Introduction The University of Michigan’s Department of Anthropology: Leslie White and the Politics of Departmental Expansion William Peace A variety of sources provide a detailed chronicle of the history of anthropology prior to World War II. But the rapid development of anthropology after the war, and the sociopolitical context that made such an expansion possible, are not as well known. The discipline’s growth during this era was exponential; membership in the American Anthropological Association (AAA) multiplied 20 times between the end of 1941 and 1963 (Wolf 1964:8). The annual AAA meetings, once small and fraternal, became huge events (DeLaguna 1962). Older scholars fondly recall that before the war virtually every anthropologist in the country could fit into one ordinary room; the program was printed on a single page (Goldfrank 1977; Tax 1960). How did the discipline emerge from relative obscurity to become a field of study on nearly every college campus in the United States? What motivated major universities to create new departments and produce an astounding surplus of anthropologists? This study focuses on Leslie A. White’s years at the University of Michigan (U of M), 1930 to 1959, to show how one university expanded its anthropology department, making it one of the foremost in the country. White was at that time the most recognized and influential 1 Michigan Discussions in Anthropology member of the department. These years reflect White’s most productive ones as a scholar and, more generally, the establishment of anthropology as a profession within the social sciences on college campuses across the country. There is an “unwritten’” history of anthropology in which its personalities and politics are both hidden. Some work has begun to fill this gap, and mine can be considered an extension of that in Volume 9 of the History of Anthropology series, Excluded Ancestors, Inventible Traditions (Handler 1999), and Regna Darnell’s Invisible Genealogies (2001). Despite a growing interest in studies that explore given individuals’ roles in theory building, historians of anthropology have barely begun the anthropological history of anthropology. According to Sydel Silverman, “We have only seen the beginnings of analytical treatments of the social networks within which anthropologists have worked, of the histories of significant institutions, or of the larger contexts that have shaped anthropological practice and ideas. Nor have we gone very far toward answering the vexing question of the extent to which the personal and the professional are linked in the lives of and works of our leading figures” (Silverman 2004:x–xi). Here I want to describe the work and life of Leslie White in the context of his connections to the broader network of scholars and scholarship within which he functioned. False starts: prejudice and the establishment of anthropology at Michigan A few words about the department in the 1920s are required because they have a direct bearing on the establishment of the department and the hiring of Leslie White.1 A steady stream of part-time instructors at U of M had offered a series of anthropology courses since the department’s founding in 1873. But the Museum of Anthropology was not officially created until June, 1922 (Carl Guthe to Griffin, January 22, 1932). Like 2 Introduction other mid-western universities, Michigan made a concerted effort to establish an independent anthropology department in the mid to late 1920s. To this end, Michigan tried to hire a well-known scholar who would attract students to the department. Archival files from various faculty members, academic deans, and the President of the University, Clarence Cook Little, demonstrate that the “star” Michigan wanted was Edward Sapir. In 1923 he was invited to Ann Arbor to give three lectures (Charles Cooley to Marion L. Burton, October 13, 1923). Sapir made a distinct impression and it seemed probable he would be hired. However, the evidence also strongly suggests that Sapir was not hired because he was Jewish.2 After Michigan failed to hire Sapir, the university continued employing a series of part-time instructors, among them Colonel Thomas Callan Hodson. According to James Griffin, Hodson was a gifted teacher who not only generated strong student interest but provided the impetus to once again try to establish an official department of anthropology. Carl Guthe, a Harvard trained archaeologist hired in 1922 as the Associate Director of the Museum of Anthropology, spearheaded this effort. According to Guthe, after the failed attempt to hire Sapir, “it was finally decided to begin modestly by appointing an instructor in the subject and to develop the work gradually, with the active cooperation of the officials of the recently established Museum of Anthropology” (Guthe 1951:440). In May 1927, Carl Guthe, and Deans Alfred H. Lloyd and John F. Effinger formed an advisory committee that sought to determine