What economists call game theory psychologists call the theory of social situations, which is an accurate description of what game theory is about. Although game theory is relevant to parlor games such as poker or bridge, most research in game theory focuses on how groups of people interact. There are two main branches of game theory: cooperative and noncooperative game theory. Noncooperative game theory deals largely with how intelligent individuals interact with one another in an effort to achieve their own goals. That is the branch of game theory I will discuss here.
In addition to game theory, economic theory has three other main branches: decision theory, general equilibrium theory and mechanism design theory. All are closely connected to game theory.
Decision theory can be viewed as a theory of one person games, or a game of a single player against nature. The focus is on preferences and the formation of beliefs. The most widely used form of decision theory argues that preferences among risky alternatives can be described by the maximization the expected value of a numerical utility function, where utility may depend on a number of things, but in situations of interest to economists often depends on money income. Probability theory is heavily used in order to represent the uncertainty of outcomes, and Bayes Law is frequently used to model the way in which new information is used to revise beliefs. Decision theory is often used in the form of decision analysis, which shows how best to acquire information before making a decision.
General equilibrium theory can be viewed as a specialized branch of game theory that deals with trade and production, and typically with a relatively large number of individual consumers and producers. It is widely used in the macroeconomic analysis of broad based economic policies such as monetary or tax policy, in finance to analyze stock markets, to study interest and exchange rates and other prices. In recent years, political economy has emerged as a combination of general equilibrium theory and game theory in which the private sector of the economy is modeled by general equilibrium theory, while voting behavior and the incentive of governments is analyzed using game theory. Issues studied include tax policy, trade policy, and the role of international trade agreements such as the European Union.
Mechanism design theory differs from game theory in that game theory takes the rules of the game as given, while mechanism design theory asks about the consequences of different types of rules. Naturally this relies heavily on game theory. Questions addressed by mechanism design theory include the design of compensation and wage agreements that effectively spread risk while maintaining incentives, and the design of auctions to maximize revenue, or achieve other goals.
An Instructive Example
One way to describe a game is by listing the players (or individuals) participating in the game, and for each player, listing the alternative choices (called actions or strategies) available to that player. In the case of a two-player game, the actions of the first player form the rows, and the actions of the second player the columns, of a matrix. The entries in the matrix are two numbers representing the utility or payoff to the first and second player respectively. A very famous game is the Prisoner's Dilemma game. In this game the two players are partners in a crime who have been captured by the police. Each suspect is placed in a separate cell, and offered the opportunity to confess to the crime. The game can be represented by the following matrix of payoffs
not confess confess
not confess 5,5 0,10
confess 10,0 1,1
Note that higher numbers are better (more utility). If neither suspect confesses, they go free, and split the proceeds of their crime which we represent by 5 units of utility for each suspect. However, if one prisoner confesses and the other does not, the prisoner who confesses testifies against the other in exchange for going free and gets the entire 10 units of utility, while the prisoner who did not confess goes to prison and gets nothing. If both prisoners confess, then both are given a reduced term, but both are convicted, which we represent by giving each 1 unit of utility: better than having the other prisoner confess, but not so good as going free.
This game has fascinated game theorists for a variety of reasons. First, it is a simple representation of a variety of important situations. For example, instead of confess/not confess we could label the strategies "contribute to the common good" or "behave selfishly." This captures a variety of situations economists describe as public goods problems. An example is the construction of a bridge. It is best for everyone if the bridge is built, but best for each individual if someone else builds the bridge. This is sometimes refered to in economics as an externality. Similarly this game could describe the alternative of two firms competing in the same market, and instead of confess/not confess we could label the strategies "set a high price" and "set a low price." Naturally is is best for both firms if they both set high prices, but best for each individual firm to set a low price while the opposition sets a high price.
A second feature of this game, is that it is self-evident how an intelligent individual should behave. No matter what a suspect believes his partner is going to do, is is always best to confess. If the partner in the other cell is not confessing, it is possible to get 10 instead of 5. If the partner in the other cell is confessing, it is possible to get 1 instead of 0. Yet the pursuit of individually sensible behavior results in each player getting only 1 unit of utility, much less than the 5 units each that they would get if neither confessed. This conflict between the pursuit of individual goals and the common good is at the heart of many game theoretic problems.
A third feature of this game is that it changes in a very significant way if the game is repeated, or if the players will interact with each other again in the future. Suppose for example that after this game is over, and the suspects either are freed or are released from jail they will commit another crime and the game will be played again. In this case in the first period the suspects may reason that they should not confess because if they do not their partner will not confess in the second game. Strictly speaking, this conclusion is not valid, since in the second game both suspects will confess no matter what happened in the first game. However, repetition opens up the possibility of being rewarded or punished in the future for current behavior, and game theorists have provided a number of theories to explain the obvious intuition that if the game is repeated often enough, the suspects ought to cooperate.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Boas on the Limitations of the Comparative Method-cultural relativism by Franz Boas
This is one of Franz Boas's finest theoretical statements. It not only provides a valuable critique of the method characteristic of late 19th century evolutionary anthropology (which you have seen in use by, eg, Tylor and Morgan), but it also gives an accurate description of the general strategy which Boas and his students followed in their ethnographic work. Beyond that, it has the great virtue of being clearly and simply written. The essay was originally published in 1896 in Science (new series) 4: 901-8; but I have inserted the pagination of the more commonly referenced reprint, which appeared in Boas's own collection from among his articles: Race, Language and Culture, which was published in 1940 (New York: The Free Press). The single citation (to Andree) is omitted.
THE LIMITATIONS OF THE COMPARATIVE
METHOD OF ANTHROPOLOGY
Modern anthropology has discovered the fact that human society has grown and developed everywhere in such a manner that its forms, its opinions and its actions have many fundamental traits in common. This momentous discovery implies that laws exist which govern the development of society, that they are applicable to our society as well as to those of past times and of distant lands; that their knowledge will be a means of understanding the causes furthering and retarding civilization; and that, guided by this knowledge, we may hope to govern our actions so that the greatest benefit to mankind will accrue from them. Since this discovery has been clearly formulated, anthropology has begun to receive that liberal share of public interest which was withheld from it as long as it was believed that it could do no more than record the curious customs and beliefs of strange peoples; or, at best, trace their relationships, and thus elucidate the early migrations of the races of man and the affinities of peoples.
While early investigators concentrated their attention upon this purely historical problem, the tide has now completely turned, so that there are even anthropologists who declare that such investigations belong to the historian, and that anthropological studies must be confined to researches on the laws that govern the growth of society.
A radical change of method has accompanied this change of views. While formerly identities or similarities of culture were considered incontrovertible proof of historical connection, or even of common origin, the new school declines to consider them as such, but interprets them as results of the uniform working of the human mind. The most pronounced adherent of this view in our country is Dr. D. G. Brinton, in Germany the majority of the followers of Bastian, who in this respect go much farther than Bastian himself. Others, while not denying the occurrence of historical connections, regard them as insignificant in re-
271
This modern view is founded on the observation that the same ethnical phenomena occur among the most diverse peoples, or, as Bastian says, on the appalling monotony of the fundamental ideas of mankind all over the globe. The metaphysical notions of man may be reduced to a few types which are of universal distribution; the same is the case in regard to the forms of society, laws and inventions. Furthermore, the most intricate and apparently illogical ideas and the most curious and complex customs appear among a few tribes here and there in such a manner that the assumption of a common historical origin is excluded. When studying the culture of any one tribe, more or less close analoga of single traits of such a culture may be found among a great diversity of peoples. Instances of such analoga have been collected to a vast extent by Tylor, Spencer, Bastian, Andree, Post and many others, so that it is not necessary to give here any detailed proof of this fact. The idea of a future life; the one underlying shamanism; inventions such as fire and the bow; certain elementary features of grammatical structure -these will suggest the classes of phenomena to which I refer. It follows from these observations that when we find analogous single traits of culture among distant peoples, the presumption is not that there has been a common historical source, but that they have arisen independently.
But the discovery of these universal ideas is only the beginning of the work of the anthropologist. Scientific inquiry must answer two questions in regard to them: First, what is their origin? and second, how do they assert themselves in various cultures?
The second question is the easier one to answer. The ideas do not exist everywhere in identical form, but they vary. Sufficient material has been accumulated to show that the causes of these variations are either external, that is founded on environment -taking the term environment in its widest sense- or internal, that is founded on psychological conditions. The influence of external and internal factors upon elementary ideas embodies one group of laws governing the growth of culture. Therefore, our endeavors must be directed to showing how such factors modify elementary ideas
The first method that suggests itself and which has been generally adopted by modern anthropologists is to isolate and classify causes by grouping the variants of certain ethnological phenomena according to
272
By this method we begin to recognize even now with imperfect knowledge of the facts what causes may have been at work in shaping the culture of mankind. Friedrich Ratzel and W J McGee have investigated the influence of geographical environment on a broader basis of facts than Ritter and Guyot were able to do at their time. Sociologists have made important studies on the effects of the density of population and of other simple social causes. Thus the influence of external factors upon the growth of society is becoming clearer.
