Marvin Harris' Cultural Materialism' Kenneth E

Home , Marvin Harris

JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR 1985, 439 279-287 NUMBER 2 (MARCH) BEHA VIORAL ANTHROPOLOGY: A REVIEW OF MARVIN HARRIS' CULTURAL MATERIALISM' KENNETH E. LLOYD DRAKE UNIVERSITY

Once upon a time men and women followed, B.C., some alternatives to raising all the chased, or guided herds of Pleistocene Mega- children must have been practiced. fauna (woolly mammoth, cave bear, giant elk) In such a transportable society, groups were across the grasslands south of the glaciers ill-defined. Individual pairs or families joined in the northern hemisphere. Band members of or left a band of, say, 25 to 50 persons at dif- both sexes and many age groups followed ferent places, at different seasons, during wounded prey, scavenged carcasses, and changes in hunting success, or during intra- stalked young animals. The continual move- group quarrels. Having separated from its ment (perhaps 1200 miles per year between parent population, a divergent group could campsites) required to follow the infrahuman enjoy a standard ofliving equal to the one they herds was incompatible with having large had left. numbers of children to carry about. The high The human bands ate not only meat but protein, low carbohydrate meat diet of the many different kinds of plants and seeds as bands, combined with frequent nursing (Lee, well. They also tracked ripening seeds, some- 1979), probably contributed to long periods of times harvesting part of a crop, sometimes lactation and to later onset of menstruation, diverting melt waters to irrigate particular both ofwhich delay ovulation and decrease the fields, sometimes transplanting mature spec- number of children each woman is likely to imens to different areas, sometimes actually produce in a lifetime. This birth control pro- planting seeds before leaving an area (Cultural cedure combined with a nonviolent form of in- Materialism, p. 86). Band member also kept in- fanticide based on neglect may have main- frahuman pets. Long before sedentary agri- tained a stable human population of perhaps culture came into fashion, humans had en- 100,000,000 persons (Harris, 1977, p. 155; gaged in the component repertoires that to- hereafter cited as Cannibals and Kings) for gether constitute the behavior we call farming. perhaps three million years (Harris, 1979, pp. This behavior appeared in the Indus, the 67-68; hereafter cited as Cultural Matrialism). Yellow, and the Mekong River valleys, the The potential human breeding population Mexican Highlands, and coastal Peru as well over this time could have numbered 600 x 10 as the more familiar Tigris and Euphrates to the 21st power (Cannibals and Kings, pp. River valleys. Agriculture was not the sudden 16-17). Because the human population did not invention of some creative genius acting out of begin to increase significantly until about 3000 intuition, but a shaping and combining of the existing repertoires of very large numbers of people. 1 Harris, M. (1979). Cultural materialism: The struggle Other areas of human interest probably de- for a science of culture. New York: Random House. xii + 381 pp., including bibliography and index. veloped similarly. The arts did not await the I thank Louis A. Marano for critically reading an emergence of a leisure class. Instead, artistic earlier draft of this paper. My review has benefited band members decorated the walls of caves greatly from discussions for which Marvin Harris has where they lived during certain seasons of the generously made himself available. Reprint requests year (Ucko & Rosenfeld, 1967). Antlers re- should be addressed to the author, Department of Psychology, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa covered from their fire pits contain carvings of 50311. star constellations by fledgling astronomers. 279 280 KENNETH E. LLOYD Human interest in features of the sky, such as ± 2000 years ago-just about the time of the the moon and stars (ubiquitous conditional disappearance of the Pleistocene Mega- and/or discriminative stimuli) predated by far fauna- as the temperate belts of the earth the development of agriculture, where its use- warmed and dried (Cannibals and Kings, pp. fulness is obvious. Foreknowledge of moon 69-82). With diminished herds, the benefits of cycles could, however, predict favorable hunt- planting seeds exceeded the benefits of hunting and fishing, not to mention one of prelit- ing. Some smaller infrahuman mammals (es- erate peoples' greatest fascinations, the pecially goats and sheep) hung around the out- menstrual cycle. skirts of tended fields where eating stubble came to be less costly for the goat than wide In most band and village societies before the foraging on terrain that was becoming more evolution of the state, the average human desertlike. The convenience of stationary enjoyed economic and political freedoms sources of milk and meat to the humans out- which only a privileged minority enjoy to- weighed the cost of the grain that kept the day. Men decided for themselves how long goats and cows nearby. As more land came to they would work on a particular day, what be planted, harvests increased. The seeds from they would work at - if they would work at the grain, unlike the meat from the great all. Women, too, despite their subordina- herds, could be stored and eaten later without tion to men, generally set up their own daily lost nutritive value. schedules and paced themselves on an in- These several variables - the depletion of dividual basis.... If the cultures of the great herds, the slow settling down to modern band and village peoples can be sedentary agriculture, the domestication of relied upon to reveal the past, work got cloven-hooved species, a grain-storage tech- done this way for tens ofthousands ofyears. nology, the maintenance of fixed areas of With the rise of the state all of this was land - and not the biting of an Eden garden swept away .... ordinary men seeking to apple - produced the downfall of humans. use nature's bounty had to get someone The intensification of agricultural production else's permission and had to pay for it with relieved the increasing population pressures taxes, tribute, or extra labor.... For the only temporarily. Although hunters can im- first time there appeared on earth kings, prove their hunting skills, they cannot increase dictators, high priests, emperors, prime their prey in the same sense that a farmer can ministers, lawyers, and jailers, along with intensify his production of domestic grain and dungeons, jails, penitentiaries, and concen- goats. Individuals who could increase produc- tration camps. Under the tutelage of the tion to match the increased reproduction be- state, human beings learned for the first came valuable to the survival of social groups. time how to bow, grovel, kneel, and kow- tow. In many ways the rise of the state was Anthropologists refer to the intensifiers of the descent of the world from freedom to agricultural production as 'big men.' . . . slavery. (Cannibals and Kings, pp. 69-70) Under certain ecological conditions, and in the presence of warfare, these food man- By the end of the Pleistocene, world popula- agers could have gradually set themselves tion was increasing. Splinter groups did not above their followers and become the orig- fare as well as parent groups; strife, feuding, inal nucleus of the ruling classes of the first and small-scale wars of territoriality occurred. states. (Cannibals and Kings, pp. 70-71) All of this increased dramatically as an agricultural mode of production began, because A Big Man who controlled the granary there was less good farm land than foraging could support a protective army. This need for land and because people now had some fixed soldiers increased further the value of male resources to protect. The previously estab- over female infants. As redistribution became lished agricultural behavior became more fre- customary, centers for redistribution -tombs, quent in the several river valleys some 12,000 monuments, pyramids, henges, temples-came REVIEW OF CULTURAL MATERIALISM 281 into existence. Over many generations slow and Skinner offer explanations of non- shifts in redistribution practices occurred: laboratory behavior that include a suggested from giving grain followed by a feast to giving history of behavior-environment interactions money as tax followed by a feast; from re- and a system of principles describing how distributing food immediately at a feast to behavior is affected by classes of environmen- promises of much greater redistributions in a tal events. Harris and Skinner differ in their forthcoming life after death. identifications of the kinds ofbehavior deemed What I find most remarkable about the worthy of analysis. Behavior analysts try to evolution ofpristine states is that it occurred identify the fundamental principles of the as the result of an unconscious process: The behavior of individual organisms. The par- participants in this enormous transforma- ticular topography of the behavior or the kind tion seem not to have known what they of organism that emits it is secondary. Harris were creating. By imperceptible shifts in the is interested in behavior that becomes charac- one generation teristic of a social group. Having identified redistributive balance from such behavior, he then attempts an analysis in to the next, the human species bound itself terms of benefits and costs, much as Skinner over into a form of social life in which the does with reinforcers and punishers. This many debased themselves on behalf of the seems a compatible division of labor between exaltation of the few. (Cannibals and Kings, social and behavioral sciences. pp. 81-82) So far anthropologists in general have overlooked the relevance of behavior analysis to SOURCES anthropology. Simple parsimony would rec- The preceding scenario is a paraphrased ommend it over its competitors (e.g., Piagetan version of an innovative theoretical position in conservation in Cole & Scribner, 1974). But anthropology. The major proponent is Marvin anthropologists, like mainstream psychol- Harris, whose wide range of publications has ogists, have opted for less parsimony and established him as one of the discipline's greater vagueness (e.g., Simoons, 1979). foremost theorists (e.g., The Rise of An- Harris tries to cut through proliferating anthropological Theory, 1968; Cultural Matrialism: