Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Culture A Critical R Eview of Concepts and Definitions
Culture A Critical R Eview of Concepts and Definitions
CULTURE
A CRITICAL R EV IEW OF CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS
BY
A. L. KROEBER
AND
C LY D E KLUCICHOHN
AND
APPENDICES BY
A L F R E D G. M E Y E R
1 Chase, 1948, 59. 4In a secondary source we have seen the following
•Malinowski has referred to culture as “ the most definition of culture attributed to Spencer: “Culture
central problem of all social science” (1939, 588). b the sum total of human achievement.” No citation
Curiously enough, this claim has also been made by a of book or page b made, and we have been unable to
number of sociologists — in fact, by more sociologists locate this definition in Spencer’s writings. Usually,
than anthropologists, so far as our evidence goes. certainly, he treats culture in roughly the sense em
•C f. Honigsheim, 1945. ployed by Matthew Arnold and other English human-
don daces of E. B. T ylor’s Primitive Culture dentally the richness of such a concept. Concern
and of Walter Bagehot’s Physics and Politics was rife over the birth of culture, its growth and
are 1871 and 1872. Bagehot’s “ cake of custom” wanderings and contacts, its matings and fertiliza
tions, its maturity and decay. In direct proportion
is, in essence, very similar to Tylor’s “ culture.”
to their impatience with the classical tradition an
The latter slowly became established as the thropologists became the anatomists and biographers
technical term because of the historical asso of culture.
ciations of the word and because Tylor de
fined its generic implications both more sharply To follow the history’ of a concept, its dif
and more abstractly. fusion between countries and academic disci
Even in this century after “ culture” was plines, its modifications under the impact of
fairly well established in intellectual circles as broader intellectual movements, is a charac
a technical term, certain well-known thinkers teristically anthropological undertaking. Our
have not used the word though employing purpose is several-fold. First, we wish to make
highly similar concepts. Graham Wallas, while available in one place for purposes of refer
familiar with anthropological literature, avoids ence a collection of definitions by anthropolo
the term “ culture” (he occasionally uses “ civi gists, sociologists, psychologists, philosophers,
lization” — without definition) in his books, and others. The collection is not exhaustive,
The Great Society (1914) and Our Social but it perhaps approaches exhaustiveness for
Heritage (1921). However, his concept of English and American social scientists of the
“social heritage” is equivalent to certain defi past generation. We present, thus, some
nitions of culture: sources for a case study in one aspect of re
Our social heritage consists of that part of our cent intellectual history’. Second, we are docu
“ nurture” which we acquire by the social process of menting the gradual emergence and refinement
teaching and learning. (1921, 7) of a concept we believe to be of great actual
and still greater potential significance. Third,
The anthropologist, M. F. Ashlev-iMontagu, we hope to assist other investigators in reach
has recently assexted that Alfrtd Korzybski’s ing agreement and greater precision in defi
concept of time-binding (in Manhood of Hu nition bv’ pointing out and commenting upon
manity, 1921) “ is virtu-dly identical with the agreements and disagreements in the definitions
anthropologist’s concept of culture.” (1951, thus far propounded. Considering that the
25I> concept has had a name for less than eighty
The editorial staff of the Encyclopedia of years and that until very recently only a hand
the Social Sciences (vol. I, p. 202) in their ful of scholars were interested in the idea, it
article on “ War and Reorientation” correctly is not surprising that full agreement and preci
describes the position reached by the anthro sion has not yet been attained. Possibly it is
pological profession at about 1930: inevitable and even desirable that representa
The principal positive theoretical position of the tives of different disciplines should emphasize
early decades of the 20th century was the glorification different criteria and utilize varying shades of
of culture. The word loomed more important than meaning. But one thing is clear to us from
any other in the literature and in the consciousness our survey: it is time for a stock-taking, for a
of anthropologists. Culture traits, culture complexes, comparing of notes, for conscious awareness
culture types, culture centers, culture areas, culture
of the range of variation. Otherwise the no
circles, culture patterns, culture migrations, cultural
convergences, cultural diffusion — these segments
tion that is conveyed to the wider company of
and variants point to an attempt to grapple rigorously educated men will be so loose, so diffuse as to
with an elusive and fluid concept and suggest inci promote confusion rather than clarity.5 More
ists. For example, "taken in its widest sense culture over the proper pathway of inquiry and knowledge.”
means preparation for complete living” (1895, 514). * One sometimes feels that A. Lawrence Lowell’s
Cf. George Eliot’s Silas Marner, Chapter I: “ . . . Silas remarks about the humanistic concept of culture is
was both sane and honest, though, as with many almost equally applicable to the anthropological:
honest fervent men, culture had not defined any chan ” . . . I have been entrusted with the difficult task of
nels for his sense of mystery, and it [ric] spread itself speaking about culture. But there is nothing in the
over, as Opler has pointed out, the sense given too tinged with valuations. The German so
the concept is a matter of considerable prac ciologist, Leopold von Wiese, says “ . . . the
tical importance now that culture theory un word should be avoided entirely in descriptive
derlies much psychiatric therapy as well as the sociology' . . (1939, pp. 593-94). Lundberg
handling of minority problems, dependent characterizes the concept as “ vague” (1939,
peoples, and even some approaches in the p. 179). In the glossary of technical terms in
fiela of international relations: • Chappie and Coon’s Principles of Anthropol
ogy the word “ culture” is conspicuous by its
The discovery and popularization of the concept
deliberate absence.® Radcliffe-Brown and cer
of culture has led to a many-sided analysis of it and
to the elaboration of a number of diverse theories.
tain British social anthropologists influenced
Since aberrants and the psychologically disturbed are by him tend to avoid the word.
often at loggerheads with their cultures, the attitude We begin in Part I with a semantic history
toward them and toward their treatment is bound to of the word “ culture” and some remarks on
be influenced by the view of culture which is the related concept “ civilization.” In Part II
accepted . . . it is obvious that the reactions which we then list definitions, grouped according to
stem from different conceptions of culture may principal conceptual emphasis, though this
range all the way from condemnation of the unhappy arrangement tends to have a rough chrono
individual and confidence in the righteousness of the
logical order as well. Comments follow each
cultural dictate, to sharp criticism of the demanding
society and great compassion for the person who has
category of definitions, and Part II concludes
not been able to come to terms with it. (1947, 14) with various analytical indices. Part III con
tains statements about culture longer or more
Indeed a few sociologists and even anthro discursive than definitions. These arc classi
pologists have already, either implicitly or ex- fied, and each class is followed by comment by
plictly, rejected the concept of culture as so ourselves. Part IV consists of our general con
broad as to be useless in scientific discourse or clusions.
•Arciniegas, 1947, p. 146. “ Le mot ‘Kultur’ — qui, •N o t to be confused, of course, with his one-vol
en allemand, correspond en principe a ‘civilisa ume Elemente der Volkerpsychologie, 1912, which on
tion’ . . The 1774 and 1793 dictionaries are pre account of its briefer compass and translation into
sumably Adelung’s. He spells Cultur, not Kultur. English is often mis-cited for the larger work. This
His definition is given below. latter is described in its subtitle as: An Inquiry into
•Grimm, i860, contains curios as well as Creatur. Laws of Development; the shorter work as: Outline
In the lengthy introduction by J. Grimm there is of a Psychological History of the Development of
nothing said about deliberate omission of words of Mankind. The one-volume work is actually an evolu-
foreign origin (as indeed all with initial “ C ” are tionistic quasi-history in the frame of four stages —
foreign). There is some condemnation of former the ages of primitiveness, toremism, heroes and gods,
unnecessary borrowings, but equal condemnation of and development to humanity.
attempts at indiscriminate throwing out of the lan •Actually, Cicero (Tusculan Disputations, 2, 5, 13)
guage of well-established and useful w'ords of foreign wrote “cultura animi philosophia est.” Cultus meant
origin. “care directed to the refinement of life” and was also
TAn evaluation of Klemm’s work is given by R. H. used for “style of dress,” “external appearance and
Lowie, 1937, pp. 11-16. the like.”
materieUe Kultur. Wundt also discusses the ing to their intellectual performance — which
eighteenth-century nature-culture polarity last seems a bit crudely stated for 1920; how
(l’homme naturel, Naturmensch); and he finds ever, it is clear that in actually dealing with
that the historian and the culture historian cultural phenomena in his ten volumes, Wundt
differ in evaluating men’s deeds respectively conceived of culture in the modern way.10
according to their power or might ana accord
2. C IV ILIZ A T IO N
Gvilization is an older word than culture If Kant stuck by this distinction, his culti
in both French and English, and for that vated refers to intrinsic improvement of the
matter in German. Thus, Wundt11 has Latin person, his civilized to improvements of social
civis, citizen, giving rise to civitas, city-state, interrelations (interpersonal relations). He is
and civilitas, citizenship; whence Mediaeval perhaps here remaining close to the original
civitabilis [in the sense of entitled to citizen sense of French civiliscr with its emphasis on
ship, urbanizable], and Romance language pleasant manners (cf. poli, politesse) and the
words based on civilisatio-12 According to English core of meaning which made Samuel
Wundt, Jean Bodin, 1530-96, first used civiliza Johnson prefer “ civility” to civilization.
tion in its modem sense. In English, civiliza The French verb civiliser was in use by
tion was associated with the notion of the 1694, according to Havelock Ellis,15 with the
task of civilizing others. In eighteenth-century sense of polishing manners, rendering sociable,
German,13 the word civilization still empha or becoming urbane as a result of city life.
sized relation to the state, somewhat as in the According to Arciniegas, the Encyclopedic
English verb to civilize, viz., to spread political Fran^aise says: “ Civiliser une nation, c’cst la
[sic] 14 development to other peoples. So far faire passer de l’etat primitif, naturel, a un ctat
Wundt. plus evolue de culture 18 morale, intellcctuelle,
Grimm’s Wdrtcrbiich gives: civilisieren: socinle . . . [car] le mot civiliser s’opposc £
erudire, ad humanitatem informare, and cites barbaric.” 17 As to the noun civilisation,
Kant (4:304): “W ir sind .. . durch Kunst unu Arciniegas says that the dictionary of the
Wissenschaft cultiviert, wir sind civilisiert . . . French Academy first admitted it in the 1H35
zu allcrlei gescllschaftlichcr Artigkeit und edition. C. Funck-Brcntano makes the date
Anstandigkeit . . . ” (We become cultivated 1838 for French “ dictionaries,” but adds that
through art and science, we become civilized there is one pre-nineteenth-ccntury use known,
[by attaining] to a variety of social graces and Turgot’s: ‘ Au commencement de la civilisa
refinements [or decencies]). tion.” 18
“ In the remainder of the section on The Con “ However, we find that the 1733 Universal-Lexi
cept of Culture, Wundt discusses nationality, human con oiler Wissenschaften und Kiinste, Halle und
ity, and civilization. Here he makes one distinction Leipzig, has no articles on either civilization or cul
which is sometimes implicit as a nuance in the English ture.
as well as the German usage of the words. Culture, “ Governmental control as a means to Christianity,
Wundt says, tends to isolate or segregate itself on morality, trade?
national lines, civilization to spread its content to “ Ellis, 1923, p. 288.
other nations; hence cultures which have developed “ In the sense of cultivation, cultivating.
out of civilizations, which derive from them, remain “ Arciniegas, 1947, pp. 145-46. He docs not state
dependent on other cultures. Wundt means that, for under what head this quotation is to be found, and
instance, Polish culture which in the main is derivative we have not found it — see next paragraph.
from European civilization, thereby is also more “ Funck-Brentano, 1947, p. 64. Both Arciniegas and
specifically derivative from (“ dependent on” ) the Funck-Brentano arc in error as to the date — it was
French, Italian, and German cultures. the 1798 edition; Turgot did not use the word; and
“ Wundt, 1910-20, vol. 10, ch. 1, 8 1. there was not only one instance but many of pre-
“ T o which Huizinga, 1945, p. 20, adds that the nineteenth century French usage of civilisation.
French verb civiliscr preceded the noun civilisation The history of the French word has been most
— that is, a word for the act of becoming civilized exhaustively reviewed by Lucicn Febvre in his essay
preceded one for the condition of being civilized. “Civilisation: Evolution d’un Mot et d’un Groupe
We find in the Encyclopedic 19 only a juristic biguous in implication, but Lubbock’s (Ave
meaning for Civiliser, namely to change a bury’s) The Origin of Civilization, 1870,
criminal legal action into a civil one. The fol which dealt w*ith savages and not with refine
lowing article is on c i v i l i t e , p o l i t e s s e , a f f a - ment, means approximately w*hat a modem
b ilite . Incidentally, culture appears as a anthropologist would mean by the phrase.22
heading only in c u l t u r e d e s t e r r e s , 2 0 pages Neither of these titles is referred to by the
long. In the French of the nineteenth century*, Oxford Dictionary, though phrases from both
civilisation is ordinarily used where German Buckle and Lubbock are cited — with context
would use Kultur. One can point to a few of Egypt and ants! It must be remembered
examples of the use of culture like Lavisse’s: that Tylor’s Researches into the Early History
“ leur culture etait toute livresque et scolaire;” 20 and Development of Mankind w*as five years
but it is evident that the meaning here is educa old when Lubbock published. The Oxford
tion, German Bildung, not culture in the an Dictionary’s own effort — in 19 33!— comes
thropological sense. to no more than this: “ A developed or ad
Tne English language lagged a bit behind vanced state of hum in society*; a particular
French. In 1773, Samuel Johnson still ex stage or type of this.”
cluded civilization from his dictionary. Bos Huizinga 23 gives a learned and illuminating
well had urged its inclusion, but Johnson discussion of the Dutch term, beschaving,
preferred civility. Boswell21 notes for Mon literally shaving or polishing, and of its rela
day, March 23, 1772: tions to civilization and culture. Beschaving
came up in the late eighteenth century with
I found him busy, preparing a fourth edition of
his folio Dictionary. He would not admit “ civiliza
the sense of cultivation, came to denote also
tion,” but only “civility.” W 'th great deference to the condition of being cultivated, blocked the
him, I thought “ civilization” from “ to civilize,” better spread of civilisatie by acquiring the sense of
in the sense opposed to “barbarity,” than “ civility.” culture, but in the tyyentieth century was in
creasingly displaced by culiuur.
This seems indicative of where the center of Huizinga also points out that Dante, in an
gravity of meaning of the word then lay. early work, “ II Convivio,” introduced into
John Ash, in his 1775 dictionary*, defines Italian civiltd from the Latin civil'tas, adding
civilization as “ the state of being . viiized, the a new connotation to the Latin original which
act of civilizing.” Buckle’s use of the noun made it, in Huizinga’s opinion, a “specific and
in the title of his History of Civilization in clear” term for the concept of culture.
England, 1857, might still be somewhat am
d’ldees,” forming pages 1-55 of the volume Civilisa borrowed from the French.
tion: Le Mot et Fldee, 1930, which constitutes the “ W e had available the 1780-81 edition published
Deuxiime Fascicule of the Premiere Semaine of in Lausanne and Beme. Ch'iliser is in vol. 8. Accord
Centre International de Synthcse, and which presents ing to Berr’s discussion on Febvre, 1930 (as just cited in
the best-documented discus- ion we have seen. W e full in our note 18), p. 59, the participle from this verb
summarize this in an Addendum to the present Part is used already by Descartes (Discourse on Method,
I. On pages 3-7 Febvre concludes that Turgot himself - Part II).
did not use the word, that it was introduced into the “ Lavisse, 1900-n, vol. VII, I, p. 30, cited by
published text by Turgot’s pupil, Dupont de Nemours. Huizinga, 1945, p. 24. The reference is to the seven
The first publication of tne word civilisation in teenth-century “ noblesse de robe.”
French, according to Febvre, was in Amsterdam in “ Quoted in Huizinga, 1945, p. 21; also in New
1766 in a volume entitled VAntiquite Devoilee par ses English (Oxford) Dictionary, vol. 2, 1893, “Civiliza
Usages. Febvre also establishes by a number of cita tion,” under “ 1772 — Boswell, Johnson, X X V .”
tions that by 1798 the w’ord was fairly well established ” For instance, Goldenw’eiser, Early Civilization,
in French scholarly literature. Finally (pp. 8-9), he 1922.
makes a case for the view that the English word was “ Huizinga, 1945, pp. 18-33. Dante’s Civilta, p. 22.
3. R E LA T IO N OF C IV ILIZA TIO N A N D C U LT U R E
The usage of “ culture” and “ civilization” writers repeatedly use the locutions “ culture,
in various languages has been confusing.24 or civilization,” “ civilization, or culture.”
Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines both Sumner and Keller follow this practice, but in
“ culture” and “ civilization” in terms of the at least one place make it plain that there is
other. “ Culture” is said to be a particular state still a shade of difference in their conception:
or stage of advancement in civilization. The adjustments of society which we call civiliza
“ Civilization” is called an advancement or a tion form a much more complex aggregation than
state of social culture. In both popular and does the culture that went before . . . (1927, 2189)
literary English the tendency has been to treat
them as near synonyms,25 though “ civiliza Occasional writers incline to regard civiliza
tion” has sometimes been restricted to “ ad tion as the culture of societies characterized by
vanced” or “ high” cultures. On the whole, cities — that is, they attempt or imply an
this tendency is also reflected in the literature operational definition based upon etymology.
of social science. Goldenweiser’s 1922 intro Sometimes there is a tendency to use the term
duction to anthropology is called Early Civil civilization chiefly for literate cultures:
ization and all index references to “ culture” Chinese civilization but Eskimo culture — yet
are subsumed under “ civilization.” Some without rigor or insistence of demarcation.
mBau und Leben des sozialcn Korpers. mastery respectively over nature and over himself.
"Bcmheim’s Lehrbuch (6th edition, 1914, p. 60) “ Later editions in 1912, 1910 — Barth’s summary
also has culture and civilization refer to man's in 1922, pp. 441-44.
implicit in this from the beginning. His frame Oppenheimer in 1922,3® reverting to
of distinction is social in terms, but the loading Schaeffle’s “ Gesittung,” makes civilization to
of the frame is largely cultural (in the anthro be the material, culture the spiritual content
pological sense of the word). (geistige Gehalt) of “ Gesittung.” T o art and
Alfred Weber’s address “ Der Soziologische religion, as expressions of culture, Oppen
Kulturbegriff,” first read at the second Ger heimer adds science.40
man “ Soziologentag” in 1912,35 views the pro Meanwhile, the Alfred Weber distinction,
cess of civilization as a developmental continua with civilization viewed as the technological,
tion of biological processes in that it meets subsistential, and material facies, and culture as
necessities and serves the utilitarian objective the spiritual, emotional, and idealistic one,
of man’s control over nature. It is intellectual maintained itself in Germany. See Menghin,
and rational; it can be delayed, but not per 1931. and Tcssmann in 1930, as cited and
manently prevented from unfolding. By con discussed in Part III, b. Thurnwald, who
trast, culture is superstructural, produced from always believed in progress in the sense of
feeling; it works toward no immanent end; accumulation on ph\sically predetermined
its products are unique, plural, non-additive. stages, determined the locus of this as being
Eight years later Weber reworked this thesis situate in technology and allied activities, and
in Prinzipielles zur Kultursoziologie 36 in lan set this off as civilization. In his most recent
guage that is equally difficult, but in a form work (1950) the contrast between this
that is clearer than his first attempt, perhaps sphere of “ civilization” and the contrasting one
both because of more thorough thinking of residual “ culture” is the main theme, as the
through and because of a less cramping limita subtitle of the booklet shows: man’s “ ascent
tion of space. In this philosophical essay between reason and illusion.” See especially
Weber distinguishes three components: social our tabulation at the end of Part III, b.il
process, civilizational process, and cultural Nevertheless, it is evident that the con
movement (or flow: Bewegung). It is this trasting of culture and civilization, \» ithin the
work to which Maclver and Merton refer in scope of a larger entity, was mainly an episode
the passages already cited.37 It should be in German thought. Basically it reflects, as
added that Weber’s 1920 essay contains evident we have said, the old spirit-nature or spirit-
reactions — generally negative — to Spengler’s matter dualism carried over into the field of
Uttergang that had appeared two years before. the growing recognition of culture. That it
Spengler in 1918 3S made civilization merely was essentially an incident is shown by the
a stage of culture — the final phase of sterile fact that the number of writers who made
crystallization and repetition of what earlier culture the material or technological aspect
was creative. Spenglcr’s basic view of culture is about as great as the number of those who
is d:scussed below (in § 10). called that same aspect civilization. More
“ Published, he says in “Verhandlungen 1 Serie
II.” It is reprinted in his Ideen zur Staats- und “ Thurnwald, 1950, p. 38: “The sequence of
Ktdtursoziologie, 1927, pp. 31-47. civilizational horizons represents progress.” Page
'Weber, 1910, vol. 47, pp. 1-49. Primarily histori 107: “ Civilization is to be construed as the equip
cal in treatment is Weber’s book Kulturgeschichte als ment of dexterities and skills through which the
Kultursoziologie, 1935. accumulation of technology and knowledge takes
** A comment by Kroeber is being published under place. Culture operates with civilization as a means.”
the tide Reality Culture and Value Culture, No. 18 Legend facing plate 11: “ Civilization is to be under
of The Nature of Culture, University of Chicago stood as the variation, elaboration, and perfection of
Press, 1952. devices, tools, utensils, skills, knowledge, and in
“ Untergang des Abendlandes. The standard formation. Civilization thus refers to an essentially
translation by C. F. Atkinson as The Decline of the temporal chain of variable but accumulative progress
West was published in 1926 (vol. 1), 1928 (vol. 2), — an irreversible process . . . The same [civilizational]
*939 vols. in 1). object, when viewed as component of an associational
“ Oppenheimer, 1922, vol. 1. unity at a given time, that is, in synchronic section of
“ For Wundt’s distinction, see S >, especially its a consociation of particular human beings, appears
footnote 8. as a component in a culture.”
significant yet is the fact that probably a this major current, especially as this is the
still greater number of Germans than both one that ultimately prevailed in North America
the foregoing together used culture in the and Latin America, in Russia and Italy, in
inclusive sense in which we are using it in Scandinavia and the Netherlands, partially so
this book. in England, and is beginning to be felt in
We therefore return to consideration of long-resistive France.
7. C U L T U R E A S A CO N CEPT O F E IG H T E E N T H -C E N T U R Y
GENERAL H ISTO R Y
In its later course, the activity of eighteenth- best-known. This movement was particularly
century enlightenment found expression in strong in Germany and tended to make con
attempts at universal histories of the develop siderable use of the term culture. It was allied
ment of mankind of which Herders is the to thinking about the “ philosophy of history,”
but not quite the same. The latter term was culture in his Philosophy of History, and
established in 1765 by Voltaire when he used civilization only once and incidentally.43 This
it as the title of on essay that in 1769 became fact is the more remarkable in that Hegel died
the introdicdon of the definitive edition of only twelve years44 before Klemm began to
his Essai sur les Moeitrs et rEsprit des publish. He could not have been ignorant of
Nations.** Voltaire and the Encyclopxdists the word culture, after Herder and Kant had
were incisive, reflective, inclined to comment used it: it was his thinking and interests that
philosophically. Their German counterparts were oriented away from it.
or successors tended rather to write systematic It must accordingly be concluded that the
and sometimes lengthy histories detailing how course of “ philosophy of history” forked in
man developed through time in all the conti Germany. One branch, the earlier, was in
nents, and generally with more emphasis on his terested in the actual story' of what appeared
stages of development than on particular or to have happened to mankind. It therefore
personal events. Such stages of development bore heavily on customs and institutions, be
would be traceable through subsistence, arts, came what we today should call culture-con
beliefs, religion of various successive peoples: scious, and finally resulted in a somewhat
in short, through their customs, w hat we today diffuse ethnographic interest. From the very
would call their culture. The word culture beginning, however, mankind was viewed as
was in fact used by most of this group of an array or series of particular peoples. The
writers of universal history. To be sure, a other branch of philosophy of history became
close reading reveals that its precise meaning less interested in history and more in its
was that of “ degree to w'hich cultivation has supreme principle. It dealt increasingly W'ith
progressed.” But that meaning in turn grades mankind instead of peoples, it aimed at clari
very easily and almost imperceptibly into the fying basic schemes, and it operated with the
modem sense of culture. In any event, these concept of “ spirit” instead of that of culture.
histories undoubtedly helped establish the word This second movement is of little further
in wide German usage, the shift in meaning concern to us here. But it will be profitable
then followed, until by the time of Klemm, in to examine the first current, in wrhich com
1843, the present-day sense had been mainly parative, cultural, and ethnographic slants are
attained and was ready-made for Tylor, for visible from the beginning.
the Russians, and others. The principal figures to be reviewed are
In the present connection, the significant Irwing, Adclung, I Ierdcr, Meincrs, and Jenisch;
feature of these histories of mankind is that their work falls into the period from 1779
they were actual histories. They were per to 1801. First, how'ever, let us note briefly a
meated by, or aimed at, large ideas; but they somewhat earlier figure.
also contained masses of concrete fact, pre Isaac Iselin, a Swiss, published in Zurich in
sented in historical organization. It was a 1768 a History of Mankind** which seems not
different stream of thought from that which to contain the wrords culture or civilization.
resulted in true “ philosophies of history,” that The first of eight “ books” is given over to a
is, philosophizings about history, of which Psychological (“ psychologische” ) Considera
Hegel became the most eminent representative. tion of Man, the second to the Condition
By comparison, this latter was a deductive, (Stand) of Nature (of Man — in Rousseau’s
transcendental movement; and it is significant sense, but not in agreement with him), the
that Hegel seems never to have used the word third to the Condition of Savagery, the fourth
" A s usually stated; e.g., in E. Bemhein\-Lebrbuch, systemarische Ausfiihrung des Verstandes [in gcbilde-
6th edition, 1914. But dates and titles are given vari tcr Sprache] sich abschleift und die Sprache hieran
ously, due no doubt in part to alterations, inclusions, irmer und ungebildeter wird.” (1920, 147; Allgem.
and reissues by Voltaire himself. Febvre, 1930, sum Einleirung, III, 2.)
marized in Addendum to our Part I, credits the 44 His Philosophy of History is a posthumous work,
Philosophic de PHistoire to 1736. based on his lecture notes and those of his students
" “Es ist femer ein Fakcum, dass mit fortschreiten- It was first published in 1837.
der Zivilisalion der Gese Usehaft und des Stoats diese “ Iselin, 1768 (Preface dated 1764, in Basel).
to the Beginnings of Good Breeding (Gesit ing phrase. Again: The more the capacities
tung, i.e., civilization). Books five to eight of man are worked upon (“ bearbeitet wer-
deal with the Progress of Society (Gesellig- den’ ) by culture (“ durch die Kultur” ) the
keit — sociability, association?) toward Civil more does man depart from the neutral con
(biirgerlich, civilized?) Condition, the dition (“ Sinnesart” ) of animals. Here the
Oriental peoples, the Greeks and Romans, the near-reification of culture into a seemingly
Nations of Europe. The implicit idea of pro autonomous instrument is of interest. Culture
gress is evident. The polar catchwords are is a matter and degree of human perfection
Wildheit and Barbarey (Savagery and Bar (Vollkommenheit) that is properly attribut
barism), on the one hand; on the other, able only to the human race or entire peoples:
Milderung der Sitten, Policirung, Erleuchtung, individuals are given only an education
Vcrbesserung, that is, Amelioration of Man (Erziehung), and it is through this that they
ners, Polishing (rather than Policing), Illum are brought to the degree (Grade) of culture
ination (i.e.. Enlightenment), Improvement. of their nation.48
The vocabulary is typical mid-eighteenth- Johann Christoph Adelung, 1732-1806, al
century French or English Enlightenment ready mentioned as the author of the diction
language put into German — quite different aries of 1774 and 1793, published anonymously
from the vocabulary of Adelung and Herder in 1782 an Essay on the History of Culture
only twenty-five to thirty years later: Cultur, of the Human Species*9 This is genuine if
Humanitat, Tradition are all lacking. While highly summarized history, and it is con
Europe was everywhere groping toward con cerned primarily with culture, though political
cepts like those of progress and culture, these events are not wholly disregarded. The presen
efforts were already segregating into fairly tation is in eight periods, each of which is
diverse streams, largely along national speech designated by a stage of individual human age,
lines. so that the idea of growth progress is not
K. F. von Irwing, 1725-1801, an Ober- only fundamental but explicit. The compari
consistorialrat in Berlin, who introduces the son of stages
w of culture with stages
O of individ-
main German series, attempted, strictly speak ual development was of course revived by
ing, not so much a history of mankind as an Spengler, though Spengler also used the meta
inquiry into man,48 especially his individual phor of the seasons.50 Adelung’s periods with
and social springs or impulses (“ Triebfedem’ their metaphorical designations are the follow
or “Triebwerkc” ). He is of interest in the ing:
present connection on account of a long sec
tion, his fourteenth, devoted to an essay on the 1. From origins to the flood. Mankind an embryo.
culture of mankind.47 Culture is cultivation, 2. From the flood to Moses. The human race a
child in its culture.
improvement, to Irwing. Thus: The improve
3. From Moses to 683 b .c . The human race a boy.
ments and increases of human capacities and 4. 683 B .C. to a .d . 1 . Rapid blooming of youth of the
energies, or the sum of the perfecrings (Yro!k- human race.
kommenheiten) to which man can be raised 5. a .d . 1 to 400 (Migrations). Mankind an enlightened
from his original rudest condition — these con man (aufgeklaerter Mann).
stitute “ den allgemeinen Begriff der ganzen 6. 400-1096 (Crusades). A man’s heavy bodily labors.
Kultur ueberhaupt” — a very Kantian-sound- 7. 1096-1520 (1520, full enlightenment reached). A
* Irwing, 1777-85-
" V o l. 3, 5 184-207, pp. 88-372 (1779). This “ Adelung, 1782. Sickel, 1933, contains on pp. 145-
Abtheilung is entitled: “ Von der allgemeinen 209 a well-considered analysis of “Adelungs Kultur-
Veranlassung zu Begriffen, oder von den Triebwerken, theorie.” Sickel credits Adelung with being the first
wodurch die Mcnschen zum richtigen Gebrauch inquirer to attribute cultural advance to increased
ihrer Geisteskraefte gebracht werden. Ein Versuch population density (pp. 1 5 1 - 5 5 ) .
ueber die Kultur der Menschheit ueberhaupt.” The “ A fundamental difference is that Spengler applies
word is spelt with K — Kultur. the metaphor only to stages •within particular cultures,
" T h e three passages rendered are from pp. 122-23, never to human culture as a whole; but Adelung
127 of ( 188, “ Y on der Kultur ueberhaupt.’ applies it to the totality seen as one grand unit.
man occupied in installation and improvement of The word “ sum” here brings this definition
his economy (Hauswesen). close to modem ones as discussed in our Part
8. 1510- (1781). A man in enlightened enjoyment (im II; it suggests that Adelung now and then was
aufgeklaerten Genusse).*1 slipping into the way of thinking of culture
Adelung is completely enlightened re as the product of cultivation as well as the act
ligiously. In § 1 he does not treat of the crea of cultivating.
tion of man but of the origins of the human Die Cultur des Geistes bestehet in eincr immer
race (“ Ursprung seines Geschlechts” ). Moses zunehmenden Summe von Erkenntnissen, welchc
assures us, he says, that all humanity is des nothwendig wachscn muss . . . .(Spiritual culture con
cended from a single pair, which is reasonable; sists in an ever increasing and necessarily growing
but the question of how this pair originated sum of understandings.)
cannot be answered satisfactorily, unless one
And finally:
accepts, along with Moses, their immediate
creation by God. But man was created merely Gerne hicttc ich fur das Wort Cultur eincn deut-
with the disposition and capacity (“ Anlage” ) schen Ausdruck gewahlet; allcin ich wciss kcincn,
of what he was to become (§ 3). Language der dessen Begriff erschocpftc. Verfeinerung,
was invented by man; it is the first step toward Aufklaenmg, Fntvcickclung der Faehigkeiten, sagen
alle etwas, aber nicht allcs. (I should have liked to
culture (§ 5 foil.). The fall of man is evaded
choose a German expression instead of the word
(§ 13); but as early as Cain a simultaneous re
culture; but I know none that exhausts its meaning.
finement and corruption of customs (“ Ver- Refinement, enlightenment, development of capacities
derben der Sitten” ) began (§ 24). The Flood all convey something, but not the whole sense.)
and the Tower of Babel are minimized (Ch. 2.
§ 1-4), not because the author is anticlerical Aga'n we seem on the verge of the present-
but because he is seeking a natural explanation day meaning of culture.
for the growth of culture. Throughout, he sees Adelung’s definition of Cultur in his 1793
population increase as a primary cause of German dictionary confirms that to him and
cultural progress.52 his contemporaries the word meant improve
While there are innumerable passages in ment, rather than a state or condition of human
Adelung in which his “ Cultur” could be read social behavior, as it docs now. It reads:
with its modern meaning, it is evident that he
did not intend this meaning — though he was Cultur — die Veredlung oJer Verfcinerung dcr
unconsciously on the wav' to it. This is clear gcsammten Geistes- and Leibcskracftc ciucs Men*
schen odcr eines Volkcs, so d iss dieses Wort so wohl
from his formal definitions in his Preface.
die Aufklaerung, die Veredlung des Vcrstandes durch
These are worth quoting. Befrcyung von Vorurtheilcn, aber auch die Politur,
Cultur ist mir der Uebergang aus dem mehr die Veredlung und Verfcinerung dcr Sitten unter sich
sinnlichen und thierischen Zustande in enger ver- begrcift. (Culture: the improvement [cnnoblcmcntl
schlungene Verbindungen des gesellschaftlichen Le- or refining of the total mental and bodily forces of
bens. (Culture is the transition from a more sensual a person or a people; so that the word includes not
and animal condition to the more closely knit in only the enlightening or improving of understanding
terrelations of social life.) through liberation from prejudices, but also polishing,
Die Cultur bestehet . . . in dcr Summc deutlicher namely fincreased 1 improvement and refinement, of
Begriffe, und . . . in der . . . Milderung und Ver- customs and manners.)
feinerung des Koerpers und der Sitten. (Culture
consists of the sum of defined concepts and of the Veredlung, literally ennoblement, seems to
amelioration and refinement of the body and of be a metaphor taken from the improvement
manners.) of breeds of domesticated plants and animals.
8. K A N T 62 TO H E G E L
The great German philosophy of the the eighteenth century'; but its general course
decades before and after 1800 began with was awa\r from Cultur to Geist. This is evi
some recognition of enlightenment culture and dent in the passage from Kant to Hegel.
improvement culture, as part of its rooting in Kant says in his Anthropologie: 63
“ As cited, 1937, vol. 1, 199-201.
"Miihlmann, 1948, pp. 63-66; Lowie, 1937, pp. 5, who introduced anthropology as a branch of study
10-11. in German universities and who lectured on it
" T h e word Volkerkunde had been previously regularly for decades.’ . . . It should be not*-d, how
used by J. R. Forster, Beitrage zur Vdlker- und ever, that by anthropology Kant meant something
Landerktmde, 1781 (according to Stoltenberg, vol. different from the study of human culture or com
1, 200). parative anatomy of peoples. For him the term com
“ According to Muehlmann, just cited, p. 46, the prised empirical ethics (folkways), introspective psy
word ethnography was first used in Latin by Johann chology, and ‘physiology.’ Empirical etnics, as dis
Olorinus in his “ Ethnographia Mundi,” Magdeburg, tinct from rational ethics, was called ‘practical an
1608. thropology.’ . . . Kant reduced natural philosophy or
" Umversalhistorischer Ueberlick der Ennvicklung theoretical science to anthropology. Just as Kant
des Menschengeschlechts, als eines sich fortbildenden began his critique of scientific knowledge by accept
Ganzen, 2 volsn 1801. ing the fact of mathematical science, so he began his
"Stoltenberg, 1937, vol. 1, pp. 289-92. etnics and his Anthropologie by accepting the fact of
“ The original may have been “Cultur;” Stoltenberg civilization.” Kant’s view, as defined by Bidney, seems
modernizes spellings except in titles of works. very similar to the contemporary “ philosophical an
"K an t’s position as an “ anthropologist” is relevant thropology” of W tin (1948) and the “ phenomeno
to consideration of his treatment of “ Cultur.” Bidney logical anthropology” of Binswangcr (1947).
