Cultural Anthropology's Big Names

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Cultural Anthropology: some big names Howard Culbertson Southern Nazarene University Lewis Henry Morgan 1818-1881 • A 19th century scholar who developed the evolutionary approach • Pioneered the comparative study of culture Sir Edward B. Tylor 1832-1917 • Provided a still-valid definition of culture: that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. • Key theorist in the anthropology of religion Bronislaw Malinowski 1884-1942 • Outlined the biological and psychological needs of people fulfilled by culture • Pioneered the participant observation method Ruth Fulton Benedict 1887-1948 • Wrote “Patterns of Culture” • Viewed cultures as coherent patterns Franz Boas 1858-1942 • Set high standard for excellence in fieldwork • Developed the idea of cultural relativity • Discredited then- dominant theories of racial superiority A.R. Radcliff-Brown 1881-1955 Developed the structural- functional approach to look at how each aspect of society contributes to the maintenance of the whole Ralph Linton, 1893–1953 • Insights into process of acculturation • Influenced development of the culture- and-personality school of anthropology • Introduced terms "status" and "role" • The Tree of Culture (1955) Julian H. Steward 1902-1972 Founder of the cultural ecology approach that focuses on the interactions of cultures with their environments Leslie White 1900-1975 Developed the cultural materialist approach with focus on how the techno- economic aspects of culture determine the social and ideological spheres George Murdoch 1897-1985 • Empiricist – senses are primary knowledge source • Came up 70 or so “cultural universals” Margaret Mead 1901-1978 • A “founding mother” of anthropology • Pioneered the cross- cultural study of personality This PowerPoint presentation is available along with related materials and other PowerPoint presentations at http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/ppt.htm.

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Review Of" Chicago Sociology, 1920-1932" by REL Faris
Swarthmore College Works History Faculty Works History 12-1-1973 Review Of "Chicago Sociology, 1920-1932" By R. E.L. Faris Robert C. Bannister Swarthmore College Follow this and additional works at: https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-history Part of the History Commons Let us know how access to these works benefits ouy Recommended Citation Robert C. Bannister. (1973). "Review Of "Chicago Sociology, 1920-1932" By R. E.L. Faris". Isis. Volume 64, Issue 224. 570-571. DOI: 10.1086/351211 https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-history/196 This work is brought to you for free by Swarthmore College Libraries' Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Review Author(s): Robert C. Bannister Review by: Robert C. Bannister Source: Isis, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Dec., 1973), pp. 570-571 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/229679 Accessed: 11-06-2015 16:03 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Isis.
[Show full text]
Linton, Ralph
ANTHROPOLOGY THOUGHT JUNE 2019 Linton, Ralph Ralph Linton (1893–1953), American cultural anthropologist, was one of the major contributors to the reconstruction of anthropology during the second quarter of the twentieth century. Trained in the traditions of the North American “historical school” of anthropology, Lin ton remained loyal throughout his career to the broad interests and general principles established by Franz Boas and other American anthropologists. But with the publication in 1936 of The Study of Man, which was quickly recognized by social scientists all over the world as a pioneering study of human behavior, he embarked on a series of creative and stimulating studies which provided new conceptions of social structure and cultural organization. He related these conceptions in a clear if somewhat simple manner to the biological individual and his personality and utilized them in his analyses of the processes of cultural change. Linton belonged to the “third generation” of American academic anthropologists, succeeding such second-generation students of Putnam and Boas as Wissler, Dixon, Kroeber, Goldenweiser, Lowie, Sapir, and Radin. These academicians, together with a number of outstanding journeymen and masters involved more in field research than in teaching, had created a distinctive variety of anthropology. Like Tylor in England, they had a holistic approach to human studies which is still, thanks in part to Linton, a mark of American anthropology. In the Americas much more than in Europe almost all anthropological study and training had been nurtured by experience in the field and disciplined by the empiricism required by field work on specific problems treating the temporal and spatial dimensions of culture.
[Show full text]
Franz Boas: Who He Was, What He Did, and Why It Matters
Anderson 1 Dylan Anderson Carol Pannocione GERM-1020 7 February 2020 Franz Boas: Who he was, what he did, and why it matters Franz Boas, to this day, is a figure in anthropology whose importance to the discipline can hardly be rivaled by any other figure. The ways in which his radical school of thought overhauled American anthropology cannot be overstated. Old ways of thinking with regards to race and culture were thrown to the wayside by Boas and his students. His life as well as his works were drenched in controversy and rivalry, partly due to his attack on the academic status quo. 1. Biography When Bendix Feibes Aron Levi was made to take a surname in 1808, he took the surname Boas, after the character from the Book of Ruth (Zumwalt 2). Bendix Boas went on, then, to become a textile merchant in Lubbecke, cementing a position in the community (2). At some point, his descendants moved to Minden (3). This is where Boas’ life began. Franz Uri Boas was born in Minden, a small town in the Westphalia region of Prussia on 9 July 1858 (King 14). His parents – Meier and Sophie Boas – were upper-class and highly educated Jews who ascribed to Haskalah thought (15). Haskalah was a philosophical school of Judaism concerned with the moral and cultural renewal of Judaism, especially the revival of the Hebrew language in daily usage. Although he was an excellent student all throughout school, his teachers bemoaned the fact that he never had any firm interest (King 16). He did especially well in high school in the Anderson 2 classical languages, geography, and arithmetic (16).