thropological concepts much as Skinner tried The Strugglefor a Science of Culture, 1979) as well to reduce psychological terminology to a rel- as one of its most engaging ambassadors (e.g., atively few empirical notions. Both have been Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches, 1974; Cannibals viewed as outside the mainstream of their and Kings, 1977; America Now: The Anthropology respective fields. One difference is that Harris ofa Changing Culture, 1981). The foundations of frequently cites his critics and opponents at Harris' theory involve the sequence of produc- length (Cultural Materialism, pp. 115-341), tion, reproduction, intensification, depletion, whereas Skinner's publications are character- more intensification, and so on, as sketched ized by especially sparse reference lists (but see above in the scenario. Although his conceptual Skinner, 1984, pp. 947-950, for an exception). terms are different from those of the behav- Given the greater likelihood that authors read iorist, it is clear that these processes take place articles in which they are cited, it seems likely as enviromental variables change, operating in that Harris makes contact with a broader spec- turn to shape behavior in new directions or to trum of anthropologists than do behavior alter the reinforcers maintaining response analysts with mainstream psychologists. classes relative to each other. Behavior analysts should be reading Harris. MATERIALISM He is a friend. An interviewer in Psychology To- CULTURAL day (Tavris, 1975), concentrating on Harris' Harris calls his outlook Cultural Mater- views of sex roles, overlooked the relevance of ialism. The resemblance between this and the his writings to extensions of the analysis of label of dialectical materialism is clearly behavior (e.g., Skinner, 1953). Both Harris deliberate. His acknowledged indebtedness to 282 KENNETH E. LLOYD and quoting of Karl Marx will seem excessive These contrasts seem to parallel those be- to psychologists who seldom cite 19th-century tween behavior analysis and contemporary sources. For anthropologists, however, dialec- cognitive theory (e.g., memory [Wasserman, tical materialism and structural Marxism are 1981], social behavior [Mook, 1983]). In social positions to be reckoned with (Cultural Mater- psychology, the maxim that one must change ialism, pp. 141-164, 216-257). Cultural mater- attitudes before changing behavior is frequently ialism differs sharply from conventional Marx- cited (e.g., Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) to illus- ist materialism in rejecting the inevitability of trate the prior control of cognition over behav- the Hegelian dialectic and in stressing means ior, although the maxiim often lacks empirical of reproduction, ecology, and epidemiology, support (O'Riordan, 1976; Wicker, 1969). At in addition to the more familiar means of pro- least one social psychologist has argued the duction, as fundamental variables determining opposite (Bem, 1972)-that one must change patterns of social behavior. Means of reproduc- behavior before changing attitudes. Unlike tion may be read as the 'production," if you Harris or Bem, behavior analysts view this will, of human beings; in other words, it refers issue as an empirical relationship among ver- to demographic patterns in human populations. bal and nonverbal response classes (Lloyd, Cultural materialism differs from main- 1980), which may or may not be functionally stream anthropology in ways that are analo- related to prior verbal behavior (Catania, gous to the differences between behavior anal- Matthews, & Shimoff, 1982; Risley & Hart, ysis and mainstream psychology. For ex- 1968). Any relationships that do exist pre- ample, cultural materialism argues that overt sumably depend upon reinforcement histories. responses to environmental variables are fol- Finally, behaviorism and cultural mater- lowed by verbal (mental) rationalizations or ialism seem to share a general optimism in attributions of why the responses occur outlook, in the sense that human behavior is (Cultural Matrialism, pp. 58 ff). This is in con- seen as a function of observable variables that, trast (Harris argues) to the prevalent assump- at least in theory, can be changed, thereby tion among anthropologists that thoughts and changing behavior. These are optimistic out- mental processes (cognitions) precede (or looks in comparison to those that stress mental cause) behavior. structures or biological origins. Changing the The mode of production in material life variables that control behavior is sometimes determines the general character of the soc- ignored or viewed pessimistically as tragedy ial, political, and spiritual processes of life. (Hardin, 1968) or as 'the remorseless workings It is not the consciousness of men that of things" (Whitehead, 1925, p. 17). determines their existence, but on the con- trary, their social existence determines their PRINCIPLES OF consciousness. (Marx, 1859, cited in Cul- CULTURAL MATERIALISM tural Materialism, p. 55) The major components of anthropological Production of the immediate material theory in cultural materialism are infrastruc- means of subsistence . .. forms the founda- ture, structure, and superstructure. Infra- tion