THEORIES MINDMAP Flashcards
Critique of E.B. Tylor’s Contribution to Evolutionism in Anthropology
Critique of E.B. Tylor’s Contribution to Evolutionism in Anthropology
Introduction:
Edward Burnett Tylor, a pioneer in the field of anthropology, played a significant role in shaping the evolutionary perspective within the discipline. While his contributions to the evolution of religion are noteworthy, Tylor’s impact extends beyond evolutionary theory, encompassing the definition of culture and statistical methods in anthropology.
Evolutionary Contribution:
Origin of Religion:
Tylor’s “Primitive Culture” (1871) delves into the evolution of religion, proposing the stages of animism, totemism, polytheism, and monotheism.
Criticism: Tylor’s theory of the “savage philosopher” has faced challenges. Critics argue that attributing philosophical depth to primitive man might be an oversimplification, lacking scientific evidence.
Evolution of Plough:
Tylor highlighted the evolution of the plough from a simple digging stick, demonstrating how cultural elements, even tools, undergo developmental processes.
This contribution illustrates Tylor’s interest in the material aspects of cultural evolution.
Non-evolutionary Contributions:
Definition of Culture:
Tylor’s paramount contribution lies in defining culture as “a complex whole of knowledge, art, morals, beliefs, laws, customs, or any other capability acquired by man as a member of society.”
This definition emphasized social transmission over genetic transmission, influencing subsequent anthropological discourse.
Linking Happiness with Civilization:
Tylor adopted Montesquieu’s three-stage classification of society and associated happiness with the advancement of civilization.
Criticism: The subjective nature of happiness and the lack of detailed analysis of the stages raised questions about the validity of this correlation.
Role in Statistical Studies:
Tylor highlighted the importance of statistical studies in anthropology, demonstrating correlations between different institutions across societies.
This paved the way for future anthropologists, such as G.P. Murdock, to employ statistical methods in cross-cultural studies.
Theory on Incest Prohibition:
Tylor proposed one of the first theories explaining why incest is prohibited, laying the groundwork for future elaborations by scholars like Claude Levi-Strauss.
Conclusion:
E.B. Tylor’s contributions to evolutionary anthropology, particularly in the origin of religion and the evolution of cultural elements, have left a lasting impact. His definition of culture and advocacy for statistical studies further enriched the field, despite facing critiques. Tylor’s legacy extends beyond evolutionism, influencing diverse aspects of anthropological inquiry
American School of Diffusionism in Anthropology
American School of Diffusionism in Anthropology
Historical Background: Boas & Wissler
Influence of German School: American diffusionism was influenced by the German school, with Franz Boas acting as a link between the two.
Background of Boas and Wissler:
Boas, a German geographer, was appointed as a curator in the American Museum.
Tasked, along with student Clark Wissler, to advise on the display of American Indian exhibits.
Critique of Morgan’s Classification: Boas and Wissler rejected Lewis Henry Morgan’s three-stage classification (Savagery, Barbarism, Civilization).
Museum Methodology: Influenced by German museum methodology, they classified cultural elements based on geographic proximity.
Concept of Culture Area and Its Premises:
Origin: Concept of ‘Culture Area’ emerged from an exhibition of American Indian tribes.
Definition: Culture Area is a geographic zone where groups living together show cultural similarity when grouped together.
Culture Centre: Each Culture Area has a ‘Culture Centre,’ where the greatest concentration of culture occurs.
Role of Culture Centre: Governs politics, economy, and religion in the entire area; source of cultural traits.
Diffusion of Traits: Traits spread outward from the Culture Centre in a pattern of concentric circles.
Construction Using Food Criteria:
Different American Indian tribes classified based on eco-zones and economic similarities.
Food used as a criterion for constructing Culture Areas.
Wissler’s classification based on six Food Areas.
Economic adaptation influenced cultural equipment.
Age Area Concept and Typology of Diffusion:
Age Area Definition: Concept derived from Culture Area; older elements have wider distributions.