The effects of psychical factors are also being studied in the same manner. Stoll has tried to isolate the phenomena of suggestion and of hypnotism and to study the effects of their presence in the cultures of various peoples. Inquiries into the mutual relations of tribes and peoples begin to show that certain cultural elements are easily assimilated while others are rejected, and the time-worn phrases of the imposition of culture by a more highly civilized people upon one of lower culture that has been conquered are giving way to more thorough views on the subject of exchange of cultural achievements. In all these investigations we are using sound inductive methods in order to isolate the causes of observed phenomena.
The other question in regard to the universal ideas, namely that of their origin, is much more difficult to treat. Many attempts have been made to discover the causes which have led to the formation of ideas 'that develop with iron necessity wherever man lives.' This is the most difficult problem of anthropology and we may expect that it will baffle our attempts for a long time to come. Bastian denies that it is possible to discover the ultimate sources of inventions, ideas, customs and beliefs which are of universal occurrence. They may be indigenous, they may be imported, they may have arisen from a variety of sources, but they are there. The human mind is so formed that it invents them spontaneously or accepts them whenever they are offered to it. This is the much misunderstood elementary idea of Bastian.
To a certain extent the clear enunciation of the elementary idea gives us the psychological reason for its existence. To exemplify: the fact that the land of the shadows is so often placed in the west suggests the endeavor to localize it at the place where the sun and the stars vanish.
273
In treating this, the most difficult problem of anthropology, the point of view is taken that if an ethnological phenomenon has developed independently in a number of places its development has been the same everywhere; or, expressed in a different form, that the same ethnological phenomena are always due to the same causes. This leads to the still wider generalization that the sameness of ethnological phenomena found in diverse regions is proof that the human mind obeys the same laws everywhere. It is obvious that if different historical developments could lead to the same results, that then this generalization would not be tenable. Their existence would present to us an entirely different problem, namely, how it is that the developments of culture so often lead to the same results. It must, therefore, be clearly understood that anthropological research which compares similar cultural phenomena from various parts of the world, in order to discover the uniform history of their development, makes the assumption that the same ethnological phenomenon has everywhere developed in the same manner. Here lies the flaw in the argument of the new method, for no such proof can be given. Even the most cursory review shows that the same phenomena may develop in a multitude of ways.
I will give a few examples: Primitive tribes are almost universally divided into clans which have totems. There can be no doubt that this form of social organization has arisen independently over and over
274
To give another example: Recent investigations have shown that geometrical designs in primitive art have originated sometimes from naturalistic forms which were gradually conventionalized, sometimes from technical motives, that in still other cases they were geometrical by origin or that they were derived from symbols. From all these sources the same forms have developed. Out of designs representing diverse objects grew in course of time frets, meanders, crosses and the like. Therefore the frequent occurrence of these forms proves neither common origin nor that they have always developed according to the same psychical laws. On the contrary, the identical result may have been reached on four different lines of development and from an infinite number of starting points.
Another example may not be amiss: The use of masks is found among a great number of peoples. The origin of the custom of wearing masks is by no means clear in all cases, but a few typical forms of their use may easily be distinguished. They are used for deceiving spirits as to the identity of the wearer. The spirit of a disease who intends to attack the person does not recognize him when he wears a mask, and the mask serves in this manner as a protection. In other cases the mask represents a spirit which is personified by the wearer, who in this shape frightens away other hostile spirits. Still other masks are commemorative. The wearer personifies a deceased person whose memory is to be recalled. Masks are also used in theatrical performances illustrating mythological incidents.
These few data suffice to show that the same ethnical phenomenon
275
Thus we recognize that the fundamental assumption which is so often made by modern anthropologists cannot be accepted as true in all cases. We cannot say that the occurrence of the same phenomenon is always due to the same causes, and that thus it is proved that the human mind obeys the same laws everywhere. We must demand that the causes from which it developed be investigated and that comparisons be restricted to those phenomena which have been proved to be effects of the same causes. We must insist that this investigation be made a preliminary to all extended comparative studies. In researches on tribal societies those which have developed through association must be treated separately from those that have developed through disintegration. Geometrical designs which have arisen from conventionalized representations of natural objects must be treated separately from those that have arisen from technical motives. In short, before extended comparisons are made, the comparability of the material must be proved.
The comparative studies of which I am speaking here attempt to explain customs and ideas of remarkable similarity which are found here and there. But they pursue also the more ambitious scheme of discovering the laws and the history of the evolution of human society. The fact that many fundamental features of culture are universal, or at least occur in many isolated places, interpreted by the assumption that the same features must always have developed from the same causes, leads to the conclusion that there is one grand system according to which mankind has developed everywhere; that all the occurring variations are no more than minor details in this grand uniform evolution. It is clear that this theory has for its logical basis the assumption that the same phenomena are always due to the same causes. To give an instance: We find many types of structure of family. It can he proved that paternal families have often developed from maternal ones. Therefore, it is said, all paternal families have developed from maternal ones. If we do not make the assumption that the same phenomena have everywhere developed from the same causes, then we may just as well conclude that paternal families have in some cases arisen from maternal institutions; in other cases in other ways. To give another example: Many conceptions of the future life have evidently developed from dreams and hallucinations. Consequently, it is said, all notions of this
276
We have seen that the facts do not favor at all the assumption of which we are speaking; that they much rather point in the opposite direction. Therefore we must also consider all the ingenious attempts at constructions of a grand system of the evolution of society as of very doubtful value, unless at the same time proof is given that the same phenomena must always have had the same origin. Until this is done, the presumption is always in favor of a variety of courses which historical growth may have taken.
It will be well to restate at this place one of the principal aims of anthropological research. We agreed that certain laws exist which govern the growth of human culture, and it is our endeavor to discover these laws. The object of our investigation is to find the processes by which certain stages of culture have developed. The customs and beliefs themselves are not the ultimate objects of research. We desire to learn the reasons why such customs and beliefs exist -in other words, we wish to discover the history of their development. The method which is at present most frequently applied in investigations of this character compares the variations under which the customs or beliefs occur and endeavors to find the common psychological cause that underlies all of them. I have stated that this method is open to a very fundamental objection.
We have another method, which in many respects is much safer. A detailed study of customs in their relation to the total culture of the tribe practicing them, in connection with an investigation of their geographical distribution among neighboring tribes, affords us almost always a means of determining with considerable accuracy the historical causes that led to the formation of the customs in question and to the psychological processes that were at work in their development. The results of inquiries conducted by this method may be three-fold. They may reveal the environmental conditions which have created or modified cultural elements; they may clear up psychological factors which are at work in shaping the culture; or they may bring before our eyes the effects that historical connections have had upon the growth of the culture.
We have in this method a means of reconstructing the history of the growth of ideas with much greater accuracy than the generalizations of the comparative method will permit. The latter must always
277
278
It seems necessary to say a word here in regard to an objection to my arguments that will be raised by investigators who claim that similarity of geographical environment is a sufficient cause for similarity of culture, that is to say, that, for instance, the geographical conditions of the plains of the Mississippi basin necessitate the development of a certain culture. Horatio Hale would even go so far as to believe that similarity of form of language may be due to environmental causes. Environment has a certain limited effect upon the culture of man, but I do not see how the view that it is the primary moulder of culture can be supported by any facts. A hasty review of the tribes and peoples of our globe shows that people most diverse in culture and language live under the same geographical conditions, as proof of which may be mentioned the ethnography of East Africa or of New Guinea. In both these regions we find a great diversity of customs in small areas. But much more important is this: Not one observed fact can be brought forward in support of this hypothesis which cannot be much better explained by the well known facts of diffusion of culture; for archaeology as well as ethnography teach us that intercourse between neighboring tribes has always existed and has extended over enormous areas. In the Old World the products of the Baltic found their way to the Mediterranean and the works of art of the eastern Mediterranean reached Sweden. In America the shells of the ocean found their way into the innermost parts of the continent and the obsidians of the West were carried to Ohio. Intermarriages, war, slavery, trade, have been so many sources of constant introduction of foreign cultural elements, so that an assimilation of culture must have taken place over continuous areas. Therefore, it seems to my mind that where among neighboring tribes an immediate influence of environment cannot be shown to exist, the presumption must always be in favor of historical connection. There has been a time of isolation during which the principal traits of diverse cultures developed according to the previous culture and the environment of the tribes. But the stages of culture representing this period have been covered with so much that is new and that is due to contact with foreign tribes that they cannot be discovered without the most painstaking isolation of foreign elements.