upon which state institutions, the legal structure indudes the means of production conceptions, the art and even the religious and reproduction. Every society must cope ideas of the people concerned have evolved, with subsistence levels and population size in ... instead of vice versa as has hitherto been terms of its existing habitat and technology. the case. (Engels' eulogy at Marx's grave, The infrastructural component includes food cited in Cultural Materialism, pp. 141-142) sources and the skills with which people obtain The human intuition concerning the pri- food from these sources. The stability of the ority of thought over behavior is worth just food sources in turn depends upon other infra- about as much as our human intuition that structural variables, such as geological and the earth is flat. (Cultural Materialism, p. 60) meteorological factors, as well as the ways in REVIEW OF CULTURAL MATERIALISM 283 which people reproduce. The stable birth rate fallow periods) suggests one possible set of of ice age hunter-gatherers was a part of their criteria. To illustrate, the ways of building infrastructure that contributed to their well be- houses are notoriously similar around the ing. The structural and superstructural com- world. ponents refer to social behavior involved in A strange conservatism marks the entire domestic (intragroup) economies and political development of housing. Certainly men (intergroup) economies and to institutional have not concentrated interest or attention features such as religion, recreation, and the on the problem of providing functionally arts. Including the means of reproduction sound housing with anything like the degree within the infrastructure rather than within of structure or superstructure is important, be- assiduity with which problems of myth cause infrastructural variables are considered making, religion, art, song and dance have primary, determining both structural and been treated. (Hoebel, 1972, p. 290) superstructural features. For example, birth Houses are built with sloping roofs because rates, rather than being explained in terms of these shed rain or snow and with walls because religious beliefs (a superstructural variable), these repel wind and temperature extremes. are related to protein and carbohydrate in the Physical and environmental variables are cer- diet and to variables that affect nursing. Struc- tainly recognized but are not stressed, and tural and superstructural features develop discussions of houses may be lumped with secondarily from this infrastructural base. discussions of number systems, myths, or This is Harris' principle of infrastructural religion. determinism and is, of course, the basis for In behavioral terms, similar patterns of much of his conflict with cognitively oriented behavior across cultures (seeking shelter, anthropologists. devising a number system) may depend upon The primacy of infrastructure is based upon the maintenance of these repertoires by com- two fundamental notions: humans, like other mon consequences that derive from natural species, 'must expend energy to obtain energy laws rather than upon verbal behavior in- . . . and . . . our ability to produce children is directly related to those laws. The fertility of a greater than our ability to obtain energy for swidden field is more a function of the chem- them" (Cultural Matrialism, p. 56). The study ical composition ofthe ashes from burned trees of social groups becomes an analysis of how and brush than it is of the incantations of the the groups arrange 'a balance between repro- local priest. For a contrasting example, con- duction and the production and consumption sider that in Papua New Guinea linguists of energy" (Cultural Materialism, p. 56). In- recognize some 700 different languages among frastructure is the basic interface between cul- the village groups. Many of these languages ture and nature; structure and superstructure differ in their number systems. Some use base are increasingly remote from this fundamental ten, like European systems; others use base 5, relation. "Nature is indifferent to whether God 15, or 20, all of which appear correlated with is a loving father or a bloodthirsty cannibal. various combinations of thumbs, fingers, and But nature is not indifferent to whether the toes (Lancy, 1978). Still other systems use base fallow period in a swidden field is one year or 53 or 63, which locate ordinal positions on ten" (Cultural Materialism, p. 57). many more body parts (the odd-numbered This distinction in terms of nature's indif- base derives from humans' having only one ference or lack thereof has implications for a nose). Despite these varying verbal organiza- general issue in anthropology: when to expect tions of the number system, Papuans counting differences or simnilarities in cultural practices. their valuable pigs rely on ordinal systems that Although anthropology has recognized both provide a count corresponding to the nonver- cultural differences and similarities, it typically bal number of pigs in the village. has not emphasized criteria for identifying Although Harris analyzes structural and their occurrence. The preceding quotation (on superstructural factors in the same