(>949i PP- 484, 485, 486) remarks: “ It is most signifi “ References are to Kant’s Werke, Rcimcr 1907
cant, as Cassirer observes, that Kant was ‘the man edition: the Anthropologie of 1798 is in vol. 7.
Alie Fortschntte in der Cultur . . . haben das Ziel Fichte deals with Cultur and “ Vemunftcul-
diese erworbenen Kentnisse und Geschieklichkeiten tur” largely from the angle of its purpose:
zum Gebrauch fur die Welt anzuwenden.
freedom. Cultur is “ die Uebung aller.Kraefte
Die pragmadsche Anlage der Civilisirung durch
Cultur. (p. 313)
auf den Zweck der voelligen Freiheit, der
voelligen Unabhaengigkeit von allem, was
“ Kiinste der Cultur” are contrasted with nicht wir selbst, unser reines Selbst ist.” 65
the “ Rohigkeit” of man’s “ Natur.” (p. 324) Hegel’s transcendental philosophy of his
With reference to Rousseau, Kant mentions tory, viewed with reference only to “ spirit,” a
the “ Ausgang aus der Natur in die Cultur,” generation after a group of his fellow country
“ die Civilisirung,” “ die vermeinte Moral- men had written general histories which were
isirung.” (p. 326) de facto histories of culture,68 has already
The national peculiarities of the French and been mentioned.
English are derivable largely “ aus der Art Schiller also saw culture unhistoricallv,
ihrer verschiedenen Cultur,” those of other added to a certain disappointment in the en
nations “ vielmehr aus der Anlage ihrer Natur lightenment of reason.67 “ Culture, far from
durch Vermischung ihrer urspriinglich ver freeing us, only develops a new need with
schiedenen Stamme.” (p. 315) every power it develops in us. . . . It was cul
In this last passage Cultur might possibly ture itself which inflicted on modern humanity
seem to have been used in its modern sense, the wound [of lessened individual perfection,
except that on page 311 Kant calls the French compared with ancient times]” (1883, 4: 566.
and English “ die zwei civilisirtesten Volker 568). He takes refuge in “ the culture of
auf Erden,” which brings the word back to beauty,” or “ fine [schoene] culture,” evidently
the sense of cultivation. on the analogy of fine arts or belles lettres.
In Critique of Pure Reason, 1781, Kant says, Lessing does not appear to use the word.
“ metaphysics is the completion of the whole Goethe uses it loosely in opposition to “ Bar-
culture of reason.” 64 Here again, culture barei.”
must mean simply cultivation.
“ Muller’s translation. N ew York, 1896, p. 730. “ W e have found one use of Zivilisation in Hegel
The original (Kritik, 2nd ed., Riga, 1787, p. 879) as cited in footnote 43 above.
reads: “ Eben deswegen ist Metaphysik auch die “ Briefe ueber die aesthetische Erziehung des
Vollendung aller Cultur der Menschlichen Vemunft.” Memcben, 1795. Citations are from Sjenmitliche
“ Cited from Eucken, 1878, p. 186. Werke, vol. 4.
first beginnings to their organization into organic wampum, peace pipes, models of assemblies . . . 12)
nationalities (Volkskorpcr) in all respects, that is W ar . . . 13) Religious objects . . . 14) Culture [sic].
to say with reference to customs, arts (Kentnisse) and Musical instruments, decorative ornament, petro-
skills (Fertigkeiten), domestic and public life in glyphs, maps, drawings; illustrations (Sammlungen)
peace or war, religion, science (Wisscn) and art . . . of speech, poetical and oratorical products of the
(1: 21) [While the passage begins with mention of various nations. (1: 357-58)
development, the list of activities with which it
concludes is very similar to that in which Tylor’s Most of these ten cited passages read as if
famous definition ends.] culture were being used in its modem an
W e regard chronology as part of culture itself. (1: thropological sense — as indeed Klemm is de
facto doing an ethnography, even though with
The means (or mechanisms, Alittel) of culture reminiscences of Herder and Adclung as
rooted first in private life and originally in the regards general plan. Whenever he adds or
family. (1: 205)
lists or summatcs, as in the first, fifth, and last
We shall show . . . that possessions are the be
ginning of all human culture. (1: 206)
of these citations, the ring is quite con
fWith reference to colonies and spread of the temporary. Moreover, the “ enlightenment,”
“active race,” ] the emigrants brought with them to “ tradition,” “ humanity” of Herder and his
their new homes the sum (Summe) of the culture contemporaries have pretty well dropped
which they had hitherto achieved (erstrebt) and out.68 It is difficult to be sure that Klemm’s
used it as foundation of their newly florescent life. concept of culture was ever fully the same as
(1: 210) that of modern anthropologists. On the other
Among nations of the “ passive race,” custom hand, it would be hard to believe that he is
(Sitte) is the tyrant of culture. (1: 220)
never to be so construed. Most likely he was
South American Indians . . . readily assume a
varnish (Fimiss) of culture. . . . But nations of the
in an in-between sta<;c,
Dm sometimes using Omthe
active race grow (bilden sich) from inside outward term with its connotations of 1780, sometimes
. . . . Their culture consequently takes a slower with those of 1920— and perhaps never fully
course but is surer and more effective. (1: 288) conscious of its range, and, so far as wc know,
A blueprint (Fantasie) of a Museum of the culture never formally defining it.08
history of mankind. (1: 352) In that case, the more credit goes to Tylor
The last section of the natural history collection for his sharp and successful conceptualization
[of the Museum] would be constituted by [physical] of culture, and for beginning l.is greatest book
anthropology . . . [and] . . . [materials illustrating]
with a dcfinit’on of culture. He found Klemm
the rudest cultural beginnings of the passive race.
(1: 356-57)
doing ethnography much as it is being pre
The next section comprises the savage hunting sented today, and using for his data a general
and fishing tribes of South and North America. . . . term that was free of the implication of ad
A system could now be put into effect which would vancement that clung to English civilization.
be retained in all the following sections . . . about as So Tylor substituted Klemm’s “ cultur” for the
follows: t) Bodily constitution . . . 2) Dress . . . “ civilization” he had himself used before, gave
3) Ornament . . . 4) Hunting gear . . . 5) Vehicles it formal definition, and nailed the idea to his
on land and water . . . 6) Dwellings . . . 7) Household masthead by putting the word into the title
utensils . . . 8) Receptacles . . . 9) Tools . . . to) of his book. Bv his conscious cvplicitncss,
Objects relating to disposal of the dead . . . 11) Insig Tylor set a landmark, which Klemm with all
nia of public life . . . batons of command, crowns, his ten volumes had not done.
By mid-nineteenth century, the Hegelian Kulturwissenschaft and that it is the latter and
active preference for dealing with Geist in not Geisteswissenschaft that should be con
preference to Cultur was essentially over, and trasted with Naturwissenschaft — this thesis
the latter concept became increasingly, almost proves that Rickert’s concept of kultur is as
universally, dominant in its own field. The broad as the most inclusive anthropologist or
term Zivilisation languished in Germany, much “ culturologist” might make claim for. Rick
as Culture did in England, as denotation of the ert’s YVissenschaft of culture takes in the whole
inclusive concept. It had some vogue, as we of the social sciences plus the humanities, in
have seen, in two attempts — diametrically contemporary American educational parlance.
opposite ones, characteristically — to set it Spengler’s somewhat special position in the
up as a rival to Culture by splitting off one or culture-civilization dichotomy has already
the other part of this as contrastive. But the been touched on. For Spengler, civilization is
prevailing trend was toward an inclusive term; the stage to w hich culture attains when it has
and this became Cultur, later generally written become unproductive, torpid, frozen, crystal
Kultur. In this movement, philosophers,70 lized. A culture as such is organismic and
historians, and literary men were more active creative; it becomes. Civilization merely is;
and influential than anthropologists. it is finished. Spengler’s distinction won wide
The following list of book titles suggests though not universal acceptance in Germany
the course of the trend. at least for a time, and is included in the 1931
1843, Klemm, Allgenteine Ctdtur-geschichte edition of Brockhaus’ Konversationlexicon.'1
1854, Klemm, Allgemeine Cultuncissenschaft In spite of the formal dichotomy of the
i860, Burckhardt, Die Cultur der Renaissance in words, Spengler’s basic concept, the one with
Italien which his philosophy consistently operates, is
1875, Hcllwald, Kultur in ihrer Naturlichen Ent- that of culture. The monadal entities which
Ziickelung bis s.«r Gegenn'art he is forever trying to characterize and com
1878, Jodi, Die Kulturgescbichtschreibung pare are the Chinese, Indian, Egyptian, Arabic-
1886, Lippert, Kultur der Menschheit
Magian, Classic, and Occidental cultures, as
1898, Rickert, Kulturuissenschaft und Naruncissen-
schaft an anthropologist would conceive and call
1899, Frobcnius, Problenic dcr Kultur them. Civilization is to him merely a sta^t
1900, Lamprcchr, Die Kulturhist rische Mcthode w'hich every' culture reaches: its final phase
1908, Vicrkandr, Stetigkeit im Kulturxexndel of spent creativity and wintry senescence, with
1908, Mueller-Lyer, Pbasen der Kulfir fellaheen-type population. Cultures are deeply
1910, Frobeoius, Ktilturtypen ms detn IVestsudan different, all civilization is fundamentally alike:
1914, Prcuss, Die Geistige Ktdtur der Natttrvolker it is the death of the culture on which it
1913, Lcdercr, Aufgaben einer Ktiltursoziologie settles. Spengler’s theory concerns culture,
1913, Die Kultur dcr Gegemcart: Part III, Section
culture in at once the most inclusive and ex
5, “Anthropolog’e,” Eds., Schwalbe and Fischer
1913, Simmel, Z ur Philosophic der Kultur
clusive sense, and nothing else. He sees culture
1924, Schmidt and Koppers, Volker und Kulturen, manifesting itself in a series almost of theo-
vol. 1 phanies, of wholly distinct, uncaused, un
1930, Bonn, Die Kultur der Vereinigten Staaten explainable realizations, each with an immanent
1931, Buchler. Die Kultur des Mittelalters quality and predestined career and destiny
1933, Frobenius, Ktdturgeschichte Afrikas (Schicksal). Spengler’s view is certainly'
*935, Thumwald, Werden, M'andel, und Gestaltung mystic, but it is so because in trying to seize
von Stoat und Kultur the peculiar nature of culture he helps his
Rickert’s basic thesis, to the effect that what sharpness of grasp by not only differentiating
has been called Geisteswissenschaft really is but insulating culture from the remainder of
n Barth, after discussing cultura animi in Cicero, niche als Ackerbau wie bei den Alten, sondera im
Thomas More, Bacon, gives it up too: “ Aber wo heutigen Sinne, habe ich nicht findcn konncn.’’ (19 :1,
Cultura absolur, ohne Gcnitiv, zuerst gebraucht vvird. 1, 599, fn. 1)
use it, whereas in spite of Tylor, the British, ignorant of this sense of the word, for which
American, and French people, including even they then generally used civilization instead.78
most of their upper educated level, were
12. D A N ILEV SK Y
The Russians apparently took over the word types 81 instead of cultures or civilizations.
and the concept of culture from the Germans They are supernational, and while ethnically
(see Appendix A ). This was pre-Marxian, limited, they differ culturally in their quality.
about mid-nineteenth century. In the late We are not certain whether Danilevsky was
eighteen-sixties N. I. Danilevsky published the first Russian to employ culture in the sense
first a series of articles and then a book, Russia which it had acquired in German, but it has
and Europe, 7 9 which was frankly Slavophile come into general usage since his day. The
but has also attracted attention as a forerunner noun is kul’tura;92 the adjective kul'tumvi
of Spengler.80 He deals with the greater seems to mean cultural as well as cultured or
civilizations much in the manner of Spengler cultivated. Kul’tumost’ is used for level or
or Toynbee, but calls them culture-historical stage of culture as well as for high level.
Curiously enough, “ culture” became pop and that of perfection as pursued by culture, bcaurv
ularized as a literary word in England 83 in a and intelligence, or, in other words, swcecncsa and
book which appeared just two years before light, are the main characters. . . . [culture consists in]
. . . an inward condition of mind and spirit, not in
Tylor’s. Matthew Arnold’s familiar remarks
an outward set of circumstances . . .
in Culture and Anarchy (1869) were an answer
to John Bright who had said in one of his Arnold’s words were not unknown to social
speeches, “ People who talk about culture . . . scientists. Sumner, in an essay probably
by which they mean a smattering of the two written in the eighties, makes these acid
dead languages of Greek and Latin . . .” comments:
Arnold’s own definition is primarily in terms
Culture is a word which offers us an illustration of
of an activity on the part of an individual:
the degeneracy of language. If I may define culture,
. . . a pursuit of total perfection by means of getting I have no objection to produce it; but since the word
to know, on all the matters which most concern us, came into fashion, it has been stolen by the dilettanti
the best which has been thought and said in the and made to stand for their own favorite forms and
world. . . . I have been trying to show that culture is, amounts of attainments. Mr. Arnold, the great
or ought to be, the study and pursuit of perfection; apostle, it not the discoverer, of culture, tried ro
"Eliot, 1948. Vogt (1951) has linked both the that one unity of culture is that of the people who
personal and “societal” conceptions of culture to the live together and speak the same language: because
cult or cultus idea. speaking the same language means thinking, and
"C f. . . culture — a peculiar way of thinking, feeling, and having emotions rather differently from
feeling, and behaving.” (p. 56) “ Now it is obvious people who use a different language.” (pp. 120-21)
makes life worth living.” (p. 26) Finally, he happy with Eliot’s emphasis on an elite and
seems to be saying that, viewed concretely, his reconciliation of the humanistic and social
religion is the way of life of a people and in science views, and the literary reviews88
this sense is identical with the people’s culture. have tended to criticize the looseness and lack
Anthropologists are not likely to be very of rigor of his argument.
14. d ic t io n a r y d e f in it io n s
"Irw in Edman in N ew York Times Book Review, another (rare) meaning of 1483: “The setting of
March 6, 1949; W . H. Auden in The New Yorker, bounds; limitation.”
April 23, 1949; John L. Myers in Man, July, 1949; " Culture is “the study and pursuit of perfection;”
William Barrett in Kenyon Review, summer, 1949. and, of perfection, “sweetness and light” arc the main
" A N ew English Dictionary on Historical Princi characters.
ples, ed. by J. A. H. Murray, vol. II, 1893. “ “ Introduction,. Supplement, and Bibliography.”
"E h o t (1948) cites from the Oxford Dictionary "W h ic h we cite as A 1 in Part II.
These statements certainly at last recognize leave out altogether, as long as they can, the
the fact that the word culture long since professional meaning which a word has
acquired a meaning which is of fundamental acquired, or they hedge between its differences
import in the more generalizing segments of in meaning even at the risk of conveying very
the social sciences. Vet as definitions thev little that makes useful sense. Yet, primarily,
are surely fumbling. “ Particular state or stage the lag is perhaps due to students in social
of advancement” ; “ characteristic attainments fields, who have gradually pumped new wine
of a . . . social order"; “ distinctive attainments into skins still not empty of the old, in their
. . . constituting the background of a . . . habit of trying to operate without jargon in
group” ; “ the trait complex manifested by a common-language terminology even while
tribe ’ — what have these to do with one an their concepts become increasingly refined.
other? What do they really mean or refer to — However, each side could undoubtedly profit
especially the vague terms here italicized? And from the other by more cooperation.
what do they all build up to that a groping It will be of comparative interest to cite a
reader could carry away? — compared for in definition of culture in a work which is both
stance with Tylor’s old dictum that culture is a dictionary and yet professionally oriented.
civilization, especially if supplemented by a This is the Dictionary of Sociology edited by
statement of the implications or nuances bv H. P. Fairchild, 1044. The definition of culture
which the two differ in import in some of their was written by Charles A. Elhvood.
usages. It is true that anthropologists and soci
C-.kcre: a collective name for all behavior patterns
ologists also have differed widely in their defi
socially acquired and socially transmitted by means of
nitions: if they had not, our Part II would have symbols; hence a name for all the distinctive achieve
been much briefer than it is. But these profes ments of human groups, including not only such
sionals were generally trying to find definitions items as language, tool making, industry, art, science,
that would be both full and exclusive, not law, government, morals, and religion, but also the
merely adumbrative; and they often differ de material instruments or artifacts in which cultural
liberately in their distribution of emphasis of archievi nenrs are embodied and which intellectual
meaning, where the dictionary makers seem to cultural features are given practical effect, such as
be trying to avoid distinctive commitment.94 buildings, tools, machines, communication devices,
Yet the main moral is the half-century of art objects, etc.
. . . The essential part of culture is to be found
lagp between the common-language
' Z? mZ? meanings
Za in the patterns embodied in the social traditions of
of words and the meanings which the same
the group, that is, in knou ledge, ideas, beliefs, values,
words acquire when they begin to be uscJ in standards, and sentiments prevalent in the group.
specific senses in profesisonal disciplines like The overt part of culture is to be found in the actual
the social sciences. Dictionary' makers of behavior of the group, usually in its usages, customs,
course are acute, and when it is a matter of and institutions . . . . The essential part of culture
something technical or technological, like a seems to be an appreciation of values with reference
culture in a test tube or an oyster culture, or to life conditions. The purely behavioristic definition
probably ergs or mesons, thev are both prompt of culture is therefore inadequate. Complete defini
and accurate in recognizing the term or mean tion must include the subjective and objective aspects
ing. When it comes to broader concepts, of culture. Practically, the culture of the human
especially of “ intangibles,” they appear to be group is summed up in its traditions and customs; but
come disconcerted by the seeming differences tradition, as the subjective side of culture, is the
in professional opinion, and hence either essential core.
ij. G E N E R A L DISCUSSIOV
The most generic sense of the word “ cul come fairly familiar to educated Englishmen.
ture” — in Latin and in all the languages which The contemporary influence of learning
have borrowed the Latin root — retains the theory and personality psychology has per
primary notion of cultivation 95 or becoming haps brought the anthropological idea back
cultured. This was also the older meaning of closer to the Kantian usage of the individual’s
“ civilization.” The basic idea was first ap becoming cultured, with expressions like “ en-
plied to individuals, and this usage still culturation” and “ the culturalization of the
strongly persists in popular and literary English person.” Perhaps instead of “ brought back”
to the present time.90 A second concept to we should say that psychological interest, in
emerge was that of German Kultur, roughly trying better to fund the idea of culture, and
the distinctive “ higher” values or enlighten to understand and explain its basic process,
ment of a society.97 has reintroduced the individual into culture.
The specifically anthropological concept The history of the w ord “ culture” presents
crystallized first around the idea of “ custom.” many interesting problems in the application
Then — to anticipate a little — custom was of culture theory itself. Why did the concept
given a time backbone in the form of “ tradi “ Kaltur” evolve and play such an important
tion” or “social heritage.” However, the part in the German intellectual setting? Why
English anthropologists were very slow to has the concept of “ culture” had such diffi
substitute the word “ culture” for “ custom.” culty in breaking through into public con
On March ioth, 1885, Sir James G. Frazer sciousness in France and England? \\ hv ha^
presented his first anthropological research it rather suddenly become popular in the
to a meeting of the Roval Anthropological United States, to the point that such phrases
Society. In the discussion following the paper, as “Eskimo culture” appear even in the comic
he stated that he owed his interest in anthro strips?
pology to Tylor and had been much influenced We venture some tentative hypotheses, in
by Tylor’s ideas. Nevertheless, he03 spealcs addition to the suggestion already made as to
only of “ custom” and “ customs” and indeed the imbalance in Germany of 1800 of cultural
to the end of his professional life avoided the advancement and political retardation. In the
concept of culture in his writings. R. R. German case, there was first — for whatever
Marett’s Home University Library Anthro- reasons — a penchant for large abstractions in
pology also uses only the word custom. Rad- eighteenth- and nineteenth-century thought.
diff e-Brown writing in 1923 docs not use Second, German culture v. as less internally
“ custom” but is careful to say rather con homogeneous — at least less centralized in a
sistently “ culture or civilization.” In 1940 dominant capital city — than the French and
he no longer bothers to add “ or civilization.” English cultures during the comparable period.
The implication is that by roughly 1940 France and England, as colonial pow’ers, were
“culture” in its anthropological sense had be- aware, of course, of other ways of life, but
DEFINITIONS
GRO UPS OF SO CIAL S C IE N C E 1 D EFIN ITIO N S IN E N G L IS H ’
13. Kluckhohn and Leighton, 1946: xviii. Addendum: When this monograph was
A culture is any given people’s way of life, already in press — and hence too late for in
clusion in tabulations — we encountered the
as distinct from the life-ways of other peoples.
following definition belonging to this group,
by the biologist, Paul Sears:
14. Herskovits, 1948: 29. The way in which the people in any group do things,
A culture is the way of life of a people; make and use tools, get along with one another and
while a society is the organized aggregate of with other groups, the words they use and the way
individuals who follow a given way of life. they use them to express thoughts, and the thoughts
In still simpler terms a society is composed of they think — all of these we call the group’s culture.
people; the way they behave is their culture. (>939. 78~79 >
COM MENT
15. Lasrwell, 1948: 205.
“ Culture” is the term used to refer to the Wissler’s 1929 statement, “ the mode of Lfe
way that the members of a group act in rela followed by the community,” sets the pattern.
tion to one another and to other groups. It is the old “ customs” concept (cf. Group
A), raised from its pluralistic connotations
16. Bennett and Tumin, 1949: 209. into a totalizing generalization. The word
Culture: the behavior patterns of all groups, “ mode” or “ way” can imply (a) common or
called the “ way of life” : an observable feature shared patterns; (b) sanctions for failure to
of all human groups; the fact of “ culture” is follow the rules; (c) a manner, a “ how” of
common to all; the particular pattent of behaving; (d) social “ blueprints” for action.
culture differs among all. “ A culture” : the One or more of these implications is made per
specific pattern of behavior which distin fectly explicit in many of these definitions.
guishes any society from all others. There are probably few contemporary
anthropologists who would reject completely
the proposition “ A culture is the distinctive
17. Frank, 1948: i j i .
way of life of a people,” though many would
. . . a term or concept for the totality' of
regard it as incomplete. Radcliffe-Brown has
these patterned ways of thinking and acting
only recenrly committed himself to a defini
wmch are specific modes and acts of conduct
tion of culture (B-22). Earlier in his pro
of discrete individuals who, under the guid
fessional career he appeared to accept the
ance of parents and teachers and the associa
Tvlorian conception but increasingly he has
tions of their fellows, have developed a way
belittled “ culture” as opposed to “ social struc
of life expressing those beliefs and those
ture” (see p. 132). Even Radcliffe-Brown,
actions.
however, in conversation and in his final
seminar at Chicago in 1937 spoke of culture
18. Titiev, 1949: 45. as a set of rules for behavior. If there is a
. . . the term includes those objects or tools, difference with Wissler’s position it is in
attitudes, and forms of behavior whose use is Radcliffe-Brown’s implication that there is
sanctioned under given conditions by the something artificial in rules. This is an under
members of a particular society. standable enough attitude for an anti-cul-
turalist of his day and generation. Wissler’s
18a. Maquet, 1949: 524 “ mode of life followed” is more neutral; or if
La culture, c’est la manure de vivre du it has a connotation, it is rather that of a nat
groupe. ural phenomenon.
The idea of artificiality or arbitrariness be adjustment. It is clear, however, that the
comes explicit in Redfield’s “ conventional “ design for living" theme is, to greater or
understandings manifest in act and artifact” lesser extent, a feature common to Groups
(E-4). This emphasis seems to pull the defini C-I, D-I, D-II, and E.
tion well off to one side — almost as if it were A few more specific comments are now in
an echo of the Contrat Social. The “ arbitrari order.
ness” of a cultural phenomenon is a function of Bogardus’ definition (2) combines an echo
its particular historical determination. “ Arti of Tylor with the social heritage notion but
ficiality” is related to a different set of prob stresses “ the ways.” Young (3) likewise in
lems hinging on the role of culture in human cludes the theme of tradition with a stress upon
life. Is it a thwarting or fulfilling or both? “ ways” but combines these with Sumner’s
Is mans “ culturalncss” just a thin film, an term “ folkways.” The Gillin and Gillin defini
epiphenomenon, capping his naturalness? Or tion (6) seems to be the first to speak of the
are cultural features in man’s life so important overt and covert aspects of culture, though
that culture becomes the capstone to human it is probable that the younger Gillin drew
personality? Perhaps, however, there is no this distinction from the lectures of his teacher,
influence of either Rousseau or RadcIifFc- Linton.
Brown involved in Redfield’s definition; it may Linton, in two books in 1945, drifts into
be only a degree of sty lization of phrase. three or four definitions or subdefinitions of
In any case there tends to be a close relation culture. Most in accord with Wissler is
ship between the definitions in this group and “ the total way of life of any society,” though
the group (F.) to which Redfield’s definition he says only that this is what culture “ refers
is assigned — those which emphasize the or to.” An amplified \ersion (8) adds the “ ideas
ganization of culture. From Tylor’s “ complex and habits” which the members of the society
whole” to VVissler’s “ mode of life” is one step. “ learn, share, and transmit.” Two other state
It is a next natural step to a “system” or “ or ments in 1945 (E-5) completely leave out the
ganization” (Redfield’s word) of the common way of living, and emphasize the psychological
patterns, for the notion of stylization sug factors or organized repetitive responses and
gested by “ mode” or “ way” is easily extended configurations of learned behavior — as is
to the totality of a culture. natural enough in a book professedly dealing
There is also some linkage to the definitions with personality'.
in the D groups, particularly D-I, “ Emphasis Herskovits (A -19) includes the phrase “ way
Upon Culture as a Problem-Solving Device.” of life” in his definition, but we have placed
Ford (D-I-8) speaks of “ regulations govern this in the Tylor group rather than here be
ing human behavior” (the “ blueprints” idea) cause it is specifically enumerative. An alter
but emphasizes the fact that these rules con native definition from the same book of
stitute a set of solutions for perennial human Herskovits belongs in F-I.
problems. Morris (D-I-14) starts from “ a In general, the definitions in this group
scheme for living” but stresses the role of this imply an “ organicism” which becomes explicit
in the adjustment process. Miller and Dollard in the “ structural” definitions of Group E.
(D -Il-3) use the phrase “ design of the human Here is foreshadowed the notion of a network
maze” but emphasize primarily the learning of rules, the totality rather than the parts (the
theory angle and secondarily the conception of discrete rules) being stressed.
u Piddington’s definition would seem to stem “Yale” framework than any actual definition by
directly from Malinowski, though cast more in the Malinowski.
the work of the proponents of this “ school” : individuals and why they retain or change
culture is “ reduced” to psychology. What is habits. Then this analysis is projected into
actually stressed is the acquisition of habits by culture.
D-II. EM PHASIS O N L E A R N IN G
1. Wissler, 1916: 195. newborn child from his elders or by others as
Cultural phenomena are conceived of as in he grows up.
cluding all the activities of man acquired by
learning. . . . Cultural phenomena may, there 8. Oplcr, 1941: 8 (could justifiably be as
fore, be defined as the acquired activity com signed to D-I).
plexes of human groups. A culture can be thought of as the sum
total of learned techniques, ideas, and activities
2. Hart and Pantzer, 192$: 705, 70j. which a group uses in the business of living.
Culture consists in behavior patterns trans
mitted by imitation or tuition. . . . Culture in 9. A. Davis, 1948: 99.
cludes all behavior parterns socially acquired . . . culture. . . mav be defined as all be
and socially transmitted. havior learned by the individual in conformity
VL'ith a group. . . .
3. Miller and Dollard, 1941: 9 (could justifi
ably be ass'gned to C-I). 10. Hoebel, 1949: 9, 4.
Culture, as conceived by social scientists, is Culture is the sum total of learned behavior
a statement of the design of the human maze, patterns which are characteristic of the mem
of the type of reward involved, and of what bers of a society and which are, therefore, not
the result of biological
w inheritance.
responses are to be rewarded.
1 1. Haring, 1949: 29.
4. Kluckhohn, 1942: 2. Cultural behavior denotes all human func
Culture consists in all transmitted social tioning that conforms to patterns learned from
learning. other persons.
5. LaPicre, 1946: 68. 1 2. Wilson and Kolb, 1949:57.
A culture is the embodiment in customs, Culture consists of the patterns and products
traditions, institutions, etc., of the learning of of learned behavior — etiquette, language,
a sociah group over the generations. It is the food habits, religious beliefs, the use of arti
sum of what the group has learned about liv facts, systems of knowledge, and so on.
ing together under the particular circum
stances, physical and biological, in which it 13. Hockett, 1990: 119.
has found itself. Culture is those habits which humans have
because they have been learned (not necessari
6. Benedict, 1947: 19. ly without modification) from other humans.
. . . culture is the sociological term for
learned behavior, behavior which in man is 14. Steveard, 1990: 98.
not given at birth, which is not determined by Culture is generally understood to mean
his germ cells as is the behavior of wasps or learned modes of behavior which are socially
the social ants, but must be learned anew from transmitted from one generation to another
grown people by each new generation. within particular societies and which may be
diffused from one society to another.
7. Young, 1947: 7.
The term refers to the more or less organ 19. Slot kin, 1990: 7 6.
ized and persistent patterns of habits, ideas, at By definition, customs are categories of ac
titudes, and values which are passed on to the tions learned from others. . . . A culture is
the body of customs found in a society, and to the body of actions learned from others in
anyone who acts according to these customs a society. Culture is also the means b\ w hich a
is a participant in the culture. From a biolo society “ adjusts” (see our preceding sub
gical viewpoint, its culture is the means by group D-I) to its environment; but this is
which a society adjusts to its environment. . . . “ from the biological viewpoint,” that is, in non-
Artifacts are not included in culture. sociocultural aspect. While artifacts are spe
cifically excluded from culture by Slotkin, he
16. Aberle, et al, 1950: 102. does not state whether he includes in culture
Culture is socially transmitted behavior con or excludes from it other “ products” of human
ceived as an abstraction from concrete social behavior such as ideas and values (our groups
groups. F-I and C-II).
'lost of these definitions stress the element
COM MENT of inter-human learning, of non-genetic trans
It is interesting that Wissler appears to have mission, at the expense of other features of
pioneered both the “ rule or way” and the culture. That the learning element is import
“ learning” definitions, though it was many ant would not be questioned by contemporary
vears before the latter caught on among his anthropologists; it is mentioned in many other
anthropological colleagues. W'ssler was definitions without such preponderant em
trained as a psychologist. The recent fashion phasis. In the broad sense, of course, this was
of emphasizing learning in definitions of cul realized as long ago as 1871, for Tylor sa^ s,
ture demonstrably comes from psychology, “ acquired by man as a member of society.” All
more especially from “ learning theory,” most human beings of whatever “ races” seem to
especially from the Institute of Human Rela have about the same nervous systems and bio
tions brand logical equipment generally; ficncc the basic
• • of learning theory.
*
processes of learning are very similar if not
LaPiere is of interest because he represents
an attempt to combine the content of the old identical among all groups. Anthropologists
Tylor-type group A definitions with the re look to the psychologists to discover these
cent psychological emphasis on learning. Cul general laws of learning. On the other hand,
ture becomes the sum or embodiment in cus anthropologists can show that that which is
toms of what a society has learned in its his learned, from whom learning takes place, and
tory about how to live. Not everything that when the learning of certain skills usually oc
might be mentiun>.J is here; but what there is curs, varies according to culture. However,
seems unexceptionable, provided one is ready while cultural behavior is always learned be
to put its acquisition by learning into the fore havior, not all learned behavior is cultural;
front of consideration over what culture may converscl), ! .rning is only one of a number
be. of differentia of culture.
Opler’s definition seems perhaps influenced A number of the definitions in the group,
by the substantive one of Kluckhohn and Kel while emphasizing learning, do combine this
ly. “ Uses in the business of living” is at least w'ith other features. LaPiere (5), Young (7),
equally tclic or functional in its emphasis. and Wilson and Kolb (12) are enumerative in
However, this is a less selective or purified Tylorian fashion. Others (1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 11)
definition. The “group” is in, “ learning” is in, echo the “ rule or way” theme by the use of
so are “ ideas,” “activities” include behavior. w’ords like “ groups,” “social,” “ conformity,”
There is even a new element “ techniques,” and the like. Oplcr (8) combines “ learning”
which may have been meant to refer specifi with a suggestion of adjustment. Slotkin (15)
cally to technologies, but also slants ahead to has learning, customs, and adjustment —
“ use in the business of living.” w'ith an implication of rule or way. Steward
Slotkin mentions action, learning, and ad (14) joins learning to social transmission with
justment, and his psychological accent is thus a characteristically anthropological emphasis
clear. His basic definition of a culture reduces on diffusion which he mentions explicitly.
D-Ul. EMPHASIS ON HABIT
1. Tozzer, n.d. (but pre-1930). o f M urdo ck 15 w ill serve at least as a co n
Culture is the rationalization o f habit. scious reminder that, in the last analysis, the
social scientist’s description o f a culture must
2. Young, 1934: S92 (Glossary) rest upon observation o f the behavior o f in
Culture: Form s o f habitual behavior com mon dividuals and stu d y o f the products o f indi
to a group, com m unity, o r so ciety. It is made vidual behavior. T h e w o rd “ habits,” how ever,
up o f material and non-material traits. is too neutral; a gro u p is never affectively in
different to its culture. “ So cially valued
3. Murdock, 1941: 141. habits” w ould seem minimal and again, like
. . . culture, the traditional patterns o f ac “ learning,” this is o n ly part o f the picture.
tion w h ich constitute a m ajor portion o f the Anthropologists w ould agree, though, that so
established habits with w h ich an individual en cial habits and the alterations brought about in
ters an y social situation. the non-human environm ent through social
habits constitute the raw data o f the student
COMMENT o f culture.
These three definitions belong w ith the It m ay legitim ately be questioned w hether
other psychological groups because, whereas Y o u n g ’s definition (z) belongs here or in C -I
“ custom ” refers to a group, “ habit” puts the ( “ rule o r w a y ” ) . T h e second sentence is also
locus in the individual. Perhaps the definition the beginning o f an enumerative definition.
“ Roberts, a pupil of Murdock, says (1951, pp. 3, that the culture of a group could be defined in terms
6): “It [the studyl is based on the maior hypothesis of its shared habits. On analysis, it was found that,
that every small group, like groups of other sizes, although important because it implies common learn
defines an independent and unique culture . . . the ing, understanding, and action, the shared habit rela
description of any culture is a statement of ordered tionship was not the only one which was significant."
habit relationships. . . . Roberts also (p. 3) speaks of a habit as “a way of be
"The data in the field were collected on the theory having.” There is thus a link to the C-I group.
GROUP E: STRUCTURAL
* C f . Folsom, 1951, p. 474: “ . . . those relatively Menghin, has a doubtful place in this group. Any
constant features of social life are called c u l t u r e P. thing in terms of “ Geist” really belongs at another
47j: “Culture as the more constant features of social level and does not fit properly within our scheme.
lifer W e have put the definition here only because Ergebnis
"T h is definition by the archaeologist, Oswald means product, result, outcome.
9. Bernard, 194.1: 8. 17. Herskovits, 1948: 77.
Culture consists of all products (results) of A short and useful definition is: “ Culture is
organismic nongenetic efforts at adjustment. the man-made part of the environment.”
"T h e se two definitions are somewhat mc^.fied Also, contrast his two definitions of 1941 which we
and commented opon in Blumenthal. 1938a and .938b. cite as D-I-9 and F-IV-3.
8 . T a y lo r, 1943. 10 9 -10 . the outward and visible manifestation of a
By [holistic] culture as a descriptive con cultural idea.”
cept, I mean all those mental constructs or In this emphasis, as in two others, Wissler
ideas which have been learned or created after was first — or first among anthropologists.
birth by an individual . . . . The term idea in However, this appears to be another trial
cludes such categories as attitudes, meanings, balloon — derived again from his psychological
sentiments, feelings, values, goals, purposes, training — which he threw’ out in passing but
interests, knowledge, beliefs, relationships, did not develop systematically in his later
associations, [but] not . . . Kluckhohn’s and writings.
