The Science of Culture: A Study of Man and Civilization

The Science of Culture A STUDY OF MAN AND CIVILIZATION B)> GROVE Leslie A. PRESS, INC. White ^. NEW YORK Thi...

Author: Leslie A. White

61 downloads 1100 Views 16MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The

Science of Culture

A

STUDY OF MAN AND CIVILIZATION

B)>

GROVE

Leslie A.

PRESS, INC.

White

^.

NEW YORK

This edition

is

published by arrangement with

Farrar, Straus

Copyright

©

and Cudahy

1949 by Leslie A.

White

Tenth Printing

MANUFACTURED

IN

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CONTENTS

AUTHOR'S NOTE PREF ACE PART 1 SCIENCE AND SYMBOLS Introduction I.

II.

III.

Science

2

Sciencing

is

The Symbol:

3

the Origin and Basis of

Human

Behavior

22

On

40

the Use of Tools by Primates

Mind is Minding V. The Expansion of

IV.

PART

49 the Scope of Science

120

VI. Culturological

Human

vs.

Psychological Interpretations of

Behavior

121

VII. Cultural Determinants of VIII. Genius:

Its

IX. Ikhnaton:

Mind

146

Causes and Incidence

The Great Man

vs.

190

the Culture Process

X. The Locus of Mathematical Reality

The

Definition and Prohibition of Incest

XII. Man's Control over Civilization:

An

233 282 303

Anthropocentric

Illusion

PART

55

MAN AND CULTURE

II

Introduction

XI.

xi

xvii

330 III

ENERGY AND CIVILIZATION

Introduction

362

XIII. Energy and the Evolution of Culture vU

363

CONTENTS viii

PART

IV

CULTUROLOGY

XIV. The Science

of Culture

Chapter References BibHography Index

397 4^ '^^5

4^

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The

author wishes to thank the following publishers for per-

mission to quote from their publications:

Appleton-Century-Crofts,

The Study

oi

Inc., for excerpts

Man, New York,

from Ralph Linton,

1936.

Cambridge University Press (England), for excerpts from G. H. Hardy, A Mathematician's Apology, Cambridge, 1941. Geo. E. G. Catlin,

for excerpts

from Emile Durkheim, The

Rules oi Sociologies] Method, University of Chicago Press, 1938.

The

University of Chicago Press, for excerpts from

World and Man, H. H. Newman,

of the

ed.,

The Nature Marc

Chicago, 1926;

Ruffer, Studies in the Palaeopathology of Egypt, R. L. ed.,

Woodie,

Chicago, 1921; and from Geo. Steindorff and K. C. Seele,

When

Egypt Ruled the East, Chicago, 1942.

Thomas

Y. Crowell Co., for excerpts from Clark Wissler,

New

and Culture,

Crown I See

It,

Publishers, for excerpts

from A. Einstein, The World As

copyright 1934 by Covici-Friede,

Doubleday and Co., Story of

My

Life,

Man

York, 1923.

New

Inc., for excerpts

New

York,

from Helen

Keller,

The

York, 1903.

Eyre and Spottiswoode, Ltd., for excerpts from Arthur Weigall^

The

Life and

Times of Akhnaton, London, 1923. ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

X

Harper and Brothers, for an excerpt from Thomas Wolfe, You Can't

Go Home

Again, copyright

The Sun

Dial Press, 1942,

New

York. Henrj- Holt and Co., Inc., for an excerpt from John Dewey,

New

ReconstTuction in Philosophy, Wissler,

An

York, 1920; and from Clark

Introduction to Social Anthropology,

New York,

Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., for excerpts from A. A. Moret,

and Egyptian

New

Civilization,

McGraw-Hill Book Co., Trends,

New

New

New New

W. W.

Wm.

I.

Thomas,

York, 1937; and from Recent Social

Co., for excerpts from E. A. Hooton,

Up From

York, 1931; F. H. Giddings, Principles of Sociology,

York, 1896; A.

History,

from

York, 1933.

The Macmillan the Ape,

The Nile

York, 1927.

Inc., for excerpts

New

Piimitive Behavior,

1929.

M.

Schlesinger,

New

Viewpoints in American

for

an excerpt from Erwin

York, 1922.

Norton and Co.,

Schrodinger, Science and the

Inc.,

Human Temperament, New

York,

1935-

The

Science Press, for excerpts from H. Poincare, Foundations

oi Science,

New

York and Garrison, 1913.

Charles Scribner's Sons, for excerpts from James H. Breasted,

A History of Egypt, Simon and phies,

New

revised edition.

New

York, 1909.

Schuster, Inc., for an excerpt from Living Philoso-

York, 1931.

Stechert-Hafner, Inc., for excerpts from E. T. Bell,

The Queen

of the Sciences, Baltimore, 1931.

The Viking Social Change,

Press,

Inc.,

New York,

for excerpts

1922.

from

Wm.

F. Ogburn,

AUTHOR'S NOTE

Oome

time ago Mr. Arthur Orrmont, formerly a student

at the University of

Farrar, Straus

of

mine

Michigan,

now on

the editorial

staff

and Company, suggested that certain

of

articles

that have appeared in various journals might well be

re-

printed in a single volume. This book has grown out of his suggestion. in

more 1.

The

previously published articles that reappear here

or less modified form are as follows:

"Science

is

Sciencing,"

(Philosophy of Science, Vol.

5,

pp. 369-389, 1938). 2.

"Mind

is

(The

Minding,"

Monthly, Vol. 48,

Scientific

pp. 169-171, 1939). 3.

"The Symbol: The Origin and

(Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4.

"On

7,

Basis of

Human

Behavior,"

pp. 451-463, 1940).

the Use of Tools by Primates,"

(Journal of

Com-

parative Psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 369-374, 1942). 5. "The Expansion of the Scope of Science," (Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, Vol. 37, pp. 181-210, 1947).

6.

"The Locus

of Mathematical Reality:

An

Anthropological

Footnote," (Philosophy of Science, Vol. 14, pp. 289-303, 1947)7.

"Culturological

vs.

Psychological Interpretations of

Human

Behavior," (American Sociological Review, Vol. 12, pp. 686-698,

1947)8.

"Man's Control over

lusion,"

(The

Scientific

Civilization:

An

Anthropocentric

Monthly, Vol. 66, pp. 235-247, 1948). Xi

Il-

AUTHOR'S NOTE

jjji

9.

"Ikhnaton:

The Great Man

the

vs.

Culture Process,"

(Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 68, pp. 91-114,

1948). 10.

"The

Definition and

Prohibition

of

(American

Incest,"

Anthropologist, Vol. 50, pp. 416-435, 1948).

"Education: America's Magic," which appeared in School and Society (Vol. 61, pp. 353-354, 1945) has been incorporated in the

An An

chapter "Man's Control over Civilization: Illusion."

Material from "Atomic Energy:

Anthropocentric Anthropological

Appraisal" and "Energy and the Development of Civilization" has been incorporated in the chapter "Energy and the Evolution of Culture."

"Atomic Energy:

An

Anthropological Appraisal"

was read before the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Philadelphia

was never published

in a journal *

on December

28, 1945. It

but was printed in

its

entirety

some newspapers, including: The Baltimore Sun, December 29, 1945; The Milwaukee Journal, January 10, 1946; and The Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, January 13, 1946. "Energy and or large part in

the Development of Civilization" was a radio address delivered over the Columbia Broadcasting System in

February

16,

New

York City on

1947, on a program sponsored by the United States

Rubber Company.

It

was subsequently published with a

series of

* The curious reader will find interesting comment on this talk by Dr. E. U. Condon, Director, National Bureau of Standards, in an address to the winners of a science scholarship contest in Science News Letter, March 16, 1946; Science, April 5, 1946; and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of Chicago, March 15, 1946. Dr. Condon, in effect, advises the young men and women to have nothing to do with prophets of "fatalism" (i.e., determinism in human affairs) such as I. He quotes the Holy Scriptures, and concludes with an inspiring passage from Elizabeth Barrett Browning. See, also, a reply to Dr. Condon by M. F. Ashley Montagu in Science, May 3, 1946, in which he tells of a resolution, proposed by himself, seconded by Margaret Mead, and adopted by the American Anthropological Association, pledging anthropologists to work with other scientists to make "appropriate inherent in atomic use." social inventions" to "guard against the dangers No report on progress toward such inventions has appeared as yet. .

.

.

AUTHOR'S NOTE on science

talks

(New May,

The

in

York, 1947).

It

Warren Weaver,

Scientists Speak,

was

editor

by Technocracy Digest,

also reprinted

The Great

1947, and

am

I

xiii

Lakes Technocrat, May-June, 1947.

grateful to the editors of the journals in

which

my

articles

originally appeared for their kind permission to reprint them here.

Two

some time

of the articles republished here were reprinted

ago in ETC., a Review of General Semantics: "The Symbol" (Vol.

pp. 229-237, 1944), and

1,

pp. 86-88, 1943-44).

Dr.

of

Wm.

'The Symbol" was

Knickerbocker

S.

"Mind

Century English, which he edited

and

is

Minding" (Vol.

1,

rewritten at the request

published

(New

Twentieth

in

York, 1946).

A

number of the articles republished in this volume evoked comment when they originally appeared. "Mind is Minding" brought forth a harsh criticism from Professor Jared Sparkes

Moore

(Scientific

Monthly, Vol.

replied briefly {ihid., pp. 365-66).

"The Expansion

which

to

365, 1940)

50, p.

of Science" was reviewed at length in a sympathetic article

Professor A. L. Kroeber, "White's

Anthropologist, Vol. briefly in

1948).

Man, by

And

it

50,

View

pp. 405-415,

Professor

received brief

J.

I

of the Scope

by

of Culture" (American

1948).

It

was reviewed

L. Myres (Vol. 48, p. 11, January,

comment

in Science (Vol. 106, p. 84,

1947) from Mr. Alden A. Potter. "Man's Control over Civilization"

drew

a

entitled

reply

"Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos" from Harold H. Steinour in

Monthly (Vol. 66, pp. 447-48, 1948). Mr. Steinour argues that it would be a good thing to believe that the human Scientific

will it is,

is

free even

though

at least to a degree.

Egyptologist, Professor for venturing "to

although

I

am

it

were not.

He

believes, however, that

And "Ikhnaton" moved

Wm.

a distinguished

F. Edgerton, to criticize

me

severely

oppose the opinions of competent scholars"

unable to

read

inscriptions

in

the

Egyptian

language (Journal of the American Oriental Society, December, 1948).

AUTHOR'S NOTE

xJY

To

the above

have added the following chapters, volume: "Cultural Determinants of

of articles

list

I

expressly

for

this

Mind;" "Genius:

Its

Causes and Incidence;" "Energy and the

written

Evolution of Culture;" "The Science of Culture."

"Energy and the Evolution of Culture" was written in its entirety for this volume although based upon the thesis of an earlier article by the same title published in the American Anthropologist,

Vol. 45, pp.

335-356,

Material from

1943.

"Cultural

Determinants of Mind" was used for a paper, "The Individual the Culture Process," presented in the symposium on

and

"Human

Individuality" at the Centennial meeting of the Ameri-

can Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington,

D. C, on September

An

14, 1948.

in Science, Vol. 108, pp. 585-86,

abstract of this paper appeared

Nov.

26, 1948.

Since each of the articles reprinted here was originally written to stand on

own

its

feet

and by

itself,

and overlapping among them when a

number

of

them

republication

among them

We

how

I

phenomena;

it

have

to a

will operate.

tried to

is

some duplication Thus,

or, a

description of the science

In preparing these articles for

reduce duplication and overlapping

minimum, but perhaps too much still remains. will keep in mind the fact that, with a few

hope the reader

exceptions, each chapter was

originally

and will be correspondingly indulgent. that

there

are placed together.

contain a definition, or a characterization, of

culture as an order of of culture and

all

some

repetition

relatively novel

is

an independent

We

often very desirable, especially

theme— such

article

might add, however,

as the science of

when

a

culture— is being

treated.

The

articles as originally

other respects also.

We

and have cut out passages transferred material

which the

published have undergone revision in

have added new material in some places in others. In

from one

original articles

some

instances

article to another.

The

have undergone alteration

we have extent to

varies;

some

AUTHOR'S NOTE

xv

have changed considerably, others very ever,

httle. In every case,

much

the premises and point of view, as well as

how-

of the

formulation and presentation, of the original articles have

mained

substantially the same.

am

I

re-

many

greatly indebted to

persons for sympathetic

me

encouragement and assistance tendered

interest,,

in the labors repre-

sented by the material in the present volume, written during a period of I

am

more than

nor adequately convey of those

all

who

I

am

my

expression of thanks of which

sense of gratitude.

have, in one

pages that follow.

whom

No

a decade.

my

capable could encompass the magnitude of

I

would

way

Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes.

a

I

name here

or another, contributed to the

I

have received

warm

friendship of

My colleague,

has kindly and patiently read almost over a decade and

I

however, to mention a few to

like,

especially indebted,

and encouragement from

Nor can

obligation

Professor all

of

much many

inspiration years with

Volney H.

my

Jones,

manuscripts for

have profited greatly from his wise and sym-

pathetic counsel. Professor R. L. Wilder, of the

Department of

Mathematics, University of Michigan, kindly read "The Locus of

Mathematical Reality"

in

many

manuscript and offered

helpful

suggestions. I

believe, however, that

students in

my

my

greatest obligation

is

courses during the last fifteen years

to the

upon

many

whom

I

have, so to speak, "tried out" the ideas set forth in this book.

They

numerous to mention here

are too

hope, therefore, that they will accept

my

singly

this

and by name.

gratitude and affection, both for their interest

tive criticism

and

for their patience

I

simple statement of

and construc-

and forbearance.

In planning the arrangement of this volume, Mr. John Farrar

and

his son, Curtis Farrar,

My wife has script,

have

assisted

with valuable suggestions.

helped enormously in the preparation of the manu-

not to mention the years of encouragement and loyal

support during which time the articles were conceived and written.

AUTHOR'S NOTE XVI

I

cannot find words to express the

to her.

full

sense of

my ^

Leslie A. Universit)' of

Ann

Michigan

Arbor, Michigan

obligation ,_.

White

PREFACE

a

rulture

became

differentiated as soon as

human

since the earliest days of

it

appeared. Ever

history local

groups of

people have been distinguished from one another by

and costume,

ferences in speech, custom, belief,

We

was worn.

may

least there

man has always been aware own group apart from others.

say that, in a sense,

culture conscious.

dif-

any

believe, also, that

of those differences that set his

Thus we might

in so far as

mankind has always been

And, ever since the time of Herodotus

at

have been attempts to account for cultural variations

among mankind. Some in terms of

thinkers accounted for cultural differences

environmental influence; one kind of habitat would

produce one type of culture, another habitat

a

different type.

Others were inclined to attribute cultural variation to innate

mental or temperamental times the

new

differences.

sciences of sociology

and

In

comparatively recent

social

psychology worked

out general principles of a science of social behavior, but these

were assumed to be

common

account for cultural differences interaction

is

mankind and so could not among tribes and nations. Social

to

all

a universal process; conflict, co-operation, accom-

modation, the four wishes, for cultural uniformities,

etc.,

are worldwide; they

might account

but not differences. True, these sciences

did not address themselves to the problem of cultural variation;

they were limited almost entirely to the framework of one culture.

Western

civilization.

But when one turned xvii

to the question of

PREFACE

xviii

cultural differences

among

peoples,

it

was found that sociology

social psychology had virtually nothing to offer. Apart from theories of environmental determinism which con-

and

and

sidered merely the relationship between habitat

culture, all

t\pes of interpretation prior to the emergence of anthropology

thought of

as a science

man and culture together; no one conits human carriers. With the advance

sidered culture apart from of science, however,

came

of events, as a distinct order of

class

is

and

manifestation

direct

that culture

realized

flows freely

phenomena.

is

"human

of

nature."

within the stream of culture

ceremony,

cultural elements

is

itself;

of

One came culture

and

that a language, custom, belief,

processes. In short,

may be

analysis

and interpretation,

it

was discovered that

from the standpoint of

considered,

as a

scientific

thing sui generis, as a class of

events and processes that behaves in terms of

own

its

principles

and laws and which consequently can be explained only its

own elements and

Culture

processes.

may

sidered as a self-contained, self-determined process;

be explained only

in

terms of

in terms

thus be con-

one that can

itself.

This profound discovery and advance in science was the anthropology:

who

it

lie

the product of antecedent and concomitant

culture

of

be

to

generation to another

from one race or habitat to another.

eventually to understand that the determinants

tool or

came

It

continuum, a stream of events, that

a

down through time from one

laterally

was seen

It

not merely a reflex response to habitat, nor a simple

that culture

and

a recognition of culture as a distinct

was the anthropologists,

as

lot of

Kroeber has

said,

"discovered culture." In contrast with the sister sciences of

social

found

psychology and sociology, itself in

the-

new

such things was in fact a large part of position to note that, in variation

is

science of anthropology

the very midst of cultural differences; concern with

many

its

objective. It

instances at least,

associated with a uniformity of

Thus, among North American Indian

tribes

was

marked

in a

cultural

human physical type. who were of a highly

PREFACE

xix

uniform physical type, there was nevertheless a great variety of types. A biological constant could not account for a

cultural

cultural variable.

The

anthropologist was able to see also that,

whereas a certain type of habitat would condition the form and content of a culture,

it

did not determine them.

for example, did not necessarily

snug dwellings. As a matter of

mean

An

arctic climate,

and

tailored fur clothing

fact, a great variety of cultures are

compatible with any given type of environment,

as a

comparative

survey of regions or the archeological record of a single area over a long period of time will show.

to free themselves

Thus anthropologists were

able

from the old interpretative biases— that culture

was determined by habitat or by "human nature"— and to discover the culturological determination of culture.

The

great English anthropologist, E. B. Tylor, seems to have

been the

first

clearly to grasp this

new

conception. In the

in succinct fashion the culturological

first

he formulated point of view and outlined

chapter of his great work. Primitive Culture (1871

),

the scope of the science of culture. Tylor was followed by Durk-

many others in the developnew science. But progress has not been steady and Of late there has been a falling away from the culturo-

heim, Kroeber, Lowie, Wissler, and

ment

of this

continuous.

logical point of

culture as such,

view and objectives. Instead of interpretation of

many American

anthropologists in recent years

have turned to the overt reactions of

human

organisms and to the

deep subconscious forces that underlie these reactions. Thus, many

men and women

anthropologists,

who

are by training and tradition

best qualified to study culture, have abandoned in psychology or psychiatry for

technical training intuition.

and with but

They have

it

for adventures

which they have had little

little

equipment save

or

a

no

ready

sold their culturological birthright for a mess

of psychiatric pottage.

And who larly

is

to study culture

the culturologists?

if

not the anthropologists, particu-

We have witnessed a definite regression in

anthropology in America in recent years. But

it

will

not

last.

PREFACE

XX Sooner or

later the

advance in science begun with Tylor

will

be

resumed. As Kroeber has indicated in a recent article, fashions

and fads come and go eddies on the surface

in science, is

but underneath the currents and

the deep strong flow of scientific progress.

"Personalit}'," says Kroeber, "is the slogan of the vices like 'ink-blot tests'

gadget

.

.

.

moment

.

.

.

De-

have some of the outward qualities of a

we

[and] as a nation

love gadgets ... In a decade or

two Rohrschachs may have been displaced

as stimuli of fashion

response by their successor of the day." In the chapters that follow its

several aspects: the origin

we

treat

the Science of Culture in

and nature of

of the scientific interpretation of culture of this

new

cholog}^

and

culture, the

and an

emergence

historical sketch

venture, the fundamental distinction between psyculturolog}^, and, finally, a

few demonstrations of the

point of view and techniques of culturological interpretation.

PART

I

SCIENCE AND SYMBOLS

Introduction

e preface our treatise on the Science of Culture with an on science in general, "Science is Sciencing." Science

essay is

a

body of

technique

this

other is

not

class.

it is

phenomena

But

is

it

any

as to

science of culture, or the science of psychology,

not as mature as astronomy or physics; neither

old.

And

a technique of interpretation.

as applicable to cultural

is

The

data;

is

it

nearly as

fallacious or chauvinistic to assert that "physics

science, but psychology or culturology

not."

is

One

is

a

can science in

any sector of experience.

"The Symbol" we lay bare the mechanism that has brought culture, as a new and distinct order of phenomena, into being. We discover culture as a new field of scientific exploration and interpretation. "On the Use of Tools by Primates" attempts to show In

why man

has a continuous, cumulative, and progressive material

culture whereas the anthropoid apes,

who

are able to

make

tools

and who use them with great skill and versatility, do not. The is, again, the Symbol. "Mind is Minding" breaks with the

answer

old-fashioned view which regarded

and

sees

it

mind

as a thing, as

an entity,

merely as a process of reacting to external stimuli. This

helps to clarify the relationship between

man

as

organism and the

extrasomatic cultural tradition to which he reacts as he does to his natural habitat.

In

"The Expansion

of the Scope of Science,"

course of the conquest of science of ever terrain of

human

tronomv, then

experience,

first

terrestrial physical

sectors of biological

we

trace the

more and more

of the

of the heavenly bodies in as-

phenomena, then the various

phenomena, and,

finally,

the realm of culture.

we

In tracing the course of the advance and progress of science

come

face to face with

its

predecessor and

of anthropomorphism, anthropocentrism,

rival:

the philosophy

and Free Will. As sub-

sequent chapters will bring out clearly and emphatically, this

is

the philosophy that science has had to contend every inch of the

way.

And

it

is

this age-old

have to oppose until

it is

and primitive philosophy that we

at last eradicated, root

and branch.

still

CHAPTER ONE SCIENCE

"Science

is

a kind of

is

5<•cience

SCIENCING

IS

human

behavior."

not merely a collection of facts and formulas.

is

may be

appropriately used as a verb: one sciences,

with experience according to certain assumptions and techniques. Science

The

experience.

be used

as a verb;

science and art assist

may and

man live.

art

is

is

art.

one may

And

this

art as well as

from opposite

particulars in terms of universals:

mass of Negro ticulars:

may appropriately science. The purpose of

word, too,

slaves.

i.e.,

to

environment in order that he

But although working toward the same it

deals

with certain

one: to render experience intelligible,

to adjust himself to his

approach

i.e.,

one of two basic ways of dealing with

is

other

It

The word

pre-eminently a way of dealing with experience.

goal, science

directions. Science deals with

Uncle

Tom

disappears in the

Art deals with universals in terms of par-

the whole gamut of Negro slavery confronts us in the

person of Uncle

Tom. Art and

science thus grasp a

common

by opposite but inseparable poles. To use the word science as a noun is not, however, without

experience, or reality,

justification. etc.,

The words

chemistry, physiology, history, sociology,

are both legitimate

rived from distinctions

two

sources.

and

On

useful.

the one

As categories they

are de-

hand, they reflect analytical

which may be made within the

field

of reality:

erosion, respiration, hysteria, voting, etc., are phases or segments

3

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

4

of experience which find their reflections in the categories geol-

psychology, and political science, respectively.

physiology-,

og\^

the other hand, division of labor in society, essential in

On

modern

times, also finds

categories.

that

This

is

its

reflection in the same, or similar,

a fact often ignored. Psychology

is

pational groups just as truly as distinctions itself.

a category

is

a reflection of the division of society into disparate occuit

which may be made

"Psychology

is

what

is

in experience ("subject matter")

ps)rcho]ogists

bearing the label 'psychologist') do," "psycholog}^

is

an expression of analytical

is

(i.e.,

a guild of workers

as valid a definirion as

the study of mind, or behavior."

The one

is

an

expression of social reality; the other derives from the nature of

the subject matter of the study.

This dual nature of the categories becomes manifest in the

re-

current protest against the partition of science into "watertight"

compartments, in the impossibility of telling whether a given study

is

historical,

sociological, or psychological.

Does the

story of

John Brown's "insurrection" belong to psychology, sociology, economics, political science, or history? Obviously and equally to each.

Nor can the

distinction

between inanimate, biologic and

cultural withstand the categorizing process

When

which

is

implicit in

Harlow Shapley

studies the

responses of ants to varying quantities of heat reaching

them from

the division of labor in society.

the sun,^ is

is

he an astronomer or an entomologist? Obviously, he

contributing to an understanding of insects as well as

stars; this

thermodynamic process has both entomologic and astronomic aspects. Dr. A. E. Douglass,

an astronomer at the University of

Arizona, has, by working out a correlation between rainfall and

growth of

most

trees in the

Southwest, provided archeologists with the

precise technique for dating prehistoric remains

panied by written records that has yet been devised.^ In

an "astronomer" has become an archeologist 1

unaccomthis case

via climatology

References are grouped by chapters and appear on pp. 416-424.

and

SCIENCE

IS

SCIENCING

5

botany. Conventionally, however, "an astronomer"

is

any

mem-

ber of a certain group, formal or informal, of scientific workers

produced by the

even though he may con-

social division of labor,

tribute to an understanding of insects, the growth of forests,

and

the sequence of Indian cultures, as well as to our knowledge of

heavenly bodies. Logically, astronomy

the scientific interpreta-

is

tion of the behavior of celestial bodies regardless of the professional label

a

number

who makes

borne by the one

The custom

it.

of viewing "science" as a vast terrain divided into

of "fields" each tilled

by

its

own

guild has a certain justification in utility

appropriately

tends to obscure the nature of science as a

and

reality

men

alike.

way

it

of interpreting

to spread confusion in the ranks of scientists

The

named

and convenience. But and

lay-

use of the word science as a noun not only leads

to jurisdictional disputes— does the study of juvenile delinquency

belong to sociology or to psychology, the study of geology or to biology?—but to such questions is

sociology a science?

with some of

its

There

is

to

fossils

history a science?

tendency to identify "science"

techniques. For example, one can perform ex-

periments in chemistry and

make

omy. Chemistry and astronomy is

a

as, is

accurate predictions in astron-

are "sciences." Experimentation

exceedingly limited in sociology and predictions in history are

seldom more than guesses. Therefore, the tendency

is

to say,

"history and sociology are not sciences." Despite the fact that

much

of geology

culture, there

deny

is

is

this status to

Then

a

more

historical

than certain studies of

a willingness to call the

human

one "a science" but to

the other.

distinction

is

made between

the physical

sciences

(frequently called by the flattering term "the exact sciences")

the "social sciences." Implicit in this distinction that a

and

the assumption

fundamental difference obtains between the nature of

physical reality to, if

is

indeed

it

and human

social reality.

This assumption leads

does not include by implication, the further

as-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

5

human

sumption that the data of

being essentially

society,

differ-

really not ent from the data of physics ("the exact sciences"), are are sciences susceptible to scientific treatment, hence the social really

not sciences at

The same

all; *

they are not and cannot be "scientific."

made, although with

observations are

with reference to biology: "Biology

but more

is

only confusing; they are unwarranted.

comprise the

The

basic assumptions

scientific

way

the

This means that we must cease viewing science

number

wholly

human-

the biological and the physical.

social, or cultural, as well as to

divisible into a

and

interpreting

of

reality are applicable equally to all of its phases, to

is

emphasis,

than physics,

than sociology." These assumptions are not

scientific

techniques which

less

less scientific

as

an entity which

of qualitatively different parts:

some

some quasi-scientific, and must cease identifying science

scientific (the "exact sciences"),

some only

pseudo-scientific.

with one or another of

We must,

in short,

its

We

techniques, such as experimentation.

view science

as a

way

of behaving, as a

interpreting reality, rather than as an entity in

itself, as

a

way

of

segment

of that reality.

Science distinguishes living, sentient beings on the one hand,

and an external world independent of sentient organisms on the other.** Reality in this context consists of the organisms' interaction with the external world.

one or

as a

many.

It

As such

may be thought

component

parts.

On

may be

regarded as a

of as the totality of the inter-

action, or experience, of the organism; or, its

it

it

may be

analyzed into

the perceptual level reality

is

analyzed

into sense impressions— odors, tastes, colors, sounds, etc.

conceptual level

it is

mathematical symbols, etc.,

etc.

the

Matter, energy, time, space, motion,

are conceptual devices with

*"...!

On

analyzed with symbolic instruments— words,

which we analyze

reality

and

in

—

think that social science is like a '\^'elsh rabbit not really a rabHooton, in Apes, Men, and Morons, p. 62.

bit at all." E. A.

**

"The

the basis of

an external world independent of the perceiving subject natural science." Einstein, 1934, p. 60.

belief in all

is

SCIENCE

SCIENCING

IS

7

we make our adjustments

terms of which

to

it.

Matter, energy,

time, motion, and so on, are not therefore discrete entities, but aspects or phases of a

reality. We may also analyze the we can experience it, into equivalent which we may call events. Experience

common

totality of reality, insofar as

component is

parts, or "units,"

therefore conceived by us

and on the other

"Whole and is

on the one hand

an

infinite

parts"

means

as

number

as a one, as a totality,

of parts, or events.

relationships. "Relationship," too,

another conceptual device, a symbolic instrument, with the aid

of which

we

means

which we

of

render experience intelligible to a degree, and by effect

our adjustments to our environment.

Events are related to each other. But how?

"Every event that happens in the world space-co-ordinates

x,

y,

z

is

determined by the

and the time-co-ordinate

fundamental relationship, or "interval," between events space-time.

t," is

^

The

one of

Whereas formerly space and time were thought

of as

properties of the external world independent of each other, they are

now

seen to be merely aspects of the basic and primary prop-

erty, space-time.

time which

I

To

quote Minkowski: "The views of space and

wish to lay before you have sprung from the

experimental physics, and therein cal.

Henceforth space by

itself,

lies their

and time by

in

an independent

modern thought,

reality." *

Thus

as a four-dimensional

of reality in which events are manifested

They are radidoomed to union of the two

itself,

fade into mere shadows, and only a kind of will preserve

soil of

strength.

are

reality confronts us,

continuum; the process is

a temporal-spatial (or

temporal-formal) one.

is

Thus the primary and fundamental relationship between temporal-formal. But by purely logical analysis, we may

events distin-

guish the temporal aspect of the process from the spatial; although inseparable in actuality,

we may occupy ourselves with either to Thus we may distinguish three kinds

the exclusion of the other.

of processes, one primary, the temporal-formal,

and two secondary

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

3 and

temporal on the one hand and the

derivative, the

formal, on the other. In the

first

spatial, or

category we would deal with

intervals. In events as being related to one another by space-time (or relainterval the consider the other two we would in the one interval the tionship) in its temporal aspect only; and in the other

would be

dealt with in

its spatial,

Scicncing must adapt

must be

so shaped

and

effectively and render

itself to

its

or formal, aspect alone.

the structure of

techniques so ordered as to grasp reality

This means, therefore,

intelligible to us.

it

reality; its tools

have three ways of sciencing: one which grasps the space-time property of reality in its entirety, and two subsidiary and derivative ways, each of which deals with one of the two asthat

we

shall

pects of this property,

viz.,

space and time. All of "science" or

sciencing will be found to be assignable to one or another of these three categories; there

is

no way

of sciencing apart

from these

three.

"History"

is

way

that

of sciencing in

which events are dealt

with in terms of their temporal relationships alone. Each event unique.

Lincoln

The one is

thing that history never does

assassinated only once.

To be

is

one another

other than temporal. This must of necessity be true since of relationships are equally attributes of a "histor)'-ing"

we

arbitrarily select for

them-

sure, the events

selves that constitute history are related to

is

to repeat itself:

common

in

ways

all

kinds

reality.

But

in

our consideration the con-

nective tissue of time, and just as arbitrarily ignore the relationship of space.*

This process of reducing concrete experience to tions, or, to

put

it

more

precisely, the act of substituting concepts,

"free inventions of the

*

To be

sure, those

relationships

who

human

intellect"

(to

borrow Einstein's

bear the label "historian" concern themselves with

they wish to know where Lincoln was when. "The temporal process" would probably be a

other than

assassinated as well as

artificial abstrac-

temporal:

better term for our purpose here than "history."

SCIENCE

SCIENCING

IS

9

phrase), for the concrete experiences of the senses,^

unavoidable,

it is

and

common

property

reality; it is a

cultural orders of

phenomena.

Stars,

customs and institutions, each have their respective

and anthropology are therefore, in part at There is no antagonism nor even

history

be

co-extensive

the solar system, the

least,

ences."

it

is

indihis-

Astronomy, physics, geology, biology, psychology, sociology,

tories.

we

only-

to the inanimate, biological,

and animals, species and

earth, rivers, lead, granite, plants

viduals,

not

the very essence of sciencing.

"History," or the temporal aspect of experience,

with

is

and

science: history

is

historical

distinction

"sci-

between

simply one way of sciencing whether

we refuse to accept this conclusion "An astronomer is a scientist when non-temporal, repetitive process, but when

in geology or sociology. If

are forced to

he deals

with

its

a

alternative:

he concerns himself with

a chronological

history of the solar system, e.g.

)

he

Events are related to each other reality in

terms of

is

sequence of events (the

no longer

spatially,

a scientist."

and we may deal with

spatial, or formal, relationships, ignoring

the

aspect time. Spatial relationships

between events may be regarded

as either

constant or variable. Events, or material objects, whose mutual spatial relationships are regarded as constant, constitute a structure.

This property

is

characteristic of all phases of reality. In the inani-

mate, biologic and cultural levels as

atoms, molecules,

it

manifests

itself in

such forms

constellations, planets, orbits, strata,

stars,

the elements; in skeletons, bones, muscles, organs, bodies, limbs;

grammars, constitutions.

in families, clans, societies,

spatial relationships uniting a jects,

number

are regarded as variable, then

property likewise manifests

itself

on

When

the

of events, or material ob-

we

speak of function. This

all levels

of reality in atomic,

molecular, meteorological, astronomic behavior; in physiological

and psychological

processes;

cultural processes.

Thus the

gist,

zoologist,

botanist,

and on the supra-biological

level, in

physicist, chemist, astronomer, geolo-

physiologist,

psychologist,

sociologist.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

10

linguist, cultural anthropologist, etc., are all

spatial or fomial

*

(non-temporal) aspect of

concerned with the reality, in its struc-

tural or functional aspects, or both.

We come now

to the third kind of relationship, or process: the

temporal-spatial. This

is

the two preceding processes, but

like

from each. As we have already noted,

different

relationships are always intrinsic in

any phase of

The

reality.

any

three kinds of

temporal process (or "history")

is

a

arrangement of events according to the principle time.

selective

Spatial relationships,

though actually existent

disregarded: in the history of thought

it

Newton cogitates under an apple tree or when

all

series of actual events, in

dealing with spatial relationships,

is

in these events, are

immaterial whether

in his bath. Similarly,

i.e.,

with structure and

function, the time relationships which are inseparable from these

events in objective reality are here divorced by logical analysis:

the stmcture of the

the rusting of iron,

crystal,

cowardice, secret societies,

may be

respiration,

studied without reference to

clocks or calendars.

But

in the temporal-spatial process

both temporal and

relationships are simultaneously significant.

And

it is

time and space— "up from the South at break of day Sheridan twenty miles away." to

know not

fought them.

and

zoologist

t

relationships.

+ = + s

The

.

and

and the ethnologist are interested

and culture

traits as

in

well as their history.

are examples of a simultaneous interest in both temporal

spatial relationships.

spatial

.

.

conventional historian wishes

only that Napoleon fought battles, but where he

The

the distribution of species

These

The

spatial

not a case of

t

s.

But they are not examples of temporal-

Hydrogen

temporal-spatial process

* Structure

+ oxygen = hydrogen

But hydrogen x oxygen =: water (H2O); is

-|-

t

oxygen;

x

s

=

ts.

not, then, equivalent to a space

and function are not confined to the realm of metric space.

Structure or form

is a characteristic of such non-spatial systems as language, music, kinship systems, social organization, poetry, and so on.

SCIENCE

SCIENCING

IS

and time organization

phenomena;

of

of these

measured

indicate

in feet indicates

its

And, using the same

thickness of

age measured in

animal species

principle, the anthropologist has

been

instances, to reconstruct the history of a tool,

custom, or institution by inference from

And,

movement

one

involved,

are

may

age: the wider the distribution the greater the age.

its

many

instances in

Thus the

years. Similarly, the distribution of a plant or

tion.®

many

relations

spatial

significant only in terms of the other.

a geologic stratum

in

sum

not the

of interest to note in passing that in

is

which both temporal and is

it is

but their product.

factors It

IT

of course, our clocks

myth,

geographic distribu-

measure time by a repetitive

mechanism through

of a

But the temporal-formal process

its

able,

space. is

more than

a concern with

temporal and formal relationships taken either alone or each in terms of the other.

It

one

is

in

which both time and space, or

form, are significant, a process in which both are integrated into a single, undifferentiated event.

The

temporal-formal process

mental process.

It is

is

an evolutionary, or develop-

distinguished from the temporal process on

the one hand and the formal process on the other. Like the others, this process

realms of stellar

is

inherent in

reality,

experience and

all

is

manifest in

inanimate, biological, and cultural.

all

Thus we have

and cosmic evolution, biological evolution and cultural

evolution. This process differs from the temporal and formal processes in that in the evolutionary process,

integrally

involved,

they

are

temporal-alteration-of-forms. will

make each one more

The

temporal process

process

that

unique;

it

is

A

unique, each

is

non-repetitive.

is

In the sequence or

(and temporal only), each event

only one

movement

Evolution

comparison of these three processes

occurs only once. Tlie

only once, there

time and space are both

inseparable.

distinct. is

temporal

fused,

Rocky Mountains

Wiirm

are

glaciation, each raindrop

of every living creature

is

is

formed is

distinguished

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

12

from every other movement,* John Brown each meeting of the women's sewing circle spatial, or functional, process,

is

is

executed only once, a

unique event.

being non-temporal,

is

The

repetitive;

mountain systems may be formed repeatedly, ice-age may follow ice-age, raindrops fall again and again, water freezes, ice thaws and water freezes again, metal may be melted and remelted, monkeys sneeze,

and

men

executed, prices rise and

die, insurrectionists are

rise again, societies

and clubs are organized

in every age.

evolutionary process, being in part temporal in character, non-repetitive;** a reptile

decomposes only once;

becomes

stars

a

mammal

is

fall

The also

only once; radium

"die" only once.***

Growth

is

also a

may be. Actually they usually are not, for the reason that such distincexcept in rare instances such as the real or imagined kick of Mrs. O'Lean's cow that started the great Chicago fire, or the honking of the geese who "saved Rome" have no significance for us as ordinary human beings. But for a philosophy of science the sneeze of an anonymous monkey in the depths of a jungle is as significant as illustrating the uniqueness of each event * It

—

tions

—

temporal series as is the birth of Christ or the death of Caesar. ** Actually, this may depend upon one's point of view, or more accurately, upon the temporal scope of one's vision. To us, the cosmic process seems to be evolutionary in character: the universe is expanding (it may be assumed), or matter is being transmuted into energy. The process seems to be temporalformal in character: non-repetitive and irreversible. But this appearance may be an illusion due to the temporal limits of our observation. Were the period longer, sufficiently longer, the cosmic process might reveal itself as a repetitive one: an era of contraction might follow expansion, and so on, in an endless series of pulsations; matter may be transmuted into energy and re-congealed into matter, an endless vibration of a cosmic pendulum. So, to a creature that, compared with us, had an infinitcsimally brief span of observation, the repetiti\'e and rhythmic character of respiration or the heart beat or the rusting of iron would appear to be evolutionary in character, for seeing only a minute part of the process, neither the beginning nor the end, he would observe only a temporal alteration of form, and might declare it to be a non-repetitive process. And he would be correct too, for the process which he observes is non-repetitivc just as the dying star and the decomposing radium represent non-repetiti\e processes to us. Thus, whether a process be labelled repetitive or e\olutionary depends upon the unit of measurement. Any repetitive process is made up of a sequence of events which in themselves are non-repetitive. Conversely, any repetitive process is but a segment of a larger one which is in a

cvolutionarv in character.

*** One must not confuse duplication with lepetition: there may be transimammal in many different phyla. These are duplications,

tions from reptile to

not repetitions.

SCIENCE

IS

SCIENCING

13

temporal-spatial process; the term, however, individuals

rather than

one

process:

to

classes.

a

is

non-repetitive

once— second childhood

a child only

is

usually applied to

is

Growth

is

always a

novelty.

Even

at the cost of repetition,

it

might be

well, for the sake

of clarity, to re-emphasize the nature of the distinctions just made.

Actually, each event has a four-dimensional character

and has

its

Thus the raincosmic evolution, and we may

place in a four-dimensional, space-time continuum.

drop

is

an event in the process of

view

it

as such.

But we may

also

view

it

in other contexts: in a

purely temporal context, or in a wholly non-temporal context (in

which we consider only the tween the raindrop, the

alteration in spatial relationships be-

earth, the clouds, etc.).

These contexts

own making. They are arbitrarily selected points of view from which we regard and consider reality; they are the forms, the channels, so to speak, within which we

are, of course, devices of

our

science.

The

formal process

is

beef; beef

may become hay

and opposite processes

decomposes; hay becomes

again; revolt

and reaction are

in society; prices rise

temporal order of events remains immutable;

Only

in

Water

reversible as well as repetitive.

freezes, ice thaws; iron rusts, iron oxide

and it

fall, etc.

cyclical

But the

cannot be reversed.

Through the Looking Glass do Queens scream before

they prick their fingers, or Alices pass the cake before they cut it.

The

evolutionary process, being temporal as well as formal,

The mammals do not

likewise irreversible.

nated,

knighthood was

in

do not reabsorb energy once ema-

return to reptilianism, the days

historic process

a child

and the evolutionary process are

alike in

is

i.e.,

But, whereas the historic process

Historically Eli

is

"make

an impossible request.

being temporal in character,

tionary process

when

me

flower can never return,

again just for tonight"

The

stars

is

formal as well:

non-repetitive

and

irreversible.

is

merely temporal, the evolu-

it is

a temporal-sequence-of-forms.

Whitney and the invention

of the cotton gin are

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

14

inseparable events in a chronological sequence.

But had Whitney

died in his cradle the evolutionary process expressed in technology would have produced a machine for ginning cotton. Similarly,

although Lincoln slaves

bound

is

to the emancipation of

historically

and Darwin to the formulation of

certain biological prin-

ciples, the processes of politico-economic evolution would have achic\ed the one without Lincoln just as evolution of thought

\\ould have produced the other without Darwin. of the calculus,

The

invention

which took place almost simultaneously, and indeNewton and Leibnitz, was the logi-

pendently, in the activities of cal expression of a

gence of

a

developmental process,

new mathematical form from

i.e.,

it

was the emer-

previous forms. Just as

the invention of the calculus was not dependent upon either

ton or Leibnitz alone, so

it

New-

was not necessarily dependent upon

them both; it would have occurred eventually if both Newton and Leibnitz had died in infancy. The development of mathematics, like the

development of technology or medicine,

is

an

new forms grow out of preceding forms. whose person and labors a new form is to appear, and when and where it is to appear is a matter that belongs to the context

evolutionary process:*

But

in

history alone.

From

the point of view of the evolutionary process

every histoncal event

We dict

may who

is

an accident and in a sense unpredictable.

predict that a cure for cancer will will

make the

discovery and

be found, but

when

is

to pre-

impossible.

That

the nations of Europe will be embroiled again in a great war in the not distant future

as safe a prediction as

is

one could make;

the development of technological, economic, political, and military forces

makes another war

inevitable.

But who

that will set oif the conflagration, and

archduke or is

official will

be

utterly impossible to say.

shot,

The

will strike

the spark

when and where— what

when, where, and by

passing of a

star,

whom— it

drawing out from

the sun a gigantic filament from which the planets of our solar *

Einstein

and

Infcld

have called

Physics, not the History of Physics,

it is

their

recent

book The Evolution of

significant to note.

SCIENCE

IS

SCIENCING

system were formed, historic process in

if

15 a fact,

which

is

specific

an historic

and

fact;

place in a purely temporal context. But this

the process

is

an

unique events take

severally

is

quite a different

process from that of cosmic or galactic evolution as exemplified, for instance,

by the equi-partition of energy, or the transmutation

of matter into energy, the dying of a star. Similarly, in the biologic

realm, the narrative of the specific wanderings over the face of

the earth, the struggles, intermixture, vicissitudes,

man

various species and races of

is

etc.,

of the

quite a different story from the

account of the evolutionary development.

So

far,

we have spoken

of the inorganic, organic,

ganic realms, or levels, of reality as

if

taken for granted. For the sake of completeness and ever, a

The

few words on distinctions

between these

levels, or strata, of reality are

for science.

The phenomena

three levels do not differ from each other in that one

of these

composed

is

of one kind of basic substance, another of a different kind. differ in

be assumed to be made up of various manifestations of

which

They

the manner in which their component parts are organ-

ized into patterns or forms, respectively. Basically

in

how-

clarity,

this subject are desirable.

and are fundamental

valid,

and superor-

these distinctions could be

realit\'

reality confronts us.

common

a

are

due

There

stuff;

all reality

may

differences in

to differences in the forms

are classes, or kinds, of forms

amid the infinite range of specific variation. Physical, biological, and cultural are labels for three qualitatively different and scientifically significant classes of

The

physical category

forms of

is

reality.

composed

of non-living

phenomena

or

The cultural category, made up of events that are dependent the human species, namely, the ability

systems; the biological, of living organisms. or order, of

upon

phenomena

is

a faculty peculiar to

to use symbols. tools, utensils,

These events are the

ideas,

beliefs,

languages,

customs, sentiments, and institutions that

the civilization— or culture, to use the anthropological

make up term— of

any people, regardless of time, place, or degree of development.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

16 Culture

passed

is

down from one

generation to another,

by one tribe from another.

be borrowed freely act with one another

in

Its

or, it

may

elements inter-

accordance with principles of their own.

Culture thus constitutes a supra-biological, or extra-somatic, class shall analyze this order of of events, a process suf generis.

We

phenomena

at

some length

on The Sym-

in the following chapter

bol

Even a

casual inspection of our three categories reveals the fact

that biological and cultural

phenomena

are but particular kinds

of organization of events in the inanimate,

and the biological and

physical categories, respectively. Thus, a plant or an animal

is

form of organization of carbon, oxygen, calcium,

a peculiar

but etc.

phenomenon (human beings) and inanimate phenomena organized in a special manner. Thus events on tlie biologic level (for levels, or Likewise a cultural

is

but a manifestation of biologi-

cal

what these categories are in reality) can be dealt with terms of inanimate phenomena: a plant or animal is so much

strata, are

in

carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen;

be

frozen, transformed

event— a man taking

by

it

and so on.

a rock,

fall as

be dealt with

and manual, and these,

upon which the oath

in terms of acoustics, mechanics, physical

is

may

Similarly, a cultural

a Christian oath of office— may

in terms of his gestures, vocal

gether with the book

has weight, will

fire,

in turn, to-

taken, can

be treated

and chemical properties

of the Bible, and so on.

But the

fact that the

course the

first,

ones, below

minimize

it

phenomena

of one category (except of

the inanimate) can be "reduced" to the one, or

does not destroy the categories themselves, nor even

their distinctness. Meteors, bullets, pterodactyls, birds,

squirrels, fish, bats, bees,

and airplanes

"fly"

through the

air.

A

physicist could deal with each as a material body, in terms of mass,

momentum,

acceleration, atmospheric resistance,

sidered merely as material bodies the fact that

others inanimate, distinction

is

is

of course irrelevant.

and so on. Con-

some

are animate,

But merely because

not significant to the physicist does not

mean

this

that

SCIENCE it is

SCIENCING

IS

17

not meaningful in other sectors of science.

On

the contrary,

organizations of events cannot be fully understood unless they are interpreted

upon the

level of their organization. It

course, that bees, bullets,

molecules, and this fact

is

is

a fact, of

and bats are composed of atoms and not without significance. But

we cannot

appreciate the difference between bees and bullets on the one

hand

or between bees

and bats on the other on the

basis of physi-

cal organization alone. Living organisms constitute a distinct order

of material systems

and they must be interpreted

as such. Cultural

systems are composed of psycho-physical events, but

we cannot

comprehend such a thing as taking an oath of ofEce and distinguish

it

from use of a formula to make beer merely by knowing

made up

of neuro-sensory-muscular reactions and that composed of molecular and atomic particles and processes. However illuminating it may be to reduce systems of one level to the events of the level below it— and this is unquestionably valuable— each order of events, each kind of system, must

that each

is

these in turn are

be comprehended on

its

own

level also.

/

Thus we see that we have three qualitatively distinct levels or strata of phenomena: the cultural, which is characterized by the symbol; the biological, characterized by the

cell;

and the

physical,

characterized by the atom, proton, electron, wave, or whatever

other unit, or units, the physicist decides upon.

There are, however, instances in which our ends are not served by maintaining the distinctions between these three levels. may wish to inquire into the relationship between one level and

We

another. Inquiries of this sort are, needless to say, as legitimate and potentially profitable as any other.

into the relationship

Thus bio-chemistry

between the inanimate and the

inquiries are directed to the relationship

and

cultural levels.

for example. his father,

is

A

inquires

living. Similar

between the biological

Take the Oedipus complex

of psychoanalysis,

boy's love for his mother, hatred or hostility toward

of course a reaction of his organism.

But these

atti-

tudes are functions of the culture in which he was born, also. His

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

18

culture not only channels the expression of these emotions but

The

plays a part in their evocation as well.

be the same

his parents will not

boy toward

attitude of a

in a patriarchal society as in

one that recognizes both

matrilincally organized, or in

one

lines of

descent equally. Thus the Oedipus or Elcctra complex, as well as other examples of

all

human behavior— i.e., human

behavior as

distinguished from non-human, or sub-human, behavior; there

human about

nothing peculiarly

a sneeze, e.g.— are

made up

is

of

elements drawn from two different categories: the biological and the cultural.

The formula

Studies of

soil

for

Human

X Cultural stimuli -^

erosion

may

human

behavior

is:

Human

organism

behavior. inquire into the relationship between

such things as farming or grazing methods, the lumber industry, prices of building materials,

frequency of

winds, and legislation. plant or animal pests

and

natural

rainfall,

reforestation; the quantity

and

The search may involve

artificial

and

drainage structures;

for a material that will destroy

between

relationships

all

three

commodities, the biological organisms and the

levels: the price of

chemicals capable of killing them.

Here

again,

whether we deal with

categories, or levels, of

reality in

phenomena, or

terms of distinct

in terms of relationships

between them, depends upon our purposes and ends. Both approaches are equally legitimate and potentially profitable. In summary,

which cut

we

see that

we have two

classifications of reality

across each other at right angles: the

structure (the atom, the

cell,

one has

to

do with

the symbol), the other has to

do

with process (temporal, formal, and temporal-formal). This gives us nine categories in which

may be

logically

all reality

and

all

and consistently divided

manners of sciencing as

indicated in the

diagram on the opposite page.

On

the inanimate level

(such as they are or

may

we have cosmic and

galactic histories

be), the history of our solar system, the

history of the earth or of a continent, a

mountain chain, a

river,

or even a snowflake, encompassed within the purely temporal con-

SCIENCE text. In

and

IS

SCIENONG

19

we have the non-temporal and functional aspects of astronomy,

the formal-functional context

repetitive,

structural

geology, chemistry, and physics.

And

in the primary category, the

temporal-formal one, of which the other two are but aspects,

have cosmic, galactic,

stellar,'^

and

solar evolution,

composition of radio-active substances.

we

and the de-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

20 category,

we have

evolution of biologic forms in general, of genera,

The growth

species, varieties in particular.

of an individual also

comes within this category.

human

Biography, the history of a instances,

with both the biologic

as dealing

be regarded

human

cultural levels since our interest in a if

ever, divorced

most and the

individual, should, in

from the culture

individual

which he has

in

ing. Similarly with significant individuals in the

his

is

seldom,

human

be-

sub-human animal

cow that started the Chicago fire, the goose Rome, the wolf who suckled Romulus and Remus, Man

or plant world: the that saved o'

War, the hemlock

because

On

it

that killed Socrates, each

enters the context of

the cultural level

we have

human

is

significant only

cultural history.

culture history; a consideration of

nations, reigns, tribes, institutions, tools, ideas, beliefs, etc., in

we have

the temporal context. In the formal-functional context,

the studies of "social morphology" in sociology, cultural anthropology',

schools

and

and the other of

cultural

"social sciences."

The

so-called Functionalist

anthropology— Radcliffe-Brown, Malinowski

their respective students

and co-workers— and the "Chicago

school" of sociolog}', as exemplified by Robert E. Park and E.

W.

Burgess and their students, belong here. In the basic category, that of evolution of culture,

we have

at present virtually nothing.

After a vigorous and bitter struggle the philosophy of evolution

conquered on the biological it

field,

but, after a few brief advances

has been routed from the cultural level.

bert Spencer, E. B. Tylor, and Lewis

A

few giants

H. Morgan,

like

in the

Her-

"boom"

days of evolutionism in the second half of the nineteenth century

were able to occupy the cultural evolutionists regained the field

the turn of the century.

committed

made

field for a

and have held

To be

sure both

time. it

cultural anthropologists— and

anti-

successfully since

Morgan and Spencer

errors in the use of their philosophy,

in the use of a tool does

But the

but a mistake

not render the tool worthless. But

many

sociologists— have repudiated

the philosophy of evolutionism along with the errors of some evo-

SCIENCE

SCIENCING

IS

lutionists: they

21

have poured the baby out with the bath. But the

on the

victory of the anti-evolutionists social science matures,

As

rary.

philosophy, that reality

way on the

its

mate

is

cultural level

is

only tempo-

the basic concept of science and

temporal-formal in character, will win

cultural level as

it

has upon the biologic and inani-

levels.

be noted, of course, that the conventional names for "the sciences" do not readily fit our system of categories. But this is It will

quite understandable: the terms physics, zoology, sociology,

have come into use

been more or long before

it

less accidental.

The

grown, and

etc.,

growth has

this

concepts time and space existed

was discovered that time and space are but aspects

of a third thing for

which there

But the

space-time.

as science has

no more adequate a name than

is

fact that the

names

of "the sciences"

do not

correspond to our nine categories in no way invalidates the cate-

The

gories.

rately

gauged by

own

its

cal

maturity of science in any its

it

develops

terminology. This has taken place extensively in the physi-

and the

it

can be rather accu-

vocabulary: as "a science" matures

biological

sciences.

intelligence, race, society, are

that

field

is

now

likely they will give

And

such words

being found so

way soon

to a

instinct,

as

difficult to

more

use

effective ter-

minology.

For the chemistiy,

scientific etc.,

will

worker such terms

as

psychology, botany,

no doubt continue to be useful and

factory except in so far as further division of labor

and

satis-

specializa-

make new terms necessary. But for the thinker, for the philosopher of science, new technical terms are needed. I shall tion should

not presume to supply names for our nine categories. But, since they represent a

realistic

and

likely that as these categories

logical analysis of the field,

it

seems

obtrude themselves more and more

into systematic thinking, they will eventually receive names.

CHAPTER TWO THE SYMBOL: The Oriain and Basis of

"In the Word was the Beginning Culture."

1n

July,

All

human

Man

the beginning of

the basic unit of

cell is

are beginning to realize is

.

commemorate the hundredth

the discovery that the

the symbol

.

Behavior

and of

1939, a celebration was held at Leland Stanford

University to

Today we

.

Human

the basic unit of

all

anniversary of all

living tissue.

and to appreciate the

human

fact that

behavior and civilization.

behavior originates in the use of symbols.

It

was the

symbol which transformed our anthropoid ancestors into

and made them human. All are perpetuated, only

civilizations

by the use of symbols.

transforms an infant of

Homo

men

have been generated, and It is

sapiens into a

the symbol which

human

being; deaf

mutes who grow up without the use of symbols are not human beings. All

human

use of symbols.

behavior

is

behavior consists

Human

human

behavior

behavior.

is

of,

or

is

dependent upon, the

symbolic behavior; symbolic

The symbol

is

the

universe of

humanity. II

The "there

is

great Danvin declared in The Descent of Man that no fundamental difference between man and the higher

22

THE SYMBOL

mammals them

23

in their

mental

the difference between

faculties," that

consists "solely in his [man's] almost infinitely larger

most

of associating together the

power

sounds and ideas

diversified

.

.

.

the m_ental powers of higher animals do not differ in kind, though greatly in degree, 18;

3,

from the corresponding powers of man" (Chs.

emphasis ours).

This view of comparative mentality today. Thus, F.

H. Hankins,

"in spite of his large brain,

mental

man has any these human su-

him ...

All of

merely relative or differences of degree." Professor

Ralph Linton, an anthropologist, writes

men and

*'The differences between

respects are enormous, but they

to have so

much

in

The Study

animals in

seem

to

of

Man:

these [behavior] in quantity

animal behavior can be

common," Linton

in

all

be differences

"Human and

rather than in quality."

shown

scholars

sociologist, states that

cannot be said that

it

that are peculiar to

traits

periorities are

many

held by

is

prominent

a

observes, "that the

gap [between them] ceases to be of great importance." Dr. Alexander Goldenweiser, likewise an anthropologist, believes that "In point of sheer psychology,

mind

man

as such,

is

after all

no more

than a talented animal" and that "the difference between the mentality here displayed [by a horse and a chimpanzee] and that

man

of

is

merely one of degree."

That there behavior of sible that

are

^

numerous and impressive

man and

that of ape

chimpanzees and

is

fairly

gorillas in

similarities

obvious;

between the

it is

quite pos-

zoos have noted and appre-

ciated them. Fairly apparent, too, are man's behavioral similarities

to

many

define, all

other kinds of animals. Almost as obvious, but not easy to

is

a difference in

other living creatures.

parent to the

which he

is

behavior which distinguishes I

say 'obvious' because

common man

familiar

that the

do not and cannot

the world in which he, as a

human

for a dog, horse, bird, or even

of the

meaning of the

it

is

man from quite ap-

non-human animals wdth enter,

and participate

being, lives. It

is

in,

impossible

an ape, to have any understanding

sign of the cross to a Christian, or of the

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

24 fact that black (white ing.

No

among

the Chinese)

chimpanzee or laboratory

between Holy water and Tuesday,

No

or sin.

3,

the color of mourn-

distilled water, or grasp

man

animal save

from

a cross cousin

from an uncle, or

is

can appreciate the difference

rat

the meaning of

can distinguish a cousin

a parallel cousin.

Only man

can commit the crime of incest or adultery; only he can remember the Sabbath and keep

it

Holy.

It

is

not, as

we

well know, that the

lower animals can do these things but to a lesser degree than ourselves;

they cannot perform these acts of appreciation and

tinction at

It

all.

is,

as Descartes said

brutes have less Reason than all."

dis-

long ago, "not only that the

man, but that they have none

at

2

But when the scholar attempts to define the mental difference between man and other animals he sometimes encounters difficulties which he cannot surmount and, therefore, ends up by saying that the difference

is

man

merely one of degree:

mind, "larger power of association," wider range of

We have a Anton ments

J.

good example of

this in

the distinguished physiologist,

Carlson. After taking note of "man's present achieve-

in science, in the arts (including oratory), in political

social institutions,"

tempted

common man man has

to conclude that in these capacities, at least,

a qualitative superiority over other scientist.

mammals." But,

since, as

man and

cannot explain

it,

he

other animals, since as a physiologist he

refuses to

admit it—

".

.

.

the physiologist

does not accept the great development of articulate speech in

something qualitatively new;

some day we may

find

lipoid, phosphatid, or will

a

Professor Carlson cannot define this qualitative differ-

ence between

as

and

and noting "at the same time the apparent

paucity of such behavior in other animals," he, as a "is

has a bigger

activities, etc.

explain

it,

.

."

—and

some new "building

man

suggests helplessly that

stone," an "additional

potassium ion," in the

human

brain which

and concludes by saying that the difference beman and that of non-man is "probably only

tween the mind of

one of degree."

.

^

THE symbol"

The is

25

we

thesis that

shall

advance and defend here

mind

a fundamental difference between the

mind gree.

of non-man. This difference

And

is

least to the science of

uses symbols;

no other creature

to symbol or

it

does.

that there

the

one of kind, not one of de-

the gap between the two types

portance— at

is

man and

of

of the greatest im-

is

comparative behavior.