way as he 284 KENNETH E. LLOYD analyzes infrastructural variables, he does not labeled edible or inedible, but also to explain lump them together. Instead he searches the how cannibalism developed in the Mexican infrastructure for revelant variables determin- Highlands and not in Europe, China, Peru, or ing the structure, and the structure for var- the Pacific Northwest; or how the pig was iables likely to determine the superstructure. eaten in China but was vilified and not eaten The problem he sees in the relationship be- in the Middle East, whereas the cow was not tween production and reproduction is that only not eaten but deified in India. cultures have used their technological im- One could ask a sample of the people in- provement of energy consumption not to re- volved how the practice began, but, in Harris' duce permanently the labor requirements spe- view, verbal descriptions of their cultural prac- cific to a given mode of production or to im- tices (their superstructure) evolved after (not prove living conditions over the long term, but before) the cultural practices were generated to produce more children. The resulting dem- by infrastructural variables. ographic crises, in turn, produced contingencies that reinforced shifts to ever more What people think or imagine is contempti- energy-expensive modes of production. Harris ble to the gods cannot be taken as an ex- argues that during the last 3000 years (at least planation of their religious beliefs and prac- in the norther hemisphere) our changing tech- tices. To do so is to rest the explanation of nologies in agriculture and warfare have in- all social life ultimately on what people arbi- creased the hours we work, the people we kill, trarily think or imagine -a strategy doomed and the babies we produce (in comparison to to nullify all intelligent inquiry since it will the relatively stable systems that existed in always come down to one useless refrain: prehistory). We could halve our population in- People think or imagine what they think or stead of working twice as hard, but 'one large imagine. (Cannibals and Kings, p. 120) problem"- namely, heterosexual activity - in- Instead of beginning with the verbal reports of terferes (Cannibals and Kings, p. 5). natives, Harris analyzes infrastructure. The origins of the sacred cow and the tabooed pig STRUCTURE AND (Cannibals and Kings, pp. 127-152) derive from SUPERSTRUCTURE AS A FUNCTION parallel analyses. As the glaciers melted and OF INFRASTRUCTURE the world dried, early Indians and early Mid- dle Easterners raised cattle, sheep, goats, Harris does not end his analysis with the in- wheat, millet, and barley, and they ate meat. frastructural problems of production and re- To understand the pork taboo in the Middle production. His work is most interesting and East, Harris notes that cows, sheep, and goats most controversial when he analyzes a partic- can be easily herded, two of them not only ular feature of structure or superstructure in readily produce milk but can be trained to pull terms of its infrastructure. Readers will not be plows or carts, and the third repeatedly pro- surprised to learn that domesticated plants and duces wool. Pigs, on the other hand, whose animals peculiar to the ecological climate of, skin requires considerable moisture, are a say, Palestine flourish there, but specific liability in a climate becoming increasingly hypotheses about how that infrastructure led dry. Moreover, pigs are difficult to herd, do to a priestly taboo on eating pork, as well as not readily pull a plow or wagon, and cannot eating food from a host of other species, may be milked. Farmers who discarded their pigs be unexpected (Cannibals and Kings, p. 134). were probably more prosperous. An outright Harris, however, proceeds energetically to of- ban on the eating, if not the production, of fer environmentally observable variables to ac- pigs safeguarded against unprofitable farming. count for specific structural and superstruc- To understand the beef taboo, Harris notes tural customs. that although Indians also experienced the in- The problem is not only to explain how this tensification of agriculture, depletion of or that animal (induding the human one) is resources, and growth of population density REVIEW OF CULTURAL MATERIALISM 285 that had occurred in the Middle East and ation is reminiscent of the difficulties some China, population density increased more in psychologists encounter with distinctions be- the Ganges River valley than elsewhere. tween transition states and steady states of The Gangetic plain, which had once been behavior (e.g., Chapman &Jones, 1980, where tree covered, had no trees by 300 B.C., when Hullian and operant analyses are repeatedly the beef taboo became widespread. As the risk confused). of drought increased, farms became smaller EMICS AND ETICS and space for animals decreased. Traction animals were essential. Without horses or donkeys The distinction between nonverbal and ver- the burden of pulling a plow fell to the oxen. bal behavior is implicit in Harris' account of The farmer who ate his beef was not able to the way in which infrastructural variables plow his fields. The taboo ofbeef removed this precede the verbal trappings