Kelly’s factor of “ designs.” Schmidt’s somewhat cryptic definition has
By [holistic] culture as an explanatory con an echo of nineteenth-century German Gcist.
cept, Tmean all those mental constructs which It decs tic in with a consistent strain in his
are psed to understand, and to react to, the writing emphasizing intcrnality and the de
experiential world of internal and external pendence of culture upon the individual
stimuli . . . . Culture itself consists of ideas, not psyche. The note of “ immanence” links with
processes. Sorokin’s thinking.
By a culture, i.e., by culture as a partitive Blumenthal, in a special and condensed
concept, I mean a historically derived s\stem paper on the subject in 1937, gives alternative
of culture traits which is a more or less definitions. Combined into one, these would
separable and cohesive segment of the whole- read: “ The entire stream (or: world sum-
that-is-culture and whose separate traits tend total) of past and present (or: inactive and
to be shared by all or by specially designated active) svmbolicallv-communicablc ideas.”
individuals of a group or “ society.” •The historic weighting is obvious. Ideas alone,
in the strict sense, seem a narrow concept for
embracing the whole of culture. Yet, if
9. Ford, 1949: 38. there is to be limitation to a single clement- or
. . . culture mav be briefly defined as a term, ideas is perhaps as good as could be
stream of ideas,23 that passes from individual found. BlumenthaPs definition further in
to individual by means of symbolic action, cludes the feature of the method of communi
verbal instruction, or imitation. cation or transmission [symbolically com
municable) which so characteristically sc's ofF
10. Becker, 1930: 231. culture from other organically based aspects.
A culture is the relatively constant non What is lacking from the Blumenthal definition
material content transmitted in a society bv is, first, consideration of behavior, activity, or
means of processes of sociation. practice; second, that of design or mode or
way, whether teleological-functional or em
COM M ENT pirically descriptive; and third, the element of
ideal, norm, or value — unless this was in
While this concept seems unnecessarily tended to be comprised in “ ideas.” While the
restricted, it does aim at what certain authors present definition by Blumenthal is perhaps
have thought cardinal. The underlying point anthropological in its slant, and certainly is
is often expressed in conversation somewhat historically oriented, his redefinition of four
as follows: “ Strictly speaking, there is no years later (D-I-9) is psycho-sociological
such thing as ‘material culture.’ A pot is not (learned efforts at adjustment).
culture — what is culture is the idea behind Osgood’s statement — “ all ideas . . . which
the artifact. A prayer or a ceremony is merely have been communicated . . . for are] con
" [Ford’s footnote.] Webster’s definition of “ idea” cerns to have no place in science. Individuals receive
does not quite serve here, yet the writer does not wish ideas from other humans, sometimes combine them,
to use an obscure word or coin a new one. For the less frequently discover them in the natural world
purposes of this paper, it is understood that individuals about them, and almost always pass them along to
do not “ create” ideas. The concept of “free will” others.
scious” — seems to belong here. But it con differs from Kluckhohn and Kelly on the
tains features whose relevance is not evident fundamental point that to him culture con
(“ideas concerning human beings” !) or which sists of ideas or mental constructs; to them, of
are unclear (do “ one,” “ one’s mind” refer to designs or selective channeling processes. It
members of the society having the culture or would appear to us that while Taylor has
to the student of culture?). There appear to been influenced by Kluckhohn and Kelly, he
be elements belonging in the definition which has emerged with something different, and
have not been stated. that his definitions clearly belong in the present
Feibleman is a philosopher. Neither his class where we have put them. This is pri
tentative nor his final definition fits well into marily because Taylor restricts himself to
the classification we have made of the opinions cognitive or conscious processes (“ mental
of sociologists and anthropologists. We have constructs” ), whereas “ design” allows for
put them here because the first one stresses feelings, unconscious processes, “ implicit cul
ideas and the second one ontology. How these ture.”
elements integrate with other elements in the The distinction between culture holistically
same definitions is not wholly clear. Does conceived and partitively conceived is of
“ common use and application” refer to be course not new. Linton explicitly makes the
havior? What are “complex objective” ideas? distinction (in our B-9) in the same book
As to “ the actual selection of some part of the (1936: 78) in which Taylor sees him shifting
whole of human behavior” — does this mean from one level to another (1936: 274) on this
that a particular culture is a selection out of point. There is probably little danger of con
the total of possible human culture viewed as fusion between the two aspects, the holistic
behavior, or is it intended merely to exclude and the partitive, becoming consequential in
non-cultural physiology like scratching an concrete situations; but theoretically, failure
itch or digesting? “ Behavior considered in to observe the distinction might be serious.
its effects upon materials” w ould seem to be Taylor revolves the distinction largely around
oriented away from ideas, but is obscure, un individual peculiarities, emergent or surviving.
less the reference is to artifacts. However, an These he argues are cultural when culture is
“ implicit dominant ontology” is an integrating conceived holistically, but not cultural when
ideology, and the “selection,” being “ made it is conceived partitively — in that event only
according to [its] demands,” would render shared traits are cultural.
this ontologv formative. Taylor gives to the holistic concept of
We welcome the participation of philoso culture an emergent quality and says that it
phers in the problem of what culture is. Better “ hinges . . . against concepts of the same [j /c ]
trained in abstract terminology, they will not level such as the organic” and inorganic. Bv
however be of much help to working social “ same level” he does not of course mean that
scientists until they either conform to the the cultural, the organic, and the inorganic
established terminology of these or reform represent phenomena of the same order, but
it by explicit revision or substitution. that thev are on the same “ first level of ab
By contrast, Taylor comes from arch-cologv, straction” resulting from “ the primary break
that branch of social studies most directly con down of data” (p. 99). The other or partitive
cerned with tangibles, and presents a set of concept of “ a” culture he credits to “ a second
definitions which are both clear and readily ary level of abstraction.” This distinction by
applicable to specific situations. His defini Taylor of course holds true only on deductive
tions number three because he makes a point of procedure, from universals to particulars. His
distinguishing between holistic culture and torically it is obvious that the procedure has
articular cultures, and then defines the first been the reverse. Even savages know particular
E oth descriptively and explanatorily, follow customs and culture traits, whereas culture
ing Kluckhohn and Kelly. He also states that as a defined holistic concept arose in the nine
he essentially follows them in his definition of teenth century and is still being resisted in
particular cultures. Nevertheless, Taylor spots within the social sciences and ignored
in considerable areas without. We would factors involving culture traits. They do not
rather say that the first “ level” or step in constitute culture but comprise the relation
abstraction was represented by the mild com- ship between culture traits. [This would ex
mon-sense generalization of customs from sen- clude formal and structural relationships and
sorily observed instances of behavior; that then recognize only dynamic relationship.] Culture,
the customs of particular societies were gen consisting of mental constructs, is not directly
eralized into the cultures of those societies; observable; it can be studied solely through
and that culture conceived holistically, as an the objectifications in behavior and results of
order of phenomena and an emergent in evo behavior. Culture traits are ascertainable onlv
lution, represented the to-date final “ level” or by' inference and onlv as approximations (p.
step of abstraction, the one farthest removed i i i ). It is for this reason that context is of
from the raw data of experience. such tremendous importance in all culture
In short, Taylor seems to us to have studies. — Thus Taylor.
blurred two different meanings of the term Ford’s definition (9) suggests influence from
“ level” as currently used. One meaning is both Blumenthal and Taylor, but is original
levels of abstraction, which are really steps and carefully thought through. Ford, it is
in the process of abstracting. The other mean worth remarking, is also an archaeologist.
ing refers to a hierarchy of orders of organiza These definitions emphasizing ideas form
tion of the phenomenal world (like inorganic, an interesting group, whatever specific defects
organic, superorganic or sociocultural). These may be felt to attach to any given definition.
orders are often spoken of as levels, but do not Perhaps this group and Group E are farthest
differ one from the other in their degree of out on the frontier of culture theorv. Certain
abstractness. And in any empirical context issues are raised (for instance Osgood’s sug
they obviously all represent the last and highest gestion that culture must be restricted to
level of abstraction, as compared with more phenomena above the level of consciousness)
restricted concepts or categories such as par which anthropology must face up to. Many
ticular cultures, behaviors, organisms, species. of these definitions deal explicitly with the
TaylorTs summary (p. 110) seems worth problem of weighting. An attempt is made to
resummarizing, in supplement of his definition. extract what is central from looser concep
Culture consists of the increments (of mental tions of “ custom,” “ form,” “ plan,” and the
constructs] which have accrued to individual like. The important distinction between par
minds after birth. When the increments of ticipant and scientific observer is introduced.
enough minds are sufficiently' alike, we speak There are points of linkage with the analyses of
of a culture. Culture traits are manifested by the “ premises” and “ logics” of cultures
cultural agents through the medium of recently developed by Dorothy Lee, B. L.
vehicles, as in Sorokin’s terms. These agents Whorf, Laura Thompson, and others. In
are human beings; the vehicles are “ objectifica short, at least some of these definitions make
tions of culture” — observable behavior and its genuine progress toward refinement of some
results. Culture processes are the dynamic hitherto crude notions.
A: AUTHORS
Jacobs, B-16 (with Stem, 1947).
Bain, F —
III-1 (1942). Katz, D -IV -i (with Schanck, 1938).
Keller, D -i-i (with Sumner, 1927), D -I-4 (1931).
Becker, F-II-10 (1950).
Kelly, A -14, A -15, C-I-10, C -I-11, C-I-12, E-6,
Benedict, A -4 (1929), D-II-6 (1947), G -J (1934).
F-II-6, F -IV -3 (all in collaboration with Kluck-
Bennett, C-I-16 (with Tumin, 1949).
Bernard, F-I-9 (1941b), F - I - i 2 (1942). hohn, 1945a).
Bidney, A -16 (1947), C-II-3 (1942), C-II-4 (1946), Klineberg, C-I-4 (1935).
Kluckhohn, A -14 (with Kelly, 1945a), A -15 (with
C-II-y ( 1947). F -I-16 (1947).
Kelly, 1945a), B-I5 (1942), B-20 (1949a), C -I-10
Blumenthal, D-I-9 (1941), F-II-4 (1937), F -IV -3
(with Kelly, 1945a), C -I-11 (with Kelly, 1945a),
(1941)• C-I-12 (with Kelly, 1945a), C -I-13 (with Leighton,
Boas, A -7 (1930).
1946), C-I-19, (1951a), D—1-12 (with Leighton,
Bogardus, C-I-2 (1930).
1946), D-II-4 (1942), E-6 (with Kelly, 1945a),
Bose, A -6 (1929), B -j (1929). F -I-18 (1949a), F-I-20 (195c), F—II— 6 (with Kelly,
Bryson, G -7 (1947). 1945a), F -IV -5 (with Kelly, 1945a).
Burgess, B-i (with Park, 1921).
Kolb, D-II-I2 (with Wilson, 1949).
Burkitt, A -5 (1929).
Kroeber, A -17 (1948a), B-18 (1948a).
Taylor, F—II—8 (1948). Young, C-I-3 (1934), D -I-3 (1934), D -I-11 (1942),
Thomas, C-I I-2 (1937). D-II-7 (1947), D-III-2 (1934), F - I -13 (1941).
techniques, skills, and abilities — techniques, A-6, A-16, traits — traits, A-9; D -I-14, E-3, F-II-8, non-material
A -17, A -18, B -11, D-II-8; mental, moral, and traits, A-9, D-III-z, E -3; material traits, A-9, D-III-z
mechanical technique, D -I-i; adjustment technique, E - 3-
D -I-6; moral technique, D -I-i; mechanical tech
nique, D -I-i; technical processes, B-6; equipment of transmission, non-genctic — transmission, A -i7 , B-y,
technique, D -I-i; technologies, D-I-6; methods of B-14, B -16, B -i7, B -i8, C-I-8. D-I-z, D-I-6, D-I-14]
handling problems, etc., D -I-y; method of communica D-II-z, D-II-4, E-y, F -I-iy; group-transmitted, E-9,
tion, B -11; skills, A - u , B-zz, D -I-7; capabilities, socially transmined, D -II-14, D -II- 16, F-I-19, F—II—10;
A -i, B-8, C-I-4; mental ability, F —III— 4; higher transferable, A-6; communication, B -11, F-I-6, F -I-u ;
human faculties, C -II-i; use of tools, B -11; use of communicated, B -11, F-II-4, F —II—y; communicable
artifacts. D -II-iz; common use, F—II—7; language intelligence, G -z ; communicative interaction, F-III-y;
uses, A-9; practical arts, A-8, F-I-8; industries, A -z, pass from individual to individual, F-II-9; passed
A-y, A -iz ; crafts, A -13 ; labor, A-zo. down (or on), C-I-6, D-I-y, D-II-7, F-I-z, F-I-3
F-I-14.
thinking (see ideas and cognitive processes)
values, ideals, tastes, and preferences — values, A -17,
A -19, B-6, C-I-ya, C-II-6, D-II-7; material values,
thought (see ideas and cognitive processes) C -II-z; social values, C —
II—z; intellectual ideals, C—II—3,
C-II-4; social ideals, C-II-3, C-II-4; artistic ideals,
time and historical derivation — time, D -I-iz, F-I-8; C-II-3, C-II-4; aesthetic tastes, B-zz; meanings, C-II-6;
point in time, D -I-13; period of time, B-10, D—I—1; preference, D -I-14; norms, A-ioa, C-II-6; judgments,
given time, C - I - n ; present, C-I-z, F-II-4; past, B~4a, F-I-8; spiritual element, B-3.
C-I-z, C-I-3, F-II-4; past behavior, F—I—15; his
torically, C-I-10, C — I—11, C-II-4, E-6, F-II-8; his ways and life-ways — ways, A-8, A -iy , B-7, C-I-z,
torical life, B -i; history, B 17. C -I-3, C -I-i y, C -I-17, D -I-10, D -I-i z, D-I-14,
F -IV -y ; exosomatic ways and means, F —III—4; scheme
totality, culture as comprehensive — total, A -3, A-10, for living, D -I-14; design of the human maze, D-II-3;
A -19, A-zo, B -i, B-7, B-9, B-zo, C-I-z, C-I-y, C-I-9, way of life, A -19, B-iz, B-zo, C-I-4, C-I-8, C-I-9,
D -I-i, D -I-i7, D-II-8. D-II-10. F-I-z, F-I-3, F-I-7, C -I-13, C-I-14, C-I-16, C -I-17, C-I-19, D -I-3, E-8,
F-I-8, F-I-zo, F-II-4, F-II-7; totality, A-g, A -17, wavs of thought, A-zo; ways of doing, thinking, feel
C -I-17, E-9; sum, A -3, A - j, A-10, A - 103, B -i, B-7, ing, C-I-ya; common sense, eidos, implicit dominant
C -I-i, C -I-5, D-I-z, D -I-4 (1915), D -II—5. D-II-8, ontology, F—II—7; forms of behavior, C -I-18; mode
D-II-10, D -IV -i, D -IV -z, F-I-z, F-I-3, F-I-7, F-I-8, of life, C - I - i ; modes of behavior, C-I-y, D—II—14;
F-II-4; summation, E-9, F-II-6; synthesis, D -I-4 modes of conduct, C -I-17; modes of operation, F-I-6;
(19 15); complex whole, A -i, A-4, A - u , A -14, B -11, modes of thought, F-I-14, F-III-y; modes of action,
D -I-7; integral whole, A -13 ; whole complex, B-10; F -I-14; folkways, C -I-3, D -I-y; maniere de vivre,
all (social activities), A -z; accumulated treasury, C-I-183.
W O RD S N O T IN C LU D E D IN IN D E X B
* Boas in The Mind of Primitive Man, revised aspects of life, however, does not constitute culture.
edition of 1938, opens his Chapter 9 on page 159 with It is more, for its elements are not independent, they
a definition of culture based on his 1930 one (which have a structure.
we have already cited in Pan II—A—7) but expanded, The activities enumerated here are not by any
and then in a sense effaced by a second paragraph means the sole property of man, for the life of animals
which grants most the components of culture to is also regulated by their relations to nature, to other
animals other than man. The two paragraphs read: animals and by the interrelation of the individuals
“ Culture mav be defined as the total i f of the composing the same species or social group.”
mental and physical reactions and activities that Apart from its non-limitation to man, this statement
characterise the behavior of the individuals com by Boas is strongly behavioral: culture consists of
posing a social group collectively and individually psychosomatic reactions and activities. Beyond these
in relation to their natural env:ronmcnt, to other activities, culture includes their products (presum
groups, to members of the group itself and of each ably artifacts, material culture) and possesses structure.
individual to himself. It also includes the products of Not mentioned are the rational attitudes and ethical,
these activities and their role in the life of the aesthetic, and religious valuations mentioned in state
groups. The mere enumeration of these various ment (4) in the text above.
as a thing whose meaning is determined by systems of culture. He recognizes five “ pure”
those who use it. Only man has the ability to cultural systems: (1), language; (2), science,
use symbols. The exercise of this faculty has evidently including technology; (3), religion;
created for this species a kind of environment (4), fine arts; (5), ethics or law and morals.14
not possessed by any other species: a cultural Of “ mixed” or derivative systems, there are
environment. Culture is a traditional organiza three most notable ones: philosophy, eco
tion of objects (tools, and things made with nomics, politics. Philosophy, for instance, is
tools), ideas (knowledge, lore, belief), senti a compound of science, religion, and ethics.
ments (attitude toward milk, homicide, Except for Wissler’s one fling at the uni
mothers-in-law, etc.) and use of symbols. versal pattern of. culture, which was enumera-
The function of culture is to regulate the ad tive and which he did not follow up, anthro
justment of man 3S an animal species to his pologists have fought shy of trying to make
natural habitat. formal classification of the components of
culture.9 Being mostly preoccupied with deal
COMMENT ing with cultures substantively, such classi
fication has evidently seemed to them a matter
A few statements as to the components of mainly of pragmatic convenience, and they
culture are enumerarive, somewhat like Tylor’s have dealt with it in an ad hoc manner, in con
original definition of culture (Part II-A -i), trast with Sorokin, whose logical and syste
without straining to be absolutely inclusive. matizing bent is much more developed than
Such is White’s 1947 list (7)- tools, utensils, theirs — more than that of most sociologists,
traditional habits, customs, sentiments, ideas. in fact.
The context shows that White is concerned There is however one tripartite classifica
with the nature and function of culture, and tion of culture which appears several times —
his enumeration is illustrative rather than ex in substance though not in the same nomen
haustive. Bose (1), 1929 takes over Wissler’s clature — in the foregoing statements: those
universal pattern (with one minor change). by Menghin (2), 1931, Boas (4), 1938, Mur
He merely says that culture can be analyzed dock (5), 1941.7 Under this viewpoint, the
into these nine categories, and is express that major domains of culture are: (1) the relation
these are not independent units in their own of man to nature, subsistence concerns, tech
right. V. Lssler’s classificatory attempt — with niques, “ material” culture; (2) the more or
his sub-classes it is about a page long and less fixed interrelations of men due to desire
looks much like a Table of Contents — has for status and resulting O in social
b culture;1
never been seriously used, developed, or (3) subjective aspects, ideas, attitude:, and
challenged. It is evident that anthropologists values and actions due to them, insight,
have been reluctant to classify culture into its “spiritual” culture. We have already touched
topical parts. They have sensed that the cate on one aspect of this ideology in Part I, Section
gories are not logically definite, but are sub 4, 5, in discussing distinctions attempted, in
jectively fluid and serve no end bcvond that Germany and the United States, between
of convenience, and thus would shift accord “ civilization” and “ culture.” The addition of
ing to interest and context. social relations, process, or culture yields the
Sorokin (1947, ch. 17, 18) calls the divis trichotomy now being considered.
ions, segments, or categories of culture, such As a matter of fact Alfred Weber in 1912
as those of Wissler and Bose, “ cultural sys appears to have been the first to make the
tems,” which, with cultural congeries, under dichotomy in the present specific sense, and
lie his Ideational, Idealistic, and Sensate super- to have expanded it to the trichotomy in 1920.
*In Sorokin, 1950, p. 197, philosophy seems to be ’ Tessman, 1930, in listing culture items of East
added as a pure system, “ applied technology” to have Peruvian tribes, groups them under the headings of
taken its place among the derivative ones. material, social, and spiritual culture, corresponding
‘ Murdock, 1945, constitutes, in part, a follow-up to Menghin’s divisions.
of Wissler.
In America, Maclvcr (1931, 194:) and .Merton have seen that use of the word culture was
(1936) seem to have been the first to see its long respectively resisted and refused.
significance. It thus appears that this three- At any rate, this three-fold segmentation of
way distinction was first made in Germany culture has now sufficient usage to suggest that
ana for a while remained a sociological one, it possesses a certain utility'. We therefore
anthropologists coming to recognize it later, tabulate the principal instances of its employ
but again first in Germany and second in the ment as a convenient way of illustrating the
United States. In so far as the trichotomy substantial uniformity of authors’ concep
developed out of one of the several culture- tions, underneath considerable difference of
civilization distinctions, it could not well have terms used, as well as some minor variations of
originated in England or France, where we what is included in each category.
i. Marett, 1920: 11 - 1 2 (cf. footnote 6). tivities, to play such an important part in civi
It is quite legitimate to regard culture, or lized life. If one were to yield to a first impres
social tradition, in an abstract way as a tissue sion, one would be tempted to say that subli
of externalities, as a robe of many colours mation is a fate which has been forced upon
woven on the loom of time by the human instincts by culture alone. But it is better to
spirit for its own shielding or adorning, More reflect over this a while longer. Thirdly and
over, for certain purposes which in their en lastly, and this seems most important of all,
tirety may be termed sociological, it is actually it is impossible to ignore the extent to which
convenient thus to concentrate attention on the civilization is built up on renunciation of in
outer garb. In this case, indeed, the garb may stinctual gratifications, the degree to which the
well at first sight seem to count for every existence of civilization presupposes the non
thing; for certainly a man naked of all culture gratification [suppression, repression or some
would be no better than a forked radish. thing else? ] of powerful instinctual urgencies.
Nevertheless, folk-lore cannot out of deference This “ cultural privation" dominates the whole
to sociological considerations afford to commit field of social relations between human be
the fallacy of identifying the clothes worn ings; we know already that it is the cause of
with their live wearer . . . Hence I would the antagonism against which all civilization
maintain that in the hierarchy of the sciences has to fight.
psychology is superior to sociology, for the
reason that as the study of the soul it brings 3. Redfield, 1928: 292.
us more closely into touch with the nature The barrios have, indeed, obviously different
of reality than does the study of the social cultures, or, what is the same thing, different
body . . . . personalities. . . .
. . . Tylor called our science the science of
culture, and it is a good name. But let us not 4. Benedict, 1932: 23, 24.
forget that culture stands at once for a body Cultural configurations stand to the under
and a life, and that the bodv is a function of standing of group behavior in the relation that
the life, not the life of the body. personality types stand to the understanding
of individual behavior. . . .
2. Freud, 19 2 J: 6 2-6 3. . . . It is recognized that the organization of
. . . order and cleanliness arc essentially cul the total personality is crucial in the under
tural demands, although the necessity of them standing or even in the mere description of
for survival is not particularlv apparent, anv individual behavior. If this is true in individual
more than their suitability as sources of plea psychology where individual differentiation
sure. At this point we must be struck for the must be limited always by the cultural forms
first time with the similarity between the pro and by the short span of a human lifetime, it
cess of cultural development and that of the is even more imperative in social psychology
libidinal development in an individual. Other where the limitations of time and of conformi-
instincts have to be induced to change the ty arc transcended. The degree of integration
conditions of their gratification, to find it that may be attained is of course incomparably
along other paths, a process which is usually greater than can ever be found in individual
identical with what we know so well as sub psychology. Cultures from this point of view
limation (of the aim of an instinct), but which arc individual psychology thrown large upon
can sometimes be differentiated from this. the screen, given gigantic proportions and a
Sublimation of instinct is an especially con long time span.
spicuous feature of cultural evolution; this it This is a reading of cultural from individual
is that makes it possible for the higher mental psychology, but it is not open to the objec
operations, scientific, artistic, ideological ac tions that always have to be pressed against such
lo 3
versions as Frazer’s or Levy-Bruhl’s. The dif infantile traumata, and that culture in general
ficulty with the reading of husband’s preroga (everything which differentiates man from the
tives from jealousy, and secret societies from lower animals) is a consequence of infantile
the exclusiveness of age- and sex-groups, is that experience.
it ignores the cruciaf point, which is not the
occurrence of the trait but the social choice 7. Roheim, 1934: 169, 171, 239-36.
that elected its institutionalization in that cul I believe that every culture, or at least every
ture. The formula is always helpless before orimitive culture, can be reduced to a formu
the opposite situation. In the reading of cul la like a neurosis or a dream.
tural configurations as I have presented it in If we assume that differences in the treat
this discussion, it is this selective choice of the ment of children determine differences in cul
society which is the crux of the process. It ture, we must also suppose that the origin of
is probable that there is potentially about the culture in general, that is, the emergence of
same range of individual temperaments and mankind was itself determined by traumata
crifts, but from the point of view of the indi of ontogenesis to be found in the parent-child
vidual on the threshold of that society, each relation among the anthropoids of pre-human
culture has already chosen certain of these beings from whom we are descended. Analy
traits to make its own and certain to ignore. sis teaches us that super-ego and character, the
The central fact is that the history of each moral attitudes that are independent of reality,
trait is understandable exactly in terms of its of the current situation, result from infantile
having passed through this needle’s eye of so experience. The possession of these moral at
cial acceptance. titudes is specifically human; it separates man
from his pre-human forbears.
5. Goldenweiser, 1933: 59 - The prolongation of the period of infancy
. . . If we had the knowledge and patience is the cause of a trauma that is common to all
to analyse a culture retrospectively, everv ele mankind. Differentiation in the erotic play
ment of it would be found to have had its be activities in different hordes has modified it
ginning in the creative act of an individual and so produced the typical traumata and the
mird. There is, of course, no other source specific cultures of different groups. . . . Al
for culture to come from, for what culture is though neurosis is a super-culture, an exaggera
made of is but the raw stuff of experience, tion of what is specifically human, analysis
whether material or spiritual, transformed in adds to the cultural capacity of the patient;
to culture by the creativeness of man. An an for those archaic features of quick discharge
alysis of culture, if fully carried out, leads back which arise as a compensation to the over-cul
to the individual mind. ture disappear during its course. Rut in gen
The content of any particular mind, on the eral u'e have no cause to deny the hostility of
other hand, comes from culture. No individual analysis to culture. Culture involves neurosis,
can ever originate his culture — it comes to which we try to cure. Culture involves super
him from without, in the process of education. ego, which u’e seek to weaken. Culture in
In its constituent elements culture is psycho volves the retention of the infantile situation,
logical and, in the last analysis, comes from the from which we endeavour to free our patients.
individual. Bet as an integral entity culture is
cumulative, historical, extra-individual. It 8. Sapir (1934) 1949: 991-92.
comes to the individual as part of his objective What is the genesis of our duality of interest
experience, just as do his experiences with na in the facts of behavior? Why is it necessary
ture, and, like these, it is absorbed by him, to discover the contrast, real or fictitious, be
thus becoming part of his psychic content. tween culture and personality, or, to speak
more accurately, between a segment of behav
6. Roheim, 1934: 216. ior seen as cultural partem and a segment of
Thus we are led logically to assume that in behavior interpreted as having a person-defin
dividual cultures can be derived from typical ing value? Why cannot our interest in be-
104
havior maintain the undifferentiated character aware of and to attach value to his resistance
which it possessed in early childhood1 The to authority. It could probably be shown that
answer, presumably, is that each tv pe of inter naturally conservative people find it difficult
est is necessary for the psychic preservation to take personality valuations seriously, while
of the individual in an environment which ex temperamental radicals tend to be impatient
perience makes increasingly complex and un- with a purely cultural analysis of human be
assimilable on its own simple terms. The in havior.
terests connected by the terms culture and
personality are necessary for intelligent and 9. Opler, i 93)-: 143, 132-33.
nelpful growth because each is based on a dis Now this cultural factor is the chief con
tinctive kind of imaginative participation by cern and object of study of the anthropologist,
the observer in the life around him. The ob and he is adverse, naturally, to seeing it dis
server may dramatize such behavior as he takes qualified at the outset. He is then further dis
note of in terms of a set of values, a conscience turbed to see the totality of culture explained
which is beyond self and to which he must as a sublimation, as a channelization of the re
conform, actually or imaginatively, if he is to pressed element of the Oedipus complex into
preserve his place in the world of authority or more acceptable avenues. As has been pointed
impersonal social necessity. Or, on the other out, in this view totemism is the “ first religion”
hand, he may feel the behavior as self-expres and the ritual extension of the act of parricide;
sive, as defining the reality of individual con exogamy is also derived from the aftermath of
sciousness against the mass of environing so the parricide and is connected with totemism.
cial determinants. Observations coming within Art develops as a vehicle of ritualism. The
the framework of the former of these two parricide is the “ criminal act with which so
kinds of participation constitute our know many things began, social organization, moral
ledge of culture. Those which come within restrictions and religion.” A. L. Kroeber has
the framework of the latter constitute our pointedly remarked the discouraging implica
knowledge of personality. One is as subjective tions of such a view for anthropology when
or objective as the other, for both are essen he comments, “ . . . the symbols into which the
tially modes of projection of personal experi ‘libido’ converts itself, are phylogenetically
ence into the analysis of social phenomena. transmitted and appear socially. . . . Now if
Culture may be psychoanalyricilly reinter the psychoanalysts are right, nearly all eth
preted as the supposedly impcr .onaf aspect of nology and culture history are waste of effort,
those values and definitions which come to the except insofar as they contribute new raw ma
child with the irresistible authority of the terials. . . .”
father, mother, or other individuals of their Thus the ego is the expression of the psy
class. The child does not feel itself to be con chological sustenance drawn from the total
tributing to culture through his personal in culture by the individual. There are those
teraction but is the passive recipient of values whose contacts are rich, varied, and balanced.
which lies completely beyond his control and There are those whose experiences have proved
which have a necessity and excellence that he poor, stultifying, and unsatisfying. But what
dare not question. We may therefore venture ever we attain, whatever we become, it is only
to surmise that one’s earliest configurations of a small part of what the total culture has to
experience have more of the character of w hat offer; above the slight shadow any of us casts,
is later to be rationalized as culture than of looms the greater image of the world of ideas,
what the psychologist is likely to abstract as attainments, and ideals from which we draw
personality. We have all had the disillusioning our aspirations. This is the measuring stick
experience of revising our father and mother by which our individual statures must be
images down from the institutional plane to evaluated. This is the glass through which our
the purely personal one. The discovery of the neighbors watch us. This is the judge before
world of personality is apparently dependent whom we must pass before wre dare breathe,
upon the ability of the individual to become “ Well done,” of our works. This is the total
culture of the anthropologist and the ego-ideal my metaphor, this matrix or cementing sub
of Freud. stance will in the first place consist of some of
Now we are prepared to understand what the deeper or fundamental attitudes of the hu
Freud means when he says: “ The tension be man psyche, including, perhaps, ethnic ele
tween the demands of conscience and the ac ments and possible fixations resulting from in
tual attainments of the ego is experienced as a fantile experiences, if these are sufficiently
sense of guilt. Social feelings rest on the foun general to affect the majority of children of a
dation of identification with others, on the basis social group.
of an ego-ideal in common with them.” YVhat
we have in common with fcllowmcn w hose ii. Faris, 1937: 27S.
judgments mean much to us is culture, a com It is assumed that culture and personality are
munity of understandings, artifacts, concepts, correlative terms; that to know the culture of
and ethics. The individual ego approaches, re a people is to know the types of personalities
sembles, and utilizes this, or failing to do so, to be found within it; and that to know the
it suffers the condemnation of its fellows and personalities is to understand the culture.
withdraws in guiltv self-approach. These two products of human life are twin-
The difference between the anthropologist born. Culture is the collective side of per
and psychoanalyst in respect to the offices of sonality; personality, the subjective aspect of
the id, ego, and ego-ideal as thus defined, is culture. Society with its usages and personali
hardly more than terminological. ties with their variations are hut two ways of
The psychoanalyst says: “ Whereas the ego looking at human life.
is essentially the representative of the external It is further assumed that these two concepts
world, of reality, the super-ego stands in con are not to be thought of as arranged in a
trast to it as the representative of the internal causal sequence. Personalities do not cause
world, of the id.” culture, nor does culture produce personality.
The anthropologist would phrase the matter Interaction, intersrimulation, interlcarning are
just a little differently. He would say: “ That continuous, and personalities arc always affect
is a statement demonstrating remarkable in ing culture, and culture is always modifying
sight, Dr. Freud. W e anthropologists have personality. It would appear that society does
been much impressed with its truth. We too not mold the individual, for molding is too pas
have noted that culture (ego-ideal) tends to sive a term. Individuals do not produce a cul
express the deep-seated wishes (id). Man’s ture, for collective life has its own laws and
whole world of supernaturalism, for instance, its own procedure. Society and the individual,
is largely a response to wishfulfillment. The culture and personality: both are useful and
much tried individual (ego) is constantly in necessary abstractions made sometimes at will,
the position of attempting to accommodate the forced sometimes upon the student as he tried
ideal, fictitious world that culture deems should to understand the phenomena before him.
be, with the realities of living.” And yet a sequence is assumed, if not causal,
at least temporal. All culture can be assumed
10. Selignian, 1936: 113. to arise out of a former culture or some blend
. . . A mosaic, as we all know, may be of any or combination of more than one. Similarly',
degree of elaboration, and this holds equally all personal ties are organized from the contact
of the cultures we study. A mosaic may ex with other personalities and cultural forms.
hibit well-defined patterns, or it may be a But in any particular instance, in the consid
mere scatter of different coloured tesserae; eration of any one individual personality, it
moreover, the tesserae are held together by a is here assumed that a personality arises subse
matrix, and I believe that in studying so-called quently to a specific cultural system. The pri
patterns of culture attention should equally be ority of culture seems to be not only a demon
paid to an element comparable to the matrix strable fact; it is a heuristic principle of great
of a mosaic. If I may be allowed to develop utility.
