1

American School of Diffusionism: The Boasian Period

Jijabai Motekar and Kriti Sharma

Centre for the Study of Social Systems

School of Social Sciences

Jawaharlal Nehru University

MA Sociology, SS 455N: Anthropological Theories

Dr. Ratheesh Kumar

July 28, 2020

 2

Abstract

The modern discipline of anthropology was born in the second half of the 19th century, in an

intellectual climate that celebrated the triumph of scientific investigation and empirical

observation. Consequently, evolutionary theories were embraced by the social sciences, such that

the biological evolutionism of Darwin and social evolutionism of Spencer held sway over

anthropology during its initial years. However, in the late 19th century, an antithetical school of

thought called diffusionism emerged. While its roots were grounded in the German tradition,

diffusionist thought also developed in Britain and America as a critical response to the

evolutionary paradigm. The present paper sets out to provide an analysis of the American school

of diffusionism, locating its foundations in Boas’ anthropology. It reviews the concepts most

synonymous with the school, and specifically looks at the contribution of Alfred Louis Kroeber.

It concludes with a critique of the school and enlists the present-day application of diffusionism

in anthropology and other disciplines beyond it.

Keywords: Boas, Kroeber, American school of diffusionism, culture area

 3

American School of Diffusionism: The Boasian Period

At the outset, it is interesting to note that Franz Boas was not the first figure of

prominence in American anthropology, even though he is often considered as one of its founders

(McGee & Warms, 2008). In fact, a rich legacy of ethnological work in the nineteenth century

preceded his own oeuvre. This included the pioneering contributions of Lewis Henry Morgan,

on the enduring strength of which much of the edifice of modern anthropology stands. Worth

mentioning are also the studies of eminent scholars like Brinton, Powell, Cushing, Mason, and

McGee.

What then sets Boas apart from his predecessors and contemporaries in this milieu? The

first factor is his departure from the paradigm of evolutionism, of which each of the above

personalities was a staunch exponent. The second factor is the institutionalization of the

discipline under his influence, which brought anthropology within the purview of the American

university.

The lineage of American diffusionism begins with Franz Boas. At the turn of the century,

Boas framed a powerful critique of the evolutionary schemes that were widely prevalent at the

time. He pointed out that the formulation of universal evolutionary laws was a largely deductive

enterprise fraught with many questionable presuppositions. First, classical evolutionists believed

that humankind was inventive, and that all human beings shared psychological traits which made

human thought fundamentally similar everywhere—a concept called psychic unity of mankind.

Following this, they reasoned that similar culture traits were produced by similar causes1, even

1
The assumption being that similar thought (psychic unity of mankind) produces similar action (inventions), and
thus the similar causes were primarily psychological in nature.
 4

though independent invention happened across societies. This proposal was known as parallel

evolution.

Second, was the uncritical application of the comparative method to show that although

unrelated societies innovate in the same way, they do so at different rates. From this, the

evolutionists concluded that evolution occurs in a fixed sequence. Each stage in the sequence

was measured in terms of the complexity of sociocultural institutions. Complexity was inversely

related to antiquity, such that simpler cultural systems were attributed to older societies, while

more complex cultural systems signified newer societies. Finally, all these presuppositions came

together in the form of universal evolutionary laws, according to which, all societies moved

along a single trajectory of cultural development, going through each step in the process of

evolution such that societies which innovated more rapidly progressed faster.

Boas acutely questioned each proposition. For instance, in his debate with Mason over

the occurrence of similar cultural inventions across societies, contra Mason, Boas reasoned that

although like causes produce like effects, the inverse is not true, and like effects can be produced

by unlike causes (Stocking Jr., 1974). As a competing explanation to parallel evolution, Boas

suggested convergent evolution in which a variety of reasons, one of them being diffusion, could

be attributed to the production of similar culture traits.

To identify the true cause from among the diversity of causes, Boas advocated historical

reconstruction. This involved placing a culture trait in its specific context, and then tracing the

historical process through which the trait comes to be. Through this exercise, one could discover

the first introduction of the trait—be it through invention or borrowing—and thus, its origin. This

approach came to be known as historical particularism, and opposed unilinear evolutionism by

emphasizing the uniqueness of the path of cultural development in different societies.