An

organism has the

Man

ability

does not; there are no intermediate stages.

Ill

A which

symbol may be defined

is

bestowed upon

cause a symbol

it

as a

thing the value or meaning of

by those who use

may have any kind

it.

I

say 'thing' be-

of physical form;

it

may have

the form of a material object, a color, a sound, an odor, a motion of an object, a taste.

The meaning,

or value, of a symbol

from or determined by properties color appropriate to color; purple rulers of

not intrinsic in

no instance derived

royalty;

form: the

or any other

among

the

Manchu

was yellow. The meaning of the word "see"

it

its

in

mourning may be yellow, green,

need not be the color of

China

is

intrinsic in its physical

is

phonetic (or pictorial) properties. "Biting one's

someone might mean anything. The meanings of symbols are derived from and determined by the organisms who use them; meaning is bestowed by human organisms upon physical things or events which thereupon become symbols. Symbols "have

thumb

at" *

their signification," to use trary imposition of

All symbols

men."

must have

John Locke's phrase, "from the

arbi-

*

a physical

form otherwise they could not

enter our experience. This statement

is

valid regardless

of our

theory of experiencing. Even the exponents of "Extra-Sensory

Perception"

who have

challenged Locke's dictum that "the knowl-

edge of the existence of any other thing [besides ourselves and

God] we can have only by *

"Do you

bite your

thumb

sensation,"

at us, sir?"

^

have been obliged to work

—Romeo and

Jnliet,

Act

I,

Sc. i.

1]

u

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

26

with physical rather than ethereal forms. But the meaning of a symbol cannot be discovered by mere sensory examination of its physical form.

One cannot

equation what

it

tell

by looking

at

an x in an algebraic

stands for; one cannot ascertain with the ears

compound gold he much how

alone the symbolic value of the phonetic tell

merely by weighing a pig

for;

one cannot

si;

one cannot

will

exchange

from the wave length of a color whether

tell

it

stands for courage or cowardice, "stop" or "go"; nor can one dis-

amount

cover the spirit in a fetish by any

examination.

The meaning

of a

of physical or chemical

symbol can be grasped only by

non-sensory, symbolic means.

The

When

nature of symbolic experience the Spaniards

first

may be

easily illustrated.

encountered the Aztecs, neither oould

speak the language of the other.

How

could the Indians discover

the meaning of santo, or the significance of the crucifix?

could the Spaniards learn the meaning of

Tlaloc? These meanings and values could not be

communicated

by sensory experience of physical properties alone. The will

not

finest ears

you whether santo means "holy" or "hungry."

tell

How

or appreciate

calli,

The we

keenest senses cannot capture the value of holy water. Yet, as

know, the Spaniards and the Aztecs did discover each other's

all

meanings and appreciate each other's values. But not with sensory means. Each was able to enter the world of the other only by virtue of a faculty for

But a thing which

in

one context

is

a

symbol

not a symbol but a sign. Thus, a word

text,

one

which we have no better name than symhoh

is

concerned with the distinction between

is

physical form. This distinction

value

upon

value

is

a

is,

in another con-

symbol only when

its

meaning and

its

must be made when one bestows

when a previously bestowed time; it may be made at other

a sound-combination or

discovered for the

first

times for certain purposes. But after value has been bestowed

upon, or discovered use, with

5'y'^^ou

v^

its

in, a

word,

physical form.

S^linU

its

meaning becomes

The word then

identified, in

functions as a sign,

THE SYMBOL

27

meaning

rather than as a symbol. Its

is

then grasped with the

senses.

We define a

sign as a physical thing or event

some other thing

to indicate

be inherent

or event.

form and

in its physical

whose function

The meaning

its

of a sign

is

may

context, as in the case of

the height of a column of mercury in a thermometer as an indication of temperature, or the return of robins in the spring. Or, the

meaning

of a sign

may be merely

identified with

physical form

its

as in the case of a hurricane signal or a quarantine

meaning

either case, the

The

means. text)

and

fact that a thing

a sign

(in

may be

of the sign

may be both

But

flag.

in

ascertained by sensory a

symbol

(in

one con-

another context) has led to confusion and

misunderstanding.

Thus Darwin lower animals as everyone

(Ch. It

Ill, is

is

"That which distinguishes man from the

says:

not the understanding of articulate sounds, for

knows, dogs understand

The Descent

of

many words and

sentences,"

Man).

perfectly true, of course, that dogs, apes, horses, birds,

perhaps creatures even lower in the evolutionary taught to respond in a specific way to a vocal

Gua, the infant chimpanzee

scale,

command.

^

But

it

Words

human

does not follow that no difference exists between

the meaning of "words and sentences" to a dog.

Little

in the Kelloggs' experiment, was, for

a time, "considerably superior to the child in responding to

words."

and

can be

are both signs

man and

to an ape or

and symbols to man; they are merely

signs to a dog. Let us analyze the situation of vocal stimulus

and

response.

A dog may be taught to roll A man may be taught to stop

command "Roll over!'* command "Halt!" The fact

over at the at the

that a dog can be taught to roll over in Chinese, or that

taught to "go fetch" at the the same

is

true for a

invariable relationship

and

command

man) shows between

a specific reaction to

it.

"roll

over" (and, of course,

that there

a particular

The dog

he can be

or the

is

no necessary and

sound combination

man

can be taught

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

28

manner

to respond in a certain

to

any

arbitrarily selected

nation of sounds, for example, a group

On

coined for the occasion.

number and

may become

evocable by a given

the origin of the relationship between

vocal stimulus and response i.e.,

combi-

syllables,

the other hand, any one of a great

variety of responses

stimulus. I'hus, so far as

tionship,

nonsense

of

is

concerned, the nature of the

the meaning of the stimulus,

rela-

not determined by

is

properties intrinsic in the stimulus.

But, once the relationship has been established between vocal stimulus and response, the meaning of the stimulus becomes identified with the sounds; sic

it is

then as

in the sounds themselves. Thus,

meaning

as 'hilt' or 'malt,'

if

the meaning were intrindoes not have the same

'halt'

and these stimuli are distinguished from

one another with the auditory mechanism. A dog may be conditioned to respond in a certain way to a sound of a given wave length. Sufficiently alter the pitch of the sound will cease to

become

and the response

be forthcoming. The meaning of the stimulus has

identified with

its

physical form;

its

value

is

appreciated

with the senses.

Thus

in sign behavior

between

a stimulus

and

we

see that in establishing a relationship

a response the properties intrinsic in the

stimulus do not determine the nature of the response. But, after

the relationship has been established the meaning of the stimulus is

as

if it

were inherent

difference

in its physical

sponse of terminating self-locomotion. or

man

to stop at any vocal

relationship has

response, the

meaning

physical form and far

we have

is,

we have

difference

does not

make any

evoke the

re-

care to choose or devise.

been established between sound and

of the stimulus

becomes

identified with

its

therefore, perceivable with the senses.

discovered no difference between the dog and

the man; they appear to be exactly alike. as

It

select to

We may teach a dog, horse,

command we

But once the

So

form.

what phonetic combination we

gone. But

we have not

between dog and

man

is

And

told the

so they are as far

whole story

yet.

No

discoverable so far as learning

THE SYMBOL

29

to respond appropriately to a vocal stimulus

must not

A

ence.

let

porpoise

The man

is

is

not yet a

he can and does phy an vocal stimulus

and cannot play an vocal stimulus.

other creatures— in that

all

what value the and the dog cannot. The dog does not

active role in determining

to have,

is

differ-

fish.

from the dog— and

differs

we

concerned. But

an impressive similarity conceal an important

active part in determining the value of the

Whether he

to roll over or go fetch at a given

is

stimulus, or whether the stimulus for roll over be one combination

of sounds or another

nothing

else.

He

may

so.

in a

it

and can do

command

sound of

just as

But

a bell.

a creator: let x equal

does equal three pounds of coal;

let

house of worship indicate respect and

This creative faculty, that of

bestowing value upon things,

trarily

of a vocal

and thus becomes

three pounds of coal and

becomes

meaning

learn to respond to the

plays an active role

removal of the hat

which the dog has nothing

a matter in

plays a purely passive role

learns the

his salivary glands

man

is

He

whatever to "say."

and

freely, actively,

it

arbi-

one of the most common-

is

place as well as the most important characteristic of man. Children

employ

it

freely in their play: "Let's

pretend that this rock

is

a

wolf."

The

difference

between the behavior of

that the lower animals

may

then,

is

quire

new meanings, but they cannot

Only man can do like a person

who

this.

To

man and

receive

new

create

other animals ac-

and bestow them.

use a crude analogy, lower animals are

has only the receiving apparatus for wireless

messages: he can receive messages but cannot send them.

do both. And

may

values,

this difference

is

Man

one of kind, not of degree:

can

a crea-

ture can either "arbitrarily impose signification," can either create

and bestow stages.

told

values,

This difference

William James

very important." All alone.

or he cannot. There are no

may

appear

slight, but, as a

in discussing differences

human

intermediate

carpenter once

between men,

existence depends

upon

it

"It's

and

it

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

30

The

confusion regarding the nature of words and their

cance to

men

and the lower animals from a

It arises, first of all,

failure to distinguish

between the two

The

quite different contexts in which words function.

"The meaning "The meaning

signifi-

not hard to understand.

is

of a

word cannot be grasped with the

of a

word can be grasped with the

statements, senses,"

senses,"

and

though

contradictory, are nevertheless equally true. In the symbol context

the meaning cannot be perceived with the senses; in the sign context

it

can. This

confusing enough. But the situation has been

is

using the words 'symbol' and

made worse by

'sign' to label,

the different contexts, but one and the same thing; the word.

word

a

is

a

symbol and a

that a vase

may

doU and

a

is

sign,

a

two

different things. It

kana— tw^o

different

not

Thus

like saying

is

things— because

it

function in two contexts, esthetic and commercial.

IV That man mental

unique among animal species with respect to

is

that a fundamental difference of

abilities,

degree— separates man from

all

other animals

kind— not

of

a fact that has

is

long been appreciated, despite Darwin's pronouncement to the contrary.

Long

ago, in his Discouise

no men

out that "there are

so dull

on Method, Descartes pointed and stupid ...

ble of joining together different words ... is

no other animal, however perfect

John Locke, at all in is

too,

them

saw

[i.e.,

is

.

which can do the

power of abstracting

signs."

^

.

.

The

.

not

faculties of brutes

man and

brutes,

do by no means

great British anthropologist, E. B. Tylor, remarked

highest ape ...

A

gulf that divides the lowest savage

young

to have entered the

it/> ^^r\i

is

they have no use of words or any other general

upon "the mental

Jr^

like,"

and that the having of general ideas

an excellency which the

attain to

I

clearly that "the

beasts],

.

that which puts a perfect distinction between

and

y

.

be incapa-

as to

on the other hand, there

mind

child can understand

what

is

from the

not proved

of the cleverest dog, elephant, or ape."

^

THE SYMBOL And, of

31

course, there are

gulf" between

man and

many

today

who

recognize the "mental

other species.

Thus, for over a century we have had, side by in

One

comparative psychology.

from other animals

differ

mental

in

man

other has seen clearly that

abilities

man

unique in at

is

does not

The

except in degree.

no other animal

that he possesses an ability that

two traditions

side,

has declared that

least

has.

one

The

respect,

difficulty

of defining this difference adequately has kept this question open

The

until the present day.

symbol behavior

distinction

between sign behavior and

drawn here may, we hope, contribute

as

solution of this problem once and for

to a

all.

V Very bolic

little

faculty:

"symbolling."

indeed

is

known

we know And very few

of the organic basis of the sym-

next to nothing of the neurology of scientists— anatomists, neurologists or

physical anthropologists— appear to

Some, lem.

in fact,

be interested

The duty and

a prob-

task of giving an account of the neural basis of

symbolling does not, however,

fall

within the province of the

sociologist or the cultural anthropologist.

should scrupulously exclude interests; to

in the subject.

seem to be unaware of the existence of such

introduce

it

it

On

the contrary, he

as irrelevant to his

problems and

would bring only confusion.

It

is

enough

for the sociologist or cultural anthropologist to take the ability to

use symbols, possessed by

he puts

this fact

is

in

man

no way

mist's, inability to describe the

terms. However,

with the

little

it is

The

alone, as given. affected

by

his, or

use to which

even the anato-

symbolic process in neurological

well for the social scientist to be acquainted

that neurologists and anatomists do

structural basis of symbolling.

We,

know about

the

therefore, review briefly the

chief relevant facts here.

The

anatomist has not been able to discover

symbols and apes cannot. So

far as

is

known

why men can

use

the only difference

between the brain of man and the brain of an ape

is

a quantitative

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

32 ".

one:

man

.

.

nections," as A.

new

has no

brain cell con-

remarked. Nor does man,

Carlson has

J.

cells or

kinds of brain

as dis-

from other animals, possess a specialized "symbolso-called speech areas of the brain should not

tinguished

mechanism." The

be

identified

dependent upon,

identified with, or

sounds

not

is

uncommon. Thus,

great organic asset of

him

The

with symbolling.

man

of

L. L. Bernard

lists as .

"the fourth

.

.

an erroneous conception.

alone."

sounds. "It seemingly

is

is

the ability to utter articulate

... his vocal apparatus,

But this is apes have the mechanism necessary

istic

notion that symbolling

character-

The

great

for the production of articulate

well established," write R.

M. and

A.

W.

Yerkes in The Great Apes, "that the motor mechanism of voice in this ape [chimpanzee] is adequate not only to the production of a considerable variety of sounds, but also to definite articulations similar to those of

man." And the physical anthropologist,

E. A. Hooton, asserts that

"all of

the anthropoid apes are vocally

and muscularly equipped so that they could have an language

if

articulate

they possessed the requisite intelligence." Furthermore,

as Descartes

and Locke pointed out long ago, there are birds who

do actually utter articulate sounds, who duplicate the sounds of human speech, but who of course are quite incapable of symbolling. The "speech areas" of the brain are merely areas associated with the muscles of the tongue, with the larynx, etc. But, as we know, symbolling

One may

is

not at

all

confined to the use of these organs.

symbol with any part of the body that he can move at

will.«

To be

sure, the

symbolic faculty was brought into existence by

the natural processes of organic evolution. believe that the focal point,

if

And we may

reasonably

not the locus, of this facultv

the brain, especially the forebrain. Man's brain

is

much

larger

is

in

than

that of an ape, both absolutely and relatively. Tlie brain of the

average adult

human male

is

about 1500

c.c.

in size; brains of

seldom exceed 500 c.c. Relatively, the human brain weighs about i/5oth of the entire body weight, while that of a gorilla

gorillas

THE SYMBOL

33

from i/i5oth to i/20oth part of that weight.^'^ And the is large in man as compared with ape. Now

varies

forebrain especially in

many

we know that quantitative changes give rise to differences. Water is transformed into steam by addi-

situations

qualitative

power and speed

quantities of heat. Additional

tional

taxiing airplane

from the ground and transform

The

tion into flight.

alcohol

difference

the

lift

locomo-

terrestrial

between wood alcohol and grain

a qualitative expression of a quantitative difference in

is

the proportions of carbon and hydrogen. Thus a marked growth in size of the brain in

man may have

brought forth a new kind

of function.

VI All culture (civilization) depends

upon the symbol.

It

was

the exercise of the symbolic faculty that brought culture into ex-

and

istence

the use of symbols that makes the perpetuation

it is

of culture possible. ture,

and

Articulate speech pression.

Let us

Without the symbol

man would be Remove

is

there would be no cul-

merely an animal, not a

human

being.

the most important form of symbolic

ex-

speech from culture and what would remain?

see.

Without

we would have no human social orwe might have, but this form of organization man; it is not per se, human. But we would have

articulate speech

ganization. Families is

not peculiar to

no prohibitions of

incest,

no

rules prescribing

dogamy, polygamy or monogamy. cross cousin

scribed,

How

without

sessed

one

at a time, exist

astic, or military organization;

no

level. Rituals

which prohibit

but permit them

political,

economic,

no codes of etiquette or

science, theology, or literature;

on an ape

parallel cousin pro-

rules

if

pos-

without speech?

Without speech we would have no laws;

a

How could

plural mates possessed simultaneously

en-

could marriage with a

be prescribed, marriage with articulate speech?

exogamy and

ecclesi-

ethics;

no

no games or music, except

and ceremonial paraphernalia would be

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

34

meaningless without articulate speech. Indeed, without articulate speech we would be all but toolless: we would have only the oc-

and

casional

among

the higher apes, for

formed

tool-using

non-progressive

the

To

its

perpetuation

be sure, with

for the

Word

culture. "In the

same ends that

the

into

some form, we

was the beginning" of

cul-

also.

man

his culture

all

ape

the

of

trans-

man, the human being.

In short, without symbolic communication in

would have no

find today

was articulate speech that

it

progressive, cumulative tool-using of

ture—and

we

insignificant use of the tool such as

is still

an animal and

strives

other living creatures strive for: the

all

preservation of the individual and the perpetuation of the race.

In concrete terms these ends are food, shelter from the elements, defense from enemies, health, and offspring. strives for these

led

many

ends just

"no fundamental

difference be-

of other creatures."

But man does

is

man and

man

fact that

other animals do has, no doubt,

as all

to declare that there

The

tween

the behavior of

differ,

not in ends but in means. Man's means are cultural means:

culture

simply the

is

human

man

way of living. And, since upon a faculty possessed by

animal's

these means, culture, are dependent

alone, the ability to use symbols, the difference

behavior of

man and

of

all

other creatures

is

between the

not merely great, but

and fundamental.

basic

VII

The

behavior of

non-symbolic. cries

Man

man

is

of

two

distinct kinds: symbolic

out in pain, shrinks with

fear, "bristles"

on. Non-symbolic behavior of this sort shares

it

and

yawns, stretches, coughs, scratches himself,

is

with anger, and so

not peculiar to man; he

not only with the other primates but with

animal species as well. But

man communicates

with articulate speech, uses amulets, confesses

many

other

with his fellows sins,

makes

laws,

observes codes of etiquette, explains his dreams, classifies his relatives in designated categories,

and so on. This kind of behavior

THE SYMBOL

35

man

is

unique; only

it

consists of, or

is

is

capable of

it; it is

peculiar to

man

because

dependent upon, the use of symbols. The non-

Homo

symbolic behavior of

sapiens

animal; the symbolic behavior

is

is

It is

the symbol which has transformed

to a

human animal. human behavior

Because

is

havior of infra-human species

can learn nothing about

man the man the human being. man from a mere animal

the behavior of

that of

symbol behavior and since the beis

human

non-symbolic,

we

that

it follovi^s

behavior from observations upon

or experiments with the lower animals. Experiments with rats and

They have thrown much light of behavior among mammals or

apes have indeed been illuminating.

upon mechanisms and

processes

the higher vertebrates. But they have contributed nothing to an

understanding of

and

all

species.

know

of

its

And

human

behavior because the symbol mechanism

among

consequences are totally lacking as for neuroses in rats,

that rats can be

made

it is

neurotic.

the lower

of course interesting to

But science probably had

better understanding of psychopathic behavior

among human

a

be-

ings before neuroses were produced experimentally in rats than

they now have of the neuroses of the rats. Our understanding of human neuroses has helped us to understand those of rats; we have, as a matter of fact, interpreted the latter in terms of human pathology. But

I

cannot see where the neurotic laboratory

have served to deepen or enlarge our understanding of

rats

human

be-

havior.

As each

it

was the symbol that made mankind human, so

member

of the species.

A baby

is

not a

it is

human being

begins to symbol. Until the infant begins to talk there

The Ape and

the Child showed. As a matter of

he

nothing

is

to distinguish his behavior qualitatively from that of a very ape, as

with

until

young

fact,

one

of the impressive results of this fascinating experiment by Professor

and Mrs. Kellogg was the demonstration of how of

Homo

sapiens

is

before he begins to talk.

ape-like an infant

The baby boy

ac-

quired exceptional proficiency in climbing in association with the

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

36

chimpanzee, and even acquired her "food bark"! The Kelloggs speak of how the httle ape became "humanized" during her sojourn in their home. But what the experiment demonstrated so littie

conclusively was the ape's utter inability to learn to talk or even to

make any progress in this direction— in short, her inability to become "humanized" at all. The infant of the species Homo sapiens becomes human only when and as he exercises his symbol faculty. Only through articuspeech— not necessarily vocal— can he enter the world of hubeings and take part in their affairs. The questions asked earlier may be repeated now. How could a growing child know

late

man

and appreciate such things

as social organization, ethics, etiquette,

ritual, science, religion, art

and games without symbolic communi-

cation?

The answer

is

he could know nothing of

of course that

these things and have no appreciation of them

The

question of "wolf children"

instances in

is

at

all.

relevant here.

A

belief in

which human children have been reared by wolves or

other animals has flourished ever since the

Remus— and

myth

of

Romulus and

long before that time. Despite the fact that accounts

of "wolf children" have been

shown repeatedly

to

be erroneous or

unsupported by adequate evidence ever since Blumenbach covered that

from

his

"Wild Peter" was merely

home

at the instance of a

this deplorable folk-tale

still

a half-witted

dis-

boy ejected

newly acquired stepmother,

flourishes in certain "scientific" circles

But the use to which these lupine wards and "feral men" put by some sociologists and psychologists is a good one,

today. are

namely, to show that a lives

To

is

a

member

world without symbols

of the species is

not a

Homo

human

paraphrase Voltaire, one might say that

if

sapiens

who

being but a brute. wolf children did

not exist "social science" would have to invent them.

Children

who have been

cut off from

human

intercourse for

by blindness and deafness but who have eventually effected communication with their fellows on a symbolic level are ex-

years

ceedingly illuminating.

The

ease of

Helen Keller

is

exceptionally

THE SYMBOL

37

instructive, although

and others

^^

those of Laura Bridgman, Marie Heurtin,

are very valuable also.

Helen Keller was rendered blind and deaf by

illness.

She grew up

as a child

at a very early age

without symbolic contact with

anyone. Descriptions of her at the age of seven, the time at which her teacher, Miss Sullivan, came to her home, disclose no attributes of Helen's behavior at

and unruly

disciplined

Within

a

little

animal.^^

day or so after her

Sullivan taught Helen her

human

She was a headstrong, un-

all.

arrival at

the Keller home, Miss

But week later Helen knew several words but, as Miss Sullivan reports, she had "no idea how to use them or that everything has a name." Within three weeks Helen knew eighteen nouns and three verbs. But she was still on the level of signs; she still had no notion "that everything this

word was merely a

first

sign,

word, spelling

not a symbol.

it

into her hand.

A

has a name."

Helen confused the word

signs for

"mug" and "water"

apparently, both were associated with

made cess.

a

few attempts to

One

arrival,

clear

up

this

drinking.

because,

Miss Sullivan

confusion but without suc-

morning, however, about a month after Miss Sullivan's

the two went out to the

pened then

is

best told in their

pump

own

in the garden.

What

hap-

words:

I made Helen hold her mug under the spout while I pumped. As the cold water gushed forth, filling the mug, I spelled V-a-t-e-r' into Helen's free hand. The word coming so close upon the sensation of cold water rushing over her hand seemed to startle her. She dropped the mug and stood as one transfixed, A new light came into her face. She spelled 'water' several times. Then she dropped on the ground and asked for its name and pointed to the pump and the trellis, and sud-

denly turning round she asked for

she had added thirty

a

new words

my name

... In a few hours

to her vocabulary.

But these words were now more than mere signs as they are to as they had been to Helen up to then. They were sym-

dog and

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

38 boh. Helen had at her for the

first

last

We

new

time to a

Helen describes

ings.

grasped and turned the key that admitted

this

universe: the world of

human

be-

marvellous experience herself:

walked down the path to the well-house, attracted by the

fragrance of the honeysuckle with which

it

was covered. Some-

one was drawing water and my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over one hand she spelled into the other the word water, first slowly, then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motion of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something for-

gotten— a

thrill

of returning thought;

and somehow the mystery

was revealed to me. I knew then that 'w-a-t-e-r' meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, of language

joy, set it free!

Helen was transformed on the instant by

managed

Sullivan had set

it

with

in this

mechanism and

motion. Helen, on her part, grasped the external world

mechanism that had and

years, sealed in dark

and

Miss

this experience.

to touch Helen's symbol

ears that

and entered

heard not. But

a

new

lain

dormant and

silent isolation

now

she had crossed the boundary

land. Henceforth her progress

"I left the well-house,"

Helen

As we returned

to the

to quiver with

life.

house

would be

rapid.

reports, "eager to learn. Every-

name

thing had a name, and each

inert all these

by eyes that could not see

ever}'

gave birth to a

object which

That was because

I

new sight that had come to me." Helen became humanized rapidly. "I

I

new

thought.

touched seemed

saw everything with the

strange

Helen from day

to day,"

see an

Miss Sullivan wrote

horn hour to hour. Everything must have

a

improvement

in her diary,

name now

in

"almost .

.

.

She

drops the signs and pantomime she used before as soon as she has

words to supply their place expressive each day

.

.

."

.

.

.

We

notice her face grows

more

THE SYMBOL

A

39

more eloquent and convincing account

of the significance of

human mind and

symbols and of the great gulf between the

that

minds without symbols could hardly be imagined.

of

VIII

SummaTy. The

natural

processes

of

biologic

evolution

man alone, a new and distincsymbols. The most important form

brought into existence in man, and tive ability: the ability to use

symbolic expression

of

is

means communication of tion

— tradition— and

articulate ideas;

preservation

speech.

Articulate

communication means

speech

preserva-

means accumulation and

pro-

The emergence of the faculty of symbolling has resulted in genesis of a new order of phenomena: an extra-somatic,

gress.

the

cultural, order. All civilizations are

by, the use of symbols.

A

born

of,

and are perpetuated

culture, or civilization,

is

but a particular

kind of form which the biologic, life-perpetuating particular animal,

Human is

behavior

not human.

The

being only as he

is

is

symbolic behavior;

infant of the genus

if it is

Homo

not symbolic,

becomes

a

it

human

introduced into and participates in that order

phenomena which is culture. And the key means of participation in it is— the symbol. of

activities of a

man, assume.

to this world

and the

CHAPTER THREE THE USE OF TOOLS BY PRIMATES

ON

"Tools X Symbols

IVl an

= Culture."

has often been characterized as "the tool-using ani-

mal," the implication being that no other animal uses tools.

Benjamin Franklin went

man

as

farther,

the tool-malcing animal.

A

it

century

is

and defined

said,*

when everyone

later,

was discussing Darwinism, many learned men were willing to admit that other animals might use tools, but insisted that man alone was able to make them. in his Primeval

distance,"

He

^

lay

made by

of Argyll, for example, argued

between man and the brutes with respect to

no

themselves."

Edward Clodd

^

is

particularly to

left

man the

the question open. Today, thanks

the observations and experiments

chimpanzees by Wolfgang Kohler and reported

tools.

if

among

Danvin, unwilling to go farther than the evidence of

day would permit, wisely

book.

in-

implement

also insisted that

the only tool-maker

tools.

but he

tools,

case whatever do they ever use an

not the only tool-user, he

Primates." his

The Duke

that a great "gulf," a "whole immeasurable

admitted that some of the lower animals use

sisted that "in

"is

Man

made among

in his fascinating

The Mentality of Apes, we know that apes can and do make The evidence on this point is accepted as conclusive by such

Anthologies of quotations and authors without number credit Franklin with The writer has not had time to plough through his Collected Works, but considerable research has failed to discover this statement in Franklin's writings. Someone asked for the reference in Notes and Queries years ago (Vol. 8, 1913), but received no answer, apparently. Did Franklin really say this, or is it merely scholars' folklore? *

this definition.

40

ON

THE USE OF TOOLS BY PRIMATES

W.

students of primates as R.

41

Yerkes, E. A. Hooton, T. C.

Schnierla, and A. L. Kroeber. However,

we

find

still

some

reluc-

tance to admit anthropoids to the category of tool-makers. Thus,

Grahame

the British anthropologist,

From

Clark, in his recent

Savagery to Civilization, asserts that "the understanding use of

and

tools

(p. 7).

their purposive devising

And Wilhelm

is

a characteristic of

kreis school of anthropology,

is

Scientific studies of apes during recent decades

and a

They

versatility in

readily

employ

alone"

unwilling to admit that the lower

primates are able even to use "real tools," let alone

skill

man

Schmidt, the leader of the so-called Kultur-

the use of tools that

sticks as levers;

is

make them.^

have disclosed a

quite remarkable.

they build structures of boxes;

use sticks in digging; and otherwise employ a great variety of materials as tools.

More noteworthy

apes (chimpanzees) have

still,

shown themselves capable of inventing—by a process of understanding and insight— tools, and of accomplishing their manufacture in instances that required the artificial shaping of materials. Sultan,

two

one of the chimpanzees observed by Kohler, combined by inserting the end of one into the hollow end of the

sticks

other, thus

making

combined

of reach. "That the a true tool

enough

a tool long

sticks

to obtain food hitherto out

were perceived and used

as

and not used simply by accident," writes the compara-

tive psychologist Schnierla,

"was indicated by the fact that when

the sticks became separated, the animal straightway reconnected

them

in a

manner

tion together." in this

*

that suggested an understanding of their func-

He

even contrived to put three

manner. Once when the one

stick

sticks together

was too large to be

in-

end of the other. Sultan chewed it down Chimpanzees readily build structures of boxes

serted into the hollow until

and

it

would

crates,

fit.

sometimes four or

five storeys high, in

food originally suspended out of reach.

way

their ability to

modify and

order to obtain

They demonstrate

in this

to rearrange their environment,

to relate one thing to another and to an objective in terms of their physical properties,

which

is

the essence of the tool-process.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

42

The

question naturally

arises, therefore,

a culture, at least a material culture?

why do

Why

it

is

not apes have that tool-using

among apes is not a cumulative and progressive phenomenon as it is among mankind? The limitations upon the use of tools by apes are not imposed, it appears, by anatomical or sensory shortcomings. The senses of apes, with the exception of the sense of statics, are quite as

and

Nor

are apes limited to coarse

and crude implements, or to those

requiring brute strength rather than delicacy.

and straws with

string

from

skill;

hands and

their

keen

wielding material objects as are those of men.

as suitable for

They can handle

they are able deftly to remove

One chimpanzee under

feet.

readily learned to thread a needle. Little

slivers

observation

Gua, the baby chimpan-

more She was more

zee in the Kelloggs' experiment, learned to eat with a spoon readily than did the child skillful

and

and

test,"

effective, too, in

in obtaining

that the limitations physical in character.

.

.

.

who was

trained with her.

her solution of the "suspended cookie

food by means of a hoe. Thus

As Professor

appears

tools

make

observation of the anthropoid apes does not

probable that their tool-using

it

among apes are not E. A. Hooton has expressed it:

upon the use of

abilities are strictly

it

seem

limited by the

conformation of their hands or arms, in spite of the relative coarseness of these members, resulting, no doubt, from the loco-

motor and suspensory uses to which they are put ...

I

do

not believe that the anthropoid apes are manually incapable of most of the ordinary movements in which man employs his hands.^

Professor R. H. Lowie has suggested that the reason for the lack of culture

among

apes

lies in

their inability to transmit their tool

knowledge and experience from one his neighbors imitated

the chimpanzee his trick

who

and they

all

to another

by imitation.

"If

him," says Professor Lowie, speaking of

invents and uses a tool, "if he taught

passed

it

on to

their offspring,

them

chimpanzees

ON

THE USE OF TOOLS BY PRIMATES

43

would be on the highroad to culture. But they do nothing of the ® Professor Lowie seems to be misinformed concerning apes.

sort."

According to such authorities

R.

as

M. and

chimpanzee commonly and with great

Numerous examples are to

be found

of

also in

W.

A,

facility

Yerkes, "the

imitates acts."

^

communication of experience by imitation

W.

The Mentality

Kohler's

of Apes. Apes,

do ape. As E. B. Tylor long ago observed, "the faculty of learning by imitation comes out in the apes in an it

would appear,

human

almost

really

way."

Thus the reason

^

for their lack of a material

culture cannot lie in this direction. It

can hardly be argued that apes have no material culture be-

cause they have no need for one, or because they could derive

advantage or benefit from

it.

hammers, digging

levers,

In the

sticks,

poking

actually used to practical advantage

and daggers be useful

to

them

first

place

by apes.

Why would

etc.,

are

not spears

Would not bags To turn from the

in self-protection?

be useful

to carry or store food or other things?

and

to

no

note that

sticks, missiles,

practical

utilitarian

we must

the esthetic and recreational, and,

noting the fondness of chimpanzees for games, dancing, and personal adornment, a

would not drums,

rattles, necklaces, gorgets,

hundred other similar things bring endless joy and

and

satisfaction

to the simian heart? Indeed, the ape could use and enjoy a culture

quite as well as his

Why,

human

cousin.

then, do apes lack a material culture? It

is

due

to his

"lack of brains," or "lack of intelligence," according to Professor

Hooton.^ This,

in

our opinion,

is

quite correct. But

sufEcient answer. Merely to say "lack of brains"

tells

it

is

not a

us very little

man and ape. men with regard to man is more skillful,

about the difference between the use of tools by

The

essential difference

use of tools

is

not, as

between apes and

we have

versatile,

or even inventive.

ability of

man

cultural

is

As

seen, that

a matter of fact, the inventive

frequently over-rated.

development makes

it

The

archeological record of

clear that until relatively recent

times inventions were decidedly infrequent; thousands of years

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

44

might elapse between the appearance of an awl and the invention of the needle— although all one had to do to effect this advance was to

hole in the blunt end of the awl.

drill a

the steamboat it

was. Yet

is

The

invention of

often regarded as a great achievement and indeed

consisted merely of combining already existing tools—

is

an engine and a boat— of putting one and one together. Chimpanzees are able to do

and ape

lie in

an

this.

Nor does the

ability to imitate, to

rience from one to another, for, as

difference

between

communicate

we have

man

tool-expe-

noted, apes freely

The fundamental difference consists in the fact that the use of tools among men is a cumulative and progressive process whereas among apes it is neither. This is not to say that an individual ape does not make progress in his use of tools nor that he cannot increase his repertory of tool behavior. What we are saying is that apes as species make no progress in tool-using; one generation is no further advanced than its predecessor. With man, of course, it is the reverse: each generation may build upon do

this.

and add

to the tools

and techniques of

precisely this process of accumulation

that has lifted

man from

But our question

is

tally

and

using

still

apes.

is

him

civilization.

unanswered:

Why

does this difference

is

a different kind of activity,

qualitatively different in a psychological sense,

among

It

technology

exist?

among men

Tool-using

in

the level of the brute and carried

through savager}' and barbarism to

between man and ape

predecessors.

its

and progress

Among

apes the use of tools

is

fundamenfrom

tool-

a conceptual

By conceptual we mean the formation by the ape of a configuration of behavior in which he, a tool, and the thing upon which the tool is to be used are functionally related to one another. The ape is able to solve

process as well as a neuro-sensory-muscular one.

his

problem by means of insight and understanding, and

the solution implicitly before he executes

we mean by

conceptual. In the

also conceptual

human

it

overtly.

to effect

This

is

what

species, the tool process

and neuro-sensory-muscular

in character.

But

is

it is

ON

THE USE OF TOOLS BY PRIMATES

more than

this; it

is

symbolic as well.

45

Human

beings express their

concepts in symbolic form. Thus they not only have tools and

concepts of tools, but they have and use words of tools— axe, knife,

hammer,

was the introduction of symbols, word-formed

It

etc.

symbols, into the tool process that transformed anthropoid tool-

human

behavioT into

We

must

tool-behavior.

distinguish

two aspects of the tool-using

process, the

and the extra-organismal, the subjective and the

intra-organismal

overt or explicit.

On

the one hand

we have

the animal's sensory

perception of tools and other material objects in the external

world and his bodily reactions to them.

On

the other hand, are

the inner, neural processes of imagination and insight in which patterns of behavior to be executed overtly are formed. In short,

we have motor

A

the inner, mental aspect of tool-using and the outer,

aspect.

significant characteristic of

ape tool-behavior

discontinuous psychological process. In

the discontinuity of tool-experience

cannot be engaged in wielding tools tool-experience

upon the

is

is,

is

of course, a

all

a

the time. But in the ape,

discontinuous on the subjective side as well as

objective.

"Out

of sight out of

mind"

fairly

pearance of a sick (or dying) animal [chimpanzee] has rest, so

long

as

he

taken out of sight."

is

and some hindsight

foresight

feature of their mental life

in the ape.

is

well char-

"the chief difference

.

.

.

little effect

There

But the

is

some

characteristic

live; this,

according to Kohler,

between anthropoids and even the

most primitive human beings." Spatially

^°

the "extremely narrow limits" of

the temporal world in which they is

it is

the ape's mentality. Kohler observes that the "disap-

acterizes

on the

that

motor aspect necessity; one

overt,

its

^^

The ape

lives in a small world.

confined to the range of his senses; temporally

it is

limited to the

moment, with perhaps an

occasional

dawn

it is

of antici-

pation and a twilight of reminiscence. Thus, tool-experience in

the ape lays

it

is

a series of

down.

When

disconnected episodes.

he

is

He

wields a tool then

confronted by a "tool situation" he sizes

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

46

up the his

situation, formulates a plan, puts

problem, and that

is

the end of

the ape's tool-experience

side,

experience. Tool-using

among

is

into execution, solves

it

On

it.

the inner, subjective

limited to the external and overt

apes

is

thus a discontinuous_psycho-

logical process subjectively as well as objectively;..

With man, using

tool-experience

is

differs

man

is

Overtly,

tool-

must be. But continuous and enduring.

from the apes, and indeed

all

it

other living creatures

he so far as we know, With words man creates a new world, a world of ideas and philosophies. In this world man lives just as truly as in the physical world of his senses. Indeed, man feels that the essential quality in that

A^

quite different.

a discontinuous process as, of course,

subjectively, tool-experience in

Man

is

is

capable of symbolic behavior.

of his existence consists in his occupancy of this world of symbols

and ideas— or, spirit.

manence It

is

well.

as

he sometimes

calls

it,

the world of the mind or

This world of ideas comes to have a continuity and a per-

not

that the external world of the senses can never have.

made up

Temporally

of the present only, but of a past it

is

and a future

as

not a succession of disconnected episodes,

but a continuum extending to infinity in both directions, from

As John Dewey has aptly expressed

eternity to eternity.

Man

it:

from the lower animals because he preserves his With the animals, an experience perishes as it happens, and each new doing or suffering stands alone. But man lives in a world where each occurrence is charged with echoes and reminiscences of what has gone before, where each event is a reminder of other things. Hence he lives not, like the beasts of the field, in a world of merely physical things but in a world of signs and symbols.^^ differs

past experiences

.

.

.

This inner world of ideas to

in

him than the outer world

example of

this in

which

man

dwells seems

of the senses.

We

more

have a

the philosophy of idealism: ideas

real

classic

come

first;

they are the real things; they endure forever; material objects and sensory experiences are merely imperfect and ephemeral manifesta-

ON

THE USE OF TOOLS BY PRIMATES

We

tions of the Ideas.*

47

have essentially the same

idea,

though

perhaps in a more primitive, and also more graphic, form in the Christian conception of the Word: "In the beginning was the Word." The Word is also creative: from the spoken word the world came into being. The Word also became flesh (John, I, 14). Thus, in man's naive philosophies, ideas and words come first. They are "more real" than the things of the senses. They are

enduring and eternal. It

image

such a world as

in

is

To him

a tool

as

is

may be

it

an ape.

to

moment

that exists for the is

It is also

man

which

timeless inner world in

and

man knows and

this that

only:

it

an

man

mind more than

the

like Plato's ideas in is

and using

of grasping

tools

of

idea. It It

lives.

is

is

a part of that

not something

functions in the living past

projected into the unborn future.

experience for

wields tools.

not merely a material object, or even a sensory

God,

The is

tool in eternal.

man's mind,

Hence

tool-

a series of disconnected episodes,

and laying them down

again.

These

overt acts are merely occasional expressions of an ideational experience within

Thus the experience

him

that

difference

is

is

continuous and unbroken.

between ape and man: In the ape,

tool-

a series of discrete episodes; the inner experience

begins and ends with the overt act. In man, tool-experience

is

continuum. Though the overt expression of

dis-

this

connected and episodic, the inner experience flow.

And

it is

is

experience

is

a

an uninterrupted

the symbol, the word-formed idea, that makes this

continuity of experience possible.

When

Professor

of culture

by the

Lowie endeavors to account for the ape's lack and hence to transmit and

inability to imitate,

perpetuate tool-experience, he

though

his

premise

is

on the right track even wrong. For what he is getting at is conis

up in the mind of God" rather than minds of men. But it is not uncommon God; even great philosophers are guilty of this

* Plato thought of these ideas as "laid originating for

man

and functioning

in the

to mistake himself for

cnor occasionally.

really

K

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

48

Kroeber in

tinuity of experience. Similarly, Professor A. L.

dis-

cussing "the inventive but cultureless ape/' suggests that "perhaps

the thing which essentially makes culture missive and preservative elements,

which

factors,

social scientists

precisely those trans-

is

those relational or binding

have indeed occupied themselves

with, but have been inclined to regard as after

all

of secondary

importance in comparison with the dynamic phenjomenon of invention."

^^

Culture without continuity of experience possible.

But what

to culture? It

on the is

it

is

prerequisite

we

find this

among

continuity on the subjective side rather than

is

objective, or overt, that

is

essential.

As we have shown,

it

the symbol, particularly in word form, which provides this

element of continuity it

of course, im-

not the continuity which comes from the com-

is

munication of experience by imitation, for apes. Clearly,

is,

sort of continuity of experience

is

in the tool-experience of

this factor of continuity in

made accumulation and

progress, in

possible. ..A-

Ta

''^"-'^

ft-

,

"MIo-^^ rl v\

'M ^

l-t^^ I ./

^ .

/...

^

1

man. And,

finally,

man's tool-experience that has short,

a material

culture,

CHAPTER FOUR

MIND

MINDING

IS

"We

should have a great many fewer disputes in the world if words for what they are, signs of our ideas only, and not for things Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. in themselves."

were taken

J.

—

he problem of the

occupied

has been

It

ophy, fundamental

Not

in religion.

and

between body and mind has

less

appears no nearer a

the central problem of

Encyclopedia

fundamental, however,

oi

all

philos-

knowledge, in ethics and is

it

for psychology

." .

.

are the opening words of the article

These

dawn of solution now

the

since

scientists

alike in the theory of

for physical science

the

and

many it named

thought, and to

than then.

relation

philosophers

Religion

and

"Body and Mind"

Ethics

by James

in

Lewis

Mclntyre, Anderson lecturer in comparative psychology to the University of Aberdeen. Hundreds of books and thousands of lectures

lem.

and

How

mind have

How

are

some

of

century.

articles

is it

a

have been devoted to the "mind-body" prob-

possible for the

body?

Which

is

body the

to have a

mind?

How

body and mind articulated the questions which have plagued mankind

And

"to

many

can the

the body or the mind? with each other? These are

reality,

for

many a now

they appear no nearer to solution

than then."

Why

has

the "solution"

not been reached?

difficulty?

49

Where

is

the

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

50 It

is

the thesis of this essay that the "solution" has not been

reached because the problem paradoxes of Zeno.

is

difficulty

a false one, is

one

somewhat

like the

of verbal origin;

it

is

making. By rewording the problem, the "problem"

own

our

The

word mind

appears: use the

as a

of

dis-

verb instead of a noun and no

"problem, fundamental either to the theory of knowledge, ethics,

Mind

psycholog)-, science" or to anything else, remains. ing;

it is

is

mind-

the behaving, reacting, of a living organism as a whole, as

a unit.

Once upon

a time, in a far-off land, a people was concerned

with the problem of Golshok.

No

one knew exactly what Golshok

was, but everyone agreed that he (she or

and that

their existence

upon Golshok. Many

it)

was very important

and welfare depended

of the best minds among

measure

in large

this

people devoted

Golshok. Their lucubrations were

their lives to the study of

corded and their pronouncements carried great weight. decreed that

was to be conducted

all social life

in

accordance with

the principles of Golshok as set forth by the wise men. it

Of

course

was necessary to put people to death occasionally because of

their failure to

comply with these

done by burning them all

re-

was

It

really

was

This was usually

This went on for centuries. But not

alive.

Some were bent upon

people were content.

what Golshok

principles.

—

if

discovering just

anything. But they never got any

farther than words, save for an occasional burning of a rebel.

Finally in plain finish,

some one broke

way out

of the impasse.

He

declared

was nothing but "words, words, words," that the wise

had been chasing nearer

a

language that the whole Golshok business, from start to

now than

men

their tails for centuries, with "the solution

then."

He

declared, moreover, that

if

no

people

upon human principles instead of Golshok principles they would be much better off. Of course the wise men had him burned to death and his ashes scattered to the four winds. But they were too late. The secret

would conduct

their lives

MIND

MINDING

IS

51

was out. The common people went around saying, "There ain't no Golshok." And they hved happily ever after. And so it has been with "Mind." "Mind" is a noun. A noun is a

name

of something. Therefore there

cosmos that "lose"

to

is

it.

mind.*

A

must be something

person has a mind;

Thus "mind," an

created and projected into the cosmos. trying to find

it

as they

for

V'l- Philosophic

Living organisms

The

him

"thing-in-itself,"

was

Then people

set

about

have been searching for Truth, the Good,

and Beauty, these many weary cosmos

a

entity,

in the

possible for

it is

may be

One might

years.

as well search

the

chasing, nothing more.

tail

distinguished from non-living systems.

former appropriate materials from their environments and

incorporate

them

into their

own

structures.

energy from the external world and utilize

and multiply themselves. They they have cellular structure.

We

it

They capture

free

to maintain, extend,

grow, and reproduce; and

eat,

may

distinguish

two

classes of

motions, or reactions, of living organisms, intra-organismic and extra-organismic. In the former class

we have

the relationships of

part to part and of part to whole. In the latter, relationship of the organism as a is

whole

we have

the

to the external world. It

the reactions of the organism as a whole, as a coherent unit, to

the external world that

we may

call

mind, or minding.

This commits us to such statements Similarly, a

We

paramecium, a

as

"an oyster has a mind."

radish, a lichen, etc.,

"have minds."

It

"The uninvented the word heat," says Henri Poincar^ in The Value of Science, "devoted many generations to error. Heat has been treated as a substance simply because it was designated by a substantive [noun]." Substances have weight. But when it was finally discovered that a body weighed no more when hot, i.e., when it "contained much heat," than when cold, i.e., contained little heat, the logical conclusion that heat is not a substance was not drawn. On the contrary, so much at the mercy of words is man that he continued to think of heat as a substance, but he concluded that there must be weightless substances. It took a long time to realize that heat is not a thing *

have

a parallel situation in the history of physical theory.

known man who

but a doing.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

52

may sound

But

ridiculous to say that a radish "has a mind."

does not sound ridiculous at

all

to say that a radish minds,

organism to

its

external world. So

reacts as a living

mercy of words that even so

at the

slight a

change

much as

it

i.e.,

are

we

one from

noun-use to verb-use makes the whole world look different. Mind, or minding,

thus co-extcnsive with

is

life. It is

the extra-organismal

aspect of that class of motions peculiar to material systems of cellular structure.*

To

return to our starting point:

have a body? The solution:

mind

what is

is

mind?

How

can a mind

minding, the reacting of an

organism as a whole, as a coherent unit (as distinguished from the reacting of parts of the organism with reference to other

Mind

parts). is

is

a function of the body.

The

the entire organism functioning as a unit.

cutting

is

"organ" of the mind

Mind

is

to

body

as

to a knife.**

But Alexander merely cut the Gordian knot; he did not untie it. Neither have we "solved" the mind-body problem, for in the form it is

in

which

it

has plagued the reflecting portion of mankind,

But we have disposed of it. We have not proved, be proved, that there is no cosmic entity, mind, which

insoluble.

nor can

it

has an existence independent of bodies.

the "fundamental reality"

*

is

We have not proved

that

not mind, of which bodies are but

The

Dictionary of Psychology, H. C. Warren, ed., defines mind as "the an organism by means of which it responds as an integrated, dynamic system to external forces." ** Since the above was written, I have learned that a Chinese philosopher. Fan Chen, of the fifth century A.D., said the same thing and in almost the same words: "The body is the material basis of the spirit, and the spirit is only the functioning of the body. The spirit is to the body what sharpness is to a sharp knife. have never known the existence of sharpness after destruction of the knife. How can we admit the survival of the spirit when the body is gone?" Quoted by Hu Shih in the symposium Living Philosophies, (New York, 1931), pp. 243-44.

sum

total of those activities of

We

any attempt to make the soul a thing or entity." "function of the organism," as "a class of motions,"

Aristotle, too, "rejected

Instead he treated (Brett,

1929)

it

as a

p. 707.

^

MIND

MINDING

IS

53

material expressions. So far as

know, there

I

proof for the non-existence of Santa Claus. often, not by disproving propositions but

no convincing

is

Mankind

progresses,

by outgrowing them.

The "Mind-Body" problem is of one piece with the VitalismMechanism controversy. No one has ever "disproved" the theory of Vitalism, but scientists, and many philosophers, are agreed that the time has come when it should be ignored as obsolete, outgrown and, above

Mechanism It

that

is

barren and

all, sterile.

It

is

not that the philosophy of

True (with a capital T) and that of Vitalism False. Mechanism has been fruitful, productive; Vitalism is

sterile.

Vitalism as "a view

those which have led to

all

exactly opposite to

is

the scientific piogTcss that has been

made," declares Professor H. H. Newman.^ Biologists have "clung to the materialistic or mechanistic explanation of

life,

simply be-

was the only way in which progress could be made" ^ (emphases ours), declares the distinguished paleobiologist. Pro-

cause

it

fessor

Ermine C. Case, As T. H. Huxley long ago made

clear,

itself it is of little moment whether we express the phenomena of matter in terms of spirit, or the phenomena of spirit in terms of matter; matter may be regarded as a form of thought,

In

thought

may be

regarded as a property of matter

.

.

.

But with

a view to the progress of science, the materialistic terminology is

in every

the other ualistic

way to be phenomena

terminology

is

preferred.

For

connects thought with

it

of the universe

.

.

.

whereas the

spirit-

and leads to nothing but

utterly barren,

obscurity and confusion of ideas.

Thus the importance

as well as the tools of thought.

others, to fertile fields.

mind

is

reality,"

Words

of terminology.

And

so,

Some lead us into blind alleys; we have not "proved" that

while

not some cosmic entity, or proved that

we have shown

are the channels

that this view

best and confusing and paralyzing at

its

is

not the "real

it is

barren and sterile at

worst.

The

its

opposite view,

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

54 that

mind

is

minding, or behavior, that mind

bondage of a body, releases us from the verbal ing metaphysics, and will bear fruit.

sets us free to

is

a function of

sterile

sow and reap

and

m

the

a paralyz-

a field that

CHAPTER FIVE THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE "Anyone who

acquainted with the history of science will admit that all ages, meant, and now more than ever means, the extension of the province of what we call matter and causation, and the concomitant gradual banishment from all regions of human ." thought of what we call spirit and spontaneity T. H. Huxley, its

is

progress has, in

.

The

—

.

Physical Basis of Lite.

hen JK>

we

survey the history of science

we

see at a glance

that progress has not been equal and uniform on

Advance has been more rapid others. Greater progress has

some

in

been made

in

all

fronts.

quarters than in

astronomy and physics

more advanced, as a science, than older and more mature than socicannot be neatly marked with a birth of each science ology. The precise date, of course; there has been overlapping, and growth has been simultaneous among many, if not all, of them. Nevertheless, it is clear that some sciences are older and more mature than in biology; physiology

is

psychology; and psychology

is

than others. Since there of a science and

two

its

factors as one.

is

a close correspondence

degree of development,

We

may

appeared

earlier

sciences;

the

we may

and degrees of maturity.

say that the physical sciences

and have developed farther than the

biological

treat these

thus arrange the sciences in a scale

in the order of their respective ages

Generalizing broadly,

between the age

we may

sciences

took

form

developed farther than the social sciences. 55

The

earlier

biological

and

have

question naturally

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

56 "Social" Sciences

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE sciences."

The whole

hypothesis

is

57

fundamentally

false (p. 144;

see, also, pp. 190-193). I

am

not sure that

Throughout

this essay

fully

I

he

understand Spencer's argument.

exhibits science as the accumulating

product of a many-sided psychological process. But with the possible exception of

an allusion to "social science" in ancient times,

he does not show, nor does he attempt to show, that the physical sciences have not matured earlier than the biological sciences, and these in turn earlier than the social sciences.

A

decade

later in

"The

Classification of the Sciences" (1864),

Spencer again returns to the subject, and again opposes Comte's

But he ends up with an order

hierarchy.

Ward

essentially like Comte's.

Comte and Spencer at this point in his Dynamic Sociology. When, however, he repeated the observation in "The Place of Sociology among the Sciences," he received a sharp letter from Spencer who again insists upon his distinctness from Comte. Ward made effective reply to Spencer Lester F.

noted the similarity of

and published both

Pure Sociology.

letters in

Ward

again points

out that despite his vigorous opposition to Comte, Spencer adopts the

Comtean

order of the sciences. In

"The

of the

Filiation

Wash-

Sciences," a paper read before the Philosophical Society of

ington in 1896,

Ward

Spencer's, in parallel

mentally It

exhibited the two systems, Comte's and

columns

for comparison.

They

are funda-

alike.

would probably be unfair

to say that Spencer's opposition to

Comte's hierarchy was due wholly to a jealous claim to inde-

pendence and

originality

on Spencer's

part,

although

it is

difficult

to escape the conclusion that jealousy played a part in the controversy. It does appear that

somewhat

Spencer viewed the problem from a

different angle than

slightly different premise.

conclusion nevertheless, and willful stubbornness

Comte, that he

started

from a

But he ends up with much the same it is

hard not to believe that

on Spencer's part that kept him from

it

was

recog-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

58 nizing his similarity to

Comte

pointing out such

as well as

dif-

ferences as did exist.

We

then,

find,

that both

sciences in essentially

the same

Comte and Spencer

present the

order, the physical sciences

coming

the social sciences. first, the biological sciences next, and finally Spencer points out that physical phenomena must precede biological

before

phenomena— that there nmst be atoms and molecules we can have living cells and organisms— and that social

systems must rest upon a biological basis. But he does not explain scientific interpretation of physical phenomena should pre-

why

cede interpretation of biological events, or biological forms should

come before

why

interpretation of

interpretation of social phe-

nomena. Auguste Comte, however, does precisely this. He explains the order of development of the sciences. Let us turn now to his theory.

Comte's conception of the hierarchy of the sciences

differs

somewhat from ours. He does not begin with the events of history, with dates and sequences, and with varying degrees of development among the sciences, and then proceed to consider what interpretation might be given to these facts. Rather, he begins with the nature of the sciences, as he conceives it, and with what he assumes other. It

The

to

be their necessary

a "rational order" to

is

logical relationships

"hierarchy" of the sciences

Comte

is

arrived at

(p. 43).

He

one to an-

by deduction.

observes, however,

that his "classification agrees in the main, with the history of science; the first

more general and simple

and advancing best

in

human

sciences actually occurring

and being followed by 43y. Thus, the general

history,

the more complex and restricted,"

(p.

picture of the development of the sciences/ as seen essentially the

same

as ours;

and have developed farther than the biological latter

have developed

earlier

by Comte

is

the physical sciences appeared earlier sciences, as the

and progressed farther than the

social

sciences.

Comte

explains

this

chronological

order and

these varying

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

The

degrees of development in this way:

59

physical sciences deal

with more simple and universal phenomena than the biological the biological sciences deal with more universal and

sciences;

simple phenomena than the social sciences. Since biological phe-

nomena

are

made up of chemical and physical events, come into being until the sciences of

of biology cannot

and physics have been developed.

nomena

consist

or

of,

and these

responses,

expressions

upon

since social

phe-

psychological

of,

physiological processes, a

cannot be achieved until the underlying

of sociology

science

the

are

in turn rest

Similarly,

a science

chemistry

sciences of psychology

He

and physiology have been developed.

says: .

.

.

every science

is

[rooted] in the

one which precedes

it

.

.

.

... no science can be effectually pursued without the preparation of a competent knowledge of the anterior sciences (p. 398)

We

must begin then with the it depends (p. 48). study of the most general or simple phenomena, going on

on which

successively to the

more

particular or complex. This

must be

the most methodical way, for this order of generality or simplicity fixes

while

it

the degree of

facility in

the study of phenomena,

determines the necessary connection of the sciences by

the successive dependence of their phenomena (p. 44).

We

seem

to

have here three closely related propositions:

that sciences higher in the hierarchy deal with

phenomena than

first,

more "complex"

sciences lower in the scale; secondly, that dif-

ferences in degree of complexity have determined the order of

emergence and degree of maturity of the that

one cannot

pursue" a

"effectually

sciences;

science

and

thirdly,

"without the

preparation of a competent knowledge of the anterior sciences on

which

it

depends."

unsound or

We believe

In one sense, psychological

more complex than those in turn,

that these propositions are either

definitely misleading. Let us

may be

examine them

in turn.

phenomena may be regarded

as

of physiology, as physiological events,

considered

more complex than chemical and

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

60

By "complex" in these contexts we would mean more classes, or kinds, of factors." Thus, a psycho-

physical events.

"possessing

can,

by

as perceiving,

such

logical event,

approaching and grasping food,

be reduced

analysis,

logical

physiological, chemical,

to

dnd physical processes: smelling or seeing the food and the various physiological responses which find overt expression in approaching and seizing

and the physiological processes may be broken

it;

into chemical reactions and physical events. In this sense,

down phenomena

the

of

one science may be

than those of another.

one

science "rests

While cally, it

And

in this sense, also,

is

is

only one class of

appear to include two classes the

possibility

and philosophi-

From the standpoint of phenomena to be con-

Even in biochemistry, which might of phenomena, we really have only

sidered in any given situation.

class;

one may say that

perfectly true logically

beside the point scientifically.

the scientist, there

one

be more "complex"

upon" another.

the foregoing

is

said to

of

referring

biochemical

events

to

chemistry on the one hand and to biology on the other in no

way negates the phenomena. Let nomena and the

integrity of biochemical events as biochemical

us illustrate the distinctness of levels of pheintegrity of the class of events corresponding to

each level with an example: I

He

give

my

broker an order to buy one hundred shares of stock.

telegraphs the order to the exchange in

found and the transaction completed. classes

of

whole and

phenomena involved in

its

entire extent

in

We

this

New may

York, a

transaction

and depth.

seller is

distinguish

many

taken as a

First there are the

psychological motives for buying and selling: desire, anticipation of gain, fear of loss, excitement of risk-taking, etc. are physiological digestion, etc.

processes:

And we

into chemical reactions.

discharges in physical

my

factors.

the condition

of

my

Underneath thyroid,

my

can analyze the physiological processes

Atomic motion,

electrical

tensions

and

nervous system, and so on, give us a class of

But, for an understanding of the transfer of

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

61

the stock as an event oi huying-and-seUing, as a social event, the scientist

need not and does not concern himself with

kinds, or levels, of processes at

with

ail

phenomena

of the interrelated

To do

given situation.

time a sparrow

falls.

all

of these

scientist never grapples

that confront

him

in a

would be to embrace the cosmos every

so

This

The

all.

undesirable as well as impossible.

is

The

must always abstract a certain segment of reality, a class of phenomena, from all others, and deal with it as if

scientist

certain it

existed

by

independent of the

itself,

rest.*

Similarly the physiologist abstracts certain processes

and regards them

totality of reality

as

from the

a closed system.

Thus,

the argument that the sciences higher in the hierarchy are more

complex— i.e., on lower

consist of

levels

is

more

irrelevant

classes of

phenomena— than

those

from the standpoint of science,

one class at a time anyway. phenomena, such as the purchase-and-sale of may be treated as a single, homogeneous, class of events

since the scientist deals with only

Socio-psychological stock,

despite the fact that physiological, chemical, electrical, and physical

processes underlie

differ

it.

In this respect psychology does not

from physics.