12. Nadel, 1937a: 280-81. 13. Nadel, 1937b: 421-23, 433.
. . . The present discussion attempts to dem As this article is to describe an attempt to
onstrate that we have to reverse the argument; include psychology in anthropological field
that we must define (at least in the first in work a few words must be said first in justifi
stance) the observable psychological trends cation of this attempt to examine, over and
in culture as an expression of dominating “ con above the concrete realities of culture, the psv -
tents,” rational interests, and concrete pur chological factors “ behind” culture. . . .
pose-directed activity. . . . The anthropological analysis defines the con
The “ pattern” of a culture thus appears as stitution and structure of a culture (including
a co-ordination of social activity of primarily the institutionalized activities which involve
sociological, i. e., rational (“ purposive-ration psychological factors); the psychological ex
al,” as Max Weber would say) nature. The periment is to define, independently, the psy
rational interdependence of culture facts re chological organization of the human substra
veals the agency of certain obtaining social tum of the culture. . . .
conditions and concrete dominant interests. We have been able, by means of the experi
In certain cases we may be able to trace these ment, to isolate psychological organization
determining conditions and interests still fur from the body of culture, and we have demon
ther, down to objective “ absolute” needs and strated that an essential correspondence ob
necessities: to physical facts and psycho-phy tains between the two systems of phenomena.
sical or biological'i'actors. In other cases there
may be no such solution, and functional inter 14 Woodard, 193S: 649.
pretation will then be definitely relieved by From the angle of contained imperatives,
the descriptive statement of history (in the the culture, like the individual, vmst have an
narrow' sense), by the “ uniqueness of events” integration. A rational, and thereby a com
of which we spoke in the beginning, and by plete, integration is not possible until much
the arbitrariness of the “ illogical” phenomena experience has been accumulated. Hence, in
of culture (Pareto). It is implied in the nature both cases, the first integration cannot escape
of this purpose-directed integration of society being an incomplete, inconsistent, and emo
that it tends to penetrate into every detail of tional one. As an emotional integration, it re-
culture: religion, education, recreation, and art sisrs the necessary transitional break-ups inci
will reflect the dominating intere.n of a cul dent to achieving a mature and rational integ
ture as much as the institutions which serve ration, and, as an incomplete and inconsistent
these interests more directly. Here, for the pattern, it achieves general workability of a
complex whccls-within-whecls-niechanism. of sort by compartmentalization, rationalization,
culture in which each clement is conditioned the development of subintegrarions, and the
as well as conditioning, directed as u ell as di achievement of only accomodative mechan
recting, Dr. Benedict’s formulation of the isms bet'ween these, rather than reaching the
“ consolidations” of culture in “ obedience to full adjustment of a single, all inclusive integ
(dominating) purposes.” holds true in a new ration. Precisely this same mechanism pro
and, I believe, logically more correct sense. duces the three subintegrations within the per
Evidently, this consolidation can only work sonality (Super-ego, Ego, and Id) and the
and become effective through concrete mental three divisions of culture (Control, Inductive,
processes. Fxpresscd in terms of mental or and Aesthetic-expressive culture) and the vari
ganization, functional integration of culture ous merely accommodative mechanisms be
means logical connection and relation (of tween them. Blocking at the hands of the
which purposive relation is only one cate dominant subintegration; exaggerated pressure
gory), working with “ assumption,” “ premises,” from the blocked impulse; defensive overpro
and syllogistic schemata. In its collectivity it tection and repression; further exaggeration
coincides with Mr. Bateson’s logical structure and consolidation of the repressed elements;
or eidos (or rather wfith one side of this slightly still further overprotesration, consolidation,
ambiguous concept). and protective severin': this is the contained
process which forges the threefold structure tions in the culture. From this point of view,
both of personality and of culture. Make it if a group is paranoid, one ought to be able to
onlv a little more severe than usual and it is track down those institutional forces with
the vicious circle of neuroticism and psychotic which all constituents make contact and which
dissociation (social disorganization and revo terminate in this common trait. However, to
lution at the social level) expressed in its regard character as an irreducible racial or cul-
broadest terms. tural idiosyncrasy is at once to use a psycho
logical
O O designation and at the same time to
15. Kardiner, 1939: 84-83. deny the validity' of psychological derivation
Cultures have been described by analogies of character.
with the variations found in human character,
drawn either from psychopathology, from 16. M andelbaum , 1 9 4 1 : 238.
literary or from mythological sources. Thus A graduated weighting of patterns, a hier
cultures have been described as “ paranoid,” archy of values, is characteristic of the phen
“ introverted,” or “ extroverted” ; cultures have omena we call cultural as well as of the be
been named after literary figures like “ Faust,” havior w e term personal. The shape of a cul
or after Greek deities like “ Apollo” or “ Diony ture, when we probe into its essential nature,
sus.” The effort in all these cases is to convey begins to look more and more like the srruc-
some general impression of the predominant ture of a personality. . . .
direction of life goals, of moral values, or of
a psychological technique 17. Rohehn, 1941: 3-4, 23.
Such designations as these cannot claim any The theory' of a collective unconscious
great accuracy. No culture is exclusively ex w'ould be an assumption we might be compelled
troverted or introverted. No culture is pre to make if we had no other way to explain the
dominantly “ paranoid.” These epithets rely phenomenon of human culture. 1 believe,
on very vague connotations. The term “ para however, that psychoanalysis has anorhcr con
noid” may refer to megalomania, to persecu tribution to offer and that this second sugges
tion, or merely to anxiety, and the reader’s se tion is safer and easier to prove. The second
lection of one of these depends on his concep suggestion is that rhe specific features of man
tion of “ paranoid.” The term “ extrovert” like kind were developed in the same wav as thev
wise can mean anv number of things: uninhi- arc acquired to-day in every human individual
itcd, interested in activity, interested in the as a sublimation or reaction-formation to in
outer world; “ introverted” may mean inhibited, fantile conflicts. This is what I have called the
introspective, interested in fantasy, etc. ontogenetic theory of cultures. I found a so
The designation “ Faustian” or “ Dionysian” is ciety in which the infant was exposed to lib-
different in kind from the preceding ones. idina! trauma on the part of the mother and
Here a culture is described in accordance with have shown that this predominantly male so
a characterological type in which the charac ciety yvas based on the repression of that
teristic dominant objectives or values or ideol trauma. In the same yvav I have shown that
ogies are taken as guides to the adaptation of in a matrilincal society the Iibidinal traum3
a group. consisted in the father playing at devouring
All these focal ideas are open to the same the child’s genital and that this society was
objection, because thev destroy the boundaries based on the fiction that there arc no fathers.
between individual and institution. The basic If wre remember some significant passages in
fallacy involved is that, according to any con Freud’s writings, we notice that Freud also
temporary psychology, variations in human holds this second vieyv of culture. If culture
character are created by habitual methods of consists in the sum total of efforts which we
reacting to external conditions. The character make to avoid being unhappy\ this amounts to
trait may be a reaction formation, a compensa an individualistic and therefore, from the psy
tion or flight, the nature of which can be de cho-analytic point of view, to the ontogenetic
cided only from the disciplines or reality situa explanation of culture. If culture is based on
the renunciation of instinctual gratification, 18. Roheim, 1942: 151.
this means that it is based on the super-ego and Ever since the first attempts were made to
hence also explained by the fact that we ac apply psychoanalysis to cultural phenomena
quire a super-ego. the structural similarity of culture and neuro
Of if we take Freud’s papers in which he ex sis or “ psychical system formation” has been
plains not culture as a whole, but certain ele tacitly assumed. No psychoanalyst would be
ments of culture, we find that these interpre likely to contradict Freud’s famous threefold
tations are individualistic and psychological, comparison of paranoia to philosophy, of com
and not based on a hypothetical phylogenesis. pulsion neurosis to religion (ritual) and of hy
Finally, if we consider especially the interpre steria to art. By comparing three of the most
tations given by Melanie Klein and in general important aspects of culture to three types of
by the English school of psycho-analysts, it is neurosis Freud has implicitly compared cul
quite evident that all these interpretations of ture itself to neurosis in general. Furthermore,
individual evolution also imply an interpreta if we consider the whole literature on “ applied
tion of human culture as based on the infantile analysis” we see in every case a cultural ele
situation. Thus, if Melanie Klein regards sym ment of some kind is explained on basis of the
bolism as a necessary consequence of the in same mechanisms that underlie the various
fant’s aggressive trends and the mechanisms kinds of neurosis.
mobilized against these trends and also as the
basic elements in the subject’s relation to the 19. Kluckhohn and Aloivrer, 1944: 7-8.
outside world and in sublimation, this implies The cultural facet of the environment of
an explanation of culture in terms of the infan any society is a signally' important determinant
tile situation. If demons are explained as pro both of the content and of the structure of the
jections of the super-ego, if the functions of a personalities of members of that society. The
medicine man are explained by the assumption culture very' largely determines what is
that the help of an external object is sought learned: available skills, standards of value, and
against the introjectcd object, or if introver basic orientations to such universal problems
sion or extraversion in an individual or a group as death. Culture likewise structures the con
are due to the flight of the internal or extern ditions under which learning takes place:
al object, these and many others are obviously whether from parents or parent surrogates or
explanations based on the infantile situation.. . .
from siblings or from those in the learner’s
own age grade, whether learning «s gradually
I. Culture or sublimations in a group are and gently acquired or suddenly demanded,
evolved through the same process as in the in whether renunciations are harshly enforced
dividual. or reassuringly rewarded. To say that “ cul
z. Cultural areas are conditioned by the ture determines” is, of course, a highly ab
typical infantile situation in each area. stract w ay of speaking. In the behavioral w orld
3. Human culture as a whole is the conse what we actually see is parents and other older
quence of our prolonged infancy'. and more experienced persons teaching
4. Typically human forms of adjustment younger and less experienced persons. We as
are derived from the infantile situation. sume that biology sets the basic processes
5. Our conquest of nature is due to the syn which determine boie man learns, but culture,
thetic function of the ego. as the transmitted experiences of preceding
6. Psycho-analytic interpretations of cul generations (both technological and moral)
ture should always be ego plus id interpreta very largely determines ii'hat man learns (as a
tions. member of a society rather than as an individ
7. The interpretation of cultural elements ual who has his own private experiences). Cul
through individual analy sis is probably correct, ture even determines to a considerable extent
but should be combined with the analysis of how the teaching that is essential to this learn
anthropological data. ing shall be carried out.
20. Beaglehole and Beaglehole, 1946: 15. 22. Merton, 1949: 379.
The culture of each individual overlaps Despite her consistent concern with “ cul
to a greater or less degree with the culture of ture,” for example, Horney does nor explore
each and every other individual making up the differences in the impact of this culture upon
group in question. This overlapping makes up farmer, worker and businessman, upon lower-,
a world of generally understood feelings, middle-, and upper-class individuals, upon
thoughts, actions, and values. In other words, members of various ethnic and racial groups,
it makes up the culture of the people. One of etc. As a result, the role of “ inconsistencies in
the jobs of the social scientist is to study this culture” is not located in its differential impact
culture as thus defined. But in doing so, he upon diversely situated groups. Culture be
must abstract and generalize from the private comes a kind of blanket covering all members
experience of as many informants as he is able of the society equally, apart from their idiosyn
to study. The result can only be an abstrac cratic differences in life-history. It is a prim
tion. It can only be a valid abstraction if a ary asumption of our typology that these re
sensitive member of the group feels a fair sponses occur with different frequency with
amount of familiarity as he reads the words in various sub-groups in our society precisely
which define these abstractions. because members of these groups or strata are
Depending both on the skill of the investiga differentially' subject to cultural stimulation
tors and on the relative amount of integration and social restraints. This sociological orienta
of the culture (that is, the preponderance of tion will be found in the writings of Dollard
common symbols over private symbols in the and, less systematically, in the work of Fromm,
culture), the informed reader is likely to say, Kardiner, and Lass well.
“Yes, this is so,” or “ Yes, that may be so, but
it is outside the context of my own experi CO M M EN T9
ence.” Because of our feeling that Kowhai
Maori culture today suffers from a lack of in These excerpts are largely variations upon
tegration (a feeling that we will try to docu two themes: the relationship of the abstraction,
ment later on in this report), we expect disa culture, to concrete individuals and certain
greement of the “ Yes, b u t. . . ” tvpe with some similarities between personalities and cultures.
of our analyses and statements. Such disagree The variations on the first theme consist
ments would not necessarily imply that our partly in general discussions of the origins of
study was subjective and perhaps prejudiced. culture in the individual psyrche, partly in at
They would indicate only that in trying to see tempts to provide a specific theory through
Kowhai Maori culture as a going concern we psychoanaly tic principles.
have inevitably neglected to explore all the Marett (1) (cf. also III—f—21) strikes a chord
private worlds of all the Maoris living in Kow which has been developed by many later
hai. A moment’s reflection will doubtless con writers, perhaps most subtly and effectively
vince the general reader of the impossibility by Sapir (cf. also III—f—7). A somewhat crude
of ever presenting an absolutely true and abso paraphrase of this position might run as fol
lutely objective account of Kowhai Maori life. lows: “ Let us not be so seduced by captivat
ing abstractions that we lose sight of the ex
21. Leighton, 1949: 76. periencing organism in all his complexity and
There exist psychological uniformities com variability. We must not dehumanize the sci
mon to all tribes, nations, and “ races” of human ence of man by concentrating exclusively
beings. Each psychological uniformity has a upon ‘the outer garb.’ What we in fact observe
range through which it varies; some variants and we ourselves experience is not culture but
are characteristic of particular groups of peo an intricate flux that is influenced, channeled
ple and as such form a part of their culture. but never completely contained within cultural
“ A case can also be made for comparing culture a highly technical consideration of psychoanalytic
at least as closely to another concept of Freud’s, that terminology.
of the ego idea). However, this would involve us in
i. Boas; 19 11: 67-68. ness, and thus give rise to secondary reason
It would seem that the obstacles to general ing and to re-interpretations. It would, for in
ized thought inherent in the form of a language stance, seem very plausible that the funda
are of minor importance only, and that pre mental religious notions — like the idea of the
sumably the language alone would not pre voluntary power of inanimate objects, or of
vent a people from advancing to more general the anthropomorphic character of animals, or
ized forms of thinking if the general state of of the existence of powers that are superior
their culture should require expression of such to the mental and physical powers of man —
thought; that under these conditions the lan are in their origin just as little conscious as are
guage would be molded rather by the cultural the fundamental ideas of language. While,
state. It does not seem likely, therefore, that however, the use of language is so automatic
there is anv direct relation between the culture that the opportunity never arises for the fun
of a tribe and the language they speak, except damental notions to emerge into consciouncss,
in so far as the form of the language will be this happens very frequently in all phenomena
molded by the state of culture, but not in relating to religion. It would seem that there
so far as a certain state of culture is conditioned is no tribe in the world in which the religious
bv morphological traits of the language. . . . activities have not come to be a subject of
Of greater positive importance is the ques thought. While the religious activities may
tion of the relation of the unconscious charac have been performed before the reason
ter of linguistic phenomena to the more con for performing them had become a sub
scious ethnological phenomena. It seems to my ject of thought, they attained at an early
mind that this contrast is only apparent, and time such importance that man asked himself
that the very fact of the unconsciousness of the reason why he performed these actions.
linguistic processes helps us to gain a clearer With this moment speculation in regard to re
understanding of the ethnological phenomena, ligious activities arose, and the whole scries
a point the importance of which can not be of secondary explanations which form so vast
underrated. It has been mentioned before that a field of ethnological phenomena came into
in all languages certain classifications of con existence.
cepts occur. To mention only a few: we find
objects classified according to sex, or as ani :. Sapir, 19 12 : 239 -41 ( , 9 4 9 : 10 0-02).
mate and inanimate, or according to form. We . . . Perhaps the whole problem of the rela
find actions determined according to time and tion between culture ana environment gen
place, etc. The behavior of primitive man erally, on the one hand, and language, on the
makes it perfectlv clear that all these concepts, other, may be furthered somewhat by a con
although they are in constant use, have never sideration simply of the rate of change or de
risen into consciousness, and that consequently velopment of both. Linguistic features are
their origin must be sought, not in rational, but necessarily less capable of rising into the con
in entirely unconscious, we mav perhaps say sciousness of the speakers than traits of culture.
instinctive, processes of the mind. They must Without here attempting to go into an analy
be due to a grouping of sense-impressions and sis of this psychological difference between
of concepts which is not in any sense of the the two sets of phenomena, it would seem to
term voluntary, but which develops from quite follow that changes in culture are the result,
different psychological causes. It would seem to at least a considerable extent, of conscious
that the essential difference between linguistic processes or of processes more easily made
phenomena and other ethnological phenomena conscious, whereas those of language are to
is, that the linguistic classifications never rise be explained, if explained at all, as due to the
into consciousness, while in other ethnological more minute action of psychological factors
phenomena, although the same unconscious hevond the control of will or reflection. If
origin prevails, these often rise into conscious this be true, and there seems every reason to
believe that it is, we must conclude that cul thesis. Another consequence is that the forms
tural change and linguistic change do not move of language may be thought to more ac
along parallel lines and hence do not tend to curately reflect those of a remotely past stage
stand in a close causal relation. This point of of culture than the present ones of culture it
view makes it quite legitimate to grant, if self. It is not claimed that a stage is ever
necessary, the existence at some primitive stage reached at u hich language and culture stand
in the past of a more definite association be in no sort of relation to each other, but simply
tween environment and linguistic form than that the relative rates of change of the two dif
can now be posited anywhere, for the different fer so materially' as to make it practically im
character and rate of change in linguistic and possible to detect the relationship.
cultural phenomena, conditioned by the very
nature or those phenomena, would in the long 3. Sapir, i 92}b: 152-53 ( i 949 , ‘ 55- 5 *)-
run vcrv materially disturb and ultimately en . . . If the Eskimo and the Hottentot ha\e no
tirely eliminate such an association. . . . adequate notion of what we mean by causa
To some extent culture and language may tion, does it follow that their languages are in
then be conceived of as in a constant state of capable of expressing the causative relation?
interaction and definite association for a con Certainly not. In English, in German, and in
siderable lapse of time. This state of correla Greek we have certain formal linguistic de
tion, however, can not continue indefinitely. vices for passing from the primary act or state
With gradual change of group psychology to its causative correspondent, e.g., English to
and physical environment more or less pro fall, to fell, “ to cause to fall” ; unde, to widen;
found changes must be effected in the form and German hangen, “ to hang, be suspended” ;
content of both language and culture. Lan hangen, “ to hang, cause to be suspended” ;
guage and culture, however, are obviously not Greek phero, “ to cariy'” ; phored, “ to cause to
the direct expressions of racial psychology carry.” Now this ability' to feel and express
and physical environment, but depend for their the causative relation is by no manner of means
existence and continuance primarily on the dependent on an ability to conceive of causality'
forces of tradition. Hence, despite necessary as much. The latter ability is conscious and
modifications in either with lapse of time, a intellectual in character; it is laborious, like
conservative tendency will always maki itself most conscious processes, and it is late in de
felt as a check to tho^e tendencies that make veloping. The former ability is unconscious
for change. And here wc come to the crux and nonintellectual in character, exercises it
of the matter. Cultural elements, as more defi self with great rapidity and with the utmost
nitely serving the immediate needs of society' ease, and develops early in the life of the race
and entering more clearly into consciousness, and of the individual. We have therefore no
will not only change more rapidly than those theoretical difficulty in finding that concep
of language, but the form itself of culture, tions and relations which primitive folk are
giving each element its relative significance, quite unable to master on the conscious plane
will be continually shaping itself anew'. Lin are being unconsciously expressed in their lan
guistic elements, on the other hand, while they guages — and, frequently, w’ith the utmost
may and do readily change in themselves, do nicety. As a matter of fact, the causative re
not so easily lend themselves to regroupings, lation, which is expressed only fragmentar.lv
owing to the subconscious character of gram in our modem European languages, is in many
matical classification. A grammatical system mmitive languages rendered with an abso-
as such tends to persist indefinitely. In other [utely philosophic relentlessness. In Nootka, an
words, the conservative tendency makes itself Indian language of Vancouver Island, there is
felt more profoundly in the formal ground no verb or verb form which has not its precise
work of language than in that of culture. One causative counterpart.
necessary consequence of this is that the forms Needless to say, I have chosen the concept
of language will in course of time cease to sym of causality solely for the sake of illustration,
bolize those of culture, and this is our main not because I attach an especial linguistic im
portance to it. Every language, we may con vocaliquc, et le polonais: la conservation de la
clude, possesses a complete and psycholo mouillurc des consonnes. . . .
gically satisfying formal orientation, but this
orientation is only felt in the unconscious of its 5. Sap/r, 1929: 2 1 1 - 1 4 i t 9 4 9 : 164-66).
speakers — is not actually, that is, consciously, . . . Of all forms of culture, it seems that lan
known by them. guage is that one which develops its funda
Our current psychology does not seem al mental patterns with relatively the most com
together adequate to explain the formation plete detachment from other types of cultural
and transmission of such submerged formal patterning. Linguistics may thus hope to be
systems as are disclosed to us in the languages come something of a guide to the understand
of the world. . . . ing of the “ psychological geography” of cul
ture in the large. In ordinary life the basic
4. Trubetzkoy (1929), 1949: xxv. symbolisms of behavior arc densely overlaid
. . . une etude attentive des langues orientee by cross-functional patterns of a bewildering
vers la logique interne de leur evolution nous variety. It is because every isolated act in hu
apprend qu’une telle logique existe et qu’on man behavior is the meeting point of many
peut etablir route une serie de lois purement distinct configurations that it is so difficult for
linguistiques independantes des facteurs extra- most of us to arrive at the notion of contex
linguistiques, tels que la “ civilisation,” etc. tual and non-contcxtual form in behavior.
Mais ces lois ne nous diront rien du tout, ni Linguistics would seem to have a very peculiar
sur le “ progres” ni sur la “ regression.” . . . Les value for configurative studies because the pat
divers aspects de la civilisation et de la vie des terning of language is to a very appreciable ex
peuples evoluent aussi suivant leur logique tent self-contained and not significantly at the
interne, et leurs propres lois n’ont, elles aussi, mercy of intercrossing patterns of a non-
rien de commun avec le “ progres” . . . Dans linguistic type. . . .
ITu’stoire litteraire, les formalistes se sont cnfin . . . The regularity and typicality of lin
mis a etudier les lois immanentes, et cela nous guistic processes leads to a quasi-romantic feel
permet d’entrevoir le sens et la logique interne ing of contrast with the apparently free and
de revolution litteraire. Toutes les sciences undetermined behavior of human beings
traitant de revolution sont tcllcment negligees studied from the standpoint of culture. But
du point de vue methodologique que mainter the regularity of sound change is only super
ant le “ problemc du jour” consiste a rectifier ia ficially analogous to a biological automat ion
methode de chacune d’elles separement. Le It is precisely because language is as strictly
temps de la synthese n’cst pas encore venu. socialized a type of human behavior as any
Neanmoins on ne peut dourer qu'il existe un thing else in culture and yet betrays in its out-
certain parallelisme dans Involution des dif- I lines and tendencies such regularities as only
ferents aspects de la civilisation; done il doit the natural scientist is in the habit of formulat
exister certaines lois qui determinent ce paral ing, that linguistics is of strategic importance
lelisme Une discipline speciale dcvra surgir for the methodology of social science. Behind
qui aura uniquemcnt en vue l’etude svnthetique the apparent lawlessness of social phenomena
du paralldlisme dans revolution des divers as there is a regularity of configuration and ten
pects de la vie sociale. Tout cela peut aussi dency which is just as real as the regularity of
s’appliquer aux problemes de la langue. . . . physical processes in a mechanical world,
Ainsi, au bout du compte, on a le droit de se though it is a regularity of infinitely less ap
demander, non seulement pourquoi une langue parent rigidity and of another mode of appre
donnee, avant choisie une certaine voie, a hension on our part. Language is primarily a
£volu£ de telle mani&re et non d’une autre, mais cultural or social product and must be under
aussi pourquoi une langue donnee, appartenant stood as such. Its regularity and formal devel
& un peuple donne, a choisi prccisement cette opment rest on considerations of a biological
voie devolution et non une autre: par example and psychological nature, to be sure. But this
le tch£que: la conservation de la quantit6 regularity and our underlying unconsciousness
of its typical forms do not make of linguistics 8. Voegelin and Harris, 194^: 988, 990-92,
a mere adjunct to either biology or psy 593-
chology. Better than any other social science, The data of linguistics and of cultural an
linguistics shows bv its data and methods, thropology are largely the same.
necessarily more easily defined than the data Human behavior, as well as (or rather, which
and methods of any other tvpe of discipline includes) behavior between humans, is never
dealing with socialized behavior, the possibility purely verbal; nor, in the general case, is it
of a truly scientific study of society' which non-verbal. Linguistics characteristically study
does not ape the methods nor attempt to only that part of a situation w hich we here
adopt unreviscd the concepts of the natural call verbal. Cultural anthropologists often seg
sciences. . . . regate the non-verbal from the verbal, relegat
ing the latter to special chapters or volumes
6. Bloomfield, 194^: &25- (such as folklore), as contrasted with chapters
Every language serves as the bearer of a cul devoted to various aspects of material culture,
ture. If .you speak a language you take part, such as house types; one might infer from
in some degree, in the way of living represented some ethnographies that houses are built in
by that language. Each system of culture has sullen silence. . . .
its own way of looking at things and people The techniques of linguistics and of cultural
and of dealing with them. To the extent that anthropology are in general different.
you have learned to speak and understand a Linguistic techniques enable a w’orker to
foreign tongue, to that extent you haye learned state the parts of the whole (for any one lan
to respond w ith a different selection and em guage), and to give the distribution of the
phasis to the world around \ou, and for your parrs w ithin the whole. This provides criteria
relarons w :th people you have gained a new of relevance; it is possible to distinguish sharp
system of sensibilities, considerations, conven ly between what is and what is not linguistic.
tions, and restraints. All this has come to you Such criteria are lacking in ethnographies
in part unnoticed and in part through incidents where culture traits are none too clearly dis
which you remember, some of them painful tinguished from culture complexes and where
and some pleasurable, if the culture is remote a given segment of behavior mav be regarded
from your own, many of its habits differ very by one worker as an expression of culture, bv
widely from thovc of your community. No another as an express on of personality; another
exception is to be made here for the peopLs segment of behavior, thought to be entirely
W’hom v e arc inclined to describe as savage physiological ( as morning sickness in preg
or primitive; for science and mechanical inven nancy). may later be shown to be stimulated
tion, in which we excel them, represent onlv bv cultural expectation. Accordingly, neither
one phase of culture, and the sensitivity of the historian treating of past cultures, nor the
these peoples, though different, is no less than anthropologist dealing with present cultures is
our own. ever half as comfortable as is the linguist in
excluding anv datum as irrelevant. . . .
7. Voegelin and Harris, 194$: 4^6-J7- Cultural anthropology is dependent upon
Language is part of culture. Everyone ack comparative considerations for finding its ele
nowledges this theoretically and then tends to ments; linguistics is not. Linguistic analysis
treat the two separately in actual work be provides an exhaustive list of its elements
cause the techniques of gathering data and (thus, there are between a dozen and a score
making analyses are not the same for both. or two of phonemes for any given language);
The result of this practical divorce of lin cultural analysis does not.
guistic work from cultural investigation often
means that the final linguistic statements and 9. Greenberg, 1948: 140-46.
the final cultural statements are incomplete; or The special position of linguistics arises
statements covering the ethno-linguistic situa from its two-fold nature: as a part of the sci
tion as a W'hole are neglected. ences of culture bv virtue of its inclusion in
the mass of socially transmitted tradition of speech community, taken more or less widely,
human groups, and as a part of the nascent sub as indicated bv
« such roughC* terms as language,
O O
ject of semiotics, the science of sign behavior dialect, or sub-dialect. The definition of this
in general. That language should be included community is often undertaken in the intro
in both of these more general sciences is no ductory portion of a linguistic description
more contradictory than, for example, the where the people are named, and population
double status of physical anthropology with figures and geographical distributions arc
its simultaneous affiliation w ith a physiolo given. In his choice of a unit of description
gically oriented zoology and with anthro the linguist resembles the cultural anthro
pology, the general study of man approached pologist who describes cultural norms valid
bothT physically and culturally. Since lin- for a circumscribed group of people, a tribe,
ouistics faces in these two directions, it should community, or nation. Such a treatment disre
be aware of the implications for itself both of gards— and justifiably so for the purpose in
the scmiotician’s discussions of language and of hand — relations in two directions, one towards
the general science of culture. Linguists have, the individual, and the other in the direction
on the whole, been more aware of their affilia of the exact determination of the membership
tions with cultural anthropology than with in this community and the relationship of its
semiotics, a state of affairs which is under membership to others whose speech show some
standable in view of the recency of the degree of similarity' to its own. This super-
semiotician’s interest in the general features of organic approach to linguistics I call cultural,
language. . . . as opposed to individual and social. Thus far
. . . Careful compilation of a lexicon is . . . . . . our discussion has been of cultural lin
a field in which the linguist and ethnologist can guistics in the syntactic, semantic, and prag
fruitfully collaborate. To the ethnologist, the matic phases. . . .
semantics v the language of the people in Social linguistics, often called ethnolin-
whom he i* interested is a subject of considera guistics, involves in its synchronic aspect, a
ble interest since it presents him with a prac whole series of significant problems regarding
tically exhaustive classification of the objects correlations between population groupings as
in the cultural universe of the speakers. For determined by linguistic criteria and those
certain morphemes whose designata are not based on biologic, economic, political, geogra
sensually percciyable events in the space-time phical. and other non-linguistic factors. . . .
of the investigator the linguistic approach is Social diachronic studies or historical eth-
crucial. That this has been realized in general nolinguistics is the phase of the inter-relation
bv ethnologists is evidenced by the liberal use ships of ethnology and linguistics of which
of native terms which characterize magical and there has probably been the greatest awareness.
other ideological components of culture, a The correlations between linguistic groupings
practice which has resulted in the borrowing of people and those derived on other bases,
via the ethnographic literature of such notably physical and cultural, is a standard
words as vnxna and taboo into the European problem in historic research. Fxamplrs of his
languages. torical ethnolinguistic approaches are the trac
The lexicon of a language holds as it were ing of former population distributions through
a mirror to the rest of culture, and the accu linguistic groupings, the estimate of chron
racy of this mirror image sets a series of prob ologic remoteness or recency of the cultural
lems in principle capable of empirical solution. identity of groups on the basis of degree of
In certain instances, notably that of kinship linguistic divergence, the reconstruction of a
terminology, this problem is a familiar one, partial cultural inventory of a proto-speech
and has occasioned a number of specific in- community on the basis of a reconstructed vo
vesrigations. On the whole, however, the eth cabulary. acculturational stud'es of the influ
nographic problems presented by this aspect ence of one culture on another by the study of
of language remain for the future. . . . loan-words, and diffusionist studies of single
The unit of the descriptive linguist is a elements of culture in which points of primary
or secondary diffusion can be traced by a con distinct stocks: Shoshonean, Zunian, Keresan,
sideration of the form of the words which and Tanoan. The reverse situation — peoples
often point unequivocably to a particular lan speaking related languages but belonging to
guage as the source. different culture areas — is illustrated by the
It is perhaps worthwhile to note the extent Athapaskan-speaking groups in North
to which our analysis of language is also ap America. Here we find languages clearly and
plicable to culture traits in general. Obviouslv unmistakably related, spoken by peoples of
the distinction between synchronic and dia the Mackenzie area, the California area, and
chronic is relevant and it is possible to study the area of the Southwest, three very different
cultures either descriptively or historically. cultural regions.
The distinction between the cultural, the so The fact that linguistic and culture areas do
cial, and the individual approaches is also valid. not often coincide in no way denies the
If we adopt Linton’s convenient concept of proposition that language is part and parcel
status, then the behavior patterns themselves of the cultural tradition. Culture areas result
are the results of cultural analysis, while the from the fact that some traits of culture are
manner of selection of individuals for given easily borrowed by one group from neighbor
statuses, whether achieved or ascribed, to ing groups. In essence, then, the similarities
gether with factors of sex, age, geographical in culture w'hich mark societies in the same
locations, etc., are social as here defined. The culture area result from contact and bor
study of personality variations in the carrying rowing, and arc limited to those features of
out of the patterns is part of the individual culture which are easily transmitted from one
approach. group to another.
Language areas, on the other hand, are
10. Hoijer, /9 f.8: 333. regions occupied by peoples speaking cognate
Culture, to employ T ylor’s well known languages. The similarities in language be
definition, is “ that complex whole which in tween such peoples are due, not to contact
cludes knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, law, and borrowings but to a common linguistic
custom, and any other capabilities and habits tradition. Traits of language are not readily
acquired by man as a member of society.” It is borrowed and we should not expect to find
dear that language is a pan of culture: it is linguistic traits among thoae cultural features
one of the many “ capabilities acquired bv man shared by peoples in the same culture area.
as a member of society.” If whole cultures could be g.ouped geneti
Despite this obvious inclusion of language cally as we now group languages into stocks
in the total fabric of culture, v e often find the and families, the culture areas so formed
tw'o contrasted in such a way as to imply would be essent:ally coincident with language
that there is little in common between them. areas. This is difficult to do, since much of
Thus, anthropologists frequently make the culture does not lend itself to the precise com
point that peoples sharing substantially the parison necessary to the establishment of
same culture speak languages belonging to dis genetic relations.
parate stocks, and, contrariwise, that peoples
whose languages are related may have very ii. Voegelin, 1949: 36, 43.
different cultures. In the American South A culture 'whole is to ethnology what a
west, for example, the cultures of the several single natural language is to linguistics. In the
Pueblo groups, from Hopi in the west to earlier ethnological and sociological theory a
Taos in the east, are remarkably alike. culture 'whole was merely a point of de
Puebloan languages, however, belong to four parture.14 Nowadays a given culture 'whole
u [Vocgelin’s footnote] Because culturalists do this in Voegelin and Harris, 1947, see also the Index
not, in actual field work [operations, analysis], find references to Typology in Kroebcr, 1948. Per
culture traits by asking what are “ irreducible ways contra, Gillin and Gillin, 1948, who equate phonemes
of acting shared by a social group;” rather, culture and culture traits, without any critical reservations
traits found in a whole culture reflect the ethnologists’ (p. 155): they say a culture trait is identifiable by
sophistication of comparative ethnography — of the being irreducible and cite a single digit (1, 2, } etc.)
area in which he works, or, more generally, of world as an example of such a trait; what then arc fractions
ethnography. Besides the explicit argument supporting and negative numbeis?
may state succinctly what it means to say that in terms of this abstract comparison. That the
language is part of culture, and prove in a few relationship of language to culture is debatable,
words why it is true . . . That our speech is then the only reasonable way to state it,
habits are thus acquired has been proved but only in the sense that “ the structure of
time and again: bring an X-baby into a Y- [man’s] talk is studied in linguistics.” And
speaking environment and there raise him, “ . . . for most anthropologists ichat he talks
and he will grow up speaking Y, not X, There about is culture.” (Voegelin, ms. in press.
fore language is part of culture. Proceedings, XXIX International Congress of
Since linguistics is the study of language and Americanists).
cultural anthropology the study of (human)
culture, it follows that linguistics is a branch
of cultural anthropology. It also follows 15. VoegeHn, 1990: 492.
that every linguist is an anthropologist. But Speaking only in terms of scientific usage,
it does not follow', by any means, that can it be agreed that linguistics and culture
every linguist knouts that he is an anthro and physical anthropology are coordinate?
pologist, or that a linguist necessarily The content descriptions of general courses
knows something about phases of culture in anthropology departments often specify
other than language, or, for that matter, that these three main divisions of anthropology
every cultural anthropologist knows that lan just as the content description of a general
guage is culture and that linguistics is a branch biology course might specify botany and
of his own field, even if one to which he zoology and bacteriology as the three main
chooses to pay no particular attention. The divisions of biology. Because bacteria are
historical fact is that there have been two classified as plants, and other microorganisms
distinct traditions, writh differing terminologies, as animals, while viruses remain unclassified
different great names and landmarks, differing in this respect, perhaps a biologist would not
levels of achievement, differing chief prob object to saying that bacteriology adjoins
lems and direction of interest. Only t\\ o men zoology as well as botany, thus paralleling
(to exclude those now living) have so far the position of culture: adjacent to linguistics
achieved reputations in both fields, and of on the one hand, and to physical anthropology
those tw o, Boas as anthropologist far out- on the other — assuming, of course, that
shadows Boas as linguist, Sapir as linguist phenotypic as well as genotypic traits are in
probably somewhat outshadows Sapir as cluded in physical anthropology. Whatever
culturalist. the majority opinion may be on the relation
It is probably because of the separateness of ship of language to culture, linguistic analysis
the two traditions that we have the unfortu characteristically proceeds without reference
nate habit of speaking of “ language and cul to the culture of speakers — even when data
ture.” We ought to speak of “ language in on the culture of speakers are available. If
culture” or or “ language and the rest of most anthropologists really do think that
culture.” From the fact that language is part linguistics is part of culture, then it is a very
of culture does not follow that we have, as dispensable part; it does not keep the majority
yet, anything very significant to say about from classifying the archaeological remains of
“ language in culture” or the interrelationships particular preliterate peoples as the culture
between “ language and the rest of culture.” of the people in question — despite the fact
that their culture must, by definition, be pre
14. Bus'well, 1950: 289. sented without any linguistic data at all.
Surely it is not amiss to consider a language, It is relatively easy to abstract linguistics
as related to the body of science called lin from culture and to define linguistics without
guistics, in the same sense as a culture, as reference to culture, as I have done; it is
related to ethnology. This Voegelin does, much more difficult to abstract culture and
with the perfectly logical result that he can define culture or covert culture without
now speak analytically of language and culture reference to language.
