Kroeber, manifested in the regularities of form, style, and significance that characterized cultural patterns, as evidenced by the parallel inventions of calculus, natural selection, and the steamboat.
Configurations and Style:
Kroeber focused on the “configurations of culture,” patterns of interrelated traits that gave coherence to cultural systems. He examined these patterns across various domains, from art and literature to technology and social organization, arguing that cultural configurations were shaped by historical processes and reflected a society’s underlying values. His analysis of women’s fashion exemplified this approach, demonstrating how fashion trends, while apparently arbitrary, exhibited long-term systematic fluctuations independent of external factors.
Kroeber’s Legacy:
Kroeber’s contributions to anthropology are vast and diverse, ranging from his meticulous documentation of California Indian cultures to his broad comparative studies of civilization. His concept of the superorganic, though largely rejected by contemporary anthropologists, reflects his effort to understand the forces that shape cultural patterns. His emphasis on cultural configurations, historical processes, and the analysis of style continues to influence anthropological thinking about culture and its development.
Chapter 6: Ruth Benedict: Patterns of Culture
Ruth Benedict (1887-1948) was a pioneering figure in American anthropology, known for her influential work on culture and personality. Her research, particularly among the Zuni Indians, led her to propose the concept of cultural patterns, configurations of values and beliefs that shaped individual behavior and gave distinct characters to different societies.
Background and Intellectual Influences:
Benedict’s anthropological career was shaped by her early interest in literature and poetry and her exposure to the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. His philosophy of creative iconoclasm and the importance of forging new values resonated with Benedict’s own experiences and influenced her approach to anthropology. Her doctoral work, supervised by Franz Boas, focused on the concept of guardian spirits in North American Indian cultures.
Patterns of Culture and Cultural Relativism:
Benedict’s seminal work, Patterns of Culture, argued that cultures were more than just collections of traits; they were integrated wholes shaped by fundamental values. By contrasting the cultural patterns of the Zuni, Dobu, and Kwakiutl, Benedict demonstrated the causal primacy of culture in understanding human behavior. She emphasized the relativistic nature of cultural values, showing how behaviors deemed acceptable in one society might be considered deviant in another.
Apollonian and Dionysian Configurations:
Drawing on Nietzsche’s concepts, Benedict characterized the Zuni as Apollonian, valuing moderation, harmony, and tradition, while the Kwakiutl were described as Dionysian, embracing excess, ecstasy, and the pursuit of intense experiences. These contrasting configurations, Benedict argued, shaped not only individual behavior but also the social institutions and practices of these societies.
Individual and Culture:
Benedict acknowledged the potential for conflict between the individual and culture, arguing that societies selected certain segments of human behavioral possibilities, encouraging some expressions and inhibiting others. Individuals whose personalities aligned with the dominant cultural pattern were more likely to be successful, while those who deviated faced challenges and marginalization.
Culture and Personality:
Benedict’s work, along with that of Margaret Mead and other anthropologists, contributed significantly to the development of the “culture and personality” school of thought. This approach emphasized the role of culture in shaping individual personality and behavior, arguing that cultural values, beliefs, and practices were internalized during childhood and profoundly influenced adult behavior.
Benedict’s Legacy:
Benedict’s work had a profound impact both within anthropology and in American society generally. Her book Patterns of Culture, written for a general audience, became a bestseller, popularizing the concept of cultural relativism and challenging the notion of universal values. Her emphasis on cultural patterns and their influence on individual personality continues to inform anthropological thinking about the relationship between culture and personality.
Chapter 7: Edward Sapir: Culture, Language, and the Individual
Edward Sapir (1884-1939), widely considered a linguistic genius, revolutionized the study of American Indian languages. His work, deeply influenced by Franz Boas, shifted the focus of linguistic analysis from formal structures to the exploration of meaning and its cultural construction. His insights, particularly on the relationship between language, culture, and perception, culminated in the famous Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
Background and Linguistic Studies:
Sapir’s early life, marked by poverty and intellectual brilliance, led him to study under Franz Boas at Columbia University. His fieldwork among the Wishram, Takelma, and Southern Paiute established him as a leading linguist, known for his meticulous documentation and analysis of Native American languages. His work on historical linguistics, particularly his reclassification of American Indian languages into six major stocks, provided a new framework for understanding their historical relationships.
Culture and the Individual:
Sapir challenged the superorganic view of culture, arguing that cultural patterns were not independent of individual influence. He believed that individuals actively shaped and reshaped culture through their actions and words, and he emphasized the importance of studying individual variations in cultural behavior.
Language as a Cultural Tool:
Sapir viewed language as a fundamental cultural tool, arguing that language not only reflected but also shaped cultural perceptions of the world. He contended that the categories of meaning found within a language influenced the way speakers categorized and understood their experiences.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis:
Sapir’s ideas, along with those of his student, Benjamin Whorf, culminated in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, a theory that proposes a relationship between language and thought. This hypothesis suggests that the grammatical structures and semantic categories of a language influence the way speakers perceive and conceptualize the world. While this hypothesis has been criticized for overstating the influence of language on thought, it remains a significant contribution to linguistic and anthropological theory.
Meaning and Discourse:
Sapir’s work shifted the focus of linguistic analysis from formal structures to the exploration of meaning. He argued that understanding cultural behavior required deciphering the symbolic meanings embedded in language and other cultural practices. He emphasized the importance of studying the dynamic processes of social discourse, through which individuals negotiated and created cultural meanings.
Sapir’s Legacy:
Sapir’s contributions to linguistics and anthropology are vast and enduring. His meticulous documentation and analysis of Native American languages provided a foundation for future research. His insights into the relationship between language, culture, and perception continue to influence anthropological thinking about the symbolic nature of culture and the cultural construction of meaning.
Chapter 8: Margaret Mead: The Individual and Culture
Margaret Mead (1901-1978) was arguably the most famous and influential anthropologist of the twentieth century. Her work, deeply influenced by Franz Boas and Ruth Benedict, focused on the relationship between culture and personality, particularly the role of child-rearing practices in shaping individual development and cultural patterns.
Background and Advocacy:
Mead’s anthropological career was characterized by her public advocacy and her commitment to applying anthropological in-sights to social problems. She believed that anthropology could contribute to social change and improve human lives. Her re-search focused on the cultural construction of gender roles, adolescence, and personality, and she used her findings to challenge prevailing assumptions about human nature and behavior.
Fieldwork and Theoretical Contributions:
Mead’s fieldwork spanned multiple cultures and regions, from Samoa and New Guinea to Bali and the United States. Her early work in Samoa, documented in her bestselling book, Coming of Age in Samoa, argued that adolescent turmoil was not a universal biological phenomenon but rather a product of cultural factors. Her later research in New Guinea, presented in Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, challenged the assumption that gender roles were biologically determined, showing how different cultures defined and enacted masculinity and femininity in diverse ways.