Combination of Time and Space: Complete study of diffusion involves combining Culture Area and Age Area.
Typology of Diffusion:
Natural Diffusion: Slow process without cultural imposition, e.g., Maize diffusion.
Organized Diffusion: Quick transmission through organized agencies with cultural imposition.
Combining Approaches: Understanding changes requires combining natural and organized diffusion.
Views on Psychic Unity and Comparison with German School:
Psychic Unity as Ideology: American diffusionists embraced psychic unity to combat racism.
Comparison with German School:
Addressed the German school’s lacuna by explaining why diffusion occurs.
Diffusion occurs through imitation, proximity, ease of borrowing, and barriers to diffusion.
Wissler’s Law of diffusion: Traits spread outward in concentric circles.
Criticism and Evaluation:
Empirical Nature: Wissler’s approach is empirical, starting with culture areas at a particular time.
Shortcomings:
Criticized as static, lacking historical depth, and too narrow.
Dependency on the criterion of food questioned.
Uncertainty about broader applications of the concept.
Wissler acknowledged these shortcomings but didn’t resolve them.
Concept of Age Area Relevance: Lost relevance due to advanced transport and communication means.
Conclusion and Kroeber’s Contribution:
Novel Ideas: American diffusionism contributed to diffusion theory with novel concepts of Culture Area and Age Area.
Kroeber’s Contribution:
Kroeber used diffusion model to explain the rise and fall of civilization.
Civilization emerges through borrowing, systematization, and transfer of cultural elements.
Civilization becomes routinized, declines, while other cultures remain open and continue to grow.
Examples substantiate the macro-level approach.
In conclusion, American diffusionism provided valuable insights into the understanding of culture areas and diffusion processes, although it faced criticism for its narrow application and empirical nature. Kroeber expanded on these ideas, applying diffusion theory to the rise and fall of civilizations.
Comparison between British and German School of Diffusionism
Comparison between British and German School of Diffusionism
Similarities:
Emergence:
Both British and German schools emerged as a reaction to classical evolutionism, addressing its neglect of considering societal change.
Integration of Evolution and Diffusion:
Both schools emphasized the interrelation of evolution and diffusion, considering them as complementary processes.
Common Premises:
Shared beliefs in:
Unequal inventiveness of the human mind.
Displacement of people for better opportunities leading to cultural contact and diffusion.
Differences:
Nature:
British School (Smith and Perry):
Emphasized extreme diffusionism.
German School (Rivers and others):
Advocated the existence of multiple centers of diffusionism.
Source:
British School:
Advocated a single source of origin.
German School:
Proposed multiple sources of origin for cultural diffusion.
Criteria:
British School:
Emphasized forms and quantity as criteria for diffusion.
German School:
Focused on both material and non-material culture, applying criteria of forms and quantity.
Objectives:
British School:
Aimed to show and trace the unfettered path of diffusion from a center to parts of the world.
German School:
Aimed to demonstrate the occurrence of diffusion.
Attention:
British School:
Focused on material culture.
German School:
Paid attention to both material and non-material aspects of culture.
Typology:
British School:
No typology in diffusion.
German School:
Made a distinction between two types of diffusion: direct/primary and indirect/secondary.
Relationship with Evolution:
British School:
Primarily emphasized evolution and diffusion of culture, with a focus on the evolution of sociocultural change from simple to complex.
German School:
Integrated both evolution and diffusion, discussing the interplay between the two in the development of societies.
In conclusion, while both schools of diffusionism emerged in response to the limitations of classical evolutionism, they differed in their nature, sources, criteria, objectives, attention, typology, and the relationship with the evolution of sociocultural change. The British school tended to be more extreme in diffusionism, focusing on material culture, while the German school considered a broader spectrum of cultural aspects
Differentiation between Cultural Evolution and Cultural Diffusion
Differentiation between Cultural Evolution and Cultural Diffusion
Cultural Evolution:
Definition: It is a process of social and cultural change in a definite direction from simple to complex, leading to homogeneity to heterogeneity.