,6. Olmsted, 1990: 7-8. is dependent on comparative techniques for
There is a good deal in [the 1949] article the examination of any given culture, while
of Voegelin’s that ought to evoke- comment. the linguist is not.
First, the fact that great apes can learn to
drive a car but not to speak is significant, 17. Taylor, 1990: 999-60.
but it in no way proves that language is not In ail fairness to C. F. Voegelin, it may be
a part of culture. If this be the test of questioned whether the phrase “ language and
whether something is a part of culture, then culture” is any more vicious than, for example,
surely Tylor’s or Herskovits’ definitions of “ culture and society.” Certainly, non-human
culture (to name only a couple of widely societies without culture exist; whereas lan
accepted ones) will straightway be shot to guage and culture (or the rest of culture) are
pieces as we amass a colossal list of things that not found apart. But within the human species,
apes cannor be taught to master. society, language, and culture are concomitant;
That linguistic and ethnological techniques and it is hard to see how one is any less ac
are not strictly comparable is one claim; that quired or learned than the other.
culture traits and phonemes are not com Nevertheless, there is an important differ
parable is another. Probably few students ence between language and the other universal
would disagree with the later claim. For the aspects of culture: the latter lean heavily on
phoneme is not a piece of raw data as are precept — that is to say, on language — for
most generally recognized culture traits; a their practice and transmission, whereas the
phoneme is something inferred from raw rudiments of the former can be passed on only
data, a construct shown to have crucial lin by example and imitation. Not until the child
guistic value within the structure of the lan has gained some control of speech, by a pro
guage under study. The linguist, in determin cess comparable to that by which a kitten
ing the phonemes of a language, applies cer learns to kill mice, can its enculturation pro
tain standard techniques that enable him to gress far in other directions — this time by the
discover and describe the linguistically im instrumentality of language itself, and hence
portant sound-units. He then may go on to by a process unknown on the sub-human
compare one structure with another, always level.
being sure that he knows the relation of any Language has often been called the vehicle
of the phonemic units to the whole. The of culture; and there would seem to be no par
culture trait (or anything like it) does not as ticular vice in distinguishing a conveyance
yet have the same status in ethnology. \\ hat from that which it conveys, even when in
is of crucial importance in one culture may be practice the two may be inseparable.
ancillary in another. It is this lack of a handy
label indicating the structural value of data COM M ENT
that lies at the roots of the deficiencies of
such a comparative project as the Cross- It is remarkable how fitfully anthropologists
cultural Survey. As Voegelin (1949) points and linguists have discussed the relation of
out, the status of phonemes is something in culture and language.
herent in the linguistic structure being studied, We have found no passages explicitly deal
and, theoretically, a linguist who knew the ing with the subject in Jespcrscn’s, Sapir’s, or
techniques, even if he had never studied an Bloomfield’s books called Language.
other language, could study any language and In 1911 Boas (1) pointed out that linguistic
come up with the phonemes in a way that phenomena are unconscious and automatic,
would satisfy any other competent linguist. but cultural phenomena more conscious. This
However, the anthropologist, lacking any such distinction has become widely accepted. Boas
standard procedure ror determining the rela went on, however, to suggest that cultural
tive ethnological value of each “ culture trait,” phenomena, such as fundamental religious
must needs call on his knowledge of other notions (animism, supematuralism, etc.) may
cultures in order to investigate, in a specific in their origin have been equally unconscious,
culture, what has been found to be crucial in but have secondarily became a subject of
other cultures. In this sense the ethnologist thought and been rationalized into conscious
ness, whereas the use of language remained ness of patterning, which occurred also in
automatic. This second suggestion seems to lesser measure in non-linguistic culture.
have been developed little further, either by Then there appears to have been a lull until
Boas or others.1® 1945, when two papers, by Bloomfield (6) and
Sapir ( 2 ) in 1912 made much the same by Voegelin and Harris (7) reopened the
point as Boas: culture changes result from subject: “ Every language serves as the bearer
processes easily made conscious, linguistic of a culture” and “ Language is part of culture.”
changes are due to minute factors beyond the These were followed by interrelated state
control of will or reflection. Sapir in his turn ments (8-16) by Voegelin and Harris, Green
adds a second suggestion — which also ap berg, Hoijer, Voegelin ( n , 15), Silva-Fuenza-
pears not to have been developed — that with lida, Hockett, Buswell, Olmsted, and Taylor.
time the interaction of culture and language Voegelin partly reversed his former position
became lessened because their rates of change with Harris, at least to the extent of speakino
were different. Cultural elements serve im of language as not “ merely a part of culture”
mediate needs, and cultural forms reshape ( 1 1) and suggesting that they are “ coordinate”
themselves, but linguistic elements do not (15 ); and was bluntly contradicted by Hockett
easily regroup because their classification is (13). As of early 1951, the discussion is still
subconscious. in progress, and promises to be fruitful of in
A dozen years later, Sapir (3) returned to creased sharpening of concepts. Greenberg’s
the issue with the point that consistent gram appraisal is particularly broad: he specifically
matical expression of causality may occur in considers semiotic aspects, and he recognizes
languages whose associated cultures possess cultural or superorganic, social, and individual
no adequate explicit notions of causality. Lan approaches or emphases as valid in linguistics
guages often contain “ submerged formal sys as well as in cultural anthropology. His men
tems” whose psychology is unclear and not tion of language and “ the rest of culture” is
closely related to conscious thought. This typical of the position, with various shadings,
issue was subsequent'^ revived in an opposite of most of the participants in the discussion.
sense by Whorf ana by Lee in their meta It is evident that culture has been used in two
linguistic papers. senses, each usually implicit in its context and
Trubetzkoy (4) in 1929 touched on the validated there: culture including language,
the me of the relation — “ purely linguistic laws and culture excluding language. It is also
independent of extra-linguistic factors such dear that language
O ^ is the most easily j separable
i
as civilization.” But he also submitted the part or aspect of total culture, that its pro
claim that linguistics ought ultimately be able cesses are the most distinctive, and that the
to give the reasons why particular languages methods of linguistics are also the most dis
followed one line of development and not tinctive as well as the best defined in the social
others. sciences. What the “ cultural” equivalent of
Sapir (5) returned to the subject in 1929. phonemes, or the linguistic equivalent of
Language patterns develop in relative self- “ cultural traits,” may be has not yet become
containment and detachment from “ other apparent: it may be unanswerable until the
types of cultural patterning.” Linguistics thus question is reformulated. Similar obscurities
has a peculiar value for configurative studies, remain unresolved as to the conceptual rela
including Gestalt psychology. It shows the tion or non-relation of cultural and organic
possibilities open to the social sciences when concepts (culture trait, culture whole, species,
they do not ape the methods or adopt the un- genus, or family, ecological assemblage or
revised methods of natural science. faunistic area). Underlying the problem, and
It is evident that up to this point there was in a sense constituting it, is the fact, as Voegelin
fundamental consensus that language showed (15) says, that it is obviously easier to abstract
in a somewhat accentuated degree certain linguistics from the remainder of culture and
features, such as consistency and unconscious- define it separately than the reverse.
“ But see L6vi-Strauss, 19 5 1. T h is article appeared to it in Part I V . It is one o f the most arresting state
too late to include in this section. W e have referred ments on language and culture ever published.
GROUP f: RELATIO N OF CULTURE TO SOCIETY, INDIVIDUALS,
ENVIRONM ENT, AND ARTIFACTS
" T h e group, society, community, etc., also appear concluded with the phrase “ of man as a member of
frequendy in the class A or descriptive definitions, society.”
but more incidentally. T he C -I class really rests on “ It is interesting, however, that in 1931 (f-6) Sapir
the distinction: culture is the way of a society. sees the behavior patterns “ lodged” in the group and
“ A s there had to be, once T y lo r as far back as “ carried by tradition” — not by the individuals of
1871 had given a formal definition of culture that the group.
sort of reduction is evidently self-defeating. of social relations is “ revealed” by “ direct ob
Another year later we find Kardiner (15) servation” ; whereas of course it is revealed by
implicitly equating culture with institutions, direct observation plus inquiry and inference
which might pass as an off-hand, by-the-way that generalize and abstract, exactly as cus
definition; but then going on to imply that it toms and beliefs are revealed. Certainly no
was Linton who discovered the distinction complex network of structure, social or other
between culture and society'! It was perhaps wise, is ascertainable by direct sensory observa
from Linton that Kardiner learned of the dis tion. Radcliffe-Brown has cajoled himself into
tinction. the belief that his social structure rests on a
Still another year, 1940, brings us to Rad- legitimate foundation of observable reality that
cliffe-Brown (17) and one of his several at the vague and spuriously abstract thing called
tempts not indeed to deny culture but to be culture lacks. Viewed historically even in 1940,
little it, to make it unimportant as compared and of course more so today, Radcliffe-Brown
with social structure. As against observable is conducting a rearguard action against the
human beings and their observable behavior, advance of the concept of culture.
including speech and artifacts as products of Radcliffe-Brown’s 1949 statement (22) is
past behavior, he says that culture is not ob essentially contrastive of his own position
servable “ since that word [culture] denotes, with Malinowski’s. It is true that the two
not any concrete reality, but an abstraction” have little in common but use of function:
— and “ as commonly used a vague abstrac Malinowski does deal with culture and his ex
tion.” But “ direct observation does reveal” planatory biological or psychosomatic needs
that “ human be;ngs are connected by a com reside in individual men, not in society. Rad
plex network of social relations” which may cliffe-Brown deals with society in terms of its
be called “social structure.” The study of this structure, process, and function.
social structure is “ the most fundamental Fortes (20), 1949, makes a curious distinc
part” of the science of social anthropology. tion between culture and structure. Culture
This conclusion seems indeed to follow from is the qualitative aspect of “ social facts” ;
Radcliffe-Brown’s premises that (1) culture structure, those analyzed quantitatively (!).
is only a vague abstraction and that (2) social Most often recognized arc the constant ele
anthropology is the scientific part of anthro ments that constitute culture; the structural
pology, ethnology consisting merely of anti aspect is “ variable and often overlooked.”
quarian non-structured facts or of speculative Culture and structure arc not classes of social
sequences of such facts. The partiality of the facts but complementary ways of analyzing
second of these premises is sufficiently evident them. — This is a most puzzling statement.
to require no refutation at this date. The first Culture and structure are obviously not com
premise does need correction, because while plementary concepts. There is no apparent
it is true that culture must be regarded as an reason why qualities should be permanent and
abstraction in that its recognition involves structure variable. The two terms are evi
more than sense impressions,20 the same is of dently being used by Fortes with some un
course true of social relations or structure. A usual or private meaning; or at least one of
kinship relation or an incest barrier is no more them is. Can it be that he means bv culture
“observable” than a myth or a property valua what it generally means, or at least its forms,
tion: social structure is inferred or abstracted norms, and values, and that his “ structure”
from behavior no more and no less than are designates the individual and personal varia
customs. Radcliffe-Brown slides over this bility in social adherence to cultural norms?
identical conceptual status, partly by first This would make an intelligible concept; but
labeling culture as vague, and partly by then what has it to do w'ith “ structure” ?21
immediately saying that the complex network Nadel (23), 1951, another British social an-
/
society” is more concrete than “ a culture.” pletely happy with this statement. Earlier in
It is also possible and legitimate to distinguish the same work (p. 15) Parsons also says that
“ the social” from ‘‘the cultural” by pointing culture is transmitted, learned, and shared and
to facts that are not culturally patterned but that it is ‘‘on the one hand the product of, on
which yet influence social (i.e., interactive) the other hand a determinant of, systems of
life. One may instance such phenomena as human social interaction.” These are points
population density, the location of a group, with which anthropologists would agree.
and others (cf. III-/-19 and III-/-i9a). Fi We can also accept Parsons’ distinction of
nally, a plurality of individuals in more or culture from social system as resting, among
less continuous interaction produces some other things, on the fact that culture is trans
thing new which is a product of that interac missible. It is also clear in this book that Par
tion and not merely a perpetuation of pre-ex sons treats the cultural dimension as an inde
isting cultural patterns. Cultural factors influ pendent one in his general theory.
ence the greater part of social behavior but Our incomplete satisfaction with Parsons
social factors in their turn modify culture probably arises from the fact that his scheme
and create new culture. is centered so completely upon “ action.” This
In Parsons’ new book The Social System leaves little place for certain traditional topics
one also sees the tendency, shared by certain of anthropological enquiry: archaeology, his
other American sociologists and many British torical anthropology in general, diffusion, cer
social anthropologists, to restrict culture to tain aspects of culture change, and the like.
normative, idea, and symbolic elements. It What anthropologists call “ material culture”
will be well to quote at some length:2' he deals with as “ cultural objects” and “ cul
tural possessions,” nor, again, does his ap
Culture . . . consists . . . in patterned or ordered
systems of symbols which are objects of the orienta
proach encompass certain aspects of the study
tion of action, internalized components of the per of the products of human behavior with
sonalities of individualized actors and institutionalized which anthropologists have long been con
patterns of social systems . . . . cerned. Finally, his version of the theory of
. . . cultural elements are elements of patterned action is, in our view, overly complex for the
order which mediate and regulate communications present state of the sciences of man. His in
and other aspects of the mutuality of orientations in tricate system of categories cuts across and,
interaction processes. There is, as we have insisted, we feel, dismembers the concept of culture.
always a normative aspect in the relation of culture
In particular, we are resistant to his absorbing
to the motivational component 1 of action; the culture
provides stmilxrds of selective orientation and order
into “ social systems” abstracted elements
ing.
which * e think are better viewed as part of
T he most fundamental starting point for the the totality of culture.
classification of cultural elements is that of the three Raymond Firth has just published a re
basic “ functional” problem-contexts of action-oricnta- markably clear and cogent statement:
tion in general, the cognitive, the cathcctic and the
In the description and analysis o f the group life
evaluative. It is fundamental to the very conception
of human beings the most general terms used are
of action that there must be pattern-complcxcs differ
society, culture, and community. Each is commonly
entiated with respect to each of these major problem
used to express the idea of a totality. A s abstractions
contexts. These considerations provide the basis for thev can give only a selected few of the qualities of
the initial classification of cultural pattern types, the subject-matter they are meant to represent.
namely belief systems, systems of expressive symbols, Naturally, then, the definition of them has tended
and systems of value-oricntation. (p. 3:7) to mark contrasted rather than shared qualities. The
types of contrast made familiar by German sociolo
In some fundamental respects (emphasis upon gists have drawn a distinction between the more pur
patterning, symbols, internalization of cul poseful associations serving individual ends and those
ture on the part of individuals), we are com- arising from less-well-defined principles of aggrcga-
“ T h e ensuing definition is not included in Part of definitions with works published in 1950.
II because we found it necessary to close our survey
rion. This has value as an analytical device, to classify single individual — they are culture. It is
social relationships. But at the broadest level, to clear that these three points of the triangle
cover almost the complete range of association, this are statements of foci in a broader frame of
mutual exclusiveness is misplaced. The terms represent reference; they are not independent but each
different facets or components in basic human situa
has Implications for the other. For example,
tions. If, for instance, society is taken to be an
organized set o f individuals with a given way of life,
culture is not motivation but it affects motiva
culture is that w ay o f life. If society is taken to be tion and likewise is part of the individual’s
an aggregate of social relations, then culture is the “ definition of the situation.”
content of those relations. Society emphasizes the Culture and Individttals. This is a briefer 26
human component, the aggregate o f the people and group than the preceding.
the relations between them. Culture emphasizes the Wissler (1), 1916, is of importance because
component o f accumulated resources, immaterial as he was trained in psychology and was one of
well as material, which the people inherit, employ, the first anthropologists to consider relations
transmute, add to, and transmit. Having substance,
with psychology. He makes the simple and
if in part only ideational, this component acts as a
regulator to action. From the behavioural aspect,
definite and incontestable point that no amount
culture is all learned behaviour which has been of psychology as such will give historical an
socially acquired. It includes the residual effects of swers such as why inventions and organizations
social action. It is necessarily also an incentive to or changes of culture were made when, where,
action. The term community emphasizes the space- and by whom they were made.
time component, the aspect of living together. It Marett (2), 1920, (cf. also d - 1), accepts a
involves a recognition, derived from experience and parallelism of sociology and psychology, but
observation, that there must be minimum conditions warns against a sociological treatment of man
of agreement on common aims, and inevitably some
and history done as if there were no life in
common ways o f behaving, thinking, and feeling.
Society, culture, community, then involve one an
the subject matter: such treatment is dead
other— though when they are conceived as major and dull. No one will dissent from this.
isolates for concrete study their boundaries do not Marett’s remark about human history being
necessarily coincide. (1951, 27-28) “ instinct with purposive movement through
and through” is evidently intended as a re
To sum up: the simple biological analogy minder that history deals with live men who
of “ organism and environment” is inadequate strove and tried. It is probably not to be
because man is a culture-bearing animal. Some construed as a claim that history itself, as an
sort of three-way paradigm is necessary since entity, has an immanent or God-implanted
we have: (a) individuals, (b) the situations purpose.
in which they find themselves, and (c) the Ogbum (3), 1922, is commenting on Kroc-
modes or ways in which they are oriented to ber’s then recent first attempt to distinguish
these situations. In terms of the intellectual planes of phenomena reducing to each other
division of labor which has generally been in one direction only, but also containing each
adhered to during this century the study of an autonomous component or at least aspect.
individual organisms and their motivations has It so happened that Kroeber at that time did
been the province of psychology and biology. not name a social level, but passed directly
Insofar as sociology has had a distinct concep from the cultural (“superorganic” ) to the
tual field, it has been that of investigation of mental and thence to the organic and inor
the situation. Cultural anthropology has been ganic planes of phenomena. In fact, with all
dealing with the modes of orientation to the endeavor at “ splitting” he was not yet con
situation. How the individual is oriented to ceptually separating cultural and social phe
his situation is in the concrete sense “ within” nomena, being still caught in the then pre
the actor but not in the analytic sense, for valent ambiguity of meaning of the word so
modal orientations cannot, by definition, be cial.” Ogbum had been influenced by per
derived from observing ana questioning a sonal contact with Boas and was sympathetic
The two following passages are added to than to the details of its cultural expression.
extend completeness of documentation. They Thus one, or a partial, interpretation of an
were received when the manuscript was al cestor worship might be to show how it is
ready' in the hands of the editor and hence the consistent with family or kinship structure.
comments and subsequent tabulations have The cultural, or customary, actions which a
not been revised to include them. But they man performs when showing respect to his
bear, clearly enough, upon central issues ancestors, the facts, for instance, that he makes
touched upon many times in the course of this a sacrifice and that what he sacrifices is a cow
work. or an ox, require a different kind of interpre
tation, and this may be partly both psycho
a) Evans-Pritchard, 1951: 17-18. logical and historical.
Among the older anthropological writers, This methodological distinction is most evi
Morgan, Spencer, and Durkheim conceived dent when comparative studies are under
the aim of what we now call social anthro taken, for to attempt both kinds of interpreta
pology to be the classification and functional tion at the same time is then almost certain to
analysis of social structures. This point of lead to confusion. In comparative studies
view has persisted among Durkheim’s followers what one compares are not things in them
in France. It is also well represented in British selves but certain particular characteristics of
anthropology today and in the tradition of them. If one wishes to make a sociological
formal sociology in Germany. Tylor, on the comparison of ancestor cults in a number of
other hand, and others who leant towards different societies, what one compares are sets
ethnology, conceived its aim to be the classifi of structural relations between persons. One
cation and analysis of cultures, and this has necessarily starts, therefore, by abstracting
been the dominant viewpoint in American these relatiors in each society' from their par
anthropology for a long time, partly, I think, ticular modes of cultural expression. Other
because the fractionized and disintegrated In wise one will not be able to make the com
dian societies on which their research has been parison. What one is doing is to set apart
concentrated lend themselves more easily to problems of a certain kind for purposes or re
studies of culture than of social structure; search. In doing; this, one is not makincr a dis-
partly because the absence of a tradition of tinction between different kinds of thins —
intensive field work through the native lan society and culture are not entities — but be-
guages and for long periods of time, such as tween different kinds of abstraction.
we have in England, also tends towards studies
of custom or culture rather than of social re b) Infield, 1951: 5 12 -1;.
lations; and partly for other reasons. It would seem that the first step in this di
When a social anthropologist describes a rection w’ould have to be a sociological defi
primitive society the distinction between so nition of culture. Such a definition would
ciety and culture is obscured by the fact that have to specify the functional interrelations
he describes the reality, the raw behaviour, in between the mode of interaction, or as Lewin
which both are contained. He tells you, for w'ould call it the “ structural configuration of
example, the precise manner in which a man socio-dynamic properties,” and both the ag
shows respect to his ancestors; but when he gregate of acquired meanings on the one side
comes to interpret the behaviour he has to as well as the needs of individuals on the other.
make abstractions from it in the light of the In this sense, it could be possibly formulated
particular problems he is investigating. If as follows: Culture is an acquired aggregate
these are problems of social structure he pays of meanings attached to and implemented in
attention to the social relationships of the per material and non-material objects which de
sons concerned in the whole procedure rather cisively influence the manner in which human
beings tend to interact so as to satisfy their true functional interrelation, the one pre
needL sented in our definition can be analyzed by
By “ aggregate of acquired meanings” we starting from any of its terms. Taking its
understand something equivalent to what con starting point, for instance, from the acquired
stitutes culture in the eyes of anthropology. meanings, the analysis can show how, by way
The “ whole of material and non-material of the mode of social interaction, they affect
values together with the vehicles of their im the nature of the needs. Or, by starting from
plementation,” as anthropology likes to define the needs — taking them generally as being
it, is a somewhat static complex. By substitut of the kind that can be satisfied by acting
ing for values the term “ meanings” we at once mainly for oneself or of the kind that can be
open the possibility of relating the cultural satisfied by acting mainly together with others
element to what interests the sociologist most: — it can be shown how they influence the
the mode of sociation. In this way, a place is mode of social interaction which in turn de
also accorded to that factor which the natural termines the selection, acceptance, and culti
science point of view tends to neglect, the ac vation of specific meanings attached to ma
tive element in human nature. Acquired terial and non-material objects. Finally, the
meanings are both those accumulated and analysis can set out from the mode of social
transmitted by former generations, the social interaction and show how this interaction
heritage, as well as those which the present forms, so to speak, a relay system between
generation makes actively its own, the cul meanings and needs. Wherever we start from,
tural activities of the present. In this manner, it is clear that the sociologically relevant char
the nature of the acquired meanings has a acter of a given group’s culture can be under
direct functional relation to the mode of social stood fully only if the analysis is capable of
interaction. In its turn, the mode of social accounting not only for the main terms of the
interaction is functionally related to and culture but for the functional interrelation of
oriented toward the satisfaction of needs of these terms as well.
the interacting individuals. Actually, like any
INDEX TO AUTHORS IN PART III
Beaglehole and Beaglehole, d - io (1946) Merton, d - 1 1 (1949)
Benedict, d -4 ( *93i > Mumford, a-10 (1938)
Bidney, a- '7 (* 9 4 7 ). *-«> (* 9 4 9 ) Murdock, a-6 (1932), a-i2a (1940), b-3 (1932), b - 5
Bierstedt, /-14 ( ' 9 3 8 ) ( 1 9 4 1 ) ,/ - 11 (1937), f - i 1 (1949b)
Bloomfield, e-6 (1945)
Boas, b -4 (1938), e -i (19 11) Nadel, d - n (1937a), d - 13 (1937b), f - i j (1951)
Bose, a- 3 (* 9 *9 ). * -* («9 I 9 >* c~3 ( ' 9 * 9 )
Buswell, e-14 ( ' 95°) Ogburn, a -i (1922), /-3 (1922)
Olmsted, e-16 (1950)
Case, c -i (19 17 ). f~ 4 ( 1 9 *4 *) Opler, e-6 (1944). d - 9 (1935)
Osgood, e-9 (19 51)
Dennes, a-13 (1942)
Parsons, /-12 (1937)
Ellwood, o -i (1927a), c—i (1927b)
P la n t,/ - i3 (1937)
Evans-Pritchard, III, Addenda-a (19 51)
* For a more extended discussion of “ levels,” see hundred “definitions” in these pages. However, sam
Kroeber, 1949. pling indicates that the main conclusions we draw
** Actually, if additional definitions in Part III, in from the one hundred and sixty-four would not be
footnotes, and in quotations throughout the mono substantially altered if we had retabulated to include
graph are counted, there are probably close to three every possible “ definition.”
D E FIN ITIO N S IN P A R T II.
pre-1910 Fint post 1910 Definition group, Number of Definitions
Definition Definition By Emphasis on 19*0-29 1930-39 1940-30 Total*
A . Beginning 1910-29
(1871) 19:0 Wissler Enumeration, A 5 5 9 20
— 1921 Park-Burgess, Sapir Tradition, Heritage, B 6 5 12 13
— I9 Z I Sapir Incomplete, G 2 2 3 7
(1916) 192ft Hart-Panrzer Learning, D-Il 1 — <«3> ( ' 5)
(1903) • 917 Sumner-Kcller Adjustment, D-I 2 5 9 17
— ' 9*7 Willey Product, F-I 3 6 12 21
— 1919 Wissler Rule, W ay, C-I K 4 •5 20
— 1919 Willey Patterning, E 1 1 7 9
— pre-1930 Tozzer Habit, D-III I 1 1 4
B. B e g in n in g a f t e r 1930
'934 Roheim Purely Psychological, D -IV _ 2 1 2
— '935 Carver Ideals and Behavior, C-II — 2 4 6
(1903, 1916) '937 Schmidt, Blumenthal Ideas, F-II — 2 6 10
C. B e g in n in g a f t e r 19 4 0
Blumenthal to say’ in 1941 that culture is ail tion; especially’ as his own training was largely
non-gcnct'callv produced means of adjust psychological. Srill, Wissler did not pursue
ment (F-IV -i, 3). Osrwald was not think this approach — in fact abandoned it for
ing of adjustment, nor of its means; and he orhcrs. So it is as much as twenty-one years
accepted culture as a property or result, after Wissler that a continuing stream of
rather than inquiring into the process that definitions yvith idea emphasis (F-II-4 to 9,
produced it. r.ine in number including variants) first begins
Again, Small’s 1905 statement (D-I-i) to be produced, from 1937 to 1949. The half-
centers on attainment or promotion of ends, dozen authors involved in this continuity evi
individual or social; which is characteristic of dently in part influenced one another, in part
the psychologizing sociology of his day — yverc responding to the times.
vaguely psychologizing it seems in the retro
spect of a half-century. But, beginning with THE PLACE OF TYLOR AND WISSLER
Sumner and Keller in 1927, the emphasis comes
to rest on a new basis, which instead of being The case of Tylor as a precursor is some
limited to the subjectively psychological, is what special. It yvas almost a half-century —
concerned with adaptation to total environ from 1871 to 1920 — before his earliest of all
ment. definitions had a successor in the enum-
Similarly’, in the emphasis-on-ideas group eratively descriptive class “ A.” As usual,
F-II, Ward’s 1903 statement refers to ideas, Wissler was first, after Tylor; anthropologists
but the central concept is that culture is a predominate among the successors; and Tylor’s
social structure or organism; to which there is influence is traceable, sometimes even in turns
then appended the supplementary’ remark “ and of wording, to as late as Kroeber, Herskovits,
ideas are its germs” —whatever “ germs” mav and Thumwald, 1948-50. The reason for this
mean in this context. Wissler, thirteen years continuity’ is not only that Tylor possessed
later, w h en he says that culture is a definite unusual insight and wisdom, but that he was
association complex of ideas, is undoubtedly deliberately’ establishing a science by defining
trying to give a specific psychological defini its subject matter. That he made this definition
the first sentence of a book shows that he \vai> was fifty-three, was called The M ini of
conscious of his procedure. Primitive Alan; his last, a selection from his
Yet why T jlo r was so long in being fol articles and papers, chosen bv himself at the
low ed even by Wissler remains a problem. The age of eightv-two, he named Rare, Language,
reasons evidently were multiple. First, Tvlor and Culture. So far as there is a central theme
was introducing a new meaning from a foreign in both works, it is that one cannot infer or
lanmiage for an established F.nglish word, and deduce between environment, race, language,
English idiom was resistant. Then, concur and culture; that spontaneous or inherent
rently, the older English sense of the vcrd developments cannot be proved and must not
culture was being given an ultra-humanistic be assumed, and that so far as they tend to
sharpening by Matthew Arnold; and as against occur thcv are generic and subject to varia
this literary significance, with its highly tion or even suppression; that as regards human
charged connotation in a country where higher groups different influences can produce similar
education was classical, a contrary effort in an effects, and that causes arc multiple and must
incipient science had little force. In fact, the be independently ascertained in each case
names of Lang and Frazer suggest how with due regard to the specificity of its history.
little extricated from belles lettres the new The upshot was a far more critical approach
science of anthropology remained in Britain than had been displayed by any predecessor,
for more than a generation after Tylor. and results that were positive as regards many
Then, the whole orientanon of the evolution particular problems, but as regards generalities
ary school, whose productivity’ began just ten were largely methodological or negative. Boas
years before 1871 and of which Tvlor him was interested in the complex interactions of
self formed part, and which led anthropology culture, language, race, and environment; he
out of the fringe of philosophy, history, was much less interested in the nature and
geography, biology, and medicine into an specific properties of culture. As Boas in one
autonomous activity with problems of its own way or another influenced almost all his suc
— the orientation of this evolutionary school cessors in American anthropology, the result
was toward origins, stages, progress and sur was that directly he contributed little to
vivals. and spontaneous or rational operations Tvlor’s attempt to isolate and clarify the con
of the human mind. Culture entered consid cept of culture as such, and that indirectly he
eration chiefly as an assemblage of odd cus hindered its progress bv diverting attention to
toms and strange beliefs used to substantiate oths“r problems.
the broad principles advanced as to origins and This interpretation is strengthened bv the
progress. In short, the assumptions as well as fact, that Wissler, whose anthropological train
the findings of the “ evolutionists” were ing stemmed from Boas, but who broke per
schematic and, except for Tylor, the men sonally with him about 1906, by 1916 had
themselves remained uninterested in culture offered two definitions of culture (D -II-i,
as a concept. F-II-2) and was the first to follow w’ith
Finally, it is probable that the influence of definitions of different emphasis (A-2, C -I-i)
Boas was a factor. As we have seen, American in 1920 and 1929. Wissler was lunging rather
anthropologists were using both the concept than consistent in these tries. But it is evident
and the word culture fairlv freely in the that he was concerned with the problem of
eighteen-nineties, perhaps already in the what culture was and what characterized it,
eighties beginning with the establishment of
more than Boas ever was; and the parting of
the Bureau of Ethnology. Boas, coming from
Germany in the eighties, w'as certainly familiar the personal ways of the tw o men may have
with both idea and w’ord. However, Boas was freed Wissler for this interest. As in so much
interested in dealing with culture, not in of his other work, he was somewhat casual,
systematically theorizing about it. He gave his imprecise, and perhaps unintense in his attack
first definition of it at the age of seventy-two, on the problem; but he possessed an explora
in an encyclopaedia article on the scope of tory and pioneering mind. Of Wissler’s four
anthropology’. His first book, issued when he definitions which we cite, all are the first of
their class except fo r the precedence o f one four definitions by anthropologists — the last
b y T y lo r . four, from 1948 to 1950.
A year later, in 1929, Wissler initiated the
THE COURSE OF POST-i9 2 o Rule or W ay type of conceiving of culture
DEFINITIONS (C-I). With “ way” close to custom, and
L e t us revert to our tabulation. A fte r the again to tradition or heritage, one might ex
Enum erative class ( A ) o f definitions launched pect this formulation to come mainly from
b y T y l o r and revived b y W issler, the next to anthropologists. It does: they made or par
be initiated w as the H istorical one w h ich em ticipated in thirteen of the twenty statements
phasized Tradition or Social H eritage ( B ) . assembled.8
T rad ition ” goes back to H erder, w h o co n Patterning or Organization as an empha
sistently usea the term alongside C u ltu r and sized factor in culture (E) might be looked
Hum anitaet, almost as a syn o n ym . Social H e r for as also an anthropological view, in view of
itage o f course is culture — the m atrix in w h ich Benedict’s influence; but it is not so in origin.
culture as a technical term o f science g re w up, Willey, Dollard, and Ogbum and Nimkoff
according to Sapir. Sapir himself and Park are the only representatives from 1929 to 1940.
and Burgess lead o ff the chain in 1921; eight However, the emphasis is not yet sharp. The
of the first ten definitions, to 1917, are by an word pattern 6 is not used; correlation, inter
thropologists, and seven o f the remaining relation, interdependence, system do occur.
thirteen. With 1941 the anthropologists join in. Red-
Passing over the Incomplete Definitions (G ), field speaks of “ organization,” Linton of “ or
and for a moment those that emphasize Learn ganized” and of “ configuration,” Kluckhohn
ing (D -II), we come to those stressing Ad and Kelly of a “system of designs for living.”
justment or Problem Solving (D -I). Here The word “ patterned” appears only since 1943,
Sm all had pointed the wav as early as 1903 with Gillin and Tumev-High. W e believe, as
w ith his stress on “ ends,” and it was the sociolo intimated in our Comment on group E, that
gist Keller, editing and continuing Sumner’s the concept .s likely to have greater weighting
w o rk in 1927, that established Adjustment (or in the future, whatever the terms may be that
Adaptation in 1915) as a factor in culture. will be used to designate it.
This is a characteristic sociological type of From 1930 to 1934 no new types of defini
definition. Onlv four of the seventeen ex tions were launched. In 1935 Carver, an econo
amples found bv us emanate from anthro mist, made a statement that does not fit any of
pologists: in 1942, Clellan Ford, who was our groups too well but is perhaps nearest our
trained also in sociology and psychology at Idcals-plus-Bchavior class C-II. Two eminent
Yale, and who varied adaptions to problem- sociologists, Thomas and Sorokin, and the
solutions; in 1946, Kluckhohn and Leighton; philosopher Bidney, have produced the re
in 1949 Turney-High with maintenance of maining five statements which we have col
“‘equilibrium as a psychological organism” lated. “ Behavior” is of course a mechanis
as a variant of adaptation; and in 1950 the tically-charged term given its wide vogue in
British anthropologist, Piddington. post-World-War-I psychology, The older
O u r group next in time, beginning in 1928, anthropologists spoke of activities, reactions, or
w ith emphasis on culture as a P ro d u ct or A r ti practices. Values or norms, on the other hand,
fa ct ( F - I ) , is again dom inantly the result o f have probably long been a covert constituent
sociological thinking. A p a r t from the pre- of conceptions of culture, which have only
historian M enghin’s statement o f 1934 that recently begun to be acknowledged.
culture is the objectified, materialized result In 1937 the anthropologist Pater Schmidt
(E rg eb n is) o f spiritual activ ity, there are only and the sociologist Blumenthal independently
• A n additional definition o f this type, discovered which it translates. That is, it signifies any way of
too late to include in Part II, is b y the classical scholar life distinctively human, however far from civiliza
and student o f com parative religion. H . J . Rose. It tion or refinement.” (Translator’s preface to Schmidt,
b only a y ea r later than W issler: “ T h rough out, the 1930. p. ix). ^
w o rd 'culture* b used in the sense o f Germ an Kultur, •It does occur in Winston, 1933 (F-I-4).
revived an interest in ideas as a characteristic development in early man of the faculty for
component of culture (group F-II) which had symbolizing, generalizing, and imaginative
lain dormant since the sociologist Ward in substitution. Another decade ought therefore
1903 and the anthropologist Wissler in 1916. to see a heavier accentuation of this factor in
All the remaining statements of the class, ex our thinkingOabout culture. =
,;
cept one by the philosopher Feibleman and one
by the sociologist Becker, are from anthro R A N K ORDER OF ELEM EN TS
pologists. E N T E R IN G IN TO PO ST-1930
Interest in culture being learned (D-II) has D EFIN IT IO N S1
two roots. One is old, and rests on the recogni
tion that culture is non-instinctive, non- Let us now consider conceptual elements
crenetic, acquired by social process, whether from the point of view of entrance into defini
that process be called tradition, imitation, or tions in any explicit form rather than from the
education. This is reflected, as early as 1871, exclusive point of view of emphasis. We shall
in Tylor’s “ acquired by man as a member of include only those elements which occur most
society.” The second interest is much more frequently or which (as just indicated above)
recent, and is a reflection of emphasis on seem to have special importance in more recent
learning theory in modern psychology. While developments of the concept. The rank order
all culture is learned, most culturelcss animals for the pre-1940 decade is as follows:
also learn, so that learning alone can never Group reference (“social” etc.) 23
suffice either to define or to explain culture. Historical product (“ heritage,” “tradition,"
The mention of learning by anthropologists etc.) 18
like Benedict. Opler, Hoebel, Slotkin, and Totality 16
Kluckhohn thus evidences the growing rapport Behavior (“ acts,” etc.) 12
between anthropology and psychology. Non-genetic transmission _ 11
Patterned (“system," “organized,” etc.) 11
In the tabulation we have ventured to group Adjustive-adaptive (“gratification," etc.) 10
this class as essentially post-1940 and beginning Ideas 8
with Miller and Dollard in 1941. This implies Carriers of culture (“ individuals,” “ persons,”
that we construe the Hart and Pantzer 1925 etc.) 7
definition as historically premature to the main Group product j
current, like the 1916 Wissler one. Actually. Values and ideals 4
Wissler says “ acquired by learning;” Harr and Learning 3
Pantzer mention imitation, tuition, social ac- Wav or mode 3
quisrion, and transmission; but in both cases
The same breakdown of elements entering
the point is the fact of acquisition (as against
explicitly into definitions of the 1941-yo (in
innateness), rather than the precise manner of
clusive) period gives-
acquisition. On the contrary, Miller and
Dollard in 1941 dwell on the srimulus-response Group reference 43
and cue-reward underlay of the manner of Behavior 35
acquisition and do not even mention learning Non-genetic 32
as such; which first reappears with Kluckhohn W ay or mode 26
in 1942. Patterned 24
Our F—III group emphasizing Symbolization Adjustive-adaptive 23
Carriers of Culture 22
dates only from 1942. We may have missed Learning 22
some extant statements that belong here. Cer Totality 20
tainly there is as of 1951 a wide recognition Historical product ij
among philosophers, linguists, anthropologists, Ideas 13
psychologists, and sociologists that the exist Group product 13
ence of culture rests indispensably upon the Values and ideals 12
1 Excludes Residual Category and Incomplete secrions which were obviously not intended by their
Definitions (both those in G and a few in the earlier authors as full definitions).