Her collaborative work with Gregory Bateson in Bali emphasized the importance of understanding the cultural construction of personality, using photography and film to document the subtle ways in which Balinese child-rearing practices shaped individual development and cultural patterns.
Culture and Personality:
Mead’s work, along with that of Benedict and other anthropologists, established the “culture and personality” school of thought. This approach emphasized the role of culture in shaping individual personality and behavior, arguing that cultural values, beliefs, and practices were internalized during childhood and profoundly influenced adult behavior.
The Samoa Controversy:
Mead’s work in Samoa, though highly influential, has been the subject of ongoing controversy. Derek Freeman, an anthropologist who also conducted research in Samoa, challenged Mead’s findings, arguing that she misrepresented Samoan culture and that her research was biased by her preconceived notions about the role of culture in shaping adolescent behavior. The debate surrounding Mead’s Samoan research continues to this day, highlighting the challenges and complexities of cross-cultural research and the impact of theoretical assumptions on anthropological interpretation.
Mead’s Legacy:
Mead’s work had a profound impact on anthropology and American society generally. Her writings, accessible to a broad audience, popularized anthropological concepts and challenged prevailing assumptions about human nature and behavior. Her emphasis on the cultural construction of gender roles, adolescence, and personality, and her commitment to social advocacy, continue to inspire anthropologists and influence public discourse on social issues.
Part III: The Nature of Society
Chapter 9: Marcel Mauss: Elemental Categories, Total Facts
Marcel Mauss (1872-1950), nephew and disciple of Émile Durk-heim, is a pivotal figure in French sociology and anthropology. His work, deeply rooted in the Durkheimian tradition, explored the social basis of human categories of thought, from systems of classification to concepts of the self. His most enduring contribution, however, is the concept of “total prestations,” exchanges of goods and services that go beyond economic transactions and embody a complex web of social obligations and meanings.
Mauss and the Durkheimian School:
Mauss played a central role in establishing French sociology alongside Durkheim. He gathered scholars from diverse disciplines, organizing them around Durkheim’s “science of society.” He contributed extensively to the journal L’Année sociologique, the organ of the Durkheimian School. Mauss’s erudition and polymath approach, evident in his vast knowledge of languages and history, characterized his work.
Social History of Categories:
Mauss, following Durkheim’s methodology, sought to identify the elementary forms of human categories of thought by studying primitive societies. He argued that systems of classification, concepts of space and time, and notions of the self were not simply products of individual cognition but rather collective representations that reflected the social organization of a given society.
Primitive Classification:
In his collaborative work with Durkheim, Primitive Classification, Mauss examined the rudimentary systems of classification found in “primitive” societies, arguing that these systems reflected the social structure of the group. They contended that even seemingly abstract categories like space, time, and causality were organized according to the social divisions and relationships within the society.
The Gift and Total Prestations:
Mauss’s most influential work, The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies, explored the nature of gift exchange in non-Western societies. He challenged the assumption of a “natural economy” based on individual self-interest and market forces, arguing that gift exchange in traditional societies was governed by complex social obligations and embedded in a broader web of social relationships.
He introduced the concept of “total prestations,” exchanges that involved not just goods and services but also courtesies, entertainments, rituals, and even women and children. These exchanges, although described in the language of gifts, were obligatory and reinforced by social sanctions.
Total Phenomena:
Mauss argued that gift exchange, like many other social practices, was a “total phenomenon,” encompassing economic, social, religious, and legal dimensions. He showed how these practices could not be understood simply as economic transactions but rather as expressions of a society’s broader social structure and cultural values.
Mauss’s Legacy:
Mauss’s work had a profound impact on anthropological thinking about exchange, social organization, and the relationship between social structure and symbolic systems. His concept of total prestations, with its emphasis on the embeddedness of economic activity in social relations, has been central to economic anthropology. His notion of total social phenomena, though somewhat ambiguous, reflects his insight into the interconnectedness of different domains of social life.
Chapter 10: Bronislaw Malinowski: The Functions of Culture
Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942), a Polish anthropologist who revolutionized ethnographic fieldwork, made significant contributions to understanding the functions of culture. His research among the Trobriand Islanders in Melanesia led him to propose a functionalist theory of culture, arguing that cultural practices served to meet the basic needs of individuals.
Fieldwork and Ethnographic Methods:
Malinowski is renowned for his pioneering fieldwork methods and his detailed ethnographic accounts of Trobriand society. He advocated for intensive participant observation, immersing one-self in the daily lives of the people studied, learning their language, and observing their rituals and practices. He emphasized the importance of documenting not only the formal structures of a culture but also the “imponderabilia of actual life,” the subtle nuances of behavior and interaction.
Theory of Needs:
Central to Malinowski’s functionalist theory of culture was the idea that culture existed to meet the basic needs of individuals. He proposed a hierarchy of needs, ranging from basic biological needs like metabolism and reproduction to derived cultural needs like safety, comfort, and growth. Malinowski argued that cultural institutions and practices served to satisfy these needs, ensuring the survival and well-being of individuals and, by extension, the society as a whole.
Culture as an Adaptive System:
Malinowski viewed culture as an adaptive system that responded to the challenges of the environment and the needs of individuals. He argued that cultural practices, even those that appeared irrational or superstitious, served important functions in helping individuals cope with uncertainty, anxiety, and the limitations of their knowledge.
The Function of Magic:
Malinowski’s analysis of magic exemplified his functionalist approach. He argued that magic, rather than being a primitive form of science, served to address those areas of life where knowledge failed to provide control. For example, Trobriand fishermen used magic to ensure success in deep-sea fishing, a dangerous and unpredictable activity, while they did not employ magic for lagoon fishing, which was safer and more reliable. Malinowski contended that magic functioned to reduce anxiety, provide a sense of control, and reinforce social solidarity.
Malinowski’s Legacy:
Malinowski’s work had a profound impact on anthropological thinking about culture, fieldwork, and the relationship between the individual and society. His emphasis on the functional integration of cultural systems, his theory of needs, and his analysis of magic influenced a generation of anthropologists. His pioneering fieldwork methods and his detailed ethnographic accounts established new standards for anthropological research.
Chapter 11: A.R. Radcliffe-Brown: The Structures of Society
A.R. Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955), a leading figure in British social anthropology, advocated for a scientific approach to the study of society, emphasizing the importance of understanding social structures and their functions. His work, deeply influenced by Émile Durkheim, contrasted with Malinowski’s individualistic functionalism, arguing that cultural practices served to maintain the stability and continuity of the social system.
Social Anthropology and the Comparative Method:
Radcliffe-Brown distinguished “social anthropology” from “ethnology,” arguing that social anthropology should focus on discovering general laws governing social life, while ethnology should concentrate on reconstructing cultural histories. He emphasized the comparative method, advocating for cross-cultural comparisons of social structures to identify underlying regularities and general principles.