the best way to create a program for the formal instruction of anthropology. Between the spring of 1927 and 1928 the university decided to establish an official department. Surviving archival files, though incomplete, demonstrate that anthropology as a field of study was not well understood by the administration. Guthe repeatedly defined anthropology for university administrators as the study of man, and emphasized the four field approach. The advisory committee that Guthe headed was firmly 3 Michigan Discussions in Anthropology committed to not only offering classes in anthropology but training professional anthropologists at U of M. Funds were made available for the 1928–29 academic year for a “specialized curriculum for Anthropology.” This program was open only to advanced students. Although designed specifically for juniors and seniors, Guthe envisioned that the program would eventually offer an M.A. and Ph.D. Under the auspices of the advisory committee, arrangements were made for the inauguration of anthropology courses during the 1928–29 school year. Guthe was appointed Lecturer in Anthropology and paid $500 a term. Hiring someone to share the duties proved more difficult. Emerson F. Greenman, who had just received his doctorate, was hired but resigned before he began teaching. W. Vernon Kinietz was then brought in as “part-time curator in the Museum of Anthropology” in the summer of 1928 but he too resigned before the fall semester began. According to the proceedings of the Board of Regents, Kinietz’s salary was then turned over to Julian Steward who was appointed “part-time instructor in anthropology in the College of Literature, Science and the Arts and part-time curator in the Museum of Anthropology.” Steward arrived in Ann Arbor in October 1928 with a salary of $2,500.3 During the 1929–30 academic year, ten one-semester courses were given in anthropology. Six of these hours were for the beginning courses covering both semesters (Guthe to Effinger March 19, 1930). The Department of Anthropology was formed so late in 1928 that no announcement was placed in the course catalog. Not surprisingly, enrollments were lower than desired—a fact that worried Guthe. As for Steward, his teaching load appeared manageable at first but when enrollments increased more than he anticipated he was overwhelmed with work. Steward and Guthe worked closely together between 1928 and 1929, an arrangement Steward disliked. According to Kerns (2003), Steward did not understand why his name was not listed in the course catalog and was disappointed the university had no equipment for classes 4 Introduction (Kerns 2003:104). He also apparently felt insecure about his teaching ability. Despite the fact Steward was in an enviable position professionally, letters he exchanged with Alfred Kroeber and Robert Lowie demonstrate he resented Guthe’s opinions and suggestions about how classes should be taught. Steward wrote to Lowie that Guthe annoyed him: “Guthe is both giving and supervising the course. All I do is appear before the class and do the dirty work” (Steward to Lowie, October 11, 1928). Kroeber tried to explain to Steward why Guthe’s name appeared in the catalog and also praised Guthe, characterizing him as “kindly and fair” (Kroeber to Steward, October 11, 1928). Based on a careful reading of Steward’s letters, he seemed to resent Guthe’s superior academic position (Kerns 2003:118).4 Why Guthe bothered Steward so much is hard to understand. Guthe went out of his way to praise Steward. For instance, as chair of the Advisory Committee, Guthe wrote a long report to Effinger: The popularity of these courses in anthropology, which we feel is based upon the subject and not upon the grades given, is due in large measure to Dr. Steward’s able handling of the work. During the past winter a definite and sympathetic interest in our work has been expressed by staff members of the departments of Anatomy, Geography, Geology, History, Semitics, Sociology, and Zoology. In view of these facts we feel that the work in anthropology should be under the direction of a staff member of professorial rank, with at least one assistant. [Guthe to Effinger March 19, 1930] There is no question that Guthe wanted Steward to remain at Michigan. However, Steward felt overworked and underpaid. He was teaching full- time and serving as part-time Assistant Curator in the Museum of Anthropology where he helped to catalogue the museum collection. Steward felt isolated in Ann Arbor and missed California and Berkeley. Although personally unhappy, from a professional viewpoint it would 5 Michigan Discussions in Anthropology seem he was in an ideal situation. He was working in an anthropology department at a major university that expressed a serious commitment to building a larger program of study. He had the support of Kroeber and Lowie and was not far from Detroit and Chicago. In short, Steward’s professional future looked promising.