The immediate results of the historical method are, therefore, histories of the cultures of diverse tribes which have been the subject of
279
The historical inquiry must be considered the critical test that science must require before admitting facts as evidence. By its means the comparability of the collected material must be tested, and uniformity of processes must be demanded as proof of comparability. Furthermore, when historical connection between two phenomena can be proved, they must not be admitted as independent evidence.
In a few cases the immediate results of this method are of so wide a scope that they rank with the best results that can be attained by comparative studies. Some phenomena have so immense a distribution that the discovery of their occurrence over very large continuous areas proves at once that certain phases of the culture in these areas have sprung from one source. Thus are illuminated vast portions of the early history of mankind. When Edward S. Morse showed that certain methods of arrow release are peculiar to whole continents it became clear at once that the common practice found over a vast area must have had a common origin. When the Polynesians employ a method of fire making consisting in rubbing a stick along a groove, while almost all other peoples use the fire drill, it shows their art of fire making has a single origin. When we notice that the ordeal is found all over Africa in certain peculiar forms, while in those parts of the inhabited world that are remote from Africa it is found not at all or in rudimentary forms only, it shows that the idea as practiced in Africa had one single origin.
The great and important function of the historical method of an-
280
Thus we have seen that the comparative method can hope to reach the results for which it is striving only when it bases its investigations on the historical results of researches which are devoted to laying clear the complex relations of each individual culture. The comparative method and the historical method if I may use these terms, have been struggling for supremacy for a long time, but we hope that each will soon find its appropriate place and function. The historical method has reached a sounder basis by abandoning the misleading principle of assuming connections wherever similarities of culture were found. The comparative method, notwithstanding all that has been said and written in its praise, has been remarkably barren of definite results, and I believe it will not become fruitful until we renounce the vain endeavor to construct a uniform systematic history of the evolution of culture, and until we begin to make our comparisons on the broader and sounder basis which I ventured to outline. Up to this time we have too much reveled in more or less ingenious vagaries. The solid work is still all before us.
reference source
http://www.anthrobase.com/Browse/home/hst/cache/bocomp.html
THE LIMITATIONS OF THE COMPARATIVE
METHOD OF ANTHROPOLOGY
Modern anthropology has discovered the fact that human society has grown and developed everywhere in such a manner that its forms, its opinions and its actions have many fundamental traits in common. This momentous discovery implies that laws exist which govern the development of society, that they are applicable to our society as well as to those of past times and of distant lands; that their knowledge will be a means of understanding the causes furthering and retarding civilization; and that, guided by this knowledge, we may hope to govern our actions so that the greatest benefit to mankind will accrue from them. Since this discovery has been clearly formulated, anthropology has begun to receive that liberal share of public interest which was withheld from it as long as it was believed that it could do no more than record the curious customs and beliefs of strange peoples; or, at best, trace their relationships, and thus elucidate the early migrations of the races of man and the affinities of peoples.
While early investigators concentrated their attention upon this purely historical problem, the tide has now completely turned, so that there are even anthropologists who declare that such investigations belong to the historian, and that anthropological studies must be confined to researches on the laws that govern the growth of society.
A radical change of method has accompanied this change of views. While formerly identities or similarities of culture were considered incontrovertible proof of historical connection, or even of common origin, the new school declines to consider them as such, but interprets them as results of the uniform working of the human mind. The most pronounced adherent of this view in our country is Dr. D. G. Brinton, in Germany the majority of the followers of Bastian, who in this respect go much farther than Bastian himself. Others, while not denying the occurrence of historical connections, regard them as insignificant in re-
271
This modern view is founded on the observation that the same ethnical phenomena occur among the most diverse peoples, or, as Bastian says, on the appalling monotony of the fundamental ideas of mankind all over the globe. The metaphysical notions of man may be reduced to a few types which are of universal distribution; the same is the case in regard to the forms of society, laws and inventions. Furthermore, the most intricate and apparently illogical ideas and the most curious and complex customs appear among a few tribes here and there in such a manner that the assumption of a common historical origin is excluded. When studying the culture of any one tribe, more or less close analoga of single traits of such a culture may be found among a great diversity of peoples. Instances of such analoga have been collected to a vast extent by Tylor, Spencer, Bastian, Andree, Post and many others, so that it is not necessary to give here any detailed proof of this fact. The idea of a future life; the one underlying shamanism; inventions such as fire and the bow; certain elementary features of grammatical structure -these will suggest the classes of phenomena to which I refer. It follows from these observations that when we find analogous single traits of culture among distant peoples, the presumption is not that there has been a common historical source, but that they have arisen independently.
But the discovery of these universal ideas is only the beginning of the work of the anthropologist. Scientific inquiry must answer two questions in regard to them: First, what is their origin? and second, how do they assert themselves in various cultures?
The second question is the easier one to answer. The ideas do not exist everywhere in identical form, but they vary. Sufficient material has been accumulated to show that the causes of these variations are either external, that is founded on environment -taking the term environment in its widest sense- or internal, that is founded on psychological conditions. The influence of external and internal factors upon elementary ideas embodies one group of laws governing the growth of culture. Therefore, our endeavors must be directed to showing how such factors modify elementary ideas
The first method that suggests itself and which has been generally adopted by modern anthropologists is to isolate and classify causes by grouping the variants of certain ethnological phenomena according to
272
By this method we begin to recognize even now with imperfect knowledge of the facts what causes may have been at work in shaping the culture of mankind. Friedrich Ratzel and W J McGee have investigated the influence of geographical environment on a broader basis of facts than Ritter and Guyot were able to do at their time. Sociologists have made important studies on the effects of the density of population and of other simple social causes. Thus the influence of external factors upon the growth of society is becoming clearer.
The effects of psychical factors are also being studied in the same manner. Stoll has tried to isolate the phenomena of suggestion and of hypnotism and to study the effects of their presence in the cultures of various peoples. Inquiries into the mutual relations of tribes and peoples begin to show that certain cultural elements are easily assimilated while others are rejected, and the time-worn phrases of the imposition of culture by a more highly civilized people upon one of lower culture that has been conquered are giving way to more thorough views on the subject of exchange of cultural achievements. In all these investigations we are using sound inductive methods in order to isolate the causes of observed phenomena.
The other question in regard to the universal ideas, namely that of their origin, is much more difficult to treat. Many attempts have been made to discover the causes which have led to the formation of ideas 'that develop with iron necessity wherever man lives.' This is the most difficult problem of anthropology and we may expect that it will baffle our attempts for a long time to come. Bastian denies that it is possible to discover the ultimate sources of inventions, ideas, customs and beliefs which are of universal occurrence. They may be indigenous, they may be imported, they may have arisen from a variety of sources, but they are there. The human mind is so formed that it invents them spontaneously or accepts them whenever they are offered to it. This is the much misunderstood elementary idea of Bastian.
To a certain extent the clear enunciation of the elementary idea gives us the psychological reason for its existence. To exemplify: the fact that the land of the shadows is so often placed in the west suggests the endeavor to localize it at the place where the sun and the stars vanish.
273
In treating this, the most difficult problem of anthropology, the point of view is taken that if an ethnological phenomenon has developed independently in a number of places its development has been the same everywhere; or, expressed in a different form, that the same ethnological phenomena are always due to the same causes. This leads to the still wider generalization that the sameness of ethnological phenomena found in diverse regions is proof that the human mind obeys the same laws everywhere. It is obvious that if different historical developments could lead to the same results, that then this generalization would not be tenable. Their existence would present to us an entirely different problem, namely, how it is that the developments of culture so often lead to the same results. It must, therefore, be clearly understood that anthropological research which compares similar cultural phenomena from various parts of the world, in order to discover the uniform history of their development, makes the assumption that the same ethnological phenomenon has everywhere developed in the same manner. Here lies the flaw in the argument of the new method, for no such proof can be given. Even the most cursory review shows that the same phenomena may develop in a multitude of ways.
I will give a few examples: Primitive tribes are almost universally divided into clans which have totems. There can be no doubt that this form of social organization has arisen independently over and over
274
To give another example: Recent investigations have shown that geometrical designs in primitive art have originated sometimes from naturalistic forms which were gradually conventionalized, sometimes from technical motives, that in still other cases they were geometrical by origin or that they were derived from symbols. From all these sources the same forms have developed. Out of designs representing diverse objects grew in course of time frets, meanders, crosses and the like. Therefore the frequent occurrence of these forms proves neither common origin nor that they have always developed according to the same psychical laws. On the contrary, the identical result may have been reached on four different lines of development and from an infinite number of starting points.