T h ese counts are o n ly r o u g h 8 because in stressing the “ style of life” o r “ over-all
some cases w ords o r phrases had to be in pattern” idea.
terpreted, perhaps arbitrarily. Nevertheless,
a f W l y tru stw o rth y picture emerges o f con
stancies and variations during these tw o N U M BER OF ELEM E N T S E N T E R IN G
decades. O f the one hundred thirteen defini
IN T O S IN G LE DEFIN ITIO N S
tions here considered, thirty-three fall into In another conceptual respect, however,
the first decade and eigh ty into the second. there appears a real trend — nam ely, toward
In both groups the attribution o f culture to a creating m ore sophisticated definitions that
g ro u p o r social gro u p is the single element include a larger number o f criteria.
most often given explicit mention. H o w e v er,
it o ccu rs in about tw o-thirds o f the earlier 1931-40 1941-50
Based on one criterion 9 • 2 3
definitions and in o n ly about half o f the m ore
Based on two criteria 9 4
recent ones. T h e historical dimension drops Based on three criteria 12 22
fro m second place in the rank order to tenth, Based on four criteria 7 J7
appearing in less than a fifth o f the definitions Based on five criteria 3 16
o f the last decade. T o ta lity drops almost but Based on six criteria 6
not quite as sharply proportionately but per Based on more than six criteria — 2
haps here m uch o f the same notion is ex
pressed b y “ system ” (and other w o rd s and
F IN A L COM M ENTS O N DEFINITIONS
()hrases subsumed under “ patterned.” ) Simi-
arly, perhaps “ non-genetic” (which climbs to Society being presupposed by culture, it is
third place in the second list) conveys part of not surprising that reference to the group
what was previously designated as “ historical” appears in so many of our definitions of
or “ traditional.” The two most striking shifts culture. Sometimes the reference is to human
are with respect to “ learning” and “ way or society generally, or “ the social;” more often,
mode.” The former is largely to be attributed to a society or group or community or seg
to a contemporary intellectual fashion. If ment within the human species; sometimes the
culture was considered a social heritage and members of the society or the fact of “ sharing”
non-genetically transmitted (as it was in a high are emphasized.
proportion of the 1931-40 defin:,ions), it Fairly frequent explicit reference to human
clearly had to be learned. The real difference culture — or for that matter the culture of any
probably rests in the greater emphasis upon one society — as constituting a sum or whole
learning as a special kind of psychological or total, in distinction from particular customs,
process and upon individual learning. The ways, patterns, ideas, or such, is probably also
trend toward thinking of culture as a dis expectable. It may have been reenforced bv
tinctive mode of living, on the other hand, realization ot the variably composite origin of
is genuinely new. the content of most or all cultures.
M a k in g allow ance fo r changes in the favorite Custom is most frequently mentioned in the
w o rd s o f intellectuals from one decade to the broad type of definition — weighted for in-
next, w e feel that this examination indicates clusivencss rather than sharpness — that orig
m ore con stan cy than variation in the central inated with Tylor and was continued by Boas
notions attaching to the con cept o f culture. and Dixon. However, the concept is retained
T h e r e are interesting differences in emphasis also in a series of recent definitions by stu
and shading, but the conceptual core has dents under specific psychological influencing:
altered significantly o n ly in the direction o f Linton, Dollard, Gillin, Thomas, LaPiere.
“ Perhaps a completely new kind of mathematic Lazarsfeld’s latent stru 'ure analysis (see Chapters 10
is required. This seems to be the implication in and 11 in Stouffer, G Tman, Suchman, Lazarsfeld,
Weaver, 1948. But some forms of algebra seem more et al.. Measurement c '• Prediction, Vol. IV of
appropriate to certain anthropological problems than Studies in Social Psyc £ -Jg y in World War II,
probability statistics or the harmonic analysis used bv Princeton University Pressi 1950).
zipf and others. (Cf. the appendix by Weil to Part "T h is implies, of course, an abstraction from con
I of Lcvi-Strauss, 1949.) Mathematicians have com crete events — not the behavior itself.
mented orally to one of us that greater develop “ The problem considered in this paragraph is
ment of the mathematics of non-linear partial differ essentially that discussed by Ralph Linton under the
ential equations might aid materially in dealing with rubric “ real culture" and “ culture construct.” Our
various perplexing questions in the behavioral and answer, of course, is not exactly the same as Linton’s.
cultural sciences. The only contemporary statistical “ Jakobson (1949, p. 113 ) remarks, “ linguistic
technique which seems to afford any promise of analysis with its concept of ultimate phonemic entities
aiding in the determination of implicit culture is signally converges with modem physics which revealed
arguable whether such units are, in principle, ferentiating large masses of specific phenomena
discoverable in sectors of culture less auto as respectively religious and magical — sup
matic than speech and less closely tied (in some plicating a powerful but unseen deity in the
wavs) to biological fact. We shall present heavens, for instance, as against sticking a pin
both sides of this argument, for on this one into an effigy. In short, concepts like religion
point we ourselves are not in complete agree and magic have an undoubted heuristic utility
ment.20 in given situations. But they are altogether
One of us feels that it is highly unlikely that too fluid in conceptual range for use either as
anv such constant elemental units will be dis strict categories or as units from which larger
covered. Their place is on lower, more basic concepts can be built up. After all, they are
levels of organization of phenomena. Here in origin common-sense concepts like boy,
and there suggestions have been ventured that youth, man, old man, which neither physiolo
there are such basic elements: the culture gists nor psychologists will wholly discard,
trait, for instance, or the small community of but which they will also not attempt to in
face-to-face relations. But no such hints have clude among the elementary units and basic
been systematically developed by their pro concepts upon which they rear their sciences.
ponents, let alone accepted by others. Culture This conclusion is akin to what Boas said
traits can obviously be divided and subdivided about social-science methodology in 1930:
and resubdivided at wilL, according to occa “The analysis of the phenomena is our prime
sion or need. Or, for that matter, they are object. Generalizations will be more signifi
often combined into larger complexes which cant the closer we adhere to definite forms.
are still treatable, in ad hoc situations, as uni The attempts to reduce all social phenomena
tary traits, and are in fact ordinarily spoken to a closed system of laws applicable to every
of as traits in such situations. The face-to-face society and explaining its structure and history
community, of course, is not actually a unit do not seem a promising undertaking.” 21 Sig
of culture but the supposed unit of social ref nificance of generalizations is proportional to
erence or frame for what might be called a definiteness of the forms and concepts analyzed
minimal culture. At that, even such a social out of phenomena — in this seems to reside
unit has in most cases no sharply defined ac the weakness of the uniformities in culture
tual limits. heretofore suggested; they are indefinite.
As for the larger groups of phenomena like A case on the other side is put as follows bv
religion that make up “ the universal pattern” — Jufim S-ew.ird in his important paper: Cul
or even subdivisions of these such as “ crisis tural Causality and L a v : A Trial Fomrulation
rites” or “ fasting” — these are recurrent in of the Development of Early Civilizationsr2
deed, but they are not uniform. Any one can
It is not necessary that any formulation of cultural
make a definition that will separate magic from regularities provide an ultimate explanation of culture
religion; but no one has vet found a definition change. In the physical and biological sciences,
that all other students accept: the phenomenal formulations are merely approximations of observed
contents of the concepts of religion and magic regularities, and they arc valid as working hypotheses
simply intergrcde too much. This is true even despite their failure to deal with ultimate realities.
though **___almost everyone
* would agree
C? in dif So long as a cultural law formulates recurrences of
** Cf. Coulbom, 1952. n. 113: “The fantastically scientists, latterly anthropologists, have argued vigor
simple, monistic view of cause necessary to a thorough ously against this opinion, some even wishing to es
going rcductionism is none other than the cause which tablish a new monism contrary to it. But the truth
served the physical sciences from the seventeenth is that cause actually operates in all sorts of wavs:
century to the nineteenth and was foisted upon other it can, as to certain particulars, be entirely on the cul
sciences by reason of the egregious success of the tural level, but, as to others, it operates both upwards
physical sciences in that period. Difficulties in nuclear and downwards, and perhaps round about, between
physics and astrophysics have driven the physicists the levels . . . Aristotle’s concept of formal cause is
themselves out or that stronghold, and it might be enlightening without being at the same time mislead
supposed that the efforts of such a philosopher as ing, but his efficient cause — and this is surely gen
Whitehead would have destroyed it completely. But erally agreed — is a harmful conception: any item in
this is not so: some non-physicists still lurk in it — a causal structure ran be regarded as efficient, for, if
a case of cultural lag! From Durkheim onward social any item is missing, the event will be changed."
ture can variably be construed as being at companied by a modal personality type. But
once adaptive, selective, and accumulative, there is then a temptation to portray the devel
it never starts from zero, but always has opment of individuals of this type as if it were
a long history. The antecedent conditions this development that produced the particular
enter in varying degrees, according to their quality of content of the culture; which is
nearness and other circumstances, into the equivalent to dogmatically selecting one of two
state of culture being examined; but they al circularly interacting sets of factors as the de
ways enter with strength. terminative one.
This variety of factors acting upon culture Rather contrary is the habit of many anthro
accounts for its causality being complex and pologists of treating cultural facts in certain
difficult. It is also why, viewed in the totality situations without reference to the people pro
of its manifestations, culture is so variable, and ducing these facts. For instance, archaeologists
why it generally impresses us as plastic and ascertain much of the content and patterning
changeable. It is true that cultures have also of cultures, and the interrelations of these cul
sometimes been described as possessed of iner tures, without even a chance, ordinarily, of
tia. Yet this is mostly in distant perspective, knowing anything about the people through
when the constant innumerable minor varia whose actions these cultures existed, let alone
tions are lost to view and the basic structural their individual personalities. It is true that
patterns consequently emerge more saliently. this deficiency constitutes a limitation of the
Further, it would seem that a full and open- scope of archaeological interpretation, but it
minded examination of what brought about certainly does not invalidate the soundness or
any given cultural condition would regularly significance of archaeological study within its
reveal some degree of circular causality. This scope. In the same way linguists consider their
is both because of the degree co which antece prime business to be determination of the con
dent conditions of culture necessarily enter tent and patterns of languages and the growth
into it, and because of the relations of culture and changes of these, mainly irrespective of
and persons. It is people that produce or the speakers either as individuals or as person
establish culture; but they establish it partly ality types. Culture history, again, largely
in perpetuation and partly in modification of dispenses w’ith the personalities involved in its
a form of existing culture which has made them processes and events; in part because they can
what they are. The more or less altered cul no longer be known, for the rest, because as
ture which they produce, in turn largely influ particular individuals they possess only minor
ences the content of subsequent personalities; relevance. Similarly, ethnography can be ade
and so on. This perpetual circularity or con quately pursued as a study of the classification,
tinued interaction was first recognized among interrelations, and history of cultural forms
students of culture; but in the past two or three and culture-wholes as such; what it gains from
decades, psychiatrists and psychologists also the addition of personalities is chiefly fullness,
became increasingly aware of the influence of texture, color, and warmth of presentation.
culture on personalities. It is clear from these several cases that cul
This awareness of interrelation has consti ture can be historically and scientifically in
tuted an advance, but has also brought about vestigated without introduction of personality
some forced causalities and exaggerations, par factors. In fact, the question may fairly be
ticularly by those using psychoanalytic ex raised w'hether ordinarily its study — as cul
planations. Thus the influence of toilet and ture— does not tend to be more effective if
other childhood training has quite evidently it is abstracted from individual or personality
been overemphasized. That a particular kind factors, through eliminating these or holding
o f training should have specific consequences or assuming them as constant.
is to be expected. But to derive the prevail It is, of course, equally legitimate to be in
ing cast o f whole national civilizations from terested in the interrelations of culture and
such minute causes is one-sided and highly personality. And there is no question that
improbable. Again, it is legitimate to think there is then an added appeal of “ livingness”
that any established culture will tend to be ac of problem; and understanding thus arrived
at ought to possess the greatest ultimate depth. range of distinct cause and effect as certainly as the
At present, however, the well-tried and mainly facts of mechanics. (1871, 17)
impersonal methods of pure culture studies
For reasons indicated above and elsewhere in
still seem more efficiently productive for the
understanding of culture process than the this study, we do not anticipate the discovery
of cultural laws that will conform to the type
newer efforts to penetrate deeper by dealing
of those of classical mechanics, though “ sta
simultaneously with the two variables of per
tistical laws” — significant statistical distribu
sonality and culture — each so highly variable
tions— not only are discoverable in culture
in itself.
and language but have been operated with for
What the joint cultural-psychological ap
proach can hope to do better than the pure- some two decades.29
Nevertheless, cultural anthropologists, like
cultural one, is to penetrate farther into caus
all scientists, are searching for minimal causal
ality. This follows from the fact of the im
mediate causation of cultural phenomena neces chains in the body of phenomena they investi
sarily residing in persons, as stated above. gate. It seems likely at present that these will
What needs to be guarded against, however, be reached — or at any rate first reached — by
is confusion between recognition of the area paths and methods quite different from those
in which causes must reside and determination of the physical sciences of the nineteenth cen
of the specific causes of specific phenomena. tury. The ceaseless feedback between culture
It cannot be said that as vet the causal explana and personality and the other complexities that
tion of cultural phenomena in terms of either have been discussed also make any route
psychoanalysis or personality psychology has through reductionism seem a very distant one
yielded very clear results. Some of the efforts indeed.
in this direction certainly are premature and The best hope in the foreseeable future for
forced, and none, to date, seem to have the parsimonious description and “ explanation” of
clear-cut definiteness of result that have come cultural phenomena seems to rest in the study
to be expected as characteristic of good of cultural forms and processes as such, largely
archxologv, culture history, and linguistics. — for these purposes— abstracted from indi
Finally, the question may be suggested — viduals and from personalities. Particularly
though the present is not the occasion to pur promising is the search for common denomina
sue it fully — whether certain personality- tors or pervasive general principles in cultures
and-culture studies may be actuated less by of which the culture carriers are often unaware
desire to penetrate into culture more deeply or minimally aware. Various concepts27 (Op-
than by impulses to get rid of culture by re ler’s “ themes” ; Herskovits’ “ focus” ; Kroeber’s
solving or explaining it away. This last would “ configurations of culture growth” ; and
be a perfectly legitimate end if it were Kluckhohn’s “ implicit culture” ) have been de
admitted. veloped for this kind of analysis, and a refine
Let us return, however, to causality once ment and elaboration of these and similar ap
more. In a sense we are less optimistic than proaches may make some aspects of the be
was Tylor eighty years ago when he wrote: havior of individuals in a culture reducible to
generalizations that can be stated with increased
Rudimentary as the science of culture still is, the
symptoms are becoming very strong that even what
economy. The test of the validity of such
seem its most spontaneous and motiveless phenomena “ least common denominators” or “ highest
will, nevertheless, be shown to come within the common factors” 28 will, of course, be the
" A s in the correlations of the Culture Element graphs seems thoroughly congruent with that ex
Survey o f native western North America directed by pressed by Levi-Strauss (1951). Compare: “ . . . thus
one of the present authors, to mention but one ascertain whether or rot different types of com
example. munication systems in the same societies — that is,
* Cf. Kluckhohn, 1951a. kinship and language — are or are not caused by iden
" Although the approach is from a somewhat tical unconscious structures” (p. 161). “ W e will be
different direction and the terminology used is not in a position to understand basic similarities between
the same, the point of view w e express in these para- forms of social life, such as language, art, law, religion.
extent to which they not only make the sisting of any desired, and, through still finer analysis,
phenomena more intelligible but also make infinitely increasing number of successive parts
possible reasonably accurate predictions of (Jakobson, 1949, 210, 2 11, 212)
culture change under specified conditions. Our basic assumption is that every language
One attempts to understand, explain, or pre operates with a strictly limited number of under
dict a system by reference to a relatively few lying ultimate distinctions which form a set of
organizing principles of that system. The stud) binary oppositions. (Jakobson and Lotz, 1949, 151).
of culture is the study of regularities. After
field work the anthropologist’s first task is the The fundamental oppositions in culture
descriptive conceptualization of certain trends generally may' turn out to be ternary or qua
toward uniformity in aspects of the behavior ternary. Jakobson has indicated that language,
o f the people making up a certain group (cf. though constructed around simple dichotomic
Ill— a—16). The anthropological picture of the oppositions, involves both an axis of success
explicit culture is largely as Firth (1939, III— iveness and an axis of simultaneity which cuts
a -i 1 ) has suggested “ the sum total of modes 29 its hierarchical structure even up to symbols.
o f behavior.” Now, however, anthropologists Certainly the analyses of Jakobson and Lotz
are trying to go deeper, to reduce the wide involve complex multi-dimensional interrela
range of regularities in a culture to a relativelv tionships. The resemblance of their graphic
few “ premises,” “ categories,” and “ thematic representations of French phonemic structure
principles” of the inferred or implicit culture.30 to similar drawings of the arrangements of
So far as fundamental postulates about struc atoms in organic
O
molecules is striking.D
ture are concerned, this approach resembles The work of Jakobson and Lotz concerns
what factor analysts are trying to do. The only one aspect of culture, language. At pres
methods, of course, are very different. ent only the data of linguistics and of social
A model for the conceptually significant organization are formulated with sufficient pre
in these methods is suggested in the following cision to permit of rigorous dissolution of ele
excerpts from Jakobson and Lotz: ments into their constituent bundles of dis
tinctive features. But there is abundant pre
Where nature presents nothing but an indefinite sumptive evidence that cultural categories are
number of contingent varieties, the intervention of not a congeries; that there are principles which
culture extracts purs of oppos:'e terms. The gross cut across. Aspects of given events are often
sound matter knows no oppositions. It is the human clearly meaningful in various realms of cul
thought, conscious or cnconscious, which draws from ture: “ economic,” “ social,” “ rehgious,” and
it the binary oppositions. It abstracts them by elim
the like. The difficult thing s to work out a
inating the rest . . . As music lays upon sound matter
systematic way of making transformations be
a graduated scale, similarly language lavs upon it the
dichotomal scale which is simply a corollary of the
tween categories.
purely differential role played by phonemic entities
This direction is so new — at least in its con
. . . a strictly linguistic analysis \i hich must specify temporary dress — and so basic to the anthro
all the underl) ing oppositions and their interrelations pological attack upon cultural “ causation” that
. . . Only in resolving the phonemes into their con the discussion must be extended a little. The
stituents and in identifying the ultimate entities ob prime search is, of course, for interrelationships
tained, phoncmics arrives at its basic concept . . . between the patterned forms of the explicit
and thereby definitely breaks with the extrinsic and implicit culture.
picture of speech vividly summarized by L. Bloom The problem of pattern is the problem of
field: a continuttm which can be viewed as con- symmetry, of constancies of form irrespective
"* For some purposes a better simile is that of a large of culture; and a more developed or specialized organi
oriental rug. Here one can see before one the in zation of the content of the culture — in other words,
tricacy o f patterns — the pattern o f the whole rug more numerous elements and more sharply expressed
and various patterns within this. T h e degree of in and interrelated patterns. These two properties are
tricacy of the patterns of the explicit culture tends to likely to go hand in hand. A greater content calls
be proportional to the total content of that culture, for more definite organization; more organization
as Kroeber has remarked: “Such a climax is likely makes possible the absorption of more content-”
to be defined b y two characteristics: a larger content (1936, p. 114.)
wide range of culture content and form that that the theoretical structure does not collapse
are not obvious in the world of direct observa with the production of doubtful or transitional
tion. The forms of the implicit culture start, cases. In a highly self-conscious culture like
of course, from a consideration of data and the American which makes a business of study
they must be validated by a return to the data, ing itself, the proportion of the culture which
but they unquestionably* rest upon systematic is literally implicit in the sense of never havinp
extrapolation. When describing implicit cul been overtly stated by any member of the so
ture the anthropologist cannot hope to become ciety may be small. Yet only a trifling per
a relatively objective, relatively passive instru centage of Americans could state even those
ment. His role is more active; he necessarily implicit premises of our culture which have
puts something into the data. Whereas the been abstracted out by social scientists. In the
trustworthiness of an anthropologist’s por case of the less self-conscious societies the un
trayal of explicit culture depends upon his re conscious assumptions bulk large. They are
ceptivity, his completeness, and his detachment whit VVhorf has called “ background phenom
and upon the skill and care with which he ena.” What he says of language applies to many
makes his inductiv e generalizations, the validity other aspects of culture: “ . . . our psychic
of his conceptual model of the implicit culture make-up is somehow adjusted to disregard
stands or falls with the balance achieved be whole realms of phenomena that are so" all-
tween sensitivity of scientific imagination and pervasive as to seem irrelevant to our daily
comparative freedom from preconception. lives and needs . . . the phenomena of a lan
Normative and behavioral patterns are spe guage are to its own speakers largely . . . out
cifically oriented. The forms of the implicit side the critical consciousness and control of
culture have a more generalized application the speaker. . . .” This same point of view is
but they are, to use Benedict’s phrase, “ uncon often expressed by historians and others when
scious canons of choice.” The implicit cul they say: “The really important thing to know
ture consists in those cultural themes of which about a society is what it takes for granted.”
there is characteristically no sustained and sys These “ background phenomena” are of ex
tematic awareness 31 on the part of most mem traordinary importance in human action. Hu
bers of a group. man behavior cannot be understood in terms
The distinction between explicit and im of the organism-environment model unless
plicit culture *> that of polar concepts, not of this be made more complex. No socialized hu
the all-or-none type. Reality, and not least man being views his experience freshly. His
cultural reality, appears to be a continuum very perceptions arc screened and distorted by
rather than a set of neat, water-tight compart what he has consciously and unconsciously
ments. But we can seldom cope with the con absorbed from his culture. Between the stimu
tinuum as a- whole, and the isolation and nam lus and the response there is always interposed
ing of certain contrastive sections of the con an intervening variable, unseen but powerful.
tinuum is highly useful. It follows, however, This consists in the person’s total apperceptive
“ As a matter of fact, cultures may share a large comprehension, or reciprocity in understanding, docs
body of their content through historical connection not assert that all the structure and all the values of
and provable derivation and yet have arrived at any two cultures are utterly disparate — which would
pretty diverse value systems. If we could recover make them noncomparable and would be a mani
enough ancient and lost evidence, it is expectable festly extreme and improbable view. It affirms that
that we would be driven to the admission that every there is comparability but that the structure-value
culture shares some of its content, through deriva system of one culture must not be imposed on an
tion, with every other on earth. This historic inter other if sound understanding is the aim. Biologists
connection leaves any monadal view or talk of the have long taken this for granted about classes of
noncomparability of cultures without basis. Possess organisms and yet have never stopped comparing
ing coancestry, they must be comparable. All that them fruitfully. Only, their comparison means dis
the most confirmed relativists can properly claim covering likenesses and differences, not looking
is that to achieve the fullest understanding of any merely for likenesses or merely for differences.
culture, we should not begin by applying to it the 40Cf. Aberle, et al., 1950.
patterns and values of another culture. This eminendy 41 This paragraph summarizes the argument for
modest and reasonable principle of autonomy of similarity and comparability of culture on general
Nor is the similarity between cultures, mancntly inaccessible to communication or
which in some ways transcends the fact of who fail to maintain some degree of control
relativity, limited to the sheer foims of the over their impulse life. Social life is impossible
universal culture pattern. There are at least without communication, without some meas
some broad resemblances in content and spe ure of order: the behavior of any “ normal”
cifically in value content. Considering the individual must be predictable — within a cer
cxhuberant variation of cultures in most tain range — by his fellows and interpretable
respects, the circumstance that in some partic by them.
ulars almost identical values prevail through To look freshly at values of the order just
out mankind is most arresting. No culture discussed is very difficult because they are
tolerates indiscriminate lying, stealing, or viol commonplaces. And yet it is precisely because
ence within the in-group. The essential uni they are common^aczs that they are interest
versality of the incest taboo is well-know n. ing and important. Their vast theoretical sig
No culture places a value upon suffering as an nificance rests in the fact that despite all the
end in itself; as a means to the ends of the influences that predispose toward cultural var
society (punishment, discipline, etc.), yes; as iation (biological variation, difference in physi
a means to the ends of the individual (pur cal environments, and the processes of history)
ification, mystical exaltation, etc.), yes; but of all of the very many different cultures known
and for itself, never. We know of no culture to us have converged upon these universals. It
in either space or time, including the Soviet is perfectly true (and for certain types of en
Russian, where the official idology denies an quiry important) that the value “ thou shalt not
after-life, where the fact of death is not cere- kill thy fellow tribesman” is not concretely
monialized. Yet the more superficial concep identical either in its cognitive or in its affective
tion of cultural relativity would suggest that aspects for a Navaho, an Ashanti, and a Chuk
at least one culture would have adopted the chee. Nevertheless the central conception is
simple expedient of disposing of corpses in the the same, and there is understanding between
same way most cultures do dispose of dead representatives of different cultures as to the
animals — i.e., just throwing the body our far general intent of the prohibition. A Navaho
enough from habitations so that the odor is would be profoundly shocked if he w’ere to
not troubling. When one first looks rather discover that there were no sanctions against
carefully at the astonishing variety of cultural in-group murder among the Ashanti.
detail over the world one is tempted to con There is nothing supernatural or even mys
clude: human individuals have tried almost terious about the existences of these univer
everything that is physically possible and salities iri culture content. Human life is —
nearly every individual habit has somewhere and has to be — a moral life (up to a point)
at some time been institutionahzcd in at least because it is a social life. It may safclv be pre-
one culture. T o a considerable degree this is • sumcd that human groups which failed to
a valid generalization — but not completely. incorporate certain values into their nascent
In spite of loose talk (based upon an uncritical cultures or which abrogated these values from
acceptance of an immature theory of cultural * their older tradition dissolved as societies or
)erished without record. Similarly, the bio-
relativity) to the effect that the symptoms of
mental disorder are completely relative to cul [
ogical sameness of the human animal (needs
ture, the fact of the matter is that all cultures and potentialities) has also contributed to con
define as abnormal individuals who are per- vergences.
grounds of logic and common observation. The argu recognition of differences of structure and values
ment of course becomes much stronger still as soon as instead of naive assumption of essential uniformity,
the historic connections or interrelations of cultures and therewith to relativism. But rclativistically colored
are considered, as oudined in the preceding footnote, comparison does not aim merely at ever-accentuated
39- Really, comparability is not even questionable, differentiating, which would become sterile and self-
and it has not been denied in practice except by defeating. W e must repeat that true comparison
occasional extreme dogmatists like Spengler. Indeed, deals impartially with likenesses and divergences as
it is precisely analytic comparison that first leads to analysis reveals them.
The fact that a value is a universal does not, anthropology has focussed its attention pre
of course, make it an absolute. It is possible ponderantly upon the differences. They are
that changed circumstances in the human sit there; they are very real and very important.
uation may lead to the gradual disappearance Cultural relativism has been completely estab
of some of the present universals. However, lished and there must be no attempt to explain
the mere existence of universals after so many it away or to deprecate its importance because
millennia of culture history and in such it is inconvenient, hard to take, hard to live
diverse environments suggests that they cor with. Some values are almost purely cultural
respond to something extremely deep in man’s and draw their significance only from the
nature and/or are necessary conditions to matrix of that culture. Even the universal
social life. values have their special phrasings and empha
When one moves from the universals or ses in accord with each distinct culture. And
virtual universals to values which merely are when a culture pattern, such as slavery, is
quite widespread, one would be on most shaky derogated on the ground that it transgresses
ground to infer “ rightness" or “ wrongness,” one of the more universal norms which in
“ better” or “ worse” from relative incidence. some sense and to some degree transcend cul
A value may have a very wide distribution in tural differences, one must still examine it not
the world at a particular time just because of within a putatively absolutistic frame but in
historical accidents such as the political and the Lght of cultural relativism.
economic power of one nation at that time. At the same time one must never forget that
Nations diffuse their culture into the areas cultural differences, real and important though
their power reaches. Nevertheless this does they are, are still so many variations on themes
not mean one must take all cultural values supplied by raw human nature and by the
except universals as of necessarily equal val limits and conditions of social life. In some
idity. Slavery or cannibalism may have a place ways culturally altered human nature is a
in certain culm res that is not evident to the comparatively superficial veneer. The com
ethnocentric Club im. Yet even if thc^e cul mon understandings between men of different
ture patterns play an important part in the cultures are very broad, very general, very
smooth functioning of these societies, they easily obscured by language and many other
are still subject to a judgment which is alike observable symbols. True universals or near
moral and scientific. This judgment is not universals are apparently few in number. But
just a projection of values, local in time and they seem to be as deep-going as they are rare.
space, that are associated with Western cul Relativity exists only within a universal frame
ture. Rather, it rests upon a consensus gen- work. Anthropology’s facts attest that the
tiirm and the best scientific evidence as to the phrase “ a common humanity” is in no sense
nature of raw human nature — i.e., that meaningless. This is also important.
human nature which all cultures mold and Rapoport43 has recently argued that objec
channel but never entirely remake. To say tive relativism can lead to the development of
that certain aspects of Naziism were morally truly explicit and truly universal standards in
wrong42 — is not parochial arrogance. It is — science and in values:
or can be — an assertion based both upon
So it is incorrect to say that the scientific outlook
cross-cultural evidence as to the universalities is simply a by-product of a particular culture. It is
in human needs, potentialities, and fulfillments rather the essence of a culture which has not yet been
and upon natural science knowledge with established — a culture-studying culture. Ironically,
which the basic assumptions of any philosophy the anthropologists, who often are most emphatic in
must be congruent. stating that no noncultural standards of evaluation
Any science must be adequate to explain exist, are among the most active builders of this new
both the similarities and the differences in the culture-stud) ing culture, whose standards transcend
phenomena with which it deals. Recent those of the cultures which anthropologists study
“ Larger, 1948, p. j.
Again avoiding a new formal definition, we We feel that their work, based upon careful
may say — extending a little what has already measurements of interaction, has been limited
been stated in III—e—15 — that this central idea by the fact that it is more readily productive
is now formulated by most social scientists to study culture in abstraction from concrete
approximately as follows: agents than to study social interaction segre
gated off from culture. But our point here is
Culture consists of- patterns, explicit and implicit, that they seem to have avoided the concept
of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by
because it was not tied to other terms in gen
symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of
eralized conceptual schemes such as have been
human groups, including their embodiments in arti
constructed in biology and mathematics.
facts; the essential core of culture consists of tra
ditional (i.en historically derived and selected) ideas
We suspect that a dynamic and generalized
and especially their attached values; culture systems
conceptual model in the area of culture will
may, on the one hand, be considered as products of develop largely as a result of further investiga
action, on the other as conditioning elements of tion or cultural forms and of individual vari
further action. ability.
The study of cultural structures, as opposed
The main respects in which, we suspect, this to content, has progressed markedly during
formula45 will be modified and enlarged in the last generation. Sapir, drawing upon lin
the future are as regards (1) the interrelations guistics where sheer structure is often crucial,
of cultural forms: and (2) variability and the showed what a fertile field for analysis this
individual. was and how much that was not immediately
Perhaps a better way of putting the problem apparent could be discovered. “ Forms and
would be to say that as yet we have no full significances which seem obvious to an out
theory of culture. We have a fairly well- sider will be denied outright by those who
delineated concept, and it is possible to enum carry out the patterns; outlines and implica
erate conceptual elements embraced within tions that are perfectly clear to these may be
that master concept. But a concept, even an absent to the eve of the onlooker.” Benedict,
important one, does not constitute a theory. building upon the clues offered by Sapir and
There is a theory of gravitation in which others, demonstrated the dependence of con
“gravity” is merely one term. Concepts have crete and manifest cultural forms upon
a way of coming to a dead end unless they are deeper-lying, pervasive principles. Bateson
bound together in a testable theory. In explored the interrelationships of institutional,
anthropology at present we have plenty of cognitive, and affective cultural structures.
definitions but too little theory. Kroeber attempted to trace the “ behavior” of
The existence of a concept of culture apart cultural configurations in time. Morris Oplcr
from a general theory is with little doubt one indicated how masses of content data might be
factor which has influenced a few professional subsumed as expressive of a relatively small
anthropologists toward shying away from the number of themes characteristic of each cul
use of the concept. The position of Radcliffe- ture.
Brown and other British social anthropologists Examples could be multiplied. We now
has been discussed. In this country Chappie, have, as already' pointed out, adumbrations of
Arensberg, and their followers have attempted a theory of cultural structure. This needs to
to create a theory with biological and mathe be pulled together, pointed up, and deepened
matical underpinnings, by-passing culture. by both diachronic and synchronic studies.
“ Certain outstanding biologists like Julian Huxley fashions during three centuries:
integrate the historical and experimental branches. “W e are now in position better to weigh the several
“ Cf. Sapir, 1949 (originally 1927), p. 549 ff. possible causes of changes in variability. The pri
“ This is the conclusion reached b y Richardson mary factor would seem to be adherence to or dc-
and Kroebcr (1940) as a result of their empirical fiarture from an ideal though unconscious pattern
and quantitative examination of women’s dress or formal clothing of women. The consistent con-
and no investigation of the culturc-personality regularities, is therefore often discernible in the
continuum which attempts to reduce culture history of cultural patterns taken by themselves,
to psychology will ever explain all of the even though the agency of change is the reaction of
the individual. (1951, 318; italics ours).
broad principles of culture change.