Structure and Function:
Radcliffe-Brown’s key contribution was his focus on social structures and their functions. He defined social structure as the network of actually existing relationships between individuals in a society, analogous to the structure of a biological organism. He argued that social structures existed independently of the individuals who occupied those positions and that they could be observed and studied systematically. The function of a social institution or practice, according to Radcliffe-Brown, was the role it played in maintaining the stability and continuity of the social system.
Opposition and Solidarity:
Radcliffe-Brown acknowledged the existence of conflict and opposition within societies but argued that these were regulated and integrated into the social structure, contributing to its overall stability. He emphasized the importance of social solidarity, arguing that societies developed institutions and practices that promoted cohesion and integration among their members.
Analysis of Exogamous Moieties:
Radcliffe-Brown’s analysis of exogamous moieties exemplified his structural-functionalist approach. Exogamous moieties are kin-ship systems in which a society is divided into two groups, and marriage is only permitted between members of different groups. Radcliffe-Brown argued that these systems functioned to create alliances and foster social solidarity between different segments of society. He examined the symbolic representations associated with moieties, such as bird totems, arguing that these symbols reinforced the social divisions and relationships within the society.
Religion and Society:
Radcliffe-Brown analyzed the function of religion in maintaining social order. He argued that religious beliefs and practices, such as ancestor worship, served to reinforce social norms, promote social solidarity, and legitimize the authority structure of the society.
Radcliffe-Brown’s Legacy:
Radcliffe-Brown’s work significantly influenced the development of British social anthropology. His emphasis on social structures, their functions, and the importance of comparative analysis shaped a generation of anthropologists. His structural-functionalist approach, though criticized for its static view of society and its neglect of history and individual agency, remains an important theoretical perspective in anthropology.
Chapter 12: Edward Evans-Pritchard: Social Anthropology, Social History
Edward Evans-Pritchard (1902-1973), a leading figure in British social anthropology, initially followed the structural-functionalist approach of Radcliffe-Brown but later advocated for a more historical and humanistic approach to anthropology. His fieldwork among the Azande and Nuer in Sudan led him to develop a theory of accountability, emphasizing the importance of understanding how individuals in different societies explain and respond to misfortune.
Background and Fieldwork:
Evans-Pritchard’s early career was shaped by his fieldwork in Sudan, conducted under the auspices of the British colonial government. His research focused on the social organization, political systems, and religious beliefs of the Azande and Nuer, two distinct societies living in the region. His ethnographic accounts of these societies, particularly his classic study of Azande witchcraft, are considered masterpieces of anthropological writing.
A Theory of Accountability:
Evans-Pritchard argued that anthropology should pay more attention to the subjective experiences and interpretations of the people studied. He proposed a “theory of accountability,” emphasizing the importance of understanding how individuals in different societies explain and respond to misfortune. He contended that these explanations, often rooted in religious beliefs or cultural values, shaped social institutions and practices.
Azande Witchcraft:
Evans-Pritchard’s analysis of Azande witchcraft exemplified his theory of accountability. He showed how the Azande explained misfortune, such as illness, accidents, or crop failures, by attributing them to witchcraft. Witchcraft, according to Evans-Pritchard, was not a superstitious belief but a rational system of explanation that helped the Azande make sense of their experiences and maintain social order. He argued that witchcraft beliefs functioned to resolve conflicts, allocate responsibility, and reinforce social norms.
Social Anthropology as Social History:
In his later work, Evans-Pritchard advocated for a more historical approach to anthropology, arguing that social anthropology should be recast as social history. He contended that anthropology should focus on understanding the specific historical processes that had shaped particular societies, rather than simply seeking general laws of social life.
Evans-Pritchard’s Legacy:
Evans-Pritchard’s work had a profound impact on anthropological thinking about culture, social organization, and the importance of understanding the subjective experiences of the people studied. His theory of accountability, his detailed ethnographic accounts, and his advocacy for a more historical approach to anthropology continue to influence the discipline.
Part IV: Evolutionary, Adaptationist, and Materialist Theories
Chapter 13: Leslie White: Evolution Emergent
Leslie White (1900-1975), a staunch advocate for cultural evolution, challenged the dominance of Boasian historical particularism in American anthropology. He sought to establish a scientific approach to the study of culture, arguing that cultural evolution was governed by universal laws that could be identified and tested. His work, deeply influenced by Lewis Henry Morgan and Marxist theory, reintroduced the concept of cultural evolution to American anthropology, shaping the trajectory of archaeological and anthropological theory in the latter half of the twentieth century.
Evolution and the Functional Core:
White’s evolutionary theory built on a functionalist conception of culture, arguing that culture served to meet the needs of the human species. Unlike Malinowski, who emphasized individual needs, White focused on the adaptive functions of culture for the species as a whole. He argued that culture was an extrasomatic, temporal continuum of things and events dependent upon symboling, which allowed humans to adapt to their environment and perpetuate their existence.
The Technological, Sociological, and Ideological Subsystems:
White divided culture into three subsystems: technological, sociological, and ideological. The technological subsystem, encompassing material culture and techniques, was considered the primary driving force of cultural evolution. White argued that the social and ideological subsystems were ultimately determined by the techno-logical subsystem, with technological advancements leading to changes in social organization and belief systems.
The Law of Cultural Evolution:
White’s theory of cultural evolution posited that cultural development was directly linked to the amount of energy harnessed and the efficiency with which it was used. He formulated a “law of cultural evolution,” stating that “culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to work is increased.” This law, grounded in thermodynamic principles, proposed a quantifiable measure of cultural evolution, contrasting with the qualitative schemes of earlier evolutionary theorists.
The Science of Culture:
White advocated for a science of culture, which he called “culturology.” He argued that anthropology should focus on discovering the universal laws governing cultural development, rather than simply documenting the particular histories of individual cultures. He emphasized the deterministic nature of cultural evolution, contending that cultural patterns were shaped by forces external to the individual and that human agency played a limited role in cultural change.
White’s Legacy:
White’s work had a profound and lasting impact on American anthropology, particularly in archaeology. His emphasis on cultural evolution, his focus on the technological realm, and his advocacy for a scientific approach to the study of culture shaped the development of the “New Archaeology” in the 1960s and 1970s. His work continues to influence anthropological thinking about cultural evolution, adaptation, and the relationship between technology, society, and ideology.
Chapter 14: Julian Steward: Cultural Ecology and Multilinear Evolution
Julian Steward (1902-1972), an American anthropologist known for his work on cultural ecology and multilinear evolution, bridged the gap between Boasian historical particularism and White’s uni-lineal evolutionary theory. He emphasized the importance of studying the adaptive relationships between cultures and their environments, arguing that cultural evolution followed multiple lines of development shaped by specific environmental and historical circumstances.
Background and Fieldwork:
Steward’s research focused on the native peoples of the Great Basin in North America, particularly the Shoshone and Northern Paiute. His fieldwork among these groups, characterized by their adaptation to a harsh and resource-scarce environment, led him to develop the concept of cultural ecology, a perspective that emphasized the dynamic interplay between culture and environment.