Another example may not be amiss: The use of masks is found among a great number of peoples. The origin of the custom of wearing masks is by no means clear in all cases, but a few typical forms of their use may easily be distinguished. They are used for deceiving spirits as to the identity of the wearer. The spirit of a disease who intends to attack the person does not recognize him when he wears a mask, and the mask serves in this manner as a protection. In other cases the mask represents a spirit which is personified by the wearer, who in this shape frightens away other hostile spirits. Still other masks are commemorative. The wearer personifies a deceased person whose memory is to be recalled. Masks are also used in theatrical performances illustrating mythological incidents.
These few data suffice to show that the same ethnical phenomenon
275
Thus we recognize that the fundamental assumption which is so often made by modern anthropologists cannot be accepted as true in all cases. We cannot say that the occurrence of the same phenomenon is always due to the same causes, and that thus it is proved that the human mind obeys the same laws everywhere. We must demand that the causes from which it developed be investigated and that comparisons be restricted to those phenomena which have been proved to be effects of the same causes. We must insist that this investigation be made a preliminary to all extended comparative studies. In researches on tribal societies those which have developed through association must be treated separately from those that have developed through disintegration. Geometrical designs which have arisen from conventionalized representations of natural objects must be treated separately from those that have arisen from technical motives. In short, before extended comparisons are made, the comparability of the material must be proved.
The comparative studies of which I am speaking here attempt to explain customs and ideas of remarkable similarity which are found here and there. But they pursue also the more ambitious scheme of discovering the laws and the history of the evolution of human society. The fact that many fundamental features of culture are universal, or at least occur in many isolated places, interpreted by the assumption that the same features must always have developed from the same causes, leads to the conclusion that there is one grand system according to which mankind has developed everywhere; that all the occurring variations are no more than minor details in this grand uniform evolution. It is clear that this theory has for its logical basis the assumption that the same phenomena are always due to the same causes. To give an instance: We find many types of structure of family. It can he proved that paternal families have often developed from maternal ones. Therefore, it is said, all paternal families have developed from maternal ones. If we do not make the assumption that the same phenomena have everywhere developed from the same causes, then we may just as well conclude that paternal families have in some cases arisen from maternal institutions; in other cases in other ways. To give another example: Many conceptions of the future life have evidently developed from dreams and hallucinations. Consequently, it is said, all notions of this
276
We have seen that the facts do not favor at all the assumption of which we are speaking; that they much rather point in the opposite direction. Therefore we must also consider all the ingenious attempts at constructions of a grand system of the evolution of society as of very doubtful value, unless at the same time proof is given that the same phenomena must always have had the same origin. Until this is done, the presumption is always in favor of a variety of courses which historical growth may have taken.
It will be well to restate at this place one of the principal aims of anthropological research. We agreed that certain laws exist which govern the growth of human culture, and it is our endeavor to discover these laws. The object of our investigation is to find the processes by which certain stages of culture have developed. The customs and beliefs themselves are not the ultimate objects of research. We desire to learn the reasons why such customs and beliefs exist -in other words, we wish to discover the history of their development. The method which is at present most frequently applied in investigations of this character compares the variations under which the customs or beliefs occur and endeavors to find the common psychological cause that underlies all of them. I have stated that this method is open to a very fundamental objection.
We have another method, which in many respects is much safer. A detailed study of customs in their relation to the total culture of the tribe practicing them, in connection with an investigation of their geographical distribution among neighboring tribes, affords us almost always a means of determining with considerable accuracy the historical causes that led to the formation of the customs in question and to the psychological processes that were at work in their development. The results of inquiries conducted by this method may be three-fold. They may reveal the environmental conditions which have created or modified cultural elements; they may clear up psychological factors which are at work in shaping the culture; or they may bring before our eyes the effects that historical connections have had upon the growth of the culture.
We have in this method a means of reconstructing the history of the growth of ideas with much greater accuracy than the generalizations of the comparative method will permit. The latter must always
277
278
It seems necessary to say a word here in regard to an objection to my arguments that will be raised by investigators who claim that similarity of geographical environment is a sufficient cause for similarity of culture, that is to say, that, for instance, the geographical conditions of the plains of the Mississippi basin necessitate the development of a certain culture. Horatio Hale would even go so far as to believe that similarity of form of language may be due to environmental causes. Environment has a certain limited effect upon the culture of man, but I do not see how the view that it is the primary moulder of culture can be supported by any facts. A hasty review of the tribes and peoples of our globe shows that people most diverse in culture and language live under the same geographical conditions, as proof of which may be mentioned the ethnography of East Africa or of New Guinea. In both these regions we find a great diversity of customs in small areas. But much more important is this: Not one observed fact can be brought forward in support of this hypothesis which cannot be much better explained by the well known facts of diffusion of culture; for archaeology as well as ethnography teach us that intercourse between neighboring tribes has always existed and has extended over enormous areas. In the Old World the products of the Baltic found their way to the Mediterranean and the works of art of the eastern Mediterranean reached Sweden. In America the shells of the ocean found their way into the innermost parts of the continent and the obsidians of the West were carried to Ohio. Intermarriages, war, slavery, trade, have been so many sources of constant introduction of foreign cultural elements, so that an assimilation of culture must have taken place over continuous areas. Therefore, it seems to my mind that where among neighboring tribes an immediate influence of environment cannot be shown to exist, the presumption must always be in favor of historical connection. There has been a time of isolation during which the principal traits of diverse cultures developed according to the previous culture and the environment of the tribes. But the stages of culture representing this period have been covered with so much that is new and that is due to contact with foreign tribes that they cannot be discovered without the most painstaking isolation of foreign elements.
The immediate results of the historical method are, therefore, histories of the cultures of diverse tribes which have been the subject of
279
The historical inquiry must be considered the critical test that science must require before admitting facts as evidence. By its means the comparability of the collected material must be tested, and uniformity of processes must be demanded as proof of comparability. Furthermore, when historical connection between two phenomena can be proved, they must not be admitted as independent evidence.
In a few cases the immediate results of this method are of so wide a scope that they rank with the best results that can be attained by comparative studies. Some phenomena have so immense a distribution that the discovery of their occurrence over very large continuous areas proves at once that certain phases of the culture in these areas have sprung from one source. Thus are illuminated vast portions of the early history of mankind. When Edward S. Morse showed that certain methods of arrow release are peculiar to whole continents it became clear at once that the common practice found over a vast area must have had a common origin. When the Polynesians employ a method of fire making consisting in rubbing a stick along a groove, while almost all other peoples use the fire drill, it shows their art of fire making has a single origin. When we notice that the ordeal is found all over Africa in certain peculiar forms, while in those parts of the inhabited world that are remote from Africa it is found not at all or in rudimentary forms only, it shows that the idea as practiced in Africa had one single origin.
The great and important function of the historical method of an-
280
Thus we have seen that the comparative method can hope to reach the results for which it is striving only when it bases its investigations on the historical results of researches which are devoted to laying clear the complex relations of each individual culture. The comparative method and the historical method if I may use these terms, have been struggling for supremacy for a long time, but we hope that each will soon find its appropriate place and function. The historical method has reached a sounder basis by abandoning the misleading principle of assuming connections wherever similarities of culture were found. The comparative method, notwithstanding all that has been said and written in its praise, has been remarkably barren of definite results, and I believe it will not become fruitful until we renounce the vain endeavor to construct a uniform systematic history of the evolution of culture, and until we begin to make our comparisons on the broader and sounder basis which I ventured to outline. Up to this time we have too much reveled in more or less ingenious vagaries. The solid work is still all before us.
reference source
http://www.anthrobase.com/Browse/home/hst/cache/bocomp.html
Elements of Culture---Aka Crash Course for culture
I. Elements of Culture
Introduction: The term “culture” means different things to different people. To some, it is associated with activities. ELITE CULTURE refers to the life style of the wealthy, affluent, or upper classes. POPULAR CULTURE is viewed as the culture, particularly the leisure time, of the common people.
A. A CULTURE is a system of ideas, values, beliefs, knowledge, norms, customs, and technology shared by almost everyone in a particular society. A SOCIETY is a group of people who share a common culture. The existence of culture depends on people’s ability to create and understand SYMBOLS, things that are used to represent something else.
1. SYMBOLS are arbitrary designations that are collective creations; most sociologists believe that the ability to use symbols is uniquely human.
2. Success or failure in many relationships, both personal and professional, often depends upon our ability to communicate symbolically.
B. LANGUAGE, the systematized usage of speech and hearing to convey or express feelings and ideas, is the most important set of symbols.
1. Language is uniquely human and is one of the basic distinctions between human beings and other forms of life, as demonstrated by the comparative studies of infants and chimpanzees.
2. Regular use of words over time and place, and the widespread use of certain words, indicate that language is an integral and universal part of culture. Linguistic symbols are learned and shared just like other cultural traits.