Sociologists

and

anthropologists

cultural

are

accustomed to

account for the meagerness of their accomplishments,

as

compared

with physicists or physiologists, by declaring that the phenomena with which they deal are so

much more complex than

the phe-

nomena confronting the physicist or biologist.** They seldom explain what they mean by "complexity," and more rarely do they attempt to prove that complexity of phenomena must mean meagerness of scientific achievement. They merely assume, in the first

*

place, that everyone

"In

all scientific

knows what

procedure

we

is

meant by complexity, and,

begin by marking out a certain region or To this we must confine our atten-

subject as the field of our investigations.

tion, leaving the rest of the universe out of account

till

we have completed

the investigation in which we are engaged," Clerk Maxwell, (1892), p. 11. ** "The facts of society are far more complex than those of physics, hence no laws have hitherto been discovered," Lowie, (1940), p. 384.

— THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

62 in the second place, they

assume without argument that com-

means difEculty. Wc regard their reasoning as unsound. arc no more complex in the sense of "difficult phenomena Social to treat scientifically" than physical or physiological phenomena.

plexity

The

social scientist's plea of

"complexity"

usually an attempt,

is

unconscious no doubt, to conceal his helplessness.

The

difference

not in complexity of phenomena but in knowing what youi

lies

The

problem

is

and how to attack

problem

is

and how to go about solving

And

does not.

it.

the reason for this

is

knows what

physicist it;

his

the social scientist

and

that the point of view

the techniques of science have been growing and maturing in the physical domain for centuries, whereas they were introduced into

A

the social realm only yesterday. year like a skyscraper. Indeed,

science cannot be built in a

cannot be built at

it

all;

it

must

grow, and this requires time.

We ver)'

have already seen that the purchase-and-sale of stock

simple

affair;

to the ground.

is

no more complex than an apple

is

And, what

stock markets than nations

it

is

more,

we do about

really a very

is

we probably know more about

gravitation.

A

war between two

simple thing at bottom: two nations,

and B, want the same thing— a

a

falling

fertile river valley,

an

oil

A

field,

a foreign market, a seaport— and both are determined to have it.

This

is

no more complex than the rusting of

ing of water. As a matter of fact,

formation of ice or a snowflake.

simpler— simple

in

iron or the freez-

may be simpler than the And it appears to be much it

the sense of ease of scientific explanation

than matricide, masochism, or dementia praecox, events upon a lower level (psychological) than a war between nations (sociological level).

speech)

lower

much

We

understand symbol behavior

better

on the psychological

level

(e.g.,

articulate

than upon the

We know more about the psychology of physiology. We understand the physiology

level of neurology.

jealousy

than

its

of intoxication better than

its

chemistry, and the chemistry of

the glands better than their physics.

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

As

a matter of fact,

one could make

a

63

good case

for the exact

opposite of the proposition that social scientists sometimes use to rationalize their shortcomings,

phenomena and the

rather than decrease as is

and say that the complexity of

difficulty of scientific interpretation increase

we descend

What

the scale of the sciences.

And

simpler than the purchase-and-sale of a share of stock?

what

is

more complex than

a ray of light?

light yet.

hundred and

Newton

sixteen years have passed since the great

do not know how to describe

Two

we

died and

One might

well argue

we approach "ultimate reality" in physics the complexity of phenomena increases and the difficulties of scientific explanation become greater. that as

Complexity size.

An atom

is is

a quality of a as

complex

phenomenon, not

a

measure of

complex

as a pebble, a cell as

its

as a

Nor is complexity a function of the level on which the phenomena are found except in the sense of resolving a class of events into sub-classes as we have already noted. Complexity and cow.

smiplicity obtain

on

all

levels alike.

So much

for the concept

of "complexity."

The

third proposition, namely,

Comte's contention that one

cannot "effectually pursue a science" until he has a "competent

knowledge of the anterior sciences," has been taken care of well in our treatment of the

first

two propositions.

Who

fairly

would

wish to argue that one cannot explain a transaction on the stock

exchange until he had mastered physics and chemistry— or even the rudiments of those sciences? As out,

we

often understand a

than upon a lower. Doris

We

is

we have

phenomenon

previously pointed

better

jealous of Jane;

on

Tom

a higher level

hates his father.

understand these events quite well psychologically;

almost nothing about them on the physiological far as

we

would add

can

see,

little

if

level.

we know And, so

anything that the physiologist might

And

anything to our understanding.

"chemistry," or "physics," of jealousy

more than

a

tell is

us

the

metaphor?

^

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

We

reject, therefore,

would

Comte's contention that prepara-

tion in sciences lower in the hierarchy must precede effective work in sciences higher in the scale. Since we have rejected Comte's premise that varying degrees of complexity have determined the filiation of

order of

the sciences, and since

term

in complexity only in so far as this

kinds of

we

phenomena

which

into

we admit

can be analyzed,

situation

a

differences

the number- of

refers to

have, in effect, rejected Comte's rationalization of his hier-

archy almost in toto. In place of Comte's explanation of the order in which the various sciences have emerged and matured, we

venture to propose the following theory.

Every living organism

strives to evaluate

the various items in

its

environment, to discover which are beneficial, which injurious, so that advantage

may be

derived from the one and injury from

the latter avoided. In addition to the sensory means employed in this

evaluating process by other animals,

symbols.

He

words— "fire

man employs

verbal

not only translates the evaluations of his senses into is

values between

sharp"— but he

hot," "thorns are

posits relational

one thing and another. Thus he declares that the

hoot of the owl presages death, a

man

falling star

means good

luck,

body of

ideas

creates a philosophy, a

etc.

In this manner,

and

beliefs expressed in verbal form,

which he employs

as a

means

of adjustment to the world he lives in.

From

our standpoint of analysis and classification, there have

been, and logically can be, only two major types of philosophy:

one

in

human In the

which the external world ego; the other in first

type,

man

with like

spirits

who

interpreted in terms of the

explained in terms of

itself.

in terms of his own made alive and peopled men do. They have desires

and interpreting

The whole world feel

is

it is

unconsciously projects himself into the ex-

ternal world, describing

psychic processes.

which

and behave

men, show preferences

is

as

it

thus

for certain foods

susceptible to jealousy and flattery; they fight

and drink; they are

and make

"^

love.

One

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE spirit

65

earth, another brings rain, a third sends

makes the

brings forth crops.

The

game

or

gods favor or oppose certain types of eco-

nomic and pohtical systems, and aid the armies of their chosen nations. Thus man creates the world in his own image. This is the philosophy of supernaturalism of animism and anthropo:

morphism. In the second type of philosophy, the

phenomena

of nature are

explained in terms of themselves, in terms of the events of nature.

Thus, rain

because other meteorologic phenomena precede

falls

and accompany

rainfall; a fossil

is

merely a link in a chain of

paleontologic events. Explanation in this type of philosophy consists

of a recitation of relevant events; scientific explanation

condensed description. This

Between these two major of philosophy,

Comte

lies

is

is

thus

the philosophy of naturalism.

types, in the process of

development

an intermediate, or transitional type, which

has called "metaphysical." This

may be

illustrated

by such

statements as "fossils were produced by stone-making forces;"

"opium puts one

to sleep because of

its

dormative powers," "cattle

graze together because of a gregarious instinct." * This kind of interpretation partakes of both of the major types of philosophy. It

eschews animism, and points to the external world for

planations. Tlius

it

says that fossils are

its

ex-

produced by stone-making

forces— i.e., by natural phenomena that exist and function in the realm of nature— not by gods with minds like ours. But, the explanatory device, "stone-making forces,"

is

merely a part of our

formula created ad hoCy and projected into the

selves, a verbal

external world. Functionally,

it

We

is

like the

concept

"spirit,"

and

* occasionally find this kind of explanatory device used in cultural anthropology even today. Thus, Lowie says that "owing to the separatism of the natives, no large population was ever anciently brought under a common head" in Polynesia, (1940, p. 293). RadclifFe-Brown says that certain institutions "are the results of the action of sociological principles," (1930-31, p. 429). Franz Boas finds certain cultural phenomena "due to a classificatory tendency," (1940, p. 323). Herskovits tells us that "the essential democracy of the Plains Indian life inhibited the development of economically .

privileged classes

.

.

."

.

.

(1940, p. 393).

^

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

hence has

with

affinity

philosophy

anthropomorphic

the

of

animism.

human

In the beginning of

history,

man's philosophies were

wholly animistic; he

diffused his psyche throughout the cosmos;

he confused the

with the not-self at almost every point.* As

self

culture advanced philosophy grew

philosophy was

and matured.

and

outgrown

Little

the

by

little

naturalistic

the animistic philosophy developed. But progress in philosophic interpretation

was not uniform

in all fields of experience,

The

sectors than others.

distinction between the

self— i.e., explanation of natural events rather than

was greater in some

it

phenomena

in terms of the

human

and the not-

self

in terms of natural

ego disguised

gods

as

and spirits— was made first in the realm of celestial phenomena. This was followed by the distinction in the field of terrestrial

phenomena. Then

physical

it

that order.

distinction

in the biological field-

and psychological phenomena, and

in anatomical, physiological,

The

was made

between the

achieved in astronomy and physics before

ogy and psychology because the former than in the

nomena

of astronomy as

significant

Man

latter.

gradually

experience, that

all

was

And of

it

it

was are

human

not-self

was made

easier of

and physics

determinants

processes of physiology

it

and the

self

in

was

in physiol-

accomplishment in

easier because the phe-

more remote and

less

than are the

behavior

and psychology.

learned,

through

ages

of

things do not affect his

observation life

equally.

things are immediate and exert a powerful influence others are remote and affect his

life

but

little. It is

and

Some

upon him;

significant to

* "To the Omaha nothing is without life: the rock Hves, so do the cloud, the tree, the animal. He projects his own consciousness upon all things, and ascribes to them experiences and characteristics with which he is familiar;

in common between all creatures and all natural something he conceives of as akin to his own conscious being," Alice C. Fletcher, "Wakonda," in Handbook of American Indians, Part 2, (Bulletin 30, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, 1910).

there

forms,

to

is

.

.

him something

.

this

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE note that systematic observation of the

stars

dJ

was begun under the

behef that they exert a powerful influence upon man's daily Vestiges of this belief are

preserved in the names of the days

still

of the week: Sun's day, Saturn's day, etc.

ancient belief

still

But

make

flourishes to

ness enterprise even today.

And enough

"^

mankind accumulated experience and compared one

as

his life

topography,

than such

phenomena

terrestrial

influence

less

as those of climate,

and fauna. At the same time, systematic observa-

flora

and

tion of planets

stars revealed regularities

fostered description in

and an order that

terms of natural law rather than divine

Thus astronomy was

price.

of this

astrology a profitable busi-

thing with another, he discovered that stars exert

upon

life.

lost to

animism,

won

ca-

for naturalism.**

As observation was continued and experience accumulated, was discovered fluential

as

man

that, intimate as

it

is

upon

his

life,

is

it

with his habitat, and

in-

yet another class

of

there

is

determinants of behavior even more immediate and significant: the

human

body.

The man,

the ox, the snake, and the bird

all

dwell in the same environmental setting, but they behave very differently. flies,

The

deer

is

swift,

because they have

the squirrel climbs

appreciation of this fact was the

Anatomy developed of the easier

body

is

arms and

legs

than

dawn

its

An

of the science of anatomy.

functioning, but because

between one's

self

between one's

processes.

The

house

which the true

in

the bird

before physiology, not because the structure

"simpler" than

to distinguish

trees,

different kinds of bodily structure.

body, unsophisticated self dwells.

self

and one'

it

is

and one's

(one's ^go) s

man feels, is but a The ego and the

glandular shell,

the

body, he

* According to Timt Magazine for March 25, 1946, p. 23, there were 25,000 practicing astrologers in the United States at that time; the five leading astrological periodicals had a combined circulation of nearly one million; and one of the leading astrological manuals sold at least 1,000,000 copies of its

1945 issue for $1 per copy. ** See Henri Poincare's fine essay on astronomy, the mother of science, in T\it Value oi Science, Ch. VI.

^

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

feels, are

respect"

may

different things.*

two is

no way

in

both

lose

The

self that

he regards

in "self-

by the amputation of a limb. One teeth, and even his eyes, but his "self"

affected

legs, his

remains untouched and unscathed.** But when glands flow hot in anger or in love, naive man does not distinguish them from his ego;

he

identifies the process

with himself.

matures before psychology:

Similarly, the science of physiology it is

easier to distinguish

between the

self

and the

not-self

dealing with physiological processes than with mental

We

observe that a hungry

man

another.

is

The

effects of

behaves one way, a

work and

well-filled

rest are obvious. Disposition

influenced by digestion. Profound changes in behavior can be

by drugs and

effected

there

is

a point

a citadel that

lives— his real

"human

is

self,

spirit"

liquor.

But, unsophisticated

beyond which outside

which they cannot is

man

when

phenomena.

cross.

forces

man

feels,

cannot go, boundaries

Deep within him,

naive

man

believes,

impregnable, a sanctuary inviolable. Here he essential

his

or Will

is

free,

character,

his

very soul.

The

he thinks, subject to no laws

natural or physical.

He

to regard the self as

an object, as an event in the world of nature.

The

distinction

his grasp It

sees himself as subject only;

between

self

he

is

unable

not-self at this point lies

beyond

when man became able many events in a world of

to look

and

and comprehension.

was a great day for science

upon mental

processes as so

nature,

when, to use William James' apt phrase, minds could be studied "as objects, in a world of other objects." The distinction between subject and object was made.

But the

fight for naturalism has

not

* It is not merely "unsophisticated man" who is sure that "mind" and "body" arc two different things. Descartes, certainly one of the greatest minds of modern times, maintains that "it is certain that I, [that is, "my mind, by which I am what I am"], is entirely and truly distinct from my body, and may exist without it," Meditations, No. VI. ** ". and although the whole mind seems to be united to the whole body, yet, when a foot, an arm, or any other part is cut off, I am conscious that nothing has been taken from my mind," idem. .

.

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE been wholly won in

many

circles,

yet.

Mental

life

matured plexity,

find the reason for the order in

self

nomena which

and the

and the extent

and the

powerful

ability of

easily

it

is

mankind

race has

and

determinants

distinguish

which

way

discovered

the

human

which are the

less significant as

behavior than the winds, rain,

terrestrial physics,

through

of knowing.

the science of astronomy appears

earlier

frost,

and

and matures

geology and geography. Anatomical

determinants being more remote and processes,

human

between the

insignificant

heavenly bodies, being more remote and

than

deals with phe-

where phenomena are intimate and powerful

The human

determinants of

com-

to distinguish be-

when one to

difficult

experience; there was no a priori

logical

which they have

not-self in various sectors of experience.

made most

is

not-self

determinants.

faster

which the sciences to

play an insignificant role as determinants of

behavior. Conversely,

terrain,

spirit"

to consist, not in varying degrees of universality or

This distinction

The

human

still walk hand in hand and anthropologies even today.

their appearance

but in the varying

tween the

self

called "the

and the soul and mind

in psychologies, sociologies,

Thus we have made

is still

69

less influential

than physio-

the science of anatomy precedes physiology.

Physiology comes before psychology for the same reason.

may conclude our argument by formulating development: Science emerges

first

We

the following law of

and matures

fastest in fields

where the determinants of human behavior are weakest and most remote; conversely, science appears latest and matures slowest in those portions of our experience where the most intimate and

powerful determinants of our behavior are found.

Auguste Comte recognizes

this

law when he observes:

most general and simple phenomena are the furthest removed from Man's ordinary sphere, and must [it would be better to say "can," L.A.W.] thereby be studied in a calmer and more rational frame of mind than those in which he is more nearly implicated; and It is

worthy of remark

in this place that the

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

70

new ground

this constitutes a

for the corresponding sciences

being developed more rapidly (p. 44). In explaining the "hierarchy of the sciences," however,

"new ground" merely based upon "the argument the while speaks of this

But

in

universal

and complex"

opposed to the special again.

incidentally

is

and

Comte

in passing,

and the simple

as

emphasized again and

Comte

other portions of Positive Philosophy,

takes

pains to point out repeatedly that the obstacles which oppose the

growth of

science are the theological

social

and metaphysical

philosophies which must be driven from the field of social phe-

nomena

we

before a genuine social science can be achieved. Although

reject

sciences,

Comte's own explanation of the order of

filiation of

the

we

his

theory

of

and indeed have,

could,

applied

the three stages in the development of philosophy to the solution of this problem.

What we

the "theological"

(supernaturalistic)

lodged and driven

first,

pretations of physical

and

last

have done, in

and to the

and

effect,

to

to the greatest extent,

phenomena, next from least

is

show that

philosophy has been

from

dis-

inter-

biological studies,

extent from explanations of

human

behavior. And, with the rejection of the theological philosophy

and the decline of the metaphysical, there has been a growth and spread, pari passu, of the naturalistic, scientific philosophy.

what we observe

is

a trend in philosophy

Thus,

from the theological

through the metaphysical to the positivistic— from

the super-

naturalistic to the naturalistic, or scientific— sweeping across the

experience from the physical through the biological to

field of

the

social.

Comte had

his hierarchy,

But

so concerned

solution

We

is

may

all

all

and indeed, is

of the materials for this explanation of it is

implicit in the Positive Philosophy.

he with another rationalization that the true

but obscured entirely.

illustrate the

development and the sequence of the

sciences in the accompanying diagram. In the center of the circle is

man, surrounded by events which influence

his

behavior in

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

some

varying degrees,

71

some remote. From

intimate,

this

point

of view, the advance of science has been more in the nature of

expansion of scope than of growth or development.

The cosmos

hes everywhere about man. Science, a particular way of dealing

PHYSICS CHElMlSTRy

^t^ATOMy pVAYSlOLOGy

^syCHOLOGy e^oClOLOCy

PHYSICAL /SCIENCES

physical science;

.BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

with experience, appeared

first

in interpretations of a particular

portion of our

field of experience,

phenomena

most remote and

human

are

behavior.

From

there

its

namely, in astronomy, where

insignificant as determinants of

techniques have spread and ex-

tended to other segments of experience. As science advances and expands, the anthropomorphic philosophy of animism recedes and

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

72

contracts; as the concepts of natural law

and determinism gain

ground, the philosophy of free will retreats. clusion

is,

of course, to have the

whole

field of

The logical conhuman experience

embraced by the philosophy of science rather than that of animism. It is interesting, in this connection, to recall the words of the eminent Polish sociologist,

many

Ludwig Gumplowicz, written

years ago:

natural science has successfully demonstrated that even

Modern

the 'human mind'

domain

of social

is

subject to physical laws

phenomena unchangeable

.

.

.

But

in the

natural laws have

been completely demonstrated. Between 'mental' phenomena subject to the laws of matter and the social world strode the conception of human freedom to distract and not

confuse. It seemed to order and control social relations accord-

ing to

its

own

choice. In the

domain

of mental

phenomena

.

.

.

monistic natural science has in part demonstrated the un-

conditioned sway of natural laws

.

.

.

Dualism

[i.e.,

driven from this domain, has retired to the

will],

social

phenomena, whence

must he

it

law

vs. free

domain

dislodged,^

oi

(emphasis

ours).

We

find the

scientist,

same view expressed by the great French

Emile Durkheim,

in

The Rules

of Sociological

social

Method:

Since the law of causality has been verified in the other realms

and since it has progressively extended its authority from the physicochemical world to the biological, and from the

of nature,

latter to the psychological,

we

are justified in claiming that

equally true of the social world; and

it is

it is

possible to add today

on the basis of this postulate There was a time when sentiments the things of the physical world opposed with equal

that the researches undertaken

tend to confirm relating to

it

(p. 141).

energy the establishment of the physical sciences, because they, too,

had a

religious or

moral character.

We

believe, therefore,

that this prejudice, pursued from one science to the next, will finally disappear also

from

its

last retreat, sociology,

free field for the true scientific endeavor (p. 34).

leaving a

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE

OF SCIENCE

73

According to Comte, Spencer, and others since their day, sociology

is

stage of

mean

the

development. In terms of our theory,

its

when

that

the logical chain of science, the

last link in

astronomical,

geological,

this

final

would

chemical,

physical,

anatomical, physiological, and psychological determinants of hu-

man more

behavior had been dealt with there would remain but one class of

determinants: the sociological. But are

accept this conclusion?

We

do not believe it and immature. There

human

behavior that

is.

is

lie

ogy and, for the most

On

the contrary,

still

another

we

we

class

find

it

call,

final?

inadequate

of determinants of

outside and beyond the scope of psychol-

part, sociology.

These

are the traditional

customs, institutions, tools, philosophies, languages,

we

willing to

adequate and

this classification

Is

collectively, culture. Cultural

supra-, psychological determinants of

super-psychological in the sense that

phenomena

human it

is

etc.,

which

are super-, or

behavior.

They

are

beyond the scope of

psychology to account for them. Psychology cannot explain,

e.g.,

why one people has clans (behaves "clanwise") while another does not; why one people eats with knives and forks, another with chopsticks; why a people prohibits marriage between parallel cousins but requires marriage between cross cousins; why a tribe practices plurals

by

polyandry,

observes

affixation, uses

the

money,

mother-in-law

etc.

taboo,

forms

Culture as culture can be

explained only in terms of culture. But let us return to the history of science and

observe

its

expansion beyond the horizons of

individual psychology.

For a long time, and individual psychology.

The

until

recent decades, psychology was

anatomical and physiological psychol-

ogists had, of necessity, to take the individual as their province.

The same was

true of the introspectionists

and

associationists. In

the early years, the subject matter of psychology was "mind,"

and the mind was something that "went on" organism.

It

in the individual

was to be studied in terms of anatomical structure

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

74

and physiological processes, and by direct observation through intros^DCction. In any event, psychology was the study of mind,

and the mind was an

But be

to

individualistic

as the scientific

recognized

phenomenon.

study of man's behavior advanced,

that

there

are

came

it

determinants

important

of

behavior lying outside and beyond the individual which, however, profoundly influence his conduct. With the appreciation of

undertook to grapple with these super-individual

this fact, science

determinants and to bring them within the scope of scientific interpretation.

Professional psychologists were, however, slow to appreciate the significance of super-individual determinants of

Consequently science organized

its

human

under another banner,

forces

so to speak, to undertake this necessary task. This

was Sociology.* Sociology

came

behavior.

new movement

into being as an organized attempt

of science to deal with super-individual determinants of behavior.

These determinants were

Consequently,

social in nature.

sociol-

ogy became the science of society. Early sociologists distinguished

from psychology on the ground that the

their science

was

latter

limited to the individual whereas theirs was devoted to the group.

As F. H. Giddings put .

.

.

psychology

sociology

.

.

phenomena Psychology is

[is]

it:

the study of the

the investigation of the

.

of is

minds

in

.

.

.

individual

more

association with

special

mind

.

.

.

;

and complex

one another

.

.

.

the science of the association of ideas. Sociology

the science of the association of minds.^

Psychology bestirred

itself

meanwhile and gradually extended

its

scope to include super-individual determinants. William James displayed a fine appreciation of social factors in behavior in the * "Precisely because the currents of

thought ran too exclusively to analysis terms of the single human being, Sociology arose as a discipline for the study of the collective life of man. In the early years it was considered as properly beginning at the point where Psychologj^ left off," E. E. Eubank, The Concepts of Sociology, (1932), p. 90.

and explanations

in

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

"The Consciousness

chapter

75

of Self" in his Principles of Psychoh

ogy (1890). In 1904, at the Congress of Arts and Sciences at

McKeen

Louis, James

St.

he was "not convinced

Cattell stated that

that psychology should be limited to the study of consciousness as such."

And

same Congress, J. M. Baldwin predicted that the future will be social to the core." In 1908,

at the

"the psychology of

William McDougall published first

work bearing

his Social Psychology.

this title written

by

pened that E. A. Ross's Social Psychology, the this title

by a

sociologist,

first

was published in the same

Although psychology was able

to

expand

work bearing year.^

horizons sufficiently

its

to take cognizance of group factors in behavior,

anchored to the individual

This was the

a psychologist. It so hap-

it still

as the object of its studies.

remained

Thus G.

Stout and C. A. Mace, in their article "Psychology"

F.

the

in

Encyclopaedia Britannica (14th ed.), declare that psychology

And

the "science of individual experience."

even maintain that social psychology individual.

Thus

F.

after all a study of the

is

H. Allport defines

is

other psychologists

social

psychology as "the

science which studies the behavior of the individual" in so far as his behavior all

is

related to that of other individuals. "Psychology in

branches," he argues,

its

Similarly, Professor

"is

a

science of the individual."

Margaret Floy Washburn declares that

psychology deals with individuals." Social psychology, she is

"that branch of psychology which deals with the

affected

by and manifested

is

as

with other minds."

in relations

R. H. Gault, social psychology

mind

"all

says, it is

To

but "an aspect of the psychol-

ogy of the individual." Thus psychology was able to reach out and at least take

cognizance of social factors in behavior. But

firmly anchored to the individual as

was unable to free posed of

many

itself

it

was so

object of study that

it

and envisage a psychological system com-

individuals instead of only one, a social organism

as well as a biological one.

much

its

This

field

was

left

therefore pretty

to the sociologists.*

Sociology

embarked upon

its

career

with high hopes

and

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

76

enthusiasm. Psychology had long devoted

human

aspect of

Now

behavior.

to the individual

itself

sociology was to deal with the

group aspect. Give sociology time to mature, many thought, and the science of human behavior would be complete, for with the individual and collective aspects of behavior taken care of,

what

and

early

else

was there?

1900's

it

To many

appeared, as

it

sociologists of the late 1890's

Comte many

had to

at last the "hierarchy" of the sciences

decades

earlier,

that

was complete, that sociology

was to be the crown or capstone of the great edifice that was science. But these hopes and aspirations have not been realized. Sociology has not sciences.

and

On

become the head

the contrary,

many

of an impressive hierarchy of

scholars,

both within sociology

outside, raise the question. Is sociology' a science at all?

ever accomplishments sociology does have to tainly has failed to fulfill the

credit,

its

hopes and expectations of

and subsequent generations of

sociologists.

The

Whatit

cer-

Comte we

reasons,

believe, are as follows:

Beyond the horizon individual

of individual psychology lie not only super-

psychological

determinants

of

behavior,

psychological determinants as well. Sociology devoted interpretation of super-individual

minants of behavior, and

in so

(i.e.,

to

social psychology.

recognize super-psychological

it

(i.e.,

failed to

cultural)

determinants, and thus failed to complete the science of

behavior by becoming a science of culture short, sociology

making

it

plete.

(i.e.,

the study of the collective aspect of behavior as well as

and thus

left

it

failed to create or

the science of

human

become

a science

behavior incom-

Another science beyond the horizon of sociology

mained

to

human

culturology). In

merely rounded out the science of psychology by

of the individual aspect. But of culture

the

social) psychological deter-

doing became

But, with few and relatively insignificant exceptions, distinguish and

but superitself to

be

realized,

re-

namely the science of culture (culturology).

Before proceeding further super-psychological

still

let us see precisely

(cultural)

what

this class of

determinants of behavior consists

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE of,

77

and what the nature and scope of a science of culture would

be.

We may illustrate with the following example: a number of Navaho Indians were spending the night in a large house near their reservation when a party of other Navahos approached. Word of their approach was passed through the house whereupon a

number

men

of

quickly left by the back door and windows:

were

their mothers-in-law

must not meet them

in

the approaching group and

face to face.

How

is

they

be

their behavior to

explained? Clearly there

is

a psychological reason for their behavior,

and

there are both individual and social aspects to their response.

Each

individual was influenced by his

experiences which

it

fellow Navahos.

fluenced by his

The

deal with both aspects, the individual

nomenon. He throw much

own organism and

and the

social, of this

light

upon the matter. But there

He

neighbors, the Hopi, do not.

why one

No amount

tribe has this

is

a

point beyond

their

close

of psychologizing will

custom while another does not.

psychologist does not always realize this. Sometimes he de-

clares that the institution feel

phe-

cannot explain why the

Navahos observe the mother-in-law taboo whereas

The

in-

psychologist can properly

can inquire into their feelings, ideas, and so on, and

which the psychologist cannot go:

explain

the

had undergone. And each individual was

and act

exists

because the people think and

in a certain way; that the institution

crystallization of certain psychological processes.

He

is

merely the

fails

to realize

that it is the other way around: the people feel, think and act the way they do because they possess— or, more accurately, are

possessed

by— a

not explain

certain custom. Manifestly, the psychologist can-

why

the Indian organism in the

Navaho

tribe

behaves

as to

produce the mother-in-law taboo while the

Indian organism in

the Hopi tribe does not behave in that

in such a

manner.

way

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

78 If,

therefore, psychology

cannot explain why one tribe has a

custom while another people does not, what science can? The answer is, the Science of Culture. A custom or institution is the product of the action and interaction of other customs and certain

institutions.

The

mother-in-law taboo would have to be explained

in terms of other

division of labor,

customs— those

mode

stitutions—culture

is

of subsistence,

traits in

phenomena. As such,

it

of marriage, residence, sexual

and so on. Customs and

general— constitute

may be

in-

a distinct class of

treated as a closed system. Culture

a thing sui generis; culture as culture can

be explained only in

terms of culture.* Let us illustrate with a few other examples.

Psychology cannot explain

why

agglutinative while that of another

the language of one people inflective.

is

This linguistic

is

dif-

ference must be explained in terms of language, not in terms of

mental processes or emotional cannot explain why

states. Likewise,

a people practices

why

polyandry or monogamy;

it

the psychologist

polygyny

than

rather

resorts to legal trial rather

than

to ordeals or covert black magic in the case of personal injury;

why

or

it

fights over

money and

debts instead of practicing com-

munism.

Thus we

see that over

psychological factor in

which tural.

is

and above the individual and

human

not psychological at

behavior, there

all.

It

is

is

social

another factor

super-psychological or cul-

In addition to the individual organic

component

in

human

behavior and over and above the social factor which comes from the interaction of individuals, there tional

customs,

institutions,

things,** these culture of any person living.

traits,

They

is

tools,

the influence of the tradiphilosophies,

etc.

These

have an existence prior to the birth

exist outside the

human

organism; they

*

"Culture is a thing sui generis which can be explained only in terms of (Lowie, 1917), p. 66. ** Dnrkheim calls "social facts" (i.e., culture traits) things (choses). "The

itself,"

proposition which states that social facts are to be treated as things," "at the very basis of our method," (1938 p. xliii).

lies

he

says,

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE act

upon him from the outside

can be transferred another.

as

79

meteorologic forces do.* Culture

without migration, from one people to culture of any people at any given time is the

The

freely,

product of antecedent cultural forces, and consequently

The

explained only in cultural terms.

England tic

in

1949

processes

is

to

be explained

and events,

courts of law,

to be

New

in terms of antecedent linguis-

just as the

Mormonism,

is

English language of

relativity,

automobile, paper currency,

and

jazz

music are to be

ex-

plained in terms of their respective cultural antecedents.

We see,

then, that in addition to the psychological factor, indi-

human behavior there is an important suprapsychological factor. The importance of this factor has only recently come to be recognized and appreciated. Everything that we do as human beings, individually and collectively, is profoundly influenced by our culture. Our food habits, marital customs, ideas vidual

and

social, in

of right and wrong, canons of beauty, mortuary practices, our

philosophies and religions, in short, the whole is

culturally determined.

terms of the way

we

And,

think, feel

gamut

of our lives,

from explaining our culture in

far

and

act,

we

can explain

much

of

our thought, feelings and behavior in terms of our culture. This

is

not to say that there

ogy in the modern science of

is

no further function

human

behavior. It will be noted

above that we have said that "much," not can be explained culturally. There of course. But

posed.

its

The day

institutions

is

scope

is

is

for psychol-

still

"all," of

our behavior

a place for psychology,

not as extensive as was formerly sup-

of facile psychological explanations of customs

and

done. In the future, culture will have to be ex-

plained culturologically. But within any given cultural situation

the operation of the psychological factors will served and interpreted. For example, given

still

have to be ob-

Navaho

culture,

how

* "Collective tendencies [i.e., culture traits] have an existence of their own; they also act upon the individual they are forces as real as cosmic forces .," translated from Durkheim, Le Suicide, p. 348. from the outside .

.

.

.

.

/ THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

80 will Indian organisms

factor constant while

we

behave? In short,

we

can hold the cultural

study the variable psychological factor.

Returning again to the history of science, we note that sociology was the new form taken by science in the extension of its scope

embrace super-individual determinants of behavior. Sociology became, for the most part, social psychology, and socml psychology plums, or honest is of course psychology, just as ripe plums are to

men, men. But minants,

beyond the scope of individual

in going

sociology

encountered

super-psychological

deter-

(cultural)

determinants as well as super-individual psychological factors. But instead of dealing with cultural determinants level,

i.e.,

culturologically, sociology

socio-psychological level

upon

and attempted

to interpret

of "social process," or "interaction." Sociologists

most part action

to realize that there

among human

beings as

is

no such thing

human

behaving in terms of symbols) that

To

their

is

beings

them

in

terms

for the

failed

as social inter-

(i.e.,

as

organisms

not culturally determined.

say that social interaction produces matrilineal clans

patrilineal clans there does

own

brought them down to the

not make sense.

To

say that

here,

one kind

of process of interaction produces matrilineal, another kind of

process patrilineal, clans

is

to put the cart before the horse. It

the type of clan, the culture

trait,

social interaction; matrilineal clans will

action,

clans

patrilineal

another.

is

that determines the form of

And

produce one type of clans,

as

culture

intertraits,

cannot be accounted for in terms of individual psychological processes— hopes,

desires,

fears,

etc.— or in terms of an abstract

process of social interaction but in terms of other culture

traits,

such as customary division of labor between the sexes, which in turn

is

closely related to the

stances and

means

mode

of subsistence

and the circum-

of defense against enemies; such as rules of

marriage, place of residence of the married couple, and so on.

And

so

it is

Whether

it

with social interaction everywhere in

be

in the family, clan or lineage,

human

society.

household or neigh-

borhood, guild, lodge, church, market place or what not, the

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

81

concrete processes of interaction that actually obtain in any given case have been determined,

i.e.,

given form and content, by the

culture that possesses the people, the culture that existed before

they were born and into which they were introduced at birth,

and which has given form and content time.

The attempt

to their behavior since that

of sociologists to explain culture in terms of

"social process" or "interaction" failed as of course

it

must.

A

and cannot give a and function of customs and in-

sociological interpretation of culture does not

account of the origin

scientific

stitutions;

it

merely conceals

sociological nature.

ogy in

its

Thus we

their

see that

march of expansion,

it

supra-psychological,

when

supra-

science created sociol-

rounded out the science of

psychology, but failed to achieve a science of culture. Let us

examine more

The

fully the preceding propositions in turn.

behavior of every living organism presents two aspects:

inner and outer.* There are processes and relationships which take place vdthin the organism; these

Then

we may

call

intra-organismal.

there are reactions and relationships between the organism

and the external world; these may be designated extra-organismal.

We may

define physiology as the scientific observation and inter-

pretation of intra-organismal processes and relationships; psychology, as the study of the extra-organismal aspect of behavior.**

Now

behavior presents two aspects, individual and and consequently can be studied from these two stand-

extra-organismal collective,

points. In other words, social psychology. tific

But both

can have individual psychology and are, of course,

psychology— the

scien-

observation and interpretation of extra-organismal reactions.

There *

we

is

no such thing

as

an individual apart from the group, and

"All relations or actions between one part of ...

[a

material system]

and

another are called Internal relations or actions. Those between the whole or any part of the system, and bodies not included in the system, are called External relations or actions," Clerk Maxwell, (1892), p. 11-12. ** Herbert Spencer, too, distinguished physiology from psychology in terms of "internal relations" and "external relations," "The Classification of the Sciences," Table III.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

82

no

indqjcndent of individuals. Individual and society

collectivity

are but

two poles of the same phenomenon: extra-organismal

re-

actions of biological organisms.

When

sociology took form as a distinct discipline

we

cated, as

v^as dedi-

it

have seen, to the study of the collective aspect of

became

behavior. It thus

Because the psychol-

social psychology.

ogy of that day was individualistic in character and outlook, the infant sociology took pains to distinguish itself from that science.

W.

Professor F.

Blackmar,

chairman of the session on Soci-

as

ology at the St. Louis Congress of Arts and Sciences, protested against having sociology classified with the "mental sciences"

the program for the meeting. Notwithstanding sociologists

have

Thus

Lester

Ward

is,

for the

on

numerous

the subject matter of sociology

testified that

"mental phenomena" and that sociology social psychology.

all this,

most

is

part,

speaks of "that collective

psychology which constitutes so nearly the whole of sociology."

Giddings declares that "society

mental .

.

.

activity

common

.

.

.

social life

mental

activity

[is

... .

.

."

ologists

came

is

a

a

as a

phenomenon

mode

of the

of

mind

Accordingly, he regards soci-

ology as "a psychological science."

mentally society

be regarded]

to is

Hobhouse

psychological

says that "funda-

structure."

to recognize that "social

American

life is essentially

soci-

psychical,"

according to Gottfried Salomon. At the St. Louis Congress of Arts and Sciences, C. A. Ellwood, speaking as chairman of the section

on

social psychology, refers to this science as "this

important part of sociology." Albion

W.

Small once defined

most soci-

ology as "the science of the social process," but he also states that the interpretation of the social process

Thus, sociology and same.

To

clared that

And

"social

psychology."

psychology appear to be one and the

Giddings "societal psychology

thing as sociology."

Thus

social

is

is

substantially the

same

quite recently L. L. Bernard has de-

"modern sociology becomes

largely social psychology,"

"

sociology turns out to be social psychology, and social

psychology

is

psychology, according to the testimony of sociolo-

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE gists

well as

as

83

by our own definitions, E. A, Ross, the first book entitled Social Psychology, defined

sociologist to write a

psychology as a subdivision of "general psychology."

social

more

recently R.

M. Maclver

a branch of psychology."

sociology is

is

And

observes that "social psychology

We

is

note therefore that in so far as

the study of social interaction, social process,

etc., it

merely a psychological science. But what of the study of super-

psychological determinants of behavior?

Where

does sociology

stand with reference to interpretation of cultural phenomena?

Sociology was a quarter of a century old,

the concept of culture entered into

its

if

"

not more, before

thinking to any appreciable

By degrees, however, the concept of culture— or, at least, term— has become more common, and even popular. But, with

"extent.

the

few and

relatively insignificant exceptions, sociologists

been able to

rise

have not

to a culturological point of view; they

have

not been able to envisage a science of culture as distinct from a science of society.

To most

sociologists

culture

is

merely behavior, a particular

kind of behavior, perhaps, but the reactions and interactions of

human

organisms, nevertheless.

"culture consists of "culture

is all

.

.

.

Thus Kimball Young says that To Read Bain,

learned behavior patterns."

behavior mediated by social symbols ...

all

culture

Ogburn and Nimkoff say that culture is "behavior transmitted by learning." Ellwood defines culture as "behavior patterns socially acquired and socially transmitted by means of symbols." ^ There is also a tendency among sociologists to regard culture patterns are resident in the organisms of persons."

as

merely a by-product of social interaction. Thus, E. R. Groves

is a product of human association." Kimball Young thinks of culture as "a precipitate of man's social life." * To many sociologists, "cultural" has become merely another

states that "culture

word

for "social,"

Robert

S.

Lynd,

for

example, speaks of "the

individual in our culture," "leaders of the culture," etc. As Jessie Bernard shrewdly observed many years ago, " 'culture' bids well

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

84 to supersede 'society'

vocabulary."

The

'cultural/ 'social/ in the sociologist's

and

^

inability of sociologists to conceive of culture as a supra-

psychological order, distinct from the process of "social interaction/'

is

German

well exemplified by the eminent

sociologist,

Georg Simmel. When one considers, he says, "the development and character of language, morals, church, law, political and social organization," the conception that they constitute "a structure of

independent

by

which leads

reality,

virtue of peculiar forces, independent of

ponents" seems "inevitable." Simmel culture. Its

which

is

itself.

psychology

is

so plain that

is

That culture has an existence

determined by

the conception

individual

all its

own

its

"inevitable."

laws,

Yet,

it

com-

of

compels its

also so plain as to

is

mired

so

and

here face to face with

is

independence of individuals

recognition by

peculiar laws

life after

its

own make

individualistic

in

Simmel, and so blinded by an obsolete metaphysics,

that he cannot accept the conclusion to which his observations

he stubbornly

and reasoning "inevitably" lead him.

"It

maintains, "that in the

only individuals exist." Even

last analysis

is

certain,"

society exists only "in mental attitudes or psychological occur-

rences within the

minds

And

of individuals."

culture, apart

material things, consists of "spiritual structures

.

.

.

from

[which] have

their existence only in personal minds.

Every attempt to think of

them

.

outside of persons

The

is

a mysticism

,

^<>

/'

conception of a science of culture held by

sociologists

is

expressed by Dorothy P. Gary in

many American her essay "The

Developing Study of Culture:" "A science of culture

up only when the

analysis

standpoint that culture

and consisting of

of culture

itself is

collective

is

will

be built

approached from the

a social process growing out of

human

behavior."

a science of culture will be realized only

when

it

"

In other words,

becomes

a science

of social process, of collective behavior, rather than a science of culture.

Th. Abel considers the question of

a science of culture

in his essay, "Is a Cultural Sociology Possible?"

and comes to the

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE conclusion that

it

not.

is

To

Abel, sociology

"inter-human behavior" of which culture

There have been,

be

to

85

is

who have

sure, sociologists

human

preciation of the role of culture in

the study of

is

but an aspect. a fine ap-

behavior. Professor C.

A. Ellwood, for example, declares that "it is impossible to understand human society without understanding human culture; for the social behavior of group."

But he,

man

...

is

thinks

too,

behavior rather than as a

dominated by the culture of

of

culture

must be the method

development of culture F.

Ogburn took

human

interpretation,

historical

of psychological analysis

essentially a learning process,"

is

his collaborator,

Change. But,

we have

as

human

who

another sociologist

is

.

the

William

so far as to declare that "the study of culture its

growth,

its

spread and

stitutes the study of sociology."

Willey and Melville

But

in

an

its

behavior.

He

much

has gone

—the processes

of

perpetuation— con-

earlier article written

Herskovits (an anthropologist),

J.

he and

has done

to bring his science to an appreciation of culture.

and

.

.

just seen,

Nimkoff, think of culture as

Malcolm M. Willey

origin

human

product of the

a

a culturological point of view, to a certain extent

at least, in his Social

its

his

(organic)

class of supra-psychologic, superorganic,

phenomena. To Ellwood, "all culture is mind [which means that] back of all therefore,

as

we

by are

must not be assumed, of course, that culture is a metaphysical entity which operates of itself. It is, rather, a generic term that covers an amazing number of types of behavior." ^^ told that "it

Thus we

see that sociologists think of culture as behavior, as

social process or interaction, as a factor in

a by-product of

human

human

to the level of viewing culture as a distinct

supra-psychological,

generis with

of society surprising.

its

own

supra-social

Being

cannot

a science of culture.

sociologists, they are

devoted to the study of society, of

by

if

ever, rise

and separate

phenomena;

laws. In short, they

and envisage

behavior, or as

behavior. But they seldom,

a

as rise

This

class of

process

sui

above a science

is

definition

not, however,

and tradition

social interaction.

It is

not

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

$6

when they

surprising, therefore, to find that

culture they translate

it

There is not a single sociologist that (Durkheim excepted) who has a clear conception of science of culture would be and who has devoted himself

idiom of

social interaction.

we know

of

what

a

are confronted with

into the only language they know: the

to the advancement of such a science.

A

few

sociologists have, however,

been

R.

M. Maclver

is

exposed to

sufficiently

the culturological point of view to be disturbed by

Professor

it.

concerned with the "disturbing effect" which

"the impact of anthropology" has had upon sociology: the "cultural approach,"

he

fessor Robert

Lynd

S.

without a focus." Pro-

says, "leaves sociology

issues a clear

warning against the error of

"viewing culture as a self-contained force, operating by inner laws of

its

own."

He

lists

"four distinct advantages" which

human

gained from treating culture as

culture ("basically impersonal things"). Culture,

not "enamel

its

may be

behavior instead of as

he

argues, does

fingernails, or vote, or believe in capitalism,

but

people do." L. L. Bernard, too, argues against a science of culture,

denying that culture

is

a thing suf generis.

He

likewise thinks of

culture as "the impact of an intelligent organism

environment," in other words,

.

.

.

upon

the reactions of the

as

its

human

organism. ^^

Thus, among sociologists we find a recognition of cultural phenomena and an appreciation of the role of culture in human behavior. But we find virtually no conception of a science of culture among them, no appreciation of the fact that cultural phenomena constitute a separate and distinct order; that cultural elements act and react upon each other according to laws of their such can be explained only in terms of cul-

own; that culture

as

ture; that culture

not only can be studied apart from the psycho-

logical reactions of

action," but that

science

is

it

human

organisms, apart from "social inter-

must be

so studied; in fine, that a special

required to study and interpret this special class of

phenomena, and that

this science

is

not a science of psychology.

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

87

individual or social, or a science of society or "social interaction,"

but a supra-psychological science of culture: culturology.

With the creation of Sociology the boundaries of science were extended to embrace super-individual determinants of behavior. But, being but a science of group behavior, of collective psychological determinants, Sociology

was unable to grasp and interpret

super-psychological determinants. Science was, therefore, obliged

once again to advance time

it

its

frontiers

a

new

science.

This

was culturology.

was the anthropologists who,

It

by creating

observed,

"discovered culture,"

as Professor

^*

and

A. L. Kroeber has

has been within the

it

province of anthropology that the science of culture has had most of

its

The eminent

growth.

Burnett Tylor, was the in

an

explicit

and

first

British

self-conscious

we know,

ture:"

We

we know,

too, so far as it

was the

title

do not mean to

to formulate

manner, the point of view, the

purpose, principles and scope, of a science of culture. first,

Edward

anthropologist,

person, so far as

He

was the

to use the phrase "science of cul-

of Chapter

assert that

I

of Primitive Culture (1871).

Tylor was the

first

to take a cul-

turological point of view or to produce a culturological work;

there were, of course, others before Tylor or lesser extent.

so far as

and describe the new

define

To

But

we

who

did this to a greater

are aware, Tylor

was the

first

to

science.

begin with, Tylor gave us what has probably been the most

satisfactory definition of culture that

cently. "Culture," ture, "is that

he

says in the

we have

ever had until

re^

opening words of Primitive Cul-

complex whole which includes knowledge,

belief, art,

morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits ac-

quired by

man

clear that this

human traits

The

as a

new

member

of society." Secondly, Tylor

science will take as

its

makes

it

object of study, not

behavior, nor social process or interaction, but culture

themselves as a separate and distinct

class of

phenomena.

study "not of tribes and nations, but the condition of knowl-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

S8 edge, religion,

he

art,

custom, and the like

sets for his science.

He

proposes

among them"

first

is

the task

to classify culture traits

into categories such as weapons, myths, rites, social customs, etc.,

and then to "make out their distribution in geography and history and the relations which exist among them." It is the relations between culture traits, relations historic, geographic, and functional, that

beings

Tylor

concerned with, not relations between

human

"social interaction")."

(i.e.,

The

is

next noteworthy attempt to establish a science of culture

was that of Emile Durkheim.* In a great deal of his work, but The Rules oi Sociological Method— above all in the

especially in

Preface to the second edition of this

the premises and

to formulate

work— Durkheim endeavored

principles

phraseology was unfortunate, however, since

concealed his true thought.** In the

first

of it

culturology.

His

rather effectively

place he calls his science

"sociology" rather than a "science of culture" as Tylor did, and he lacks the terminology to distinguish cultural.

He

social

and the

designates the class of traditional super-psychologic

symbolic phenomena which

we

call

"culture" by such terms as

which has not only obscured

consciousness,"

"collective

between the

his

thought but has brought upon him the charge of mysticism. But

one who can reach

to

his

thought and meaning through the

facade of inappropriate terminology,

Durkheim

is

interaction,"

*

it

will

be quite apparent that

talking about culture rather than "society" or "social

and that he

is

trying to establish a science of culture.

Having previously stated that the founding of the science of culture was work of anthropology the question arises. Was not Durkheim a

primarily the

Durkheim called his science "sociology." nature and content was very different from the works of most sociologists. As Bernard has put it, "the Durkheim school generally has been closer to anthrop>ology than to sociology," (article "Social Psychology," Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, p. 154). ** See the opening words of Durkheim 's Preface to the second edition of The Rules for his own statement about how he was misunderstood by his sociologist? It

But

it

is

colleagues.

is

of course a fact that

also true that

its

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

Durkheim .

.

.

when he

speaking of culture

is

89

says:

ways of acting or thinking have a

collective

the individuals who, at every

moment

These ways of thinking and acting

exist in

reality outside

conform to

of time,

their

own

immense

Collective representations are the result of an

it.

right.

co-

operation, which stretches out not only into space but into time as well; to

make them,

a multitude of

minds have

associated,

united and combined their ideas and sentiments; for them, long generations have accumulated their experience and knowledge.^*

Durkheim

no doubt that he

leaves

concerned with what

is

anthropologists such as Tylor, Kroeber and Lowie have called culture even though

he uses the term

"society." "It

is

not true,"

composed of individuals only; it also includes material objects which play an essential role in the comhe

says,

mon

"that society

is

(emphasis ours).

life,"

"houses, buildings of

autonomous

all

Among

independent of individuals

realities,

munication and transportation, used in industry

.

.

That Durkheim action")

We

is

made

.

.

.

.

.

.

lists

become

lines of

com-

instruments and machines

." ^^ is

interested in the behavior of culture traits

than the behavior of

rather

these material objects he

kinds which, once constructed,

human

organisms

("social

inter-

by the following:

clear

by comparison of mythical themes, popular legends, traditions, and languages, the manner in which social representations [i.e., culture traits] adhere to and repel one another, how they fuse or separate from one another.^® need to

Since culture

which repel

traits

act

investigate,

is

be studied with reference to the ways in

to

and

react

upon one another— "adhere

one another"— it follows that culture

is

to

to

and

be explained in

terms of culture: Society

[i.e.,

culture]

iar characteristics

.

.

is .

a reality sui generis;

The

it

has

its

determining cause of a

[culture trait] should be sought

among

own

pecul-

social fact

the social facts [culture

^

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE preceding

traits]

it

.

.

We must seek the explanation

the nature of society [culture]

life [culture] in

A

.

of social

itself.^^

few sociologists have been able to see that Durlcheim traits and their behavior rather than

ing about culture

is

talk-

human

organisms and their interactions, but most of his successors have either tried to reduce his culturology to the social psychology of interaction or have dismissed

it

as

"mysticism." Despite misunder-

standing, however, Durkheim's influence has been considerable, and he will eventually come to be recognized as one of the

founders of the science of culture.

Durkheim the

In the works of Tylor and

good

off to a field

science of culture got

in the nineteenth century. But progress in this

start

A

has been rather meager in recent decades.

amount of work

considerable

of a culturological nature has been produced by

American and European anthropologists. But

little

advance in the

development of the theory of such a science has been made.

There

been considerable opposition to the cultur-

has, in fact,

and numerous

ological point of view,

from the

level attained

signs point to regression

by Tylor and Durkheim.

Professor A. L. Kroeber has undertaken to formulate the philos-

ophy of

a science of culture

following essays:

Psychology,"

on

several occasions, notably in the

"The Superorganic," "The

"On

Possibility of a Social

the Principle of Order in Civilization as Exem-

by Changes in Fashion," "Sub-Human Cultural Begin-

plified

nings," "So-Called Social Science," and, finally in his recent

huge

work. Configurations oi Culture Growth. Like Comte, Kroeber is

concerned with the "hierarchy of the sciences."

cultural

tion,"

phenomena from

he

says, "is

mental exercise."

psychological

He

distinguishes

phenomena.

"Civiliza-

not mental action but a body or stream of

He

distinguishes the psychological

tural in the instance of

from the

cul-

Darwin's formulation of the theory of

natural selection: the "reactions in Darwin's nervous system at the

moment when

the thought of natural selection flashed upon him,"

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

'^l

are contrasted with "the relation of doctrines such as that of natural

selection

nomena." In cern

itself,

other concepts and

to

social

[cultural]

phe-

Kroeber envisages a science which would con-

short,

not with psychological events, but with the actions and

reactions of superorganic (cultural) phenomena.^" In speaking of

the reaction of one concept on another, Kroeber

Durkheim was when he spoke sentations [culture

traits]

is

thinking as

way in which "social repreand repel one another, how

of the

adhere to

they fuse or separate from one another." Culture, as a class of supra-psychic— or superorganic, to use

term— phenomena constitutes a distinct order of reality, in Kroeber's conception. "The superorganic or super-psychic that we call civilization [culture] appears to have an existence, an Kroeber's

.

and

order,

a causality as objective

and

as

the sub-psychic or inorganic," he says.

determinable

He

as

.

.

those of

also thinks of culture

explanation of cultural

phenomena," which means that "the first phenomena must be in cultural terms," ^^

Professor Kroeber

not able to hold consistently to the culture-

as a "closed system of

logical

point

of

is

view,

however.

culturological explanations can

He

be only

appears

think

to

historical;

that

"Anthropology

belongs in the group of the historical sciences," he says. Generalizations dealing with non-temporal aspects of cultural

would, he reasons, belong to psychology, as title

He

of one of his essays,

is

"The

is

phenomena

indicated by the

Possibility of a Social Psychology."

not quite able to conceive of scientific laws of culture

Instead,

he speaks of laws which underlie

"the laws of psychology."

culture,

itself.

and these are

^-

Kroeber has pointed out in "The Possibility of a Social Psychology" "the

defect" of the term "sociology":

fatal

distinguish the cultural from the social.

remedy

this

its

But he does

failure to little

to

shortcoming, since in the same essay where the defect

of "sociology"

is

exposed, he suggests that the science of cul-

ture be called "cultural mechanics," "social psychology," and even ^'sociology." If only

he could have

crystallized his

thought in a

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

92

"culturology"! In a later essay, he does use the phrase

new term:

And he

"science of culture," however.

standing of the direction that science "It does look as

when he observes: would be more concerned

the future science

if

with culture than with society." Professor Robert H.

Lowie

a keen under-

displays

taking

is

"

gives us a clear expression of the

To

culturological point of view in his various writings.

constitutes

distinct

a

which requires hundred

last

.

he

phenomena

interpretation.

"During the

...

he

ture," as

recent essay.

for

to

is

The

increasingly clear

domain.

demands

This distinct science

calls it in a

become

a distinct

culture] a thing sui generis that distinct science."

its

writes, "it has

represents

.

.

him, culture

supra-psychological

a special science for

years,"

that culture

of

class

We

have

[in

investigation a

its

be a "science

of cul-

science of culture

to

is

be distinguished sharply from a science of mental phenomena:

"We

cannot reduce cultural to psychological phenomena

Culture

.

.

.

can be explained only in terms of

heim and Kroeber, Lowie react

upon each

.

.

Like Durk-

sees that culture traits as such act

and

other: "culture thus appears as a closed system."

the business of the ethnologist [culturologist] to

It is therefore

show how one other culture

itself."

.

cultural element

He

traits.

ship terminology

is

is

determined by, or influences,

how

shows, for example,

a type of kin-

determined by rules of marriage and descent.^*

Clark Wissler, likewise an anthropologist, takes the culturological

point of view in

concept

r

in

[as]

anthropological

scientific

much

research."

explanation of the

pology, the study of the

In

fact,

human

of his work.

He

regards the "culture

one of the most recent and important achievements

way

He

distinguishes

psychology,

the

way people behave, from anthroculture

traits,

or cultures, behave.

he advocates the study of "culture

as

independent of

beings." Like Tylor, Wissler states that the task of the

anthropologist

is

ture

study their distribution over the earth, and above

all

traits], to

to "describe

and

classify these inventions

the gross outlines of their history." Wissler

is

[cul-

interested in the

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE evolution of culture, the history of specific

and

in relationships obtaining

"follow out their careers

maintains,

and

laws,"

between

it

93

traits

traits.

and complexes,

he

"All cultures,"

according to discoverable

the anthropologist's business to discover and to

is

formulate these laws.^'

Wissler does not, however, fully appreciate the extent to which the culturological point of view can be applied. Instead of trying to explain such traits as the couvade and incest prohibitions in

terms of the interaction of other culture

He would

to the psychologist.^®

ture to an unwarranted

much

traits,

he turns them over

thus restrict the science of cul-

and unfortunate degree, and deprive

it

of

opportunity for achievement. But this blind spot does not

lessen the merit of his culturological

work

in other areas of inter-

pretation.

and understanding concerning the expansion and of the direction which this expansion

Wissler's insight

of the scope of science is

shown

taking are

in the following passage:

was an easy step from the realization of the individual Such a consciousness of ourto the conception of society selves functioning as a group is coincident with the rise of and whereas a century or more ago men were sociology

Thus,

it

.

.

.

.

.

.

thinking in terms of the individual, they came during the last half

century to see themselves in society.

fact that for a long

ism,

he

failed

such a thing

time

It is

was so intent upon

then

a curious

his individual-

and that to But we have seen how

to sense the existence of society,

as culture

our people are

man

just

culture ... So while

was

totally blind.

becoming conscious of the existence of

we have attained social consciousness we are just now groping our way.'^ .

.

.

into culture consciousness

Professor G. P. cal point of

hard

J.

Murdock

Stern also touches

his article,

has a fine exposition of the culturologi-

view in his essay, "The Science of Culture." Dr. Bern-

upon

it

in

an illuminating manner in

"Concerning the Distinction between the Social and

the Cultural."

It

would be

interesting to note expressions of the

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

94

culturological point of view in the works of other

space were at our disposal. But

we

men

if

sufficient

have cited enough to show that

been

progress in the direction of a science of culture has

some made

since the days of Tylor

and Durkheim.

But the new science has encountered considerable opposition as well as support.

extension of the point of view of science to

the realm of

institutions has aroused the opposition

The human

resentment of

champions of the older philosophy of

Durkheim has expressed

and

free will.

As

it:

breaks out each time a new science is founded ... on more than one point, the natural sciences themselves found an obstacle in faith. But it is especially when man became an object of science that the resistance became fierce. The believer, indeed, cannot but find repugnant the idea that

The same antagonism

man

is

be studied

to

and moral

as a natural being,

facts as facts of nature. It

is

analogous to others,

well

known how

these

under the different forms they have taken, have hindered the development of psychology and sociology

collective sentiments,

[culturology].^^

Opposition to a science of culture scientists,

however.

tain sociologists,

ogy

among

We have

and there

is

is

not confined to non-

already noted the opposition of cer-

considerable opposition to culturol-

anthropologists themselves.

in "The Superorganic" (1917), to formulate the culturological point of view and to advocate a

Kroeber's early attempt,

science of culture was

Edward

met with speedy and

spirited opposition.

Sapir, in a skillfully argued essay entitled

a Super-Organic?" tried to

We Need

"Do

show that no such concept, and conse-

quently no special science, was needed. Alexander Goldenweiser,. also in a reply to Kroeber's essay

opposed ture," It

is

"The

Superorganic," likewise

a super-psychological science of culture.

"The

life

he argues elsewhere, "belongs to the psychological

in the

minds of men

in society

thropologist, are students of

life.

Life

.

.

is

.

The

of cullevel.

historian, the an-

psychology."

^*

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE It

seems

likely that

95

Franz Boas had Kroeber

in

mind when he

wrote, "It seems hardly necessary to consider culture a mystic entity that exists outside the society of

and moves by its own force." Like Lynd, Boas would insist that "cultures do not enamel their fingernails but that people do." individual carriers

its

that

Ruth Benedict,

too, can see

nothing but mysticism in Kroeber's

attempt to formulate a science of culture sui generis.

selves in mystical phraseology

in a force cess."

as a class of

phenomena

She speaks of those who "have often expressed them-

he

calls

.

.

.

like

Kroeber they have called

the superorganic to account for the cultural pro-

Being unable to understand or to appreciate

supra-psychological

a science of

phenomena, Boas and Benedict simply brand

the idea "mystical" and reject

it.