Cultural Ecology:
Steward defined cultural ecology as “the study of the processes by which a society adapts to its environment.” He argued that cultural adaptations, shaped by the interaction between technology, social organization, and environment, could lead to internal social transformations and evolutionary change. Steward’s cultural ecological approach emphasized the importance of studying the specific environmental constraints and opportunities that shaped cultural development, contrasting with the unilineal evolutionary models that assumed universal stages of progress.
The Cultural Core:
Steward proposed the concept of the “cultural core,” a constellation of features most closely related to subsistence activities and economic arrangements. He argued that the cultural core was shaped by the adaptive relationship between a society and its environment and that changes in the cultural core could lead to transformations in other aspects of the culture.
Multilinear Evolution:
Steward’s theory of multilinear evolution rejected the notion of a single, universal line of cultural development. He argued that cultural evolution followed multiple lines of development, shaped by the specific environmental, historical, and social contexts of each society. Steward’s multilinear evolution emphasized the diversity of cultural adaptations and the importance of studying the particular historical trajectories of individual societies.
Steward’s Legacy:
Steward’s work profoundly influenced the development of American anthropology, particularly in archaeology. His concept of cultural ecology provided a framework for studying the adaptive relationships between cultures and their environments, shaping the development of ecological anthropology and archaeology. His theory of multilinear evolution, with its emphasis on the diversity of cultural adaptations and historical trajectories, provided an alternative to the unilineal evolutionary models that dominated anthropological thinking in the early twentieth century.
Chapter 15: Marvin Harris: Cultural Materialism
Marvin Harris (1927-2001) was a prominent American anthropologist known for his advocacy of cultural materialism, a theoretical perspective that emphasized the material conditions of life as the primary determinants of cultural patterns. His work, deeply influenced by Marx and Engels, sought to establish a scientific approach to the study of culture, arguing that cultural practices could be explained by their adaptive functions in relation to the material environment.
Background and Ethnographic Research:
Harris’s research focused on Latin America, particularly Brazil. His fieldwork in Minas Velhas, Brazil, documented in his book Town and Country in Brazil, explored the historical and economic forces that shaped the town’s development and its relationship to the surrounding rural areas. His later work on race relations in the Americas, Patterns of Race in the Americas, analyzed the economic origins of racism, arguing that racial inequalities were rooted in the material conditions of production and labor.
Cultural Materialism:
Harris defined cultural materialism as “the simple premise that human social life is a response to the practical problems of earthly existence.” He argued that infrastructure, encompassing the techno-logical, economic, demographic, and environmental aspects of a society, played a primary role in shaping its social structure and ideology. Harris’s cultural materialism gave priority to the study of the material conditions of life, contending that cultural practices could be explained by their adaptive functions in relation to the material environment.
Emic and Etic Perspectives:
Harris distinguished between emic and etic perspectives in anthropology. The emic perspective referred to the insider’s point of view, while the etic perspective represented the outsider’s objective analysis. Harris argued that anthropologists should prioritize the etic perspective, employing scientific methods to discover the underlying causes of cultural patterns, even if those causes were not recognized by the people studied.
Infrastructure, Structure, and Superstructure:
Harris’s cultural materialist framework divided culture into three levels: infrastructure, structure, and superstructure. Infrastructure encompassed the mode of production and reproduction, the most fundamental level of culture that interacted directly with the material environment. Structure, encompassing domestic and political economy, was shaped by infrastructure. Superstructure, encompassing art, religion, and ideology, was influenced by both infrastructure and structure. Harris argued that infrastructure played a primary role in shaping the other levels of culture, with changes in infrastructure leading to transformations in structure and superstructure.
The Sacred Cows of India:
Harris’s analysis of the sacred cows of India exemplified his cultural materialist approach. He argued that the Hindu taboo against slaughtering cows, despite its apparent irrationality, served an adaptive function in Indian society. Cows provided essential resources, such as milk, dung for fuel, and oxen for plowing, making them more valuable alive than dead, particularly for poor farmers. Harris contended that the religious and symbolic meanings associated with cows reinforced their economic importance, ensuring their protection and contributing to the overall adaptation of Indian society to its material environment.
The Collapse of the Soviet Empire:
Harris applied his cultural materialist framework to explain the col-lapse of the Soviet empire. He argued that the Soviet system failed because its political economy impeded the efficient functioning of its infrastructure. The centralized command economy, with its emphasis on production quotas and bureaucratic control, led to inefficiencies, shortages, and environmental degradation, ultimately undermining the system’s ability to meet the basic needs of its population.
Harris’s Legacy:
Harris’s work sparked considerable debate and controversy within anthropology, with his critics accusing him of reductionism and determinism. Nevertheless, his cultural materialist framework remains an influential theoretical perspective, particularly in archaeology and ecological anthropology. His emphasis on the importance of studying the material conditions of life and his insistence on a scientific approach to the study of culture continue to shape anthropological thinking about culture and its development.
Chapter 16: Eleanor Burke Leacock: Feminism, Marxism, and History
Eleanor Burke Leacock (1922-1987), a leading Marxist feminist in American anthropology, challenged prevailing assumptions about the universality of women’s subordination. Her research focused on the historical transformations of egalitarian societies, arguing that the rise of class societies and the development of capitalism were responsible for the emergence of gender inequality.
Background and Research:
Leacock’s intellectual journey began with her research among the Montagnais-Naskapi, a hunting and gathering society in Labrador. She combined ethnohistorical and ethnographic data to demonstrate that private land ownership among the Montagnais-Naskapi was not an aboriginal practice but rather a consequence of their involvement in the fur trade, which introduced capitalist economic relations into their society. Her early work challenged the anti-evolutionist arguments of Robert Lowie and other anthropologists who had used Speck’s data to argue against the idea of primitive communism.
Marxism and Feminism:
Leacock’s work was deeply influenced by Marxist theory, particularly Engels’s The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State. She argued that the subordination of women was not a universal condition but a historical development associated with the rise of class societies and the privatization of property. Leacock contended that in egalitarian societies, women held significant autonomy and power, but their status declined with the emergence of capitalism and the shift to private ownership of the means of production.
Gender and Colonialism:
Leacock examined the impact of colonialism on gender relations in non-Western societies. She argued that colonial policies often undermined women’s traditional roles and authority, exacerbating gender inequalities. She showed how European missionaries and colonial administrators imposed patriarchal values and institutions, disrupting traditional egalitarian social structures.
Women’s Status in Egalitarian Society:
Leacock’s influential article, “Women’s Status in Egalitarian Society: Implications for Social Evolution,” challenged the assumption that women were universally subordinate in traditional societies. She argued that anthropologists had often projected their own cultural biases onto the societies they studied, misinterpreting women’s roles and underestimating their autonomy and power. She contended that in egalitarian societies, women held significant control over their labor and resources and enjoyed a high degree of social equality with men.