Nature: Cultural Evolution is more complicated, involving complex changes in social and cultural structures.
Process: It occurs through the alteration, invention, or diffusion of cultural elements.
Evolution Impact: Evolution may or may not aid diffusion; it is not inherently linked to diffusion.
Nature of Change: The nature of evolution is to change existing simpler items and complexes in a society to a more complex order.
Cultural Diffusion:
Definition: It is a process where cultural elements, complexes, and aspects pass from one group to another.
Nature: Cultural Diffusion is simpler in nature compared to Cultural Evolution.
Process: It occurs only by the borrowing of cultural elements from one group to another.
Evolution Impact: Diffusion definitely aids evolution by introducing new cultural elements to a society.
Nature of Change: Diffusion adds more new items to a culture or society, enriching it with external elements.
Comparison between Brown and Malinowski for Their Contribution towards Functionalism
Similarities:
Common Historical Background: Both Radcliffe Brown and Malinowski belonged to the school of functionalism, emerging as a reaction to evolutionism and diffusionism.
Influence from Sociology: Both were influenced by functionalism in contemporary sociology.
Common Premises: Shared premises of functionalism, viewing society as a system with various interrelated and integrated parts, emphasizing that change in one part affects other parts.
Differences:
Background:
Radcliffe Brown: Earlier an evolutionist, he later turned to diffusionism and ultimately became a functionalist.
Malinowski: Originally a psychologist, he turned into an anthropologist after reading James Frazer’s book.
Focus of Studies:
Radcliffe Brown: Studied the Andamanese.
Malinowski: Studied Australian aborigines and was influenced by the sociologist Durkheim, as well as by the book “Golden Bough.”
Premises:
Radcliffe Brown: Focused on social needs and the necessary conditions of existence.
Malinowski: Emphasized individual needs and a hierarchy of needs, giving importance to culture.
Methodology:
Radcliffe Brown: Employed a methodology based on social structure and function.
Malinowski: Focused on biological and integrative needs.
Both made significant contributions to the functionalist perspective, but their specific approaches and emphases varied.
Contribution of Claude Levi-Strauss to Structuralism in Anthropology
Contribution of Claude Levi-Strauss to Structuralism in Anthropology
Historical Background:
Herbert Spencer: Coined the term “social structure” and used organic and inorganic analogies.
Emile Durkheim: Applied organism analogy, regarded society as an organism, and introduced the term “social morphology.”
A.R.R. Brown: Modified Durkheim’s ideas, emphasizing the interrelatedness of social parts.
Background of Claude Levi-Strauss:
Founding Figure: Claude Levi-Strauss founded structuralism in anthropology.
Definition: Structuralism is a method for studying human society, not a theory or ideology.
Relation to Earlier Schools: Acknowledged the roles of evolutionism, diffusionism, and functionalism in anthropology but identified weaknesses in some.
Premises of Structuralism:
Basic Structure: Every society has a basic structure, and variations arise from permutations and combinations of elements.
Mind as Basic Structure: The basic structure of society is the human mind.
Aim of Structuralism: To unravel and uncover various layers of the human mind.
Methodology:
Language as a Model: Levi-Strauss emphasized the importance of language as a model for society.
Language comprises words (phonemes) and rules (grammar).
Applied the linguistic model to society by finding the unit of society and the rules governing social units.
Kinship Terminology: Applied the model to kinship terminology using linguistic terms.
Four Basic Operations in Structural Linguistics and Social Linguistics:
Shift of attention from conscious to subconscious.
Consideration of linguistic terms as relations between entities.
Discovery of general laws applicable to society.
Study of language or society as a system.
Evaluation:
British Anthropologists’ Response: Impressed by Levi-Strauss; preferred structural method but differed on universal propositions. Used structuralism mainly for understanding specific societies.
Criticism on Social Change: Levi-Strauss criticized for not addressing social change; led to a decline in the influence of structuralism.
Emergence of Other Approaches: Applied and action anthropology gained prominence, focusing on particular societies and social change.