3. In addition to a verbal and written language, every culture develops a “silent language” of gestures, expressions, and mannerisms; knowledge of this nonverbal language can be very useful to those who must deal with people from different cultures.
4. The SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS suggests that our perceptions of reality and consequent behaviors are significantly influenced by the grammatical forms, labels, and categories provided by our language.
C. VALUES are shared ideas of what is important and worthwhile by the people in a society. Values often are emotionally charged and learned early in life.
1. Most values have both positive and negative counterparts.
2. When basic values conflict with one another, a person may experience guilt or mental stress and attempt to resolve the guilt by pursuing alternative courses of action.
3. Despite the social diversity of the United States, Robin M. Williams (1970) described 15 major value orientations that are shared in our culture, including belief in achievement and success, external conformity, and democracy.
4. Williams states that most conflicts between value systems in the United States occur between values centering around individual personalities and values organized around categorical themes or conceptions. Group discrimination and racism, for example, are contrary to other central values of our society.
5. An understanding of value systems can be useful for many people in their work. The ability to recognize and deal with competing value systems leads to better management.
D. Social NORMS are rules of conduct or social expectations specifying how people should or should not behave in various social situations. Norms are either prescriptive or proscriptive.
1. William G. Sumner identified two types of norms, FOLKWAYS and MORES, and distinguished between them by (1) the degree to which group members are compelled to conform to them, (2) their importance, (3) the severity of punishment if they are violated, and (4) the intensity of feelings associated with adherence to them.
2. FOLKWAYS are learned customs or conventions that are passed down from one generation to the next; violation tends to be punished mildly, if at all.
3. MORES are considered more important than folkways; reactions to their violations are more serious. They tend to involve clear-cut distinctions between right and wrong and are more closely identified with society’s important values. Mores that prohibit something, that state “thou shalt not,” are called TABOOS. To care for one’s child is called a MOS (singular for MORES), while committing incest is a TABOO.
4. LAWS are formal, standardized expressions of norms enacted by legislative bodies to regulate particular types of behaviors. Laws state the punishment for their violation and are enforced by a group designated for that purpose.
5. When a law does not reflect folkways and mores, its enforcement is likely to be ignored or given low priority.
6. Cultural norms are not always beneficial to the society, group, or individual that follows them. Some may actually be harmful in what Erich Fromm calls the “PATHOLOGY OF NORMALCY.”
7. The process of violating norms beyond the range of group acceptability is termed deviance; the process of applying sanctions to obtain social conformity is known as social control.
E. TECHNOLOGY is the practical production and application of material techniques and products to maintain a culture’s standard of living; it includes social customs and practical techniques for converting raw materials into finished products.
1. ARTIFACTS are physical objects that reflect a society’s technology. Artifacts provide clues to a society’s level of technological development, but the presence of more sophisticated technology in one culture as opposed to another culture should not be used as scientific criteria for evaluating the two. It is a mistake to dismiss a culture’s technological system because it appears to be less developed or complex than our own.
F. CULTURAL LAG takes place when changes in technology and material culture occur more rapidly than changes in nonmaterial culture (such as beliefs, values, and laws); cultural lag is inevitable in rapidly changing societies.
II. Interpreting Culture: Our Own and Others
A. Sumner defined ETHNOCENTRISM as “that view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it.” It is the attitude that one’s own culture is superior to others; that one’s own beliefs, values, and behaviors are more correct than others; and that other people and cultures can be evaluated in terms of one’s own culture.
1. Ethnocentrism is particularly strong among people who have had little contact with other cultures; yet ethnocentric attitudes are found among the highly educated and experienced travelers as well.
2. The functions of ethnocentrism include (1) promoting unity, (2) encouraging conformity, (3) reinforcing nationalism, and (4) maintaining the status quo.
3. The dysfunctions of ethnocentrism include (1) increasing resistance to beneficial change, (2) discouraging integration, (3) increasing the likelihood of hostility and conflicts among groups, and (4) preventing beneficial social change.
B. XENOCENTRISM, the opposite of ethnocentrism, is the belief that one’s own lifestyle, products, or ideas are inferior to those of other cultures.
C. TEMPOROCENTRISM is the belief that one’s own time is more important than the past or future. Historical events are judged not in their own context, but rather on the basis of contemporary standards. It is most prevalent among those who lack historical perspective.
D. The belief that cultures must be judged on their own terms is known as CULTURAL RELATIVISM.
1. Cultural relativism means that a behavior appropriate in one place may not be appropriate everywhere.
2. Knowledge of cultural relativism can be useful to anyone who works with people from different cultures.
III. Cultural Complexity and Diversity
Culture is a complex and diverse system of independent factors; its organization is influenced by physical circumstances such as climate, geography, and population. The complexity of a culture can best be understood by examining various units of a culture.
A. SUBCULTURES are groups of people who participate in the larger, dominant culture yet also maintain their own distinctive life styles and set of cultural elements as well.
1. In heterogeneous societies, a person may be a member of several subcultures at any one time or at different times in his or her life.
B. A COUNTERCULTURE is a subculture that adheres to “a set of norms and values that sharply contradict the dominant norms and values of the society of which that group is a part.”
1. Ideologically, countercultures adhere to a set of beliefs and values that radically reject the society’s dominant culture and prescribe an alternative set.
C. Every group forms an IDIOCULTURE, a system of shared knowledge, beliefs, behaviors, and customs created through enduring group interactions and shared experiences.
D. In most cultures, differences exist between what people are supposed to do and what they actually do; that is, there is a distinction between the IDEAL CULTURE and the REAL CULTURE. Regardless of the manner in which cultures are organized, all cultures share some basic concerns, known as CULTURAL UNIVERSALS. Food, shelter, and protection are examples.
E. A SOCIAL INSTITUTION is a system of norms, values, statuses, and roles that develops around a basic social goal.
1. All societies have particular institutions to meet their broad goals; they form the foundation of society. Five basic social institutions are defined in the text: the family, religion, education, economic, and political.
2. Institutions are systems of norms; social organizations are actual groups of people deliberately organized around some common interest. Both terms will be discussed further in the next chapters.
reference source
http://www.ega.edu/facweb/strickland/SOCI1101Online/CHAPTEROUTLINES/OutlineCHAPTER04.html
Introduction: The term “culture” means different things to different people. To some, it is associated with activities. ELITE CULTURE refers to the life style of the wealthy, affluent, or upper classes. POPULAR CULTURE is viewed as the culture, particularly the leisure time, of the common people.
A. A CULTURE is a system of ideas, values, beliefs, knowledge, norms, customs, and technology shared by almost everyone in a particular society. A SOCIETY is a group of people who share a common culture. The existence of culture depends on people’s ability to create and understand SYMBOLS, things that are used to represent something else.
1. SYMBOLS are arbitrary designations that are collective creations; most sociologists believe that the ability to use symbols is uniquely human.
2. Success or failure in many relationships, both personal and professional, often depends upon our ability to communicate symbolically.
B. LANGUAGE, the systematized usage of speech and hearing to convey or express feelings and ideas, is the most important set of symbols.
1. Language is uniquely human and is one of the basic distinctions between human beings and other forms of life, as demonstrated by the comparative studies of infants and chimpanzees.
2. Regular use of words over time and place, and the widespread use of certain words, indicate that language is an integral and universal part of culture. Linguistic symbols are learned and shared just like other cultural traits.
3. In addition to a verbal and written language, every culture develops a “silent language” of gestures, expressions, and mannerisms; knowledge of this nonverbal language can be very useful to those who must deal with people from different cultures.
4. The SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS suggests that our perceptions of reality and consequent behaviors are significantly influenced by the grammatical forms, labels, and categories provided by our language.
C. VALUES are shared ideas of what is important and worthwhile by the people in a society. Values often are emotionally charged and learned early in life.
1. Most values have both positive and negative counterparts.
2. When basic values conflict with one another, a person may experience guilt or mental stress and attempt to resolve the guilt by pursuing alternative courses of action.
3. Despite the social diversity of the United States, Robin M. Williams (1970) described 15 major value orientations that are shared in our culture, including belief in achievement and success, external conformity, and democracy.
4. Williams states that most conflicts between value systems in the United States occur between values centering around individual personalities and values organized around categorical themes or conceptions. Group discrimination and racism, for example, are contrary to other central values of our society.
5. An understanding of value systems can be useful for many people in their work. The ability to recognize and deal with competing value systems leads to better management.
D. Social NORMS are rules of conduct or social expectations specifying how people should or should not behave in various social situations. Norms are either prescriptive or proscriptive.
1. William G. Sumner identified two types of norms, FOLKWAYS and MORES, and distinguished between them by (1) the degree to which group members are compelled to conform to them, (2) their importance, (3) the severity of punishment if they are violated, and (4) the intensity of feelings associated with adherence to them.