Maquet (1949, pp. 246-7) remarks: The polar case is, of course, that of fash
II est exact que les premisses de culture ne sont pas ion51 or sty le. Here there seems to be an
des facteurs non-immanents. Ccpendent elles sont des element of irreversibility or near irreversi
facteurs sociaux, ou plus exactement socioculturels au bility which few aspects of culture seem to
sens ou toute idee exprimee est un phenomene im possess. But there appears to be a degree of
possible sans societe. Par ailleurs et ceci est plus stylistic individuation or particularization in
important — ces premisses culturelles, quoique de
all forms of culture; sometimes this is deflected
nature ideale, sont cependant des facteurs exterieurs
by external pressures or by strains in the total
par rapport aux divers domaines de la pensee.
cultural system. In general, though, drift
As Sapir showed for language,49 there are almost comes down to the matter of style, and
“ configurational pressures” which bring about each style has its fluctuations, its periodicities,
both parallel and differentiating changes. or arrives at its inherent terminus (“ pattern
Every particular cultural structure through its saturation” ).
emphases, its tendencies toward disequilibrium The older biology also paid but little
in certain sectors, its lack of development in focussed, systematic attention to individual
particular areas, favors evolution in some direc variability’. Darwin’s Origin of Species is as
tions and not in others. And, as Sapir further full of reference to variations as it is to adap
pointed out, “ it is more than doubtful if the tations and heredity. But either it is particular,
gradual unfolding of social patterns tends indef isolated variations that are cited and described,
initely to be controlled by function.” 50 or the general fact of variability is assumed.
Harris has well generalized Sapir’s views as To Darwin, variations go somewhere in mak
thev relate to planned change: ing selective adaptation possible, but they
come from nowhere, out of the blue. It was
Changes which are attempted at any one time will
Mendel who first posed the question whether
therefore be intimately connected with the cultural
patterns existing at that time, and will lead to patterns
there was an order or form in xvhich varia
which differ in certain directions rather than in tions ccnne. Darwin had focussed on change
others, and which are not entirely different and un in heredity and on selcction-survival as its
related to the prei 'ous patterns. A more or less agency; but while his work reeks of the fact
continuous and directio-il sliift, Vvith observable of variation, how variation operates remains
fortuity of variability to certain magnitudes of pro referred to would be aspects of what in the present
portion — mostly a conformity of low variabilities to monograph is designated as “ implicit culture.’
high magnitudes — leaves little room for any other “ Murdock (1949b, pp. 198-99) notes:
conclusion. . . . Social and political unsettlcment as “The phenomenon of Linguistic drift exhibits
such might produce stylistic unsettlement and varia numerous close parallels to the evolution of social
bility as such; but there is nothing to show that it organization, e.g., limitation in the possibilities of
would per se produce thick waists, ultra high or low change, a strain toward consistency, shifts from one
ones, short and tight skirts. If there is a connection to another relatively stable equilibrium, compen .atory
here, it seems that it must be through alteration of internal reaajustments, resistance to any influence
the basic semi-conscious pattern, through an urge to from diffusion that is not in accord with the drift
unsettle or disrupt this; and that when increased . . . The present study has led to the conclusion that
fashion variability occurs, it is as a direct function social organization is a semi-independent system com
of partem stress, and only indirectly, and less cer parable in many respects to language, and similarly
tainly, of sociopolitical instability. In short, generic characterized by an internal dynamics of its own.
historical causes tending toward social and cultural It is not, however, quite such a closed system, for it
instability may produce instability in dress styles demonstrably does change in response to external
also; but their effect on style is expressed in stress events, and in identifiable ways. Nevertheless, its
upon the existent long-range basic pattern of dress, own structure appears to act as a filter for the
and the changes effected have meaning only in terms influences which affect it.”
of the pattern.” (1940, 147-48) “ Sapir, 1949, p. 341.
The “ unconscious” or “ semi-conscious” patterns “ Cf. Richardson and Kroeber, 1940.
out of the focus of the inquiry — which is culture patterns receive their affective charge
why he could passively accept Lamarckianism. largely because they are circuitous outlets for
Similarly, in anthropology the notion of vari feelings that cannot be more directly expressed
ability within the group is coming to be Such forms as witchcraft, for example, are of
emphasized more and more, but is not yet about the same kind of significance in getting
sharply focussed, at least not from the angle down to basic meanings as are significant re
of culture — see Part Hid, Comment. Lin sponses on projective tests. Finally, a recent
guistics, which is often a delicate indicator of trend (as in the work of Morris02) has been to
cultural theory, is now stressing the phoneme emphasize not just discrete cultural forms but
— a range of variation of a pattern focus. The formal types as models for personality devel
older anthropological approach, useful and opment.
sufficient in its day, has tended to obscure All of this is said not in the framework of
important issues that hinge upon the empirical the reductionism that pervades much of the
fact of formal variability. Fulfilling cultural culture and personality movement but because
forms in individual behavior is not the easy the study of culture itself would seem to
achievement that is often tacitly assumed in require explicit provision in its central con
anthropological literature. The individual’s cept for the implications which cultural forms
notions of “correct form” are often fuzzy. have for the individual and the variability of
Even when they are more clear-cut, personal individuals. This point will be amplified in
needs and drives frequently prevent more than the next section.
a crude approximation. It is also probably VVe agree with L. L. Bernard 53 that:
difficult for both participant and investigator
to project similarity into the behavior of . . . definition ranges all the way from the low le. el
others; the investigator misses the nuances. of accuracy of indicating (pointing out) an object or
process through naming and describing it in a literary
The trend toward emphasizing variability
manner, to the various stages of symbolic condensa
is closely related to the growing emphasis on
tion and functional conditioning, and ending in the
the individual in cultural studies. Not only is formulation of an ideal hypothetical norm which is
every individual different, but, concretely, the a sort of compromise between the generalization of
cultural forms differ too with the individuals inadequate experiental reality and a projected reality
who color them with their own needs and which is yet to be attained in its entirety.
resses. Concretely, again, even the cultural
erita^e of each individual is unique, even “ Culture” has now reached the stage that Ber
though abstractly the total cultural heritage is nard calls that of “condensed representative
available to all. Conversely, the same cultural abstract definition.” 54 It remains for future
forms are used as vehicles for very different work to produce a further symbolic conden
sorts of personality projection. The same form sation that will make adequate provision for
can be used for an almost endless variety of the systemic nature of cultures (“ interrelation
purposes and for expressing an almost infinite of. forms” ) and for individuals and their vari
shading of meanings. Certain socially accepted abilities.
"O n the difficulties and “ illusion” of reduction in temporary thought rejects the notion that a cause is
the natural sciences, cf. Nagel, 1949. connected with its effect as if by a son of hidden
" W e use this terminology here and elsewhere string. W e ourselves think of causality as inter
not because we suscribe whole-heartedlv to the dependence or co-variance — if a, then b (under
Aristotelian theory of causation but because those defined circumstances). Even this relationship, alike
who attack culture as a “ cause” or “ explanation" are in most aspects of physical and social science, is not
— whether they realize it or not — thinking in these more than a statement of high probability: certain
or highly similar terms. W e are aware that con- events or abstracted parts of events tend strongly to
sonalities who are in interpersonal and The clearest case is furnished again by
social relations. This cannot be denied, linguistics. Speech is a wholly human and
and there is neither use nor honesty in wholly social phenomenon, but linguistics
trying to whittle any of it away. But the thrives by being completely anonymous and
manifestations of culture come characteristic impersonal, with a minimum of reference to
ally in certain forms, patterns, or configura its carriers and their psychology, and by-
tions, many of which are large, ramifying, dealing with the relations of specific forms,
and enduring. Now while persons undoubt without serious concern for their specific
edly make and produce these cultural forms, productive causes. The relation of d, t, ts in
our knowledge of persons — and very largely deux, two, zwet is a “ law” in the sense of
also our knowledge of societies of persons — being a regularity' of form, of consistent rela
has failed conspicuously to explain the cultural tion of pattern. But the linguist does not
farms: to derive specific cultural effects from generally ask what made English have t
specific psychic or social causes. In fact, psy w'hcre French has d. He could not give the
chological and social concepts or mechanisms answer and he knows he could not; and — if
are not even much good at describing cultural he has even thought about it — he probably
forms.89 Such descriptions or characteriza cuspects that no reductionist could give it
tions begin to mean something only when either. The linguist may also be quite ready to
they are made on the cultural level — in terms concede that in his way the physicist is right if
of intercultural relations and of cultural he claims that actually language is varying air
values. vibrations made by* the larvnges and mouths
Every anthropologist or historian con of individuals of Ho?no sapiens. On the
cerned with culture realizes that cultural situa physicist’s level language is that and remains
tions make more sense, reveal more meaning, that. The linguist gets something more signifi-
in proportion as we know more of their cul cant than air waves out of his material because
tural antecedents, or, generically, more total he does not try’ to explaio it either through
cultural context. In other words, cultural airwaves or through efficient causes residing in
forms or patterns gain in intelligibility as they persons, but by taking such causalitv for
are set in relation to other cultural patterns. granted and concerning himself with the
VVe are convinced that the primary of interrelations of linguistic forms.
patterns and patiern relation must be accepted Culture as a whole is more manifold and
in our intellectual operations with cultural less channeled than its part, language. That
data, possibly nor for ever, but at any rate perhaps is whv students of culture have been
in the present development of our learning less courageous or decisive in realizing that one
and science. It is easy to crv for dynamic of their most fertile procedures is essentially
mechanisms, but they have been very hard the same. Like language, culture exists only
to find. What the mechanisms or efficient in and through human individuals and their
causes residing in persons have explained in psychosomatic properties; and like language
culture is on the one hand, certain kinds of it acquires a certain larger intelligibi’itv and
cultural innovations; on the other hand, per systematic significance in the degree that it
haps the broader recurrences, its rather hazily takes these persons for granted and proceeds
defined common denominators. All the to investigate the interrelations of super
characterized qualities of culture, all its varia personal forms of culture. Culture may well
tions and specificities, remain essentially un yet reveal “ laws” similar to the “ layvs” which
explained by dynamic psychic mechanisms.60 the linguist calls sound shifts; only they will
" a . Bidncy, 1942, 1946, 1947; Spiro, 19 J1. " Herskovits, 1951a, 1951b; Spiro, 1951.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
A b e l, T. B e n n e t t , J . W . a n d T u m i n , M . M.
19 JO . Is a Cultural Sociology Possible? American 1949. Social Life: Structure and Function. N ew
Journal of Sociology, vol. 35, pp. 739~5*- York.
1930. Civilisation: Le Mot et l’ldee. Centre Inter 1930. Civilization and Its Discontents (authorized
national de Synthese. Premiere Semaine In translation by Joan Riviere). N e w York.
ternationale de Synthase. Deuxicme 1946. A n Autobiographical Study. London.
Fascicule. Paris. F u n c k - B r e n t a n o , C.
1948. The W ays of Men. New York. 1949. Anthropology and Psychosomatic*. P s y
chosomatic Medicine, v o l . n , p p . 2 1 6 - 2 3 .
G oloenwzjseb, A . A.
H erd er, J. G. von
192*. Early Civilization. New York.
1933. History, Psychology, and Culture. New 1887. Ideen zur Philosophie der Menschheic.
York. Saemmtliche Werke, vols. 13 and 14 (Ed
1937. Anthropology. New York. B. Suphan). Berlin.
H e r r ic k , C. J.
G oldschmidt, W . R.
1931. Review of S. F. Nadel’s The Foundations of 1949. A Biological Survey of Integradve Levels.
Philosophy for the Future (Eds, R. W .
Social Anthropology. American Sociological
Sellars, V . J. McGill, and M. Farber), pp.
Review, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 569-70.
272-87. New York.
G o an , G .
H e b s e o v its , M. J.
1949. The People of Great Russia. London.
1948. Man and his Works. New York.
G b e e n b e r c , J. H .
19$ a. On Cultural and Psychological Reality.
1948. Linguistics andEthnology. Southwestern Social Psychology at the Crossroads (Eds,
Journal o f Anthropology, vol. 4, pp. 140-47. J. H. Rohrer and M. Sherif), pp. 145-63.
G ro v es, E. R. New York.
1928. An Introduction to Sociology. New York. 1951b. Tender- and Tough-Minded Anthropology
and the Study of Values in Culture. South
G r o v e s , E . R. a n d M o o r e , H . E. western Journal of Anthropology, vol. 7,
1940. Introduction to Sociology. New York. □o. 1, pp. 22-31.
GuavrrcH, G . H e rsk o v tts, M. J. and W ille y , M M
1950. La Vocation Actuelle de la Sociologie. Paris. 1923. The Cultural Approach to Sociology.
American Journal of Sociology, voL 29, pp.
H abinc, D. G.
188-99. (Reprinted in: J. Davis and II. E.
1949. Is Culture Defimble? American Sociological
Barnes, Editors, 1927. Readings in Sociology'.
Review, vol. 14, pp. 26-32. New York.)
H a r r is , Z. S. H ille r , E .T .
1951. Review of Selected Writings o f Edward 1933. Principles of Sociology. New York.
Sapir ht Language, Culture, and Personality
H in s h a w , V , Jr, an d S p u h le r , J. N .
(edited by D. G . Mandelbaum). Language,
vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 288-333. 1948. On Some Fallacies Derived in David Bidney’s
Philosophy of Culture. Centred States Bul
H a jt t , H .
letin (American Anthropological Associa
1941. Views on Definitions of Culture. Committee tion), vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 12-18.
on Conceptual Integration. Mimeographed.
H o c x e tt, C. F.
H a b t, H . and P a n tz e r, A. 1950. Language “ and” Culture: A Protest. Amer
1925. Have Subhuman Animals Culture? American ican Anthropologist, vol. 52, no. 1, p. 113.
Journal of Sociology, vol. 30, pp. 703-09.
H o e b e l, E. A .
H a t ? la ’.n , H , K r is , E , a n d L o e w e n s te in , R.
1949. Man in the Primitive World. New York.
1951. Some Psychoanalytic Comments on “ Culture
and Personality.” In Psychoanalysis and H o ije r , H .
Culture (edited by G . Wilbur and W . 1948. Linguistic and Cultural Change. Language,
Muensterberger). N ew York. voL 24, pp. 335-45.
H e g e l, G . W . F. H o n t g s h e im , P.
1920. Vorlesungen fiber die Philosophie der 1945. Voltaire as Anthropologist. American An
Weltgeschichte. Leipzig. thropologist, voL 47, no. 1, pp. 104-18.
H o rto n , D. K a tz ,D. a n d S c h a n c k , R. L.
19 4 3 . The Functions of Alcohol in Primitive 1938. Social Psychology. New York.
Societies: A Cross-Cultural Study.Quar K e it h , S ir A rth u r
terly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, voL 4, 1946. Essays on Human Evolution. London.
no. l, pp. 199-310. K e lle r ,A . G.
H u iz in g a , J. 1931. Societal Evolution. New York.
1936. In the Shadow of Tomorrow. London. K lem m , G.
1945. Wenn dieWaflen Schweigen. Basel. 1843-52. Allgemeine Cultur-geschichte der Men
H u m bo ld t, W il h e l m vo n schheit. 10 vols. Leipzig.
1836-39. Ueber die Kawi-sprache auf der insd 1854-55. Allgemeine Culturwissenschaft. 1 vols.
Java, nebst einer einleitung ucbcr die ver- Leipzig.
schiedenhcit des menschlichen sprachbaues K l in e b e r c , O.
und ihrcn einfiuss auf die geistige entwicke- 1935. Race Differences. New York.
lung des menschengeschlechts. Berlin. 1940. Social Psychology. New York.
H u n ttn c to n , E. K lu c k h o h n , C.
1945. Mainsprings of Civilization. New York. 1941. Patterning as Exemplified in Navaho Culture.
Language, Culture and Personality (Edsn L.
In tie ld , H. F.
Spier, A. I. Hallowell, and S. S. Newman),
1951. Jewish Culture and the State of IsraeL pp. 109-30. Menasha, Wisconsin.
American Sociological Review, voL 16, no. 1942. Report to the Sub-sub-committee on Defini
4, pp. 506-13. tions of Culture. Committee on Conceptual
K. F. v o n
I r w in g , Integration. Mimeographed.
1777-85. Erfahrungen und Untersuchungen uber 1943. Covert Culture and Administrative Problems.
den Menschen. 4 vols. Berlin. American Anthropologist, vol. 45, no. 2, pp.
213-27.
I s z l in , I . 1945a. Comment on C. J. Friedrich’s “The Problem
1768. Ueber die Geschichte der Menschheit. and of Communication between Cultures Seen as
ed. Zurich. Integrated Wholes.” Approaches to National
Ja c o b s, M. and S te rn , B. J. Unity (Edsn L. Bryson, L. Finkelstein, and
R. M. Maclver), pp. 618-35. New York.
1947. Outline of Anthropology. New York.
1945b. The Personal Document in Anthropological
Ja-K ob son , R. Science. The Personal Document in History,
1949. On the Identification of Phonemic Entities. Anthropology, and Sociology (L. Gortschalk,
Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copen- G Kluckhohn, and R. Angell), pp. 79-174.
bague, vol. j (Recherches structurales), pp. Social Science Research Council, Bulletin 53.
205-13. 1949a. Mirror for Man. New York.
1949b. The Philosophy of the Navaho Indians.
Ja k o b s o n , R. and L o tz , J.
Ideological Differences and World Order
1949. Notes on the French Phonemic Pattern. (Ed., F. S. C. Northrop), pp. 356-84. New
Word, vol. 5, no. i, pp. 151-58. Haven.
J a eg er , W . 1951a. The Concept of Culture. The Policy
Sciences (Eds., D. Lemer and H. D. Lass-
1945. Paidcia: The Ideals of Greek Culture
well), pp. 86-101. Stanford, California.
(translated by G . Highet). (2nd cd.) New
1951b. Values and Value-Orientations in the Theory
York.
of Action. Toward a General Theory of
K ant, I. Action (Eds., T . Parsons and E. Shils), pp.
1787. Critik der reinen Vemunft. (2nd ed.) Riga. 388-433. Cambridge.
1798. Anthropologic. (Vol. 7 of Reimer edition, K lu c k h o h n , C. and K e lly , W . H.
1907, of Kant’s Werke has been used to cite
1945a. The Concept of Culture. The Science of
from.) Berlin.
Man in the World Crisis (Ed., R. Linton),
1896. Critique of Pure Reason (translated by F. M.
pp. 78-105. New York.
Muller). N ew York.
1945b. The Concept of Culture. Mimeographed.
K a r d in e r , A. (Longer unpublished version of Kluckhohn
•939* The Individual and His Society. New York. and Kelly, 1945a.)
K lu c k h o h n , C. a n d L e ic h to n , D. Lacuna, G . A. de
1946. The Navaho. Cambridge. 1949. Culture and Rationality. American An
thropologist, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 379-92.
K lu c k h o h n , G, and M o rg a n , VV.
L an cer, S. K.
1951. Some Notes on Navaho Dreams. In: Psycho
analysis and Culture (edited by G. Wilbur 1942. Philosophy in a New Key. Cambridge.
and VV. Muensterberger). New York. (The Mentor Book edition, 1948, has been
used to cite from.)
K lu c k h o h n , C. a n d M o w re*, O. H.
L a n c m u ir , I.
1944. “ Culture and Personality” : A Conceptual
Scheme. American Anthropologist, vol. 46, 1943. Science, Common Sense, and Decency.
Science, vol. 97, no. 2505, pp. 1-7.
□o. 1, pp. 1-19.
L a P ie r e , R. T .
K lu c k h o h n , F. R.
1946. Sociology. New York.
1950. Dominant and Substitute Profiles of Cultural
Orientations: Their Significance for the L a s s w e ll, H. D.
Analysis of Social Stratification. Social 1935. Collective Autism as z Consequence of
Forces, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 376-93. Culture Contact. Zeitschrift fitr Sozialfor-
1951. Dominant and Variant Cultural Value schung, vol. 4, pp. 232-47.
Orientations. The Social Welfare Forum, pp. 1948. The Analysis of Political Behavior. London.
9 7-113. New York.
L a v is s e , E.
K ro eb er, A. L. 1900-11. Histoire de France depuis les Origir.es
1917. The Superorganic. American Anthropologist, iusqu’a la Revolution. 9 vols. Paris.
vo!. 19, pp. 163-213. L e ic h to n , A.
1918. The Possibility of a Social Psychology.
1949. Human Relations in a Changing World. New
American Journal of Sociology, vol. 12, pp.
York.
633-50.
1928. Sub-Human Culture Beginnings Quarterly L e v i-S t r a u s s , C.
Review of Biology, vol. 3, pp. 3:5-42. (Re 1949. Les Structures Llementaires de la Parente.
printed in: A . L. Kroeber and T . T . Paris.
Waterman, Editors, 1931. Source Book in 1951. Language and the Analysis of Social Laws.
Anthropology, pp. 4~:-89 New York.) American Anthropologist, vol. 53, no. 2, pp.
1936. “ Area and Climax,” Cmattre Element Distri 155-63.
bution III. University of California Publica
tions in American Archaeology and Ethnol L in to n , R.
ogy, vol. 37, pp. 101-15. 1936. The Study of Man. New York.
1944. Configurations of Culture Growth. Berkeley. 1945a. The Cultural Background of Persona icy.
1948a. Anthropology. New York. New York.
1948b. White’s View of Culture. Atnerican A n 1945b. Present World Conditions in Cultural Per
thropologist, vol. 50, no. 3, pt. 1, pp. 405-15. spective. The Science of Man in the World
1949. The Concept of Culture in Science. Journal Crisis (Ed., R. Linton), pp. 201-21. New
of General Education, vol. 3, pp. 181-88. York.
1951a. Configurations, Causes, and St. Augustine. L ip p e r t , J.
American Anthropologist, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 1931. The Evolution of Culture (translated by
279-83. G . P. Murdock). New York.
1951b. Reality Culture and Value Culture. (No. 18
of 1952.) L o w e ll, A. L.
1952. The Nature of Culture. In press. Chicago. 1934. Culture. A t War with Academic Traditions
in America, pp. 115-24. Cambridge.
R.
K ro n er,
L o w te, R. H.
1928. Die Selbstverwirklichung des Geistes.
Tubingen. 1917. Culture and Ethnology. New York.
1934. An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology.
KROirr.M. H. N ew York.
1932. Cultures and Culture Change. American 1937. The History of Ethnological Theory. New
Journal of Sociology, vol. 38, pp. 253-63. York.
LUNDBERG, G . M e r t o n , R. K.
1939. Foundations of Sociology. New York. 1936. Civilization and Culture. Sociology and
Social Research, vol. 21, pp. 103-13.
L ynd, R . S .
1940. Knowledge for What? Princeton. 1949. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe,
Illinois.
M acI ver, R . M.
1926. The Modem State. Oxford. M ille r , N . E. a n d D o l l a r d , J.
1931. Society, Its Structure and Changes. New 1941. Social Learning and Imitation. New Haven.
York.
1942. Social Causation. Boston. C. W .
M o r r is ,
1946. Signs, Language and Behavior. New York.
M a lin o w s k i, B. 1948. The Open Self. New York.
1931. Culture. Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences,
vol. 4, pp. 621-46. New York. M u e iilm a n n , W . E.
1939. Review of Six Essays on Culture by Albert 1948. Geschichte der Anthropologie. Bonn.
Blumenthal. American Sociological Review,
M u m fo r d , L.
vol. 4, pp. 588-92.
1944. A Scientific Theory of Culture. Chapel 1938. The Culture of Cities. New York.
Hill, North Carolina. M u rd o ck , G. P.
D.
M a .v d e lb a u m , 1932. The Science of Culture. American An
1941. Social Trends and Personal Pressures: The thropologist, vol. 34, pp. 200-16.
Growth of a Cultural Pattern. Language, 1937. Editorial Preface to: Studies m the Science
Culture, and Personality (Eds., L. Spier, A . I. of Society Presented to Albert Galloway
Hallowell, and S. S. Newman), pp. 119-38. Keller. New Haven.
Menasha, Wisconsin. 1940. The Cross-Cultural Survey. American
Sociological Review , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 361-70.
M a q u e t , J.
1941. Anthropology and Human Relations.
1949. Sociologie de la Connaissancc. Louvain. Sociometry, voL 4, pp. 140-50.
M a r c k , S. 1945. The Common Denominator of Cultures.
The Science of Man in the World Crisis
1929. Die Dialekrik in der Philosophic der Gegen-
(Ed., R. Linton), pp. 123-43. New York.
wart. Tubingen.
1949a. The Science of Human Learning, Society,
M arett, R . R. Culture, and Personality. Scientific Monthly,
1912. Anthropology. London. vol. 6 9 , pp. 377-82.
1920. Psychology and Folklore. New York. 1949b. Social Structure. New York.
1928. Man in the Making. Garden City, New York.
M u rp h y, G.
M a u ss, M . 1947. Personality. New York.
1935. Les Techniques du Corps. Journal de
M u rray, R. W .
Psycbologie, vol. 32, nos. 3-4, pp. 171-93.
(Reprinted in: M. Mauss, 1950, Sociologie et 1943. Man’s Unknown Ancestors. Milwaukee.
Anthropologie. Paris.) M yres, J. L.
M cK eon , R. 1927. Political Ideas of the Greeks. New York.
1950a. Conflicts of Values in a Community of
N ad el, S. F.
Cultures. Journal of Philosophy, vol. 47, pp.
197-210. 1937a. The Typological Approach to Culture.
1950b. Philosophy and the Diversity of Cultures. Character and Personality, vol. 5, pp. 267-84.
Ethics, vol. 60, pp. 233-60. 1937b. Experiments on Culture Psychology. Africa,
vol. 10, pp. 411-35.
M ead , M . 1951. The Foundations of Social Anthropology.
1937. Cooperation and Competition among Primi London.
tive Peoples. New York.
N a g e l, E.
M xngh in , O . 1949. The Meaning of Reduction in the Natural
1931. Weltgeschichte der Steinzeit. Vienna. Sciences. Science and Civilization (Ed., R. C.
1934. Geist und Blut. Vienna. Stauffer), pp. 99-135. Madison, Wisconsin.
200
Novntorr, A . B. P ark , R. E. and B u rg ess, E. W .
1945. The Concept of Integrative Levels and 19 2 1. Introduction to the Science of Sociology
Biology. Science, voL ioi, pp. 209-15. Chicago.
O dum, H. W . P arso n s, T.
1947. Understanding Society. New York.
19 3 7 . The Structure of Social Action. New York.
O cburn , W . F. 19 4 9 . Essays in Sociological Theory. Glencoe,
1950. Social Change: With Respect to Culture Illinois.
and Original Nature. (Rev. ed.) New York. 1 951. The Social System. Glencoe, Illinois.
G.
R o h e im , S c h m id t , H.
1934. The Riddle of the Sphinx (translated by A. 1922. Philosophisches Woerterbuch. (7th ed.)
Money-Kyrle). London. Leipzig.
1941. The Psycho-Analytic Interpretation of Cul
W.
S c h m id t ,
ture. The International Journal of Psycho-
_ Analysis, vol. 22, pp. 1-23. 1931. The Origin and Growth of Religion, Facts
1942. The Origin and Function of Culture. The and Theories (translated by H. J. Rose).
Psychoanalytic Review, vol. 29, pp. 131-64. London.
1937. Handbuch der Methode der Kulturhistori-
1943. T h e Origin and Function of Culture.
Nervous and Mental Disease Monographs. schen Ethnologie. Munster.
New York. 1939. The Culture Historical Method of Ethnology
1950. Psychoanalysis and Anthropology. New (translated by S. A Sieber). New York.
York. S ears, P. B.
R o u se, I. 1940. Who Are These Americans? New York.
1939. Prehistory in Haiti. Yale Publications in S e lic m a n , C. G.
Anthrolopogy, no. 21.
1936. Patterns of Culture. Man, vol. 36, pp. 113-15.
R l c k e r t , H e in r ic h .
S ic k e l , K. E.
1857. Lehrbuch der Weltgeschichte in Organischer
1933. J. C. Adelung, seine Pcrsdniichkeit und
Darstcllung. 1 vols. Leipzig.
seine Geschichtsauffassung. Leipzig.
S a p ir , E. S ie b e r t , O .
1912. Language and
Environment. American 1905. Geschichte der deutschen Philosophic.
Anthropologist, vol. 14, pp. 226-42. (Re Gottingen.
printed in Sapir, 1949, pp. 89-103.)
1921. Language. N ew York. S im m o n s , L. W . ( E d ito r )
1924a. Culture, Genuine and Spurious. American 1942. Sun Chief, the Autobiography of a Hopi
Journal of Sociology, vol. 19, pp. 401-29. Indian. New Haven.
(Reprinted in Sapir, 1949, pp. 308-31.) S l o t k in , J . S .
1924b. The Grammarian and His Language. Amer
1950. Social Anthropology, the Science of Human
ican Mercury, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 149-55. fRe
printed in Sapir, 1949, pp. 150-59). Society and Culture. New York.
1929. The Status of Linguistics as a Science. Lan S m a ll, A. W .
guage, vol. 5, pp. 207-14. (Reprinted in 1905. General Sociology. Chicago.
Sapir, 1949, pp. 160-66.)
1931. Custom. Encyclopedia of tbs Social Sciences, S m ith , R. G.
voL 4, pp. 658-62. (Reprinted in Sapir, 1949, 1929. The Concept of the Culture Area. Social
pp. 365-72.) Forces, voL 7, pp. 421-32.
SlLVA -FU EN ZA LID A , I . Su m n er, W . G . and K e lle r , A . G .
1949. Ethnolinguistics and the Study of Culture. 1927. T h e Science o f Society. 4 vols. N e w Haven
American Anthropologist, vol. 51, no. 3, pp.
446-56. S u th e r la n d , R. L . an d W o o d w a rd , J. L.
1949a. Ethnological Theory. Philosophy for the 1910-20. Volkerpsychologie. 10 vols. Leipzig.
Future (Eds., R. W . Sellars, V . J. McFill, 1912. Elemente der Volkerpsychologie. Leipzig.
and M. Farber), pp. 357-84. New York. Y oung, K.
1949b. The Science of Culture. New York.
1934. Introductory Sociology. New York.
W h o r e , B. L. 194;. Sociology: A Study of Society and Culture.
1949. Linguistics as an Exact Science. Four New York.
Articles on Metalinguistics, pp. 6-12. Foreign 1944. Social Psychology. (2nd ed.) New York.
Z if f , G . K . Z n a n ie c k i, F.
1949. H um anBehavior and the Principle of Least >919* Cultural Reality. Chicago.
Effort. Cambridge. 1951. Cultural Sciences. Their Oiigin and Devel
opment. Urbana, Illinois.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: HISTORICAL NOTES ON IDEOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF
T H E CONCEPT OF CU LTU RE IN GERM AN Y AND RUSSIA
By
A lfr ed G. M ey er
reason why the German term denote cultures other than our own, specific
O“ Kultur” could acquire a connotation
n e
ao?
against the economic, political, scientific, or culture were undertaken in part in order to
philosophical achievements of Western civil hold up a didactic mirror to modern man.
ization can be regarded as an attempt to com This is not, however, the original “ do
pensate for a deep-seated feeling of inferiority mestic” significance of Kultur theories of this
on the part of German intellectuals once they sort. Like theories of contact and popular
had come in contact with the advanced sovereignty', Kultur theories were directed
nations. Similarly, Russian cultural nationalism against the ancien regime and its absolutism;
can easily be traced to such a feeling of in for they held, explicitly, that history was not
feriority; quite fittingly, Russian cultural made by states and dynasties, but by peoples.
nationalism developed in the measure as The difference between the two types of
Russian contacts with the West intensified. revolutionary ideologies is that the one con
These Kultur theories, then, are a typical ceives of “ the people” as a political associa
ideological expression — though by no means tion; the other, as a natural community of
the only one — of the rise of backward socie culture. Both are liberal in their intent; but
ties against the encroachments of the West the one is rational, the other, romantic or even
on their traditional culture. They consist in sentimental liberalism. One wants to go “ for
asserting the reality of something izhich is just ward” — if the word make any sense — to
about to be destroyed. political democracy; the other, “ back” to
This ideological
O
reaction against
p the dv-
^
nature.6
namics of westernization and industrialization Romantic liberalism and those Kultur
need not, of course, be international only; it theories which are within its tradition are
can be a purely domestic phenomenon. The therefore not only</ directed against
D absolutism,
^
tradition of enlightenment calls for support but also against the entire rational-utilitarian
of those social strata in one’s own country' tradition of the Age of Enlightenment. It is
which are likely to further the spread of therefore not at all astonishing that after the
Kultur; conversely, Germans, in the name of French Revolution, when rationalism, utilita
Kultur, opposed tKc encroachments of Zmlisn- rianism, and related theories were associated
tion, just as certain Americans, in the name of with Jacobinism, just as dialectical materialism
traditional American community ways, bewaT is today associated with the Kremlin, the
urbanization, industrialization, and the curse Romantic struggle against this tradition turned
of bigness. And in this fight for the preserva against the Revolution. The Sturm und Drang
tion of the cultural heritage at home, the movement, of which Herder’s preoccupation
ideologist is often tempted to seek support for with primitive cultures is an intrinsic part,7
his denunciations of civilization in a glowing had been a rebel ideology; Romanticism was
description of primitive but unspoiled cultures. clearly counter-revolutionary*. Yet, Kultur
Tacitus held up to his degenerate contempor theories of both the Kant and the Herder tra
aries the simple but upright life of the primitive dition were sufficiently identified with the
cultures in Germany’s forests; Rousseau idea of dissent or revolt that this identification
similarly used the noble savage of the North alone might explain why the concept of
American plains; Herder draws on an almost Kultur was altogether eliminated from the
encyclopedic knowledge of primitive cultures dictionary of German social thought until
for the same reason; and one might even point after 1848, by which time its radical connota
out that Margaret Mead’s studies of Samoan tion had probably been forgotten entirely.8
'Rousseau straddles both these types of revolu 'I t is true that Schiller, taking the Kantian con
tionary ideology and could therefore become a cept as a point of departure, attempted to give it a
precursor of both the rational and the irrational tra completely unpolitical, or rather antipolitical, twist.
dition of nineteenth-century thought. Herder’s con Recoiling from the sight of the terror that had been
cept of Cultur also contains seeds of both the political- unleashed by the French Revolution, Schiller in his
rational and the irrational-cultural strands. Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man (first
’ Herder’s preoccupation with primitive cultures published in 1795) denounced the idea that material
is manifested not only in his philosophy of history, culture could advance mankind. Look at the develop
but also in his extensive labors to translate the poetic ments in France — he said in effect — and you will
heritage of primitive or extinct cultures. see the disastrous results of this kind of culture. In
At the same time, it is quite possible to argue Geist, not of Kultur. It should not be for
that the Kultur idea of Herder and his con gotten, however, that Hegel’s Weltgeist is
temporaries too was directed against the supposed to manifest itself at different times
French Revolution even before that revolution and in different places within groups referred
took place. Herder’s history expressed dis to as nations. Weltgeist thus institutionalized
satisfaction with the course of our own becomes Volksgeist, and the concrete inves
civilization. There is implicit in it a theory tigation of any given Volksgeist is nothing
of the decline of the West and the ascendancy else than the Hegelian version of the com
of unspoiled cultures like those of the Slavs. parative study of cultures of Herder and the
There is at times a mood of pessimism, a historiography he represents. In spite of the
lamenting over the opportunities which the idealistic phraseology which Hegel has carried
West has missed, and a warning of evil things ad absurdinrt, Hegel’s concrete analyses of his
to come. Thoughts like these were eagerly own and other cultures are no less rich in
picked up by cultural nationalists in Russia.® material and insight than, for instance, Speng-
Russian social thought, one might right ler’s descriptions of those institutions, ideolo
fully claim, centered around problems of gies, and behav ior patterns in which a culture’s
culture. Throughout the nineteenth century, '■‘soul” supposedly manifests itself.
the “ problem of Russian history,” i.e., the Yet, the reemergence of the Kultur concept
question concerning Russia’s cultural char both in Germany and in Russia attests to the
acteristics, destiny, and mission, was one of limitations of the Hegelian method and term
the central themes with which all social inology. Geist, it appeared, was excessively
thought, from Chaadaev to Stalin and Berdiaev, laden with unstated methodological premises;
had to deal. Posing the problem of “ Russia culture served far better as a concept through
and the West,” which was germane to this which to view the social structure and institu
ever recurrent theme, gave a relativistic char tions, behavior patterns, ideologies, and ethos
acter to all Russian ideologies from the start. of a given society in their totality and inter
Similar to the divergent strands in German dependence. Consequently, in the latter part
Kulttir ideas, moreover, two schools of of the centur/, when Klemm, Rickert, and
thought forked out in Russia as well, the others revived the Kultur concept in Ger
Westerners — rationalists, utilitarian in orien many, the concept of kuTtura enters the
tation, mechanistic in method, who regarded writings of Russian social scientists. Danil-
Russia as an integral part (however back evskii’s boc’c, in which the term seems to have
ward) of Western civilization — and the been used for the first time in Russia, is per
Slavophiles, cultural nationalists, who asserted haps the most systematic statement of ideas
the distinctness and superiority of Russian or latent in the entire Slavophile tradition. Mark
Slavic culture, the irrelevancy of European ing the transition from cultural Slavophilism
experience for Russia, and the inapplicability to political Pan-Slavism, it is the most signifi
of historical laws of the West to Russian soil. cant statement of the secularization of Slavo
The ideological similarity or even identity phile cultural and religious ideologies, and has
of Russian cultural nationalism with German fittingly been dubbed the “ text book of Pan-
cultural nationalism is obscured by the fact Slavism.”
that nineteenth-century Russian thought In the last quarter of the nineteenth century,
initially took its method and terminology when Russian social thought flowered in un
largely from Hegel who spoke in terms of precedented intensity and produced the most
u For a brief characterization of die Eurasian at a history of Eurasia from the middle of the sixth
movement, cf. D. S. Mirsky, “The Eurasian Move century up to the present time), Berlin, 1934.
ment,” Slavonic Review, vol. VI, no. 17 (December, Roman Iakobson tried to establish and define a
1927), pp. 312 ff.; cf. also Karl Haushofer, Geopolitik group of Eurasian languages to show their close
der Panideen, Berlin, 1931, p. 17-16. relation: K khsrakteristike evraziiskogo iazykovogo
"Trubetskoi maintains that the terms “mankind,” ■soiuza (Toward a characterization of the Eurasian
“human civilization,” “ world order,” and such, are language union), Paris, 1931.
quite unreal, and betray as much Western ego- Petr N. Savitskii saw Eurasia as a separate world in
centricity as the classical ideas that Hellas or the geographical terms. His concept of Space-Dcvelop-
Roman orbis terrarum constituted the whole civilized ment-Types (tipy mcstorazvitiia) is, expressly, a geo
world. Thus cosmopolitanism and chauvinism are political modification of Danilevskii’s “ cultural-his
different only in degree, not in principle — an idea torical types” : “The concept of spaco-developmcnt
which has recently been incorporated in the Com has to be joined with Danilevskii’s concept of cultural-
munist Party line by Zhdanov. Cosmopolitanism and historical type . . . For every one of these types there
'■hauvinism, according to this line, are bourgeois is a corresponding ‘space-development.’ ” — Rossiia
ideologies; the contrasting proletarian virtues are — osobyi rnir (Russia, a world by itself), Paris, 1929.
internationalism and Soviet patriotism. p. 65. Cf. also his Geograficheskie osobennosti Rostii
UD. S. Mirsky, op. cit^ p. 312. (The geographical peculiarities of Russia), Prague,
“ George V . Vemadskii attempted to write a 1927.