Continued Relevance: Despite criticism, structuralism remains useful for understanding the structural aspect of society, contributing to socio-economic purposes.
Conclusion:
In spite of criticism, structuralism contributes to the growth of anthropology by highlighting the structural aspects of society, offering valuable insights for various purposes.
Ruth Benedict’s Contribution to Culture-Personality School
Ruth Benedict’s Contribution to Culture-Personality School
Introduction:
Ruth Benedict, a student of Franz Boas, introduced the concept of “culture pattern” in anthropology.
Historical Background:
Not interested in generalizing human society but focused on understanding the way culture is patterned.
Developed the idea of “Culture Pattern” in her book “Pattern of Culture.”
Concept of Culture Pattern:
Culture consists of cultural traits grouped into complexes.
These complexes, when integrated, form a culture pattern.
Examples: Marriage complex, Joint Family complex, Religious complex, etc.
Methodology of Study:
Conducted fieldwork and comparative studies on American tribes.
Identified and compared three main types of patterns: Apollonian, Dionysian, Paranoid.
Later, merged Paranoid with Dionysian and focused on Apollonian and Dionysian patterns.
Criticism:
Criticized for implying a singular design or pattern for every culture, which might not be accurate.
Morris Oppler argued for acknowledging the plurality of themes in a culture.
Conclusion:
Despite criticism, Benedict’s work laid the foundation for understanding different personalities influenced by culture.
National Character Study
National Character Study
Introduction:
Definition: National character studies are culture and personality studies applied on a large scale to understand the cultural patterns or “national character” of nation-states.
Emerged during World War II for understanding enemy cultures, guiding policies, and planning for post-war scenarios.
Purpose:
Guide government and military policy.
Foster cooperation among wartime allies.
Plan for a post-war world.
Theoretical Origin:
Configurationalist approach of Sapir and Benedict.
Basic personality structure by Linton and Kardiner.
Modal personality approach by Cora DuBois.
Techniques:
“Study of culture at a distance” due to inaccessibility to direct research in enemy or occupied countries.
Interviews with nationals residing outside their countries.
Analysis of literary, visual, and mass communication materials.
Major Works:
Studies on Japanese, French, Spanish, Czechoslovakian, and Polish cultures.
Notable scholars: Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, Geoffrey Gorer.
Margaret Mead’s Approaches:
Analysis of relationships between basic childhood learning and adult characteristics.
Societal studies of interpersonal relationship patterns.
Simple comparative descriptions of cultural configurations.
Basic Personality Traits:
Examined traits necessary for a working minority to maintain society.
Fromm’s view: In an industrial society, traits like discipline, orderliness, and punctuality are necessary.
Contribution:
Showed socialization extends beyond infancy.
Contributed to the understanding of the rise of nations and international relations.
Analysis:
Criticized for homogeneity and over-generalization.
Geoffrey Gorer’s “swaddling hypothesis” faced backlash, leading to skepticism about the entire field.
Despite criticisms, some scholars acknowledge contributions to understanding international relations.
Contribution of Kardiner to Culture-Personality School
Basic Personality Type:
Contribution of Kardiner to Culture-Personality School
Basic Personality Type:
In “Psychological Frontier of Society,” emphasized a common personality shared due to similar socialization.
Common personality arises from uniform child-rearing practices within a culture.
Coined the term “Basic Personality Type.”
Primary and Secondary Institutions:
Studied primary institutions (family, kinship) shaping personality.
Secondary institutions (religion, political system) manifest basic personality types.
Evaluation:
Introduced the concept of basic personality types shaped by primary institutions.
Emphasized the importance of studying both primary and secondary institutions for understanding collective personality.
Contributed to the understanding of the impact of culture on national character.
Contribution of Ralph Linton to Culture-Personality School
Contribution of Ralph Linton to Culture-Personality School
Cultural Background of Personality:
Introduced the concept of cultural background of personality.
Culture divided into overt (material and kinaesthetical) and covert (psychological) aspects.