Leacock’s Legacy:
Leacock’s work significantly impacted feminist anthropology and the study of gender relations. Her research demonstrated the historical variability of women’s status, challenging the notion of universal female subordination. Her Marxist feminist approach, with its emphasis on the role of economic and political structures in shaping gender relations, continues to influence anthropological thinking about gender, power, and social change.
Part V: Structures, Symbols, and Meaning
Chapter 17: Claude Lévi-Strauss: Structuralism
Claude Lévi-Strauss (b. 1908), a renowned French anthropologist, is considered the founder of structuralism, a theoretical approach that seeks to uncover the underlying structures of human thought and culture. His work, deeply influenced by linguistics and structural linguistics, examined the symbolic systems of kinship, myth, and classification, arguing that these systems reflected universal structures of the human mind.
Background and Intellectual Influences:
Lévi-Strauss’s early interest in philosophy and his exposure to structural linguistics, particularly the work of Roman Jakobson, shaped his anthropological approach. His fieldwork among the indigenous peoples of Brazil, documented in his book Tristes Tropiques, provided the ethnographic basis for his theoretical explorations. His later work focused on analyzing the symbolic systems of kinship, myth, and classification, drawing on a vast array of ethnographic data from around the world.
Structural Anthropology:
Lévi-Strauss argued that the human mind operates according to universal structures that shape the way people perceive and categorize the world. These structures, unconscious and innate, are reflected in the symbolic systems of culture, such as language, kinship, myth, and classification. Structural anthropology seeks to uncover these underlying structures by analyzing the relationships between symbols and the patterns of opposition and homology that they express.
Kinship and Exchange:
Lévi-Strauss’s structural analysis of kinship systems focused on the exchange of women as the fundamental principle of kinship organization. He argued that kinship systems, like language, were systems of communication, regulating marriage and establishing alliances between groups. His work on kinship theory, presented in his seminal work The Elementary Structures of Kinship, revolutionized anthropological thinking about kinship, emphasizing the importance of exchange and the symbolic logic that underpinned kinship relations.
Myth and Meaning:
Lévi-Strauss’s structural analysis of myth sought to uncover the underlying structures of thought and meaning that myths encoded. He argued that myths were not simply stories but rather complex symbolic systems that reflected the fundamental oppositions and anxieties of human existence. His four-volume work, Mythologiques, analyzed a vast corpus of myths from South and North America, demonstrating how these myths expressed universal themes and structures of human thought.
Analysis of the Avunculate:
Lévi-Strauss’s structural analysis of the avunculate, the relationship between a man and his mother’s brother, exemplifies his approach. He argued that the avunculate could not be understood simply as a social role but rather as a symbolic relationship that expressed underlying structures of kinship and alliance. He showed how the avunculate relationship was integrated into a larger system of oppositions and correlations within the kinship structure, reflecting the fundamental principles of consanguinity, affinity, and descent.
The Story of Asdiwal:
Lévi-Strauss’s analysis of the Tsimshian myth of Asdiwal demonstrates his approach to myth. He identified multiple levels of meaning within the myth, from geographical and techno-economic to sociological and cosmological. He argued that the myth, through its narrative structure and its symbolic elements, expressed fundamental oppositions and anxieties of Tsimshian culture, such as the tension between matrilocal and patrilocal residence patterns and the relationship between humanity and the natural world.
Lévi-Strauss’s Legacy:
Lévi-Strauss’s work has had a profound impact on anthropological thinking about culture, symbolism, and the nature of human thought. His structuralist approach, though criticized for its focus on abstract structures and its neglect of history and agency, continues to influence anthropological theory and research.
Chapter 18: Victor Turner: Symbols, Pilgrims, and Drama
Victor Turner (1920-1983) was a highly influential British-American anthropologist known for his work on symbolism, ritual, and social drama. His research, particularly among the Ndembu of Zambia, led him to develop new concepts and approaches for understanding the dynamic interplay between social structure and cultural meaning.
Background and Intellectual Influences:
Turner’s early career was shaped by his fieldwork in Zambia, conducted under the mentorship of Max Gluckman. His research focused on Ndembu social organization, ritual, and symbolism, and his ethnographic accounts of Ndembu society are considered classic works of anthropology.
Social Drama:
Turner challenged the static view of society prevalent in structural-functionalism, arguing that social life was characterized by conflict, process, and change. He developed the concept of “social drama,” a framework for analyzing the dynamic interplay of conflict and resolution within social systems. Social dramas, according to Turner, involved a breach of social norms, a crisis, a process of redress, and a reintegration or recognition of schism. This framework highlighted the importance of conflict and process in understanding social change and cultural meaning.
Symbols and Ritual:
Turner’s analysis of symbols emphasized their multivocal nature and their role in mediating social relationships and cultural meanings. He argued that symbols were powerful condensations of meaning, often representing multiple ideas and values. He distinguished between dominant and instrumental symbols, arguing that dominant symbols represented core cultural values and beliefs, while instrumental symbols were used more strategically to achieve specific goals.
Turner’s work on ritual emphasized its performative nature and its role in transforming social relationships and reinforcing cultural values. He argued that rituals were not simply symbolic enactments but also social processes that involved conflict, negotiation, and transformation.
Liminality and Communitas:
Turner developed the concepts of “liminality” and “communitas” to understand the transitional phases of ritual and social life. Liminality, derived from the Latin word for “threshold,” refers to the in-between state of individuals or groups undergoing a ritual or social transition. During liminal periods, individuals are often stripped of their social status and subjected to rituals that symbolize their separation from the everyday world. Communitas refers to the sense of shared identity and solidarity that emerges among individuals in liminal states, transcending social hierarchies and distinctions. Turner argued that liminality and communitas provided opportunities for social critique, renewal, and the emergence of new forms of social organization.
Pilgrimage:
Turner extended his analysis of liminality and communitas to the study of pilgrimage. He argued that pilgrimages, journeys to sacred sites, were liminal experiences that involved a separation from everyday life, a period of transition and transformation, and a re-integration into society. He showed how pilgrimages fostered communitas among participants, transcending social boundaries and reinforcing shared religious beliefs and values.
Turner’s Legacy:
Turner’s work had a profound impact on anthropological thinking about symbolism, ritual, and social process. His concepts of social drama, liminality, and communitas continue to be widely used in anthropology and other disciplines. His emphasis on the performance and transformative aspects of ritual and his attention to the multivocal nature of symbols have shaped anthropological approaches to ritual and symbolic analysis.
Chapter 19: Clifford Geertz: An Interpretive Anthropology
Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) was a leading American anthropologist known for his advocacy of an interpretive approach to anthropology. He argued that culture should be understood as a system of meanings and symbols through which people make sense of their experiences and guide their actions. His work emphasized the importance of understanding the subjective interpretations of the people studied and the role of the anthropologist as an interpreter of cultural meanings.