 5

The pursuit of historical particularism required ethnographic research on the field. Boas

insisted that the ethnographer should live with a people and learn their language to properly

grasp the specificity of a culture. Only once data from the field is collected and systematized can

the researcher indulge in theoretical reconstructions (Barnard, 2004). The use of inductive logic

was in contrast to the primacy accorded to theory-making by evolutionism.

Another related facet of Boas’ anthropology was his advocacy of cultural relativism.

Censuring the tendency of classical unilinear evolutionists to categorize societies along a

continuum of progress—from less to more advanced—Boas championed the diversity and

richness of cultures laid bare by the application of historical particularism. The increasing

awareness that traditional cultural knowledge was rapidly vanishing in the face of globalization

and Western colonization further marked the shift from the arm chair to the field. This too

shaped American anthropology, making it a kind of “salvage operation” (McGee & Warms,

2008, p. 118).

These unique elements of Boas’ anthropology gave American diffusionism a distinctive

flavor. But another key factor that truly set this school apart was its promotion of the middle path

between evolutionism and the diffusionism of the classical period (Harris, 1968). In his essay

“The Methods of Ethnology”, Boas rejected both evolutionism and diffusionism (of the German

and British tradition) on methodological grounds (McGee & Warms, 2008). He opposed both

theoretical schemes for being just that: theory uncorroborated by facts. Boas was not an anti-

evolutionist (see White, 1945). Recognizing the similarity of culture traits that cannot be

explained by diffusion, Boas did not reject all evolutionary sequences. He believed that it was

not wrong to accept more limited, non-universal forms of parallel sequences, only premature and
 6

that till such theory was not verifiable by facts, the theory ought to be modified or discarded

(Lowie, 1946).

Further, Boas believed in the merit of a nomothetic approach to history, where historical

particularism and the comparative method would work together to fulfill “the most important

aim of ethnology” which was “the discovery of scientific laws” (Harris, 1968, p. 274). Colossal

accumulation of historical data would automatically lead to the discovery of general theories of

human behaviour2.

Likewise, Boas’ ideas about diffusionism deviated in important ways from the classical

diffusionists of the British and German tradition. In fact, he critiqued British and German

diffusionism for assuming that: (1) culture traits were stable across time and place, and (2) there

existed a correlation between diverse and mutually independent culture traits, which reappeared

in the same combinations at a given culture centre, from where they get disseminated to distant

parts of the world (Boas, 1920, as cited in McGee & Warms, 2008). Instead, he saw diffusion as

a historically contingent and arbitrary process that facilitates cultural exchanges among

geographically adjacent areas. This emphasis of Boas, on the spread of culture traits only within

a limited area, was a clear departure from the deterministic and universalistic views of the British

and German schools. Whereas for the former, there was only one culture centre (heliocentric

diffusionism3), for the latter, culture originated from a limited number of culture centres

(Kulturkriese or culture circles). Therefore, the American school of diffusionism distinguished

2
It is a different matter that his conviction in historical regularity and developmental uniformity gradually
weakened, such that towards the end of his career, his anthropology became “inductive to the point of self-
destruction” (Harris, 1968, p. 286)—a significant issue discussed in a later section.
3
Smith and Perry reasoned that culture came from Egypt and the name “heliocentric” is a reference to sun worship
in Egypt and other ancient cultures (Barnard, 2004).
 7

itself from the other two schools by following a historical approach, stressing fieldwork, and

employing restricted reconstructions of history over world-wide comparative studies.

Institutionalization and Foundational Concepts

Boas was instrumental in setting up the department of anthropology at Columbia

University, and became full professor in 1899. His wide-ranging interests, integrated as the four

principal fields of enquiry4 in anthropology, reflected in the work of his graduate students who

were trained in all fields but later specialized while following up “a part of the master’s total

project” (Eriksen & Nielsen, 2001, p. 61). The first cohort trained under Boas included Alfred

Louis Kroeber, Robert Lowie, Clark Wissler, Edward Sapir, Melville Herskovits, Alexander

Goldenweiser, and Paul Radin; the second cohort included, most prominently Ruth Fulton

Benedict and Margaret Mead.