Core of culture, consisting of central values, forms the psychological element or covert culture.
Human personality built around the core of culture.
Core Periphery Hypothesis:
Culture’s core is essential for maintaining cultural integrity.
Linton distinguished between the core (psychological elements) and periphery (superstructure).
Change at the periphery is more acceptable than change at the core.
Psychological dynamics influence cultural change.
Evaluation:
Theoretical contribution focusing on psycho-dynamism in culture and personality.
Core Periphery Hypothesis introduced the idea of cultural change and its acceptance.
Contribution of Leslie White to Neo-evolutionism
Contribution of Leslie White to Neo-evolutionism
Historical Background:
Background: Raised under the Boasian approach, dissatisfied with Boas’ emphasis on data without theory.
Influence: Exposed to the writings of Tylor and Morgan, identified the lack of a universal standard for measuring evolution.
Premises of Leslie White:
Evolution Concept: Believed in the occurrence of evolution in both biological and sociocultural domains.
Universal Standard: Developed a universal standard of measurement based on energy and technology.
Energy and Culture: Argued that culture evolves when a higher form of energy is used.
Technology’s Role: Emphasized that technology is crucial in harnessing energy and shaping culture.
Methodology:
Energy and Technology Equation: Culture = Energy x Technology.
Laws of Evolution: Introduced two laws, later merged into the Law of Cultural Development.
1st Law: Cultural development varies with the amount of energy harnessed.
2nd Law: Cultural development depends on the efficiency of technological means.
Unified Law: Combined both laws into the Law of Cultural Development.
Critical Evaluation:
Strengths: Incremental growth in energy and technology over time demonstrated cultural development.
Criticism: Neglected the evolution of particular societies and treated environmental factors as constant.
Response: Julian Steward introduced cultural ecology, highlighting the impact of the environment on cultural change.
Conclusion:
Despite criticisms, White’s emphasis on energy and technology provides insights into the evolution of society and culture, known as the technological theory of evolution.
Contribution of Margaret Mead to Anthropology
Contribution of Margaret Mead to Anthropology
Introduction:
Margaret Mead, a student of Franz Boas, played a significant role in the field of anthropology.
Proponent of the Culture-Personality school.
Supported Ruth Benedict’s work through her book “Coming of Age in Samoa.”
Key Works:
“Coming of Age in Samoa”:
Findings:
Adolescence marked by strong stress in American society.
Samoa showed adolescents did not undergo crisis; bodily changes seen as normal.
Cultural impact on the perception of adolescence crises.
Conclusion:
Culture molds personality.
“Sex and Temperament”:
Comparison of 3 Societies:
Arapesh, Mundugumor, Tshamhole.
Each society had a different central value influencing personality.
Conclusion:
Human nature is a product of culture.
Evaluation:
Ethnographic nature of work, focusing on cultural practices’ impact on personality.
Demonstrated cultural relativity in the perception of adolescence and personality traits.
Emphasized the role of culture in shaping human behavior.
Cora-du Bois’ Contribution to Culture-Personality School
Cora-du Bois’ Contribution to Culture-Personality School
Historical Background:
During World War II: Fieldwork became challenging, leading to the development of the “study of culture at a distance” or projective technique.
American Anthropologists’ Involvement: Ruth Benedict, Cora-du Bois, among others, utilized this technique.
Cora-du Bois in Alor, Indonesia: Conducted a study on the psychological profile of the Alor people, focusing on the culture and personality.
Modal Personality Approach:
Initiation: Developed by Cora-du Bois.
Assumption: Certain personality structures frequently occur in a society, termed modal personality.
Data Collection: Cora-du Bois collected data on Alor’s emotions like shallowness, insecurity, apathy, without revealing the source.
Blind Analysis: Different scholars analyzed the data blindly and arrived at the same conclusions regarding Alorese emotions.
Methodology: Utilized projective tests and life histories, combining statistical support for personality types.
Application: Applied by various anthropologists in different contexts, e.g., Oscar Lewis in the study of prisoners of war in Mexico, and in studying the psychology of martial races like Rajputs/Kshatriyas in the Indian context.