Background and Fieldwork:
Geertz’s early research focused on Indonesia, particularly Java and Bali. His fieldwork in Modjokuto, Java, documented in his books The Religion of Java and The Social History of an Indonesian Town, explored the religious beliefs, social organization, and political transformations of Javanese society. His later work on Bali, co-authored with Gregory Bateson, Balinese Character, used photography and film to analyze the cultural construction of Balinese personality.
Culture as Text:
Geertz argued that culture should be understood as a “text,” a system of meanings and symbols that required interpretation. He contended that anthropology was not a science in search of laws but rather an interpretive discipline that sought to understand the subjective experiences and interpretations of the people studied.
Thick Description:
Geertz’s concept of “thick description” emphasized the importance of detailed ethnographic accounts that captured the complex layers of meaning embedded in cultural practices. He argued that anthropologists should go beyond simply describing behaviors and instead attempt to understand the meanings and motivations that informed those behaviors.
The Interpretive Turn:
Geertz’s work contributed to a “interpretive turn” in anthropology, shifting the focus from objective analysis of social structures to subjective understanding of cultural meanings. He argued that the goal of anthropology was not to explain but to interpret, to make the strange familiar and the familiar strange, and to translate the experiences of one culture into the language of another.
Javanese Funeral:
Geertz’s analysis of a Javanese funeral exemplified his interpretive approach. He showed how the funeral ritual, with its blend of Islamic, Hindu, and indigenous elements, embodied the syncretic nature of Javanese religion. He also demonstrated how the funeral, disrupted by political tensions between conservative Islamic and secular nationalist groups, revealed the complex interplay between culture, politics, and symbolic meaning.
Geertz’s Legacy:
Geertz’s work had a profound impact on anthropological thinking about culture, meaning, and the nature of ethnographic interpretation. His concept of culture as text, his emphasis on thick description, and his advocacy for an interpretive approach to anthropology have shaped the development of symbolic and interpretive anthropology. His writings, accessible to a broad audience, have also influenced other disciplines and contributed to a broader “interpretive turn” in the social sciences and humanities.
Chapter 20: Mary Douglas: Symbols and Structures, Pollution and Purity
Mary Douglas (1921-2007), a prominent British anthropologist, explored the social and symbolic meanings of pollution and purity. Her work, deeply influenced by Durkheim and Evans-Pritchard, argued that cultural classifications, including those relating to dirt and contamination, reflect and reinforce social structures and values. She developed a framework for cross-cultural analysis based on the concepts of “group” and “grid,” which she used to examine the relationship between social organization, symbolic systems, and perceptions of risk.
Background and Intellectual Influences:
Douglas’s early work focused on the Lele of Kasai, a society in Zaire. Her fieldwork among the Lele, documented in her book The Lele of Kasai, explored their social organization, religious beliefs, and symbolic systems. She was particularly interested in their concepts of pollution and purity and how these concepts shaped their social interactions and cultural practices.
Purity and Pollution:
Douglas argued that concepts of pollution and purity are not simply about hygiene or sanitation but rather reflect underlying social and symbolic classifications. She contended that dirt, as “matter out of place,” violates cultural categories and threatens the social order. Pollution beliefs and practices, according to Douglas, serve to reinforce social boundaries, maintain social order, and express cultural values.
Analysis of Leviticus:
Douglas’s analysis of the dietary laws in Leviticus exemplifies her approach. She argued that the biblical prohibitions against eating certain animals, such as pigs and shellfish, were not simply arbitrary rules but rather reflected a symbolic system that distinguished between the clean and unclean, the holy and profane. These dietary laws, according to Douglas, served to reinforce the Israelites’ identity as a distinct and chosen people and to express their relationship to God.
Group and Grid:
Douglas developed a framework for cross-cultural analysis based on the concepts of “group” and “grid.” Group refers to the extent to which individuals experience a sense of belonging to a bounded social unit, while grid refers to the degree to which social roles and relationships are defined by rules and regulations. These two dimensions, according to Douglas, shape the symbolic systems and cultural practices of different societies.
Social and Symbolic Classifications:
Douglas argued that strong group/strong grid societies tend to have elaborate systems of ritual and symbolism, with a strong emphasis on purity and pollution. These societies, with their well-defined boundaries and hierarchical structures, use symbolic classifications to reinforce social order and maintain social control. In contrast, weak group/weak grid societies tend to have less emphasis on ritual and a more individualistic approach to morality.
Risk Perception:
Douglas applied her group/grid framework to the study of risk perception, arguing that different societies perceive and respond to risk in ways that reflect their social organization and cultural values. She contended that strong group/strong grid societies tend to perceive risks as external threats to the social order, while weak group/weak grid societies are more likely to view risks as individual challenges.
Douglas’s Legacy:
Douglas’s work has had a significant impact on anthropological thinking about symbolism, ritual, and the relationship between culture and society. Her concepts of purity and pollution, group and grid, and her analysis of risk perception continue to influence anthropology and other disciplines. Her work has also contributed to a broader understanding of the social and cultural dimensions of environmental issues and the role of symbolic classifications in shaping perceptions of risk.
Part VI: Structures, Practice, Agency, Power
Chapter 21: James Fernandez: The Play of Tropes
James Fernandez (b. 1930), an influential American anthropologist, explored the creative and dynamic interplay between metaphors, actions, and identities in cultural processes. His work, deeply informed by a postmodernist sensibility, emphasized the importance of understanding how individuals use tropes, figurative language, to negotiate and transform their social realities.
Background and Research:
Fernandez’s research has focused on Africa, particularly the Fang of Gabon, and on Spain, specifically the Asturias region. His work among the Fang, documented in his book Bwiti: An Ethnography of the Religious Imagination in Africa, explored the syncretic nature of Fang religion and the role of ritual and symbolism in social transformation. His research in Asturias examines the cultural dynamics of a rapidly changing society, focusing on how individuals use metaphors and tropes to navigate and shape their social realities.
Postmodernism and Ethnography:
Fernandez’s work reflects a postmodernist sensibility, emphasizing the fragmentation, fluidity, and multivocality of cultural experience. He challenged the notion of culture as a coherent, integrated whole, arguing that cultural meanings are constantly being negotiated and reinterpreted by individuals in specific social contexts.
The Play of Tropes:
Fernandez’s central contribution is the concept of the “play of tropes,” which refers to the dynamic interplay between metaphors, actions, and identities in cultural processes. He argued that individuals use tropes, figures of speech that carry multiple meanings, to shape their perceptions, guide their actions, and create and transform their social identities.
Tropes and Social Transformation:
Fernandez examined how tropes are used in rituals and other social practices to effect social transformation. He argued that tropes, by providing new ways of seeing and understanding the world, can lead to changes in individual behavior and social relations. He demonstrated how tropes can be used to unify groups, resolve conflicts, and promote social change.
Bwiti:
Fernandez’s analysis of the Bwiti cult among the Fang exemplified his approach. He showed how Bwiti rituals, through their use of symbols, metaphors, and psychotropic substances, offered the Fang a way to transcend the social and economic challenges of colonial rule and religious conversion. The Bwiti rituals, according to Fernandez, provided a space for the Fang to create new identities and imagine new social realities.