The

inability of

Boas to

rise

above

the level of psychological interpretation and to grasp a culturological point of

view

is

clearly set forth in a significant passage

Benedict. "It has never been sufficiently realized," she writes,

by

"how

consistently throughout his life Boas defined the task of ethnology as the

study of 'man's mental

life,'

'fundamental psychic attitudes

of cultural groups,' 'man's subjective worlds/ "

^°

Father Wilhelm Schmidt defines ethnology as "a science of the

mind."

The

^^

reaction against the culturological point of view in Ameri-

can anthropology in recent years has gone so following

summary

far as to receive

expression in the words of David Bidney:

tendency to hypostatize culture and to conceive dental, super-organic, or super-psychic force

that culture

is

a force that

may make and

the major "cultural fallacies" of our day. fallacy,"

to

be

specific,

he

tells

us.^^

.

.

it .

develop It

is

as a transcen-

the assumption itself" is

it

one of

the "culturalistic

Dr. Bidney

fails

preciate the direction that science has been taking for

a century, that

the

"The

to ap-

more than

has been moving upward from the individual

psychologic level to the social psychologic, and from there to the super-psychologic, or culturologic, level.

He

feels

only the impact

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

96

of the current reaction against this trend and consequently does more than serve as the passive medium of its expression.

Many

anthropologists are

still

unable to

sociological, or socio-psychological,

rise

no

above the

level of a

human

behavior.

conception of

Thus Radcliffe-Brown ridicules the notion that two cultures can react upon each other, or that a culture can exert an influence, or produce an effect, upon an individual human being. Culture, to Radcliffe-Brown, tastic to

is

imagine

.

merely "an abstraction," and he finds .

.

"fan-

it

two abstractions coming into contact and

by an act of generation producing a third abstraction." The idea that a culture can "act upon an individual" is, to Radcliffe-Brown, "as absurd as to hold a quadratic equation capable of

a murder." In theoretical outlook Radcliffe-Brown sociologist;

He

he

is

You cannot have

ence of societies

merely a

incapable of envisaging a science of culture.*

asks: "Is a science of culture possible?

agree.

committing is

is

Boas says

possible

and

this

is

it

he

a science of culture." But,

is

not.

I

says, a sci-

the proper goal of the

social anthropologist.^^

Radcliffe-Brown confuses the issue very effectively by calling culture an abstraction.

are culture traits.

Why

call

them

ab-

any more than the bark of a dog or the quack of a duck?

stractions

The

Words

fact that

words have a symbolic significance

as well as auditory

and physical properties does not make them "abstractions," any

more than the this

sexual significance of the

mating

call

of frogs

an abstraction. Polygynous households are culture

why

call

But

one husband and three wives an abstraction any more

than one atomic nucleus and three electrons? or ceremonial forms be called abstractions any or molecular forms? * It

makes

traits.

A

wild horse

an interesting and noteworthy

is

Why

should social

more than

not an abstraction.

cellular

Why

call

fact, however, that although RadcHffeable to appreciate the concept of a science of culture and hence has repudiated and rejected such a concept, he has employed it effectively in some of his work. His "Social Organization of Australian Tribes" is a good example of a culturological interpretation of super-psychological is

Brown has not been

phenomena.

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

97

a domesticated horse (a culture trait) one? Culture traits are very real

things:*

objects,

acts,

can be and are experienced for calling

As

them

forms, sentiments and ideas which

as real things.

for culture's ability to "act

man who

able to find a

There

no more reason

is

abstractions than anything else in our experience.

is

upon an

individual,"

it is

remark-

so often identified with Durlcheim

arguing this question in the negative.

It

was one of Durkheim's

chief theses that culture traits have an existence prior to

and inde-

pendent of the individual human organism, and that these

man from

impinge upon behavior.

And

it is,

of course, obvious that this

birth— and even before— culture ments,

traits in

is

From

the case.

the form of ideas, senti-

and material objects act upon the human organism

acts,

and cause

traits

the outside and profoundly affect his

to behave in this

it

way and

that.

And

it

is

not as

"absurd" as Radcliffe-Brown would have us think to "hold a quadratic equation

[i.e.,

mitting a murder,"

A

an idea or

set of ideas] capable of

com-

may so another human

culture trait in the form of an idea

human organism as to cause it to This is in fact a very common thing in

stimulate the

kill

being.

cases of witchcraft,

the killing of one or both of twins at birth, and tural situations.

A

many

other cul-

culture trait in the form of a sentiment-charged

idea will cause a Japanese general to disembowel himself in atone-

ment

for disgrace or failure, or

an occidental

brains with a pistol. It would, of course,

was the person, the

human

in the examples just cited.

—and it

this

is

officer to

be

silly

to argue that

it

Of

course

it

was the

human

being.

But

the point at issue in a scientific analysis of behavior-

was the culture

trait,

ing, of the homicides.

commit

his

organism, that actually does the killing

not the

human

being, that was the determi-

nant of the behavior, and hence was the cause, or

blow out

hara-kiri

The human

scientifically speak-

organism does not

kill

witches

because of any inherent property or tendency.

* Recall Durkheim's emphasis upon the prof>osition that social facts arc things (choses). This proposition was "at the very basis of . . . [his] method,"

(The Rules,

p. xliii).

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

98

As a matter of fact, self-destruction runs counter to powerful and deep-seated organic tendencies. But, under the powerful stimulation of cultural traits, acting upon the organism from the outside,

the

human

being can be brought to homicide or

hara-kiri.

These acts are the organic responses to cultural stimuli, and in scientific phraseology, it traits are

is

quite proper to say that the culture

the causes, the killings the results.

stimuli are applied, different results will

we

see that far

tion,

i.e.,

If different cultural

be forthcoming. Thus,

from being absurd to think of a "quadratic equa-

a culture trait in the

ting a murder," or a suicide,

form of an idea-sentiment, commit-

it is

and

realistic

scientifically valid to

think in precisely this way.* Professor A. Irving Hallowell, too, emphasizes a point of view

which would

rule out a supra-psychologic science of culture. After

quoting with approval Sidney's characterization of the culturologipoint of view as a

cal

fallacy,

he

says:

Although anthropologists often speak of the "movements" of culture or the "meeting" of cultural traits or complexes, this manner of speaking must be understood as an economical mode of abstract speech. In a literal sense cultures never have met nor will ever meet. What is meant is that peoples meet and that, as a result of the processes of social interaction, accultura-

mode

one or both peoples dynamic centers of this process of interaction ... it is hard to see how culture— an abstract summation of the mode of life of a people— can exert tion—modifications in the

—may

an influence except *

We

of life of

take place. Individuals are the

do not

as

it

is

a

definable constituent of the

assert that the culturological point of

in Radcliffe-Brown's work.

It

is.

view

is

As we have already noted,

nowhere it

implicit

permeates his

When

fine study, "The Social Organization of Australian Tribes." he distinguishes "social anthropology" from psychology in "The Methods of Eth-

nology and Social Anthropology," p. 133, he gives expression to the culturological point of view. What we have claimed here is that Radcliffe-Brown has explicitly and specifically opposed the theory of a science of culture. This is demonstrated by his own utterances. The fact that he not infrequently docs culturology in no

way

invalidates this charge.

Even

to square their behavior with their articulate theory.

scientists

sometimes

fail

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

human

activities of

In the

99

individuals in interaction with each other.

last analysis it

is

individuals

who respond

to

and influence

one another,^* (emphasis ours).

We

see here only the social

marked

psychologist, with, however, a

individualistic bias. Hallowell thinks of culture only as

the reactions of biological organisms. traits as

turns his back

Oi

The

interaction of culture

such seems utterly unrealistic to him. Hence he resolutely

upon

course culture

a science of culture.

traits

could do nothing were

thought otherwise?

Certainly

it

not Tylor,

a false realism to argue that culture traits

each other immediately and directly.

upon and

acts directly

we know

religious beliefs

other culture

is

a culture trait. It

sexes,

customs of residence, food habits,

modern American

traits:

harness and carriage manufacture, the steel

industries,

road building, urban development, road

To be

etc.

these cultural events could not have taken place had

human

organisms. But

traits

introducing these organisms into of the

symphony

it

sure,

not been

our account of the influence of the

is

automobile upon other culture

ment

many

culture directly affected

houses and tourist camps, consolidated schools,

for

But upon

of.

react

and ceremonies, and so on. The introduction of

the automobile in

and rubber

hoe

do not

influences other culture traits such as divi-

between the

sion of labor

A

human

ask, has ever

Durkheim, Kroeber,

Lowie, Wissler, or any other culturologist that it is

not for

And who, we might

beings; they could not even exist.

it?

made any more realistic by Not one whit. The develop-

or non-Euclidean geometry could not have

taken place without the respiratory and digestive processes of composers and mathematicians.

But

to inject these physiologic proc-

esses into a scientific explanation of these cultural processes

On

would

not add

a single thing to our understanding of them.

trary, it

would only confuse because of their irrelevance. Thus we no existence, and hence can

the con-

see that, although culture traits have

do nothing without the agency

of

human

beings,

we can

treat

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

TOO

them

scientifically as if

we have shown,

as

ence of one

trait

they had an independent existence. In

upon another can be solved most

human organism from

eliminating the

fact,

the problem of the direct and immediate influeffectively

by

our consideration entirely.

Far from being unrealistic— or fantastic or absurd, in the words of Radcliffe-Brown— it is a common procedure in science. The physicist

may

treat falling bodies as

if

they

vacuum; or

in a perfect

fell

imagine an airplane passing without friction through the atmosis so naive as to protest that such things

phere. But no physicist

simply don't occur;

goes without saying that they do not. Every

it

knows that the most effective— if not the only— way to and propositions necessary to explain physi-

physicist

arrive at the formulas cal

phenomena

is

to substitute ideal situations for real ones.*

only way, for example, to arrive at a

law of

imagine them falling through a perfect

falling bodies

vacuum—a

The is

to

situation that

does not and cannot exist on this earth.

knows

Similarly the culturologist

do not go walking about

like

full

well that culture traits

disembodied souls interacting with

each other. But he realizes that he can explain cultural as cultural

phenomena only when he

them

treats

as

phenomena

ii

they had a

life of their own, quite apart from the glands, nerves, muscles, etc.,

of

human

is

not that

defend

it.

scholars in

decades.

The

organisms. it is

It

should be necessary to

it

neither revolutionary nor novel. As a matter of fact,

is

many

We

remarkable thing about this argument

revolutionary, but that

fields

have been making culturological studies for

have had studies of Indo-European and other lan-

guages on a purely linguistic,

i.e.,

non-biological, level.

We

have

had studies of the evolution of currency, the effect of telescopes upon theological beliefs; the influence of the industrial revolution * Physics, says

world

the distinguished physicist,

in place of that given to us

so-called

physical world

certain extent

it

is

image;

arbitrary. It

it is

.

Planck, "substitutes a new The other world is the .

.

intellectual

structure.

To

a

model or idealization created in every measurement and to facilitate

a kind of

order to avoid the inaccuracy inherent in The Philosophy oi Fhysics,

exact definition,"

Max

by the senses. is merely an

(New

York, 1936), p. 53.

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

upon

political institutions; the

101

development of Greek tragedy, non-

Euclidean geometry, Gothic architecture, and parliamentary government; the relationship between taxi dance halls and prostitu-

and the divorce

tion, delicatessens

rate;

money

spent on medical

schools and death rates for contagious diseases,

etc., etc.

All of

and their solutions are culturothat none of these situations could exist

these are culturological problems logical.

were

it

Need one insist not for human organisms?

could not. But

human

it

is

It is

obvious of course that they

equally obvious that the introduction of

organisms into a consideration of these problems

only not necessary,

it

is

irrelevant

and confusing.

traditional habit of thinking anthropomorphically

It

is

which

still

to "social science" that keeps one from seeing that in the culture system, that

is

it

is

is

not

only the clings

man-

the cultural, rather than the organic, factor

the determinant of the events within this system.

We see then that the culturological point of view, procedure and objective are not new. Actually, scholars in philology, musicology,

philosophy, mathematics, political science, economics, literature, art,

have been making culturological studies for

ment

in

support of a science of culture

is

necessary

cause the theoretical position taken today by sociologists

and anthropologists opposes

Our argunow only be-

years.

many psychologists, new science so

this

vigorously.

^Tje reaction against the culturological point of view has gone

even farther than has been indicated above. Proceeding from the

view that culture argued that

is

"an abstraction," some anthropologists have

intangible and imperceptible and end

it is

tioning the very existence and reality of culture

itself.

up by quesThus Ralph

Linton observes:

Any

investigator of culture is at once confronted with the problem of its reality. Do cultures actually exist, ? Culture ... is intangible and cannot be directly apprehended even by individuals who participate in it ... If it [culture] can be said .

to exist at

all

." .

.

.

.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

102

Herskovits regards culture as "intangible," but grants to culture ^^

patterns "the reality of any abstraction,"

mean. Thus culture if

made

is

whatever

And

virtually to disappear.

this

may

obviously

culture does not exist there can be no science of culture.

Vigorous opposition to

comes from Earnest

a science of culture

Albert Hooton. Whereas anthropologists like Boas, Goldenvi^eiser, Sapir and others have essentially a psychological point of view, Professor Hooton's outlook

To him

man's behavior," he argues, is

on a

is

the study of culture

is

"is a

still

lower

level:

the biological.

but a branch of biology. "Since function of his organism

...

it

within the province of the physical anthropologist to survey also

the cultural and psychological symptoms of the well-being or

human

being of the

Lynd

animal." Just as

ill-

deplores the "artificial"

Hooton bewail the

separation of culture from people, so does

attempt to disjoint culture from the blood, bone, and muscle of the

human

organism.

"My

only quarrel with the ethnologist and

with the social anthropologist," he abstract social

animal from

phenomena and

man

says,

"is

that they willfully

divorce man's activities as a social

[He deplores] the old way of consider-

himself.

ing social institutions completely apart from the

human

which produce them,

propagated and

former

as if the

evolved independently, like parasites Professor

Hooton can

see

what

lived, died,

upon

human

their

animals

hosts."

culturologists are trying to do,

but

being unable to appreciate anything beyond the horizon of biology,

he regards

their objective as a great mistake.

"We

have been

misled," he bemoans, "into the imbecilic assumption that culture,

an inanimate thing consisting of humanly manipulated matter and disembodied that

all

man

ideas, evolves

has to do

has even gone so gest that "it

is

far,

is

by

ever

onward and upward, and and

ride."

Hooton

in his anti-culturological attitude, as to sug-

possibly

more

social anthropologist to study less,

itself

to grease the wheels

profitable for the sociologist

monkeys [who

L.A.W.] than savages." Needless

and the

are, of course, culture-

to say, Professor

Hooton's

unfortunate attitude toward a science of culture in no way de-

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE from the excellence of

tracts

103

his contributions in other fields.^'

W. M.

Professor C.

Hart, too, deplores the separation of the cultural (or the social, for that matter) from the biological.^^

Thus we

see that although

some

made

progress has been

in the

direction of realizing a science of culture in recent decades, there is

also considerable opposition to

it.

Some,

like Boas, are simply

not able to grasp the concept of a special science devoted to a distinct and independent class of super-psychological determinants

Lynd and Hooton,

of behavior. Others, like

see

what

are trying to do, but are convinced that they are

wrong— track.

a dangerously

As years

a matter of fact, anthropology has actually regressed in recent

from the

levels attained

teenth century.

We

by Tylor and Durkheim

science. strata,

We

one

in the nine-

have, of course, an objective criterion

measure of advance and regression

may view

in

and

the expansion of the scope of

the stages of this expansion as a series of

upon another, the older strata on the bottom, the Thus at one time we see the science of the behavior

laid

newer on top. of

culturologists

on the wrong—

man on

the anatomical and physiological

level.

Subsequently

science has advanced to the individual psychological level, then to

the socio-psychological, and finally to the culturological,

Thus by at

any given time to

this

level.

view and objectives of anthropology

referring the point of

developmental

series,

we

can gauge

its

condition of advancement or regression.

Measured by

this yardstick,

anthropology has regressed consider-

ably, especially since 1930.^® Science attained the culturological level in anthropology.

ment and

This

is

anthropology's distinctive achieve-

mission: to formulate and develop a science of culture.

Tylor and Durkheim formulated such a science. Kroeber, Lowie, Wissler, and others have carried

it

forward. But

many

students

bearing the professional label of "anthropologist" have been unable to ascend to the culturological level and to grasp the concept

of a supra-psychological science of cultural phenomena. Being

unable to do

this,

they have opposed the culturological point of

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

104 view.

We

how

have already seen

Benedict opposed

it.

Culture, Goldenweiser argues, "belongs to

level. It is in

the psychological

Boas, Sapir, Goldenweiser and

the minds of men." Sapir, apart

We

get some notion from linguistics, was primarily a psychologist. from the culturological of how far the anthropology of today is position of former years from the following statement

by one of

our younger anthropologists, Dr. John Gillin:

One

of the greatest recent advances [in anthropological theory]

the realization by anthropologists that culture

is

logical

It is rather ironical that

appears should have been

"Some Unfinished

"unfinished business"

The

the development of a science of culture. is

phenomenon"

a "psychological

regression to a lower level in the

More mate

M.

recently Professor

reality of culture

Not only it

a psycho-

the article in which this observation

entitled

The

Cultural Anthropology."

ture

is

phenomenon.''"

is

J.

Business of

is,

of course,

realization that cul-

not an advance but a

is

development of science.

Herskovits

tells

us that "the ulti-

psychological." *

has anthropology regressed to the psychological level;

has tended to go even below the collective psychological level

and come to

rest

upon the

analysis of culture,"

level of individual psychology.

Goldenweiser argues,

leads back to the individual mind."

ture"

meant "the

life

To

"if fully

Boas the "working of

of the individual as controlled

the effect of the individual upon culture.

The

and

acts

is

and dreams and

cul-

by culture and

causal conditions of

cultural happenings lie always in the interaction

vidual and society." "It

"An

carried out,

between

indi-

always the individual that really thinks revolts," Sapir maintained. Sapir's "ap-

Why

* "Tlie Processes of Cultural Change," p. 163. one should locate the "ultimate reality" of culture in psychological processes is not clear. If one reduces culture to the psychological level why not reduce psychological events to the physiological level, and these to the anatomical and these in turn to the chemical and physical levels if one is concerned with ultimates.

—

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

105

proach to the problem was always through the individual," accord-

Ruth Benedict. Hallowell

ing to it

who respond

individuals

is

asserts that "in the last analysis

to

and influence one another."

Linton takes the position that "culture

.

.

.

only in the

exists

minds of the individuals who compose a society. It derives all its qualities from their personalities and the interaction of these personalities."

*^

In line with this emphasis upon the individual,

most popular trend

in

"Depth psychology,"

of personality.

we

note that the

American anthropology today

is

the study

ink-blot tests, psychiatry, etc.,

are almost de rigueur these days for the up-to-date anthropologist.

Thus we

see that

psychologists.

much

of anthropology today has regressed

below that of most

to a level even

And

in

some

sociologists

and some

social

of Hooton's work, anthropological

theory has regressed even lower and has reached the biological level.

His interpretation of

germ plasm and

his

social disorders in

advocacy of

social

terms of inferior

reform through biological

purges are expressions of this point of view.*^ In a recent work, Kroeber has once again given expression to the

am

culturological point of view: "I

non being

cultural, the explanation

cultural terms

one very I

shall

studies

far in

not

fall

.

.

.

convinced that, the phenome-

must

first

of

all

be made

in

psychological explanations have not got any-

reducing the phenomena of history to order, and

back on them."

and ink-blot

tests,

*^

But

in these days of personality

Kroeber stands almost alone.

How

is

anthropology's regression from culturology to psychology and psychiatry to

be explained?

Long ago Tylor remarked upon the repugnance with which otherwise enlightened persons will regard a science of culture.

many educated minds," he sumptuous and repulsive is

part

wrote, "there seems something pre-

in the

view that the history of mankind

and parcel of the history of nature, that our thoughts,

and actions accord with laws

"To

as definite as those

wills,

which govern the

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

106

motion of waves, the combination of acids and ** growth of plants and animals."

noted that the old anthropocentric philosophy which still dominates our thinking about man and his

Durkheim, of free will,

and the

bases,

too,

behavior, generates vigorous opposition to a science of culture.

He

wrote:

Numerous and

.

.

pleases

.

survivals

of the anthropocentric bias

still

remain

here as elsewhere, they bar the way to renounce the unlimited power over the social

to science. It dis-

man

order he has so long attributed to himself; and on the other

hand,

it

seems to him

that,

if

he

collective forces really exist,

submit to them without being able to modify them. This makes him inclined to deny their existence. In vain have repeated experiences taught him that this omnipois

necessarily obliged to

tence, the illusion of

which he complacently

entertains, has

always been a cause of weakness in him; that his power over things really began only

when he

recognized that they have a

nature of their own, and resigned himself to learning this nature

from them. Rejected by

all

other sciences, this deplorable prej-

udice stubbornly maintains

Nothing and this

is

sociology

[culturology].

from

it,

efforts.*^

recently A. L. Kroeber has observed that a science of

culture will have to win

human

in

to liberate our science

the principal purpose of our

is

And more

itself

more urgent than

its

way

against the older philosophy of

free will:

Our minds

instinctively resist the

first

shock of the recognition

of a thing [cultural determinism] so intimately

and yet so

woven

into us

above and so utterly uncontrollable by our wills. feel driven to deny its reality, to deny even the validity of dealing with it as an entity; just as men at large have long and far

We

bitterly resented admitting the existence of purely

forces

and system

in the realm that underlies

makes possible the existence of our nature.*®

and

automatic carries

and

personalities: the realm of

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

These quotations do not merely science and "natural" science.

107

distinguish

They

between "social"

between the philosophy of determinism and the philosophy of free will that still permeates much of the thinking of today.* Social science had

won

its

way

to the philosophy of

of the i88o's and '90's: "If law

is

also distinguish

determinism in the anthropology

anywhere

it is

everywhere/' said

Tylor.

We find that anthropology has We have exponents of free will in

regressed at this point, too.

anthropology today, and this

philosophy seems to be growing in strength and adherents. Dr.

Mead believes that "man should democratically of his own destiny and build himself a world that in." " Much of her book, And Keep Your Powder

Margaret control to live

take is

fit

Dry,

permeated with the philosophy of Free Will. Dr. John R. Swanton closes his essay "Are Wars Inevitable?" with the assur-

is

ance that

do

"all that

is

needed

[to

terminate warfare]

Ralph Linton espouses the philosophy

so."

is

the will to

of free will

and

the theory of social change through education in his lecture to "Potential Contributions of Cultural Anthro-

teachers entitled

pology to Teacher Education." "I believe," he

none

are will

of our current problems

put their minds to them and

them

and able

willing

to

do

says, "that there

which cannot be solved it is

this (p.

9) ...

If

make

he can control

the future of his society, not in detail but in gross.

On

people

the educator can

establish a particular value system in his pupils

*

if

the educator's task to

By the

feeling

North Whitehead makes the following penetrating based on mechanism, is conjoined with an the world of men and of the higher animals as being

this point Alfred

observation:

"A

scientific realism,

unwavering belief

in

composed of self-determining organisms. This radical inconsistency at the basis of modern thought accounts for much that is half-hearted and wavering in our civilization. It would be going too far to say that it distracts thought. It enfeebles it, by reason of the inconsistency lurking in the background," {Science and the Modern World, p. 94, emphasis ours).

Much by

of anthropological thought

a belief in

man

tions will show.

is

—

—

not to say crippled today organism" as the following quota-

enfeebled

as a "self-determining

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

108

which he estabhshes toward war, or toward unhmited accumulation of wealth, or toward social justice he can deflect culture change

undesirable directions

or

desirable

in

society that genuinely believes in

(p.

and the educator can do more than anyone

justice

16)

...

A

can get social

justice

social

else to estab-

•"

bchcf (p. 17) Professor Linton makes the control of culture change

lish this

.

.

seem

very simple. Teachers, guided of course by a little coaching from the cultural anthropologist, will direct the course of social change as the)' please, "in desirable or undesirable directions," simply

by

and

insur-

ing the proper "feeling" toward social problems so that

when

establishing the proper "value systems" in their pupils

they grow up they will be "willing and able to put their minds to these problems" and by so doing solve them. This view

reminiscent of

we

"If

what the

clergy have

been

but purpose in our hearts

will

.

is

.

Or, as politicians,

."

"If the democracies

columnists, and rhetoricians put

it:

loving nations, the churches, the

women,

faintly

telling us for centuries:

etc., etc.)

(peace-

of the world

." To which one would only take a firm stand against war might add: "If New England had a sub-tropical climate they .

.

could grow grapefruit," or

made

"if frogs

grew fur the world might be

safe for chinchillas."

But the

we have

crassest expression of the doctrine of

seen recently

to

is

American Anthropologist:

Here we

own

"The Concept

cultural destiny

and

is

the ends he would achieve," (p. 541).

We

*

—

Free Will that

in a recent article in the

of

Cultural

Crisis."

by Dr. David Bidney that "man, under God,*

are told

controls his

be found

believe that

it

is

not at

to inquire of Dr. Bidney,

all

facetious

choose and realize

free to

With

—above

the re-introduction

all

"Whose God?" The God

for

an anthropologist

of the Christians or

God of the Jews? Of the Catholics or of the Protestants? The God of Mary Baker Eddv, Madame Blavatsky, or of Pius IX? Of Gandhi or of Winston Churchill? Of William Jennings Bryan or of Robert Andrews Millikan not to mention the Gods of millions upon millions of Mohammedans, the

—

Hindus, Buddhists and others.

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

God

of

105

into ethnological theory, Bidney sets a

new low

in the

present trend toward regression.*

We have, however, merely exhibited of culture

the opposition to a science

and demonstrated the occurrence of

not explained

it.

To

another essay, but

we have undertake such an explanation would require

we might

suggest here that the regression

are witnessing in social science in general

pology in particular that pervades

is

regression;

and

we

in cultural anthro-

but one aspect of a reactionary tendency

Western

civilization

The

today.

nineteenth cen-

tury was one of expansion and growth of our social system as well

our technology;

as

it

was an era of progress.

With

the end of the

period of colonization of backward lands and peoples in Asia and Africa, social

and the disappearance of the

system reached the limits of

its

frontier in America, our

capacity for growth.

unemployment, over-production and glutted markets, only by periodic

An

World Wars,

obsolete social system

is

Mass

relieved

are the indexes of this condition. striving to

maintain

itself

against

technological imperatives for change. Although there have been

some gains— the destruction of the feudal houses of Romanoff, Hapsburg and Hohenzollern— the status quo has had, on the whole, the better of

it

in the struggle.

The powers

victorious in

the war just ended are dedicated to the status quo ante bellum, to the preservation of the old system of capitalism, empire

imperialism.

Our whole

life is

and

pervaded, therefore, by reactionary

* Kroeber charitably grants

see

why he

Bidney his God, remarking that he does not should be concerned with the use of God, by Bidney or Toynbee,

in their interpretations of culture "until

it is

evident that their attitude affects

the results of their studies" (1948, p. 413). But how could it be otherwise than to affect their interpretations? And do we not already know what this effect will be? The use of "God" as an explanatory device is hardly original with Bidney and Toynbee. Have we not had centuries and centuries of this kind of interpretation? And has not the development of science been, to a very great extent, an attempt to outgrow and get away from such sterile and mystical concepts as "God" as explanatory devices? It is worth pointing out as a relevant fact in this connection that Bidney was not trained in anthropology but in philosophy, where, presumably, there is still a place and a use for "God" as an explanatory concept.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

no

purposes and ideals and to a great extent dominated by them. victors of World War II will probably effect a continuation

The

of this political

and philosophic atmosphere for some time to

come. It is

therefore not surprising to discover reactionary and re-

gressive tendencies in present-day anthropology.* It

and

evolutionist iate future

ology

is

is

anti-culturological.

not bright. But

the youngest

tion reached the

all

member

end of

its

The

is

both

anti-

science

outlook for the immed-

young and

is still

of the family.

rope. Culture

is

Nor

cultur-

has social evolu-

but a million years old

and we have some twenty million years ahead of us— unless, of course, the techniques of destruction develop to the point of

extermination.

The way

of life that

eventually be discarded and cultural

and

science.

A

those

who know

And

to maintain" will

with the advance of

go advance in philosophy and

social evolution will

science of culture will

in the past will

"we fought

forgotten.

come

eventually.

Meanwhile,

what course the evolution of culture has taken

know how

best to serve the cause of science in

the future.

Summary: he

Man

an animal, and like

is

control over his environment so that

Man

his kind perpetuated.

life

But

is

man

can be

is

made

peculiarly

human:

secure and

of adjustment

neuro-sensory-muscular-

in addition to these purely

has a technique that

language

other living beings

has the same means

and control that other animals have: glandular, etc.

all

adapt himself to his habitat, to exercise some

strives to live: to

animal means, he

articulate speech.

With

constructs philosophies in which the whole cosmos

evaluated and interpreted. In terms of these philosophies, *

Note

carefully that

it is

sense assert or imply psychiatric studies are

the

human

personnel,

certain tendencies in ethnological theory that

we

This characterization docs not in any that the men and women who bear the professional and who are primarily concerned with psychological or themselves reactionary. It is the trend in theory, not that we are concerned with here.

characterize as reactionary label "anthropologist"

man

and

regressive.

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE adjustment to and control over his environment.

effects his

function of philosophy

The istic

111

philosophies of

first

The

bottom a biological one. mankind were animistic, supernatural

at

is

and anthropomorphic. The external world was explained, not

in terms of

its

own

properties but in terms of

human

psychological

terms of spiritual beings with minds like our own.

in

.forces,

This primitive type of philosophy, although emotionally was, of course, ineffective practically, as a

means

satisfying,

of understanding

and controlling the external world. Gradually, after hundreds of thousands of years, a

philosophy was developed. terms of

its

own

jected from the

It

new

type of

interpreted the external world in

properties instead of terms of wish

human mind. Free

will

and

will pro-

and caprice gave way to

determinism and natural law. But this transition in point of view was not effected throughout the whole range of philosophy at once.

On

the contrary

began

it

in certain areas of experience

spread from there to others. It got a foothold of the heavens

first

and

in the study

and spread from there to other physical phe-

nomena. Then

it

conquering

the anatomical, next the physiological, and finally

first

the psychological the

new

And

invaded the realm of biological phenomena,

levels.

always, as the

vanced,

From

the psychology of the individual,

interpretation was extended to the psychology of society.

it

new

naturalistic philosophy

of science ad-

pushed out and displaced the old philosophy of

free

will.

The

order in which the various realms of nature were invaded

and subdued by the new philosophy was determined by the following law: Scientific interpretation will appear Erst and grow fastest in those areas

where the determinants of human behavior

and least significant. Since the primitive philosupon a projection of the human psyche into the external world, upon a confusion of the self with the not-self, the new philosophy would begin first and flourish best where the are the weakest

ophy

rested

identification of the self with the external world

was weakest.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

112

namely, in relation to the heavenly bodies and other inanimate

phenomena were next brought within the

Biological

objects.

new

scope of the

interpretation,

and eventually

social behavior.

But sociology, the science of society, was not the end of the road of science as

Comte and many others determinants of human

one more

class of

with, the

most intimate and powerful

psychologists found

beyond an

it

movement

will

and

this

means

it

until

it

hard

of "social

not stop in

of expansion, until

potentialities to the utmost,

Just as

have sociologists found

But science cannot and

its

culture.

beyond the horizon

to envisage a science of culture

march, in

all:

envisage a collective psychology

difficult to

individualistic one, so

interaction."

of

supposed. There was

behavior to be dealt

its

onward

has fulfilled it

its

has embraced

and subdued the whole realm of human experience.

The

science of culture

of science.

Many

civilization lay in the

he chooses of

how "we"

is

the next item of business on the agenda

of our "best

his

minds"

still

talk as

if

the fate of

hands of man, to be wrecked or saved

own

free will.

Many

are

still

as

prattling about

are going to construct the post-war world, nursing, in

Durkheim's phrase, the

illusion

of omnipotence.

There

is,

as

Tylor, Durkheim, Kroeber and a few others have pointed out, a powerful

And

trols us.

laws.

and

we

and sometimes

not "we"

it is

who

bitter

antagonism to the view that

control our culture but that our culture con-

our culture grows and changes according to

As we outgrow our primitive and

set

have a

flattering

less

we

live,

conception of ourselves, perhaps,

but a greater capacity for rational and effective so today,

own

infantile notion of mastery

about to learn the nature of the culture in which we

will

And

its

living.

witness one of the most critical and dramatic

episodes in the long and exciting history of science. Advancing

over the charred bones of hapless astronomers, put to death in a frantic

attempt to stem the tide of the new philosophy, science

has gone on to

new

conquests. After a bitter battle over Dar-

winism, science has securely held the

field of biology.

Psychology

THE .EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE has at

last

made

it

113

possible to regard "minds" as objects,

sociology has illuminated the laws of social interaction.

and

now

It

remains to discover the principles of a million years of culture

growth and to formulate the laws of

this

development.

has been done, science will have captured the

stronghold of the old philosophy;

it

When

last

remaining

have reached

will

this

its

final

boundary.

As these pages were going

P.S.

to press

made

I

a discovery too

important to pass by without mention here, namely, two

signifi-

cant essays by a distinguished German chemist and Nobel laureate, Wilhelm Ostwald (1853-1932), entitled "The System of the Sciences," and "Principles of the

Theory of Education," addresses

prepared for the inauguration of Rice Institute of Houston, Texas,

and published

in English translation in the

phlet, Vol.

No.

In

II,

"The System

sciences

on

3,

Rice Institute Pam-

November, 1915.

of the Sciences," Ostwald classifies the several

a logical basis, arranging

by the degree of generality or

them

in

an order determined

particularity of their basic concepts.

All sciences are classified into three groups:

the sciences of

(1)

order— logic and various forms of mathematics;

(

2

)

the energetical

sciences— mechanics, physics, and chemistry; and

the bio-

(3)

which he subdivides into physiology, psychology,

logical sciences

and culturology. The sciences

of order are the simplest as well as

the most general in the application of their concepts; the biological sciences are the

The

logical

most complex

as well as the

most

particular.

arrangement of the sciences represents

order of development, according to Ostwald.

We

also their

"cannot

fail,"

he says, "to recognize that an absolutely definite sequence can be

shown

in

which the various

and have developed into arose

and were developed

liability of

the

first,"

human mind

have appeared

scientific disciplines

their first florescence

in

.

.

.

the simplest

and "in proportion

as

the

re-

mental operations was developed,

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

114 the more complicated and diversified

of experience were

fields

gradually submitted to science" (pp. 118, 120).

Ostwald's ''hierarchy" of the sciences

Comte and Spencer of the sequence of

in all

fundamental

development

much

is

thus like those of

is

respects,

and

his theory

the same as theirs: the

physical sciences were developed before the biological sciences

because they were simpler; the sociological, or culturological, sciences were developed last because they are the most complex. Like Comte, Ostwald says that "a sure mastery of at least the

fundamental principles of for

sary presupposition

problems"

We

still

all

the

the sciences ... scientific

is

therefore a neces-

(p. 169).

prefer our

own

interpretation of the sequence in

the various sciences have developed. factor

is

mastery of culturological

not irrelevant, but

it

The

which

simplicity-complexity

we

secondary in importance,

is

believe, to the varying roles that physical, physiological, psychological,

and

human

behavior.

cultural

A

phenomena fellow

smile, repelled

by a scowl,

physiological,

anatomical,

human

being

logically

chemical,

who

complex,

is

i.e.,

attracted

analyzable into

and physical

human

by a

events.

But

cultural behavior to

be

simple as physical phenomena, to consist of stimulus and

re-

experientially as

is

play in the determination of

we

feel the events of

sponse, attraction and repulsion.

One wonders what Ostwald's phrase "in proportion as the reliability of the human mind in mental operations was developed" might mean? Does he mean that the native mental ability of man increased? This can hardly have been appreciable within a period

means that man's techniques of interpretation of experience were improved, might this not well be that he learned to distinguish the self from the of time as brief as the history of science. If he

not-self in a series It is significant

human mind nomena, then

is

of sectors of experience?

to note in Ostwald's essay

not "naturally attracted"

to biological.

On

on pedagogy that the first

to physical phe-

the contrary, he finds that "it

is

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

much

easier ... to

awaken an

and plants than

interest in animals

and physical experiments

in minerals

115

.

.

zoology and botany

,

can be taught with success at an age when systematic physics or ," chemistry could not be taught (pp. 204-05). Ostwald speaks .

.

of this as "a certain antithesis," a "seeming contradiction,"

accounts for

more

closely

and by noting that plants and animals resemble man than do inanimate phenomena. Thus the anthropo-

it

morphic, anthropocentric factor insinuates discussion after

all.

Man

himself; but, for this very reason,

less

is

into Ostwald's

itself

interested in himself

is

and things

like

them

able to understand

than things and events more remote because of the greater

difS-

culty of disengaging himself, his ego, from the external world in

the case of things close

At the top

of "the

and

to,

like, himself.

pyramid of the sciences," Ostwald places—

culturology, the science of civilization or culture, the science that

has as

its

subject matter "those facts

and relationships which have

developed in man, in contradistinction to

which form that which we

(p. 167). This science, he says,

proper

name

"is

of scx:io]ogy" (p. 167).

other animals, and

all

specifically call

human

civilization"

usually designated

And

by the im-

here Ostwald, a chemist,

demonstrates that he has seen clearly what virtually no ologist has

been able to grasp, namely, that

extra-somatic tradition that or interaction;

this

is

significant

culture as an

here— not

social process

and what many a cultural anthropologist has

to realize, namely, that

—that

is

it is

significant rather

a specific kind of

than

soci-

is

it

how many

failed

behavior— symbolic individuals exhibit

kind of behavior. Let us deal with each of these points in

turn.

To be

the sociologist the social process, social interaction,

all

and end

all

of

human

the confines of this concept.

behavior;

He

the social process beings.

He

itself as

the

he cannot escape from

cannot grasp the idea of an

external, extra-somatic class of things called culture that

man

is

determine

well as the behavior of individual hu-

can only translate culture into the coinage and

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

116

currency of social process; culture thus becomes a mere aspect or a by-product of social interaction.

But Ostwald that

far

is

shrewder and wiser than

it is

human

distinctive characteristic of the olog)' has

man

this.

He

sees clearly

not social process but civilization or culture that

been used, he

species.

says, to designate

the

is

The term

soci-

the science peculiar to

because of

the fact that man,

.

.

.

even in the very early stages of his

development, has unquestionably been a social being, so that, for

much

socially

of

the greater part, specifically

to be the culture of groups

itself

and busying themselves

human

however,

culture,

nomenon; and

it

is,

in

common. This

is

relatively

a

special nature

secondary phe-

have been, and can in the future be, acThus, socializing mankind is this field; indeed, it

most important, but not the most I

shown

a single individual.

an important phenomenon in one.

culture has

moreover, not entirely general, for certain

cultural performances

complished by

human

of people living together

chaiacteiistic

proposed, therefore, a long while ago to

is one of the and universal

call

question the science of civilization, or culturology

the

field in

(Kulturol-

ogie) (p. 167). It

is

culture,

not society, that

is

the distinctive feature of man.

Therefore, the scientific study of this feature should be called cuJtnroIogy rather than sociology.

Many

cultural anthropologists

take the position that an act

limited to a single individual cannot properly be called culture,

but when more than one person is involved it may be so called. Thus, the number of expressions or manifestations of an event is regarded as a distinctive feature of culture. Ostwald exposes this fallacy also. It

is

that determines

Ostwald

not the number of manifestations of an event

its

cultural character;

says that the event

distinction to

all

it is

the quality of the event.

must be peculiar

other animals." This quality

terminology, the symbol. Thus, an event

is

to is,

man

"in contra-

to use our

own

cultural because

it

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

117

upon symbolling, not upon how it. As Ostwald observes, "Certain performances have been, and can in the future be, accom-

occurs in a context dependent

many human cultural

organisms produce

plished by a single individual" single

atom

Likewise, still

be

of copper in the

(p.

167).

cosmos

it

If

there were only a

would

still

be copper.

there were only one expression of symbolling,

if

it

would

cultural.

It is a bit

discouraging to discover that a chemist has been able

to see certain things in the sciences of of a century ago than

today. But

it is

many

man more

sociologists

clearly a third

and anthropologists can

gratifying indeed to discover, outside the anthro-

Durkheim and champion of the

pological tradition of Tylor,

others, such a dis-

tinguished and substantial

science of culture,

and one who

calls it

by

its

proper name: culturology.

PART

II

MAN AND CULTURE

Introduction

K

uman

different

behavior

compound made up

a

is

elements:

two quite

of

biological— neuro-sensory-muscular-

a

and

glandular-etcetera— factor,

a

supra-biological,

human

somatic cultural factor. But, in interpretations of

extra-

behavior

these two factors have been fused and confused for decades or

even ages.

And

they

are. It

still

is still

as a simple and direct expression of it

in terms of psychological

common

"human

to regard culture

nature" or to explain

mechanisms such

as frustration, re-

jection of the father, or the traumatic experiences of bottle feed-

ing in infancy.

On

the other hand, there

a very general failure

is

to recognize the operation of cultural determinants of try to

make

culture,

clear the

We

mind.

fundamental distinction between mind and

between psychology and culturology.

In this connection

human

affairs

Causes

and

we examine

the role of the Great

Man

both generally and analytically in "Genius:

Incidence,"

and

and

specifically

illustratively

in Its

in

"Ikhnaton."

"The Locus

of Mathematical Reality"

and "The Definition

and Prohibition of Incest" provide demonstrations of the technique of culturological interpretation of two major sectors of

human

experience, the intellectual and the social.

Finally,

"Man's Control over Civilization"

critically

a conspicuous expression of the primitive, but respectable, philosophy of anthropocentrism.

Will and Omnipotence

still

hangs

The

it.

Man

examines

popular and

illusion of

like a pall over

attempt to define the relationship between Process and to evaluate his role in

still

much

Free

of our

and the Culture

CHAPTER

SIX

CULTUROLOGICAL

VS.

INTERPRETATIONS OF

PSYCHOLOGICAL

HUMAN

BEHAVIOR "Social facts are not simply the development of psychic facts; the latter are in large part merely the continuation of the former inside people's

minds. This proposition is extremely important, for the opposite point of view inclines the sociologist at every instant to take the cause for the effect and vice versa. For example, if, as often happens, one sees in the organization of the family the logically necessary expression of human sentiments inherent in every mind, the true order of facts is reversed. On the contrary, it is the social organization of the relationships of kinship which has determined the respective sentiments of Every time that a social phenomenon is parents and children directly explained by a psychological phenomenon, we may be sure that the explanation is false." Emile Durkheim.i .

.

.

—

±1 uman single

behavior

compound up

of

is

not as simple as

homogeneous substance like

water or table

two separate and

the fact that water

composed

man

Human

behavior

one

we can

It is

is

not a

is

made

biological, the

of

two

distinct elements,

apparent to the observer.

On

oxygen

the contrary, hu-

behavior appears to be a simple, homogeneous

water does. that

is

It

not obvious, however, any more than

is

is

salt.

seems.

it

copper or gold, but a

distinct elements, the

other cultural. This

and hydrogen,

like

stuff, just as

only through analysis of one kind or another

discover the true structure and composition of

behavior or of chemical compounds.

knowledge that we can come

to

And

it is

an understanding of

121

human

only through such either.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

122

Human

behavior constitutes a class of events and as such

is

distinguished from other classes, or kinds, of behavior such as simian, reptilian, plant, cellular, atomic, molecular, stellar, galactic,

Human

etc.

behavior

is

Homo

confined to the genus

co-extensive with man's actions

and man-animal behavior are not

but

it is

not

human behavior synonymous. As we have already and

reactions:

which

seen, only that portion of man's behavior

consists of or

depends upon symbolling may properly be called human; the (^

rest

is

We

merely animal behavior.

have already seen also that the

exercise of the

symbol

into existence that

somatic. These ings,

works of

is,

faculty,

human

brought a

species has,

class

by the

phenomena

of

in a real sense, supra-biological

or extra-

are the languages, beliefs, customs, tools, dwell-

art, etc.,

that collectively

we

call culture.

They

are

supra-biological in the sense that they are transmitted by the

mechanisms of

social heredity; they are extra-somatic in the sense

that they have an existence independent of any individual organ-

ism and act upon

it

from the outside

do. Every individual of the

environment

he

is

human

as well as a natural one.

And

is

meteorologic forces

born into a cultural

the culture into which

born embraces him and conditions his behavior.

We

see then that any given specimen of

made up

of

two

distinct factors proceeding

independent sources.

On

the one hand

of bones, muscles, nerves, glands, is

just as

species

is

human

behavior

the organism, composed

and sense organs. This organism

a single coherent unit, a system, with definite properties of

own.

On

organism

the other hand is

born. There

is is,

is

from separate and

its

the cultural tradition into which the of course,

no necessary

relation be-

tween the infant organism and the particular type of culture into

which

it is

born. It could have been born into one cultural

dition as well as another, into Tibetan as well as

Eskimoan ior,

culture. But,

ever)'thing

baby

is

tra-

American or

from the standpoint of subsequent behav-

depends upon the type of culture into which the

introduced by birth.

If

he

is

born into one culture he will

CULTUROLOGICAL think, feel

and

PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS

VS.

one way;

act in

if

into another, his behavior will

be correspondingly different. Human behavior ways and everywhere, made up of these two dynamic organization of that

is

ture

is

Conversely,

if

him

man

adapted to

different.

profound

little

man and

consequently bears a

genus or species. As a system

cul-

rather than to apes, ants, or elephants. it

As Clarence Day has shown

his culture

is,

in his deceptively

book, This Simian World, a civilization built by

super-ants or super-cows

of super-simians. There

would be very is

different

from the culture

then a close relationship between

But the relationship

culture.

the

and sense organs

man's organism were not what

would be

and

as a

al-

ingredients:

cultural tradition.

Culture has been produced by close relationship to

therefore,

is,

nerves, glands, muscles

man, and the extra-somatic

123

is

man

general rather than specific.

This or that culture cannot be explained by appealing to man's structure or nature,

may be its own

however varied we may conceive

regarded as a thing sui generis, with a laws.

Given

But we

life

of

it.

its

Culture

own and

shall return to this later.

a certain type of organism, a certain type of behavior

will follow.

But

in the

human

species this type

is

very broad and

The relationship between man and culture seems close only when we contrast man with other animals. The picture is quite otherwise when we confine our observations to the human species. Within this category, what relationship can we discover between organism and type of culture? The answer is "None",— none, that is, of a functional contains infinite variation within

itself.

nature; there are only chance, historical associations.

example, no functional relationship between type and language or dialect. Negroes or Chinese.

The same

whether

be form of family,

it

The human tall

species

will

is

may

racial

There

is,

for

or physical

speak Bantu, French,

hold true of any other aspect of culture, ethics, music, or

economics.

of course varied, not uniform.

There are

peoples and short peoples; round heads and long heads; black,

yellow,

and white

skins; straight,

wavy, and kinky hair; thick

lips,

— THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

124

long noses, blue eyes, "slant" eyes, relatively large so on. It structural

are

mav be assumed that variation. Thus it is

some innate psychological

livers,

and

functional variation accompanies

reasonable to suppose that there

differences

among

the various races

mankind. But one must not be misled by appearances. The differences among races which are most easily observed are conof

fined to superficial physical features such as color of skin, color

and shape of

shape of nose, and so on. In basic

hair, size of lip,

features, such as the nervous, glandular,

and muscular systems,

blood, bones, and sense organs, they are impressively uniform.

From be

to

From

among men appear when compared with their similarities. human behavior, too, all evidence points

a biological standpoint, the differences insignificant indeed

the standpoint of

to an utter insignificance of biological factors as

compared with

culture in any consideration of behavior variations.* of fact, is

due

it

cannot be shown that any variation of

As

human

a

matter

behavior

to variation of a biological nature. In other words, in the

whole range and scope of human behavior, differences of custom or tradition can

nowhere be correlated

in a functional sense

with

differences of physical structure.

In

a

consideration

peoples, therefore, a variable. This

is

of

the

we may

differences

regard

man

of

behavior between

as a constant, culture as

to say that the differences in behavior that

we observe between Chinese and

Russians, between Eskimos

and

Hottentots, Mongoloid and Caucasoid, savage and civilized man, are

due to

their respective cultures

rather than to biological

anatomical, physiological, or psychological— differences between

them.

The whole

matter of interpretation of

human

behavior

thus put in quite a different light from the one in which

quently viewed. Instead of explaining cultural differences peoples by saying that one

We

among

energetic, vivacious, Dionysian,

and

are speaking here, as elsewhere in this chapter, of human behavior the mass, in terms of societies, tribes or nations, not of individual or-

*

in

is

is

it is fre-

ganisms.

CULTUROLOGICAL VS. PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS creative,

and

whereas another

prosaic,

we now

125

phlegmatic, taciturn, unimaginative

is

see that the differences of behavior of various

among the cultural traditions that stimulate them respectively. Thus we explain the behavior of peoples in terms of their cultures; but we do not and cannot ex-

peoples are due to the differences

plain their cultures in terms of the respective "psychologies" of

The

the peoples.

"psychologies" are psychosomatic ex-

specific

pressions of the cultures, not their causes.

The

must be

cultures

explained in terms of culture; culturologically rather than psychologically.

explanations

Psychological

among

popular,

says: "It

lying

all

obvious that

is

marriage prohibitions

emotions and

reactions."

there

if

and

prevalent

still

among laymen. Thus,

exogamy, the English anthropologist, B.

in a discussion of

man,

however

are

social scientists as well as

Selig-

any general law under-

is

must be founded on human

it

Hitler's "rapid rise to power, the spread

^

him

of his ideas to other countries, and the fanatical devotion to of thousands

upon thousands

one of the most progressive and —all

shows,"

this

Donovan

Professor

University,

"how deep

in all of us.

many and Japan ." own hearts ,

.

must David

Literature

And

security.

Caroline

Hopkins

Johns

not in Germany alone

when

that

be carried on

it

still

^

Lilienthal,

is

at

the craving for authority, for certitude,

Which means

Energy Commission,

"What

is

and moral

for intellectual

but

English

in

intelligent nations of the world

Raymond Dexter Havens,

says

of

men, women, and children

of

the war

is

minds— and

in their

in Ger-

and

chairman of the U.

quoted by Time Magazine

goes on in people's

won

in America,

S.

in

our

Atomic

as saying that

hearts— is more

important in determining the fateful future than what goes on

and production centers" (February

in laboratories

24),

And

"To me,

the English ethnologist, the late as to

most students of the

study of society psychology."

*

is

W.

16,

1948, p.

H. R. Rivers,

subject, the final

said:

aim of the

the explanation of social behavior in terms of

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

126 addition

In

nomena

to

interpretations

of

specific

of

cultural

we have numerous

socio-

institution of private property

"explained"— and justified— by arguing that

often

phe-

psychological

and of particular

institutions

phenomena. Thus, the

cultural

explanations

general

these

in psychological terms,

it

is

simply

is

human nature. There is a natural desire, it is said, to own your own home, your own fields and herds, and to possess the products of your own labor. If it were not for private property, the argument

would be no incentive

continues, there

and con-

to effort

sequently no progress. Plausible as this theory

ethnographic

fact.

There

may sound, it is not in accord with many societies in which there is no

are

private property in the resources of nature at

they are free and accessible to

members

all

all;

on the contrary,

make little

note

private property in food, clothing, tools,

more than

history so

far.

nature than

munal

a fiction.

man's economic

in

is

But

Communism by

life for

this, too, is

and so on,

and ornaments

has been the dominant

human

the greater part of

far

no more an expression of human

feudalism or capitalism. Peoples do not have com-

or private systems of property because they

human

want them or

nature to prefer one to the other. In a very

because

it is

realistic

sense they do not "have

tures

Customs

of the society.

of hospitality, exchange of gifts, ease of borrowing,

them"

at

all;

rather, it

the cul-

is

which possess the people who have been born into them.

and behavior toward property are

Attitudes, sentiments,

mined by the type Similar

of

economic system into which one

may be made

observations

is

deter-

born.

concerning competition,

rivalry,

and leadership. The basic principle of the socio-economic

life of

many

peoples

is

mutual

groups could have held their

crude

tools,

primitive

in difficult situations

and with

weapons, and techniques

been based upon

by custom

own

this principle.

to share his

kill

doubtful

if

aid.

The

It

if

is

their social life

had not

individual hunter was obliged

with others. Indeed, in some instances

he received the smallest portion

of

all.

Prestige, social approval.

CULTUROLOGICAL

VS.

PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS

And he

moral codes provided the incentive. to a portion of the

must

or herds

The

leader

in turn

was entitled

of other hunters. Tlie produce of the field

likewise be shared. is

Among

always.

kill

127

often a necessary and an honored person, but not

our Pueblo Indians, a "leader"

likely

is

to

be

regarded as an obnoxious person, and may, in extreme cases, be done away with on a charge of sorcery. The ideal Pueblo Indian is

not the go-getter, the leader, but a quiet unobtrusive person does not provoke community discord. And psychologists who

who

have sought to subject Pueblo Indian children to competitive have found that their project failed when the children

tests

learned the purpose of the others so that they might

Far from trying to outdo the

come home triumphant

to admiring

the children carefully refrained from doing their best

parents, lest

tests.

they humiliate or embarrass their fellows, and in so doing

bring odium upon themselves.

The

institution

outcome

of

of slavery has often been interpreted as the

man's inherent tendencies to commit aggressions

upon others— of "man's inhumanity to man." An eminent psychologist, Wm. McDougall, once went so far as to postulate a high degree of an instinct of submission to account for the prevalence of

Negro

among

African peoples

chattel slavery.

We

know,

however, that the institution of slavery has not been universal by

any means. As a matter of until

relatively recent

lithic

at

least;

fact, it

did not

make

its

times— since the beginning

appearance

of the

the hundreds of thousands of years of

Neo-

human

went before had no slavery. And many peoples of modern the world have had no slaves. Are we to assume that the

history that

instinct

of

aggression— or

of

submission— was

developed during the early eras of

human

not

history, or

sufficiently

among some

of the peoples of recent times, to find overt expression in a in

human If

traffic

chattels?

the origin of the institution of slavery has been interpreted

psychologically, so has

its

extinction.

A

growing consciousness of

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

128

human

an appreciation of the essential dignity of

rights,

(whatever that

man

or the rising spirit of Christianity have

is),

all

been invoked to explain the decline of this institution. One scholar, writing in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, has

movement

asserted that "the

came

the institution spirit of slavery.

do not

tions

against slavery

democracy, etc."

result of the rising spirit of

.

^

.

was

,

largely the

By the same

token,

into being as a consequence of the rising

Obviously, psychological and spiritual interpreta-

tell

much

us very

Why

actually.

have aggressive—

or submissive— tendencies resulted in a certain type of social institution

the

among some

peoples but not

democracy asserted

spirit of

among

Why

others?

one time, the

itself at

has

spirit of

slavery at another?

A

culturological explanation of slavery

readily intelligible. Slavery as

only

when the master can

ing the slave. This

is

an institution

The

institution

and endure

will exist

derive profit and advantage

possible only

when

produce considerably more than existence.

makes the

it

efficiency of production

requires is

by

group

a family

for

its

is

exploit-

able to

continued

of course determined

by

the degree of technological development. Slavery did not exist

during the hundreds of thousands of years before Neolithic times

because culture had not developed sufficiently to for a producer to

make

would be no point— even savages enslaving another

if

if

it

slavery in early periods of

among

But when

human

possible

were possible— in one tribe of

the latter required

all

that they were

able to produce in order to subsist. Consequently,

world,

it

be more than self-supporting. There certainly

human

history, nor, in

we the

no modern find

peoples on low levels of technological development.

in the course of cultural evolution the productivity of

labor was sufficiently increased by technological progress

so as to

make

exploitation profitable

stitution of slavery

came

and advantageous, the

into being. Correspondingly,

when

in-

cul-

ture—particularly the technological culture— had reached a certain

point where

it

could no longer be operated efficiently by a

human

CULTUROLOGICAL

VS.

PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS

129

then the institution of slavery became extinct. Slavery

chattel,

died out, not because someone discovered the essential dignity of man, or because of a rising spirit of Christianity or Democracy,

but because,

as

Lewis H. Morgan put

long ago, a freeman

it

better "property-making machine" than a slave.^ trial

Modern

is

a

indus-

technologies could not be operated by ignorant, illiterate

human

chattels. Also, the slave

owner

suffered a handicap

which

does not affect the employer of free labor: the slave owner had to

made money out of them or not; he had a substantial investment in them and he must safeguard this investment. The employer of free labor, however, feed and care for his slaves whether he

under no such obligation to

is

diminish he can lay

up

off

some

his establishment entirely

relief,

his

If

profits

they cease, he can close

if

without assuming responsibility

his employees; they can shift for

public

employees.

his

workers;

for

themselves— go hungry, go on

or resort to begging or to theft. Thus, at a certain

stage of cultural development, slavery

comes into being

as a con-

sequence of the resources and imperatives of the cultural system.

At

a

subsequent and higher stage of cultural development, the

institution

becomes extinct because

it

is

no longer compatible

with the resources and exigencies of the socio-cultural system.

War that

is

is

a

tremendously impressive expression of

human

behavior

often "explained" psychologically. In addition to the Great

Men who make

wars at their

own

sweet

will,

we find more Time Maga-

generalized psychological explanations. According to

zine (Aug. 23, 1948), a UN-sponsored International Congress on Mental Health, attended by "2,000 of the world's foremost psychiatrists

and psychologists," gave forth such interpretations of

the cause of war as the following: guilt

which causes you

creates a sense of guilt.

to

Wars

are caused

do something

Thus the

violent,

by

a sense of

which

repetition of wars

is

in turn

explained

Another psychologist attributed wars to upon sexual impulses which causes frustration which

as well as their origin.

restraint

causes people to

become

aggressive. Still another

thought that

'

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

130 people have been

made

and violent by corporeal

aggressive

punishment during childhood. Professor

Gordon

W.

Allport, a psychologist at Harvard, quotes

with approval a passage from the preamble of the charter of

UNESCO:

men

"Since wars begin in the minds of

it

is

in the

that the defences of peace must be constructed."

minds of men Monsignor Fulton slightly different

J.

waged

of the conflicts

Sheen expresses the same view inside our

in the world that does not

of military enthusiasm

assume

first

and

orientalist,

people were, however, sequently Egypt was

eminence.

War

own

souls, for

happen

nothing happens

inside a soul."

®

a line of able rulers enabled

for several centuries

an eminent

an imperial position,"

to

The common

people," and con-

naturally peaceful

"a.

burst

according to

^

the late James H. Breasted.

"A

Egypt

not able to retain her position of pre-

has no "rational cause," said Franz Boas;

it is

"mental attitude," the "emotional value of an idea."

to a

only

in

words: "World wars are nothing but projections

^°

due An-

other anthropologist, Ralph Linton, finds that the Plains Indians did not fight for hunting grounds or other tangible advantages,

but rather because they were "warlike." ".

.

men

.

it is

a

commonplace

that

men

like

*

war

have proved that they prefer war with

William James

"modern man

tells us, in

To Ruth .

.

all

of glory of his ancestors

.

its

"The Moral Equivalent

inherits all the innate pugnacity .

.

Our

Benedict

Over and over

.

suffering."

of

and

War," all

^^

that

the love

ancestors have bred pugnacity

* "Superficially it might appear that the roving life of a Plains Indian tribe and the frequent contacts with other groups which this entailed would be likely to focus interest on war, but it need not have done so if the Plains Indians in general had not been warlike. After all, there was enough food and other natural resources in the Plains to take care of a much larger population than the area supported, and these tribes were not driven into war by economic needs," The Study oi Man, p. 461.

Professor Lowie, too, thinks that the Plains Indians fought "just for fun": the "Plains Indians fought not for territorial aggrandizement nor for the victor's spoils, but above all because fighting was a game worth while because of the social recognition it brought when played according to the rules/'

Primitive Society, p. 3156.