[Show full text]
Multilinear Euo Lution: Eaolution and Process'
'1. Multilinear Euolution: Eaolution and Process' THEMEANING Of EVOLUIION Cultural evolution, although long an unfashionable concept, has commanded renewed interest in the last two decades. This interest does not indicate any seriousreconsideration of the particular historical reconstructions of the nineteenth-century evolutionists, for thesc were quite thoroughly discredited on empirical grounds. It arises from the potential methodological importance of cultural evolution for con- temporary research, from the implications of its scientific objectives, its taxonomic procedures, and its conceptualization of historical change and cultural causality. An appraisal of cultural evolution, therefore, must be concerned with definitions and meanings. But I do not wish to engage in semantics. I shall attempt to show that if certain distinc- tions in the concept of evolution are made, it is evident that certain methodological propositions find fairly wide acceptance today. In order to clear the ground, it is necessaryfirst to consider the meaning of cultural evolution in relation to biological evolution, for there is a wide tendency to consider the former as an extension of, I This chapter is adapted lrom "Evolution and Process," in Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inaentory, ed. A. L. Kroeber (University of Chicago Press, 1953), pp. 313-26, by courtesy of The University of Chicago Press. l1 12 THEoR'- oF cuLTURE cIIANGE and thercfore analogousto, the latter. There is, of course,a relation- ship betrveen biological and cultural evolution in that a minimal dcvclopment of the Hominidae was a prccondition of culture. But cultural cvolution is an extension of biological evolution only in a chronological sense (Huxley, 1952). The nature of the cvolutionary schemesand of the devclopmental processesdiffers profoundly in.
[Show full text]
Culture and Personality Studies
Culture and Culture and Personality studies: Introduction ‘Culture and personality’ is the earliest name of the school or thoughts of school. It is important study in psychological anthropology, thus culture and personality studies, also called psychological anthropology. Its beginnings are associated especially with the great American linguist and anthropologist Edward Sapir (1884—1939). Sapir was influenced by German Gestalt psychologists, who had argued that perception could be understood only when the thing perceived was viewed not as an assemblage of separate elements, but as an organized pattern (Gestalt). So when one looks, for example, at a landscape painting, one sees it not as flat planes of colour laid against one another, but as a whole — ‘a landscape’. This example shows us too why a whole may be more than the sum of its parts and have its own essential properties. In this Gestalt view, meaning was a function of organized patterns, and Sapir applied this idea to his analyses of language and of culture and personality. Sapir was suspicious of the contemporary concept of culture, which he described as ‘tidy tables of contents’ attached to particular groups of people. In an influential 1934 essay he argued that ‘the more fully one tries to understand a culture, the more it seems to take on the characteristics of a personality organization’ (1985 [1949]: 594). The study of the development of personality was Sapir’s solution to the problems posed by the way that, in anthropological accounts, culture ‘can be made to assume the appearance of a closed system of behaviour’ (p. 594).
[Show full text]
Leslie White (1900-1975)
Neoevolutionism Leslie White Julian Steward Neoevolutionism • 20th century evolutionists proposed a series of explicit, scientific laws liking cultural change to different spheres of material existence. • Although clearly drawing upon ideas of Marx and Engels, American anthropologists could not emphasize Marxist ideas due to reactionary politics. • Instead they emphasized connections to Tylor and Morgan. Neoevolutionism • Resurgence of evolutionism was much more apparent in U.S. than in Britain. • Idea of looking for systematic cultural changes through time fit in better with American anthropology because of its inclusion of archaeology. • Most important contribution was concern with the causes of change rather than mere historical reconstructions. • Changes in modes of production have consequences for other arenas of culture. • Material factors given causal priority Leslie White (1900-1975) • Personality and Culture 1925 • A Problem in Kinship Terminology 1939 • The Pueblo of Santa Ana 1942 • Energy and the Evolution of Culture 1943 • Diffusion Versus Evolution: An Anti- evolutionist Fallacy 1945 • The Expansion of the Scope of Science 1947 • Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Rejoinder 1947 • The Science of Culture 1949 • The Evolution of Culture 1959 • The Ethnology and Ethnography of Franz Boas 1963 • The Concept of Culture 1973 Leslie White • Ph.D. dissertation in 1927 on Medicine Societies of the Southwest from University of Chicago. • Taught by Edward Sapir. • Taught at University of Buffalo & University of Michigan. • Students included Marshall Sahlins and Elman Service. • A converted Boasian who went back to Morgan’s ideas of evolutionism after reading League of the Iroquois. • Culture is based upon symbols and uniquely human ability to symbolize. • White calls science of culture "culturology" • Claims that "culture grows out of culture" • For White, culture cannot be explained biologically or psychologically, but only in terms of itself.