The two cohorts mirrored the transition that occurred in Boas’ outlook during his career.

Boas’ initial concern for the identification of lawful regularities through historical reconstruction

was subsequently replaced by his interest in the relation between the individual and society, and

the pertinent psychological conditions. Thus, while the first cohort represented the school of

cultural history, the second cohort represented the school of culture and personality. The main

practitioners in the American school of diffusionism came from the first cohort, and can be

categorized5 into “strict” Boasians (Lowie and Herskovits) and “rebelling” Boasians (Kroeber,

Wissler, Sapir, and Radin), whereas the second cohort represented the “evolved” Boasians

(Benedict and Mead).

4
These are: biological anthropology, archaeology, anthropological linguistics, and cultural anthropology (Barnard,
2004).
5
This categorization rests on the fact that each group pursued a specific Boasian assumption with a given intensity
and sincerity; the rebels, thus, carrying them “farther than Boas himself would accept” (Stocking Jr., 1945, p.17).
 8

There are some central concepts which are associated with the American school of

diffusionism. First is the idea of a culture trait, which refers to the minimal units of culture.

Similar culture traits get clustered together in a specific geographical and historical area called

the culture area6. As per Boas, cultural development in the culture area is caused by its physical

environment, the psychology of its inhabitants, and the spread of technologies and ideas in it.

Boas students—Wissler, Kroeber, and Herskovits—extensively employed these concepts

in their research. Wissler defined fifteen culture areas for all the Americas, and his scheme was

subsequently refined by Kroeber, who first altered the names and boundaries, and later the

numbers by defining eighty four culture areas and culture sub-areas, grouped into seven grand

areas in North America alone (Barnard, 2004). Wissler argued that within a culture area there

exists a culture centre, also called the culture climax by Kroeber (Harris, 1968). This refers to

the place with the greatest concentration of the most typical traits of the culture area. From the

culture centre, the assemblage of culture traits under study is likely to diffuse outward. This

process is governed by the law of diffusion, which states that culture traits tend to diffuse in all

directions from their centres of origin.

Wissler further used the law of diffusion as the basis for his age-area hypothesis. Given

that culture traits spread from the centre to the periphery of a culture area, the traits at the centre

were newer and those found at the periphery were older. In this way, Wissler was able to knit

together the theories of evolution and diffusion: the former took place at the culture centre, and

the latter was the mechanism that operated between the centre and the periphery (Barnard, 2004).

6
This concept is neither new nor American in origin. Its roots can be traced to Bastian’s concept of geographical
provinces, conceived as geographical districts where the elemental ideas of mankind were transformed into folk
ideas under the influence of physical environmental factors and external historical conditions (Goldenweiser, 1925).
 9

As noted earlier, similar culture traits have a tendency to cluster together and form larger

units, identified as a trait complex or a culture complex. The use of this concept is exemplified in

Herskovits’ (1926) study “The Cattle Complex in East Africa”. Herskovits showed that where

cattle are found7, other culture traits like nomadism, patrilineal descent, age sets, bridewealth,

and the association of livestock with the ancestors, can also be found (Barnard, 2004).

Leading Figure in American Diffusionism: Alfred Louis Kroeber

Among the Boasians, Alfred Louis Kroeber is regarded as one of the most prolific

personalities in the school. Kroeber’s work is of special interest because although much of his

thought shows a heavy influence of the Boasian perspective, there are crucial instances when his

ideas have broken away from the Boasian line. An illustration of this undulating thinking can be

found in his book The Nature of Culture (1952)—a compilation of essays which captures

Kroeber’s piecemeal theory of culture, formed as a by-product of his ethnographic experiences.

