The Superorganic in American Cultural Geography*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE SUPERORGANIC IN AMERICAN CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY* JAMES S. DUNCAN ABSTRACT. The superorganic mode of explanation in cultural geography rei- fies the notion of culture assigning it ontological status and causative power. This theory of culture was outlined by anthropologists Alfred Kroeber and Robert Lowie during the first quarter of the twentieth century, later elaborated by Leslie White, and passed on to Carl Sauer and a number of his students at Berkeley. In this theory culture is viewed as an entity above man, not reducible to the actions of individuals, mysteriously responding to laws of its own. Explanation, it is claimed must be phrased in terms of the cultural level not in terms of individuals. After demonstrating that a number of influential cultural geographers support this theory the central assumptions of the theory are subjected to a critical analysis. These assumptions include the separation of the individual from culture, the reification of culture, the assumption of internal homogeneity within a culture, the characterization of culture as a configuration of modal personality types and idealized values, and the implicit use of Pavlovian conditioning theory. N 1963 Harold Brookfield noted that cultur- ical status renders the above questions of so- I al geographers “scarcely ever seek expla- cial psychology and social organization un- nations in matters such as human behavior, problematic. It should be added that rescation attitudes and beliefs, social organization and is a fallacy by which mental constructions or the characteristics and interrelationships of abstractions are seen as having substance, i.e. human groups.”’ The situation has changed independent existence and causal efficacy.2 remarkably little in the past fifteen years. This This is a widespread problem throughout ge- paper examines the mode of explanation in ography and social science generall~.~There- cultural geography which reifies the notion of fore the arguments presented have implica- culture assigning it ontological status and tions beyond the immediate subject matter of causative power. In the process, that ontolog- the essay. Almost all major theories of man and soci- Dr. Duncan is Assistant Professor of Geography at the ety can be classified as either holistic or indi- University of British Columbia in Vancouver, B.C., V6T vidualistic depending upon the nature of their IW5, Canada. * I am indebted to Warren Bourgeois, Department of P. Berger and S. Pullberg, “Reification and the So- Philosophy, University of British Columbia, Clifford ciological Critique of Consciousness,” History and The- Geertz, Institute of Advanced Studies, Princeton, Elihu ory, Vol. 4 (1964-65), pp. 196-211. Gerson, Pragmatica Systems, San Francisco, John Rob- For a discussion of the problem in cultural geography ertson, Department of Philosophy, Syracuse University, see M. B. Newton, Jr., and L. Pulliam-Di Napoli, “Log Anselm Straws, Department of Sociology, University of Houses as Public Occasions: A Historical Theory,” An- California, San Francisco, and to the following geogra- nals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 67 phers: John Agnew, Nancy Duncan, Cole Harris, David (1977), pp. 360-83. For a discussion of the problem in Ley, Donald Meinig, Milton Newton, David Robinson, other areas of geography see R. D. Sack, “Geography, Marwyn Samuels, David Sopher, and Philip Wagner for Geometry and Explanation,” Annals, Association of their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I American Geographers, Vol. 62 (1972), pp. 61-78; R. D. am also grateful to the Canada Council for providing a Sack, “A Concept of Physical Space in Geography,” doctoral fellowship to allow me to complete this study. Geographical Analysis, Vol. 5 (1973), pp. 16-34; and R. D. Sack, “The Spatial Separatist Theme in Geography,” Economic Geography, Vol. 50 (1974), pp. 1-19. On rei- H. C.Brookfield, “Questions on the Human Frontiers fication in social science see D. C. Phillips, Holistic of Geography,” Economic Geography, Vol. 40 (1964), Thought in Social Science (Stanford: Stanford University pp. 283-303; reference on p. 283. Press, 1976). ANNALS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHERS Vol. 70, No. 2, June 1980 @ 1980 by the Association of American Geographers. Printed in U.S.A. 181 182 JAMESS. DUNCAN June solution to the “problem of order” in society. c~lture.”~Wagner has since reversed himself Holist versus individualist explanation re- on this position, as has Mikesell, who recently mains the subject of an important ongoing wrote? controversy in social ~cience.