Distinguishing Evolutionary Approaches in Anthropology
Distinguishing Evolutionary Approaches in Anthropology
1. Unilinear Evolution:
Advocates: Morgan, Tylor, Frazer.
Direction: Evolution from simple to complex.
Sequence: Psychic unity of mankind results in the same sequence worldwide.
Focus: Particular culture evolution.
Progress: Always seen as progressive.
Diversity: Disregards cultural variation.
2. Universal Evolution:
Advocates: Leslie White, Gordon Childe.
Direction: Evolution of mankind’s culture as a whole.
Sequence: Successive stages.
Progress: Not necessarily always progressive.
Exclusions: Distinctive cultural and local variations excluded.
3. Multilinear Evolution:
Belief: Multiple lines of evolution.
Characteristics: Each line has unique features due to environmental impact.
Environment: Not treated as a passive entity.
Sequence: Parallel lines, no universal stages.
Focus: Particular culture evolution.
Progress: Not always seen as progressive.
Acceptance: Acknowledges and accepts cultural variation and diversity.
Contribution of Julian Steward to Neo-evolutionism
Contribution of Julian Steward to Neo-evolutionism
Introduction:
Critic of Leslie White, focused on particular evolution.
Environment’s vital role due to human adaptation.
Evolution Types:
Unilinear Evolution: Followed classical evolutionists.
Universal Evolution: Culture of mankind as a whole.
Multilinear Evolution: Acknowledged multiple evolving lines.
Prominent Work:
“Origin of Agriculture”: Described sequences motivated by ecological factors.
“Shoshonian Indian”: Developed culture-environment relationship concept.
Cultural Ecology:
Stressed cultural ecology for particular evolution.
Environment as a dynamic, crucial factor.
Social organization is a reaction to the environment.
Methodology:
Economic system’s core relation with the environment.
Economic system as the core, other institutions as superstructure.
Multilinear evolution due to varied environments.
Criticism:
Criticized by students for economic system centrality.
Roy Rappaport’s study showed direct environment-religion relationship.
Steward emphasized looking at aspects directly linked with the environment.
Conclusion:
Steward’s cultural ecology and multilinear evolution provide a holistic approach to anthropology.
Contribution of Sahalin and Service to Neo-evolutionism
Contribution of Sahalin and Service to Neo-evolutionism
Key Concepts:
Introduction
Sahalin and Service, students of Steward and White.
Developed concepts of General and Specific evolution to complement White & Steward.
Premises
Evolution in cultural sphere moves in two directions: Specific Evolution and General Evolution.
Specific Evolution: Diversity through adaptive modification.
General Evolution: Progress leading to higher forms.
Methodology
Phylogenetic classification for Specific Evolution.
General Evolution focuses on the character of progress without reference to evolutionary history.
Both aspects are part of the same total process.
Evolution and diffusion are considered for explaining social change.
Diagram
Visual representation of how Specific Evolution and General Evolution merge into a larger pattern.
Both are aspects of the same total process.
Comparison with Classical Evolutionism
Shares common premises: gradual change, tracing origins, and sequences.
Differs in nature, period, scholars, evidence, data, diffusion, types of evolution, cultural diversity, psychic unity, ethnocentrism, parallelism, and criticism.
Differences with Classical Evolutionism
Nature of evolution: Rejuvenation in Neo-evolutionism.
Study perspective: Diachronic in Neo-evolutionism.
Scholars: Sahalin and Service added to the list.
Evidence: Study with evidences in Neo-evolutionism.
Data: First-hand data in Neo-evolutionism.
Imagination: Absent in Neo-evolutionism.
Diffusion: Considered in Neo-evolutionism.
Types of evolution: General and Specific in Neo-evolutionism.
Cultural diversity: Present in Neo-evolutionism.
Psychic unity: Rejected in Neo-evolutionism.
Ethnocentrism: Present in both, but Neo-evolutionism did not claim the highest stage.