Fernandez’s Legacy:
Fernandez’s work has significantly influenced anthropological thinking about metaphor, symbolism, and the dynamics of cultural change. His concept of the play of tropes, with its emphasis on the creative and transformative power of figurative language, has shaped anthropological approaches to ritual and symbolic analysis. His postmodernist sensibility, with its attention to the fragmentation and multivocality of cultural experience, has also contributed to a more nuanced and critical understanding of the relationship between culture and power.
Chapter 22: Sherry Ortner: Symbols, Gender, Practice
Sherry Ortner (b. 1941) is a prominent American anthropologist known for her work on symbolism, gender, and practice theory. Her research, primarily focused on Sherpa culture in Nepal, explores the dynamic interplay between cultural schemas, social action, and power relations. She has made significant contributions to feminist anthropology, challenging prevailing assumptions about women’s universal subordination and examining the cultural construction of gender.
Background and Research:
Ortner’s early work focused on the Sherpas of Nepal, a Tibetan Buddhist society living in the Himalayas. Her fieldwork among the Sherpas, documented in her books Sherpas through Their Rituals and High Religion, explored their religious beliefs, social organization, and symbolic systems. She was particularly interested in the role of key symbols in Sherpa culture and how these symbols shaped their perceptions, values, and actions.
Symbols and Symbolic Schemes:
Ortner’s analysis of symbols emphasized their role in shaping cultural schemas, “preorganized schemes of action, symbolic pro-grams for the staging and playing out of standard social interactions in a particular culture.” She argued that key symbols, often embedded in myths, rituals, and other cultural practices, provided models for understanding the world and guiding social action.
Gender and the Nature/Culture Dichotomy:
Ortner’s influential article, “Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture?”, explored the cultural construction of gender. She argued that women are universally devalued because they are associated with nature, while men are associated with culture, which is generally perceived as superior. Ortner’s analysis, though controversial, highlighted the symbolic dimensions of gender relations and the role of cultural schemas in shaping perceptions of women and men.
Sherpa Ritual and Social Contradictions:
Ortner’s ethnographic work among the Sherpas examined the role of ritual in mediating social contradictions. She argued that Sherpa rituals, through their use of symbols and their enactment of cultural schemas, helped to resolve tensions between egalitarian values and hierarchical social structures.
Himalayan Mountaineering:
Ortner’s research on Himalayan mountaineering, documented in her book Life and Death on Mt. Everest, explores the complex relationships between Western climbers and Sherpa guides. She examined how cultural differences and power dynamics shaped their interactions and experiences on the mountain, highlighting the interplay between structure, agency, and symbolic meaning in a high-stakes and dangerous environment.
Practice Theory:
Ortner’s later work embraces practice theory, a perspective that emphasizes the dynamic interplay between structure and agency in social life. She argues that cultural schemas, while providing models for action, are also subject to interpretation and transformation by individuals in specific social contexts.
Ortner’s Legacy:
Ortner’s work has significantly impacted anthropological thinking about symbolism, gender, and the dynamics of cultural change. Her concept of key symbols, her analysis of the nature/culture dichotomy, and her embrace of practice theory have shaped anthropological approaches to ritual, gender studies, and the study of social inequality.
Chapter 23: Pierre Bourdieu: An Anthropology of Practice
Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002), a prominent French sociologist and anthropologist, developed a theory of practice that sought to bridge the gap between objective structures and subjective experience in social life. His work, deeply influenced by his ethnographic research in Algeria, emphasized the importance of understanding the embodied dispositions, or habitus, that shape social action and the dynamic interplay between structure, agency, and symbolic power in cultural reproduction.
Background and Research:
Bourdieu’s early work focused on the Kabyle of Algeria, a Berber-speaking society in North Africa. His fieldwork among the Kabyle, conducted during the Algerian War for Independence, challenged prevailing assumptions about traditional societies as isolated and static. He demonstrated how the Kabyle, despite their seemingly traditional way of life, were actively engaged in negotiating and transforming their social realities in response to the pressures of colonialism and modernization.
Theory of Practice:
Bourdieu’s theory of practice argued that social action is not simply the product of individual choice or the mechanical enactment of cultural rules. Instead, he contended that social action is shaped by habitus, embodied dispositions that are acquired through socialization and that generate practices in accordance with the objective structures of the social world.
Habitus:
Habitus, according to Bourdieu, is a system of durable, transposable dispositions that function as a “matrix of perceptions, appreciations, and actions.” It is acquired through lived experience, em-bodied in the individual, and shapes social practices without conscious reflection. Habitus, therefore, mediates between objective structures and subjective experience, providing a framework for understanding the regularities and variations of social action.
Doxa:
Bourdieu’s concept of “doxa” refers to the taken-for-granted assumptions and beliefs that constitute the common sense of a particular society. He argued that doxa, often naturalized and unquestioned, serves to legitimize the existing social order and reinforce power relations.
Symbolic Power:
Bourdieu emphasized the role of symbolic power in cultural reproduction. He argued that dominant groups, through their control of institutions and their ability to define symbolic systems, can impose their worldview and legitimize their power. Symbolic power, according to Bourdieu, operates through the misrecognition of arbitrary social distinctions as natural and inevitable.
The Kabyle House:
Bourdieu’s analysis of the Kabyle house exemplified his theory of practice. He showed how the spatial organization of the house, with its symbolic divisions and oppositions, reflected and reinforced the social and gendered divisions of Kabyle society. He demonstrated how the house, through its embodied practices and symbolic meanings, functioned as a generative scheme that reproduced the social order.
Bourdieu’s Legacy:
Bourdieu’s work has significantly impacted anthropological and sociological thinking about culture, power, and social reproduction. His concepts of habitus, doxa, and symbolic power have provided new tools for understanding the dynamics of social life and the role of culture in shaping social inequalities.
Chapter 24: Eric Wolf: Culture, History, Power
Eric Wolf (1923-1999), a prominent American anthropologist, challenged the notion of culture as a bounded and static entity. His work, deeply influenced by Marxist theory, emphasized the importance of understanding the historical connections between societies and the role of power in shaping cultural processes. He advocated for an anthropology that paid attention to the dynamics of social change, the interconnectedness of local communities with larger global systems, and the ways in which power relations shape cultural meanings and practices.
Background and Research:
Wolf’s early research focused on peasant societies in Latin America and Europe. His fieldwork in Puerto Rico, documented in his book Peasants, explored the social and economic dynamics of a rural coffee-growing community. He later expanded his research to include a comparative study of peasant societies around the world, culminating in his influential book Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century, which analyzed the historical and political conditions that led to peasant uprisings.
Peasant Societies:
Wolf’s work on peasant societies challenged prevailing assumptions about peasant communities as isolated and traditional. He argued that peasants were integrated into larger economic, political, and social systems, and their lives were shaped by forces beyond their immediate communities. He emphasized the importance of understanding the historical processes that had produced different types of peasant societies and the power relations that shaped their interactions with dominant groups.