2. FOLKWAYS are learned customs or conventions that are passed down from one generation to the next; violation tends to be punished mildly, if at all.
3. MORES are considered more important than folkways; reactions to their violations are more serious. They tend to involve clear-cut distinctions between right and wrong and are more closely identified with society’s important values. Mores that prohibit something, that state “thou shalt not,” are called TABOOS. To care for one’s child is called a MOS (singular for MORES), while committing incest is a TABOO.
4. LAWS are formal, standardized expressions of norms enacted by legislative bodies to regulate particular types of behaviors. Laws state the punishment for their violation and are enforced by a group designated for that purpose.
5. When a law does not reflect folkways and mores, its enforcement is likely to be ignored or given low priority.
6. Cultural norms are not always beneficial to the society, group, or individual that follows them. Some may actually be harmful in what Erich Fromm calls the “PATHOLOGY OF NORMALCY.”
7. The process of violating norms beyond the range of group acceptability is termed deviance; the process of applying sanctions to obtain social conformity is known as social control.
E. TECHNOLOGY is the practical production and application of material techniques and products to maintain a culture’s standard of living; it includes social customs and practical techniques for converting raw materials into finished products.
1. ARTIFACTS are physical objects that reflect a society’s technology. Artifacts provide clues to a society’s level of technological development, but the presence of more sophisticated technology in one culture as opposed to another culture should not be used as scientific criteria for evaluating the two. It is a mistake to dismiss a culture’s technological system because it appears to be less developed or complex than our own.
F. CULTURAL LAG takes place when changes in technology and material culture occur more rapidly than changes in nonmaterial culture (such as beliefs, values, and laws); cultural lag is inevitable in rapidly changing societies.
II. Interpreting Culture: Our Own and Others
A. Sumner defined ETHNOCENTRISM as “that view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it.” It is the attitude that one’s own culture is superior to others; that one’s own beliefs, values, and behaviors are more correct than others; and that other people and cultures can be evaluated in terms of one’s own culture.
1. Ethnocentrism is particularly strong among people who have had little contact with other cultures; yet ethnocentric attitudes are found among the highly educated and experienced travelers as well.
2. The functions of ethnocentrism include (1) promoting unity, (2) encouraging conformity, (3) reinforcing nationalism, and (4) maintaining the status quo.
3. The dysfunctions of ethnocentrism include (1) increasing resistance to beneficial change, (2) discouraging integration, (3) increasing the likelihood of hostility and conflicts among groups, and (4) preventing beneficial social change.
B. XENOCENTRISM, the opposite of ethnocentrism, is the belief that one’s own lifestyle, products, or ideas are inferior to those of other cultures.
C. TEMPOROCENTRISM is the belief that one’s own time is more important than the past or future. Historical events are judged not in their own context, but rather on the basis of contemporary standards. It is most prevalent among those who lack historical perspective.
D. The belief that cultures must be judged on their own terms is known as CULTURAL RELATIVISM.
1. Cultural relativism means that a behavior appropriate in one place may not be appropriate everywhere.
2. Knowledge of cultural relativism can be useful to anyone who works with people from different cultures.
III. Cultural Complexity and Diversity
Culture is a complex and diverse system of independent factors; its organization is influenced by physical circumstances such as climate, geography, and population. The complexity of a culture can best be understood by examining various units of a culture.
A. SUBCULTURES are groups of people who participate in the larger, dominant culture yet also maintain their own distinctive life styles and set of cultural elements as well.
1. In heterogeneous societies, a person may be a member of several subcultures at any one time or at different times in his or her life.
B. A COUNTERCULTURE is a subculture that adheres to “a set of norms and values that sharply contradict the dominant norms and values of the society of which that group is a part.”
1. Ideologically, countercultures adhere to a set of beliefs and values that radically reject the society’s dominant culture and prescribe an alternative set.
C. Every group forms an IDIOCULTURE, a system of shared knowledge, beliefs, behaviors, and customs created through enduring group interactions and shared experiences.
D. In most cultures, differences exist between what people are supposed to do and what they actually do; that is, there is a distinction between the IDEAL CULTURE and the REAL CULTURE. Regardless of the manner in which cultures are organized, all cultures share some basic concerns, known as CULTURAL UNIVERSALS. Food, shelter, and protection are examples.
E. A SOCIAL INSTITUTION is a system of norms, values, statuses, and roles that develops around a basic social goal.
1. All societies have particular institutions to meet their broad goals; they form the foundation of society. Five basic social institutions are defined in the text: the family, religion, education, economic, and political.
2. Institutions are systems of norms; social organizations are actual groups of people deliberately organized around some common interest. Both terms will be discussed further in the next chapters.
reference source
http://www.ega.edu/facweb/strickland/SOCI1101Online/CHAPTEROUTLINES/OutlineCHAPTER04.html
Cultural Relativism
Cultural Relativism
by
Mark Glazer
Cultural relativism in anthropology is a key methodological concept which is universally accepted within the discipline. This concept is based on theoretical considerations which are key to the understanding of "scientific" anthropology as they are key to the understanding of the anthropological frame of mind. Cultural relativism is an anthropological approach which posit that all cultures are of equal value and need to be studied from a neutral point of view. The study of a and/or any culture has to be done with a cold and neutral eye so that a particular culture can be understood at its own merits and not another culture’s. Historically, cultural relativism has had a twin theoretical approach, historical particularism. This is the notion that the proper way to study culture is to study one culture in depth. The implications of cultural relativism and historical particularism have been significant to anthropology and to the social sciences in general.
The roots of cultural relativism go to the rejection of the comparative school of the nineteenth century on the basis of exact and specific ethnological information. This information rejected the comparative school’s methodology and as a result its evolutionary conclusions. Furthermore, as the basis of cultural relativism is a scientific view of culture, it also rejects value judgments on cultures. There is, in this view, no single scale of values which holds true for all cultures and by which all culture can be judged. Beliefs, aesthetics, morals and other cultural items can only be judged through their relevance to a given culture. For example, good and bad in are culture specific and can not be imposed in cultural analysis. The reason for this view is, of course, that what is good in one culture may not be bad in an other. This indicates that every culture determines its own ethical judgments to regulate the proper behavior of its members. A result of this view is that it assumes that most individuals would prefer to live in the culture in which they have been enculturated. It must be added to the discussion above that the cultural in cultural relativism and historical particularism is about specific cultures and not about a more abstract, singular and general concept of culture.
The reasoning behind all this comes from two distinct sources, one of them is the reaction to the inaccuracies of the evolutionary schemes of the comparative school, the other the desire to study culture from an objective value perspective. To be a scientific concept culture has to be studied as an object without evaluative consideration. When we are not able to do that we no longer have a science of culture. Some anthropologist associated with this point of view are France Boas and, his students, Alfred Kroeber, Robert Lowie, Melville Herskovits, Ruth Benedict, Paul Radin, Margaret Mead, Ruth Bunzel and many others. Franz Boas is the key theoretician in this group.
Boas published his views on the comparative method in 1896. The article, "The Limitations of the Comparative Method of Anthropology," was the first exposition of cultural relativism. According to the tenets of cultural relativism, there are no inferior or superior cultures; all cultures are equal. To order cultures in an evolutionary scheme is unfeasible. All premises of good and bad and/or upper and lower are culture bound and ethnocentric. Put that way, we can see that schemes of evolution are ethnocentric not objective.
Here are four major limitations to the comparative method according to Boas: 1. It is impossible to account for similarity in all the types of culture by claiming that they are so because of the unity of the human mind. 2. The existence like traits in different cultures is not as important as the comparative school claims. 3. Similar traits may have developed for very different purposed in differing cultures. 4. The view that cultural differences are of minor importance is baseless. The differences between cultures are of major anthropological significance. Boas did not stop his critique of the comparative school at that point he also delineated a methodology to replace it. His new method emphasized the following: 1. Culture traits have to be studied in detail and within the cultural whole. 2. The distribution of a culture trait within neighboring cultures should also be looked at. This suggest that a culture needs to be analyzed within its full context.
Boas thought that this approach would help the anthropologist (1) to understand the environmental factors that shape a culture, (2) to explain the psychological factors that frame the culture, and (3) to explain the history of a local custom. Boas was trying to establish the inductive method in anthropology and abandon the comparative method. Boas emphasized that the primary goal of anthropology was to study individual societies and that generalizations could come only on the basis of accumulated data. His importance within the discipline is that anthropology should be objective and inductive science. In an age when the scientific method was important, this change in the discipline resulted in the establishment of anthropology in universities. Boas’ students were among the first to establish some of the most important anthropology programs on American campuses.