[Show full text]
05 Neo-Evolutionism
Paper No. : 10 Theories and methods in social and cultural Anthropology Module : 05 Neo-Evolutionism Development Team Principal Investigator Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Paper Coordinator Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Vineet Kumar Verma Content Writer Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Prof. Subir Biswas, Department of Anthropology, West Content Reviewer Bengal State University, Barasat, West Bengal 1 Theories and methods in social and cultural Anthropology Anthropology Neo-Evolutionism Description of Module Subject Name Anthropology Paper Name 10 Theories and methods in social and cultural Anthropology Module Name/Title Neo-Evolutionism Module Id 05 2 Theories and methods in social and cultural Anthropology Anthropology Neo-Evolutionism Table of Contents Introduction 1. Early anthropological theory 2. History of nineteenth-century classical evolutionists 3. Neo-evolutionist 4. Neo-evolutionists Scholars V. Gordon Childe (England) Julian Steward (U.S.A) Leslie White (U.S.A) Summary Learning Objective To introduce history of anthropological thought by tracing its historical development To classify the course of historical development, academic, and Anthropological importance in terms of its development An attempt to look Methodological approaches to the origin of culture 3 Theories and methods in social and cultural Anthropology Anthropology Neo-Evolutionism Introduction A theoretical orientation is usually a general attitude about how cultural phenomena are to be explained. A number of thinkers during this period began to discuss evolution and how it might occur. The prevailing theoretical orientation in anthropology during the 19th century was based on a belief that culture generally evolves in a uniform and progressive manner; that is, most societies were believed to pass through the same series of stages, to arrive ultimately at a common end.
[Show full text]
Please Scroll Down for Article
This article was downloaded by: [Australian National University Library] On: 21 July 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 907447645] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK The Journal of Pacific History Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713435447 Cultural Divisions and Island Environments since the Time of Dumont d'Urville Paul D'Arcy Online Publication Date: 01 September 2003 To cite this Article D'Arcy, Paul(2003)'Cultural Divisions and Island Environments since the Time of Dumont d'Urville',The Journal of Pacific History,38:2,217 — 235 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/0022334032000120549 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022334032000120549 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
[Show full text]
SM 3 History of the Personality of Anthropology
CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by eVols at University of Hawaii at Manoa Savage Minds Occasional Papers No. 3 The History of the Personality of Anthropology By Alfred Kroeber Edited and with an introduction by Alex Golub First edition, 18 October, 2013 Savage Minds Occasional Papers 1. The Superorganic by Alfred Kroeber, edited and with an introduction by Alex Golub 2. Responses to “The Superorganic”: Texts by Alexander Goldenweiser and Edward Sapir, edited and with an introduction by Alex Golub 3. The History of the Personality of Anthropology by Alfred Kroeber, edited and with an introduction by Alex Golub Copyright information This original work is copyright by Alex Golub, 2013. The author has issued the work under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States license. You are free • to share - to copy, distribute and transmit the work • to remix - to adapt the work Under the following conditions • attribution - you must attribute the work in the manner speciﬁed by the author • noncommercial - you may not use this work for commercial purposes • share alike - if you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one This work includes excerpts from Kroeber, Alfred. 1959. The history of the personality of anthropology. American Anthropologist 61 (3): 398-404. American Anthropological Association article content published before 1964 is in the public domain and may be used and copied without permission. For more information see http:// www.aaanet.org/publications/permissions.cfm. The original article appears at http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1959.61.3.02a00040/abstract.