Global Processes, Local Consequences:
Wolf’s work highlighted the interconnectedness of local communities with larger global systems. He argued that events in one part of the world could have profound impacts on societies in other parts of the world, and he demonstrated how the expansion of European capitalism and colonialism had transformed the lives of people around the globe. His book Europe and the People Without History traced the historical connections between Europe and the rest of the world, showing how the development of capitalism and colonialism had created a global system of power and inequality.
Culture and Power:
Wolf’s critique of the culture concept challenged the notion of culture as a bounded and static entity. He argued that cultures are not homogenous or isolated but rather dynamic and interconnected, constantly being shaped and reshaped by historical processes and power relations. He contended that anthropologists should pay attention to the ways in which power operates through culture, shaping meanings, values, and practices.
Modes of Production:
Wolf’s analysis of power drew on Marx’s concept of “modes of production,” which refer to the ways in which societies organize labor and production. He identified three major modes of production: capitalist, tributary, and kin-ordered. Wolf argued that different modes of production created distinct forms of social organization, power relations, and cultural patterns.
Ideology and Dominance:
Wolf’s later work focused on the relationship between ideology and dominance. He argued that ideologies, systems of beliefs and values, often served to legitimize power relations and maintain social inequalities. In his book Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis, he analyzed how dominant groups used ideologies to justify their power and to mobilize support for their agendas.
Wolf’s Legacy:
Wolf’s work has had a profound impact on anthropological thinking about culture, power, and social change. His critique of the culture concept, his emphasis on historical connections and power relations, and his advocacy for a politically engaged anthropology have shaped the development of historical and political anthropology and continue to influence anthropological theory and research.
Chapter 25: Marshall Sahlins: Culture Matters
Marshall Sahlins (b. 1930), a prominent American anthropologist, has made significant contributions to the study of economic anthropology, historical ethnography, and the relationship between culture, history, and agency. His work emphasizes the importance of understanding cultural meanings and practices in their own terms, arguing that culture is not simply a reflection of material conditions but rather a shaping force in human history.
Background and Research:
Sahlins’s early research focused on the Pacific Islands, particularly Fiji and Hawaii. His fieldwork in Fiji, documented in his book Moala: Culture and Nature on a Fijian Island, explored the relationship between culture and environment in a traditional Pacific Island society. His later work on Hawaii, Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities and Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii, examined the cultural and historical transformations of Hawaiian society during the period of European contact and colonization.
Economic Anthropology:
Sahlins’s work in economic anthropology challenged prevailing assumptions about the universality of economic rationality. In his book Stone Age Economics, he argued that traditional societies, rather than being driven by scarcity and the pursuit of material wealth, were often characterized by affluence and a focus on social and ritual obligations. He challenged the notion of a “natural economy,” arguing that economic behavior was always embedded in cultural values and social relations.
Historical Ethnography:
Sahlins’s historical ethnographies of Hawaii and Fiji explored the complex interplay between cultural structures, historical events, and individual agency. He argued that historical events were shaped by cultural meanings and practices, and that cultures, in turn, were transformed by their encounters with history.
Culture and Agency:
Sahlins’s theoretical work emphasizes the importance of culture in shaping human agency. He argued that individuals act in the world according to their own cultural understandings, but that these understandings are not fixed or deterministic. Rather, cultural meanings and practices are constantly being reinterpreted and reshaped in response to changing historical circumstances.
The Death of Captain Cook:
Sahlins’s analysis of the death of Captain Cook in Hawaii exemplifies his approach to historical ethnography. He argued that Cook’s death, while a unique historical event, was shaped by Hawaiian cultural understandings of divinity and kingship. Cook’s arrival in Hawaii coincided with a ritual cycle associated with the god Lono, and his initial reception as a god-like figure was in accord with Hawaiian beliefs. However, when Cook returned to Hawaii after a brief absence, his actions violated Hawaiian cultural norms, leading to his death at the hands of Hawaiian warriors.
The Apotheosis Controversy:
Sahlins’s interpretation of Cook’s death was challenged by anthropologist Gananath Obeyesekere, who argued that Sahlins had imposed Western categories of thought onto Hawaiian culture. Obeyesekere contended that the Hawaiians did not view Cook as a god but rather as a powerful chief, and that Sahlins’s account reflected a colonialist bias that attributed supernatural beliefs to non-Western peoples. The debate between Sahlins and Obeyesekere, known as the “apotheosis controversy,” highlights the challenges of cross-cultural interpretation and the role of anthropological authority in representing the voices and perspectives of others.
Sahlins’s Legacy:
Sahlins’s work has had a profound impact on anthropological thinking about culture, history, and agency. His emphasis on the importance of understanding cultural meanings in their own terms, his challenge to economic rationality, and his explorations of the dynamic interplay between culture and history continue to influence anthropological theory and research.
Postscript: Current Controversies
In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, anthropology has faced a number of intellectual challenges and internal debates. The discipline has become increasingly fragmented, with a proliferation of subfields, theoretical perspectives, and research interests. At the same time, anthropology has become more engaged with global issues, such as globalization, inequality, and social justice.
The Fragmentation of Anthropology:
The “four-fields approach” in American anthropology, which has traditionally encompassed sociocultural anthropology, archaeology, biological anthropology, and linguistics, has become increasingly strained as each subfield has developed its own specialized theories, methods, and research agendas. Some anthropologists have questioned whether the four fields can still be considered a unified discipline, while others have argued for the importance of maintaining a holistic perspective.
The Critique of Culture:
The concept of “culture,” once a central organizing principle in anthropology, has been subject to increasing critique. Some anthropologists have argued that the concept of culture is too static and essentialist, failing to capture the dynamism and fluidity of social life. Others have criticized the use of culture as a tool for justifying social inequalities and power relations.
The Interpretive Turn and its Aftermath:
The “interpretive turn” in anthropology, associated with the work of Clifford Geertz and others, has shifted the focus from objective analysis of social structures to subjective understanding of cultural meanings. However, some anthropologists have questioned the limits of interpretation, arguing that it can lead to relativism and a neglect of material conditions and power relations.
Postmodernism and Anthropology:
Postmodernist perspectives, with their emphasis on the fragmentation of knowledge, the deconstruction of grand narratives, and the importance of multiple perspectives, have had a significant impact on anthropology. However, some anthropologists have criticized postmodernism for its relativism, its skepticism towards scientific knowledge, and its neglect of social and political structures.
The Future of Anthropology:
Despite the challenges and controversies, anthropology remains a vital and relevant discipline in the twenty-first century. The discipline’s focus on understanding human diversity, its commitment to fieldwork and ethnographic methods, and its critical engagement with social and political issues make it well-suited to address the complex challenges of a globalized world. The future of anthropology will likely involve continued fragmentation and specialization, but also a renewed commitment to dialogue and integration across subfields and theoretical perspectives.