that subsequently temptation, much as that of pork had done. develop to rationalize social customs. For ex- But this does not explain why the pig was ample, what Hindu farmers say about sacred abominated while the cow was deified. Accord- cows and what they do about them when food ing to Harris, the difference occurrs because is scarce are apparently under the control of pigs have but one value (meat) whereas bo- different contingencies. Confusion arises when vines have more than one (meat, milk, and anthropologists do not distinguish between traction). Oxen plow more efficiently than what they (the anthropologists) say about what cows, but though the meat of both is tabooed, Hindu farmers say and what they (the anthro- only the cow is deified. Despite their role as pologists) say about what Hindu farmers ac- goddesses, cows roam freely as scavengers in tually do. Harris treats these parallel accounts rural and urban areas of India and Nepal but (what the natives say and what the visiting an- oxen are carefully stabled each night. The In- thropologists later write) in his discussion of dian cattle census reveals a 200: 100 ratio emic and etic events (Cultural Matrialism, pp. favoring oxen:cows where male traction ani- 38-41). He describes how an anthropologist's mals are needed. This ratio varies across India account of village customs (an etic analysis) depending upon availibility of feed and upon might differ from a native's account, and how availability of alternative traction animals a native's account of the same custom might (Vaidyanathan, Nair, & Harris, 1982). The differ from how natives act (a mental and ratio drops to 67:100 where traction needs are behavioral emic analysis). Instead of consider- low and food is scarce (Cultural Materialism, p. ing these various combinations as controlled 38). Harris interprets these sex ratios as in- by different contingencies, Harris assigns the dicating some form of unspoken bovicide responses of natives and of anthropologists to (e.g., Hindu farmers sometimes may gently, different formal categories-namely, mental or possibly not so gently, shove newborn and behavioral domains, and emic and etic calves away from the cow's teats [Cultural domains. Materialism, pp. 32-33]). Harris treatment of the emic-etic domain Harris' critics argue sharply at this point may derive from his view of language as some (see Freed & Freed, 1981, for a vigorous mixture of formal linguistics and functional sampler) that the behavior of Hindu farmers is analysis. Some of his discussion is consonant controlled by religious beliefs and not by the with a behavioral view of language and some cost/benefit ratios of feeding oxen. Harris does is not. Unlike all other social behavior de- not deny that now, and in recent history, reli- scribed in Cannibals and Kings and Cultural gious teachings together with social sanctions Materialism, language is generally viewed as control some behavior of Hindu people. Unlike separate and distinct from infrastructural his critics, however, he distinguishes between variables (Cultural Materialism, pp.54-55). Har- the evolution of social customs with changes in ris' separation of language and infrastructure infrastructural variables and the subsequent represents a major difference between cultural maintenance of these new customs. This situ- materialism and behavior analysis. 286 KENNETH E. LLOYD Perhaps generally accepted practices and responses to environmental events (as Harris theories of language throughout the social relates behavior to contingencies arising from sciences, including anthropology and psychol- the infrastructure); emphasis on steady states ogy, contribute to this difference. In conduct- of behavior rather than on transitional states ing field work, anthropologists (more than (as Harris distinguishes current cultural prac- other scientists) must acquire skill in a local tices from their origins); the distinction be- language. When learning a language, anthro- tween stimulus control and reinforcement con- polgists frequently rely on missionary organ- trol; and the comparison of cross-species data izations (e.g., Wycliffe Bible Translators) for bases in psychology with cross-cultural data practical language instruction. 'But the bases in anthropology (Saigh & Umar, 1983). theories (anthropologists) use for learning Harris provides an impressive beginning languages and for understanding them are dif- from which a dialogue may develop. For be- ferent" (Johnston & Selby, 1978, p. 318, havior analysts, a conversation with Harris is parentheses added). When trying to under- immediately more rewarding than one with stand language, anthropologists (and other many a mainstream psychologist. Harris has social scientists) often rely on Chomsky's already debated (Cultural Matrialism, pp. (1975) transformational grammar. This wide 117-341) theoretical alternatives with which divergence of practice and theory must serve behavior analysts are acquainted-structur- to maintain our traditional ways of viewing alism, cognitivism, eclecticism. Given that language as somehow distinct from behavior. conflicting theories are not an issue, the conversation can begin immediately with the in- teraction of behavior and