[Show full text]
A Franz Boas Miscellany
History of Anthropology Newsletter Volume 28 Issue 1 June 2001 Article 4 1-1-2001 Glimpses of Impending Generational Change: A Franz Boas Miscellany George W. Stocking Jr. Franz Boas Leslie Spier Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/han Part of the Anthropology Commons, and the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons Recommended Citation Stocking, George W. Jr.; Boas, Franz; and Spier, Leslie (2001) "Glimpses of Impending Generational Change: A Franz Boas Miscellany," History of Anthropology Newsletter: Vol. 28 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/han/vol28/iss1/4 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/han/vol28/iss1/4 For more information, please contact [email protected]. and about a scholar), journals (especially extinct ones), photographs, material artefacts collected during fieldwork, and so on. It was pointed out that M N Srinivas's original field notes were still extant and needed to be preserved, while, on the disheartening side, we learnt that S C Roy's original papers had disappeared. The idea of a newsletter to sustain the momentum of research on the history of the disciplines was also mooted, and again there was discussion on whether this should be (in whole or part) Internet based. [For a fuller account of the lEG Workshop, see Nandini Sundar, Satish Deshpande and Patricia Uberoi, 'Indian Sociology and Anthropology: Towards a History' in the Economic and Political Weekly, June 10-16, 2000, from which the previous two paragraphs have been taken. Also available on the EPW website (http://www.epw.org.in) in its Archives section] One measure of the depth of interest in disciplinary history witnessed at the lEG Workshop is the number of outcomes it has produced.
[Show full text]
1 Anthropology Publications Issued by the Field Museum of Natural History Pub No. Volume 1 (Complete in Two Numbers) 8 No. 1. Ar
1 Anthropology Publications Issued by The Field Museum of Natural History Pub No. Volume 1 (Complete in Two Numbers) 8 No. 1. Archaeological Studies Among Ancient Cities of Mexico. Part 1. Monuments of Yucatan. By W.H. Holmes. 1895. 138 pages, 69 illus. 16 No. 2. Archaeological Studies Among the Ancient Cities of Mexico. Part 2. Monuments of Chiapas, Oaxaca, and the Valley of Mexico. By W.H. Holmes. 1897. 200 pages, 120 illus. Volume 2 (Complete in Six Numbers) 21 No. 1. Observations on a Collection of Papuan Crania. By G. A. Dorsey, with Notes on Preservation and Decorative Features. By W.H. Holmes. 1897. 48 pages, 33 illus. 23 No. 2. A Bibliography of the Anthropology of Peru. By G. A. Dorsey. 1898. 154 pages. 28 No. 3. Ruins of Xkichmook, Yucatan. By E. H. Thompson. 1898. 22 pages, 30 illus. 51 No. 4. An Aboriginal Quartzite Quarry in Eastern Wyoming. By G. A. Dorsey. 1900. 13 pages, 12 illus. 56 No. 5. Archaeological Investigations on the Island of La Plata, Ecuador. By G. A. Dorsey. 1901. 36 pages, 73 illus. 85 No. 6. Traditions of the Crows. By S. C. Simms. 1903. 44 pages. Volume 3 (Complete in Four Numbers) 55 No. 1. The Oraibi Soyal Ceremony. By G. A. Dorsey and H. R. Voth. 1901. 63 pages, 37 illus. 61 No. 2. The Oraibi Powamu Ceremony. By H. R. Voth. 1901. 97 pages, 40 illus. 66 No. 3. The Mishongnovi Ceremonies of the Snake and Antelope Fraternities. By G. A. Dorsey and H. R. Voth. 1902.
[Show full text]
Sociocultural Evolution 1 Sociocultural Evolution
Sociocultural evolution 1 Sociocultural evolution Sociocultural evolution(ism) is an umbrella term for theories of cultural evolution and social evolution, describing how cultures and societies have changed over time. Note that "sociocultural evolution" is not an equivalent of "sociocultural development" (unified processes of differentiation and integration involving increases in sociocultural complexity), as sociocultural evolution also encompasses sociocultural transformations accompanied by decreases of complexity (degeneration) as well as ones not accompanied by any significant changes of sociocultural complexity (cladogenesis).[1] Thus, sociocultural evolution can be defined as "the process by which structural reorganization is affected through time, eventually producing a form or structure which is qualitatively different from the ancestral form.... Evolutionism then becomes the scientific activity of finding nomothetic explanations for the occurrence of such structural changes".[2] Although such theories typically provide models for understanding the relationship between technologies, social structure, the values of a society, and how and why they change with time, they vary as to the extent to which they describe specific mechanisms of variation and social change. Historically, Europeans had tried to explain the meaning of "primitive" societies, with some arguing that primitive peoples had degenerated from a "barbarous" to an even lower "savage" state. These observers often saw European society as symbolizing the highest state of "civilization."[3] Over time, important commentators like Edward Burnett Tylor, Lewis Henry Morgan, Franz Boas, Leslie White, and Julian Steward elaborated on this thinking with theories from unilinear evolution to the "culture history" approach.[3] Sociocultural modeling[4] is an umbrella term for theories of cultural and social evolution, which aims to describe how cultures and societies have developed over time.
[Show full text]