CULTUROLOGICAL

PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS

VS.

into our

bone and marrow, and thousands

breed

out of us

it

"You

future:

But

can't

man by

is

.

The

.

.

And

strong as ever."

131

of years of peace won't

miUtary instincts and ideals are

as

the layman sums up his estimate of the

do away with war;

it's

human

just

nature."

nature so pugnacious and militant?

Compared

with other animal orders, the Carnivores for example, the

mates are a rather timid

The

lot.

Pri-

"innate pugnacity" of which

James speaks is often conspicuously lacking in the human species. Warfare is virtually non-existent among many primitive tribes.

And

in

testants

man

to

many

where fighting does take

instances

and

so that their "military instincts

cised to the full.

Instead, they resort to

victims before they have a chance to slaughter helpless sleeping victims

"love of glory" of most peoples.

among

does take place

more

is

it

out

man

be

exer-

ideals" can

ambush,

vocal than military— as

is

their

killing

defend themselves.

To

quite sufficient to feed the

And when

and open

free

primitive peoples, their pugnacity

primates. Often the fight ends

And

place, the con-

do not meet each other face to face and slug

among

usually the case

when

the

first

conflict is

often

the lower

blood

is

drawn.

modern nations pugnacity has been "bred so weakly in our bones and marrow" that every nation has to resort to conin

scription.

And

despite such stinging epithets as "draft dodger,"

the number of

men who

glory of war

considerable.

for fighting

or in

man it

is

and

killing

is

Thus

it

would appear that the

not over-riding in primates

lust

in general

in particular.

But even

why

is

prefer the degradation of prison to the

if

it

were,

it

would

tell

us very

whom

fought and when, with

little

about war,

and over what.

To

attempt to explain war by appeal to an innate pugnacity would

be

like explaining Egyptian, Gothic,

and Mayan architecture by

citing the physical properties of stone; or like explaining the industrial

revolution by invoking an inventive tendency in the

mind.

A

culturological interpretation of

us something of significance.

Wars

war

are fought

will,

human

however,

between

tell

societies.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

132

between sociocultural systems, between tribes and nations. It is the culture of any given situation that determines whether warfare shall be engaged in or not, and if so how, with whom and cultural settings, warfare

non-existent; the

for what. In

some

mode

as culturally defined has no place for

of life

there

situations

is

it.

In other

only occasional skirmishing between tribes.

is

at stake, we can expect The same holds true for grazing lands and for fertile valleys when culture has reached the level of animal husbandr\^ and agriculture. It may sound absurd and superfluous to

Where

hunting or fishing grounds are

rich

militar}^ contests.

say that peoples will not fight over grazing lands, fertile valleys,

and iron deposits, foreign markets, oil reserves and uranium mines until culture has advanced to such levels of development as coal

domestication of animals, cultivation of plants, steam and internal

combustion engines, world listens to those easily get

who

talk

trade,

and uranium

piles.

But

if

one

about man's "innate pugnacity" he might

the impression that this was sufficient to account for

ever\'thing.

Warfare Its

is

a struggle

explanation

is

between

social organisms,

therefore social or cultural, not psychological.

We could never understand why the United War II— or motives of tasteful

not individuals.

States entered

war— by an inquiry into the men and women. One man wanted to any other

World

psychological quit his dis-

job as bank clerk, another wanted adventure, a third

sought release from an unbearable domestic situation, another

wanted like,

to see

of France,

Samoa, or China are

another wanted to wear a uniform, another fought for God,

for Country,

went

what the women

to

and the

New

Deal, and so on.

Of

course,

most men

war because they were obliged to— or accept the degra-

dation of imprisonment or worse. docile serfs

To

picture the multitudes of

and peasants of ancient Egypt, pre-Columbian Peru,

China, or Czarist Russia going to war because of an ''innate pugnacity and a love of glory" (James), or as Benedict says be-

CULTUROLOGICAL cause

"men

war"

like

innermost

it

grotesque.

is

hke sheep. And

to the slaughter

love of glory"

PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS

VS.

came

to

They were if

them from

133

forced to go, driven

any were animated by "the propagandists, not from their

selves.

we

Again, supposing innate pugnacity to

been taken

grant merely for the sake of argument an

men:

Whom

will they fight? If a poll

had

among Americans

in 1939 to discover the objects of

likely that

England would have received more

their hostility,

it is

votes than any other nation with the possible exception of Russia.

Yet we entered the war on the Russia was fighting "gallant

side of these

little

When

two nations.

Finland" in 1939-40 our pug-

nacious instincts were leveled squarely at the Kremlin.

The

non-

Germany in 1939 aroused our the Germans invaded Russia in

aggression pact between Russia and

indignation and anger. But after

1941, the orientation of our instincts changed. Soviet Russia a stout

champion

We

then found in

of democracy.

Psychological explanations are not only irrelevant here, they are pathetic.

The

psychological orientations were the result of the

intercourse of nations, not the cause. at low ebb November, 1941. An

was

in the military

formed

blood and glory

United States

spirit

Harbor

mass of conscripts into a

would make more sense

breeds the martial

lust for

in the

international event at Pearl

a listless, disgruntled

fighting force. It

The

camps

to say that

it is

in

trans-

spirited

war that

than to argue that pugnacious instincts

cause wars.

To be sure, there would be no wars if human organisms with their hungers and —to

fight

War

illusion.

plain

it

them. But to explain warfare is

a cultural

in cultural terms,

in

peoplehopes and inertia

there were no fears,

terms of psychology

phenomenon, and we can not only but

we

is

ex-

can account for the presence or

absence of the pugnacious "instinct," the love of glory, or the loathing of slaughter, in cultural terms also.

come,

if

it

ever does, not because

we

shall

World peace

will

have bred out the

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

134

pugnacious instinct, or sublimated it in mass athletic contests,* but because cultural development, social evolution, will have reached the ultimate conclusion of the age-old process of merging smaller social groups into larger ones, eventually forming a single political organization that will

whole human

phenomenon

I'he

embrace the entire planet and the

race.

of race prejudice

and

inter-racial

antagonisms

is frequently regarded and explained as primarily a psychological phenomenon. Since the phenomenon is manifested in acts and

attitudes of individual

human

organisms

frequently taken for

it is

granted that the problem of race prejudice and inter-racial antag-

onisms

is

and

tion,

psychological from the standpoint of scientific explanapsychiatric

these:

come

has

Psychoanalysis

The Jew

from

point

the

with

for\\'ard

view

of

therapy.

interpretations

such as

of

identified with the law-giving, super-ego form-

is

ing father, and also wdth the unrepentant parricide.

Jew

is

not really a person but

a

myth: he

is

The hated

"castrated" and

feminine and yet exceedingly dangerous and over-sexed, a symbol at

once of the

id

and of the super-ego. The Negro, according to

one psychoanalytic father,

whom

interpretation, represents the nocturnal, sexual

the son wishes to castrate— hence the castrative

aspects of lynching. Anti-Negro man-hunts resemble the hunting

of animals in groups, both

phenomena being

banding together of the sons against the primal

derived from the father.

These observations may or may not adequately characterize the experience of an individual psyche

who

is

sociocultural process of racial antagonisms. realistically describe

participating in the

But even

if

they do

the individual experience, they do not ex-

phenomenon at all. sociocultural phenomenon

too frequently assumed

plain the social

It

that a

has been explained

is ail

when one

* Even as recently as the summer of 1948, more than one psychologist solemnly suggested that international athletic contests, such as the Olympic games then in progress, might serve to prevent wars by working off aggressive tendencies in a peaceful manner.

CULTUROLOGICAL VS. PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS

135

has isolated and defined the psychological experiences of an individual within that sociocultural context. Thus, it is said, men may identify the

Negro with the

father, their rival,

and then proceed and attitudes

to give these inner feelings overt expression in acts

of hostility toward the Negro.

What

these attempts at psychological interpretations

do, of course,

is

to explain

why

it

fail

to

Negro represents

that the

is

the nocturnal father in some societies but not in others;

why

antagonisms are directed primarily toward one minority group

why racial The fallacy

rather than another; in

some

situations.

sociocultural

phenomena

antagonisms are lacking altogether of psychological interpretations of

consists in the assumption that the sub-

psychological experience correlated with the institution

jective

has brought the institution into existence.

—or came

It

is

as

if

one discovered

to believe— that riding in an airplane was the realiza-

tion of sexually motivated dreams of flying; or that flying in

air-

planes gave one a sense of power and mastery, and concluded therefore that the airplane, as an element of culture, had been

explained by citing sexual dreams and a will to power.

We do not

deny or minimize the subjective psychological experiences of the individual at all— although

we would

like

psychoanalytic interpretations supported with a fication.

These experiences are

some of the little more veriBut, we would

to see

of course real.

argue, they are functions of sociocultural situations; not the causes

of them. Individual psychological experience has been evoked by

the social

phenomenon

power and mastery

is

of race antagonism just as the thrill of

evoked by the airplane;

it

is

not the sub-

jective experience that produces the antagonism or the airplane.

There are non-psychoanalytic psychological interpretations of racial

antagonisms,

also.

The

"frustration-aggression" hypothesis

has been called upon to explain inter-racial conflicts. is

frustrated

and becomes aggressive

as a

A

people

consequence, choosing

perhaps a minority group upon which to vent the aggressive impulse.

But here

again, the great variety

and range of

inter-racial

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

136

conflicts and antagonisms is not illuminated very much by merely pronouncing the magic couplet "frustration and aggression."

One

of the weakest of psychological explanations of race preju-

we

dice with which late

are acquainted

Franz Boas. The prejudice, he

tially

human mind

to identify

^^

founded essento

it

"is

not

him

the tendency of

which

class to

and antagonism

clear although Boas assures us that

merge the

to ascribe to

how

Just

an individual with "the

racial prejudice

he belongs" produces

is

.

he belongs, and

the characteristics of his class."

the

.

human mind

... on the tendency of the

individual in the class to which all

that given once by the

is

said, ".

is

not quite

difficult to

under-

human mind.

stand" in the light of this tendency of the

Psychological interpretations of race prejudice and inter-racial

antagonisms are misleading and unsound because these problems are sociological

and

rather than

cultural

psychological.

As we

have pointed out, a description of subjective psychological experience correlated with an institution does not constitute an ex-

The

planation of the institution.

function of the institution, not

must be explained

We do

experience of the ego

institution

not wish to undertake an exhaustive culturological

if

a

culturologically.

pretation of race prejudice at this point. ever, that

And, the

cause.

its

is

investigation

and

analysis

We

would

inter-

suggest,

how-

were carried out along the

come to a much deeper and more this phenomenon than any amount of

following lines one would realistic

explanation of

psychological or psychoanalytic inquiry can produce: Race prejudice and racial antagonisms are likely to appear in sociocultural situations in

which

the possession frontier),

of

(

i

)

one group

desirable

for jobs or other

lands

competing with another

is

(e.g.,

the American

for

Indian

economic advantages; (2) where a

minority group endeavors to preserve

its

own

cultural group within a larger population; effort of the larger society to assimilate it in

integrity as a socio-

where

it

resists

the

an attempt to achieve

CULTUROLOGICAL

PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS

VS.

Minority groups which attempt thus

a high degree of integration.

own

to maintain their

137

integrity,

not only on the cultural plane

larger

by means of endogamy, are opposing the attempts of the society to achieve integration through assimilation, and are

likely

consequently to become the object of hostility and ag-

but

also

from the

gression

larger

society— which

incidentally

reinforce the efforts of the minority group to maintain

and so on

in a vicious circle. (3) Hostility

crisis,

often an effective

is

emergency or

of unifying a nation. In times of national therefore, a nation

solidarity

by fomenting

trick— or

against

a

may attempt hostility

to achieve inner unity

and

toward a foreign power— an old

group

minority

to

toward a foreign power

or toward a minority group within a society

means

tends

its integrity,

within

gates— also

its

an

old trick.

We

turn

commonly

now from

culturological problems

that have been

attacked with psychological techniques to one that has

seldom been so approached, namely, the question of matrilineal

and

patrilineal lineages

or clans. Offhand,

we cannot

cite

any

attempts to explain these sociocultural phenomena in psychological terms, to say, for

example, that one people had matrilineal

clans because of identification with the

mother imago, whereas

another people were organized into exogamous patrilineal lineages

because of narcissistic impulses or what not. Such psychological interpretations

we have

would however be no more misplaced than those

just cited.

Why would

one people identify

mother, another with the father? This issue; it

is

the psychological interpretation merely

does not answer

it.

The

itself

with the

precisely the question at raises

the question,

paucity or absence of psychological in-

terpretations of unilateral organization

is

probably due however to

lack of interest in clans rather than a realization of the irrelevance of psychological interpretation.

Our argument concerning to his

the relationship of

extra-somatic cultural

somewhat

as

follows:

The

man

the organism

environment may be summarized musical

behavior

of

peoples— the

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

138

Viennese of 1798, the black folk of Harlem, 1940, the English before 1066, the Italians at the time of Palestrina, the Nigerians, ,

'

Bantus, Chinese, Pueblo Indians, and Yakuts— varies.

How

are

these variations to be explained? Certainly not in terms of biological differences.

anatomy and

Everything that

physiolog}^ will lend

we know about comparative

no support whatever

to a belief

that Chinese music has one form and style because of certain characters

biological

Chinese whereas the peculiar

of the

logical traits of the Bantus,

respective musical types.

On

the contrary, our knowledge of neuro-

sensorj^-muscular systems supports the proposition that

be considered behavior

is

a biological constant so far as his

concerned.

bio-

Indians, or Negroes produce their

We observe

human

man may

(symbolic)

that musical styles vary within

a society during the course of time without discovering any cor-

And

relative biological variation whatever. style of

of course the musical

one people may be adopted by another: Swing Low, Sweet

Dahomey

or

Cameroon. Thus we see

that we cannot explain these variations of we may represent by Mi, Mo, M3, M4 human organism, O. Variables cannot be

musical behavior, which

Chniiot did not originate in

.

.

.

Mn,

in

terms of the

explained in terms of a

constant.

How counted

then can these differences in musical behavior be acfor?

They

are to be explained in terms of different musical

traditions or cultures, Ci, C2, C3,

argument

in a series of formulas.

OxC^Hv

C4

.

.

.

On. Let us set forth our

CULTUROLOGICAL

PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS

VS.

139

human organism; and Ci, C2, C3, C4, for types of musical culture. The musical behavior in any particular instance is, of course, a compound made up of two distinct elements, the actions of nerves, glands, muscles, sense organs, etc., of man on actions of the

the one hand (O), and the external, extra-somatic cultural tradition

(C) on the other. Since, however, the human organism

appears as a constant factor in eliminate

Thus we

entirely

it

strike

from

out the

O

>Mi > M3 >M, > M4

Cs C, As the musical

The

cultural

tradition

behavior

is

true of musical

is

varies,

so will

the musical

simply the response of the organism

to a particular set of cultural stimuli.

What

we may

and rewrite our equations thus: Ci C,

behavior vary.

of our equations

all

a consideration of variations of behavior.

M

behavior

is

is

a function of

true also

C.

of linguistic

behavior, or monetary, mathematical, architectural, philosophic,

religious— in short, of any kind of

human

to the following formula:

organism

man

which we

human

behavior.

behavior

is

We come then

the response of the

to a class of external, extra-somatic, symbolic stimuli culture. Variations of

call

human

behavior are func-

tions of a cultural variable, not of a biological constant.

behavior as

we

find

it

Human

amongst the various peoples of the world

is

to be explained therefore in terms of their respective cultures

rather

than

by

appeal

to

"human

nature"

or

psychological

tendencies.

human behavior we to account for

If

are

Culture

is

is

to

be explained

in terms of culture,

how

culture?

an organization of

behavior), objects (tools; things

phenomena— acts made with tools),

(patterns of ideas (belief.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

140

knowledge), and sentiments (attitudes, "values" ) —that is dependent upon the use of symbols. Culture began when man as an articulate,

symbol-using primate, began. Because of

character,

which has

speech, culture

is

its

easily

most important expression in articulate readily transmitted from one human elements are readily transmitted

its

becomes a continuum;

flows

it

from one generation to another and

The

another.

culture process

enter the stream from time ture process

is

symbolic

and

organism to another. Since culture

its

laterally

also

is

to time

down through

from one people to

swell the total.

the sense that

progressive in

new elements The cul-

cumulative;

and

the ages

it

moves toward

greater control over the forces of nature, toward greater security

of life for man. Culture

is,

therefore, a symbolic, continuous,

cumulative, and progressive process.

means

All of this

that culture has, in a very real sense, an

made

extra-somatic character. Although

human

ganisms of a life of

own.

its

by the laws

of

possible only by the or-

beings, once in existence

Its

behavior

human

and under way

determined by

is

organisms.

The

own

its

has

it

laws, not

culture process

to

is

be

explained in terms of the science of culture, of culturology, not in terms of psychology. a

A it

Let us

illustrate these propositions

with

simple example.

symbolic language would, of course, have no existence were

human

not for

under way

organisms. But once the linguistic process gets

proceeds along

it

its

own

lines, in

own

terms of

The

principles

and

process

composed of phonetic elements. These

is

in accordance with

its

laws.

its

own

linguistic

interact with

one another forming various kinds of combinations and patterns

— phonetic, quires

syntactic, grammatical, lexical, etc.

The language

ac-

form and structure and uniformities of behavior. In other

words,

it

develops certain principles upon which

terms of which

Now

this

it

it

rests

and

in

functions.

language has an extra-somatic, non-biological, non-

psychological character. It had an existence prior to the birth of

CULTUROLOGICAL

PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS

VS.

any individual speaking

comes

it

it;

to each person

upon the human organism

141

from the out-

and equips it with specific hnguistic patterns of behavior. Languages are transmitted from one generation or one people to another just as tools side. It seizes

or ornaments are.

The

study of language

not biology or psychology. Although

and are therefore

tion of

it.

We

find

therefore, philology,

is,

human

requisite to the linguistic process they as such,

at birth

organisms are pre-

do not form a part of

no reference

to nerves,

interpreta-

glands,

and sense

organs in a manual on English grammar; no hopes, instincts or reflexes in a treatise

Language may be treated generis. Philology

is

as

it

and

irrelevant to the study

fears, desires,

on the Indo-European languages.

a closed

system, as a process sui

a subdivision of culturology, not of biology

or psychology.

What

is

true of language will hold for every other logically

distinguishable

is

a

portion

of

ideological— and for

social,

the

its

own

principles

duce the human organism into tions

is

process— technological,

culture as a whole. Culture

continuum of interacting elements

of interaction has

(traits),

and

its

and

own

is

false.

this process

laws.

To

intro-

a consideration of cultural varia-

therefore not only irrelevant but wrong;

premise that ture.

culture

human

it

involves a

Culture must be explained in terms of

cul-

may seem, "the proper study be not Man, after all, but Culture.

Thus, paradoxical though

it

mankind" turns out to The most realistic and scientifically adequate interpretation of culture is one that proceeds as if human beings did not exist.* This is really not as radical or as novel as it may seem at first of

glance.

As we have noted

in a preceding chapter, scholars

been making culturological studies

for decades, studies in

institutions, philosophies, or technologies are

have

which

treated as classes

* "Hence it is both possible and permissible to study the history of a folkway, or the evolution of culture in general, without reference to individuals or their organic and ni-ntal characteristics," (Geo. P. Murdock, "The

Science of Culture," p. 206).

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

142

to philological investigations

geometry,

currency,

phenomena. Thus,

non-biological

of extra-somatic,

we have

mentary government, the

the

clan, jurisprudence, etc.

studies as the effect of the automobile

addition

studies of the evolution of

astronomy,

architecture,

in

upon the

plow,

We

parlia-

have such

family, the divorce

mating customs, the small town country schools, the rubber industry, the blacksmith's trade, street-sweeping, tourist camps, rate,

etc.;

upon

and medical

religious

and microscopes

or the influence of telescopes

national parks,

art of interpretation

is

beliefs, etc.

therefore not

Culturology as a practical

new

or revolutionary by any

means.

Nor

is

a formulation of the philosophy of the science of culture

a recent achievement. As

pressed as early as

we have

1871 in the

already seen,

first

it

was well

ex-

chapter of E. B. Tylor's

'The Science made explicit in much of Durkheim's writings, Les Rdghs de la Methode Sociologique (1895). And

Primitive Culture, significantly entitled, by the way, of Culture." It was particularly it

has been developed in American anthropology by A. L. Kroeber,

R. H. Lowie, Clark Wissler, George P. Murdock, and others. Despite the respectable age of this point of view and notwithstanding the fact that logical studies

many

quarters.

chologists

the basis upon which countless culturo-

have already been made in philology, economics,

sociology, history, in

it is

and

and anthropology,

As we noted

sociologists hold

it is still

ignored or opposed

in a previous chapter, to a point of

many

psy-

view that either

obscures the science of culture or actually and specifically opposes it.

And, despite the

the anthropologists

fact that

who

as a distinct class of

there are

many

it

was, as Kroeber has remarked,^^

"discovered culture" and recognized

phenomena,

anthropologists

it

as a separate order of reality,

who have been

quite unable to

grasp clearly the conception of a supra-psychological, supra-sociological science of culture

and so have opposed

it

with more or

less

vigor.

Opposition to the science of culture expresses

itself variously,

iCULTUROLOGICAL

VS.

but one theme runs This

it.

is

PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS

the objection that

it is

does not enamel

its

not

all

of

who do

fingernails, vote, or believe in capitalism

people do." This observation realism as well as

that

if

not culture but people

Again to quote Lynd's pointed and apt phrase, "Culture

things.

tific

through most

fairly consistently

143

it

is

human

is

common

beings that

no doubt meant sense.

mark

but

to express scien-

Anyone can

see for himself

and drop them into

ballots

a box.

"Realism" of is

this sort

not realism at

all

is

simply pathetic. As a matter of

man

a chain of events except in terms of

Oi

course

culture

is

it

it is

people

as

the prime mover.

their fingernails; of course

not a disembodied soul going

he sure,

will; to

who enamel

people

is

fact, it

but anthropocentrism, an inability to interpret

who wind

way

its

clocks,

mobiles, build skyscrapers. But the question

of

its

own

sweet

manufacture autois

not the simple

one of who does what from the layman's point of view. The question is. How are the events that the layman observes to he

The layman

explained from the scientist's point oi view?

one people drinking cow's milk, avoiding mothers-in-law,

sees

practic-

ing polygyny and inhumation, and forming plurals by affixation.

He

notes that another group loathes milk, associates freely with

mothers-in-law, practices

by reduplication.

plurals

monogamy and

Now

the question

the milk— the people or the culture?"

who The

question

and

tasty beverage while

cremation, and forms

"Who

drinks

culturologist

knows

is

The

not

does the drinking quite as well as his "realistic" opponents.

To

"Why

is,

does one people prize milk as a nutritious

another regards

it

with loathing?"

the culturologist the reasoning that says that one people

drinks milk because "they like

"they loathe

one people

it," is senseless; it

like,

it,"

another does not because

explains nothing at

another loathe, milk? This

is

all.

Why

does

what we want

to

know. And the psychologist cannot give us the answer. Nor can

he

tell

practice

us

why

a people does or does not avoid mothers-in-law,

monogamy, inhumation, the couvade,

or circumcision;

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

144

use chopsticks, forks, the pentatonic scale, hats, or microscopes; form plurals by affixation— or any of the other thousands of cus-

toms known to ethnography. culturologist explains the behavior of a people

The

ing out that

it

by point-

merely the response of a particular type of

is

primate organism to a particular set of stimuli.

And he

explains

culture along the lines indicated earlier in this chapter. Thus,

while the culturologist

who "enamel

is

quite willing to admit that

their fingernails" or drink milk,

out that whether they do or not selves

is

he

determinants, for

between constants and

and independent

desires to point

is

a quest for

effect relationships, for distinctions

variables, distinctions

variables.

people

determined not by them-

but by their culture. Scientific explanation cause and

it is

The

culturologist

culture does not and cannot exist without

between dependent is

well aware that

human

beings.

Need

said that there could be no plural forms of nouns, no geomeno dynamos, no pinochle, if there were no human beings? And certainly there could be no mother-in-law taboos if there it

be

try,

were no women! But,

as

the culturologist demonstrates, culture

may be treated as if it had a life of its own, quite apart from human organisms, just as the physicist may treat a falling body as a there were no atmospheric friction. The behavior of peoples is

explained as their response to their respective cultures.

not mystical at

human

to treat culture as

beings, as Boas, Benedict

more than if

all

it is

if

it

It is

were independent of

and others have claimed, any

mystical for the physicist to treat falling bodies as

there were no friction. It

is

simply the application of the point

of view and the techniques of science, long familiar in physics, to

the realm of culture.

should not be necessary to point out that the thesis here

It

much less a belittling, of The position of this science is as honorable as it is seWhat we have done is to distinguish between psychological

set forth

is

not in any sense a criticism,

psychology. cure.

and

culturological interpretations of behavior and^ further, to

dem-

CULTUROLOGICAL

PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS

VS.

onstrate that certain problems are to be solved with logical rather

behavior

is

culturo-

than with psychological techniques. Since

composed

psychological,

ponding

145

two kinds

of

and the extra-somatic

classes of

cultural, there are

problems. In the one,

factor constant while

we

human

of ingredients, the biological, or

we hold

two

corres-

the biological

study the cultural variable; in the other

we hold the cultural factor constant and study the reactions human organisms to it. The existence of the institution of trial

class

of

by

jury,

for example,

cannot be accounted for psychologically;

the explanation must be culturological. But to understand the

function of this institution in the lives of their psychological reactions to

may

it.

One and

men we must

study

the same set of events

therefore be referred to either context, the psychological or

the culturological. Psychology and culturology deal therefore with biological

same

and extra-somatic aspects

set of events.

interpretation of

Both

human

to avoid confusion, to of each.

respectively of

one and the

sciences are essential to a comprehensive

behavior. It

know and

is

necessary, however, in order

respect the proper boundaries

CHAPTER SEVEN

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND "When I fulfil my obligations as brother, husband, or citizen, when I execute my contracts, I perform duties which are defined, externally to myself and my acts, in law and in custom. Even if they conform to my own sentiments and I feel their reality subjectively, such reality is still objective, for I did not create them; I merely inherited them through my Similarly, the church-member finds the beliefs and education. practices of his religious life ready-made at birth; their existence prior to Here, then, are his own implies their existence outside of himself. ways of acting, thinking, and feeling that present the noteworthy property of existing outside the individual consciousness. "These types of conduct or thought are not only external to the individual but are, moreover, endowed with coercive power, by virtue of .

,

.

.

.

.

which they impose themselves upon him, independent of his individual ." Emile Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method.

will

.

.

—

K

uman

behavior

two separate and and

On

cultural.

as

is,

we have

just seen, a

distinct kind of elements:

the one hand

we have

compound

of

psychosomatic

a certain type of

primate organism, man; on the other, a traditional organization of tools, ideas, beliefs,

The

behavior of

his non-symbolic,

action

of

tradition.

the

customs, attitudes,

man

as a

that

we

call culture.

distinguished from

primate behavior— is an expression of the inter-

human organism and

Human

etc.,

human being— as

behavior

is,

the extra-somatic cultural

therefore, a function of culture as

well as of a biological organism. In the preceding chapter

examined the relationship between length.

We endeavored

to

show

man and

culture at

we

some

that psychological interpretations

of cultures— of institutions, customs, attitudes, etc.— which have 146

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND been, and

147

unsound; that cultures cannot be explained psychologically but only culturologically. In the present chapter we shall continue our inquiry into the relationship still

are, so popular, are

between man and

culture,

but

this

time our focus

will

be upon the

human organism rather than upon the external cultural tradition. If we cannot explain cultures psychologically, and, if human behavior

a

is

product of culture as well

sense organs,

as of nerves, glands, muscles,

perhaps some of the phenomena

etc.,

commonly

regarded as psychological are actually culturally determined.

on the one hand, there has been

If,

tendency to regard

a widespread

cultures as psychologically determined, perhaps there has

been a

corresponding failure to recognize cultural determinants of mind.

The

point of view and habit of thought that sees in a custom or

institution merely the expression ability,

is

of an

likely also to think of the

innate desire, need or

"mind"

man

of

as

something

innate in his organism, biologically determined. Just as culture naively thought to

nature," so

is

the

be a simple and

direct expression of

"human mind" thought

to

is

"human

be a simple and

direct expression of the neuro-sensory-glandular-etcetera organiza-

man.

tion of

This view

is,

however, an

illusion.

Just as scientific analysis

discovers a non-anthropomorphic, culturological determination of culture,

and demonstrates the

tions of cultures, so does attributes of "the

it

irrelevance of psychological explanafind that

human mind"

many

are not to

of the elements or

be explained

of the action of nerves, brains, glands, sense organs,

terms of culture. This does not

human organism

mean

but in

that the reactions of the

to cultural elements in the external world are

not "psychological" or "mental"; they in the

in terms

etc.,

minding of man

as a

human

are. It

simply means that

being there are non-psycho-

i.e., extra-somatic cultural, determinants. The "human mind" is the reacting of the human organism to external stimuli; mind is minding here as elsewhere. But this reacting, this minding, varies. The Hottentot mind, or minding, is not the same

somatic,

— THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

148 as

The "human mind"-hun?an And its variations are functions

Eskimo, or English, minding.

minding— is

obviously a variable.

the psychoof variations of the cultural factor rather than of constant, l^he whole a as regarded be somatic factor, which may

concept of "the

human mind"

is

thus thrown into a

new

light

and perspective.

"mind"

In other animal species, the

a function of the bodily

is

of

structure, of a particular organization

nerves,

glands,

sense

from that

Thus the mind of the gorilla differs mind of a bear differs from that of a case, the minds are functions of their each In cat or a squirrel. respective bodily structures, differences of mind are correlated organs, muscles, etc.

of the chimpanzee; the

with differences of bodily structure. In the case of the human species, however, this is not the case. The mind (minding) of the

Chinese

not like the mind of the Sicilians or the Hopi Indians.

is

But here the

mind

differences of

bodily structure

may be

of races or other groups, this

Differences of

are not

due to

differences of

from the standpoint of the human behavior

for,

mind among

considered as a constant.

different ethnic

human Thus we have

groups of

beings are due to differences of cultural tradition.

and fundamental difference between the determination of mental variation among sub-human species and mental variation within the human species. For the sub-human species the

a radical

formula

is:

Vm

=

f

(Vb)— variations

variations of bodily structure. is:

Vn,

=

f

(Vc)— variations

of

mind

are

of

functions

For the human species the formula

of

human minding

are functions of

the extra-somatic tradition called culture.

human

In the realm of

behavior

we

are concerned of course

with organisms: organizations of bones, muscles, glands, nerves, sense organs, and so on.

And

these organisms react to external

stimuli, cultural as well as otherwise.

human organism. the human mind in any

the reacting of the specific

content of

The human mind is But we now see that

still

the

particular expression

speaking here of peoples rather than of individuals— is determined

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND

149

by the extra-somatic factor of culture rather than by the neurologic, sensory, glandular,

muscular,

etc.,

constitution of the

human

organism. In other words, the Chinese mind, the French, Zulu, 'or

Comanche mind,

havior,

as a particular organization

human

we

beings,

psychosomatic

factors.

human mind,"

is

significant,

among it

types of the is

human mind due

to

in

human mind,

an

such

the cultural determinant that

not the psychosomatic.

attributes are not

minding

And, furthermore, we learn that

Eskimo, Zulu, or English,

survey of the

therefore, in the

discover cultural determinants as well as

explanation of differences as

bej

In the category "the of

human

of

explainable in cultural terms, not biological.

is

A

comparative, ethnographic

leads to a realization that

many

an inborn "human nature" at

of

its

all,

as

was formerly supposed, but to differences of external cultural stimulation.

One

most popular formulas of interpretation of human that of "human nature." People behave as they do,

of the

behavior

is

have the

institutions, beliefs, attitudes,

games,

etc.,

that surround

human nature." And, incidentally, most people— however much they may be willing to admit their ignorance in other respects— usually feel that they "understand human nature." The human mind and organism are so constituted, according to this view, as to make certain kinds of response simply and directly forthcoming. One has only to know human nature them, because

"it

is

to understand society

development.

one takes

The

for

and culture and to predict

The fallacy or illusion here is, "human nature" is not natural

their course of

of course, that at all

but

what

cultural.

tendencies, emphases, and content that one sees in the overt

behavior of

human

beings are often not due to innate biological

determination— though such determinations do of course existbut to the stimulation of external cultural elements. Much of what is commonly called "human nature" is merely culture

thrown against a screen of nerves, glands, sense organs, muscles, have a particularly fine example of this illusion, this mis-

etc.

We

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

150

taking of culture for nature, in a passage from

Thomas Wolfe's

You Can't Go Home Again:* For what

is

man?

unable to support itself on its rubbery legs, befouled with its excrement, that howls and laughs by turns, cries for the moon but hushes when it gets its mother's teat; First, a

child,

a sleeper, cater, guzzler, howler, laugher, idiot, a little tender thing all

its toe;

into

fires, a

blubbered with

and a chewer of its spit,

a reacher

beloved fool.

After that, a boy, hoarse and loud before his companions, but afraid of the dark; will beat the weaker and avoid the stronger; worships strength and savagery, loves tales of wai and murder, and violence done to others; joins gangs and hates to be alone; makes heroes out of soldiers, sailors, prize fighters, football players, cowboys, gunmen, and detectives; would rather die than not out-try and out-dare his companions, wants to beat them and always to win, shows his muscle and demands that it be felt, boasts of his victories and will never own defeat Then the youth: goes after girls, is foul behind their backs among the drugstore boys, hints at a hundred seductions, but gets pimples on his face; begins to think about his clothes, becomes a fop, greases his hair, smokes cigarettes with a dissipated air, reads novels, and writes poetry on the sly. He sees the world now as a pair of legs and breasts; he knows hate, love, and jealousy; he is cowardly and foolish, he cannot endure to be alone; he lives in a crowd, thinks with the crowd, is afraid to be marked off from his fellows by an eccentricity. He joins clubs and is afraid of ridicule; he is bored and unhappy and wretched most of the time. Tliere is a great cavity in him, he is dull. Then the man: he is busy, he is full of plans and reasons, he has work. He gets children, buys and sells small packets of everlasting earth, intrigues against his rivals, is exultant when he cheats them. He wastes his little three score years and ten in

*

New

York.

Harper and

The Sun

Brother*;.

Dial Press, pp. 432-37.

Quoted by permission of

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND

151

spendthrift and inglorious living; from his cradle to his grave he scarcely sees the sun or moon or stars; he is unconscious of

the immortal sea and earth; he talks of the future and he wastes comes. If he is lucky, he saves money. At the end his

it as it

him

purse buys

fat

him where

flunkeys to carry

shanks no

his

longer can; he consumes rich food and golden wine that his

wretched stomach has no hunger

upon the scenery

weary and

his

for;

lifeless

which in youth his heart was panting. Then the slow death, prolonged by costly doctors, and finally the graduate undertakers, the perfumed carrion, the suave ushers with palms outspread to leftwards, the fast motor hearses, and the earth again. eyes look out

To true

many, no doubt, Wolfe's characterization of man

and

This

apt.

is

would disagree and he

of strange lands for

what man say,

this sort of being."

is

really

"No, man

they

is,

both

is

Others, perhaps,

feel.

not as Wolfe depicts him;

is

Each view may seem

plausible; each can

be supported with evidence. And, however much Wolfe's characterization of man may differ from that of another, both may

method

agree that the

man

oi interpretation

is

You

sound.

place

before you; you study him, analyze him, and then report

your findings. Plausible and reasonable

but an

illusion.

The Wolfes

as

may seem,

this

are not describing

Man

at

all,

it

is

but

Culture.

This

is

not quibbling in any way.

found, and important. the way the

The

What Wolfe

human organism

distinction

describes as

is

Man

real, prois

merely

responds to a certain set of cultural

stimuli. In another kind of culture the

organism would respond

quite differently. His characterization of

man would

be applicable

to the

certainly not

Zuni Pueblo Indians nor to the Pygmies of

the Congo, the aborigines of Australia, or the peasant folk of

Mexico. And,

man's

as a

matter of

"real nature" that

least that

man

is

a being

he

is

who

fact,

he

all

describing.

but says that

Does

could "see the sun,

and be conscious of the immortal

sea

it

is

not

he not suggest at

moon and

and earth" were

it

stars

not for

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

152

him

the culture which holds

in

its

and compels him

grip

his precious life selling real estate, cheating rivals?

scribing a culture in terms of

"human

nature" or "culture"

it is

Wolfe

de-

is

upon the human organism. make, one might ask, whether

effects

its

But v^hat difference does

to waste

the cause so long as

man actually What dif-

performs the acts and must suffer their consequences? ference does

it

make whether

a gangster

murders a cashier and

robs a bank because he was born and reared in a certain type of culture or because he was "by nature" murderous, vicious, and

The

rapacious?

cashier

and

the police are hot

are

what they

human

dead

it

in either case, the

gangster's

makes

all

so,

money

gone,

True enough; things

the difference in the world it

is

or whether his behavior was determined

culture, the kind of social system,

living in. All the difference, that

to provide

trail.

did the killing and the robbing because

nature to do

by the type of be

But

are.

man

whether the

is

on the

is,

he happened to

to the scientist

an adequate explanation of the behavior.

who wishes And a great

deal of difference to the layman, too, because of the implications

inherent in the two alternatives: cultures constantly changing in fact; but fined,

is

change

human

may change— they

are

nature, biologically de-

constant— it has undergone no appreciable

virtually

in the last 30,000 years at least.

Wolfe's description of

man

is

a

philosophy of behavior, an

It may be much evidence, but the premises are wrong for and much confusion and error flow inevitably from them.

explanatory device.

It

is

based on certain premises.

supported by all that,

Let us consider a few areas of behavior. Take food habits for example.

Man

is

one but

loathed by one people

his

may be

tastes

vary enormously.

a delicacy to another.

A

food

Many Chinese

cannot bear the thought of eating cheese, whereas most Europeans are very fond of it, and the choicest cheeses are often those with an odor of putrefaction or ordure. Neither do the

Chinese

like

milk— even Grade A. Some

tribes will

not eat chicken

or eggs. Others will eat eggs but prefer rotten eggs to fresh ones.

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND

The

choicest porterhouse steak has no charms for the Hindu,

nor baked

ham

worms and

to others

or pork chops for the Jew.

but

insects as food

The Navajos human flesh

will is

not eat

fish.

aversions

many

is

human upon

organism.

it

On

human

practice

do not

to

name The

What then can we attribute What a people likes or

vary.

the contrary, the preferences and

from the outside.

another matter; it

peoples;

would be hard indeed

It

human organism by

aversions are produced within the

Is

eating of

some

not determined by the innate attractions and repulsions

is

of the

is

as dehcacies.

The

nature?" Virtually nothing.

loathes

acting

them

not eat dogs.

regarded everywhere as food.

and loathings likewise

"human

peoples eat

We will

the feast supreme.

it is

We have an aversion for

regarded with extreme revulsion by

an edible substance that to

153

we

Why

shall turn to

a culture

cultures vary in this respect later on.

it

nature to kiss a loved one?

were, then the

If it

But it is not. There are peoples who Some rub noses. Others merely sniff the back children. And in some societies a parent or elder

would be

universal.

kiss at all.

of the neck of

relative will spit in the face of a child; saliva

a magical substance

Among some greetings

and

this act

is

peoples adult males kiss each other.

men

between

casus mountains.

They

in

here regarded as

therefore a sort of blessing.

is

one of the

I

once witnessed

isolated valleys of the

Cau-

kissed each other fervently, pushing aside

a thick growth of whiskers to reach the lips. Other peoples re-

gard kissing

among

nature enter this picture?

It

does not enter at

toward kissing

as well as its practice

desires of the

human

organism.

is

If this

differ.

You

Human is

it is

The

attitude

were

so, kissing

as the

behavior

organism

is

uni-

not the case. Behavior varies because cultures

will do, or taboo,

what your culture

calls for.

behavior varies widely at other points. Sexual jealousy

so powerful

that

is

all.

human

does

not determined by innate

would be uniform throughout the world form. But this

Where

adult males as unmanly.

and so poignant

a simple

and

in

some

societies that to

direct expression of

human

doubt

nature might

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

154

of a

rival. If

may

peers

do

a

man

kills

him go

the "seducer" of his wife, a jury of his

scot free;

it

we

they observe. Yet,

this,

where

let

natural" for a lover to be jealous

It is "just

seem almost absurd.

was only natural that he should

among

stand jealousy

And

Dr.

reports that the Samoans simply cannot under-

Mead

Margaret

Eskimo,

find societies, like the

wives are loaned to guests as a part of hospitality.

and find our sentiments

lovers,

in

this

respect incredible or preposterous.

In

some groups premarital

mitted to

sexual intercourse

is

not only per-

but the practice forms an integral part of the Out of these intimacies come an acquaint-

girls

routine of courtship.

and an understanding that make

ance, a sympathy,

for

an endur-

may be subjected to chastity them. The unmarried mother

ing marriage. In other groups, brides tests is

and

killed

they

if

some

stigmatized in

fail

to pass

societies,

taken for granted in others. At-

titude toward homosexuality varies likewise; in

a

mark

of

accepted.

shame and degradation,

Some

intermediate,

and woman.

some

societies recognize

some groups

recognized and

in others

it is

and give

status to a third, or

sex— the berdache, transvestite— in addition

A man

societies;

must avoid

to

man

his mother-in-law assiduously in

he must not speak to her or allow himself

presence. In other tribes, a

it is

man must have no

in her

social intercourse

sister. Some peoples regard polygamy with aversion, even To marry one's deceased wife's unmarried sister is a crime

with his horror.

in

some

societies,

a sacred obligation in others.* In none of these

*".... in modern England marriage with a deceased wife's sister became equivalent to incest and the thought of such marriage was defined as 'psychic incest.' Around the year 1850, when Lord Russell's bill for the .

.

.

.

.

.

repeal of the law against such marriages was being debated, countless sermons

were preached and thousands of pamphlets and

letters

were printed protesting

against repeal:

"'It would be difEcult (says Lccky) to overstate the extravagance of language employed. One gentleman (Lord Hatherley), who had been Lord Chancellor of England, more than once declared that if marriage with a deceased wife's sister ever became legal "the decadence of England was in.

evitable,"

and that

.

for

.

his

part he

would rather see 300,000 Frenchmen

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND instances can

we

155

explain custom or institution in terms of the

innate desires, sentiments, and aversions of the people concerned. It

not one set of sentiments and desires that produces monog-

is

polygamy

amy

here, another set

it is

the institution that determines the sentiments and behavior.

you are born into

If

a

is

the other way around;

polygamous culture you

and behave polygamously.

New

there. It

England culture you

If,

think, feel

will

however, you are born into a Puritan

will look

upon polygamy with marked

disapproval.

There are

other aspects or expressions of the

still

human mind

thought to be determined by innate psycho-

that were once

biological factors but

which we now recognize

as

being largely

determined by culture. Take the Oedipus complex for example.

was once thought that a boy's

It

his love for his

hostility

toward his father and

mother were simply expressions of

nature. But, as Malinowski

tudes vary with type of family organization. In

husband

is

his biological

and others have shown, these

some

societies the

not the head of the family, the disciplinarian.

mother's brother

who

takes this role,

and the father

the kindly, indulgent friend and companion.

The

toward father and mother are not the same here archal household

known

to Freud. Polygynous

It is

is

it

is

the

sister rather

attitude of boys as in the patri-

and polyandrous

The

cul-

who becomes

the

definition of incest,

and

than the mother

primary object of incestuous desire.

the

merely

households produce other orientations of attitude. In some tures

atti-

consequently one's attitude toward sexual union with cross or parallel, first

or second, cousins, varies with the culture as

we

shall see later on.

coasts,' " (Wm. I. Thomas, Primitive Behavior, pp. 196-97). Contrast this with the command, in Deuteronomy (XXV: 5-12) that a man shall marry his deceased brother's wife. Should he refuse, the woman shall disgrace him publicly, taking off his sandal "in the presence of the elders and spit in his face." Note, also, that Onan was killed by the Lord for . avoiding his duty to his deceased brother's widow (Genesis XXXVIII: 6-n).

landed on the British

.

.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

156

One's conscience personal and

is

often thought to be the most intimate,

private characteristic of one's ego.

Here

if

anywhere

wholly one's own, a private

one ought to find something that is and unique possession. To an ordinary individual the conscience seems to be a mechanism, an inborn ability, to distinguish between right and wrong, just as he possesses a mechanism for distinguishing up from down, the vertical from the horizontal. Except, per-

more intimate

haps, that conscience seems deeper within one, a

part of one's make-up, than semi-circular canals. After

all,

these

canals are merely a mechanical device, whereas a conscience is an integral part of one's self, one's ego. Yet, for all the conviction

that immediate experience carries,

And

illusion.

Our

instance.

down,

is

this

is

exactly

and has no

it is

science

the present

in

cultural

forces

upon the

up and

built into our psychosomatic

from

origin or significance apart

conscience has a sociocultural origin; individual

be tricked by

still

sense of balance, our distinction between

indeed a private faculty;

structure

we can

what has happened

it is

it.

But our

the operation of supraorganism. Con-

individual

merely our experience and our awareness of the opera-

is

tion of certain sociocultural forces

upon

us.

Right and wrong are

matters of sociocultural genesis; they are originated by social systems, not by individual biological organisms. Behavior that

is

or thought to be harmful, to the general welfare

is

injurious,

wrong; behavior that promotes the general welfare desires inherent in its

own

demands

interests.

is

good.

The

an individual organism are exercised to serve Society,

in

order to protect

of the individual as well as to serve

itself

its

own

from the interests,

must influence or control the behavior of its component members. It must encourage good behavior and discourage the bad. It does this by first defining the good and the bad specifically, and secondly, by identifying each good or had with a powerful emotion, positive or negative, so that

the individual

is

motivated to

perform good deeds and to refrain from committing bad ones. So effective

is

this socio-psychologic

mechanism that

society not only

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND

157

succeeds in enlisting individuals in the cause of general welfare

but actually causes them to work against their own interests-

own

even to the point of sacrificing their

A

the general welfare.

mechanism is

made

lives for others or for

part of the effectiveness

consists in the illusion that surrounds

to feel that

it is

he

who

is

making

and

his decisions

in

is

social

perfectly "free" in

is

the tribe or group speaking to him from within. conscience," says Radcliffe-Brown, "is vidual of the sanctions of the society."

and moves within an

this

the individual

choosing courses of action. Actually,

small voice of conscience

still

of

making the decision and taking

the proper action, and, moreover, that he

of course, this

it:

magnetic

ethical

social forces, culturally defined,

.

.

^

.

but the voice of

"What

is

called

the reflex in the indi-

The human organism field,

lives

so to speak. Certain

impinge upon the organism and

move it this way and that, toward the good, away from the bad. The organism experiences these forces though he may mistake their source.

He

calls this

experience conscience. His behavior

analogous to a pilotless aircraft controlled by radio. directed this

way and

pulses are received

motors, rudders,

anism

that

by impulses external to

The it.

etc.

This receiving and behavior-controlling mech-

is

a cultural variable rather than a psychoso-

is

made apparent

of course by a consideration of

the great variation of definition of rights and wrongs various cultures of the world.

be wrong

in another.

What

in another.

and conduct

in

is

right in

among the

one culture may

This follows from the fact that an act that

promote the general welfare it

is

These im-

analogous to conscience.

is

matic constant

injure

is

by a mechanism and are then transmitted to

That conscience

will

plane

Thus we

in

one

set of circumstances

may

find great variety of ethical definition

the face of a

common and

uniform

human

organism, and must conclude therefore that the determination of right and

wrong

is

social

and

cultural rather than individual

and psychological. But the interpretation of conscience, rather than custom and mores, in terms of social and cultural forces

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

158

once more that the individual

serves to demonstrate

makes him.

culture

He

contents. Conscience

the instrument, the vehicle, of ethical

It is well,

here as elsewhere, to distinguish

from horse.

cart

The

unconscious also

logically as

is

concept that

a

is

the

defined culturo-

from

name

a

psycho-

given to a

determinants of behavior inherent in the organism, or at

class of least,

may be

well as psychologically. Considered

logical point of view, "the unconscious"

having their locus in the organism as a consequence of the

experiences

whose

or

his

the utensil; the culture supplies the

is

is

conduct, not the cause.

what

is

another

has undergone, of which the person

it

determinants of

ordinary individual

has little or

not aware

he does not appreciate. But there is also human behavior of which the

significance

class of

is

may be— and

no appreciation of

usually is— unaware, or at least

their significance.

These are

extra-

somatic cultural determinants. In a general and broad sense, the

whole realm of culture constitutes "an unconscious" laymen and culture

for

many

and an appreciation of

beyond the ken of

lie

To

those

who

for

most

The concept of in the life of man

social scientists as well.

all

its

significance

but the most

believe that

man makes

scientifically sophisticated.

his culture

and controls

its

course of change, the field of cultural forces and determinants

may be

said to constitute

an unconscious— an extra-somatic un-

conscious.

The

unconscious character of the operation of culture in the

lives of

men

many particular instances ago we distinguished the The determinants of ethical

can be demonstrated in

as well as in a general way.

A moment

unconscious factor in ethical behavior.

behavior— why,

for example,

one should not play cards on Sunday

—lie in the external cultural tradition.

The

individual, however,

unaware of either the source or the purpose of the taboo, locates it

in his inner self: his conscience

is

but the screen upon which

the unconscious factors of society and culture project themselves. Incest

is

defined and prohibited in order to effect exogamous

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND

may be

unions so that mutual aid

made more

and significance of these conscious.

To

fostered and, consequently, life

members

secure for the

159

of society.

cultural factors

the individual, incest

but a few are un-

simply a sin or crime that

is

inherently and absolutely wrong.

is

Or, take the rules of etiquette:

A man

not permitted to wear earrings or to use these restrictions a

But of the existence

all

in a certain society

is

The purpose

of

lipstick.

to define classes of individuals within society:

is

man, woman, priest, etc., is an individual who behaves positively manner and who must refrain from certain kinds of

in a certain

By means

acts.

tions,

of these definitions, prescriptions,

each individual

classes are thereby

made

is

to

conform to

kept intact. Thus, order

and prohibiand the

his class

achieved in society,

is

order both structurally and functionally. And, to conduct

must have

its life

But the individual seldom has any appreciation of the source and purpose of these rules; efiFectively a society

he

apt to regard them,

is

and

if

right, or as capricious

order.

he thinks about them

and

irrational.

at

as natural

all,

Another example of the

cultural unconscious.

The church integration

is

an organ of

and regulation. In

just as does the State

social control; it this respect

aggression from without.

war machine;

foreign foes. It interests at

must

home. This

a

mechanism of

has political functions

(see p. 242). It operates to preserve the

integrity of society against disintegration

nation's

it

is

it

It

is

thus an important factor in a

mobilizes the citizenry to fight against

also strive to it

from within and against

harmonize conflicting

does frequently by

telling the

the oppressed to be patient, to be satisfied with their resort to violence, etc.* In these

ways the Church

class

poor and

lot,

not to

the State

like

man and the artisan to carry out honestly equitable agreements freely entered into; never to injure the property, nor to outrage the person, of an employer; never to resort to violence ." (Pope in defending their own cause, nor to engage in riot or disorder * "Religion teaches the laboring

and

fairly

all

.

Leo XII's Encyclical on Condition of Labor, May Catholic Year Book Anno Domini, 1928), p. 540.

15,

1891,

.

The O&cial

:

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

1^

exercises political functions that are essential to the life of the

Yet how many members of a congregation or of the

society.

clergy have

rituals,

parapher-

and dogma that occupy them?

nalia, theolog}^

The

the

this aspect of

any awareness of

determinants of our form of the family

deep within

lie so

our cultural unconscious that even social science has yet no

adequate answer to the question p. 335).

why we

prohibit polygamy (see

Chinese, according to Kroeber, were long unaware

The

that their language had tones. "This apparently simple and fun-

damental discovery," he

says,

"was not made until two thousand

years after they possessed writing, scholars."

-

And

and a thousand

they might not have

made

it

"the learning of Sanskrit for religious purposes phonetically self-conscious." Like the rustic

prose

his life

all

without realizing

it,

after they

had

even then had not .

.

.

made them

who had been

talking

the peoples of the Western

world, too, have long been unconscious of

much

of the structure

and processes of Indo-European languages. Thus,

in addition to

the determinants of behavior that

within the tissues of our ness, there

is

another

own

class of

lie

deep

organisms, below the level of aware-

determinants of which

we

are equally

unconscious: forces and factors within the extra-somatic cultural tradition.

The

science of culture

is

endeavoring to discover, define

and explain these unconscious

cultural factors as psychoanalysis

has undertaken to explore and

make known the

unconscious.*

We

may

illustrate these

intra-organismal

two realms of the uncon-

scious in the following diagram

* Kroeber has a fine appreciation of the unconscious character of cultural determinants of human behavior as the section "Unconscious Factors in Language and Culture" in his Anthropology (1923) makes clear. But despite certain examples which he cites and which show quite clearly that the locus of the unconscious is in the culture process, he locates it "in the mind." Thus he says: "It is difficult to say where the creative and imitative impulses of fashion come from; which, inasmuch as the impulses obviously reside somewhere in human minds, means that they spring from the unconscious portions of the mind" (p. 127).

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND

161

Human Behavior

Human

behavior

is

a function of the biological

one hand, and of the extra-somatic

on the

other.

The

individual

is

organism on the

cultural tradition or process,

more

some

or less aware of

of the

determinants of his behavior in each categorj^, the cultural and the biological. But of others he

quite unaw^are, or has no ade-

is

quate appreciation of the role they play as determinants of his

These

behavior.

and the

The vidual

are the realms of the unconscious: the biological

cultural.

nature of the relationship between the

mind

of the indi-

human organism on the one hand and the external cultural on the other may be illuminated by a critical examination

tradition

of a certain thesis widely held in recent logical

circles

asserts that

the United States. Briefly stated, this thesis

in

man

and current anthropo-

has created culture, that culture

the accumu-

is

lated product of the creative acts of countless individuals, that the

individual

is

the fons et oiigo of

that the culture process

is

to

all

cultural elements, and, finally,

be explained

in terms of the indi-

vidual.

Thus Ralph Linton foundation of

all

v^Tites: ".

social

and

.

.

the individual

cultural

organized groups of individuals, and cultures analysis,

.

phenomena. are,

.

.

lies at

the

Societies are in

the last

nothing more than the organized and repetitive responses

of a society's members. For this reason the individual starting point for

any investigation of the

is

the logical

larger configuration" *

fHE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

162 (emphasis ours). "If

we had

the knowledge and the patience to

analyze a culture retrospectively," says Goldenweiser, "every

ment

of

it

would be found

creative act of

an individual mind. There

source for culture to

Edward

its is,

come from ... An

fully carried out, leads

ours),

had

to have

ele-

beginning in the

no other

of course,

analysis oi culture,

back to the individual mind"

if

(emphasis

*

Sapir asserts that the "currency [of "any cultural

element"] in a single community

is

... an instance of diffusion

that has radiated out, at last analysis, from a single individual."

Ruth Benedict which

declares that

in the last analysis

Where

else

of a man,

could any

woman

is

trait

"no

civilization has in

any element

it

not the contribution of an individual.

come from

or a child?"

except from the behavior

Clark Wissler said that "the

^

ventive process resides in individual organisms; so far as it is

the individual organism."

a function of

"it is

the individual

who

is

•

^

Linton

in-

we know,

asserts that

responsible, in the last analysis, for all

additions to culture"® (emphasis ours). Hallowell finds the con-

ception of cultural influence unrealistic; "In the last analysis,"

he

"it

says,

is

individuals

who

respond to and influence one

another."* Both Goldenweiser and Malinowski place the individual "at the beginning and the end" of the sociocultural process.^"

And,

we

finally,

cite Sapir's categorical

dictum: "It

is

always

the individual that really thinks and acts and dreams and volts." *

re-

"

The import

of the foregoing

"is responsible" for culture

clear. It is

is

change;

it is

the individual

the individual

who

who

really

does things; every cultural element has

its

beginning in the creative

act of an individual mind,

It

would appear from our

etc.,

etc.

quotations that their authors feel that they are expressing a fun-

damental proposition and point of view. Nearly the phrase "in the

all

of

them use

last analysis" in setting forth their position.

Their premises seem to appear to them so simple and so •

Wc

recall at this

that in the

realistic

point Georg Simmcl's emphatic assertion: "It is certain only individuals exist/' (emphasis wun); see p. 84.

last analysis

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND as to

be

163

"Every cultural element originates in

virtually axiomatic:

mind of an individual— of a man, woman, or child. Where else couid it come from?" Culture is pictured as a great structure built the

by countless individuals,

much

as

a

coral

reef

produced by

is

myriads of marine organisms during the course of time. And, as the coral reef is explained in terms of the activities of marine

may be explained by human mind."

organisms, so culture of the individual

citing the "creative acts

This view seems plausible enough: as a matter of

fact, it

appears

Anyone can see for himself that it is man, human individuals, who chop down trees, build houses, pass laws, write sonnets, worship gods, etc. But we have become a bit to

be

virtually self-evident.

wary of the self-evident and the obvious: anyone can see for himself

that

it

is

to Copernicus,

Obvious and is

made by

the sun, not the earth, that moves. But, thanks

we now know self-evident

we

may appear

individuals

means of explaining of fact,

regard

better.

though the proposition that culture

we must

to be,

cultural processes or traditions. as

it

Man

plaining the world he lives in by attributing

nature to the action of

it

as a

As a matter

an expression of the primitive and pre-

philosophy of anthropomorphism.

scientific

reject

some mind,

his

own

its

has been exexistence

and

or a god's, for ages

on

end. William James accounted for machines, instruments, and institutions

individual sign."

^2

by asserting that they "were head, of which

To Newton

"this

flashes of genius in

the outer environment

an

showed no

most beautiful cosmos could only pro-

ceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

" To

Plato, the material world

mind

was but the expres-

God." "Let there be light," said Yahweh, "and there was light." In the mythology of ancient Egypt, everything came from the thinking and willing of the sion of "ideas in the

of

great artificer deity, Ptah.^*

Among

Indians, Tsityostinako, or

Thought-Woman, brought

pass

by

acts of

thought and

will.^*

our preliterate Keresan Pueblo

And

things to

today, in line with this

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

164

ancient and primitive philosophic tradition,

we

are told that cul-

ture has issued from the mind of man— of men, women, and children—and therefore if we are to understand culture and explain its

content and course of change,

we must do

so in terms of the

individual. It

is

obvious, of course, that culture has emanated from the

human

organisms of

would be no

culture.

human

beings: without the

We recognize also

human

obtains between culture as a whole and the

or their, entirety; the general character of culture of the biological properties of the

comes

species there

that a generic relationship

human

is

species in

its,

an expression

when

species. But,

to an explanation of any particular culture— and

all

it

the

cultures of the world are particular, specific cultures— or to an

explanation of the process of culture change in general, a consideration of the

vidual aspects,

human

organism, either in

irrelevant.

is

The

its

collective or indi-

culture process

is

not explain-

able in terms of races, physical types, or of individual minds. It to

be explained

process

is

to

in

terms of culture

itself.

is

In short, the culture

be explained culturologically rather than biologically

or psychologically.

Thus we do not account

for differences

between Chinese and

Swedish culture by appeal to the physical, somatological, and innate psychological differences between the Chinese and the

Swedish peoples. traditions,

no

We

know

of

specific feature of

no differences between

cultural

the culture process, that can be

explained in terms of innate biological properties, physical or

mental.

On

of Chinese

the other hand,

we can

and Swedish peoples

explain the

as biological

human

behavior

organisms in terms

of their respective cultures.

The

proposition just enunciated

social sciences today.

tions of culture.