infrastructure. AN INTERFACE Harris offers an account of behavior re- REFERENCES markably compatible with behavior analysis; Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. behavioral principles are not yet seen as com- Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York: Academic patible with cultural materialism. Anthro- Press. pologists present human behavior within an Catania, A. C., Matthews, B. A., & Shimoff, E. impressive and comprehensive evolutionary (1982). Instructed versus shaped human verbal behavior: Interactions with nonverbal responding. and social context based on observations com- Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, bined with principles from archeology, biol- 233-248. ogy, chemistry, geology, linguistics, and Chapman, A. J., & Jones, D. M. (Eds.). (1980). Models of man. Leicester: British Psychological psychology. The context is more extensive Society. than any in psychology. When they rely on Chomsky, N. (1975). The logical structure of linguistic psychology, their emphasis, not surprisingly, theory. New York: Plenum Press. centers upon instances of the occult and the Cole, M., & Scribner, S. (1974). Culture and thought. New York: Wiley. abnomal rather than on more general, empir- Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, ically established, principles of behavior (see intention, and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison- Mead, 1930, pp. 279-292). In fact, some an- Wesley. Freed, S. A., & Freed, R. S. (1981). Sacred cows thropologists would argue that it is their task to and water buffalo in India: The uses of make explicit a set of principles of behavior ethnography. Current Anthropology, 22, 483-502. rather than to use those of psychology. Al- Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248. though anthropologists seem careful to select Harris, M. (1968). The rise of anthropological theory: well established concepts from other sciences, A history of theories of culture. New York: Crowell. they appear to become less selective with psy- Harris, M. (1974). Cows, pigs, wars and witches: The riddles of culture. New York: Random House. chological concepts. But the potential appli- Harris, M (1977). Cannibals and kings: The origins of cability to anthropology of an analysis of be- cultures. New York: Random House. havior might include: methods of obtaining Harris, M. (1981). America now: The anthropology of a changing culture. New York: Simon & Schuster. measures of interobserver reliability in applied Hoebel, E. A. (1972). Anthropology: The study of man settings; stress on functional definitions relating (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. REVIEW OF CULTURAL MATERIALISM 287

Johnston, F. E., & Selby, H. (1978). Anthropology: Simoons, F. J. (1979). Questions in the sacred-cow The biocultural view. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown. controversy. Current Anthropology, 20, 467-493. Lancy, D. F. (Ed.). (1978). The indigenous mathe- Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New matics project [Special issue]. Papua New Guinea York: Macmillan. Journal of Education, 14. Skinner, B. F. (1984). The shame of American Lee, R. B. (1979). The !Kung San: Men, women, and education. American Psychologist, 39, 947-954. work in a foraging society. Cambridge: Cambridge Tavris, C. (1975, January). 'Male supremacy is on University Press. the way out. It was just a phase in the evolution of Lloyd, K. E. (1980). Do as I say, not as I do. New culture" (A conversation with Marvin Harris). Zealand Psychologist, 9, 1-8. Psychology Today, pp. 61-69. Mead, M. (1930). Growing up in New Guinea. New Ucko, P. J., & Rosenfeld, A. (1967). Palaeolithic York: Morrow. cave art. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mook, D. G. (1983). The state of the art and the Vaidyanathan, A., Nair, K. N., & Harris, M. (1982). fate of the earth. Journal ofthe ExperimentalAnalysis of Bovine sex and species ratios in India. Currmet An- Behavior, 40, 343-350. thropology, 23, 365-383. O'Riordan, T. (1976). Attitudes, behavior, and Wasserman, E. A. (1981). Comparative psychology environmental policy issues. In I. Altman & J. F. returns: A review of Hulse, Fowler, and Honig's Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Ad- Cognitive Processes in Animal Behavior. Journal ofthe Ex- vances in theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 1-36). New perimental Analysis of Behavior, 35, 243-257. York: Plenum Press. Whitehead, A. N. (1925). Science and the modern Risley, T. R., & Hart, B. (1968). Developing corre- world. New York: Mentor. spondence between the non-verbal and verbal Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: behavior of preschool children. Journal of Applied The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral Behavior Analysis, 1, 267-281. responses to attitude objects. Journal ofSocial Issues, Saigh, P. A., & Umar, A. M. (1983). The effects of 25(4), 41-78. a good behavior game on the disruptive behavior of Wycliffe Bible Translators. The Summer Institute of Sudanese elementary school students. Journal ofAp- Linguistics, Jungle Radio and Aviation Services: plied Behavior Analysis, 16, 339-344. 2020 K Street NW, Washington, DC.