In the essay “The Superorganic” (1917), contra Boas, Kroeber rejects the notion that

culture or society can be reduced to the actions of the human mind. Culture is an entity in itself

and of another order from the life of individuals, who have no historical value, except as

illustrations (Kroeber, 1915). Kroeber makes extensive use of the co-occurrence of inventions to

show that history is determined not by individuals, but rather cultural patterns. Culture

presupposes society, which presupposes individuals (Kroeber, 1949), such that culture is sui

generis and transcends individuals. In similar vein, he argues against the Great Man Theory,

suggesting that individuals, even geniuses, do not influence or shape history; rather they only

represent the trends and tendencies in their social and cultural systems. Much like the

7
And thus, the nomenclature of the culture complex as “The Cattle Complex”.
 10

methodological stance taken by Durkheim and Spencer, Kroeber advocates methodological

collectivism, in contrast to Boas’ methodological individualism (Eriksen & Nielsen, 2001).

Kroeber furthers this argument in his essay “Three Centuries of Women’s Dress

Fashions: A Quantitative Analysis” (1940). Using data from a statistical time analysis, he shows

how something apparently personal like style is actually vulnerable to the influence of larger

cultural configurations—arrangements or systems of internal relationship which give to any

culture its coherence or plan, and keep it from being a mere accumulation of random bits

(Moore, 2009). Major fluctuations in traits vary over different periodicities, for example, dress

length was greatest in the 18th and mid and late 19th century; shortest in 1815 and 1931 (Moore,

2009). While he does consider historical causes for such variations, he finally concludes that the

real cause is in the “simple, superorganic fluctuation of style” (Moore, 2009, p. 72).

Notwithstanding that the concept of the superorganic is a major deviance8 from Boas’

theoretical preferences, Kroeber’s development of the idea of stimulus diffusion is reminiscent of

Boas’ earlier moderate position that had tried to accommodate elements of invention and

diffusion into one explanatory framework. In “Stimulus Diffusion” (1940), Kroeber proposes the

transmission of ideas from one culture system into another, without the concomitant transfer of

content. Thus, while the receiving culture accepts the idea, it develops its own content. For

example, Kroeber mentions that the inspiration for producing porcelain came to Europe from

China, given that the former had been importing the product for nearly 200 years. To reduce

import costs, European porcelain was produced using materials and technologies found at home.

Therefore, European porcelain was not an independent invention, but rather developed because

8
Sapir felt the analogy of the superorganic amounted to a kind of social determinism, while Boas criticized that, “It
seems hardly necessary to consider culture a mystic entity that exists outside the society of its individual carriers,
and that moves by its own force” (Boas, 1928, as cited in Harris, 1968, p. 330).
 11

Europeans decided to produce something that existed in another culture. In this way, Kroeber

argues for internal development of culture with external influence, and his special position on

diffusion combines historical connection, dependence, and originality as factors leading to

culture growth (Kroeber, 1940).

Conclusion: Criticism and Contemporary Application of Diffusionism in Theory

In the hands of Boas and Kroeber, American diffusionism swiveled between

generalization and particularization. As their careers matured, whereas Boas adopted an

idiographic approach, Kroeber moved towards a more nomothetic one. Yet, neither orientations

was without its idiosyncrasies and difficulties. Boas’ emphasis on systematic fieldwork and

collection of concrete facts hindered formulation of theory. In Boas’ framework, culture

appeared as “a planless hodge-podge, a chaotic jumble” (Lowie, 1920, as cited in White, 1946).

While Kroeber accepted this view as a student, he later endeavoured to “bring order out

of chaos” and “render culture intelligible” through his writings (White, 1946, p. 79). Kroeber

recognized the futility of collecting limitless facts that cannot be subsequently harnessed towards

broader conclusions. For him, an ethnology that described what happened in a particular case but

did not explain why it happened, failed to provide output that could be utilized by other sciences,

and thus, was a profitless enterprise.

Kroeber’s search for laws of patterns in culture growth and the use of comparative

analysis in Configurations of Culture Growth (1944) exemplify his nomothetic position.