We

But the

is

generally accepted in the

no longer subscribe

to racial explana-

thesis that the sociocultural process is

explainable in terms of individuals rests

upon the same premise,

namely, that biological factors are relevant to interpretations of

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND the culture process. Thus, is

admitted that the biological factor

extraneous to an interpretation of the culture process

taken in

contend, its

it is

165

collective

its

(i.e.,

not only relevant

it is

We

individual aspect.

single individual organism

many but fundamental when aspect, but,

racial)

when

scholars

taken in

regard this reasoning as unsound; a is

an interpretation of

as irrelevant to

the culture process as a group of individuals. It might be well at this point to draw a distinction between two fundamentally different propositions. The individual him-

self is

he

is

not irrelevant to the actual culture process.

an integral and

one sense

in

do indeed enamel

viduals

a

the contrary,

to an explanation oi the culture process.

individual

We

Indi-

it.

and believe

their fingernails, vote,

Lynd has observed. But the

capitalism as

On

fundamental part of

is

in

irrelevant

cannot explain the

culture trait or process of enameling nails in terms of innate

We

desire, will, or caprice.

can however explain the behavior of

The may be re-

the individual in terms of the culture that embraces him. individual, the average, typical individual of a group,

garded as a constant so cerned.

The

far as

Crow

typical

human, symbolic behavior

Indian organism

may be

regarded as

biologically equivalent to the typical English, Zulu, or

organism so

far as his capacities

The

havior are concerned.

ceptance of a

racial

it

is

is

is

beac-

human behavior and culture. between the human organism on the

is

cultural tradition

on the other,

the variable, the biological factor the con-

the cultural factor that determines the variations in

the resulting behavior.

organism

Eskimo

human

determinant of

In the process of interaction

the cultural factor

inclinations for

alternative to this proposition

one hand and the extra-somatic stant;

and

con-

is

The human

behavior of the individual

therefore a function of his culture.

The

individual

becomes then the locus of the culture process and the vehicle of its

expression.

Thus we

individuality to

chology.

arrive at a culturological conception of

add to those of anatomy, physiology, and psy-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

166 Since the earliest days of

human

species has

vironment of

human

history every

been introduced

beliefs,

member

of the

at birth into a cultural en-

customs, instruments, expressions of

topography,

etc., as well as a natural habitat of climate,

fauna. This cultural environment

is

art,

and

flora

a continuum, a tradition;

descends lineally from one generation to another, and

it

it

may

from one people to another. Culture is an whose function is to make life secure and mechanism elaborate laterally

diffuse

continuous for groups of functions, culture

and put

tem

to work. Culture

it

in a

human

beings. In order to perform these

must harness energy is,

one form or another

in

therefore, a

thermodynamic

mechanical sense. Culture grows in

ideological,

sociological,

all

its

sys-

aspects-

and technological— when and

the

as

amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is increased, and as the means of expending this energy are improved. Culture is thus a dynamic system capable of growth. is

a

stream

beliefs,

of

interacting

A

cultural tradition

elements— of instruments,

customs, etc. In this interactive process, each element

impinges upon others and process

cultural

is

may become axes give

is

in turn acted

upon by them. The and

a competitive one; instruments, customs,

beliefs

obsolete and be eliminated from the stream: stone

way

to metal ones; science replaces

tribe

and clan become obsolete

tion

and the

myth^nd

magic;

at a certain stage of social evolu-

state takes their place.

New

elements are incor-

porated into the cultural stream from time to time: metals, the wheel, beliefs consequent upon the use of the microscope, enter the cultural tradition at certain stages of

New

its

etc.,

development.

combinations and syntheses of cultural elements

—

i.e.,

in-

ventions and discoveries— are continually being formed in this interactive process: the invention of the steam engine, the "dis-

covery" of the Periodic System of the elements, the formulation of the laws of thermodynamics, etc., are

syntheses of cultural elements.

A

new combinations

cultural tradition

a dynamic system (powered by natural forces which

is

it

or

therefore

harnesses)

— CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND that behaves and grows in terms of It

may

on

therefore be explained

terms rather than

with

chemistry or physics.

It

167

own principles and laws. own level, in culturological

its

its

the concepts

may be

of

psychology,

biology,

regarded as a system sui generis.

In relation to the process of culture change and growth the biological factor of irrelevant to

man may be

regarded as a constant and hence

an explanation of the culture process. Relative to an

explanation of the difference between the culture of the Swedes

and that of the Chinese or Zulus, the

factor— such

biological

things as skin, hair, or eye color, stature, innate abilities, etc.

may,

we have

as

noted, be regarded as irrelevant. It

is

irrelevant

an explanation of the differences between the culture of

also to

England

in a.d.

1200 and that of

a.d. 1900.

We see,

then, that to

the problem of interpretation of the culture process, the biological factor of

man

turologically,

irrelevant.

is

The

culture process

is

explainable cul-

not biologically or psychologically.

now consider the individual in relation to the As we have noted, every individual is born into a

Let us process.

that existed prior to his birth. This culture seizes birth

and

as

culture

culture

upon him

at

he grows and matures equips him with language,

customs, beliefs, instruments,

etc.

In short,

it is

culture that pro-

him with the form and content of his behavior as a human being. Thus, Crow Indian behavior is the response of the organism Homo sapiens to a particular organization of stimuli that we call "Crow culture." Similarly, American, Eskimo, and Zulu behaviors are the responses of the same kind of organism to other vides

cultural traditions.

The

individual in each case

is

merely an

or-

ganization of cultural forces and elements that have impinged

upon him from the outside and which

find their overt expression

through him. So conceived, the individual

is

but the expression of

a supra-biological cultural tradition in somatic form.

We

turn

now

to the role of the individual in the process of

culture growth,

and

last analysis," it

is

specifically to the propositions that, "in the

the individual

who

"is

responsible for

all

addi-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

168 tions to culture"; that "every culture

element

to the creative act of an individual

mind"; that

individual

who

the individual

sure culture

composed

But the

it

is

always the

"the logical starting point for any investigation

is

and

it.

It is

we have

just

asserting that the individual

is

we

species

call individuals.

quoted are doing more than to

and

give utterance to these obvious

human

true also that the

of discrete physical entities that

scholars that

culture.

dependent upon the human species and

is

could not exist without is

be traced back

to

dreams, and revolts; and that

really thinks, acts,

of the larger configurations" such as society

To be

is

trite

commonplaces. They are

prime mover,

a

the cause, culture the effect; that

a determinant;

the individual

that

he

is

who

"is

responsible" for change in the culture process; and that,

must

lie

in a consideration of the individual.

proposition that is

is

an explanation of "the larger configuration" of

therefore,

ture

it

we

reject— and reverse:

it is

And

this

it is

the individual

explained in terms of his culture, not the other

cul-

who

way around.

Let us consider inventions and discoveries, or any significant

advance in the

arts, science,

or philosophy.

the achievements of certain individuals

To

not to explain them.

Newton and

Leibnitz

biographically but process.

did?

Why

We

made

is

is

say that they are

merely to locate them,

say that the calculus was invented

does not explain them as events in a culture

it

know

this too as well as

when and where what

they

particular person

the invention or discovery. Merely to say "the individual"

no answer

by

to identify these events historically or

did these events take place

wish to

To

to this question.

Nor

is

is

such a reply improved by limit-

ing the individuals to persons of exceptional native ability. There

were individuals of

Bronze Age and,

this category in

in

the Middle Ages and in the

the time of Newton, they were sprinkled

through the populations of Tibet, Bechuanaland, and the Andean Highlands. Why was not the calculus invented at other times and in other lands?

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND

An

169

invention, discovery, or other significant cultural advance

an event

in a culture process. It

is

a

new combination

of elements in the interactive stream of culture. It

is

or synthesis is

the out-

come of antecedent and concomitant cultural forces and elements. The Laws of Motion, formulated by Newton, were the synthesis of cultural elements historically identified with the persons of

Kepler, Brahe, Galileo, and others.

The

mulation took place where and when stances

of

culture

it

occurrence of their

for-

did because the circum-

growth and history brought together the

elements requisite to this synthesis at a particular time and place.

We

can trace the growth of these elements through time and

place.

Thus we

culturologically.

explain the occurrence of this significant event

And, moreover, we explain the behavior

of

New-

ton by showing that the formulation of these laws was the

We know we make in-

response of his organism to certain cultural stimuli. virtually

nothing about his nervous system

directly;

concerning it on the basis of the effect of cultural upon him. In short, we know his mentality only through culture. But Newton was also much concerned with theology

ferences stimuli his

and

Biblical interpretation,

that

he was born into

as well as a scientific

a

which again

is

explained by the fact

powerful theological "gravitational field"

one and that he

he did the other. In another age or devoted himself to such things

felt

the "pull" of the one as

culture,

designing

as

Newton would have

fish traps,

or the elaboration of a theory of totemism.

hepatoscopy,

But when

a certain

concatenation of cultural forces and elements occurs at a given

time and place they

will

become

synthesized in the neuro-sensory-

muscular-etc, system of one individual or another.

Nothing demonstrates more process and

its

clearly the nature of the culture

expression in significant episodes of cultural ad-

vance, and at the

same time the

an explanation of

this process,

irrelevance of the individual to

than the phenomena of multiple

and simultaneous, but independent, inventions and discoveries. Time after time, in the history of science, mathematics and tecb-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

170

nology, an important invention or discovery has been

anywhere from two pendently.*

To

to

explain

persons

ten

phenomena

of

this

sort

"coincidence," "fortuitous clusterings of genius,"

growing and converging

etc., as

William

is

lines

of cultural development reach a

certain point, fusion

and synthesis

advancing on a wide

front, these syntheses will find

will take place. If culture

vention or discovery

is

is

two or more

independent and approximately simultaneous expressions.

and

inde-

by invoking

empty and sterile. A culturological however, readily makes them intelligible: when

James and others have done, interpretation,

made by

simultaneously and

The

in-

explained therefore in terms of a growing

interactive culture process; the individual inventors or dis-

* The following instances of multiple, simultaneous but independent inF. Ogburn ventions or discoveries are taken from the list compiled by and published in his Social Change, pp. 90-102. Examples could be multiplied almost indefinitely. Theory of planetary perturbations: Lagrange, 1808; Laplace, 1808.

Wm.

Discovery of planet Neptune: Adams, 1845; Leverrier, 1845. Discovery of sun spots: Galileo, 1611; Fabricus, 1611; Scheiner, 1611; and Harriott, 1611.

measurement of parallax of star: Bessel, 1838; Struve, 1838; Hender1838. Introduction of decimal point: Biirgi, 1592; Pitiscus, 1608-12; Kepler, 1616; and Napier, 1616-17. Discovery of oxygen: Scheele, 1774; Priestley, 1774. The Periodic Law: De Chancourtois, 1864, Newlands, 1864; Lothar Meyer, 1864. Law of Periodicity: L. Meyer, 1869, Mendeleeff, i86g. Telescope: Lippershey, 1608; Delia Porta, 1558; Digges, 1571; Johannides, Metius, 1608; Drebbel, Fontana, Janssen, 1608; and Galileo, 1609. Law of Conservation of Energy: Mayer, 1843; Joule, 1847; Helmholz, 1847; Colding, 1847; and Thomson, 1847. First

son,

Telegraph: Henry, 1831; Morse, 1837; Cooke- Wheatstone, 1837; and Stein1837. Cellular basis of both animal and vegetable tissue: claimed by Schwann, Henle, Turpin, Dumortier, Purkinje, Muller, and Valentin, all at about the

heil,

same time: 1839. Solution Spallanzani,

of the problem

and Davy,

all in

of respiration:

by

Priestley,

Scheele,

Lavoisier,

1777.

Sulphuric ether as an anaesthetic: Long, 1842; Robinson, 1846; Listen, 1846; Morton, 1846; and Jackson, 1846. Self-exciting dynamo: claimed by Hjorth, 1866-67; Varley, 1866-67; Siemens, 1866-67; Wheatstone, 1866-67; Ladd, 1866; Wilde, 1863-67.

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND

171

and the

vehicles of expression of this

coverers are merely the loci process.

To

now

return

vidual

who

dictum that

to Sapir's

really thinks

and

acts

"it

always the indi-

is

and dreams and

it

inverts

If

it.

he had

said

it is

This

revolts."

human

statement does not merely distort the picture of

behavior;

always the individual that sleeps

and yawns and hears and breathes, we would

offer

no objection,

for these activities are functions of individual organisms; there

is

no communal or group mechanism of yawning or breathing. But to say

it is

ing, feeling

the individual

who

and acting

misleading to say the

premise that as

is

is

unwarranted.

does such things

An

as

human

least; it

think-

implies a

individual can independently

"^

an organism, yawn, sleep, and breathe.* But no one can think,

and

act

feel as a

human

being as an independent, autonomous

organism; he can do so only as a part of a sociocultural system.

A

question of technical terminology

argued that the words think,

feel,

is

involved here.

dream,

It

may be

are properly ap-

etc.,

,

^-^q

plicable to neuro-sensory-muscular-etcetera systems only. If this

ruling

be accepted, then

it

is

always the

But

it

was not to

true of course that

it is

individual organism that thinks, feels,

and

set forth this tautology that Sapir took

acts.

such pains and emphasis

of expression. It

was his purpose to present the individual as a

prime mover,

an initiator and determinant of a process.

it is

as

this proposition that

We

may indeed

we

And

reject.

and acting are / functions of individual biological organisms. There is no comsay

that

thinking,

feeling,

munal nervous system, no group brain, of course. But, human thinking, feeling, and acting cannot be accounted for in terms although functions of an individual and autonof course, by cultural forces. It is interesting to note that Sapir, who has insisted so vehemently upon the autonomy of the individual in thinking, feeling and acting, should have taken pains, in another connection, to point out that breathing may function within and be modified by a sociocultural process ("The Unconscious Patterning of Behavior in Society," in The Unconscious, E. S. Dummer, ed.. New York, 1927), *

Yawning, breathing,

etc.,

omous organism, may be modified,

pp. 117-18.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

172 of biological organisms,

by saying that the individual does these

things. Spitting, yawning, scratching, etc., are intelligible as functions of individual organisms.

But believing

in ghosts,

dreaming

of the Blessed Virgin, avoiding one's mother-in-law, scalping a vanquished foe, as events or processes, cannot be made mtelligible

merely by saying that

human

In

it

the individual

is

who

does these things.

and acting the individual is merely cultural elements. But we cannot explain

thinking, feeling,

responding to stimuli, to

the form and content of the response merely by citing the bioorganism that does the responding. Whether a person

logical

believes that a fever has of a taboo

is

a matter that

the individual organism

organism

been caused by bacteria or the violation is

who

not

made

intelligible

''always does"

by invoking

The

the believing.

the same in both cases.

is

Thus we

where we have designated

are left in the position

certain psycho-biological processes "thinking," "feeling," or "act-

but where

ing,"

we cannot

by considering them

who

individual

significance.

explain these processes at

as individual

phenomena.

"It

is

merely

all

always the

thinks, etc.," tells us, therefore, nothing of

What

does the individual think, and

why

any

does he

what we want to know, and the conception of the individual as a prime mover, as an initiator or determinant of the culture process, as one who "is responsible" think thus and so? This

is

for all culture change, etc., will not give us the answer.

contrary,

The

will effectively obscure or conceal

it

events or processes that

ing, feeling,

symbolic

and acting"

level,

we

a matter of fact, sociocultural processes.

tems.

We

and

they are on the human,

Note

that

They are, as we have said

and processes are functions of sociocultural

sys-

have not said that "thinking," "feeling," and "acting"

are sociocultural processes.

we

the

technically designate "think-

are, in so far as

functions of sociocultural systems.

that these events

On

it.

An

label an event "thinking"

event

we

to that kind of context only.

is

what

refer

it

it

is— an event.

When

to a neurologic context

But the very same event that

is

— CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND and thus

called "thinking" also

173

may

referred to a neurologic context

be referred to another context, a sociocultural context. Thus,

believing in witches or bacteria as the cause of an illness

an

is

event or process that can be referred to a psychologic context or to a culturologic context;

may be

it

considered as a function of a

nervous system or of a sociocultural system. But, although perfectly true that

a nervous system, as

an event,

it

is

we can have no belief in witches apart from we learn virtually nothing about such a belief

act, or process

from a consideration of

neurologic

its

aspect.

A

an event or process

belief in witches or bacteria as

is

to

be

explained in sociocultural terms rather than with neurologic con-

The

cepts.

believing

cultural stimulus.

not by

itself

but by

serves as stimulus

the response of a

is

But what the organism

is

its

culture.

And

human

organism to a

believes

is

determined

the cultural element that

not to be explained in terms of individual

neurologic processes but in terms of other cultural elements and processes.

Thus

to say that believing in witches or bacteria

something that an individual does

is

is

empty tautology

either an

"believing" being by definition an individual biological affair

or

it

implies a premise that

vidual

who

initiates

is

namely, that

false,

and determines the

nothing to do with the origin of the

belief.

belief;

tradition of his people before he was born. it; it

came

to

him from the

growth of antecedent ideas and the Old Stone Age.

The

A

outside.

it

it

individual

was

in the cultural

He

we can

belief in bacteria also

cultural elements, of concepts, microscopes, etc.

had

did not originate

belief in witches

beliefs that

the indi-

is

The

is

is

the out-

trace

back to

a synthesis of

Thus, the

specific

act or process of believing that witches or bacteria cause illness

has been determined not by an individual organism at a sociocultural system.

The

event

is

all

but by

something that the culture

has done to the individual rather than the other way around. it

If

be argued that some time, somewhere, there must have been a

single individual

who was

the

first

person in history to believe

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

174 that illness

caused by bacteria rather than by witches,

is

be pointed out that this event, too, that have

tural elements

cumambient

come

is

it

must

merely a synthesis of cul-

from

to the individual

his cir-

cultural tradition.

take this view of the relationship between the individual

To

and the culture process

not to regard the former,

is

The

as a purely passive thing.

as

an organism,

individual does not receive cultural

material from the outside in a purely passive way, like a cup into

which coffee

is

poured, nor does

perfect mirror does an image.

it

reflect

this material like a

The human organism

is

a

dynamic

system. It not only receives cultural elements from the outside, acts

upon them.

it

by virtue of the action of the neuro-sensory-

It is

upon cultural elements that they are made to act and react upon one another, to form new combinations and syntheses. We do not therefore minimize the dynamic

glandular-etcetera system

nature of the individual as an active as well as a reactive organism.

We

are merely saying that a consideration of the

dynamic

character of this organism does not help us to explain the form

and content of

reactions

its

and responses. The organism does the

reacting, of course. But, in

of

its

tural

reactions

is

human

behavior, the specific nature

determined not by the organism but by

Neither does our point of view regard

On

the contrary,

we

recognize

identical biologically. Since

expression

will

biological structure.

that

human

expression of the culture process, tural

cul-

elements serving as stimuli.

all

individuals as alike.

no two individuals are

organisms are the mediums of

it

follows that variations of cul-

be produced by

But not

all

variations

of

individual

variations of expression of the

culture process are due to individual biological variation by any

means. cultural

The

culture process

is

itself

elements— no two axes or

inherently variable.

fetiches,

two

no two expressions of

sentiment or attitude— are identically alike either. variation of expression

No

of the culture process

to variation of cultural stimuli. Furthermore,

is

it is

Some

of the

due therefore a striking

and

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND significant fact that, within a fairly

175

uniform cultural environment,

the most diverse physical types— the

tall and the short, fat and and energetic, endomorphs and ectomorphs, etc.— react in a highly uniform manner in such respects as language and

thin, lazy

dialect, attitudes, beliefs,

food habits,

rituals of social intercourse,

and so on. Thus a consideration of individual tion only serves to

make

clearer

of the cultural factor in the determination of

The

the

behavior.

and

The

government.

government

want

expression in one of our theories of

full

premise of democracy as a theory of

basic

that the people rule.

is

certain things

and consider and polls.

as a prime mover, as a First and determinant of the sociocultural

initiator

process, finds free

the

human

conception of the individual

Cause, as

viduals

biological varia-

and more emphatic the dominance

finally

The men put

That

and oppose

make

others; they reflect,

by

weigh

which they express at

a decision

into office

the citizenry as indi-

is,

this process,

having received

the mandates of the electorate, set about to do the people's

Thus, we have, according to

from lowliest individual

this view, a cause

and

effect

citizen to the highest executive. It

who

is

will.

sequence

always the

votes, etc., to paraphrase Sapir.

This picture of the

political

process

is

distortion as

a gross

was the general proposition about the individual always thinking, acting, and revolting. The theory of democracy as outlined above is

a fiction,

an

illusion.

And, of course,

pocentric premise that

be

this or that,

A by its

and

it is

democratic nation

it

is

it is

man who,

based upon the anthro-

like

God,

is

a social organism. Its life

mechanism of integration and control that formal aspects and the "political machine" in a

tionalized

or at least

says let there

done.

extra-legal

aspect.

its

is

relations with other nations.

regulated

non-institu-

This mechanism co-

ordinates the various segments and processes of the

and negotiates

is

the State in

is

The

life

body

politic,

of the nation

thus regulated and controlled by a relatively small segment.

The

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

176 electorate

is

permitted to say "yes" or "no" with reference to a

number

of candidates

and

whom,

of

whom

they have had no hand in choosing,

most

for the

part, they

The

have never heard.

"choices" of the voters are and can be httle

if

anything more than

responses to outside cultural stimulation— i.e., campaign propa-

ganda and "news" selected and disseminated by agencies over. which "the people" have no control. To be sure, it is always the individual who drops his pasteboard in the ballot box or pulls the lever on the voting machine. But what can he do but respond

upon him from the

to sociocultural influences that play

The

picture of free will and choice

political

magnetic

fields,

the sociocultural forces vary and fluctu-

drawing a preponderance of voter iron

pole or another, or leaving of equal intensity. It voting, like thinking,

is

political

filings

toward one

them evenly divided between

"always the individual

is

organism. But one can

vidual.

outside?

an illusion.* Certain regions

go Democratic or Republican. In other regions, other

always

ate,

is

who

currents

votes" because

by definition a function of an individual

come

no adequate understanding

to

of the

governmental process by a consideration of the indi-

We can, however, illuminate the behavior of the individual

by interpreting

it

as

an event

a sociocultural process. The.-

in

voter reacts, responds to cultural stimuli

way

or that; he does not rule.

the

nation

mechanism

by the is

relatively

facilitated,

The

which move him

this

administration and control of

small

integrative

and regulative

however, by the popular illusion that the

* Any response of the human organism is the resultant of countless antecedent and concomitant events that we may term "causes." The human organism is constantly organizing and synthesizing these causative factors on the one hand, and expressing the resultant behavior overtly on the other. When causative factors for and against a given course of action are evenly

balanced, we call this "indecision": "I can't make up my mind whether to play golf or to mow the lawn." When one set of causative factors outweighs another, we call it "choice" or "decision": I decide to play golf. "Free will and choice" is merely the way in which we experience tliis preponderance of

one

factor or set of factors over another.

we can and Free WilL experience

belieye that

it

is

our

Not realizing what lies back own doing and hence call it

of this

choice

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND people

As long

rule.

governing,

i.e.,

as the electorate believes that

it

does the

members are unaware of the genesis impinge upon them individually from

long as

as

177

its

of the social forces that

the outside, just so long will the actual governing mechanism

have a freer hand. And,

democracy

illusion of

also

if

misfortune overtakes the nation, the

blame upon the people, which

lays the

is

an advantage to the actual governing mechanism.

To

say,

however,

that

anthropocentric illusion

premise

this

of

democracy

is

an

not to deny significance to the electoral

is

process by any means. Illusions are as real as anything else and

may be

quite as significant. Voting

certain types of social organisms

Nations

like

individuals

necessity of choosing

forces relevant to

a process

(nations)

occasionally

between

by means of which

conduct their

lives.

confronted with the

alternatives;

shall

follow this

it

means of measuring the factors or the choice between alternative courses of action.

course or that? Voting

The

are

is

role of voting in the

is

a

democratic body politic might be likened

to the determination of a choice in an individual: shall he eat or

sleep or follow some other course of action? A wise choice would depend upon an assessment of the needs and resources of the individual. So it is with nations: should a nation do this or that?

A wise

choice will depend upon a

and force of the various

realistic appraisal of

factors involved.

The

can be an attempt to weigh and to measure these election may serve merely to measure the

exerted by the government by citizenry of the nation. In

means

preponderance of one given situation.

A

of these factors.

make

tie It

A

factors.

Or, an

effect of the influence

of propaganda

any event, an election

device, a yardstick or barometer.

the weight

electoral process

is

a

upon the measuring

majority vote indicates the

factor, or set of factors, over

another in a

vote indicates an equivalence of magnitude

goes without saying that a nation that can

these measurements only at fixed times and intervals

unable to derive

be unable

to

full

make

a measurement, take a reading, at a

is

may time when

advantage from the electoral process.

It

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

178

one

urgently needed.

is

And on

the other hand,

it

may be

quired to go through the cumbersome and expensive taking a reading— holding a national election— when

re-

ritual

of

none

is

needed.

democracies work under the illusion that the people rule,

If

the "dictatorship of the proletariat" illusion,

is

probably an even greater

assuming of course that a considerable number of people

do actually take

formula at

this

face value.

its

A

dictatorship

is

more highly integrated form of government than a democracy and consequently the political mechanism of integration and a

control

segment of the

a smaller

is

organism than

social

is

the

corresponding mechanism in a democracy. Hence, "the people"

do even

less ruling in a dictatorship

torship

without disguise

than in a democracy.

may however be more

A

dicta-

responsive to

popular will than the de hcto governing mechanism in a democracy,

because in the former case, the dictator will obviously be

held responsible for errors or shortcomings of the government;

but

if

them

"the people rule" responsibility must rest ultimately upon rather than

upon the

"the people"

—a

rule;

not

"chosen people."

years has

shown how

of the proletariat"

is

mechanism. But a

actual governing

"dictatorship of the proletariat"

is

a delusion.

It,

too, declares that

the people, but only a particular class

all

The

course of social evolution in recent

unrealistic this slogan

both a

logical

and a

is.

"The

dictatorship

sociological contradic-

tion of terms.

"It

is

always the individual

to explain

profound

Revolutionist lutionist?

is

is

a psycho-biological

futile.

by

its

(Sapir).

But

change by pointing to a

What

as well "explain" a

the puff of smoke issuing from vulsions were caused

really revolts"

political or social

as naive as it

One might

who

muzzle.

revolutionists,

produced the Revo-

shotgun by pointing to

and

If great if

social

con-

a revolutionist

phenomenon, then we ought

to find

is

them

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND

179

distributed uniformly throughout the

human

species in time

and

place like other biological events such as the birth of twins.

we do no

not; there are great areas

revolutionists appear at

But and long periods of time when

all.

In cultures that have attained a high degree of integration

a stable equilibrium such as those of find

no reformers or

revolutionists at

many

we

primitive peoples,

People are

all.

and

satisfied

desire only to continue life undisturbed. In cultures

and

which con-

we find reThe human organisms

tain disharmonious or conflicting elements, however,

formers, revolutionists and reactionaries. are the

same

in

an inborn desire

both

cases.

for radical

from the soap-box.

A

Revolutions are not the product of

change expressed in

revolutionist

a

is

fiery

declamations

human organism

that

is

held and wielded by certain cultural elements and forces that are

moving

in the direction of

profound change. Arkwright, Newton,

Darwin, Jefferson, Lobachewsky, Lenin, Watt, were revolutionists as

well as those nameless

biological

media

lurgy, writing,

men and women who

served as the

for such cultural advances as agriculture, metal-

and coinage. By the same token, a reactionary

is

a

person held firmly in the "magnetic field" of cultural elements

about to be vanquished or rendered obsolete

And

interaction of the culture process. is

one who

feels

in the competitive

the reformer or "Liberal"

the pull of both sets of forces, those striving to

preserve the obsolete, and those struggling to destroy the old in order to create the new.

They

deplore the

tem and urge reforms. But, held

fast

evils of

by both

the old

sets

sys-

of forces,

they can neither relinquish the past nor give themselves up to

They wish to keep the old system but without its inherent defects. They desire the new but without the trauma of birth. They lie becalmed midway between the poles of the magnet. They have neither a positive nor a negative revolutionary advance.

charge; they are the

One might

human

neutrons of the culture process.

think that in dreaming,

if

anywhere, one might find

— THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

180

an activity that "the individual always really does" in the Sapirean manner. Here as in thinking, dreaming is a word that labels a neuro-sensory-glandular-etcetera process; there

is

no group mechan-

ism that dreams. But what the individual dreams is determined in part by his culture— and to a greater extent than is commonly supposed. As the scientific interpretation of dreams matures,

and more

determinants

cultural

from forms of

are disclosed:

social organization, the family

rivalries in quests of

recognition and power,

and kinship groups,

etc., all

of

which are

cultural system to another.

defined and vary from one

culturally

more

tensions arising

cultures visions become standardized. Among Plains North America the vision by means of which a youth acquired "power" was a stereotype: a spirit would appear to the youth, address him as "son," tell him that he had heard his pleas

In

some

tribes of

for help, that spirit

Then

the

do something— to hunt,

kill

he was going to adopt and aid him,

would give the youth power

to

in battle, control weather, or heal the

enemies

show him how

in a song,

to paint his face

etc.

sick— instruct him

and how

to

make and

use a medicine-bundle, impose a taboo upon him, and depart. Similarly saints

and mystics of Europe used to have stereotyped

dreams or visions of Christ or the Blessed Virgin. As Tylor once remarked, "The South African

who

believes in a

God

with a

crooked leg sees him with a crooked leg in dreams and visions."

There

indeed very

is

vision experience.

little

much of our dream and Tylor: "Want of originality

individuality in

Again to quote

seems one of the most remarkable features in the visions of mystics

become

.

.

.

When

a fixed

image

tradition], of course

shape."

^®

It

is

the devil with horns, hoofs and in the popular

men saw him

mind

[i.e.,

tail

had once

in the cultural

[in visions] in this

conventional

always the individual that does the dreaming

which merely defines the word

in neurologic terms.

culture that gives the

dream much of

well as providing the

initial

its

stimulus in

But

the

it is

form and content

many

instances.

as

The

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND event or process that

we

label

181

"dreaming"

is,

like the events called

"thinking," "feeling," and "acting," a function of a system in

which the individual

but a component part: a sociocultural

is

system.

Thus, the whole concept of the individual, the individual organism, is profoundly altered by culturological inter-

'

human

pretation. Instead of regarding the individual as a First Cause, as a

prime mover,

is

responsible for

him

as a

as the initiator

and determinant of the culture acts of mind,* as one who

one who creates culture by

process, as

all

component

additions to culture, part,

and

a tiny

and

etc.,

etc.,

we now

part at that, of a vast sociocultural system that embraces

numerable individuals

We see culture as

remote past

as well.

elements— of language,

toms, and attitudes— that flows

utensils,

down through

beliefs,

man

at

cus-

time. Culture was

man—by

countless

could not continue without them. But,

not need to consider

—in an

a vast continuum, a stream

tools,

of course brought into existence by it

in-

any one time and extends back into the

at

of cultural

individuals— and

see

relatively insignificant

human we do

all— as a species, race or individual

explanation of culture change. For purposes of scientific

interpretation, the culture process generis; culture

is

may be

sociocultural system,

and from the standpoint of an

tion of this system, the individual

makes the

regarded as a thing sui

explainable in terms of culture. In this great

is

interpreta-

(i) a catalytic agent that

interactive culture process possible,

and (2)

a

medium

of expression of the culture process.

* In a recent publication

in an Indian's

mind the

we

find a fine

idea of a dance

.

example of this: "There is present This idea influences his body .

.

The result of this behavioral activity is ." (W. W. Taylor, A Study oi Archeology, of the dance American Anthropological Association, 1948), pp. 101-102. The

so that he behaves in a certain vvav.

the pattern

Memoir

69, that culture consists

.

.

view of "ideas American ethnology today.

in

the

mind"

is

still

widely held in

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

182

The

conception of the individual does not and

cultiirological

cannot deprive psychology of anything that properly belongs to dynamic, active it. The individual, as a biological organism, is a

and This

and may be studied and interpreted

reactive system

as such.

the business of the neuro-anatomist, the physiologist, the

is

psychologist, etc., not of the student of culture.

language

may be

turologically, in

The

fact that

interpreted philologically, or culture treated cul-

no way prevents one from interpreting biological

organisms psychologically.

The

question at issue

of course,

is,

how

preted, psychologically or culturologically? individual as the creator offers a

t}'pe

is

be

culture to

The

inter-

conception of the

and determinant of the culture process

of interpretation that

we

find unacceptable. It

is

anthropomorphic as well as irrelevantly psychologic. It

is

not, however, as

Copernicus;

we

we were

if

deploring a Ptolemy before

deploring a continuation of the

are, so to speak,

Ptolemaic tradition generations after Copernicus. the articulation of the individual ture process was

best an

of the individual

of thought,

is

Polish sociologist,

man

is

is

who

he cannot think ought

later analysis

from

else

the supposition that thinks but his social

it."

^'^

the

error of

thinks

community

his brain necessitate."

his co-workers, too, is

man

And .

.

.

.

.

.

than what the influences of his social

environment concentrating upon

one hand, culture

The thought

Gumplowicz, argued that "the great

himself

Durkheim and

his nature realized.

the primary result and the thought

is

won by

individualistic psychology

not

the cul-

said that the individual "is nothing, at

of society, social thought,

is

human organism with

only through spoken intercourse in society does he

become conscious

it

nature of

recognized and pointed out decades ago by

Adolph Bastian when he idiot;

The

showed

clearly

^*

Emile

how, on the

an extra-somatic tradition that can be ex-

own interactive elements and processes and how. on the other hand, the individual organism is influenced. plained in terms of

its

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND

183

form and content, by the action of the external culture upon him. And, in more recent times in America, the his behavior given

work of Wissler, Kroeber, Lowie, and others has continued the tradition of a culturological interpretation of culture. dies hard. The death is especially slow when anthropomorphism is mistaken for the soundest realism, as it is by those who actually see people, individual men and women, voting, enameling their fingernails, building ships,

But anthropomorphism

and

difficult

inventing machines, writing sonnets, composing symphonies, etc.

"Where

else,"

they ask, "could

new

come from

cultural elements

but from the creative act of some individual human

mind— from

a man, woman, or child?"

A

culturological conception of the individual

logical interpretation of

is

mind, of human minding.

the use of the words mind, thinking, feeling, tional psychological sense: that

is,

also a culturo-

We

still

retain

etc., in their tradi-

they designate biologic— neuro-

sensory-glandular-etcetera— processes. But

we

we canhuman thinking and feeling in terms of individual organisms. The individual does the thinking and feeling— by definition. But, as we not by any means give a

full

account of these acts of

have previously noted, what he thinks and

by himself but by the

realize that

feels

sociocultural system into

of birth has placed him.

A

is

determined not

which the accident

sociocultural system

is

a vast network

of relations, of interactions of concept, tools, customs, beliefs, etc.

Thus, a belief

is an organization of beliefs and grown up in conjunction with activities of medicine, offense and defense, and subsistence, carried on by means of certain technologic tools and implements. The beliefs and attitudes of witchcraft find expression in turn in certain

in

witchcraft

attitudes that has

and paraphernalia. The culture complex called ''witchcraft" is therefore something that is to be explained culturologically. It is found in some cultures but not in others. When it rituals

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

184

from one culture to another. The culture complex has to be explained, therefore, in terms of cultural elements and exists, it varies

cultural processes.

born into a sociocultural system that contains the complex called witchcmft, will behave in a certain way; he

An

will

He

individual,

think, feel,

and act

as

culture directs

his

will suspect certain persons of

will take certain precautions to safeguard

he

will

and

prescribes.

the black art and fear them; he himself from them; and

occupy himself with the detection, punishment or eradica-

tion of witches,

all

in a

manner

meaning could be attached individual

who

prescribed

by

his culture.

to the assertion that "it

is

What

always the

and contends with, witches?"

believes in, fears,

Simply that the individual organism responds to certain cultural elements as external stimuli. But of his believing, fearing,

we

are able to give an account

and contending, not by a consideration

of the individual but of the organization of cultural elements, the

system, that determines his believing, fearing, etc.

cultural

would be more

realistic to say that his

It

thinking and feeling are

things that the culture does to the individual than to say that

they are things that he does.

and behaving

as a

human

The

being

individual's thinking, feeling,

is

merely his participation in a

sociocultural process. His thinking, feeling

and overt behavior are

expressions of a system of culture, of a cultural process, through

medium of his organism. And so it is with the human mind

the

as a

whole. Minding

is

merely the individual biologic aspect of a sociocultural process.

The minding in its form and content The individual mind is a function embraces

it.

What

are determined not culture.

The

is

determined by the culture.

of the cultural system that

it does, what it believes, thinks and feels, by the individual but by the circumambient

individual

human mind

can be

only by a consideration of the culture of which

made it is

intelligible

but a

reflex.

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND

185

But we cannot explain the culture in terms of the individual mind; cultural systems can only be explained in cultural terms.

The problem of distinguishing determinants that confronts the human behavior is paralleled by a like problem in

student of

biology: does the determination of a multi-cellular system

the individual

or

cells,

is

the behavior of the individual

Many

function of the organism, or system, as a whole?

argue that the system individual

is

just as

cell,

lie

cell

students of

that society and culture are determined

by

ander B. Novicoff quotes L. V. Heilbrun,

human

An

in the

behavior

individuals.

a

biologists

determined by properties inherent

many

in

insist

Thus, Alex-

Outline oi General

Physiology, pp. 3-4 (Philadelphia, 1943), to the effect that "the

ultimate mechanism responsible for any form of vital activity lies

inherent in an individual cell" (emphasis ours). But Novicoff,

work of Coghill, Lashley, Goldstein and others, argues that the behavior of the cell is determined by its position within the system. Thus, "if ectoderm cells which normally form belly

citing the

skin were

removed from

mouth

over the

into salamander structures— of the

and not

belly skin."

Similarly,

during

mouth; they would form teeth

^®

would not everyone admit that

its first

year of

life

And would

not

a

baby transplanted

a Swedish family and community would learn Chinese rather than

from

to a Chinese cultural milieu

Swedish?

embryo and transplanted

a salamander

organizer of a frog embryo, they would develop

this

baby acquire

his other patterns of

behavior, sentiments, and attitudes from the sociocultural system to which he

had been transplanted? What, indeed, could be

plainer than the fact that the individual in his behavior as a hu-

man

from mere primate or animal,

being, as distinguished

function of the sociocultural system of which he

is

a part?

is

a

*

As we have already indicated by quotations from Bastian and * "Before Clerk Maxwell," Einstein writes, "people conceived of physical After Maxwell they conceived physical ... as material points.

reality

reality as represented

.

.

.

by continuous

fields

.

.

."

(1934, p- 65). Before, or

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

186

Gumplowicz, many

scholars

of a generation

or so ago clearly

human

understood the relationship between the individual

ism and culture. They realized

—the minding

of

full

an individual organism— was

Some

sociocultural system.

is

it

Gumplowicz,

not the individual

thinks, feels, etc., but his society or culture. Others, like

heim, spoke of a

''collective consciousness."

"group mind" emerged and

a

criticized

who

free themselves

could not under-

stand cultural systems and their role as determinants of

no

they asked, can society think,

collective sensorium,

and

a

no group

brain.

mind" school meant, of of an individual's mind ganisms."

they

who

What

is

said,

inappropriate to

form and content

determined by his culture, that

through the media of individual however, was

is

profound insight

those of the "group

course, was that "the

themselves

What

but the group

a

human there

term— "group mind"— was used

designate a culturological process.

express

feel, etc.;

understanding were defeated by

realistic

terminology: a psychological

tures

Thus,

of

This concept was

and rejected by those who could not

How,

who

Durk-

Thus the concept

crystallized.

from an anthropocentric point of view, and behavior.

mind

a function of a

of them, therefore, like

expressed this fact by saying that

organ-

well that the individual

"it is

culor-

not the individual

thinks." This was rejected not only as false

psychologically but as mystical as well.

Another defect of the "group mind"

theorists

was that they

did not properly locate and define the supra-individual deteroutside of, the science of culture,

we may

cultural reality as a series of material points,

say, students i.e.,

conceive of

human

individuals. After, or within,

the science of culture, human reality is seen to consist of a network of sociocultural relations, with the individual a function of the system as a whole. Karl Marx saw this clearly over a hundred years ago when he wrote, in the

"The essence of man is no abstraction inherent each separate individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of social lehtions" (emphasis ours). As the science of culture grows and extends its influence among students of human behavior, this view, this understanding, will become Sixth Thesis on Feuerbach: in

commonplace.

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND minant

They

of minding.

located

187

Group and

in the group.

it

in-

dividual are of course complementary terms; one can be interpreted

A

in terms of the other.

to a

number

group mind could therefore be reduced

minds and, by so doing, the force and

of individual

mind" concept would be

significance of "the group

The "group mind" that

school was perfectly sound in

not the individual

it is

lost.

who

its

assertion

determines the form and content

of his minding. But, lacking the concept of culture, they erred in Jocating the supra-individual determinant in the group. It

the group, but culture that

is

culture cannot be explained

groups— their

contrary,

in

structures

terms of individuals.

minds are wrong today to

culture just as individual it

thinks as

it

was formerly to say that

Thinking

is

the

the advance

as

name made in

havior by the "group error

saw

was not

On

the

form and content.

in their

say that it is

it

culture that

is

the group that thinks.

of a neurologic process and

none

the scientific interpretation of

mind" school was

in going too far

clearly the

not

and processes— are functions of

Technically

is

is

the determinant. And, unlike group,

but

in

real

other.

But

human

be-

and important. Their

not going

far

enough. They

inadequacy of an individual psychological

pretation.

But science had not advanced

to elevate

them above the

enough

far

inter-

at that

time

sociological level to that of culturology.

Today, thanks to the expansion of the scope of science, we have the concept of culture.

We appreciate

culture as an

autonomous process

interpretation.

We

the necessity of regarding

for the

purpose of

realize that cultural systems

scientific

can be explained

And we underhuman organism— either as a

only in terms of culturological principles and laws. stand the relationship between the

species, race, or individual— and culture. In

standing,

the

interpretation

old-fashioned of

culture

as

"is

this

under-

anthropomorphic

something that

"creative acts of the individual mind," that

who

view of

psychologistic,

it

is is

produced

by

the individual

always responsible for additions to culture," that "it

is

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

188 always the individual

who

really thinks

and

acts," etc.,

is

definitely

We

more than suspect out of place in modern ethnological theory. that this emphasis upon individualism has been outgrown in psychology, that social psychology of the present day would regard this

conception of the individual as a creator of culture as being

as unrealistic as

today

we

do. Its perpetuation in anthropological circles

therefore to be deplored

is

all

the more.

between

If a growing understanding of the relationship

man

and culture means, on the one hand, a decline of the anthropocentric view of man as the creator of culture, it fosters, on the other hand, an appreciation of the role of culture in the minding

man. The human mind is no longer merely an individual biophenomenon. Nor is a "group mind" a proper definition of the situation. It is a question of individual organism on the one hand and an extra-somatic cultural tradition or system on of

logical

the other. Whereas in the case of the lower animals, or in the non-symbolic,

non-human behavior

vidual biological organism

is

human

individual's behavior, in the case of

man mind,

Homo

of

the organism as such

is

sapiens, the indi-

determinant of the

significant as a

behavior, of the hu-

not significant;

it

is

not

stature, skin color, cephalic index, cortical activity, or glandular

secretion that determines

whether

a

person will speak Chinese,

believe in witches, have an aversion for milk, or regard cows as sacred.

These things are determined by one's human mind, therefore, calls

standing of the

culture. for

An

under-

an appreciation

of the role of cultural factors as determinants of thinking, feel-

ing and acting.

The mind

stand the

of the individual— the average, typical,

own culture has made mind one must understand culture as

normal individual— is

as its

it.

To

well;

under-

human

"mental processes" are but the psychosomatic form of expression of an extra-somatic culture process.

ing

be

must therefore be sure,

factor

within a single and

may be

The

student of

human mindTo

culturologist as well as psychologist. fairly

uniform culture, the cultural

regarded as approximately a constant. But, even

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND here,

it

would be

well, first of

and, secondly, to realize that

and just

that, as

all,

it is

189 to

be aware of

this constant,

cultural in nature

and

genesis,

from the standpoint of the individual organism,

external

and foreign to

processes of meteorology.

it

as

are

the

elements

it

is

and

CHAPTER EIGHT GENIUS:

ITS

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

"Geniuses are the indicators of the realization of coherent pattern ." A. L. Kroeber, Configurations of Culgrowths of cultural value .

—

.

Growth.

ture

1 he

many

so

been discussed

significance of the genius in history has

times in the

last seventy-five years

that

one should

not go over the vi'ell-trodden ground again without a special warrant for doing

so.

The

expansion of the scope of science in

and the recent development of the science of culture and offered as our excuse for embark-

general

in particular are here cited

ing once again

upon

Briefly stated, the historical events to

great

men

this perennial debate.

problem

this: are

is

be explained

men

social

and

of genius, or are

explainable in terms of social processes and historical

trends? Or, do both, the great

man and

bine to produce the event or trend, and

Most

epoch-making

in terms of

those

of

championed

who have

either the great

so in

if

wrestled with

man

com-

his social matrix,

what proportions? problem have

this

or society as the motive force,

as the cause, the other being regarded as the effect;

few have been

willing to give equal, or even approximately equal, weight to each factor.

Let

it

be

said at

once that

we have no

"impartial" and of taking the latter course.

the great

man

is

intention of being

We are convinced

that

best understood as an effect or manifestation

rather than as a prime mover.

technique for demonstrating

And we

this,

190

believe

we have

or at least a refinement

a

new upon

GENIUS:

ITS

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

191

techniques employed for this purpose in the past. But before introduce our technique,

let

we

us turn briefly to the history of this

problem. of course, long been the fashion to interpret great events

It has,

as the

work

of great

have boasted that,

men. From the time of the Pharaohs, rulers and accomplishments, and before

of their deeds

no doubt,

tribal chieftains

made

similar claims. Bards

troubadors once sang of the exploits of heroes, and

have tended to write in the same vein: History

historians

record of the deeds of Great

from the

Men, good and

bad.

political events of history to great

When we

works of

and

modern

art,

is

a

turn

new

philosophies or religions, significant discoveries in science, and

epoch-making inventions, we find the same type of interpretation: these advances and achievements are the work of geniuses, of like

men

Michelangelo, Kant, Beethoven, Newton, and Edison.

In 1869 a distinguished British F.R.S., gave formal

man

of science, Francis Gal ton,

and authoritative expression to the Great

Man

theory in his Hereditary Genius. Great events and great periods

he argued, are due

in history,

period, the

genius will

and

may

to

men

despite any opposition or handicap that social conditions

felt

place in his way. Galton compares the United States with

England rigid in

to demonstrate this point.

America, he reasons, and

England. Yet, he

says,

there are

present

it

will assert itself

Galton carried

and

his reasoning

therefore easier for

social

on the

contrary, there are

we may assume find expression still

one to

status there than in

no more men of genius per

million in America than in England;

Therefore, he concludes,

Class distinctions are less

it is

overcome the disadvantages of low

less.

of genius; the greater the

more numerous the men of genius. A man of true assuredly come to the fore and make himself known

that

if

genius

is

and recognition.^

further. Since the correlation

ability and fame is so close, we can evaluate and by counting the men of genius per thousand or million. Proceeding on this basis, Galton finds that the Athenians

between inborn

compare

races

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

192

of the time of Pericles were two grades higher than the Enghsh,

who in turn were two grades higher than the African Negro.^ The scientific prestige of Galton and the scholarly character of his work did much no doubt to confirm many in their belief not only that civilization has been the work of geniuses but that cermore richly endowed than others. In short, Galton

tain races are

provided a simple, scholarly, "scientific"— it was supported with

with which one could explain

statistics!— and authoritative theory

the histories of nations and the development of civilization.

One

of the

first

modern

of

scholars to challenge the Great

theory was Herbert Spencer. In

portant social events by invoking genius or Great

the Great

Man

make

can

Man

of Sociology (1873)

argument against the interpretation of im-

a cogent

he offered

The Study

society,

he

Men. Before must make

insisted, society

him. Not only does Spencer indicate the nature and extent of society's

influence

brands the Great popular alike

in

upon every

Man

among

individual,

great

and

he

small,

theory as a form of anthropomorphism

savage tribes and civilized societies.^

William James took sharp and and vigorous issue with Spencer an address, "Great Men, Great Thoughts and the Environ-

ment," published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1880. Great events

and epochs

of Great Men, he insists. A may be produced by a single, or at most But for a great epoch many are required. "For

in history are the

work

single important event

a few, geniuses. a

community

life,"

he

says,

to get vibrating through

"many

geniuses

cession are required. This

coming together and

why

is

and through with

great epochs are so rare— why

the sudden bloom of a Greece, an early

Rome,

such a mystery. Blow must follow blow so occur in the intervals. descent,

Then

its

a Renaissance,

fast that

no cooling can

internal

inertia

movement have

long after

passed away.

often hear surprise expressed that in these high tides of affairs

is

the mass of the nation grows incan-

and may continue to glow by pure

the originators of

active

in rapid suc-

not only the people should be

filled

We

human

with stronger

life.

GENIUS:

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

ITS

193

but that individual geniuses should seem so exceptionally abundant. This mystery is just about as deep as the time-honored

conundrum

why

by great towns." * James admits that the great man's environment may condition as to

great rivers flow

his behavior or affect the

consequences of his behavior, but he

denies emphatically that the social environment can produce him. "If anything

man's

humanly

is

certain,"

he

can remake

that the great

insists, "it is

society, properly so called, does

not make him before he

^

it."

This point of view so adroitly expressed by James widely held today. Every great event

one or

may

a

is

few outstanding individuals. The

rest in a single pair of

hands.

It

World War V-E day we have

person, and since

tried

for having

fined to the

Many

man

thing a few

and hanged a number is

this

view con-

even to statesmen in high places.

and men of science subscribe

scholars

whole nation

common

brought the war about. Nor

in the street or

of course,

had been caused by one

II

men

fate of a

was a

years ago to hear that

of

is,

regarded as the work of

to

it

also.

Thus

prominent American anthropologist, Edgar Lee Hewett, has

a

re-

cently attributed almost every great historical epoch, from Xerxes to

Hitler,

individual:

to

the genius, pathologic or otherwise, of a single

all

great "irruptions" of history have been "one

man

Hooton speaks of "men like Hitler and Mussolini [who] impose their evil will upon stupid and suggestible masses." Lawrence K. Frank says that "as long as we are at the affairs,"

he

says.

E. A.

mercy of the warped, distorted prestige

...

at

who seek power and we are helpless." The

personalities

whatever cost to others,

distinguished physicist, Robert A. Millikan, can see

which science can prevent the destruction of wickedness or

folly:

"I see

being able to turn some

no prospect," he

new

no way by

civilization says,

by man's

"of our ever

type of ray upon a dictator

filled

with lust of power and conquest and thus transform him into a humanitarian." In a different context, Goldenweiser says that history

"abounds in examples of periods of precipitated change

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

194

due

the emergence of

to

.

.

dominant

.

Franz

personalities."

Boas speaks of African "Negro rulers whose genius for organization has enabled

them

to establish flourishing empires." Clark Wissler

supposes that "long ago

.

.

there arose a genius for empire

.

building which set a pattern" that endured for thousands of years.

And Ralph vidual

Linton more conservatively admits that the "indi-

dominated and shaped by

is

not obliterated by

is

it.

Under

can even change and mold

environment but he

his social

favorable conditions," he says, "he

it." ®

A

man

great

could therefore

presumably work great change.

Thus we have two opposing

views.

On

the one hand, great

events or great epochs of history, important advances in philos-

ophy,

and

art,

science, are interpreted as the

ceptionally gifted persons.

genius

by

the other,

it

to advance reasons If,

argument,

we

and marshall evidence

we

therefore,

if

not produced

shall

in support of

are to extricate ourselves

ex-

argued that the

is

conditioned by his social environment

is

Both views seem plausible and tenable. Each side

it.

tion.

On

handiwork of

from

is

its

able posi-

this circular

have either to rephrase the problem or apply

new and better techniques

to

its

solution. Let us see

what can

be done. Galton and James make the interpretation of history seem simple and easy: Great events and epochs are the work of of genius; is

if

lacking.

an era

Why

is

uneventful or mediocre

it

is

men

because genius

has Sardinia fallen far below Sicily in greatness

and distinction when

"all

the material advantages are in favor

of Sardinia?" James asks. His ready answer: "Simply because individuals were born there with patriotism to inflame their

countrymen with national

a thirst for independent

But to

if

He

for?

ability

no

enough

pride, ambition,

and

^

great epochs are caused

be accounted

satisfying.

life."

and

by geniuses, how are geniuses

James' answer to this question

says in effect that

we cannot

is

hardly

explain their origin

and incidence. "The causes of production of great men," he

says.

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

GENIUS:

ITS

"lie in a

sphere wholly inaccessible to the social philosopher.

must simply accept geniuses spontaneous variations."

It

195

as data, just as

the "invisible

is

He

Darwin accepts his and unimaginable

play of forces of growth within the nervous system which, responsibly to the environment, to function in a certain way."

makes the brain

And,

ir-

peculiarly apt

an individual genius

just as

appears spontaneously, so do they cluster "fortuitously around a given epoch making

great" or they are "fortuitously absent

it

from certain places and times." This theory

an eminent

may seem

scientist

*

plausible, especially since

and philosopher. But and

their clustering

epochs are governed by the

historical

stars.

comes from

it

much

One might

the explanations astrology has to offer? birth of individual geniuses

is it

better than

say that the

about certain

James' theory

course superior to that of astrology both because

it is less

is

of

mystical

The astrologist really offers an explanation though a false one: human events are controlled by stars. But is James' answer, "chance," really an explanation? Or

and because

is

it

explains

a device to conceal

it

that there that the

The

less.

ignorance and helplessness, a declaration

and can be no better answer? Or

is

phenomena

scientist

is

in question are

not likely to be

indeed

satisfied

is

it

v^dth

it

statistically

and thus

James shows no interest

in

a

chance to

relate

statistical

phenomena; he is "an invisible and unimaginable play of

nature?

"chance" as an

answer to his queries— unless, of course, he can see deal with

an assertion

statistical in

how he

can

scientific law.

consideration of these

content to leave the matter on the basis of forces,"

and upon spon-

taneous and fortuitous events.*

Galton does not

tends to be hereditary, he reasons, *

A more

upon sheer chance. Genius and therefore when a genius

rely so squarely

recent writer resorts to the fortuitous appearance of genius to The Reverend H. Harrington, writing in the

explain great historic events.

Encyclopaedia Britannica ("Roman Catholic Church," 14th ed.), says that the Protestant revolt was "almost fortuitous. Genius defies all laws, and the greatest Protestant leader [Luther]

had genius."

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

196

because he has had exceptionally gifted forebears. Certain conditions cause an increase in the number or proportion of geniuses; others bring about a decrease. If Athens was once

appears

it

is

was because certain conditions brought it about; too, was due to certain if she fell from her former high state, that, circumstances. Galton thus does not content himself, as James rich in geniuses

it

does, with the assertion that presence or absence of genius at certain times

of the rise

and places

and

fall

is

purely fortuitous. But his explanation

of Athens in terms of racial ability

not very

is

convincing. As the distinguished sociologist, C. H. Cooley, pointed

out long ago in a well reasoned criticism of Galton, "both the rise and the decline of the race are ascribed to the same cause,

namely immigration. Certainly, then, some reason should be given for supposing that there was a radical change in the character of the immigration: but no such reason

With

persons and their environment, genius,

that

obstacles the

like

we have

already noted that Galton

murder, will

no matter what

out,

environment may oppose. James admits that

environment may insists,

affect a genius, that

it

may

is

true,"

public fermentations awaken and adopt torpid times

social

help or hinder him.

the significant factor in this environment

another genius or geniuses! "It

more

^

regard to the relationship between exceptionally gifted

believes

But, he

given."

is

he

writes,

many

would have had no chance

is

merely

"that great

geniuses, to work.

who

But

.

in .

.

must be an exceptional concourse of genius about a time make the fermentation begin at all." If, on the other hand, a

there to

social setting

is

not hospitable to a particular genius,

"some previous genius of a different munity away from the sphere of his Voltaire,

strain has

it is

because

warped the com-

possible effectiveness. After

no Peter the Hermit." Thus, according to James, the

thing that fosters or frustrates a

man

of genius

is

not simply an

environment, but another, or other, geniuses. Whether, therefore, genius finds expression and bears fruit or remains unrecognized

and unknown, the cause

is

always "genius."

We

thus have a

GENIUS:

ITS

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

197

ready and easy explanation of history and social movements: the

presence or absence of genius. But, unfortunately, says }ames,

we cannot

predict genius; that

a matter of the "invisible

is

and

The

unimaginable play of forces within the nervous system."

utmost that sociology can ever predict, he argues,

show the way,

genius of a certain sort

"

follow."

Science

not likely to be

is

if

a

be sure to

society will

satisfied

that

"is

with reasoning and

conclusions such as these.

We do not propose to go over the old vidual

indi-

conundrum about the egg or the chicken. Indeed, as we have seen,

vs. society; it is

the priority of the Great

much

argument of

familiar

Man

too

like the old

Society debate has been put in precisely this

vs.

man

form, with Spencer contending that before the great

can

must make him, whereas James insists that the genius must come first. Obviously, some men are distinguished markedly from others, and their lives and deeds are especially significant. Obvious also is the influence of society upon excepaffect society, society

tionally gifted persons.

comprise a whole.

If this

Society controversy that each factor is

to

this

is

we

a

were

made up

is

all

there

is

new

The growth and

But

it

society

this

upon

his effect

conditions the

What that he

is is

not

is

vs.

and say all

there

expansion of science has

science that has a great deal to say on this

life

man

society. Sociology

of the

of genius

shows

how

exceptionally gifted person.

Culturology explains both the great relationship

Man

at that

point, namely, culturology. Psychology presents the

and demonstrates

and parts

of parts,

to the Great

should have to leave

a function of the other.

problem.

brought forth

A whole

man and

society

and the

between them.

genius?

The

debate of decades has

made

it

quite clear

not identical with a neuro-sensory-glandular-etc. system

of exceptionally high quality.

On

the one hand,

we do

not

know

that every outstanding individual possesses an exceptionally fine neuro-sensory-glandular-etc. system.

On

the other hand,

we do

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

198

not

that undistinguished persons have only mediocre or

know

We

inferior systems.

are not warranted, therefore, in equating

"genius" with "superior organism": the person of distinction, while

Nor may we

superior organism. in

G

O

which

a superior organism, S, the social environment,

is

the resulting genius, because, as

both that

O

G = O, in which G represents O stands for his biologically use the equation O X S = G,

a function of

is

must write our equation

we have

S and that S

thus:

O

R

X

seen,

is

it

a function of

= G.

Here

and

can be argued

O

O.

We

will stand

merely for an individual biological organism, not necessarily one of superior quality,

G

for genius,

and

R

for a factor

which we

have yet to define.

How do we can

recognize a genius?

we know

But is

is

his deeds, of course.

he has an exceptionally

that

glandular-etc. system? to say this

By

By

his

But how

neuro-sensory-

deeds, say Galton, James, et

al.

to admit that his innate biological superiority

merely an inference based upon observation of his overt be-

havior,

and

also to

insist

that the exceptional features of this

behavior cannot be explained in any other

them

nerves, glands, senses, etc., or

rule out

all

way than by

by

direct examination of his

by psychological

is

not to

as another, or that

from a sow's insist

beings.

would

then the case of the champions of genius as prime

movers would receive substantial support. But

not

tests that

factors not genetically acquired, instead of postulating

inferentially,

done. This

attributing

one could demonstrate the

to superior brains, glands, etc. If

biological superiority of the genius

it

fine

say, of course, that

it

impossible to

is

tell

the sciences of

ear. All of

this has

one organism

never been is

as

man

will freely grant, if

human

upon, the biological inequality of individual

Nor would anyone,

I

suppose, maintain that one cannot

distinguish an idiot or imbecile from

by observations of of instances.