A point which must be added to the above discussion is that Boas attacked racism throughout his career; he summarizes his views on racism in The Mind of Primitive Man (1911). According to Boas the sweep of cultures, to be found in association with any sub species, is so extensive that there can be no relationship between race and culture.
Following Boas and his emphasis on studying as many societies as possible, Alfred Kroeber, the best known anthropologists of the period produced a good deal of ethnography. In his "Eighteen Professions" (1915), which is a credo, Kroeber affirms some of the basic tenets of cultural relativism: (1) all men are completely civilized, and (2) there are no higher and lower cultures. Much later in his career, Kroeber makes three additional points on cultural relativism, 1)that science should begin with questions and not with answers, 2)that science is a "dispassionate" endeavor which should not accept any ideology, and 3)that sweeping generalizations are not compatible with science. Another major cultural relativist of the period is Robert Lowie whose work is most significant among for cultural relativism.
Lowie probably came closer to Boas' views on the proper practice of anthropology than any other anthropologist of his time. He was deeply rooted in the philosophy of science and accepted cultural anthropology as a science. His views and criticism of theoreticians such as Morgan, are based on this scientific world view. His critique of Morgan's evolutionary theory is based on epistemology. Namely, that Morgan's evolutionary scheme of kinship had no proof. Furthermore, Morgan’s data was often erroneous. One of the most important practitioners of cultural relativism was Ruth Benedict.
For Benedict cultural anthropology is the discipline that studies the differences between cultures. This approach is fully Boasian in character. In this approach the plural "s" that was added to "culture" by Boas and others, becomes crucial. The interest has now shifted from culture to cultures. The focus has shifted to a particular culture and what happens to the individual in that culture. Furthermore, a culture is integrated, and it is more than the sum of its parts. Every culture is different from other culture. Benedict takes the Boasian program a step ahead. She does this through the concept of cultural configurations or patterns. Although her use of this approached is extremely reductionistic it represents a new direction in cultural relativism by transcending the data collection of historical particularism and attempting to organize the data in an explanatory manner.
The attempt to understand cultures at their own terms and the attempt to an objective ethnography are the major accomplishments of cultural relativism. These have sometimes led to a lack of theoretical depth and an undervaluation of the ethnographer’s own culture. However, the battle against ethnocentrism and the objective view of cultures remain permanent contributions of cultural relativism.
Mark Glazer
McAllen, Texas
December 16, 1994
Bibliography
Benedict, Ruth
1934 Patterns of Culture, New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Boas, Franz
1911 The Mind of Primitive Man, New York: Macmillan.
1948 Race, Language and Culture, New York: Macmillan. (This collection of Boas’ works contains some of his most important articles such as, "The limitations of the Comparative Method in Anthropology", 1896; "The Growth of Indian Mythologies," 1896).
Garbarino, Merwin S.
1977 Sociocultural Theory in Anthropology, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Goldschmidt, Walter1990 The Human Career, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Basil Blackwell.
Harris, Marvin
1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company
Kroeber, Alfred
1915 "The Eighteen Professions," American Anthropologist, 17:283-289.
1944 Configurations of Culture Growth, Berkeley: University of California Press.
1949 "An Authoritarian Panacea," American Anthropologist, 51:318-20.
Lowie, Robert
1936 "Lewis H. Morgan in Historical Perspective," Essays in Anthropology Presented to A. L. Kroeber, Berkeley: University of California Press.
1937 History of Ethnological Theory, New York: Farrar and Rinehart.
1944 "Franz Boas," Journal of American Folklore, 57:288-96.
reference source
http://www.utpa.edu/faculty/mglazer/Theory/cultural_relativism.htm
by
Mark Glazer
Cultural relativism in anthropology is a key methodological concept which is universally accepted within the discipline. This concept is based on theoretical considerations which are key to the understanding of "scientific" anthropology as they are key to the understanding of the anthropological frame of mind. Cultural relativism is an anthropological approach which posit that all cultures are of equal value and need to be studied from a neutral point of view. The study of a and/or any culture has to be done with a cold and neutral eye so that a particular culture can be understood at its own merits and not another culture’s. Historically, cultural relativism has had a twin theoretical approach, historical particularism. This is the notion that the proper way to study culture is to study one culture in depth. The implications of cultural relativism and historical particularism have been significant to anthropology and to the social sciences in general.
The roots of cultural relativism go to the rejection of the comparative school of the nineteenth century on the basis of exact and specific ethnological information. This information rejected the comparative school’s methodology and as a result its evolutionary conclusions. Furthermore, as the basis of cultural relativism is a scientific view of culture, it also rejects value judgments on cultures. There is, in this view, no single scale of values which holds true for all cultures and by which all culture can be judged. Beliefs, aesthetics, morals and other cultural items can only be judged through their relevance to a given culture. For example, good and bad in are culture specific and can not be imposed in cultural analysis. The reason for this view is, of course, that what is good in one culture may not be bad in an other. This indicates that every culture determines its own ethical judgments to regulate the proper behavior of its members. A result of this view is that it assumes that most individuals would prefer to live in the culture in which they have been enculturated. It must be added to the discussion above that the cultural in cultural relativism and historical particularism is about specific cultures and not about a more abstract, singular and general concept of culture.
The reasoning behind all this comes from two distinct sources, one of them is the reaction to the inaccuracies of the evolutionary schemes of the comparative school, the other the desire to study culture from an objective value perspective. To be a scientific concept culture has to be studied as an object without evaluative consideration. When we are not able to do that we no longer have a science of culture. Some anthropologist associated with this point of view are France Boas and, his students, Alfred Kroeber, Robert Lowie, Melville Herskovits, Ruth Benedict, Paul Radin, Margaret Mead, Ruth Bunzel and many others. Franz Boas is the key theoretician in this group.
Boas published his views on the comparative method in 1896. The article, "The Limitations of the Comparative Method of Anthropology," was the first exposition of cultural relativism. According to the tenets of cultural relativism, there are no inferior or superior cultures; all cultures are equal. To order cultures in an evolutionary scheme is unfeasible. All premises of good and bad and/or upper and lower are culture bound and ethnocentric. Put that way, we can see that schemes of evolution are ethnocentric not objective.
Here are four major limitations to the comparative method according to Boas: 1. It is impossible to account for similarity in all the types of culture by claiming that they are so because of the unity of the human mind. 2. The existence like traits in different cultures is not as important as the comparative school claims. 3. Similar traits may have developed for very different purposed in differing cultures. 4. The view that cultural differences are of minor importance is baseless. The differences between cultures are of major anthropological significance. Boas did not stop his critique of the comparative school at that point he also delineated a methodology to replace it. His new method emphasized the following: 1. Culture traits have to be studied in detail and within the cultural whole. 2. The distribution of a culture trait within neighboring cultures should also be looked at. This suggest that a culture needs to be analyzed within its full context.
Boas thought that this approach would help the anthropologist (1) to understand the environmental factors that shape a culture, (2) to explain the psychological factors that frame the culture, and (3) to explain the history of a local custom. Boas was trying to establish the inductive method in anthropology and abandon the comparative method. Boas emphasized that the primary goal of anthropology was to study individual societies and that generalizations could come only on the basis of accumulated data. His importance within the discipline is that anthropology should be objective and inductive science. In an age when the scientific method was important, this change in the discipline resulted in the establishment of anthropology in universities. Boas’ students were among the first to establish some of the most important anthropology programs on American campuses.
A point which must be added to the above discussion is that Boas attacked racism throughout his career; he summarizes his views on racism in The Mind of Primitive Man (1911). According to Boas the sweep of cultures, to be found in association with any sub species, is so extensive that there can be no relationship between race and culture.
Following Boas and his emphasis on studying as many societies as possible, Alfred Kroeber, the best known anthropologists of the period produced a good deal of ethnography. In his "Eighteen Professions" (1915), which is a credo, Kroeber affirms some of the basic tenets of cultural relativism: (1) all men are completely civilized, and (2) there are no higher and lower cultures. Much later in his career, Kroeber makes three additional points on cultural relativism, 1)that science should begin with questions and not with answers, 2)that science is a "dispassionate" endeavor which should not accept any ideology, and 3)that sweeping generalizations are not compatible with science. Another major cultural relativist of the period is Robert Lowie whose work is most significant among for cultural relativism.
Lowie probably came closer to Boas' views on the proper practice of anthropology than any other anthropologist of his time. He was deeply rooted in the philosophy of science and accepted cultural anthropology as a science. His views and criticism of theoreticians such as Morgan, are based on this scientific world view. His critique of Morgan's evolutionary theory is based on epistemology. Namely, that Morgan's evolutionary scheme of kinship had no proof. Furthermore, Morgan’s data was often erroneous. One of the most important practitioners of cultural relativism was Ruth Benedict.