However, his venture failed because he could not find similarities in culture growths. Further, his

approach was fraught with methodological abuses, like speculative judgments of a grand order.

Essentially, in trying to generalize history, Kroeber tried to deal in universals while still
 12

remaining faithful to particulars, thereby achieving neither the objectives of science nor history

(White, 1946).

In addition to the above, other shortcomings contributed to the decline of American

diffuionism. For example, over time, it became clear that culture change has many different

sources and is not limited to evolutionism or diffusionism. Further, contact between societies led

to more than just the addition and subtraction of culture traits, like the transformation of

behaviours and values. As a result, other paradigms like culture and personality emerged to

replace diffusionism. One among them—functionalism—proposed that original culture traits

which diffused into other societies might serve completely different functions in the receiving

societies.

Yet, the relevance of diffusionism today can be located in newer forms of theory that this

paradigm has inspired. For instance, diffusionism survives in dependency studies, global system

studies, and globalization studies (Barnard, 2004). It is also visible in the anthropology of place

which seeks to explain how dominant cultural forms are imposed, invented, reworked and

transformed in the light of power structures and resistance movements. Its most lasting

contribution has been the idea of culture areas, which has become a standard tool in the

methodology of all schools of thought in anthropology (Barnard, 2004). But even outside the

discipline, the notion of diffusion—how societies are influenced by exogenous factors to

innovate—finds applications in agriculture business studies, economic geography, history,

political science and rural sociology.

In conclusion, the American school of diffusionism stands out for its critical and

historical approach to anthropology. Critical, for rejecting the extremes of evolutionism and

classical diffusionism; and historical for grounding its studies in space and time (Goldenweiser,
 13

1925). Thus, notwithstanding its deficiencies, few would contest the fact that the Boasian legacy

established certain standards that continue to influence and invigorate anthropological research

even in the 21st century.

 14

References

Barnard, A. (2004). History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Eriksen, T. H., & Nielsen, F. S. (2001). A History of Anthropology. Sterling: Pluto Press.

Goldenweiser, A. (1925). Diffusionism and the American School of Historical Ethnology.

American Journal of Sociology, 19-38.

Harris, M. (1968). The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. New

York: Thomas Y. Crowell.

Herskovits, M. (1926). The Cattle Complex of East Africa. American Anthropologist, 230-272.

Jr., G. W. (1974). The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-1911; A Franz Boas Reader.

New York: Basic Books.

Kroeber, A. L. (1915). The Eighteen Professions. In R. J. McGee, & R. L. Warms,

Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History (4th ed., pp. 129-134). New York: The

McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.

Kroeber, A. L. (1917). The Superorganic. In A. L. Kroeber, The Nature of Culture (pp. 22-51).

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kroeber, A. L. (1940). Stimulus Diffusion. In A. L. Kroeber, The Nature of Culture (pp. 344-

357). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kroeber, A. L. (1944). Configurations of Culture Growth. Berkeley: University of California

Press.
 15

Kroeber, A. L. (1949). The Concept of Culture in Science. In A. L. Kroeber, The Nature of

Culture (pp. 118-135). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kroeber, A. L. (1952). The Nature of Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kroeber, A. L. (1952). Three Centuries of Women’s Dress Fashions: A Quantitative Analysis. In

A. L. Kroeber, The Nature of Culture (pp. 358-372). Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Lowie, R. H. (1946). Evolution in Cultural Anthropology: A Reply to Leslie White. American

Anthropologist, 223-233.

McGee, R. J., & Warms, R. L. (2008). Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. New

York: McGraw Hill Companies.

McGee, R. J., & Warms, R. L. (2008). Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History (4th

ed.). New York: The McGraw Hill Companies Inc.

Moore, J. (2009). Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists.

Plymouth: AltaMira Press.

White, L. A. (1945). "Diffusion vs. Evolution": An Anti-Evolutionist Fallacy. American

Anthropologist, 339-356.

White, L. A. (1946). Kroeber's "Configurations of Culture Growth". American Anthropologist,

78-93.

Winthrop, R. H. (1991). Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology. New York:

Greenwood.