But

their

this

is

good

a biological silk purse

behavior— at

a far cry

one of superior intelligence least in a

high percentage

from the assertion that

plays a distinguished role in social life

if

a

man

he must have superior

GENIUS:

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

ITS

germ plasm whereas

if

he

mediocre or inferior plasm.

199

undistinguished

is

We

he must have

are not content to derive our

biology by inference, and, secondly,

we

can explain distinction

iix

other terms than superior nerves and glands.

But

to invoke "society" as Spencer

and countless others since

1872 have done to account for distinction is

is

but an organization of individuals, and so

affecting another, the ordinary

man

not enough. Society

we have one

person

jostling his brother while the

genius fosters or discourages genius, as James has argued. Society

and individual are simply two

aspects, opposite

but inseparable

same phenomenon; we can "explain" each one in the other. Thus we go around in circles, chasing our tails,

poles, of the

terms of

getting nowhere.

The

science of culture liberates us from this dilemma. It provides

we can explain both human beings, both

us with techniques with which individual.

and

The

collectively,

behavior of is

a

on the other:

biological factor,

and

determined by their biological make-up on the

one hand, and by culture,

society

individually

C

body of extra-somatic phenomena

O

X

C

>B, in

which

O

called

stands for the

for the extra-somatic, supra-biological factor

of culture, and B, the resultant behavior.*

Individual

and

human

beings differ biologically from one another

differences in their behavior

part to their anatomical

and

may

legitimately

be ascribed in

physiological differences.

Human

beings vary as groups, too; one race, stock, or physical type,

may

be distinguished from another. But, so far as we know, none of the differences of behavior between peoples— races, tribes, nations

—can be attributed to their biological differences. The biological factor may conceivably contribute something to the variation of

—

* Both organism and culture and consequently the behavior resulting from are of course affected by the natural enthe interaction of these two factors vironment. But in the problem which confronts us now we are concerned only with the relationship between man and culture. The environmental factor may therefore legitimately be considered a constant and as such be omitted

from our consideration.

—

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

200 behavior, but this contribution

is

so small in

comparison with the

influence of the cultural factor that it may be regarded as negligible. In short, the differences of behavior from one people to

another are culturally, not biologically, determined. In a consideration of behavioral differences among peoples therefore we may regard the biological factor as a constant and hence eliminate

from our

We

calculations.

it

may, then, rewrite our formula for the

behavior of any people with reference to the behavior of others >B, culture produces, or determines, behavior; as follows:

C

the behavior of a

B

= f{C):

behavior

people is

determined by

is

its

Or,

culture.

a function of culture. Variations in be-

among peoples are functions of variations in culture: Vb = f(Vc). The relationship between the human biological factor in the mass and the extra-somatic cultural factor is thus made clear. havior

Where

does one people have one form of society whereas another

has a different form? difference because, as factor

this picture?

then does society enter

Why

is

The psychologist cannot we have just seen, the

one tvpe of

is

psycho-biological

social process take place in

the cause?

Culture

is,

is

The answer is, as we have seen

an

Why

equally inadequate.

one case whereas

find a different type of interaction? This

tion at issue; "social process" is

this

a constant. "Social process," or "social interaction," the

basic concept of the sociologist,

we

account for

effect,

is

in

does

another

precisely the ques-

not a cause.

What

then

of course, culture. repeatedly, a class of extra-somatic,

phenomena. They have an existence prior to the birth of every individual. They are external to him and act upon him from the outside. They are traditional; they are passed down from one generation to another, and they may be borrowed, latersupra-biological

ally,

from one's contemporaries and neighbors. Culture consists

of beliefs,

customs, institutions, tools, utensils,

hold of the organisms of

shape them

this

way and

etc.,

which

lay

Homo sapiens at birth and mold and that. A people has one form of social

organization rather than another because as biological organisms

GENIUS:

ITS

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

they react and respond to different stimuli.

But how

are

we

201

sets of cultural

to explain culture?

to circular reasoning here.

We

We

elements as

need not

do not explain culture

resort

terms

in

of "social process" and "social process" again in terms of culture, as the sociologist

is

wont

Nor do we

to do.

explain individual

personality in terms of culture and then turn around and explain

culture in terms of personality, as

many

minded anthropologists

psychologically

and

social psychologists

do.

We

explain culture

in terms of culture.

To many, no

doubt, this will seem like no explanation at

In an earlier day

it

may have seemed empty

all.

to explain the be-

havior of stars and planets in terms of stars and planets instead of the will

and whim of

spiritual beings.

But the explanation of

events in non-animistic and non-anthropomorphic terms

and

well established in the physical retain

more than

biological sciences.

now

is

We

still

a vestige of anthropomorphism in the social

sciences.

To

explain

culture

terms

in

new

of

culture

is

merely

syntheses,

and

is

a

a linguistic

Matrilineal

combination of certain cultural elements;

lineal organization, a synthesis of other elements.

relationship

say

react

Thus a change in the process of fomiing plurals is phenomenon, not a psychological or sociological one. organization

to

upon one another, form eliminate some elements as obsolete, and so on.

that cultural elements act

patri-

We discover the

between the manufacture of automobiles and the

use of buggies directly, and so on. In short, culture

may be

inter-

preted culturologically rather than sociologically or psychologically.

More than

that, there are

many problems

that can be solved only

by culturological techniques, psychological and pretations being illusory or irrelevant. Let us

sociological inter-

now

return to the

problem of genius.

We shall be defined

begin with a statement of premises: as a

person

who

is

i.

A

genius will

regarded as a genius; there

is

no

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

202 point in saying that

many

a genius

is

born, lives and dies unrecog-

One may well say that many a person of very superior endowment lives and dies without full realization of his

nized.

native

and without achieving recognition or fame. But

potentialities

purposes of our inquiry

we

for

who

will confine ourselves to persons

have been regarded as geniuses. 2. The distribution of native ability, from those of very low capacity on the one end of the curve to the exceptionally gifted on the other, has been uniform

We

throughout time, at least within the species Homo sapiens. have no reason for believing that more or less idiots or persons of exceptional ability were born per 100,000 in one age than another.

3.

The

average and range of native abilities

among

various races of the world are at least approximately the for

all.

Degree of cultural development

native ability,

is,

of course,

the

same

no index of

and the testimony of comparative anatomy, physi-

ology and psychology will support this proposition. Let us turn

now

to

Why

some of the specific problems of genius. do geniuses cluster about certain epochs of

history instead

of being uniformly distributed through time? James says that is

"fortuitous," pure chance.

just the opposite.

One

But the laws of probability

cannot

tell

which woman

to an exceptionally gifted child or to twins. probability

tell

us

how many

pairs of twins

tell

will give birth

But the laws of

we may

expect in

we

every 100,000 births, or per year in a given population, and

may assume

that the number, or proportion, of idiots or babies

of exceptional

constant. It justifies

it

us

is

endowments born

likewise

will

precisely the factor of

be

definite

and

chance and probability that

our assumption of a uniform distribution of exceptionally

gifted persons in a large population over a considerable period of

time.

How,

then, can

we

explain the fact— for

it

is

a

fact— that

geniuses are not distributed uniformly in time and place but cluster

A

do

about certain epochs and regions?

culturological interpretation

makes

does not grow or change at uniform

this quite clear.

rates;

Culture

there are periods of

GENIUS:

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

ITS

A

203

and periods of stagnation and even

intense activity

may

retrogression.

change or progress for a long period and then suddenly burst forth with vigorous activity and growth. culture

An

exhibit

little

invention or discovery such as metallurgy, agriculture, the

domestication of animals, the keystone arch, the alphabet, microscope, steam engine, etc.,

and

may

inaugurate an era of rapid change

progress.

But

work of genius? The answer is of by genius you mean "someone who makes a discovery or invention." But this is just reasoning in

are not inventions the

course "Yes," significant

if

a circle. Merely because a person makes a great discovery or in-

vention

does not follow that he

it

possessed of exceptionally

is

endowment, and much all others who have no

mean

he

great natural

less

superior to

great achievement to their

it

an empty redundancy since genius

is

that

is

"genius" to explain the invention

credit. Therefore, to appeal to

or discovery

does

is

here defined

and the appeal to exceptionally great native unwarranted or at least misleading.

in terms of the event,

endowment

is

According to our premises we must assume that there were in

England

in Neolithic times

with as

much

James Watt possessed. Yet no one would claim that such could have invented the steam engine. This recognition of the fact that there

is

more

is

may

be.

An

invention or discovery

is

a

man

of course but a

to an invention or dis-

covery than germ plasm or brain tissue, no matter

they

men

natural ability as

how

a cultural,

i.e.,

excellent

an

extra-

somatic, supra-biological, affair as well as a psychological act.

invention

is

a

system there

new is

An

synthesis of cultural elements.* In any cultural

constant interaction

They

among

its

constituent ele-

upon one another, changing and modifying one another, forming new combinations and syntheses. Certain traits or elements become obsolete and are ments: culture

traits.

act

and

react

not an accidental mutation of the germ plasm, but a which the inventor is heir by tradition only," (V. Gordon Childe, Man Makes Himself, p. 19). * ''An invention

new

is

synthesis of the accumulated experience to

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

204 eliminated from the stream.

New

elements are introduced from

the outside from time to time.

Thus, in

this interactive process, axes are fitted

eyes are put into awls

and they become needles,

tempering material

dried then fired;

is

by

jur)',

clay

first

is

added; the wheel

sun-

adapted

is

become synthesized

to the ceramic art; certain customs clan, trial

with handles,

into the

primogeniture, or parliamentary government; in

philosophy and science old concepts are synthesized into new formulations, the work of Galileo, Kepler and Brahe is synthesized into laws of

copper,

motion and gravitation

etc., are

in the

hands of Newton;

coal,

introduced into the stream of culture. Discoveries

of course occur by chance, as in the case of the association

may

and a photographic plate in the laboratory of Rontgen. But to be significant, the chance must have the proper

of pitchblende

soil,

a suitable cultural context.

An

invention or discovery

is

a synthesis of already existing cul-

elements, or the assimilation

tural

cultural system.

The

of a

new element

invention of the steamboat

a

is

lation

The steam

and

synthesis.

of an age-old process of cultural

We

can trace

it

back through

mechanical, metallurgical, and ideological, to the

The

boat, too,

is

a

good example

of the former; the origin of metallurgy, of the latter.

engine was the outcome

into

accumu-

many

lines,

Old Stone Age.

the outgrowth of an interactive and synthesizing

culture process that

we

can trace back to antiquity.

of the steamboat was, therefore, simply a

streams of cultural development.

With

The

invention

merging of these two

regard to the origin of

agriculture, metallurgy, non-Euclidean geometry, the

germ theory

of disease, etc., each of these was the organized expression of an

accumulation of cultural experience. Just as the discoveries of Pasteur would have been impossible in the time of Charlemagne, so was agriculture impossible in the days of

invention and discovery

is

Cro-Magnon. Every

but a synthesis of the cultural accumu-

lations of the past with the experiences of the present.

Two

significant conclusions

can

now be drawn:

(i)

No

inven-

GENIUS:

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

ITS

205

tion or discovery can take place until the accumulation of culture

has provided the elements— the materials and ideas— necessary for the synthesis, and,

When

(2)

the requisite materials have

been made available by the process of cultural growth or

and given normal conditions of or discovery

The

first

is

bound

diffusion,

cultural interaction, the invention

to take place.

be accepted more Almost everyone would admit that the

of these propositions will probably

readily than the second.

steam engine could not have been invented in the Paleolithic

many

Age. But

persons, resenting a determinism that they fear

but do not understand,

gin, this

will

demand,

"How

can you prove that

would have invented the steam engine, the cotton etc., if Watt, Whitney, etc., had not done so?" Of course cannot be proved, in one sense at least. Neither can one

someone

else

summer of 1973, or even that the sun will rise tomorrow. But we can adduce so much evidence in support of our claim as to make its validity seem prove that

virtually

it

will rain in Detroit in

conclusive.

Take

inventions and discoveries

for

made

the

example the matter of multiple simultaneously but independently.

Kroeber discussed the significance of such phenomena in "The Superorganic" (1917). Five years later Ogburn and lished a long

an

list

article significantly entitled

burn published

Thomas pub-

of simultaneous but independent inventions in

"Are Inventions Inevitable?" Og-

this list later in Social

voluminous and impressive. Time

Change. The evidence

after time,

is

two or more men,

working quite independently, have made the same invention or discovery. In 1843, the

Law

of Conservation of

Energy was formu-

by Mayer. In 1847, it was formulated by four other men, Joule, Helmholz, Colding, and Thomson, working independently of one another and, of course, Mayer. The discovery and

lated

recognition of the cellular basis of both animal and plant tissue

was made (or claimed) by no

less

than seven

men (Schwann,

Henle, Turpin, Dumortier, Purkinje, Muller, and Valentin) and all in

the same, or very approximately the same, year: 1839.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

206

Now

the question

number

of

Why

is,

men working

in each of these instances did a

independently make a notable

discovery or invention at almost exactly the

we

same time?

scientific

How

to explain the fact that a great generalization like the

are

Law

of

Conservation of Energ)- or a great discovery like the cellular basis of

life,

which had

lain

capabilities of everyone before

beyond the

suddenly and almost overnight was achieved by not one

this time,

whole handful? that these achievements were the say would William James work of genius and that the appearance of a man of genius is individual or two, but by a

fortuitous.

But

the appearance of a single genius

if

is

a

chance

occurrence, "the unlikeliness of the concourse of genius about a

time

is

far greater."

Yet we have many such "concourses": any-

where from two to seven or more persons achieving independently the same important result. This places a heavy burden upon the theory of probability, a burden that of the ages of the

men

at the

increased

is

when we think

time of their noteworthy achieve-

ment. Thus, in a single year a number of geniuses of v^dely varying ages

light their

all

lamps

had no other explanation "chance" one wonders feeble gesture

by

at

same time! Even

at the

all

for

this

why anyone would want

calling

it

if

we

phenomenon than to dignify this

a scientific explanation.

Culturological theory provides a simple explanation of this

markable "coincidence." The

Law

re-

of Conservation of Energy was

simply the synthesis of already existing concepts, each of which, in turn,

was the outgrowth and synthesis of

synthesis of cultural elements requires

two

earlier experience.

A

things: the elements in

question and a process of interaction. Cultural interaction

is

always

going on in any cultural system, although the rate of interaction

may

vary.

A

requisite for

given synthesis cannot take place until the elements it

are available, obviously. But,

present, the process of cultural interaction synthesis.

Uranium

The

situation

235. If

is

something

the mass of metal

is

when the elements are is bound to effect the

like the chain reaction in belov^^

a certain size a chain

GENIUS: reaction is

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

ITS is

impossible.

But when

reached, the chain reaction

207

a certain

size— the

elements requisite to the formulation of the

that

it

made

was achieved not once but

The phenomena

Law

size"—

of Conservation

when they became

of Energy were not available. But,

the interactive culture process

"critical

inevitable. Prior to 1843-47, the

is

available

their synthesis so "inevitable"

five times.*

and simultaneous, but independent, inventions and discoveries thus have an important bearing upon the question of genius and the Great Man. As we have already noted, we are justified in assuming that the birth of men of exceptional ability

of

is

multiple

uniform within a large population

fairly

Western Europe for example. To assume that there was no one in Europe with sufficient mental ability to formulate

like that of

the

Law

but that

in

1823-27, or in 1833-37,

1843 one such person appeared only to be followed

in

by four more

The

chance.

Energy

of Conservation of

in

47,

is

to put a severe strain

upon the laws of makes very

culturological interpretation, however,

modest assumptions.

It

assumes that the cultural elements

quisite for the synthesis that

the

is

Law

on hand and available otherwise the synthesis no one however able or intelligent can build without

The

re-

must be could not be made;

of Conservation

materials.

culturologist assumes further that these materials did not

suddenly spring into being out of nothing, but that they had antecedents, that they grew out of previous cultural situations. This, too,

is

no instance

and modest assumption. We know of which something has come from nothing, in cul-

a reasonable in

tural systems or in those of

any other kind; one thing grows out

of another. In short, the culturologist merely assumes the exist-

ence of a culture process, the existence of such things as languages, beliefs,

tools,

customs,

etc.,

metabiological continuum,

that

i.e.,

constitute

an extra-somatic,

they are passed

down from one

* ". there is a good deal of evidence to indicate that the accumulation or giowth of culture reaches a stage where certain inventions if not inevitable ." (Ogbum, Social Change, p. 343). are certainly to a high degree probable .

.

.

.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

208

generation to another by mechanisms of social heredity.

ments of tool

upon

belief, belief

new combinations

In this interactive process

formed,

The

ele-

upon one another: tool upon tool, upon custom, custom upon custom, etc.

this process interact

elements are

of

syntheses achieved. It goes without saying that a

new

given synthesis cannot be achieved until the requisite elements for the synthesis are available: the

steam engine could not have

been invented in the Neolithic age. perhaps, that

when

It is

not quite so obvious,

the elements necessary for a given synthesis

are present in a process of interaction that the synthesis will take place.

The

lay

going on of ally,

image of

rebels at this notion of a deterministic process

and

effecting inventions

and

so to speak,

as the

was

mind

itself,

inevitably.

One who

could

Man say,

discoveries automatic-

"Let there be light and there

Let there be a law of conservation of energy and

light."

there will be such a law.

culture process that not only determines tent but the behavior of

But the evidence it

may

be.

man

its

When

becomes

course and con-

however

flattering

and

the culture process has reached a point

where an invention or discovery becomes or discovery

own

as well.

against such a view,

is

a law must some impersonal

But the formulation of such

be man's doing, he fondly believes, not that of

consoling

think of himself

likes to

still

inevitable.

temperate and unwarranted, but

possible, that invention

This language this

may seem inwe are not

only because

is

yet accustomed to thinking of the culture process in terms of natural law;

we

least in the

realm of

human

or discovery

becomes

inevitable at the

possible

happen.

is

still

think of

it

as operating to

free will.

It is significant to

one would argue that

some extent

at

say that an invention

same time that it becomes will happen when it will note that we do not recoil from or

merely a way of saying that

object to this point of view

To

when we

"it" could rain

it

consider the weather. if

No

the various factors and

conditions necessary were not present and in conjunction. Neither

would one want

to argue that rain could fail to fall

if

all

the

GENIUS:

ITS

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

factors necessary for precipitation

209

were present and in conjunction.

Nor would many be inclined to call this fatalism. We simply say that when certain conditions are present precipitation occurs; when these factors or conditions are not present precipitation does not take place.

And

so it is with inventions and discoveries: when certain facand conditions are present and in conjunction an invention

tors

or discovery takes place;

when they

are not present, the invention

or discovery does not occur. Let us glance at

more

of the evidence.

The discovery of sun spots was made independently by at least four men in a single year: by Galileo, Fabricus, Scheiner, and Harriott, in 1611, The parallax of a star was first measured by Bessel, Struve, and Henderson, working independently, in 1838. Oxygen was discovered independently by Scheele and Priestly in

The

1774,

invention of the self-exciting

dynamo was claimed by

Hjorth, Varley, Siemens, Wheatstone, and Ladd in 1866-67, and

by Wilde between 1863-67. The solution of the problem of ration was

Spallanzani,

made independently by and Davy,

Priestly,

in a single year:

telescope and the thermometer each

is

respi-

Scheele, Lavoisier,

1777. Invention of the

claimed by eight or nine

persons independently and at approximately the same time. ''Even

human beings, The great work of Mendel in genetics lay unnoticed for many years. But when it was eventually re-discovered, it was done not by one man the south pole, never before trodden by the foot of

was

at last reached twice in

one summer"

^^

(Kroeber).

but by three— deVries, Correns, and Tschermak— and in year,

1900.

One

could go on indefinitely.

When

interactive culture process reaches a certain point,

a single

the growing,

an invention or

discovery takes place.

The

simultaneity of multiple inventions or discoveries

is

some-

times striking and remarkable. Accusations of plagiarism are not infrequent; bitter rivalries are

waged over

priorities.

"The

right to

the monopoly of the manufacture of the telephone," says Kroeber,

"was long

in litigation; the ultimate decision rested

on an

interval

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

210

between the recording of concurrent descriptions by Alexander Bell and Elisha Gray" ^- (emphasis ours). "But an invention or discover)^ could not occur without a person of hours

make it, and that person must be a genius/' * we are told with some impatience or exasperation. Of course; an invention or disto

covery cannot take place without the activity of a

human

being.

This goes without saying; culture does not and cannot exist without human beings. But, we add nothing to an explanation oi this culture process by including

man

in

our calculations. Conjugations

human

of verbs could not take place without

we need

to introduce

organisms, but do

metabolism and respiration into philological

would not have replaced horses on American farms unless man had been there to effect the change. But in a statement of the relationship between tractors and horses, the science? Tractors

human organism may be— and But what about

genius.^

should

be— completely

disregarded.

Granting that inventions and discoveries

are cultural events, does not a great event require a great

man?

Could an epoch-making invention or discovery take place without the action of a person of exceptional natural endowment?

The

culturologist, like the biologist,

feet, liver, brain, etc.,

may be

larger or smaller than another's;

one

set of glands, nerves, or sense organs

i.e.,

more

vidual

sure: all

Now

efficiently or effectively,

human

abilities;

some

men if

beings differ in

human orOne person's

assumes that

ganisms vary both qualitatively and quantitatively.

may

function better,

than another. In short, indi-

their

natural

are superior to others.

Of one

endowments and we may be

thing

are not equal.

superior,

mediocre, and inferior minds are exposed

equally and uniformly to the influence of a given cultural tradition,

we must conclude that significant inventions and discoveries will be made by the superior, rather than by the average or inferior, * "Origination,

when

of a superior mind," ciology, p. 221,

New

it is more than chance accident, is alwsys the product (E. B. Router and C. Hart, Introduction to SoYork, 1933, empliasis ours).

W.

GENIUS:

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

ITS

minds. Just

as lightning will seek

culture process effect

But the best brains extant in society.

its

211

the best conductor, so will the

syntheses in the best brains available.

available are not necessarily the best brains

A

given cultural tradition does not affect

all

brains in a given society equally. Illiteracy cuts off a portion of the

population from certain cultural influences. In Newton's day the vast majority of

Englishmen were

the great and

illiterate;

their flame in Newton lay beyond the Had Newton been reared a swineherd

traditions that kindled

horizon of most men.

instead of going to Cambridge, the law of gravitation

been formulated by someone

But does not the were synthesized

At

last

vital

would have

else.

fact that the laws of

motion and the calculus

Newton's brain prove that he was a genius?

in

we have come

to the crucial point: are

we

to define a

genius psychologically or culturologically? Is is

a genius a person of exceptional native

he an individual

in

whose

endowment?

*

Or,

neuro-sensory-glandular-etc. system

an important synthesis of cultural events has taken place?

To assume

who

made a significant achievewe have seen, merely an inference. Can we discover outstanding natural endowment apart from distinguished achievement? Our experience with intelligence tests gives us little assurance on this score. To be sure, we can grade persons in terms of intelligence quotients. But many a ment

that a person

has

has superior native ability

person with a high I.Q. notable achievement. ability unaffected

to discover

by

lives

Tests

is,

and

dies undistinguished

social or cultural influences are

tells

us in

Men

down

go

will

tests as to

in

not likely history as

Mathematics that the

of

great mathematical physicist, Henri Poincare,

showing on the Binet

by any

endeavor to measure native

that

men and women who

"geniuses." E. T. Bell

as

made such

a poor

warrant the rating of imbecile.^'

W.

* B. Pillsbury and L. A. Pennington define a genius as "a person of less than one percent of very marked ability ... an I.Q. of 140 or above ." {Handbook oi General Psychology, p. 327). the population .

.

.

.

.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

2,2

manv men in whom great cultural syntheses have mav wdl have been organisms of exceptional natural

To be

sure,

taken place interaction of cultural endoN^-ment as well as the neural loci of the if other factors are elements. This is of course to be expected:

will take place in a constant, the significant cultural synthesis other factors are course, of But. s\-stem of superior qualit>-.

nervous

upon the culturonot constant. \\*e are therefore thrown back organism a signifilogical definition of genius: A person in whose He may have occurred. has s>-nthesis of cultural elements cant

superior brains or he

may

He may have

not.

been a person of

ver>-

average natural endowment, but with superlative education and training or exceptional opportunit}-, or both.

A

consideration of

manv

significant inventions

and

discoveries

does not lead to the conclusion that great abiht>-, native or acquired,

is

On

alwavs necessar)-.

the contrar;-,

many seem

to need

onlv mediocre talents at best. WTiat intelligence was required to invent the steamboat? Is great intelligence required to put one

and one—a boat and an engine— together? i\n ape can do this. James Watt is listed as a genius in many a treatise on this subject. It

even misleading to say that he '"invented" the steam engine.

is

He

—Hero set

many

merelv added a httle to the achievements of

(c. 150 b.c), Battista della Porta (i6ci),

(1665),

Thomas

et

al—before him. The

was merelv carried further in the person of in the organisms of

much

many

men

(169S), Desgauliers, Papin, Nei^--

Saver}-

comen, Cawles% Smeaton,

other

Edward Somercultural process

^\"att as

others since his day.

it

Does

has been it

require

intelligence to discover satelHtes of Jupiter or sun spots

when you have life if

a telescope?

Or

vou have a microscope?

bacteria

and the

.\ telescopic

cellular basis of

or microscopic lens

a piece of glass that changes the course of light passing through Glass

is

it.

the product of an age-old culture process going back to the

burning of brick

mud

is

before that.

in Eg\-pt

and

to sun-dried brick

and daubing

\s-itb

GENIUS:

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

ITS

Isotopes

—elements

hanng

chemical properties, but

213

the same atomic number, the same

different atomic

weights—were discovered

earlv in the present centun.-. In 1906, Bolb^-ood of

an element, ionium, from pitchblende.

It

Yale isolated

was exactly

like

thorium

except in atomic weight. Three kinds of l^d, each with an atomic y. J. Thomson found two kinds Soddy and Kasimir Fajans (working independently, be it noted; advanced an h}-pothesis b)- which these different forms might be explained, Thomson and F. W. Aston in England and K. T. Bainbridge in the United States

own, were found,

weight of

its

(weights

of neon. Frederick

)

examined the whole The%- found that of h-

series of

elements in a search for isotopes.

manv elements

drogen— i.cc

—

S

ha\-e isotopes.

instead of i.c

The atomic weight

— indicated the existence of an

isotope of this element but neither .\ston nor Bainbridge c-ould isolate

it

v.-ith

the mass spectrometer. Harold C. Ure\' thought

by evaporation of Hquid hydrowould e\-aporate more the hea\y form in the residue.

that separation might be effected gen. It was

assumed that the

freelv, lea\'ing a

light isotope

concentration of

As Professor Selig Hecht teUs the

stor%-

in his recent book,

Explaim'ng the Atom, "Ure\- interested F. G. Brickweddie at the

Bureau of Standards, who proceeded to make a gallon of hquid h\drogen. Bricb;\eddie then allowed the hquid to e\-aporate slowly until all left,

but a gram

(Ki

which he shipped

of an ounce) of hquid hydrogen

specimen and the

M. Murphy

isolated the hea^-y

mass spectrometer, Ure\- and G. isotope,

and "for

a\^-arded the

Xovi-

we

this exciting discover^-." sa^'S

Nobel

prize in

1934"

Hecht,

'"Urey.- v.-as

"-'

ha\ e no desire to minimize the importance of this dis-

covei}- as a scientific achie\-ement.

And we

certainly

behttle Dr. Urea's nati\-e and inborn abilities. But, to ask. \\*as intelligence of a

A\~hat precisely did \^-as

was

to Ure\-." \^'"ith this

it

do not M^ish to we would like

high order required for this discovery?

invohe?

No new

theory of atomic structure

advanced; on the contran.-. Ure\" had the heritage of genera-

tions of workeis at his disposal. Ure\- did not discoN-er isotopes;

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

214

they had been found experimentally and explained theoretically bv others. Isotopes of many elements had been isolated and before Urey. Techniques of isolation had been

identified

veloped by Thomson, Aston, Bainbridge, and invent the mass spectrometer;

it

is

hydrogen or even manage isotope would

that a light original;

it

had been

What

tive results.

He

of Dr. Urey.

ner\'es, glands,

tube

in-

did not provide the

The

gradual evaporation.

diffuse faster than a

idea

heavy one was not

out experimentally by Aston with posi-

tried

then did Urey contribute?

we are not minimizing the inborn capaHe may have a superlatively fine organization of

heavy hydrogen, and we sion explicit

We have,

and sense organs.

now wish

and unequivocal:

very ordinary intelligence.

As

though perhaps not

make

removing a

as

this

we

much

implied conclu-

believe that

stain

pickles— requires as

jar of

as

it

to

could have been achieved by a

a matter of fact,

household problem— such

opening a recalcitrant

however, implied that

was not essential to the isolation of

intelligence of a high order

a

de-

did not

let us repeat,

Again, cities

its

He

a descendant of the

vented by Heinrich Geissler about 1862. liquid

others.

from a

much

many

dress or

ingenuity,

technical information— which

is

a

matter of education, not native ability— as that required in the isolation of

give

him

him

excellent technical training, put

laboratory,

how

part,

heavy hydrogen. Take a person of average intelligence,

and assuming some

could he help but

interest

make some

in a well-equipped

and enthusiasm on

significant discovery?

his

One

cannot adventure very long with an electron microscope or a cyclotron without stumbling bling

upon" very aptly

science. fevv

is

The

There

built

is

many

significant advances in

reason that superlatively great advances in science are

not because "genius"

must be

upon something new. And "stum-

characterizes

is

upon, or grow out

rare of, a

but because great syntheses multitude of minor ones.

another property or aspect of culture that has an im-

portant and

significant

bearing upon

the problem

of genius,

GENIUS:

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

ITS

namely, pattern. Nowhere glomeration of

215

mere aggregation or

culture a

is

ag-

culture elements are always organized into

traits;

systems. Every culture has a certain degree of integration, of unity;

upon

rests

it

a certain basis,

and

ing of

is

organized along certain lines

may be

or principles. Thus, a culture

organized around the hunt-

reindeer breeding, the cultivation of rice, or

seal,

facturing and trade. Military activity also factor in the organization cultural system a terns,

phy

number

and

life

manu-

may be an important

of a culture.

Within any given

we may

of sub-systems, which

call pat-

can be distinguished. Painting, music, mythology, philoso-

or science, mechanics, industrial crafts, the medical arts,

and

on are such patterns.

so

A or

'

culture pattern in this sense

traits,

by

is

a cluster of cultural elements,

organized upon the basis of a certain premise and directed

a certain principle of development.

A

tion

phenomena

may be developed

will rest

upon

realistically.

certain direction.

The

assumption and

The mechanical and

it

/^

may attempt

Or, symbolic representa-

in a certain direction.

a certain basic

S^

pattern of painting or

bead-work may be based upon geometric forms or to depict natural

I

art of divination

will

develop in a

industrial arts, science,

and

philosophy, too, will be organized as patterns and will develop as such.

Now

a pattern,

development, has tions.

When

ment

is

trying to

draw

you can go no point;

The

specific potentialities

To

illustrate

a circle.

also inherent limita-

When

with a simple example: a perfect circle has

You

further. Realistic representation of natural objects

and symbolic representation,

art of divination

too,

seems to have

a certain its

limits.

based upon the assumption that the future

liver

may be developed

considerably, as the

Babylonian clay models, with various sections marked

indicate.

are

been achieved

and sculpture cannot be developed beyond

can be read in the little

and

these limits have been reached no further develop-

possible.

in painting

having a given premise, and certain principles of

But hepatoscopy has

its

limits.

The development

off,

of

'

'^

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

215

geometry upon the basis of the axioms of Euclid had hmits that

were inherent

A

in the system or pattern.

certain musical pattern

culmination or fulfillment apparently in the works of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. Gothic art as a pattern was inherently limited. Ptolemy carried the development of a certain

reached

its

astronomic system about as far as was possible. All culdevelopment takes place within organized forms, or patterns.

t)'pe of

tural

Kroeber has pointed out repeatedly in Configurations o£ Culture Growth, when a pattern has reached the limits of its potentialities no further development is possible. The alternatives

Now,

as

then are slavish repetition of old patterns or the revolutionary overthrow of the old and the formation of new patterns. In some

we

instances, such as in ancient Egypt, less repetition

we

of old forms; or,

find

monotonous and end-

see a nation like the

United

from ancient Greece or the

States adopting architectural styles

Middle Ages. But the history of culture abounds, of course, in examples of the growth, culmination or fulfillment of patterns and of their replacement by new patterns. New, non-Euclidean systems of geometry are constructed. industrial

and

esthetic arts.

New

New

forms emerge in the

patterns are constructed

on new

premises in philosophy and science.

This phenomenon of culture pattern has an important bearing

upon the problem of labor of countless centuries.

genius.

persons

But the pattern

the work of

a

The development of a pattern is the and of many generations or even

finds

its

culmination,

its

fulfillment, in

men— the Newtons, Darwins, Bachs, Men working both before and after the

few

vens, Kants, etc.

fulfillment of the pattern have less, usually

winning distinction. The

men whose

much

less,

Beetho-

time of

chance of

accident of birth has placed

them somewhere along the slope of the pyramid of the developing fame Bach or a Beethoven born a century or two earlier would have been a mere contributor to a pattern of development rather than the vehicle

pattern have no chance to win the sort of achievement and

given to those whose births place

them

at the peak.

A

GENIUS: of

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

ITS

217

culmination. But a pattern of thought, long in the process

its

of development, will receive

its

fulfillment in the lives

and work

of a few persons.

Men

women who come

and

pattern also have

little

after the culmination of a culture

chance of winning distinction— except

wreckers of the old and perhaps as builders of the new. of growth in physical theory reached of

Newton. So

death that

finished

its

pattern

culmination in the work

and complete was

this pattern at

held physicists and astronomers within

it

A

as

over two hundred years. As Lagrange once remarked,

its

Newton's forms for

Newton was

not only the greatest genius that ever lived but the most fortunate as well, "for

we cannot

to establish."

^^

one's self with no It

is

There

more than once a system of the world in the wake of Newton was to find

more worlds

plain, then,

minants of genius. flow.

find

To be born

to conquer.

that culture patterns are significant deter-

The

culture process

is

not an even and uniform

are initial stages of development, periods of steady

growth, peaks of culmination, plateaus of continuity and repetition, revolutionary upheavals

gration,

and innovations, disruption,

disinte-

and decline. Whether an individual of exceptional natural

endowment

achieves the distinction of genius or not depends

therefore very

much upon

the accidental time of his birth. Should

chance place him somewhere along the slope of a developing pattern his chances of distinction will be relatively slight. Or,

should be born after

his chances for distinguished

he

achievement and fame would also

be meager. But should he chance to be born

at the

time and place

where streams of culture are converging and fusing into a

and complete

if

the culmination has been reached and passed,

synthesis, then his chances will

be

final

relatively great.*

* Even so, there is apt to be room for but one genius only. It was Darwin, not Wallace, who won recognition and fame became the capstone of the edifice even though the latter had worked out the same theory and at the

—

same time.

—

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

2T8

To become

a genius

necessary to be born at precisely the

it is

right time.

The

which an individual

cultural milieu into

thrust at birth

is

do with the likelihood of his achieving recogniculture tion as a genius. If he is born and reared in a frontier quick and a keen eye where a where life is hard and hazardous,

much

also has

to

where hard drinking and harder fighting are manly virtues, and where a square dance to a squeaky fiddle achieve fame as a is the highest form of art, he is not likely to trigger finger are prized,

He may

poet, composer, sculptor, philosopher, or scientist.

may

superb natural endowment, he

excel

possess

others in tracking a

all

bear, roping a steer, or in "calling" a dance, but the accolade of "genius" is not accorded to primacy in these fields. Should, however, an individual be born into a cultural milieu in which a rich and vigorous tradition of music, painting, science or philosophy

flourished,

he could

become

readily

a genius

natural ability, or a distinguished person

if

of exceptional

if

of a

little

more than

average talent. As Cooley observed, in his critique of Galton, "it as difficult for

our countr}^ Parisian to

sons."

be

^®

1897] ^^

[in

become

a

become

good

a

We

now come

soil

and

as

it

is

for

a

for similar rea-

incidence of genius are thus seen to

functions of the cultural setting.

upon the

good painter

base-ball player,

The production and

or not depends

is

an American brought up in the western part of

Whether

a genius

and climate of the

is

realized

cultural habitat.

to another interesting point: namely, the rela-

tionship between the rate of cultural advance and the factor of

human

ability.

Here we have, on the one hand,

a supra-biological

process: the evolution of culture, a temporal-formal sequence of

extra-somatic events.

On

the other,

muscular-glandular-etc. process.

The

we have the

neuro-sensory-

culture process can, as

have seen, be studied, analyzed, and explained in terms of independently of the course that

man

human

organism. This does not

we

itself,

mean

of

has "nothing to do" with the culture process; in

GENIUS:

ITS

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

219

one sense he has everything to do with and makes

culture into existence

does not follow from this that

it.

without taking the

is

man who

we must reckon with

organism in an analysis of culture change. process

It

brings

continuity possible. But

its

To

the

it

human

interpret the culture

human organism

into

account

is

merely to regard the biological factor in the man-culture equation as a constant. But,

how would this

problem

suppose the biological factor were not constant,

examine

variations affect the culture process? Let us

its

in

terms of the magnitude of

abilities only,

not their

qualitative variations.

Let us consider populations of 100,000,000 persons each. Let us

assume

Then

also that ability all

if

members

is

distributed normally rather than skewed.

of society are stimulated equally by their

through invention and

culture, the rate of cultural advance,

covery, will increase

the range of ability

dis-

(1) the average ability is increased, or (2) extended in the direction of superior minds,

if

is

other factors remaining constant. In other words, factor of mental ability

increased, either

is

if

the biological

by an elevation

of the

average or by an extension of the range, the rate of cultural ad-

vance

will increase.

The

acceleration will of course

be

greater

if

both average and range are increased instead of one only. This

means

that the probability of an invention or discovery taking

place at a certain time will vary as the average or range of mental ability of the

Thus,

—a

population

varies,

other factors remaining constant.

in a given cultural situation a certain

invention or discovery

steam engine, the alphabet, the cellular basis of life— would be

more

likely to

occur in a population with a high average of

intel-

ligence than a low one, in a society with a high "ceiling" than in

one with

a

low one.

We see then

that a relationship can

be established between the

extra-somatic cultural tradition and the biological factor of mental ability

which we can express thus:

for the cultural tradition, ability,

and P

B

C

X B

= P, in which C stands

for the biological factor of

mental

for the probability of a certain invention or dis-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

220

The

covery taking place.

probability

increased

is

either

if

C

or

B

remains constant. But— and is increased while the other factor not widely appreciated— one and point, here is a very interesting

any actual

in

historical situation, the factor of

mental

virtually constant for a considerable period of time. factor, however, may, and in

many

cases will, not

ability is

The

be

cultural

a constant.,

In the cumulative, interactive stream of culture, the likelihood of a given invention or discovery increases

day by day.

With

the

and the growth of theory, certain syntheses if the mental ability requisite to a given Thus, are bound to occur. invention or discovery is not present at a given time, the growth accumulation of

facts

and advance of the culture process

will

bring the possibility of

the neurological synthesis within the range of the capacities of the population eventually. This

means that

men

if

of great ability

are not available, the advancing culture process will in time bring

the possibility of a significant invention or discovery within the

men

range of

much many

with

no doubt occurred

less ability.

Incidents of this sort have

We

times in the past.

believe

we

are

warranted, on the basis of our premises and analysis, in making

the assertion that

all

of the great discoveries or inventions that

have ever occurred could have been achieved v^athout one single "genius,"

i.e.,

without the aid of anyone above the present average

of intelligence. In short, that our civilization could

achieved by a race whose to our average. It

maximum

intelligence

would merely have taken

have been

was equivalent

longer, that

is

all,

longer for the cultural process to reach the point where syntheses

become

possible to

human nervous systems. we have good reasons

Actually, however, factor of

the

last

mental

ability has

remained

hundred thousand years or

fairly

so.

for believing that the

constant throughout

At any

rate,

we have no

evidence of a significant increase in mental ability during this time.* *

There

is

some evidence, however, that would point to a decline in the Western Europe during the Christian era. At least.

level of intelligence in

GENIUS:

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

ITS

221

Further consideration of our formula,

minate other aspects of culture history

Ogburn and and

C X B = P,

also.

will

illu-

As Morgan, Kroeber,

others have repeatedly noted, significant inventions

were few and

discoveries

far

between

in the

remote

was not due to a lack of persons of high mental

past.

ability

This

but to a

meagerness of cultural materials and resources. As the stream of culture grows through accumulation, assimilation

and

synthesis,

the rate of cultural advance increases. Thus, inventions and coveries

were

much more numerous and

dis-

frequent in the great

urban, metallurgical and literate cultures of 5,000 to 2,000 b.c.

than in the period 90,000 to 87,000

B.C.,

and they are much more

frequent today than in any earlier time. Since invention and

dis-

covery are functions of cultural milieus as well as of mental ability,

men

of exceptional intelligence were relatively

more important and

significant in the days of savagery than of

it

that

follows

civilization.

Because the cultural resources were more meager, the

difficulty of invention

appear, the

was

greater.

Thus, paradoxical though

Old Stone Age might be

called the

may

of Genius, or

time because the role of

Intelligence, rather than the present

native ability was relatively

Age

it

more important.* The foundations of

Darwin and Lyell cite the large scale and long continued extermination of independent minds and courageous spirits by the Holy Inquisition, as evidence of deterioration.

Speaking of the Inquisition Darwin wrote: "In Spain alone some of the men those who doubted and questioned, and without doubting there can be no progress were eliminated during three centuries at the rate of a thousand a year. The evil which the CathoHc Church has thus effected is ."{The Descent of Man, Ch. III). Lyell observes that "the incalculable institutions of a country may be so framed that individuals possessing moderate or even inferior abilities may have the best chance of surviving. Thus the Holy Inquisition may for centuries carefully select from the thinking and may doom them by thoupart of the population all men of genius sands to destruction, so as effectually to lower the general standard of intelligence," (Principles of Geology, Vol. II, New York, 1883), p. 495. * The conclusion reached here is exactly opposite to a view widely held today, not only by laymen but by eminent anthropologists as well. Thus the late Edward Sapir wrote: "As the social units grow larger and larger, the

best

—

—

.

.

.

.

.

.

probabilities of the occurrence of striking vastly.

Hence

it

is

.

.

and

influential personalities

that the determining influence of individuals

is

grow more

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

222

civilization— the rudiments of meehanics, the ceramic, textile, metallurgical arts, the origin of agriculture

and the domestication

of animals, the invention of the plow, the wheel, the calendar

the alphabet,

As

etc.,

civilization

and

etc.— were laid by anonymous

and

men and women.

advances inventions and discoveries become easier

to make.* If

inventions and discoveries— in short, cultural

advance— are where

to be explained in terms of an interactive cultural process,

demonstrated in the higher than in the lower levels of culture" (1919, 443). This view ignores the epoch-making inventions of remote times and tends to recognize only the known and named heroes of recent and literate easily p.

times. It is interesting to note, however, that the early American anthropologist, Lewis H. Morgan, had a more realistic understanding of the developmental culture process. "Human progress, from first to last," he wrote, "has been in a ratio not rigorously but essentially geometrical. This is plain on the face of the facts; and it could not, theoretically, have occurred in any other way. Everi' item oi absolute knowledge gained became a factor in further acquisitions, until the present complexity of knowledge was attained. Consequently, while progress was slowest in time in the first period, and most rapid in the last, the relative amount may have been greatest in the first, when the achievements of either period are considered in their relations to the sum. It may be suggested, as not improbable of ultimate recognition, that the progress of mankind in the period of savagery, in its relations to the sum of human progress, was greater in degree than it was afterwards in the three sub-periods of barbarism; and that the progress made in the whole period of barbarism was, in like manner, greater in degree than it has been since in the entire period of civilization" (Ancient Society, p. 38). This was written, it should be noted, about 1875. * In northeastern South America the Indians cultivated manioc which in some regions was the staple article of diet. There are two kinds of manioc: bitter and sweet. The bitterness of the former is due to the presence of hydrocyanic acid, a deadly poison. In some regions, because of depradations of ants, only the bitter manioc can be grown. The Indians discovered a way to remove the poisonous element by leaching the meal ground from the roots. After the acid has been volatilized, dissolved and expressed, the meal is both edible and nutritious. How the aborigines discovered that this could be done and how they perfected this technique is a matter of wonder. Ignorant of chemistr}', knowing that initially the plant was deadly, and with minds full of magic, myth, and superstition, one wonders how they ever accomplished so difficult a feat. Perhaps if we had a complete record of the discovery it might, and probably would, seem simpler. Even so, we may, I think, regard it as one of the most difficult, though not of course the greatest, inventions

in history.

GENIUS:

ITS

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

impinges upon

223

new combinaand syntheses, then we ought to find instances of rapid cultural change and growth in localities or regions where a high trait

trait,

effecting modifications,

tions

degree of social and cultural interaction takes place. This

what we do

find.

culture areas than rural areas.

The

regions. It

is

is more rapid on the periphery, more rapid

Culture change

rate of culture

change

significant to note,

is

both

just

in the center of

in urban than in

relatively

in the

is

slow in isolated

New

and the Old

Worlds, that the regions of most rapid culture growth were located on or near narrow land bridges connecting continental land masses: Mexico, Middle America, and the Andean highlands on the one hand, and the "Fertile Crescent"— Egypt and Mesopo-

tamia—on the logical,

other.

Thus we can

establish a geographic, or topo-

determinant of innovation in the culture process: the rate

of invention and discovery will tend to be high where the con-

formation of the land and the distribution of

its

masses foster a

high degree of social and cultural interaction.

A

few moments ago we were assuming, for the purpose of our

discussion, that

all

members

of a population were exposed equally

to the same cultural influences. This situation tends to prevail on

low

levels of cultural

development where

into classes does not exist. cultures, however, this

is

stratification of society

In advanced and socially stratified

not the case. All Egyptians during the

dynastic period were certainly not influenced equally by Egyptian culture.

The

majority were

serfs,

slaves,

or laborers on public

works. As such they lived in and were affected by a very different

stratum of culture than the priests and rulers and their close associates. Similarly in

England

in the seventeenth century most'

of the people were wholly illiterate

and hence cut

part of the cultural tradition accessible to

off

from a large

Newton. And

United States today although most of the population are

in the literate,

they are not directly and effectively stimulated by cultural elements in strata where significant inventions, discoveries and other ad-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

224 varices are

zations:

made.

(i)

differentiated

As and

We

may

therefore

make the

culture advances, society stratified.

(2) This

following generali-

becomes

means

increasingly

that a progressively

diminishing portion of the population is embraced by the cultural take tradition in which significant inventions and discoveries place. (3)

This small professional

class

contains only a portion of

the exceptionally gifted individuals of society; others are engaged in non-professional occupations. (4) Consequently, significant inventions and discoveries are

made by

a progressively diminish-

ing proportion of the exceptionally gifted individuals. In other

words, as culture advances and society becomes

and more

differentiated structurally

fewer becomes the relative in

whose systems

as before,

we

number

more and more

specialized functionally, the

of exceptionally gifted persons

significant cultural syntheses take place. Here,

reach the conclusion that as culture advances, the

role of exceptional ability diminishes in significance.

The

decrease in relative importance of the biological factor in

the process of invention, discovery, and cultural advance

demonstrated in

still

another quarter. Franklin

made

may be

a notable

achievement with meager and simple apparatus: a key and a

Nowadavs,

colossal

and

costly

equipment— a 200-inch

a 100-ton cyclotron— is needed for research in

who

shall use

many

kite.

telescope, fields.

But

the giant machines of astronomy and physics?

Is

the man of exceptional natural endowment more likely to use them than one with less ability? Not unless he has had the re-

And

certainly the average

more today with

a cyclotron than a

quisite training; brains are not

individual can contribute

enough.

highly gifted person with only a kite and a key. In relationship to

the kite and key, Franklin was

more important than

a person

same natural endowment would be in relationship to the telescope at Mt. Palomar or to a giant cyclotron. As the techno

of the

logical factor increases in

magnitude the importance oi the bio

logical factor decreases relatively.

The

role of the gifted individual in cultural

advance

is

diminish-

GENIUS:

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

ITS

ing in importance in

becoming

still

225

another sector. Research

socialized, so to speak, or institutionalized.

is

rapidly

Of

course,

no one ever worked and achieved great things in actual isolation.

Newton had

the products of predecessors at his disposal and he

used to exchange ideas with contemporaries, obtain measurements

and other data from them. But today research is becoming more and more an organized co-operative enterprise. Great laboratories and research teams are replacing the individual entrepreneur in science and technology. The development of the atomic bombin which dozens of highly trained idea men and hundreds of skilled technicians

co-operated— is of course a dramatic, but highly

significant, indication of the trend of

and

less significant;

The Great Man

the times.

the community of scientific

is becoming and technological workers more and more

less

As the eminent

so.

Wilhelm Ostwald, observed many years ago, mankind present is in a state of development in which progress "at depends much less upon the leadership of distinguished individuals than upon the collective labor of all workers." ^' It is not

German

scientist,

the soloist that counts so still

public and press

have and feed an appetite for primadonnas— it

symphonic

We (i)

much today— although

natural

the whole

orchestra.

now in Although we are

is

draw some

a position to freely

final

admit that individuals

endowments, we have no

reliable

way

conclusions:

differ

recognizing "geniuses" save through their achievements.

be

justified in believing that exceptional

of the achievement of a

warranted to say that

all

Bach or

men

a

in

their

of discovering or

inborn ability

Newton. But

it

We

may

lies

back

would be un-

of lesser achievement were propor-

tionally inferior in natural ability.

On

the other hand,

we have

good reason to believe that significant syntheses of culture traits may and do take place in organisms of unexceptional quality. Therefore,

"genius"

is

we must conclude inferential

that a psychological definition of

and misleading. The

culturological defini-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

226 tion

a genius

realistic:

is

a

is

human organism

which an im-

in

portant synthesis of cultural elements has taken place. But the culturological definition does

more than merely correspond with

the facts more closely than does the psychological conception; it calls attention to the more significant of the two factors involved in great inventions cultural.

The

and

discoveries, namely, the biological

than that one organism

cannot

tell reliably

which

is is

will actually

The why and when

Milton."

which

in

tell

many

instances.

quite as

psy-

achieve great things or die a "mute, inglorious

culturological

interpretation

a genius will appear;

might be noted

It

But the

it

whether ihe superior organ-

it

however

makes

tells how, what the eleand how it all

clear

ments and processes are that produce a genius, comes about.

more

superior to another, even though

chological interpretation cannot

ism

and the

psychological conception of genius can say no

much about

also that the culturologist

knows

the neuroanatomy of genius as the psy-

chologist does, namely, virtually nothing.

Conclusion

2.

mental

factor of innate

creased since

seems

In the operation of the man-culture process, the

man

ability

at least reasonable to

conclusion— that

may

have, and probably has, in-

acquired the faculty of articulate speech.

Homo

suppose— although hardly

It

a foregone

sapiens has a higher native intelligence

than that possessed by Pithecanthropus eiectus. Thus in the manculture equation over a period of a million years,

some absolute

increase in

we may assume

magnitude of the biological

But, during the last hundred, or even the last

fifty

factor.

thousand

years,

we have no evidence of an appreciable increase in mental ability. The great bulk of cultural development however has taken place during this time. Since a significant invention or discovery

is

a

function of organism and culture, working together, the role of

the former, and consequently of the exceptionally

endowed

indi-

vidual, has diminished relative to the cultural factor as culture

has developed and advanced. This in

magnitude of the

cultural factor,

is

due not only

to the increase

both absolutely and

relatively.

GENIUS:

ITS

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

227

but also to the fact that differentiation of formation of classes each with

own

its

social structure,

the

function, has cut off an

number of organisms of exceptional natural endowment from the possibility of important achievement: the illiterate increasing

how

peasant cannot invent the calculus no matter

may be. The rate

cerebral cortex

Conclusion

of occurrence of inventions

3.

coveries at any given time

excellent his

is

tion of exceptionally gifted

and

dis-

determined not only by the propor-

men and women

in the population

but by the number of elements in the cultural continuum and the velocity of their interaction.

But the acceleration

growth noted at various periods in

be explained, not by an increase

human

in rate of culture

culture history

is

to

in the general level of intelligence

or by an increase in the proportion of highly gifted individuals,

but in terms of an increase in the number of culture elements or

an increase in the velocity of their interaction, or both. The greater the

number

of

traits,

or the greater the velocity of their inter-

action, or both, the greater the

number

of cultural syntheses-

inventions and discoveries— other factors remaining constant.

Much

of our discussion thus far has dealt with outstanding

achievement in science, philosophy or the

dependent upon cultural materials ability.

But how

the Great

Man

is

it

at

hand

with history and

arts

where success

is

upon native events? Does not

as well as

political

turn the tide one way or another by sheer force

of his personality?

Would

the history of Europe between 1798

and 1815 have been what it was had it not been for Napoleon? Did not Julius Caesar change the whole course of European history?

Would

been

different, asks Sapir,

We

readily

not the administration of law in

had

*

We

New

Orleans have

not been for a certain Corsican?

admit that Caesar, Napoleon and Ghengis Khan

and many others have been

common

it

significant factors * in the course of

say "significant factors in the course of history" rather than use the phrase "changed the course of history." The latter phrase is an-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

228 history.

But we

are not at

all

willing to accept the inferences that

people wish to draw from

many

To

this premise.

grant that a

certain individual has been outstanding in a sequence of his-

events

torical

supreme tory

is,

many

to

brought about only by grant. as

An

way

minister on his

changed.

his

His-

they reason, and great changes can be

men

A

profoundly as a genius.

is

genius,

his

of

enormous

This we do not

ability.

imbecile can affect the course of history as readily

drunken s\\itchman history

of

ability, his force of character, his colossal greatness.

made by men,

is

proof

scholars,

fails

and

half-wit tampers with a switch, or a

to close

it;

a train

to a treaty conference

Had Lenin and

is

is

wrecked, a prime

The

killed.

his colleagues

been

from Switzerland to Russia

course of killed

by

1917 the profoundly might have been revolution Bolshevik of the outcome different. Had Lincoln lived five years longer the Reconstruction a train wreck en route

in the it

in

South would probably have taken a different course. But actor, John Wilkes Booth, who "changed the

was the obscure

course" of history.

More than

this: it

need not be even a half-wit

who

deflects the

course of history; any accident from any cause can accomplish this.

A

rat

might infect a Tsar with typhus,

circuit a

down

power

a plane.

a squirrel

might

short-

line, a pig derail a train, or a stroke of lightning

Had

a certain

swarthy swain at a village

Corsican

festival,

girl

not chanced to meet a

the genetic combination that

became Napoleon would not have taken place. And a thousand and one more circumstances of sheer chance occurred between his cradle and his coronation. One recalls the statement that had Cleopatra's nose been but a half-inch longer the whole course of

Roman and

Eg\q3tian history

would have been

different.

And

thropomorphic in outlook, and it assumes moreover a course of events which a man can change from the outside if he be "great" enough. It docs not make sense to say that a thundershower "changes the course of the weather." The thundershower is an integral part of the meteorological process. Neither does the Great Man "change the course of history" from the outside; he is an integral part of it.

—

GENIUS:

ITS

Darwin

tells

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

us in his autobiographic sketch that Captain Fitz-

who was "an

Roy,

nomist

J.

229

ardent disciple" of the mystic and physiog-

K. Lavater, almost refused to allow Darwin to join the

expedition of the Beagle because he did not like the shape of

Darwin's nose!

with

my

"He doubted," wrote Darwin, "whether any one

nose could possess sufficient energy and determination

for the voyage."

Had

Fitz-Roy's phrenology prevailed, the whole

course of the history of science would have been different. As the

rhyme about the chain of events set in motion by the loss of a horseshoe nail makes clear, great consequences may flow from occurrences otherwise trivial and insignificant. To have affected the course of history is, therefore, no proof of genius or colossal ability. The half-wit whose blunder kills Caesar is as significant nursery

historically as

government or

Caesar himself. political

natural ability; societies

To be

sure, the

head of a great

movement may be a person of enormous and social movements often select superior

instruments to work with. But chance and circumstance often put a mediocrity in the seat of the mighty, just as chance and accident

may throw him down or destroy him. The significance of the Great Man in by

As we have pointed out elsewhere,^^ many anthropologists

are quite unable to

make

process, or "history,"

which

is

been obscured

between a temporal process and a temporal-formal

precisely,

process.

history has

between history and evolution, or more

a failure to distinguish

unique.

is

simple distinction.

The

We separate these events, by conceptual

from their matrix of the or evolutionist, process

form are equally

this

is

temporal

a chronological series of events each of

totality of events.

a series of events in

significant:

The

analysis,

temporal-formal,

which both time and

one form grows out of another in

time.

The

temporal process

is

have predicted that Booth would his pistol

by chance and is thereno one, for example, could Lincoln— or whether or not

characterized

fore unpredictable to a high degree:

would have missed

fire

kill

when he

pulled the trigger.

The

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

230 temporal-formal process however

is

determinative: prediction

is

possible to a high degree. In the decomposition of a radioactive substance one stage determines the next and the course and rate of change can

be predicted. In

short,

we can

predict the course of

evolution but not of history.

The tion

significance of the distinction

and

nicely in

organic."

its

relevance to the Great

between history and evolu-

Man

in history

is

brought out

the debate between Kroeber and Sapir on the "super^^

Kroeber argues that had Darwin died in infancy the

advance and course of development of biological theory would

much

have been ing

if

the same as

has been. Sapir counters by ask-

it

the administration of law in

the same today had

wholly

it

New

Orleans would have been

not been for Napoleon. Both disputants are

justified in their claims.

Unfortunately, however, they are

talking about two different things. One is dealing with a deterministic developmental process, the other with the fortuitous

course of history. In the evolutionist process, the individual

Kroeber maintains and

as the

phenomena

of multiple

is,

as

and simul-

taneous but independent discoveries and inventions clearly demonrelatively insignificant.

strate,

occurrences that significant.

But

is

it

history,

But, in the succession of chance

the individual

does not follow at

all

may be enormously

that he

is

therefore a

The goose who saved than many an emperor who

"genius" or a person of exceptional ability.

Rome was more significant ruled

historically

it.

We

have gone a long way since William James debated the

question of genius with Herbert Spencer, John Fiske, and Grant Allen, terious

to

The

many

begun

causes

and incidence of genius no longer seem

and unpredictable

as

mys-

they did to James and as they have

others since his time.

in James' day, has

ligible a

as

The

science of culture, hardly

been able to illuminate and render

whole area of human experience that

lies

intel-

beyond the

GENIUS:

ITS

CAUSES AND INCIDENCE

horizon of the psychologist.

231

The problem

of genius

now

is

fairly

well understood.

There

is,

as

we have

pointed out, no point in defining genius

psychologically at least so far as culture history

Many

is

concerned.

a person of exceptional natural ability never achieves

dis-

and fame. And, on the other hand, many men of distinguished achievement have been individuals of no more than tinction

high average or even mediocre native

To assume

ability.

achievement must mean high native

significant

ability

is

that

an un-

warranted inference.

Assuming that mental ability is distributed uniformly among mankind, throughout time, place, and race— and this assumption is supported by evidence from paleontology, neuroanatomy, and psychology— we may

virtually

rule

out the biological, or psy-

and incidence of alone. would grant

chological, factor in a consideration of the causes

genius,

and work with the

cultural factor

We

of course that other hctois being constant, superior natural as a genius

endowment

is

than one of lesser

more

the individual of

likely to achieve recognition

ability.

But other

factors are

not

constant; they are so variable, in fact, that a favorably situated

may have much more chance of becoming a "genius" than one of vastly superior native endowment but in a disadvantageous position culturally. All we can say then individual of meager ability

is

that in the Jong run, not in any particular instance, the genius

more

likely to

is

be one of superior than of average native ability. achieves recognition as a genius— is a person

A genius— one who in

whom

a significant synthesis of cultural elements has taken

place. In other words,

ber of elements

is

he

is

a function of his culture. If the

small, the current slow,

and streams

num-

isolated,

geniuses will be few and far between. If the cultural tradition rich

and

varied, the current quick

and the

is

rate of interaction rapid,

geniuses will be frequent and abundant. Genius occurs readily at

peaks of cultural development, rarely on the slopes or plateaus.