Eurasian history in his Opyt istorii Evrazii s poloviny *° E. Spektorskii, Kbrirtianstvo i kuPtura, (Chris
shertogo veka do nastoiashebego vremeni (Attempt tianity and culture), Prague, 1925.
ism during the first World War similar to their adjective “ national” preceding it, turned into
German counterpart, took refuge with the a thinly veiled ideology of national domina
myth of culture by making the spread of tion and national expansion, not only to justif*-
Russia’s superior culture one of the chief war pan-SIavist ambitions, but also to rationalize
aims. The word kuFtura, especially with the the tsarist policy of forced russification.-1
A lfre d G. M eyer
h e n Stalin, in his first letter on linguis seen as the natural outgrowth of Stalin’s theory
W tics,1 asserted that language was not part
of the superstructure of anv given society,
of “ Socialism in one country.” 3 At the same
rime it must be realized that it is directly op
he
took a decisive step in the direction of recog posed to all that Marx and Lenin had to sav
nizing the existence of certain cultural features about national culture.
which are older and have a more lasting sta In Marxism, the concepts devised to express
bility than social structures organized in a the totality' of all social phenomena in their
common effort to produce the means of life interrelation is not culture, but the mode of
and its reproduction. Fur the last twenty years production, with its two important subcon
or so, Soviet ideology has come to give explicit cepts, the forces of production and the social
recognition to a natiorul culture which trans relations of production. The term “culture”
cends the scheme of historical development enters into the conceptual framework of
outlined by Marx and Engels. The length to Marxism only on the level of the superstruc
which it has gone in this may be illustrated ture. But on this level it has much the same
by a section on tfRussian culture and the culture content as the current anthropological con
of the nationalities of Russia” in the special cept of culture, with the proviso that the
volume on the Soviet Union of the new Great economic substructure and the corresponding
Soviet Encyclopaedia: 2 class relationships are on a more fundamental
The rich and progressive Ru^ian culture exerted,
level; moreover, there Is a tendency in Marxist
during the nineteenth cenrury, quite a great and fruit usage to endow the term “ culture” with a
ful influence on the development of spiritual culture meaning of achievement or culturation rem
among the numerous nationalities of Russia. Tsarism, iniscent of the use which the Fnlightenment
with its reactionary national-colonial policy, strove to made of it. Two Soviet dictionary definitions
sow disunity among the nationalities of Rnsria and set will illustrate these points; the first is from
them against each other. The progressive Russian the Tolkovyi slovar’ russkogo iazyka (Ref
culture brought the nationalities of Russia together erence dictionary of the Russian lan?uag[e) of
and united them in one brotherly and friendly family
Professor D. N. Ushakov,4 the second from
whose members were interested in overthrowing
tsarism, in abolishing serfdom and its lasting conse
the BoFshaii Sovetskaia Entsiklopedlia (Great
quences, and who from the very beginning of the Soviet Encyclopedia) vol. xxxv.5
nineteenth cenrury became involved in an all-Russian
KuTrurj— i. The totality of human achievements
revolutionary struggle under the leadership of the
in the subjection of nature, in technology, education,
proletari iz.
and social organization. . .
This increasing emphasis which Soviet ideol KuFturj — 5. The material activity of labor of men
ogy has been paying to the national traditions which conditions the evolution of social man with
of Russia and its many nationalities must be all the multiplicity of his spiritual interests and
‘ L V . Stalin, “ Otnositel’no marksizma v iazykoz- its various ramifications, cf. F. Barghoom, “Stalin and
nanii," (Concerning Marxism in linguistics), Prjvia, the Russian Cultural Heritage,” The Review of Poli
June 20, 1950. tics, VoL 14, No. 4, pp. 178-103, April 1951. I am
*Borsbda Sovetskaia Entriklcpediia (Great Soviet obliged to Jindrich Kucera and Paul Friedrich who,
Eacyclopzdia), special volume, “Soiuz Sovetskikh independendy and simultaneously, called my attention
Sotsialisucheskikh Respublik” (Uruon of Soviet So to chis article.
cialist Republics), Moscow, 1948, p. 565. * Moscow, 1935.
'F o r a survey of this ideological development in * Moscow, 1937^
needs, constitutes'the basis of all human culture and of the “ united” nation into exploiters and the ex
provides the guiding framework for the explanation ploited has become an accomplished fact.
of the various forms and the development of culture Only clericals or bourgeois can talk about national
. . . Culture expresses the historically determined culture at all. The working masses can talk only
stage and the means of man’s mastery over the forces about the international culture of the world move
of nature; it manifests itself in the level of technology, ment of workers.7
organization and habits of labor, organization of
social life, in manners, customs, and in morality; its Thus it is misleading, in Lenin’s opinion, to
expressions are also the stage and forms of men’s speak about national culture. And yet, in
ideological development, i.e., language, science, art, another sense, there is such a thing; but this
literature, philosophy, and the Weltanschauung of an national culture is even more clearly bourgeois
age. in content than the myth for which the term is
used bv nationalists. This is how Lenin saw it:
Lenin contrasted culture with barbarism, in
a passage in which he claimed that the im Within each national culture elements — however
perialist war was threatening to dcstrov all undeveloped — of democratic and socialist culture
the previous achievements of culture: exist, for in each nation exist a mass of working and
exploited people whose conditions of life inevitably
It seems that the countries [now at war] are once generate a democratic and socialist ideology. But
more turning from civilization and culture to prim in each nation also a bourgeois . . . culture exists_
itive barbarism and are once more undergoing a moreover not just as “elements,” but as the ruling
situation in which behavior becomes unrestrained, culture. Hence “national culture” in general is the
and men turn into beasts in the struggle for a piece culrure of landlords, priests, and the bourgeoisie*
of bread.*
These polemics against the concept of national
True to the internationalist tradition of his culture, it must be noted, were directed not
movement, which denied that the nation had only against nationalists, and pan-Slavists from
anv significance as a cultural or social unit, the camp of the bourgeois or pre-capitalist
he bittcrl\ scored the use v. hich was made classes, but, even more sharply perhaps, against
of the concept of culture b\ nationalists every such socialists who, like the Austrian school
where: (Karl Renner and Otto Eauer), the Marxist
movement in Georgia, or the Jewish “ Bund,”
The class-conscious workers know that the slogan advocated a vigorous struct-! e for national nr
of “national culture" is clerical or bourgeois bluff, cultural-national autonomy.8
no matter whether they talk about Grer.r-Russian, For culture, according to Lenin, is the
Ukrainian, Jewish, Polish, Georgian, or any other
superstructure of class relationships and has
culture. 125 years ago, when nations were not yet
divided into bourgeoisie and proleranar, the slogan
therefore little or nothing ro do with nations,
of national culture could be a unifying and total call except in the measure as nations themselves are
to battle against feudalism and clericalism. But since part of that superstructure. Let us once more
then the class struggle of the bourgeoisie and the adduce part of a Soviet dictionary definition
proletariat has broken out everywhere. The split of culture which illustrates this point:
• “ Doklad otekushchcm momtnte 27 iiunia 1918 g.” national problem), op. cit., vol. X VII, pp. 156-39;
(Report on the current moment of 27 June 1918), in: “ Liberaly i demokraty v voprose o iazykakh’ (Liberals
V . I. Lenin, Sochineniia (Works), 2nd ed., vol. and democrats in the problem of languages), vol.
XXIII, p. 77. Cf. also an earlier statement: “The X V I, pp. 595-97; and ‘Nuzhen li obiazatel’nyi gosu-
imperialist war . . . is placing mankind before the darstvennyi iazyk?” (Is a compulsory state language
dilemma either to sacrifice all culture or else to necessary?), op. cit., vol. X VII, pp. 179-81. All of
throw off the capitalist yoke by way of a revolution, these articles were written in 1913 or early 1914, a
remove the rule of the bourgeoisie, and to conquer period when Lenm and socialists everywhere became
a socialist society and a firm peace,” “ Za khleb i mir” more than ever aware of the force of nationalism
(For bread and peace), op. c i t vol. XXII, p. 145. throughout Europe.
™ K ak episkop Nikon zashchishchaet ukraintsev?" * “ Kriticheskie zametki po natsioi.al’nomu voprosu,
(How bishop Nikon defends the Ukrainians), op. cit-, op. cit., vol XVII, pp. 137 and 143.
vol. X V I, p. 618. For similar polemics, cf. also the *Cf. “ O ‘kul’tumo-natsional’noi’ avtonomii” (On
following articles: “ Kriticheskie zametki po natsional’- “ cultural-national” autonomy) (1913), op. cit., vol.
nomu voprosu” (Critical remarks concerning the XVII, pp. 92-95.
la 2 class society culture too is class culture: each encyclopaedia hints became one of Lenin’s
ruling class endeavors to create such culture as chief preoccupations after the October revolu
would strengthen its power. In the period of the tion. He wrote about it repeatedly from the
highest flowering of capitalism, bourgeois culture
middle of 1918 until the end of 1923. Ab
gave the world great savants, inventors, philosophers,
and writers. T h e bourgeoisie made use of the fruits
stractly, he had spoken about the problem even
of this culture for the purpose of increasing its
before the war, though in much more optimis
wealth and intensifying the exploitation of those who tic terms than after the revolution:
work. A t the present time, in the period of imperial
The international culture which is already being
ism, bourgeois culture is decaying and approaches its
created systematically by the proletariat of all coun
end, and the cultural level of the population goes
tries takes up and incorporates not the “ national
down. T he working class is creating its own socialist
culture” (of any one national collective) as a whole,
culture, b y appropriating and critically re-working all
but takes out of each and every national culture
positive achievements of the past. On that basis social
exclusively its consistently democratic and socialist
ist culture creates a science, technology, and art which
elements.11
are higher than under capitalism. It uncovers in
exhaustible riches of popular creativity in all the
More concretely, the problem was defined
peoples of the U SSR . In distinction from bourgeois
culture, socialist culture is directed toward the
only later. Thus Ke wrote in 1922:
satisfaction of the needs of the broadest popular Th e task is to bring the victorious proletarian
masses. Hence it is all-human culture. Simultaneously, revolution together with bourgeois culture, bourgeois
on account of differences in language, customs, and science and technolog)', which have so far been the
other national peculiarities in the different peoples of attainment of few ; this is, I repeat, a difficult task.
the Soviet Union, socialist culture takes on a different Everything here depends on organization, on the
national form. “ Proletarian in content, national in discipline of the advanced section of the working
form, that is the all-human culture toward which masses.13
socialism is striding.” (Stalin).“
Nor did he have any more illusions then
Similarly, the article on kuFtura in the about the ease and speed with which the
Great Soviet Encyclopaedia maintains that in cultural revolution might be accomplished; and
class society, culture is the culture of the yet he did not think that the low cultural level
ruling class. Conversely, only classes that are of the Russian masses should have argued
ruling have a chance to develop culture. against the seizure of power by the bolshevik
Hence, in order that the proletariat may ac parry.
quire culture, it must first seize power and
become the ruling class. “ Only the victorious Our enemies (he wrote in 1923 in one of his last
articles) have often said to us that we have under
proletarian revolution creates the conditions
taken the foolhardy job of planting socialism in an
for . . . the cultural revolution,” i.e., for the insufficiently cultured country . . . in our country
appropriation of culture by the proletariat. the political and social revolution has [indeed] turned
For the same reason it must be expected — the out to precede that cultural transformation and
Encyclopaedia continues — that the proletariat cultural revolution, which we are nonetheless facing
is still uncultured at the time it makes the at the present.
revolution. It can catch up culturally with the . . . for us that cultural revolution presents un
believable difficulties both of purely cultural nature
bourgeoisie only after the revolution. “ Social
(for we are illiterate) and of material nature (for in
ism — to use the words of Lenin — begins order to be cultured a certain development of the
where culture spreads among the millions.” material means of production, a certain material
This “ cultural revolution” at which the base, is needed.)11
“ From the definition of kuTtura in Aleksandrov, fourth congress of social-democrats of the Lettish
at aln Politicheskii Slovar, (Political dictionary), region), op. cit., vol. X V II, p. 66.
Moscow, 1940. “ “ Uspekhi i trudnosti sovetskoi vlasti” (The suc
“ Tezisy po natsional’nomu voprosu” (Theses on cesses and difficulties of the Soviet regime), op. citn
the national problem), op. cit., vol. X V I , p. 510. Cf. vol. X X I V , p. 68.
also “ Proekt platformy k I V . s” ezdu sotsial-demo- **“ 0 kooperatsii” (On coperation), op. cit., vol.
kratii latyshskogo kraia” (Draft platform for the X X V II , p. 397. Cf. also “ O nashei revoliutsii” (About
The “ culture” Lenin had in mind when he of the sort: Their culture is miserable and insig
preached the cultural revolution entailed nificant, and yet it is greater than ours. However
technological skills, political maturity, and pitiful, however miserable, it is nevertheless greater
other aspects of westernization. His use of the than that of our responsible communist functionaries,
because they do not have sufficient skill in governing.1*
term is thus a return to the eighteenth-century
use of the word in the tradition of the En
This use of the word kuPtura (and the
lightenment. The adjective “ uncultured” was,
virtually synonymous trnPturnosf) to denote
in addition, used very often to characterize the
culturation has survived in the Soviet Union
rough-shod methods of Soviet and partv
up to the present and is applied to embrace
bureaucracv, its authoritarian degeneration and
all and any aspects of culturation. The Soviet
its corrupt abuses. Culture, then, was bv impli
press and other Soviet literature is filled with
cation the achievement of a smoothly and
admonitions to raise the level of culture in
democratically functioning administrative ap
tractor maintenance, in the fight against
paratus. A lengthy passage from his political
workers’ absenteeism, in daily etiquette, both
report at the XIrh ptrty congress in March public and private, in cutting administrative
192:. the last of these congresses he attended, red tape, and virtually all other activities.
will illustrate this. He was speaking here of In the mid-thirties, greater stress was laid
dangers threatening the revolution from in Soviet society on the education of leader
within, in spite of the fact that the regime had ship cadres. Therefore we read in the Great
all the political and economic power it wanted. Encyclopaedia that culture entails the educa
But one thing was lacking: tion of leaders and specialists in technology,
It is kuTturnon* which those communists who are science, the arts, and also in party work; it
in the leading positions are lacking. Let us take includes the struggle against illiteracy, super
Moscow, with its 4700 responsible communists, and stitions, and un-bolshevik ideologies, hence,
take that weighty bureaucratic machine — who is positively, it means ideological rearmament.
running it? I greatly doubt whether ore can say And the highest achievement of culture, it is
that communists are running that heavy thing. If I
implied, lies in making all men into fully class
must tell the truth, then it is not they who are running
it, but it runs them. Something has happened here
conscious citizens and proletarians.
that is similar to what thev used to tell us about Used far less strictly, the term has been
history in our childhood. This is what they taught applied in the U.S.S.R. also to denote the
us: Sometimes it happens that one people conquers highest levels of the superstructure; ideology,
another people, and then the people who conquered art, and philosophy. And in a term like
are the conquerors, and the conquered one are the “ Parks of culture and rest” it signifies nothing
defeated. That is very simple, and everyone can else perhaps than leisure-time activities and
understand it. But what happens with the culture of enjoyments in the broadest sense, though it
these peoples? Here matters are not so simple. If may specifically refer to the “ cultural” enjoy
the people who did the conquering are more cultured ments offered in such parks, as open-air con
than the defeated people, then the former will im certs, dancing instruction, or the sight of
pose their culture on the latter, but if it is the other
statues, monuments, and flower beds.
way around, then what happens is that the defeated
In addition, the concept of culture has been
will impose their culture on the conqueror. Has not
something similar happened in the capital of the
used by Soviet anthropologists — or, as they
R S F S R ; is it not true here that 4700 communists
would call themselves, ethnographers — in
(almost an entire division, and all of them the very the general anthropological sense. One of the
llite) turn out to have been subjected by an alien definitions of kuPtura given by Ushakov10 is:
culture? Indeed, we might even get the impression “ A specific wav of social, economic, and/or
here that the defeated have a high culture. Nothing intellectual life during a given era, of a given
our revolution), op. cit., vol.. X X V II , pp. 400-01. op. cit., vol. XXVTI, pp. 51-52.
Concerning the great length of time which the “ V . I. Lenin, Sobrame Sochinenii (Collected
cultural revolution will require, cf. Lenin’s speech at Works), (ed. t), vol. XVIII. part II, p. 43. Moscow
the second all-Union congress of political propagan and Petrograd, 1923.
dists (II. vserossiiskii s” ezd politprosvetov), 1921, “ Op. cit.
people or class,” and for examples the diction To show the range of topics included under
ary adduces “ neolithic culture; the culture of the heading of culture as used by Soviet
ancient Egypt; and proletarian culture.” ethnographers, archxologists, and cultural
This is not the place to discuss the method anthropologists, it might be useful to list the
ology of cultural anthropology in the Soviet chapter headings in two of the works just
Union. It is a matter of course that the study cited. Likhachev treats Russian culture in the
of culture and cultures must fit i». o the frame fifteenth century under the following head
work of Marxist-Leninist historical material ings: Political theory; enlightenment; chron
ism. Yet culture study is considered important icles; epic; literature; architecture; painting;
enough for the establishment, in the 1920’s, new developments in customs and mores; and
of an Institute for the History of Material the art of war. Grekov and Artamanov in
Culture within the Academy of Sciences of clude the following topics in their book on
the U.S.S.R. The institute was, until recently, the culture of ancient Russia; Agriculture and
trades; crafts; settlement; housing; clothing;
named after Professor Marr, who was its first
food ways and means of communication; trade
president. It appears to be preoccupied with and trade routes; money and money circula
research and publications on the history of tion; military affairs (strategy and tactics);
culture within the territory of the Soviet armament; fortifications. They make clear,
Union; and the present emphasis is on attempts however, that they have purposely restricted
to demonstrate the high level and independence themselves to a treatment of material culture,
of mediaeval, ancient, and prehistoric culture and a second volume is to deal with “ spiritual
of Russia.16 culture.”
OF NAM ES OF PERSONS
INDEX OF NAMES OF PERSONS
Abel, is Bogdanov, 210 Dollard, 45, 47, 49, 52, 57, 58, 61,
Aberle, 58, 176 Bonaparte, 37 109, 150, 152, 153, 154, 186
Ackerknecht, 159 Bose, 43, 47, 84, 94, 95, 97, 99 Dupont de Nemours, 12, 37
Adelung, 9, 10, 18, 20, 21, 12, 24, 25, Boswell, 12, 38 Durkheim, 57, 85, 94, 114, 131, 147,
j8, 146 Boulanger, 37 165
Adler, }6 Bright, 29
Aleksandrov, 215 Brockhaus, 26 Edman, 33
Alexander, 60, 148 Bruner, v, 170 Eliot, 4, 32, 33
Angyal, 48, 49 Bryson, 72 Elliott Smith, 160
Ankermann, 160 Buckle, it Ellis. 11
Anuchin, n o Buehler, 26 Ellwood, 15, 34, 84, 89
Arcienegas, 10, n Buffon, 37' Engels, 213
Arensberg, 181 Burckhardt, 18, 26, 146 Evans-Pritchard, 139, 160
Arnold, j, 29, J2, 147, 151 Burgess, 47, 49, 150, 152, 156 Eucken, 24
Ash, 12 Burkitt, 43
Ashley-Montagu, 4 Bums, 30 Fairchild, 34
Auden, 33 Buswell, 123, 124 Fans, 85, 94, 99, 105, 112
Febvre, 9, n , 12, 37, 38
Bachhofen, 159 Feibleman, 66, 68, 153
Campe, 38 Fewkes, 149
Bacon, 28
Carr, 65, 66 Fichte, 14, 38
Bagehot, 4
Carver, 52, 53, 150 Firth, 50, 86, 93, 96, 136
Bain, 69, 70, 150
Case, 15, 99, 101, 115, 138 Folsom, 64
Ballanche, 37
Cassirer, 22, 31, 62, 91 Ford, C. S., 45, 52, 55, 56, 57, 127,
Barghoom, 213
Chaadaev, 209
Barrett, 33 138. >5*
Chapin, 15 Ford, J., 67, 69
Barth, 15, 16, 147
Chappie, 5, 181 Forde, 85, 93, 127, 138
Bateson, 106, 181
Chase, 3 Fortes, 130, 133, 164
Baudeau, 37
Chugerman, 15
Bauer, 214 Foy, 160
Childe, 180 Frank, 15, 51, 55
Beaglehole. 109, 114
Cicero, 10, 18, 28 Frankfort, n 1
Becker, 67, 153
Comte, 180 Frazer, 35, 103, 151
Benedict, 43, 45, 48, 58, 71, 102, 106,
Condorcet, 9, 146 Freud, 42, 63, 93, i o z , 105, 107, 108,
in , 148, 152, 153, 155, 159, 162,
Coon, 5 110, 114
170, 171, 181
Coulbom, 165 Friedrich, v, 213
Bennett, 51
Coutu, 61, 61 Frobcnius, 26, 146, 148, 160
Berdiaev, 209, 211
Crozier, 63 Fromm, 60, 109
Berkeley, 63
Bernard, 15, 42, 46, 65, 184 Funck-Brentano, 11
Bemheim, 16, 18, 19 Danilevsky, 29, 146, 210, 211
Bidney, 12, 44, 52, 53, 54, 65, 66, 90, Dante, 12, 145 Gary, 15
91, 92, 94, 148, 152, 156, 189 Darwin, 183, 189 Gide, 189
Bierstedt, v, 30, 128, 131 Davis, A , 47, 58 Gillin, J. L n 50, 52, 121
Billaud-Varennes, 37 Davis, K., 45, 70 Gillin, J. P., 50, 52, 61, 62, i2i, 152,
Bittner, 209 de Chastellux, 37 «54
Black, 181 de Laguna, 187 Goethe, 24, 38
Bloomfield, 118, 123, 124 Dennes, 13, 89, 92 Goldenweiser, 13, 99, 100, 103, no,
Blumenthal, v, 55, 66, 67, 69,70, 150, Descartes, 3, 37 117, 132, 148
»5 * Dewey, 30 Goldschmidt, 174
Boas, 15, 30, 43, 45, 96, 97, 115, 122, Diderot, 37 Gorer, 56, 57
123, 124, 137, 148, 151, 154, *55» Dietschy, 48 Graebner, 150
158, 159, 160, 163, 182 Dilthey, 91 Greenberg, n8, 124
Bodin, n Dixon, 43, 45, 154, 155 Grekov, 217
Bogardus, 50, 52 Dodd, 65 Grimm, 10, n
Groves, 48, 64 Keith, 29 Lundberg, 3, 55
Guerman, 162 Keller, 13, 53, 128, 132, 130, 132 Luther, 207
Kelly, 44 43, 30, 31, 37, 39, 61, 62, Lynd, 50, 169
Haring, 58 66, 67, 68, 71, 90, 92, 93, 128, 132,
Harris, 118, 121, 124, 156, 157, 183 134, 138, 132, 183
Klein, 108 McCulloch, 171
Hart, 58, 65, 150. 153 McGee, 149
Hartmann, in Klemm, 10, 18, 19, 24 23, 26, 146,
McKeon, 31
Haushofcr, 211 209
Maclver, 14, 16, 98, 148
Hazard, 10 Klineberg, 43, 30
Maine, 139
Iiecker, 210 Kluckhohn, C., 44 43, 48, 30, 51, 56,
Malinowski, 3, 3 r, 44 45, 47j 57> 88i
Hegel, 18, 19, 22, 24, 146, 180, 209, 37. 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67 , 68,
71, 90, 92, 93, 108, no, 129, 132, 131, 133. 159- '60. 187
210 Mandclbaum, 107, 112
Hegcwisch, 18, 146 134 138, 132, 133, 167, 168, 171,
Maquet, 51, 183
tlcilwald, 26, 146 172, 185, 189
Marck, 26
Helvcrius, 37 Kluckhohn, F., 98, 174
Kolb, 58, 59 Marert, 35, 72, 102, 109, 114 125.
Henderson, 41, 189
Koppers, 26, 33 «37
Henry, 48 Marr, 217
Herder, 18, 20, 22, 24, 2j, 38, 146, Korzybski, 4
Marx, 180, 213
152, 207, 208, 209 Kris, 111
Mason, 149
Herrick. 27 Kroeber, 13, 17, 28, 29, 44, 43. 46,
Mauss, 37, 38, 189
Herxkovits, 44, 51, 32, 65, 99, no, 48- S4» 9 1' 9 J« io4 I2'. IJ 5* *34- Mead, 43, 47, 48, 49, 155, 208
123, 150, 167, 190 137, 138, 148, 149, 150, 160, 167,
Meincrs, 22, 207
Herzog, 121 169, 181, 182, 183, 189
Menghin, 64, 95, 97, 152
Hevne, 18 Kroner, 26
Merton, 14 16, 17, 44 98, 109, 148
Hiller, 43, 4$ Krout. 15
Meyer, v, 28, 207
Hinshaw, 91, 94 Kucera, 213
Mikhailovski, 210
Hockett, 58, 121, 124 Miliukov, 210
Hoebel, 58, 153 Lamprecht, 26, 146
Miller, 45, 52, 57, 58, 150, 153
Hoijer, 120, 124 Lang, 131
Montaigne, 37
Honig.hcini, 3 Langer, 180
Montesquieu, 3, 37
H om ey, 60, 109 Langmuir, 188
Moore, 48
Horton. 161 La Piere, 58, 59, 154
Morgan, C. Lloyd, 148
Hull, 63 Lasswell, 51, 109
Morgan, L. H., 27, 159
Huizinga, 9, 1 1, 12, 26 Lavissc, 12
Morgan, 110
Humboldt, 15, 16, 14-' Lavrov, 210
Morris, 52, 56, 72, 184
Hu've, 188 Lazarsfcld, 162
Mowrer, 108
Huntingron, 65. 66, 180 Lederer, 26 Muchlmann, 22
Huxley, 182 Lee, 57, 69, 124 Mueller-Lyer, 26
Leighton, A. IE, 109, 111
Mumford, 86
Infield, 139 Leighton, D. C., 31, 56, 152 Murdcck, 57, 60, 6j, 85, 86, 92, 93,
Inzhakov, 210 Lenin, 212, 2 14 215, 216
93, 96, 97, 117. ! 3° ' *32' DT ,6l>
Leontiev, 210 163, 176, 183
Iselin, 19. 46
Lessing, 24 Murphy, 43
Levi-Strauss, 124 162, 163, 167
Murray, 37
Jacobs, 48 Levin, 210 Murray, R. W-, 44
Jaeger, 32 Lewin, 62 M y res, 47. 147
Jakobson. 162, 168, 211 Likhachev, 217
Jcnisch, 22, 146 Linton, 43, 43, 47, 48, 49, 30, 52, 61,
Jensen, 15 62, 68, 120, 133, 152, 134 155, 162 Nadel, 106, no, 131, <33
Jespersen, 123 Lippert, 26, 146, 147 Nagel, 187
Johnson, 12, 38, 145 Littrc, 37 Needham, 27
Jodi, 26 Lotz, 168 Niceforo, 37. 38
Lowell, 4 30 Nietzsche, 27
Kant, 10, n , 18, 20, 22, 24, 38, 94, Loewcnstein, 111 Nimkoff, 61, 62, 152
207, 208 Lowie, 10, 13, 22, 43, 47, 87, 89 Northrop, 91
Kardincr, 60, 107, 109, no, 128, 133 Lubbock, 12 Novalis, 38
Katz, 60, n 2 I.umholtz, 33 Novikoff, 27
Odum, +4, 148 Schaeffle, 16, 17 Tumey-High, 56, 61, 152
Ogbum, 15, 61, 62, 84, 89, 91, 93, Schanck, 60, 112 Tylor, 4, 9, io, 12, 15, 19, 25, 29, 30,
125 . *37. '5 2 Schapera, 85, 94 3*. 33. 43- 45. 48, 5 «. 5 2« 59. 61,
Olmsted, 123, 124 Schiller, 24, 38, 208 71, 72. 85. 97, 102, 123. 132, 145.
Opler, M. E „ 5, 45, 57, 58, 59, 88, Schlegel, 38 146, 147, 149, 151, 152, 153, 155,
99, 104, 114, 153, 181 Schnudt, H n 27 156, 159, 167
Oppenheimer, 17 Schmidt, W ., 26, 35, 66, 67, 150,
Ortega y Gasset, 30, 55, 91 152, 160 Untereiner, v, 36
Osgood, 66, 67, 69, 72, 100 Schi lz, 18 Ushakov, 213, 216
Osrw aid, -o, 71, 149, 150 Sears, 51
Seligman, 105, no, in
Vcmadskii, 211
Pantzer, 58, ijo, 153 Shapiro, 169
Vierkandt, 26, 35, 146
Panunzio, 44, 55 Shaw, 30
Voegelin, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123,
Pareto, 106 Sickel, 20
Siebert, 30
,24
Park, 47 . 49- '5 °. >52» ‘ J 6 Vogt, 31
Parsons, i j , 48, 49, 128, 134, 135, 136 Silva-Fucnzalida, 121, 124
Volney, 37
Patten, 30 Simmel, 26, 146
Voltaire, 3, 9, 10, 19, 22, 37, 145
Pascal, 3 Simmons, 49, 50
von Wiese, 5, 65, 86, 94
Pearson, 161 Slorkin, 58, 59, 153
Perry, 160 Small, 13, 16, jy, 147, 149, 150
Wallas, 4
Pico della Mirandola, 3 Smith, 15
Wallis, 15, 84, 94, 128. 132, 155
Piddington, 56, 57, 152 Sorokin, 29, 53, 54, 64, 6j, 67, 69, 91,
W ard, 13, 15, 16, 66, 147, 149, 150,
Pin-Rivers, 147 97. «52
Pitts, 171 Spektorskii, 211, 212 '53
Warden, 64, 66, 148
Plant, 128, 138 Spencer, 3, 8j, 94
Weaver, in , 162
Powys, 30, 32 Spengler, 17, 18, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29.
Weber, Alfred, 14, 15, 17, 27, 46,
Preuss, 26 146, 147, 148, 159, 177, 211
Price, 15 Spiro, 174, 189, 190 97. '48
Weber, Louis, 37
Spuhler, 91, 94
W eber, Max, 15, 106, 180
Radcliffe-Brown, 5, 35, 48, yi, 52, Stem, 15, 48, 114, 132
W eil, 162
62, 84. 92, 93, 128, 131, 133, 134, Staehlin, 209
Wheeler, 28, 161
160, 181 Stalin, 209, 213
WTiite, v, 28, 45, 69, 70, 71, 96, 97,
Rapoport, 178 Stevens, 35
100, 148, 180
Ratzel, >59 Steward, 58, 59, 163, 164
Whitehead, 128, 165
Raynal, 37 Stoltcnberg, 22, 207
Whiting, 57, no
Read, 3j Srouffer, 162
W horf, 63, 69, 124
Redfield, 52, 61, 62, 102, 112, 152 Suchman, 162
Wiener, 163
Reichenbach. 188 Sumner, 13, 29, 54, 55, 56, 57, 89,
W illey, 15, 61, 62, 95, 150, 152
Renner, 214 94, 128, 132, 150, 152
Wilson, 58, 59
Reuter, 64 Sutherland, 47
Windelband, 160
Richards, 41, 66
Winston, 43, 45, 47, 49, 64, 126, 132,
Richardson, 182, 183 Tacitus, 208
Rickert, 18, 26, 28, 146, 160, 209 Taylor, D., 123, 124 * 52
Wissler, 15, 43, 45. jo. 51, 52, 58, 59,
Rivers, 160 Taylor, W., v, 67, 68, 69, 185
Tessman, 97 66, 88, 9-, 125, 137, 149, 150, 151,
Roberts, 60
152, 153, 158, 176
Robertson, 38 Thomas, 45, 52, 53, 54, 152, 154, 155
W olf, 63
Roheim, 60, 70, 71, 89, 94, 103, 107, Thompson, D'Arcy, 189
Woodard, 106, 112
108, no, h i , 150 Thompson, L., 69, 180
Woodger, 42
Rose, 152 Thumwald, 17, 26, 44, 46, 150
Woodward, 47
Rouse, 72, 128, 138 Titiev, 51
Wundt, 10, 11, 17, 30
Rousseau, 19, 37, 52, 208 Toennies, 14, 16, 134, 207
Rueckert, 29 Tonnelat, 9, 37, 38
Toynbee, 9, 29, 146, 147 Young, 50, 52, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 65
Sapir, 47, 48, 72, 89, 103, 109, 114, Tozzer, 47, 60, 150
11$, 116, 117, 122, 123, 124, 12$, Trubetzkoy, 117, 124, 211 Zhdanov, 211
126, 131, 132, 138, 146, 148, 150, Tumin, 51 Zipf, 92, 162
152, 157, 158, 169, 181, 182, 183 Turgot, n , 12, 37 Znaniecki, 31, 148