For Benedict cultural anthropology is the discipline that studies the differences between cultures. This approach is fully Boasian in character. In this approach the plural "s" that was added to "culture" by Boas and others, becomes crucial. The interest has now shifted from culture to cultures. The focus has shifted to a particular culture and what happens to the individual in that culture. Furthermore, a culture is integrated, and it is more than the sum of its parts. Every culture is different from other culture. Benedict takes the Boasian program a step ahead. She does this through the concept of cultural configurations or patterns. Although her use of this approached is extremely reductionistic it represents a new direction in cultural relativism by transcending the data collection of historical particularism and attempting to organize the data in an explanatory manner.
The attempt to understand cultures at their own terms and the attempt to an objective ethnography are the major accomplishments of cultural relativism. These have sometimes led to a lack of theoretical depth and an undervaluation of the ethnographer’s own culture. However, the battle against ethnocentrism and the objective view of cultures remain permanent contributions of cultural relativism.
Mark Glazer
McAllen, Texas
December 16, 1994
Bibliography
Benedict, Ruth
1934 Patterns of Culture, New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Boas, Franz
1911 The Mind of Primitive Man, New York: Macmillan.
1948 Race, Language and Culture, New York: Macmillan. (This collection of Boas’ works contains some of his most important articles such as, "The limitations of the Comparative Method in Anthropology", 1896; "The Growth of Indian Mythologies," 1896).
Garbarino, Merwin S.
1977 Sociocultural Theory in Anthropology, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Goldschmidt, Walter1990 The Human Career, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Basil Blackwell.
Harris, Marvin
1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company
Kroeber, Alfred
1915 "The Eighteen Professions," American Anthropologist, 17:283-289.
1944 Configurations of Culture Growth, Berkeley: University of California Press.
1949 "An Authoritarian Panacea," American Anthropologist, 51:318-20.
Lowie, Robert
1936 "Lewis H. Morgan in Historical Perspective," Essays in Anthropology Presented to A. L. Kroeber, Berkeley: University of California Press.
1937 History of Ethnological Theory, New York: Farrar and Rinehart.
1944 "Franz Boas," Journal of American Folklore, 57:288-96.
reference source
http://www.utpa.edu/faculty/mglazer/Theory/cultural_relativism.htm
Why is ethnocentrism bad?
Ethnocentrism leads us to make false assumptions about cultural differences. We are ethnocentric when we use our cultural norms to make generalizations about other peoples' cultures and customs. Such generalizations -- often made without a conscious awareness that we've used our culture as a universal yardstick -- can be way off base and cause us to misjudge other peoples. Ethnocentrism also distorts communication between human beings.
Ethnocentric thinking causes us to make wrong assumptions about other people because . . .
Ethnocentrism leads us to make premature judgments.
"They" may not be very good at what we are best at.
By evaluating "them" by what we are best at, we miss the many other aspects of life that they often handle more competently than we do.
Some very simple examples of ethnocentric thinking. . .
We often talk about British drivers driving "on the wrong side" of the road. Why not just say "opposite side" or even "left hand side"?
We talk about written Hebrew as reading "backward." Why not just say "from right to left" or "in the opposite direction from English."
We encourage SNU students going on short-term missions to use the phrase "Oh, that's different" rather than more pejorative terms when encountering strange customs or foods.
Xenocentrism
The opposite of ethnocentrism is xenocentrism which means preferring ideas and things from other cultures over ideas and things from your own culture. At the heart of xenocentrism is an assumption that other cultures are superior to your own.
reference
http://home.snu.edu/~HCULBERT/ethno.htm
Ethnocentric thinking causes us to make wrong assumptions about other people because . . .
Ethnocentrism leads us to make premature judgments.
"They" may not be very good at what we are best at.
By evaluating "them" by what we are best at, we miss the many other aspects of life that they often handle more competently than we do.
Some very simple examples of ethnocentric thinking. . .
We often talk about British drivers driving "on the wrong side" of the road. Why not just say "opposite side" or even "left hand side"?
We talk about written Hebrew as reading "backward." Why not just say "from right to left" or "in the opposite direction from English."
We encourage SNU students going on short-term missions to use the phrase "Oh, that's different" rather than more pejorative terms when encountering strange customs or foods.
Xenocentrism
The opposite of ethnocentrism is xenocentrism which means preferring ideas and things from other cultures over ideas and things from your own culture. At the heart of xenocentrism is an assumption that other cultures are superior to your own.
reference
http://home.snu.edu/~HCULBERT/ethno.htm
Ethnocentrism
Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism – is there a biblical alternative to these two extremes?
Ethnocentrism is the view that one particular ethnic group is somehow superior to all others. The word ethnocentrism derives from the Greek word ethnos, meaning “nation” or “people,” and the English word center. A common idiom for ethnocentrism is “tunnel vision.” In this context, ethnocentrism is the view that a particular ethnic group’s system of beliefs and values is morally superior to all others.
Cultural relativism is the view that individual beliefs and values systems are culturally relative. That is, no one ethnic group has the right to say that their particular system of beliefs and values, their worldview, is in any way superior to anyone else’s system of beliefs and values. What’s right for one culture might be wrong for another and that’s alright. There is no absolute standard of right and wrong by which to compare and contrast morally contradictory cultural values.
Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are mutually exclusive. They are two extremes on the opposite sides of a philosophical spectrum. Is there a biblical alternative to these two extremes? There is. There is a third extreme. Theocentrism is the view that God is superior to everyone else. The word theocentrism derives from the Greek word theos, meaning “God” or “gods,” and the English word center. In this context, theocentrism refers to the view that God’s system of beliefs and values is morally superior to all others. It is perfect. It’s the absolute standard by which we are to judge everyone else’s system of beliefs and values.
Theocentrism is similar to ethnocentrism in that it posits the existence of an absolute value system. In this way, theocentrism contradicts cultural relativism in that cultural relativism denies an absolute standard. Theocentrism is not however entirely compatible with ethnocentrism in that theocentrism is God centered rather than man centered.
How does this translate practically? The implications are that whenever it can be determined convincingly that God has spoken on matters of faith and values (how He feels about murder or stealing, for example) His view is to be accepted and adopted regardless of any controversy surrounding the subject matter. (In this case, murder and stealing are wrong). Wherever God has remained silent a matter or has given man freedom to decide for himself (which is the case for most cultural preferences), we are to decide for ourselves what we prefer. We cannot however justly prejudice ourselves against those who disagree with us because God has not given us a standard by which we are to judge who’s right or wrong. In these instances, we are to be tolerant towards those who hold contradictory views. In this way, theocentrism is different from both ethnocentrism and cultural relativism.
reference
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/ethnocentrism-faq.htm
Ethnocentrism is the view that one particular ethnic group is somehow superior to all others. The word ethnocentrism derives from the Greek word ethnos, meaning “nation” or “people,” and the English word center. A common idiom for ethnocentrism is “tunnel vision.” In this context, ethnocentrism is the view that a particular ethnic group’s system of beliefs and values is morally superior to all others.
Cultural relativism is the view that individual beliefs and values systems are culturally relative. That is, no one ethnic group has the right to say that their particular system of beliefs and values, their worldview, is in any way superior to anyone else’s system of beliefs and values. What’s right for one culture might be wrong for another and that’s alright. There is no absolute standard of right and wrong by which to compare and contrast morally contradictory cultural values.
Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are mutually exclusive. They are two extremes on the opposite sides of a philosophical spectrum. Is there a biblical alternative to these two extremes? There is. There is a third extreme. Theocentrism is the view that God is superior to everyone else. The word theocentrism derives from the Greek word theos, meaning “God” or “gods,” and the English word center. In this context, theocentrism refers to the view that God’s system of beliefs and values is morally superior to all others. It is perfect. It’s the absolute standard by which we are to judge everyone else’s system of beliefs and values.
Theocentrism is similar to ethnocentrism in that it posits the existence of an absolute value system. In this way, theocentrism contradicts cultural relativism in that cultural relativism denies an absolute standard. Theocentrism is not however entirely compatible with ethnocentrism in that theocentrism is God centered rather than man centered.
How does this translate practically? The implications are that whenever it can be determined convincingly that God has spoken on matters of faith and values (how He feels about murder or stealing, for example) His view is to be accepted and adopted regardless of any controversy surrounding the subject matter. (In this case, murder and stealing are wrong). Wherever God has remained silent a matter or has given man freedom to decide for himself (which is the case for most cultural preferences), we are to decide for ourselves what we prefer. We cannot however justly prejudice ourselves against those who disagree with us because God has not given us a standard by which we are to judge who’s right or wrong. In these instances, we are to be tolerant towards those who hold contradictory views. In this way, theocentrism is different from both ethnocentrism and cultural relativism.
reference
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/ethnocentrism-faq.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