~Although they Most geographers have adopted a laissez-faire attitude often do not make the issue explicit in their toward the meanings of culture, perhaps in a mistaken work, most social scientists are very much belief that agreement on this issue has already been engaged in this controversy. In cultural ge- achieved by anthropologists. ography and anthropology the form of holism Geographers have not only frequently ig- around which the controversy centers is nored the variety of alternative definitions of known as the superorganic. culture that could have been drawn from an- The theory of culture as a superorganic en- thropology, but in accepting the superorganic tity was outlined by anthropologists Alfred concept of culture have also inadvertently Kroeber and Robert Lowie during the first chosen a theory which has come under dev- quarter of the twentieth century and later elab- astating attack and has long since been reject- orated by Leslie White. Culture was viewed ed by the vast majority of anthropologists. as an entity above man, not reducible to ac- While this in itself is no reason for geogra- tions by the individuals who are associated phers to follow their lead in rejecting the the- with it, mysteriously responding to laws of its ory, it is surprising that there has been no at- own. It was, moreover, this view of culture tempt to defend the position against such that came to dominate cultural geography. criticisms. A lack of concern over theoretical Specifically, this perspective was adopted by debates outside geography may result from Carl Sauer as a result of his association with “regard[ing] the discipline as an autonomous Kroeber and Lowie at Berkeley in the twen- enterprise set apart from the social or natural ties and thirties and was subsequently passed science^."^ In any case, Mikesell has recently on to his students. urged that geographers rectify the situation by Although many students of Sauer’s “Berke- giving “more serious thought to how they ley School” frequently cite Kroeber’s defini- wish to use the concept of culture.”8 This pa- tion of culture and have neither rejected nor per attempts to make a modest contribution to replaced it one cannot be entirely sure to what this endeavor by examining the concept of cul- extent they embrace that definition. Wilbur ture employed by a number of important cul- Zelinsky, however, is exceptionally explicit in tural geographers in light of ongoing debates his use of the theory. If other cultural geog- over the notion outside the field. raphers do not support this thesis, they can nevertheless be faulted for citing and appear- THE SEPARATION OF INDIVIDUAL ing to support it without qualification. Indeed, AND SOCIETY the ambiguity with which many cultural geog- raphers address the question of the superor- Today in popular, nonacademic modes of ganic nature of culture reveals a failure to un- thought the distinction between the individual derstand the implications of the position. This and society is virtually taken for granted. This may have been exacerbated by Wagner and has not always been SO.^ As Erich Fromm and Mikesell’s influential introduction to cultural others have suggested in medieval Europe “a geography in which they wrote “the cultural person was identical with his role in society; geographer is not [i.e. should not be] con- he was a peasant, artisan, or knight, not an cerned with explaining the inner workings of individual who happened to have this or that P. L. Wagner and M. W. Mikesell, eds., Readings in For a general discussion of holism and individualism, Cultural Geography (Chicago: University of Chicago see J. O’Neill, ed., Modes of Individualism and Collec- Press, 1962), p. 5. tivism (London: Heinemann, 1973). One of the best fi M. W. Mikesell, “Tradition and Innovation in Cul- known critiques of holism is Karl Popper’s, The Poverty tural Geography,” Annals, Association of American of Historicism (London: Routledge, 1946). For a more Geographers, Vol. 68 (1978), pp. 1-16; reference on p. recent discussion of holism in social science see Phillips, 12. op. cit., footnote 3, and for a discussion of holism in ge- ‘ Mikesell, op. cit., footnote 6, p. 10. ography see J. S. Duncan, “Holistic Explanation in Hu- * Mikesell, op. cit., footnote 6, p. 13. man Geography: The Case of the Culture Concept,” un- C. Moms, The Discovery oj’the lndividuul1050-1200 published manuscript, 1979. (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), p. 2. 1980 Su PE RO RG A N I c 183 occupation.”lo Raymond Williams comments uals include God, culture, laws, social con- that the distinction between the individual and tracts, absolute monarchs, norms, values, and society (or culture) is embedded in the English the invisible hand in the marketplace. Individ- language. This distinction, he claims gained ualists such as Hobbes viewed individuals as currency at a particular point in history and self-interested and predatory, incapable of co- has now established itself in our minds as ab- operating without handing over their individ- solute.’l ual power to an absolute sovereign. Locke’s Most theories in social science today are solution is similar but more palatable. His ex- based on the assumption that individuals are ternal forces are institutions, laws, and prin- atomistic and thus independent of one ciples. another. This leaves unresolved the problem The holists believe that large-scale events of accounting for the order one finds in society such as the decline of nations are autonomous unless it is imposed by an external force from and largely independent of the individuals who without.