One

soil

or climate will foster and bring forth genius, another

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

232

The

will not.

abundant" "about

in the

deep

as

rivers flow

as

cart before the

is

human

"high tides of

He

is

affairs"

conundrum

the time honored

by great towns."

of the mystery

geniuses "seem so exceptionally

why

"mystety" of

is

as

James said

as to

why

great

quite right so far as the depth

concerned but, unfortunately, he has put the rivers. It is not

horse— or the towns before the

the abundance of "geniuses" that produces "the high tides of human affairs" (i.e., periods of florescence in cultural develop-

ment), but the other way around: tural

And

genius.

the great periods of cul-

it is

their flower

development that find

and expression

men

in

of

development are to be explained

the eras of great

culturologically, not psychologically.

And

as for attributing

course of history,"

complish is

it

"genius" to

we have

just as well. It

is

cumstances

To

it is

constellation of events.

may

deflect

its

being strategically situated in a

And

the least of things or

cir-

course.

explain culture history psychologically

on mvstcH',

the

not high or low levels of ability that

significant in such contexts;

moving

men who have "changed

seen that an idiot or a goose can ac-

of course to lean

is

to appeal to chance, to invoke "that invisible

and un-

imaginable play of forces within the nervous system," to account for significant events

and

eras.

The "utmost

ology can ever predict," says James, "

is

that

the way, society will be sure to follow." ever,

the student of socia genius

if

The

by working upon the supra-psychological,

level of culture,

makes

it

by explaining culture

intelligible.

And

.

.

show how-

supra-sociological

in terms of culture, really

in explaining culture

causes and incidence of genius as well.

.

culturologist,

he explains the

CHAPTER NINE

IKHNATON: The Great Man

The Culture Process

vs.

"Lawgivers, statesmen, religious leaders, discoverers, inventors, therefore only seem to shape civilization. The deep-seated, blind, and intricate forces that shape culture, also mold the so-called creative leaders of society as essentially as they mold the mass of humanity. Progress, so far as it can objectively be considered as such, is something that makes itself. do not make it." A. L. Kroeber.^

—

We

I

E.very living organism itself.

confronted by a world external to

is

This external world

organism and

is

is

in a very real sense alien to the

often inimical to

One must come

it.

terms with one's environment, however, in order to

To

adjust to environment

is

to control

it

to a degree, at least

from the standpoint of the organism; adjustment passive. Success in

adjustment means

to

live, to survive.

survival,

and

is

never wholly

survival

means

mastery, mastery of organism over external world. It is

but a step from

this position to

species, that the external

of

God

seeds, the

or of

man. The

and emotions projected from the

ideas

come

first,

they are the original

prime movers. As they are thrust forth from the mind

they take form as edifices, rituals

And

human

world and the events that take place there

are but the realization of ideas

mind

the belief, in the

stars

and

and

planets, animals

institutions. In the

the Idea finds expression in the 233

and

plants, tools

and

beginning was the Idea.

Word, and

the

Word

be-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

234

comes not only

flesh

is

and sky and

The

light.

all

external

but a projection of the mind of God.

This view of the cosmos and find

14), but earth

I,

be Light and there was

creation. Let there

world

(John

reality

world-wide. In Egypt

is

we

expressed in the conception of the god Ptah. In his early

it

davs Ptah was the patron of architects and craftsmen. But event-

he became the supreme mind from which

ually

"The world and

derived:

is

things were

all

existed as thought in his

it

his thoughts, like his plans for buildings

mind; and art,

that

all

in

and works of

needed but to be expressed in spoken words to take concrete

fomi

^

as material realities."

As

it

with gods, so

is

with men, according to the neuro-

it is

As the gods

s\Tnbolic tropism of the race called folk-thought. create

and move

shape

theirs.

thought and words, so do

their worlds with

With

men

incantation and ritual, with verbal formula and

acts,

and sometimes merely by the concentration of mind and

will,

they can

make the

rain to

in the heavens, heal the

grow, regulate their safely to the

But

Land

mode

of the

fall,

of

life,

ture,

last,

find their

way

not only the external world, the world of nature, that

it is

and

and, at

Dead.

thus under man's control. His

falls

change the course of the sun

smite their enemies, cause crops to

sick,

his history are

they not obviously

own

world, his society, his cul-

even more subject to his

made by him, and

it

is

will, for are

not plain that they

and wish? So runs the

are merely the expressions of his thought

tropism of folk-thought.

But

Some

On

all

men

are not equal, even

are better

shamans than

higher cultural levels

we

on the

level of primitive society.

others; they have

find chiefs

and

more "power."

priests;

and emperors, popes and potentates. The god Ptah

then kings

in the persons

of artists, scientists, lawgivers, rulers, generals, prophets,

ventors spews out tions,

new ways

relatively

new

of

tools

life.

and

devices,

Cultural advance

few gifted individuals.

And

as

new codes and is

and

in-

institu-

but the work of a

culture advances, the

IKHNATON

235

exceptional person increases in stature; great cultures can be built

Men. Like Yahweh who made the light merely by calling for it, the Great Men make society and history by exercising their inherent genius. Thus the verbal tropism. only by Great

II

In Egypt in the fourteenth century before the Christian

some remarkable events took place. Monotheism came to the fore and waged war on the old polytheism. All gods were abolished save one, and he was made Lord of all. Temples were closed, era

and revenues confiscated.

their priests driven out, their lands

new

change in

art

aspect, and,

A

The government was reorganized. A marked occurred. The whole regime of Eg}'pt changed its

was

capital

built.

has been claimed, the events which took place

it

then have profoundly affected our

come about? What caused foundations and extended

this its

lives today.

How

did

all

this

upheaval that shook Eg}^t to

influence even to us today?

One

its

of

the answers has been: Ikhnaton. This genius, through his vision

and of

and through sheer

nation at his feet. At

Needless to

upon

so

new philosophy and a new way and determination transformed the so we have been told.

caught a glimpse of a

insight,

life,

say,

will

least,

not

all

students of Eg}'ptian history have relied

simple an explanation. There are many, especially in

recent years,

who have

a live appreciation of the significance of

cultural forces in the historic process.

work

We shall

take note of their

later.

Social science

is

frequently absolved from

who

its

sins of sterility

and impotence by sympathetic

friends

scientist in the social field does

not have laboratories at his com-

mand

like the physicist

and hence cannot be expected to pro-

duce theories that can withstand the administer.

But

this

point out that the

exoneration

is

tests these

fallacious

techniques can

and misleading.

It is

true of course that the social scientist does not have laboratories— like the physicist.

But he does have

laboratories in another,

and

in

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

236 a vety real, sense. History

social

with the equivalent of the laboratories of the physicist. human organism respond to polyandry, to mothers-

scientist

How

and ethnography provide the

does the

money, spectroscopes, holy water, governmental regulation of prices; how will men live in desert, tundra, or jungle; what will be the effect of technological advance on social life and philos-

in-law, ,

ophy? Answers to these and thousands of similar questions may

be obtained by studies of the infinitely varied circumstances and conditions under which man has lived on this planet during the last million years. If the social scientist could set up his experiments

the physicist or rat psychologist does,

as

to imagine a requirement that

some

it

would be

difficult

has not been met by some

science

is

knowing how to use the resources at its disposal. Ancient Egypt is an excellent laboratory in which the scientist off

tribe,

some time and place. The meager yield of social not due to lack of laboratories but rather from not

culture, at

can

from

its

many

test

theories. It

was quite

isolated,

social

being cut

neighbors by deserts, mountains, and the sea. It was

therefore relatively undisturbed

by outside influence.

We

have a

good record, both archeologic and documentary, of history and cultural development of Egypt for tens of centuries. The land was richly endowed— as contrasted, let us say, with Australia

fairly

—and

we

so

can observe the growth of culture from a

fairly

primitive level to one of the greatest civilizations of the ancient

world. Here size

we have

and against

work.

We

a

on

a stage of

adequate

a culture process at

can take note of the materials employed, the resources

both natural and

We can

laid out before us,

background of millenia,

cultural.

trace the

all

follow the changes one by one.

development step by

factor influenced others.

can do about

We can

We can

step.

We can see how one

count and evaluate. In short,

that a physical scientist can

—except repeat the experiment. ing ground in which to test

We

many

do

we

in his laboratory

have, then, in Egypt a prov-

theories of social science.

We may distinguish two main types of historical interpretations:

IKHNATON

237

the psychological and the culturological. Especially prominent in the psychological interpretation

the

is

explanation

of historic

events in terms of the personalities of outstanding individuals,

but

"temperaments" of peoples or

resorts also to the

it

even to such things

"the

as

spirit of

the times."

The

races,

and

culturological

type of interpretation explains history in terms of cultural forces

and processes,

terms of the behavior, not of the

in

human

psyche,

but of technologies, institutions, and philosophies. Let us then go to our laboratory and use

it

which

to evaluate the theories

undertake to explain the great philosophic and political events that took place during the

life

of Ikhnaton.

We shall

examine

first

the psychological interpretation. Ill

The

great religious

Egypt about 1380

b.c.

and

political revolution

which gripped

has been pictured as the work of one man:

Ikhnaton. "Until Ikhnaton," says Breasted, "the history of the

world had been but the

been but drops of water first

in the great current.

And,

individual in history."

says Breasted,

plished this revolution by imposing his his

own mind, upon

own

Ikhnaton was the Ikhnaton accom-

born in

ideas, ideas

the external world: "Consciously and deh'ber-

by intellectual process he gained

ately,

men had

irresistible drift of tradition. All

his

and then

position,

placed himself squarely in the face of tradition and swept aside"

But

^

it

(emphasis ours).

ideas alone

were not enough;

will

power and energy were

required too. Ikhnaton possessed these qualities also,

we

are told.

He

"He

possessed unlimited personal force of character."

fully

convinced that he might entirely recast the world of religion,

thought,

art,

and

life

by the invincible purpose he held

thing bears the stamp of his individuality.

must have been court

officials

irresistibly

swayed by

blindly followed their

word which he spoke they

his

The men

unbending

.

about him

will

young king, and

listened attentively."

Every-

.

.

"was

.

.

.

The

to every

H. R. Hall

in-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

238

Egyptian history in terms of the waxing and waning of intelligence which reached its "acme under the supremely terprets

intelligent" Ikhnaton. "His reign

was the

age of the rule

earliest

of ideas, inespective of the condition and willingness of the people" (Breasted). The revolution of Ikhnaton "can only be

ascribed to the individual genius

Alexandre

(Gardiner).

[Ikhnaton] was the events."

Moret

man who

asserts

that

turned aside the natural course of

*

E. A. Wallis Budge, Ikhnaton was

To

man" "Amenophis IV

of a very exceptional

"a.

religious fanatic, in-

and obstinate, but earnest and sincere." No one, man would have been so blind to half-insane he says, "but a facts as to attempt to overthrow Amen and his worship." James Baikie saw him as a man with a "remorselessly clear mind," but tolerant, arrogant

exceedingly intolerant. "Seeing clearly," he writes, "that the uni-

god meant monotheism, he saw also that with his devotion to truth there could be no room for tolerance of

versality of his rigid

the easy-going old cults of the other gods." In short, the great

upheaval in Egypt was brought about by a man's passion for truth and his devotion to logic. Geo. Steindorff

and K. C. Seele

regard Ikhnaton as "probably the most fascinating personality

ever sat

on the throne of the pharaohs."

He

had

who

"mystic?!

a

temperament" and "an extraordinarily single-minded character. When once "embarked on a purpose he held to it with tenacity and

carried

cism."

it

D.

}.

through unwaveringly with nothing short of fanatiS.

Pendlebury

Ikhnaton was "the

first

who

Breasted's

rejects

individual in history," regards him, never-

theless, as

an "extraordinary' character," the

we know,

the

first

man

view that

with ideas oi his

"first rebel

own

.

.

." ^

.

.

.

whom

(emphasis

ours).

Ikhnaton revolutionized not only theology but are told.

The new

era in painting

art as well,

and sculpture that

is

we

associated

with his reign was initiated and directed by Ikhnaton himself: "It

is

evident that the artists of Ikhnaton's court were taught by

IKHNATON him

to

239

make the

chisel

and the brush

the story of what they

tell

Breasted believes that the remarkable

actually saw."

Aton "was probably written by the king

himself."

hymn

to

^

So remarkable a person does Ikhnaton appear to some observers that they cannot believe him to be a normal man. "Ikhnaton pursued his aims with

fatuous

[such]

fanaticism" that Breasted feels that "there

abnormal

in

this

an

is

and

feveri<3h

something hectic and

man, suggesting

extraordinary

may even have been

blindness

a

mind which

diseased." Weigall believes that Ikhnaton

was

epileptic, subject to hallucinations.^

There

is

of course

some evidence

Ikhnaton was abnormal. In the

to support the theory that

art of

the day, which

be characterized by naturalism and realism, he

is

said to

not infrequently

is

depicted as misshapen and abnormal.

"The King preaches the from the

living

return to nature, makes the artist

taken (specimens have been found), to tures are correctly reproduced

.

.

.

make

The

sure that his fea-

sculptors faithfully re-

produce the prominent lower jaw and the long, bulging

when

work

model, and allows a plaster cast of his face to be

skull,

even

these deformities have been further aggravated by disease."

In his later years, Ikhnaton

is

depicted, according to Moret, as

"rounded and effeminate— a hermaphrodite 'jreasts,

wide

hips,

figure,

with prominent

and thighs too much curved, which makes one

suspect a morbid nature, with

Some

*

writers have

some

pathological flaw."

^

attempted to account for the remarkable and

unusual character of Ikhnaton in terms of race as well

as of psy-

chology; they have maintained that he was not a full-blooded

Egyptian. Thus, Weigall reminds us that "it must always be

membered This

much

that the king had

helped

him

to

stand

out

re-

foreign blood in his veins."

amongst

the

"superstitious

Egyptians [who were] ever lacking in originality." Moret, too,

comments on "the mixture plicated

of Aryan blood

by the Syrian descent of Tii"

ground.^'*

.

.

.

further com-

in Ikhnaton's racial back-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

240 Here, then, period.

we have an

explanation of Egyptian history for this

phenomenal person appears on the

A

scene, a

man

with so

much genius and power of will as to go beyond the boundaries of the normal, and by himself to transform the religion, social organization, to

and the

be tested

in

Here we have a theory

art of a great nation.

our "laboratory."

IV Before turning to our laboratory proper, namely, the culture history of Eg^-pt as

we know

documentary

the evolution of culture in like that of ancient

Man talk.

began

He

it

through archeological research and

studies, let us consider briefly

Egypt

what we know about

general and the nature of

societies

in particular.

his career as

an anthropoid

was distinguished from

all

who was

just learning to

other animal species by the

faculty of articulate speech. It was this faculty

which transformed

the discontinuous, non-accumulative, non-progressive process of tool-using

among

the anthropoids into a continuous, cumulative

and progressive process

human

in the

species. Articulate

speech

transformed, also, the social organization of this gifted primate,

and by the inauguration of co-operation

as a

way

of life

and

security, opened the door to virtually unlimited social evolution.

And,

finally,

language and speech

made

it

possible for

man

to ac-

cumulate experience and knowledge in a form that made easy transmission and

maximum

As we have already which

use possible.

seen,

articulate speech

is

it

was the

ability to use

symbols

— of

the most important and characteristic

form of expression— that made the origin and subsequent growth of culture possible.

But symbols did not provide the motive power

for cultural advance. This could only

in the sense in

which the

come from

energy, energy

physicist uses this term. All life

is

a

matter of energy transformations. Organisms enable themselves to live

by capturing

incorporating

it

free energy

into their

own

from non-living systems and by living systems. Culture

is

man's

IKHNATON

241

means

peculiar

'in order to

as

ways of

and

and of putting

of harnessing energy

it

work

to

make human hfe secure. Culture grows and develops harnessing more energy per capita per year are found

the means of making the expenditure of this energy more

as

are

effective

Animal husbandry,

improved.

water

agriculture,

power, and the use of fuels in engines, together with countless inventions and improvements of tools and mechanical devices,

mark the growth

of culture as

it is

by technological

carried forward

advance.

The

evolution of society

or tribal, and

civil

is

marked by two

or national.

The

tribe

great stages: primitive

and clan are

of primitive society (although the clan

istics

the political state characterizes

versal);

society

based upon kinship

is

ties;

civil

is

society.

civil

society

The

and territorial distinctions. Primitive homogeneous structurally; civil society, more

transition

from primitive to

uni-

Primitive

upon property

relationships relatively

character-

by no means

society

was

diversified.*

was brought about

civil society

by technological advance, culture,

cation

specifically, by the development of agrisupplemented— though not everywhere—by the domesti-

of

animals.

The

maturation

of

the

agricultural

arts

produced the following chain of sequences: increased food supply, increase in population, increase in population density

of political groupings, diversion of

ducing to specialized distribution of goods,

arts

and

human new

crafts, a

money and

and

in size

labor from food-pro-

type of exchange and

markets, economic classes, and

so on.

The of

civil

differentiation of structure, the specialization of function,

society required a special

* See Lewis

mechanism

to co-ordinate the

H. Morgan, Ancient Society, (New York, 1877), p. 6, for the statement of this thesis. Of this distinction A. R. Radchffe-Brown writes: "Indeed we may agree with Morgan that the passage from lower forms of civihzation to higher forms such as our own was essentially a passage from society based on kinship to the state based on political organization," "Some Problems of Bantu Sociology," (Bantu Studies, October, 1922), pp. 40-41. classic

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

242

and

various segments

Such an integrative mechanism i.e., a mechanism having "State-Church/' was the

was produced.

It

temporal and

ecclesiastical aspects.

The

and to integrate them into

classes of society

effective whole.

a coherent and

function of the state-church

to preserve the integrity of

is

and against destruction

society against dissolution from within

from outside

mechanism

forces. In other words, this integrative

must co-ordinate the various elements of society— occupational groups, social strata and classes— and relate them to one another harmoniously, on the one hand, and on the other, the life of the must be made secure against the aggression of its neighmechanism has a variety of forms. Church king, may be distinct or they may be one, and state, priest and structurally. And, of course, there are many degrees of overlapping or distinction. But everywhere in civil society—whether it be society

bors. This integrative

among

the

India, or

Maya

China

or Inca of the

presents these find

World, or

find this

and

integration,

two

in ancient

it

Old— we

in the

co-ordination,

of

New

fundamental mechanism

regulation.

aspects: temporal

Mesopotamia,

in

and

And

it

ecclesiastical.

always

Thus we

Egypt.

But one further observation before we turn to the culture history of Eg}'pt itself: In civil societies where the temporal and ecclesiastical aspects of the integrative mechanism are structurally distinct there

comes

is

always rivalry, a rivalry which not infrequently be-

a bitter struggle for

Both church and state the same function so

power. This

is

not surprising, of course.

are engaged in the far as

same

tasks,

the social organism

is

namely, integration, co-ordination, regulation. As Roosevelt once shrewdly observed: "That

we

call

government

is

human

both have concerned,

Franklin D.

agency which

seeking through social and economic

means

the same goal which the churches are seeking through social and spiritual

has

its

result

means."

own is

" The

basis for rivalry

"vested interest"; each

often a bitter struggle.

tries

We

is

therefore plain.

to increase

its

power.

Each

The

think offhand of the contest

IKHNATON

243

between Henry VIII of England and the the Church

pean

State struggle throughout

We

history.

priests

from

vs.

Thomas

recall

and churches and the

state in

Roman many

Church, and of

centuries of Euro-

Jefferson's diatribes against the

not only to separate church America, but to render the former powerless. efforts,

We

recall that Pius

IX

in his so-called Syllabus of Errors "claimed the

complete independence of the Church from state control; upheld the necessity of a continuance of the temporal power of the

Roman The

See."

Roman Church on

position of the

set forth

by Reverend H. Harrington

"Christendom authority

is

is

one

society,

and

paramount because of

greater importance of

and temporal

its

been well

in that society the spiritual

and the

greater dignity,

far

work. In any difEculties between spiritual

rulers the spiritual

treason to Christ they

its

this issue has

as follows:

may

must be the

judges, for without

not permit anything earthly however

important to interfere with the work of salvation.

If

therefore

the rulers of the church, even mistakenly, judge that this work

hampered by some temporal

policy, loyal Christians

by the decision." ^^ There are numerous examples church

Innocent

III

annulled the

Magna

must abide

of political action taken

in direct opposition to the state.

To mention

Charta; Innocent

the Treaty of Westphalia null and void; Pius

is

by the

but a few:

X pronounced

IX condemned the

Austrian constitution of 1868; until 1904, Catholics in Italy were prohibited by the

Church from taking

part in any parliamentary

election.

we have witnessed a bitter struggle between church and state. The issue has, of course, been couched in religious terms. But everyone who understands the situation knows that it is a question of who is to rule Mexico, the ultraIn Mexico in recent years

montane

clerical

politicians

or the temporal, national political

machine. Finally,

we may note

the case of Russia. Under the Czars

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

244

state worked hand in hand. The church held vast and other properties and received a grant of milhons of

church and estates

rubles from the state treasury every year.

came

to

power they

functions. It

is

was

Russia.

the Bolsheviks

once stripped the church of

at

significant to note that

there any great

When

outcry against

Under the Czars

not until

"reh'gious

done

persecution"

freedom hardly

religious

pohtical

its

this v^as

existed.

in

There

were periodic pogroms in which thousands of persons of an alien faith were done to death. Under the Soviets there was more religious freedom— freedom for all faiths, freedom to believe and

one pleased— than there ever had been under the then the great outcry from the clergy— Catholic,

to worship as

old regime.

Why

Protestant,

and Jewish

alike?

The answer

is

plain: the political

functions of the church had been done away with and their sources of income virtually shut off.*

The

Bolsheviki had tried to abolish

the ecclesiastical arm of the integrative mechanism of the society. It

is

been brought back to Russia

in recent years

again as an integrative mechanism.

titular

head

of

the

and established once

The church

powerful unifying thing in Soviet

Benjamin,

new

interesting to note, however, that the church has

civil

life,"

Russian

today

is

"the most

the Metropolitan

Orthodox church

America, said recently while on his way to Moscow.

It

is

in

interest-

ing to note that "Godless, anti-religious, Marxist" Russia conforms to the pattern

mechanism, the

common

to

all

nationalist states: the integrative

central nervous system, has

its spiritual, as

well as

temporal, side.

its

V Let us turn

now

to the culture history of

the relationship between

church

and

state,

Egypt and trace priest

and

king,

through the centuries. *

iivc

a tour of Soviet Russia in 1929, I visited open churches of many But, as a member of the clergy once complained to me: can't

During

faiths.

on Jcopeks!"

"We

I

IKHNATON

245

In the Old

Kingdom (2800-2250

Pharaoh, playing the leading .

,

.

role.

b.c.) we find the To quote Breasted:

state,

the

there arose at the beginning of the nation's history a state

which the Pharaoh played the supreme role. was he alone who worshipped the gods; in fact, however, he was of necessity represented in each of the many temples of the land by a high priest.^^ form of

In

religion, in

theor}', therefore, it

The

various temples

and

their respective priesthoods

were sup-

ported by the produce from their endowments in land and by contributions from the royal revenues.

It

was the business of

addition to their religious and ceremonial duties, to

priests, in

administer these lands and to collect revenue from

which they

A

lived.

few centuries

Feudal Age,

somewhat there was

we

later,

during the Middle Kingdom, or the

find that although the temples

in size, "the official cult still

But the

them upon

no large

had increased

was not materially

altered,

basis for a rise to

power

existed in their possession of lands

of the priesthoods

which were under

had long

their control

and whose produce was appropriated by them. In addition

to this

they received frequent contributions from the royal treasury.

temples were, of course, not subject to taxation. fore,

in

a

and

class of priests." ^^

favorable position

to

They

increase their wealth

accumulation and expansion, and to grow in

The

were, there-

through

power

as

Ahmose

I,

political

their wealth accumulated.

Under the Empire,

who completed

First Period

(beginning with

the expulsion of the Hyksos about 1546 B.C.), the

priesthoods had grown to considerable power and affluence. Says Breasted:

As a natural consequence of the great wealth of the temples under the Empire, the priesthood becomes a profession, no longer merely an incidental office held by a layman, as in the Old and Middle Kingdoms. As the priests increase in numbers

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

246

they gain more and more political power; while the growing wealth of the temples demands for its proper administration a veritable

kno\\n

army

of temple officials of

all

sorts,

who were

un-

to the old days of simplicity.^^

Not only were the temples becoming wealthier and the hoods more powerful, they were becoming unified as well:

priest-

Heretofore the priests of the various sanctuaries had never been united by any official ties, but existed only in individual and entirely separated communities without interrelation. All these priestly bodies were now united in a great sacerdotal organization embracing the whole land. The head of the state temple at Thebes, the High Priest of Amon, was the supreme head of this greater body also and his power was thereby increased far beyond that of his older rivals

Thus we organized.

find the priesthoods

They

.

.

.^^

becoming wealthy, powerful, and

are approaching the

time when they

to threaten the supremacy of the Pharaoh himself, as

We

get

some notion

of the growing political

will

we

be able

shall see.

power of the

priesthoods from an incident that occurred during the feud of the

Thutmosids. During the declining years of Thutmose sons,

I,

one of

born to the King by an obscure concubine, Thutmose

his III,

was put upon the throne "by a highly dramatic coup d'etat" of the priests of

Amon

and

struggles for the throne

and

his half-brother

his half-sister wife,

Originally

part.

in

the temple of that god. In the

which followed, between Thutmose

Thutmose

II,

and between Thutmose

III

III

and

Hatshepsut, the priests played an important

Icept

in

the

background

by Thutmose

III,

Hatshepsut was eventually elevated to a position of supremacy by a group the most powerful member of which was Hapuseneb, who

was both High Priest of person

all

Amon

and

vizier.

"He

thus united in his

the power of the administrative government with that

of the strong priestly party."

"

These events took place about

a century before the

time of

IKHNATON

247

Ikhnaton. During the reign of

one of the High

ton,

Amenhotep III, the father of IkhnaAmon, Ptahmose by name, was

Priests of

one of the two grand viziers of the kingdom. Another held the ofEce of chief treasurer. During this reign also the priests of

also

Amon

acquired some,

duced

in the

if

not complete control over the gold pro-

Sudan. In the use of

spells

used in mortuary

(hike), the priests "were provided with a

wealth and influence which they did not

means

rites

of acquiring

to utilize to the

fail

^®

utmost."

Thus we observe the growing power held the most important

king himself.

To

They

of the priesthoods.

offices in the realm next to that of the

have been chief treasurer of the kingdom must

have placed great power

in the

hands of the High

Priests of

Amon,

power that was augmented by control over the gold supply from the Sudanese mines. These priests could make and unmake kings. They had but one more step to take: to seize the throne

a

for

themselves. Breasted believes

made some attempt

evidently

lay so heavily

who was not

a vizier

that "it

hood

.

on the

is .

.

High

Ikhnaton's

hand that

he had succeeded Ptahmose by

Priest of

Amon." And Peet

not impossible that the increased power of the

was a circumstance which precipitated,

if

it

Amenhotep IV was

feels

priest-

did not

actually cause, the religious revolution of Ikhnaton." It was this stage that

"had

father

to shake off the priestly

sceptre, for

a

that

upon

thrust at birth.^^

VI Amenhotep IV was born about 1409 Amenhotep III and his Queen Tiy. Estimates time he ascended the throne

from nine to twenty-four according to those

who

years.

the son

of

of his age at the

coregent with his father vary

For the

first

years of his reign,

believe he ascended to the throne as a

child, the affairs of state

intents

as

b.c,

were managed by

and purposes, Ti ruled Egypt

his

mother. "To

all

for several years after her

husband's death," according to Wallis Budge, "and the boy king

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

248

did for a time at least what his mother told him." Glanville also believes that "Tiy clearly controlled him to some extent until he

Thebes." Although Amenhotep

left

did not die until about

III

the tenth year of Ikhnaton's reign, he was in bad health during this period and seems to have had little to do with the govern-

ment.

The

fact that his

name was

in the sixth year of Ikhnaton's reign

chiselled out of inscriptions

would seem

to support this

view.^°

Very early in the reign of Amenhotep IV the worship of a supreme god, Aton, was inaugurated. Aton was none other than the old sun-god, Re, in a new role. Other gods were tolerated for a while, but with the growing resentment of the priesthoods, that of

particularly capital,

Amon, Amenhotep IV built a new cityname to Ikhnaton,*

Akhetaten, for his god, changed his

closed the temples of the other gods, dispossessed the priesthoods,

confiscated their lands

work

set to

to establish

regime, both religious and political. All this had taken

new

his

and revenues, and

place by the sixth year of his reign.

Ikhnaton's reign was

Not on

full of troubles as

may

well be imagined.

only did he have a bitter struggle with powerful priesthoods

his hands,

tradesmen, peasants,

To be

whom

but by closing the temples he incurred the resent-

opposition of numerous other classes as well, such as

ment and

artisans,

who had

sure,

actors,

scribes,

as

even

a vested occupational interest in the old order.

he was

or no time for

for their loyalty

v^ath a revolution at

affairs

and support.

home, Ikhnaton had

Eg\'pt's vassals in Asia, the Hittites in particular

defiant

and

up becoming

aggressive. In the twelfth year of his reign, Ikhnaton's

Amenhotep, "Amon

is

satisfied"

(Peet)

gives

way

well with the Aten, or Disk" (Pendlebury, Peet), or

Aton" (Steindorff and Seele); the old god change of names. to

little

abroad. As a consequence, revolts flared

among

*

and

shepherds

the Heretic King had a group of loyal followers,

he rewarded handsomely

Occupied

and

gives

to Ikhnaton, "It is is Beneficial

"He way

Who

to the

new

in this

IKHNATON

249

mother, Tiy,

time she

who

resided in Thebes, visited Akhetaten, at

may have urged

a moderation of policy at

which

action against the revolting vassals

and compromise with Ikhnaton making a feeble

home, perhaps even

the priests of Aton. At any

rate,

we

find

a

gesture against the rebels abroad and initiating conciliatory meas-

home. Smenkhkara, the "beloved" of Ikhnaton and now

ures at

coregent with him, was sent to Thebes to effect a reconciliation

now broke out in the own household. Although Ikhnaton seems to have been

with the priests of Amon.^^ But dissension king's

willing to compromise, Nefertiti, his wife, was not.

she

fell

retired

into disgrace, or was estranged

with some powerful followers to the north end of the

where she built a palace disintegrating at

home and

political structure

city

was

Akhetaten; Smenkhkara, the

b.c. at

same time

in

Thebes. Tutankhaten, a

By now the priestly party was The new king soon realized that he

nine, ascended the throne.

growing rapidly in strength.

could stay on the throne only

if

he "came to terms with the

porters of the traditional faith,"

abandon

He

rate,

abroad,

coregent, died at almost the

to

The

for herself.

Ikhnaton died about 1369

boy of

At any

from her husband, and

his capital at

i.e.,

the

priests.

He

sup-

was obliged

Akhetaten and move his court to Thebes.

was compelled to abandon the heresy of Ikhnaton and to

"acknowledge himself

officially as

Accordingly, he changed his in Life

father

is

Amun." for

an adherent of

all

.

.

Amun,"

of his devotion to "his

He "made

the gods, fashioning their statues of pure

d/am-gold, restoring their sanctuaries

triumph of the

tells

of his benefactions to his priests.

perpetual endowments, investing

the daily service,

.

Tutankhamun, "Beautiful

to

In a manifesto he

Amun" and

monuments

name

.

.

.

providing them with

them with

divine offerings for

and supplying their provisions on earth."

priests

was

^^

The

virtually complete.

Tutankhamun reigned but nine years and was followed by Eye, a member of Ikhnaton's court. He too lasted but a short time.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

250

Egypt was now

in a state of anarchy.

Even Thebes became

a prey

to plundering bands. Thus ended the Eighteenth Dynasty. Out of this chaos and confusion law and order eventually

emerged organized around a man who had been an important figure in Egj^^tian government for years. This man was Harmhab. He had been commander in chief of the army under Ikhnaton

and Tutankhamun, and as deputy of the king he had attained a position in the empire second only to the king himself. Despite this fact, however, Harmhab was never converted to the Aton religion. He did not go to Akhetaten with his king but remained in

Memphis where he had

his residence.

"He remained

loyal to

the old gods especially to the patron divinity of his native city

was thus acceptable to the priests of Amon. that of the army which was already under and With their backing his control he ascended the throne. The ceremony of installation

and to Amun,"

was

^^

in fact carried

He

out by the priests of

new

Amon

themselves.^*

he

sister of Nefertiti,

but Alexander Scharff says that

position

Some

by marrying the

wTiters assert that

legalized his

it "is

certain"

that this was not the case, that this assumption was born of an error of translation.^^

i

Having come into power with prising to see

Harmhab busying

by Tutankhamun. As was

in

priestly

set

it

is

not

sur-

himself with the restoration begun

a matter of fact, as

working order he

backing

soon as his government

about energetically to restore the

temples and their priesthoods to their former condition of wealth

and power:

He

restored the temples

Nubia.

He

shaped

all

from the pools of the Delta marshes to

their images in

number more than

before,

which he made ... He raised up their temples; he fashioned a hundred images with all their bodies correct and with all splendid costly stones. He sought the precincts of the gods which were in the districts in this land; he furnished them as they had been since the time of increasing the beauty in that

IKHNATON the

first

251 beginning.

He

established

for

them

daily

offerings

every day. All the vessels of their temples were wrought of

and gold. He equipped them with priests and with ritual and with the choicest of the army. He transferred to them lands and cattle, supplied with all equipment.^^ silver

priests

Harmhab attempted

to obliterate

all

traces of the era of heresy.

He

had the names of Ikhnaton, Tutankhamun, and Eye hacked from the monuments and his own put in their place. He conhimself the direct successor to

sidered

Ikhnaton and

Amenhotep

had At Thebes, Harmhab razed the temple

III,

as

if

never existed.

his followers

materials to enlarge the temple of

of

Amon.

Aton and used the

Aton's temple at Ak-

hetaten was likewise despoiled to obtain building materials. Ikhnaton's

tombs effort

"tomb was wrecked and

its reliefs

chiselled out; while the

of his nobles there were violated in the

was made to annihilate

and when

in legal procedure

all it

same way. Every man;

trace of the reign of such a

was necessary to

cite

documents

or enactments from his reign he was designated as 'that criminal of Akhetaton'."

The

under Harmhab

is

the priest of

"How

prosperity

and power of the priesthoods

well indicated

by the words of Neferhotep,

Amon:

\

him who knows the gifts: of that god (Amon), the king of gods. Wise is he who knows him, favoured is he who serves him, there is protection for him who bountiful are the possessions of

follows him."

^7

Neferhotep "was at the

moment

receiving the

richest tokens of the king's favour."

As Breasted

observes, the triumph of

Amon

was

now

complete.

VII

We

may now

follow the course of the relationship between

church and state in Egypt for a few more centuries.

The Nineteenth Dynasty began with Asia, followed

by campaigns in

Israel

wars of reconquest in

and against the Libyans.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

252

With

the death of Merenptah, son of Ramesses

II,

the land

fell

again into virtual anarchy from which it emerged in 1200 b.c. under Scthnakt, founder of the Twentieth Dynasty. Sethnakt came to the throne backed by the priesthoods, "these wealthiest and most powerful communities in Egypt." Ramesses III, Seth-

was completely

nakt's successor,

in the grip of the priests.

The and

temples, says Breasted, "were fast becoming a grave political

economic menace." But Ramesses could do naught else but pour the wealth of the royal house into the sacred coffers with the most lavish liberality.^^

We

get a fair notion of the wealth

hoods of the time of Ramesses

III

and power of the

inventory in the Papyrus Harris which covers almost

priest-

from an

(1198-1167 b.c.)

all

of the

temples of Egypt: they possessed over one hundred and seven thousand slaves; ... in all likelihood one person in every fifty was a slave of .

.

.

some temple. The temples thus owned two percent

we

population. In lands

of the

find the sacred endovraients amount-

ing to nearly three quarters of a million acres, that is, nearly one seventh, or over fourteen and a half percent of the cultivable land of the country

head of

.

.

eight vessels,

cattle;

.

some

.

.

their

fifty

.

They owned

combined

nearly a half million

fleets

numbered eighty

three workshops and shipyards

.

.

.

owned in all one hundred we remember that all this vast

while in Syria, Kush and Egypt they

and

sixty

some

far

re\'enues *

This

than ten thousand square miles and

it will

was entirely exempt from be seen that the economic equilibrium of the

was endangered.^^

Among as by

less

five or six million inhabitants

taxation * state

When

nine towns.

property in a land of

the priesthoods, that of the god of the richest and most powerful of

all.

Amon

stood out

Their estates and

were second only to those of the king. "The

may be an

overstatement; see Edgerton, 1947, p. 157.

political

IKHNATON

253

power wielded by

a

community

vast wealth/' says Breasted, "was

who

of priests

from now on

controlled such

a force

Pharaoh could ignore. Without compromising with tinually conciliating

Sometimes the

no Pharaoh could have ruled long." ^° treasury stood empty while the temples

it,

royal

were loaded down with wealth.

We

read of

workmen during the

reign of Ramesses III starving as they labored

works until

it

which no and con-

on some public

in desperation they gather before the ofEce of their

master demanding their rations of grain. "Thus while the poor in the employ of the state were starving at the door of an empty the

treasury,

plenty."

store-houses

At the coronation

the

gods

were

groaning

of Ramesses IV, a "detailed

...

benefactions conferred large

of

with

^^

of

list

all

and small temple of the land" was published. "In

manner the new king contrived

the

on each and every

[by Ramesses III]

this

to confirm the clergy in their

holdings of property and to gain their influential good will for

own

his .

.

reign

... As the

authority of the state grew weaker

Amun

the power and prestige of

.

proportionately.

All

and

his priesthood

important public and private

expanded

affairs

were

regulated and decided either by the priesthood or by an oracle

which operated ... puts

it,

the imperial temple

in

.

.

."

As Breasted

"the state was rapidly moving toward a condition in which

be religious and sacerdotal, and the aspower by the High Priest of Amon but a very

chief function should

its

sumption of

royal

natural and easy transition." It

was not long until

this transition did

the reign of Ramesses XI, a

high priest of

Amon

and commander

at

^^

man named

indeed take place. In

Hrihor was appointed

Karnak. Next he became viceroy of Nubia

in chief of the army.

He now

A little later he

vizierate of

Upper Egypt.

control

the highest spiritual, military, and

the

all

state. It

"had united under civil

assumed the his personal

functions of

was but a single step more to put aside the impotent

Ramesses XI and ascend the throne

in his place.

By

this act of

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

254

usurpation (1085 B.C.), the secular state of the pharaonic empire was ushered to its grave and an ecclesiastical state was erected in its

which the chief god of Thebes exercised the authority ^^ The triumph of the through the medium of his priesthood."

place, in

priests

was

now

complete.

VIII

No

matter

how

he had

his intellect

and indomitable

his setting in a great nation, in a rich

and we may assume that have

Ikhnaton might have been,

individualistic

no matter how enormous

so profoundly

it

his wdll,

and mature

affected his life as

he

supposed to

is

changed the world about him. Let

fore, turn to an examination of the relationship

culture,

us, there-

between Ikhnaton

and the culture history of Egypt. It

is

which mark the reign

plain at the outset that the events

of Ikhnaton are not novel by any means. Far from

merely part of a process that had been going on before Ikhnaton was

age-old

culture process receives

pression during the lifetime is

nothing original in

it

rivalry between king and priest. more emphatic and dramatic exof Ikhnaton, no doubt, but there

whatever.

Religious philosophy in Eg}q3t had been of

monotheism

they are

for centuries

bom, namely, the philosophic trend toward

monotheism and the Tliis

it;

for centuries before

moving

in the direction

Ikhnaton was born.

We

find

in religious philosophy a reflection of the real world; the theology

mode Good Shepherd God as a Great

of a people will echo a dominant note in their terrestrial of

life.

and

A

pastoral culture

his flock;

find

its

image

in a

an era of cathedral building sees

Architect; an age of

down moral

may

debits

commerce

and

credits;

finds

Him

with a ledger, jotting

emphasis upon the profit system

and the high-pressure salesmanship that

is

required to

make

it

function, picture Jesus as a super-salesman; * and, in an age of *

The Man Nobody Knows, wherein Jesus is pictured good fellow, the perfect image of a 'go-getter' from the

See Bruce Barton,

as "a joyous, ripping

IKHNATON

255

God

science,

Scientist

god of law and order" (Millikan),

a

"is

moving about

in his

cosmic laboratory,

his

a

Great

experiments

to perform.*

In ancient Egypt, theological thinking was, as Breasted has

and

so well said, "brought into close

conditions,"

political

numerous little

a

^*

many

deities,

kingdoms. As the

In of

the very early period,

which were

were

Egypt progressed,

as national deities.

As the nation

integrated under the rule of a powerful

was a tendency for one god to become supreme.

single head, there

The ascendancy

there

local gods, or patrons of

political unification of

few of the greater gods emerged

became more and more

sensitive relationship with

of Re, the sun-god,

became marked during the

Fifth Dynasty and by the rise of the Twelfth Dynasty his su-

premacy was unquestioned. Other priesthoods,

.

.

.

desirous of securing for their own, perhaps purely local

deity, a share of the sun-god's glory, gradually discovered that

form and name of Re; and some of them found practical expression in the god's name. Thus, for example, the priests of Sobk, a crocodile god, who had no connection with the sun-god in the beginning, now called him Sobk-Re. In like manner, Amon, hitherto an obscure local god of Thebes, who had attained some prominence by the political rise of the city, was from now on a

their

god was but

went

so far that their theologizing

a

solar god, and was commonly called by his priest Amon-Re. There were in this movement the beginnings of a tendency toward a pantheistic solar monotheism, which we shall yet trace

to

its

remarkable culmination.^^

The concept

of

Maat was developed from the

designation of

personal qualities, or something practiced by individuals, to someJazztown Rotary Club," (Beard, The Rise of American Civilization, II, one vol. ed., New York, 1930), p. 729. * Cf. Living Philosophies (New York, 1931), p. 44. Millikan's god seems to bear a considerable likeness physicist.

to a

certain

American Nobel prize-winner

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

256

method

thing of national dimensions— a "spirit and

guidance and control of

human

affairs

.

.

universal values,

and

suffused with moral

.

conviction. Tliere was thus created for the

of a national

time a realm of

first

in conceiving the divine ruler of

such a realm

^^ the Egyptians were moving on the road towards monotheism." But the conception of a supreme deity whose rule extended to

the farthest reaches of the earth and embraced peoples was impossible so long fined to the Nile valley. In the

only Eg}q3t, and in the

guard at her all

frontiers,

hymns

Pyramid Age the sun-god ruled

of the day

we

find

him standing

"where he builds the gates which

outsiders from entering his inviolable domain." It

after Egypt's conquests

lands and

all

power remained con-

as Egypt's

otherwise

is

abroad and the era of empire.

restrain

Then

the

supreme god of Egypt became the Lord of the Universe. As Breasted has so succinctly put it: "Monotheism is but imperialism in religion."

^''

Thus we

on end before the reign of

see that for centuries

Ikhnaton, religious philosophy in Egypt had been developing in the direction of monotheism as the political unification and im-

expansion of Egypt proceeded. And, as

perial

the rivalry between church and already old before

What

and

it

Ikhnaton originate?

The

last logical step

gods but Aton. As Breasted

ment

priest

already seen,

and king, was

The answer must

be,

trend toward monotheism was already

was not until the

naton took the

we have

between

Amenhotep IV was born.

then did

"Virtually nothing." there,

state,

latter years of his reign that Ikh-

and attempted to abolish

says, "this

all

other

whole monotheistic move-

the culmination of the ancient recognition of a moral

is

order by the Egyptian thinkers of the Pyramid

Age and

their

creation of a realm of universal ethical values." Aton, the Disk

god, was of sufficient importance during the reign of Ikhnaton's father to have a temple erected in his

"the

name of the new deity, in his name of Shu who is

full

rejoices

honor

at Thebes.

'Re-Horus-of-the-Horizon

the Disk'

is

Even

who

to be ascribed not

IKHNATON to

257

Akhenaten but to

some

his father or even to

earlier king."

Indeed, the "most striking fact" pertaining to the various names

new

of the

embody

deity "is that they

a distinct attempt at con-

tinuity with the sun worship of past ages."

The Hymn

which was composed by Ikhnaton himself, according of

many

authors (who, however,

modern heads

addresses of

may know

full

to Aton,

to the belief

well that the

of state are frequently written

architects of

hymn

Amenhotep

to the sun-god

hymn

naton's

latter] are

ideas are

III,

which was

to the disk

not at

all

he

.

.

.

writes, "a.

;

by

Two

others), was remarkable but unoriginal, according to Peet.

had already dedicated

a

very close anticipation of Ikh-

the ideas

.

.

[expressed in the

.

new, nor indeed are the phrases in which these

embodied." Nor was Ikhnaton the

of his rivals from public

monuments;

this

first

to erase the

names

was done freely in the

feud of the Thutmosids.^^

The

struggle with the priesthoods

We

ascended the throne.

Amon

held powerful

was

also acute

when Ikhnaton

have already seen that the

offices

under

his

threatening the security of the throne.

father,

And

priests of

Amenhotep

III,

Breasted says of them:

They were rich and powerful when Ikhnaton ascended the throne. "They had installed Thutmose III as king, and could they have supplanted with one of their own tools the young dreamer [Ikhnaton]

who now

so at the

first

held the throne they would of course have done

opportunity." Moret, too, sees the drastic steps

taken by Ikhnaton as an attempt to "break the power of the priests of

With it

Amon

lest

mind

in

priests, is

was a new philosophy germinating

and temples— especially when

Would

was not new? a bold

it

of an adolescent genius that precipitated the

against the priests

was

^^

the throne in danger of being captured by the

necessary to assume that

in the

it

they should dethrone the kings."

and

self-defense,

in

it

this

move

philosophy

not be more reasonable to assume that

by the temporal government self-preservation? To close the temples and

drastic step taken

confiscate their lands

and revenues would be a doubly

effective

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

258

move:

political

that

it

would strengthen the throne

weakened

it

It

its rivals.

as

same time

note that

it

who succeeded

not a priesthood of the new god Aton

was

to the

Anion. Ikhnaton was himself the First Prophet of Aton,

estates of

and

at the

significant to

is

such assumed control of the vast wealth of his god. "This

appropriation of the property of the temples," observes Moret,

"shows us what lay beneath the

and

political objects of

first

time that struggles for

religious revolution, the '^^

the rupture."

It

economic

was probably not the

power were carried on in not been the last. The

terrestrial

of celestial ideolog\'; it certainly has

terms

break between Ikhnaton and the priests was therefore but the

culmination

centuries

of

palace and temple. drastic

move was

With

necessar\^

ence. For the temporal

of

and competition between

rivalry

the growing power of the priests a if

the king was to retain his independ-

government

it

was do or

die.

The maturing

philosophy of monotheism provided an excellent pretext and a

weapon. But

was merely the means employed;

it

it

was not the

cause.

The

position taken

increased

on

this

issue

is

rather

.

.

.

was a circumstance which

did not actually cause, the religious revolution

if it

of Ikhnaton"*^

he

writers

already seen, Peet believes that "the

power of the priesthood

precipitated,

ever,

by some

we have

curious. Thus, as

(emphasis ours).

says that

it is

On

the very next page, how-

"only an inference" to explain the revolu-

and king. Yet he accepts Ikhnaton's "peculiar genius"~about which we know absolutely nothtion as a struggle

between

priests

ing directly— as one of the causes of the revolution! In anothet essay, also,

Peet discounts the political aspect of the revolution

and portrays Ikhnaton

as a theologian.'*-

He

explains the failure of

Ikhnaton's revolution in terms of a conflict of philosophies rather

than

as a clash of political forces.*^

fail?

Why

could

it

But why did the Aton

not win out over older beliefs? This

thing that Pcct's theory does not explain. Wallis

Ikhnaton

failed

Budge

religion is

some-

says that

"because his religion did not appeal to the tradi-

iKHNATON tion

and

259

religious instincts

and

susceptibilities [whatever they are,

L.A.W.] that already existed among the Egyptians." this

begging the very question at issue?

religion fail to appeal to the Egyptians?

revolution failed because the is

merely to say that

because

it

it

new

failed. It

is

Why

To

**

But

is

not'

did Ikhnaton's

say that a theological

creed could win no converts like saying that a fire

went out

quit burning.

Thus we

see that those

who

interpret the revolution of Iknaton's

reign as a philosophical, or theological, affair account for political

events in terms of rival philosophies, but they do not explain the philosophies.

Our

theory does both.

tween Ikhnaton and the

It explains

the struggle be-

terms of the structure of

priests in

civil

societies and the function of the State-Church as an integrative

and regulative mechanism. And

explains the philosophies as

it

instruments used by priests and king in this struggle.

ophy of Ikhnaton

failed

The

philos-

because the political and economic power

of the priesthoods was greater than that of the Pharaoh's party.

In this connection

we may

consider the close relationship be-

tween Queen Hatshepsut and Senenmut. Steindorff and Seele

wonder what it was that caused Hatshepsut to heap honors and favors upon this man. The "manner [in which] he forged the bonds which brought him in close relations with his royal mistress

...

a closed page of history"

is

may be

theor)^

*^

they say.

We

suggest that our

illuminating here also. Hatshepsut was not only a

usurper, she was a

woman and

as

such should not ascend the

throne of god-men. Senenmut "had in early youth entered service in the

temple of

occupied a

and successful priestly

throne.

Amun

series of

at

Karnak and before long had successively

important posts." In short, he was an adroit

priestly politician

party.

and

a powerful

Hatshepsut needed help to

Senenmut brought

seize

member

of the

and hold the

to her side the aid of a powerful priest-

hood. Hatshepsut richly rewarded him for his support. In the light of our theory, the relationship

obscure at

all

but rather obvious.

between them does not seem

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

260 Priests

and

Icings serve their

everv' other class in society.

own

When

respective interests— as do.es

their interests diverge they fight

each other, as in the case of Ikhnaton or Henry VIII. When, however, each can serve his own interest by helping the other, they will co-operate, as in the case of Hatshepsut and Senenmut.

IX

What

part did Ikhnaton himself play in the stirring events

we have

of his reign? As that this

young

olution and carried will.

But what

already seen,

is

In the

but inference?

us

What

do we know

may be

directly

reasonably inferred

facts?

first

place,

if

we

take Elliot Smith's estimate of his age

upon an examination

at the time of his death, based

posed

tell

forward by his zeal and his indomitable

it

this

about Ikhnaton's actions and what

from knoun

numerous authors

genius, virtually single-handed, initiated this rev-

skeletal remains,

of his sup-

Ikhnaton was but a boy of nine, or at

the most thirteen, when he ascended the throne. The "revolution" would have been well under way, therefore, when he was fifteen or nineteen. It has seemed so incredible that a youth could have

accomplished

all this

that, as Professor

"despite the precocity of youth in the east,"

Peet has observed, "archaeologists one and

fought shy of accepting so great an improbability." fore put pressure

naton's age.

He

upon

Elliot

did increase

Smith to it

at

They

all

there-

raise his estimate of Ikh-

from twenty-six to

was not prepared to go further"

^^

that time.

thirty

More

but "he recently,

however, he has been persuaded that Ikhnaton suffered from Dystocia, "one of the principal

symptoms

of the bones to knit properly

.

of age."

*^

The

archeologists

.

.

of

which

is

the failure

ossification ceases to

may now have Ikhnaton

be

a test

as old as

they wish!

The view

that Ikhnaton

must have been more than

a

boy

during the early years of his reign because tremendously important events took place at that time

is

a curious

one

to take.

Must

IKHNATON the

life

261

of a great nation stand

boy kings grow up? It

hamun was but Newberry

a

believes

still,

must

history

mark

time, until

rather generally admitted that Tutank-

is

boy of nine when he ascended the throne. that Ay "must have been the dominating

personality in Egypt's political affairs" at this time. Steindorff

and

Seele assume that the boy king was "completely under the control

upon Tutankhamun must have kept him faithful to the new religion while she lived. If we can have a boy king, with actual rule by others, in the case of Tutankhamun, why not with Ikhnaton? In this connection we may recall that Louis XIII of France of Eye," and Pendlebury believes that Nefertiti's influence

ascended the throne at the age of nine years, Louis five.

Peter the Great came to the throne

Charles XII of Sweden, at the ripe old age of In speaking of Hatshepsut, Breasted takes a powerful group of nobles and

with her

as a

means

officials

of serving their

took

therefore tained."

*^

when he was

ten;

fifteen.*® it

for granted that

own

interests.

lives of these

He points men were

and the dominance of Hatshepsut; they

good care that her position should be main-

This sounds reasonable and

we know about

thing

at only

supported her and worked

out that "the fortunes and probably the identified with the success

XIV

ruling

cliques

is

in accord

everywhere,

Caesar to Hitler, Stalin, or Franklin Roosevelt.

with every-

from

Julius

One man may be

the titular head of the government. But without the aid and

support of a powerful group of fellow politicians no one, be he king, pope, president, or dictator, can stay in office very long.

There

is

evidence of such a group surrounding young Ikhnaton.

Breasted remarks that, idealist and dreamer though he was, "Ikh-

naton understood enough of the old policy of the Pharaohs to

he must hold his party by practical rewards." Numerous show Ikhnaton rewarding his followers with gold and honors for their allegiance. Ramose, the Vizier, is shown "loaded

know

that

reliefs

by the Pharaohs,

with

gifts

One

relief

as

shows Ikhnaton,

though

his wife

in

reward for his allegiance."

and daughter showering gold

THE SCIENCE OF

262

CULT-i/RE

upon Meryra, who had become High Priest of Aton, "on some occasion when he had been particularly successful in collecting the ." "Abundant are the rewards/' yearly dues of the temple Meryra cries upon being installed as High Priest, "which the .

Aton knows

to give

when

.

his heart

pleased."

is

And

another one

of Ikhnaton's lieutenants says with disarming frankness:

prosperous

is

he who hears thy teaching

of life!"

To anyone who

All this sounds strangely familiar.

with the political machines of American

cities

"How

^°

and

is

familiar

states, or to

one who knows anything about the organization and conduct of ruling cliques anywhere in the world, with their community of interests and rewards for "faithful service" and support, this picture of ancient

Egypt

no mystery. Whether

will present

naton was a dominant figure or only a figure-head In either case

we have

a

is

Ikh-

immaterial.

dominant, ruling clique. They possess

the power, they control the wealth, and they share the spoils. It

is

an old familiar pattern. Breasted and Weigall try to put a

religious

and philosophic complexion upon

this tight little political

machine that ruled and exploited Egypt, Weigall comments upon the rewards bestowed

upon those who were

to grasp the lofty concepts taught

speaks of the "nucleus of

politics

shows so

clearly

through

both are obliged to admit that

enough

by Ikhnaton, and Breasted

men who

aspects of the king's teaching."

intelligent

really appreciated the ideal

But the anatomy of machine its

many

ideological vestments that

of Ikhnaton's followers were

probably more concerned with the very earthly desire for riches

and honors than with

a lofty view of the cosmos.^^

X Every

effort has

been made to

extoll

the originality and

uniqueness of Ikhnaton and to emphasize his importance as an

He is but a boy when he ascends the throne, and only an adolescent when the "revolution" gets well under way. "Still, when one calls to mind the individual in the culture history of Egypt.

IKhNATON

263

who stir an audience at an may credit a boy of eighteen a new city" and the founding of

infant prodigies, the child preachers early age/' Weigall writes, "one

or nineteen with the planning of a

new

religion.

Weigall does not

child prodigies; perhaps

cite

any

specific

examples of

he was thinking of the boy Jesus teaching

the elders. ^2 Ikhnaton's anatomical and psychological peculiarities have been

used to support the conception of him as a phenomenon

men. "His

skull

was misshapen/' Weigall

have been subject to occasional epileptic

must have had

hallucinations, also.

epileptic— Mohammed

and

epileptic

and had hallucinations,

a most unusual

phenomenon— at

If, it

fits."

Some

Napoleon,

leaders often have hallucinations.

tells us,

He

great

thinks the king

men

have been

example.

for

among

"and he must

Religious

therefore, Ikhnaton was an would indicate that he was

least so

it

was reasoned, ap-

parently.^^

But what

basis

is

there for Weigall's suppositions? Neither

epilepsy nor hallucinations can be inferred from the sculptures

and

know

of

There

mummy

of Ikhnaton,

and we

no evidence of these traits from contemporary is, however, some evidence that indicates or

at least

some

respects,

reliefs

nor from the supposed

strongly suggests that Ikhnaton was pathological in

but

this

evidence

is

records.

confused, self-contradictory at points, and

certainly inconclusive.

The

statues

and

as "a stripling of

reliefs,

medium

according to Moret, depict Ikhnaton height, with slender bones

and

delicate

modelling" at the time of his ascension to the throne. Later, however, he "became rounded and effeminate— a hermaphrodite figure with

prominent

breasts,

wide hips and thighs too much

curved, which makes one suspect a morbid nature, with pathological flaw." Sir

Marc A. Ruffer

some

speaks of "the pathological

obesity" of Ikhnaton, although his face, neck and legs were thin.

"Where

the king

is

says this author, "his

represented distributing collars of gold,"

abdomen

actually hangs over the edge of

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

264 the balcony, a most

realistic

piece of portraiture." But in balcony

scenes reproduced in Breasted's

A

History of Egypt (Fig. 139)

and Moret, The Nile and Egyptian Civilization (Fig. 63), and in other works, he is shown as a very slender man indeed. Gardiner says "the portraits represent him with ... a deformed emaciated body"

(emphasis ours). Thus, the evidence of rep-

resentations in art

is

When we Ikhnaton, tions that

inconsistent and inconclusive.^*

turn to the

we find we are

mummy

supposed by some to be that of

the picture so confused and inclined to give

up

full

in despair

that for the present at least the evidence

is

of contradic-

and conclude

insufficient to warrant

a definitive verdict of any kind. Weigall says that "there can be

no doubt

mummy

that the

found

in the

tomb

of

Queen Tiy was

who

that of Akhnaton." Elliot Smith, the British anatomist

amined the

skeletal

ex-

remains believed that "we have the most posi-

tive evidence that these

bones are the remains of Khouniatonou

[Ikhnaton]." Other scholars, however, have, on the basis of searches since the skeleton in question was found,

come

re-

deny

to

or to doubt that the bones are those of Ikhnaton. Thus, Kurt

Sethe

convinced that certain evidence "proves" that the body

is

cannot have been that of the heretic king: "For us that the

body cannot

coffin

found a resting place."

it

in

expressed his conviction that naton; he thinks

it

is

it is

sufficient

any case be that of the king in whose

A decade later, R. Engelbach the mummy was not that of Ikh-

the remains of Smenkhkara. Derry shares

Engelbach's view in this matter. Peet has expressed his doubt.

And it is

Pendlebury says that "there his

[i.e.,

is

every reason to suppose that

Smenkhkara's] skeleton, found in the cache of

Ty at Thebes, which has so The age at time of death

of the person

consideration has been the subject of

Smith

originally estimated

twenty-six years. But, as

Queen

long passed for that of Akhenaten."

whose skeleton

much

is

^^

under

debate, also. Elliot

the age at death at twenty-four to

we have

seen, archeologists

unvtdlling to accept this estimate since

it

were very

would have made

Ikh-

IKHNATON

265

naton but a boy when he became king and hence would have

been too young to do

Under

all

that

he was supposed

to have done.

considerable pressure from the archeologists, Elliot Smith

reconsidered. signs of

known

as

He came

to the conclusion that the

Dystocia adiposo-genitalis.

"One

bones showed

by physicians,"

rare disorder, only recently recognized

"a.

of the effects of this

condition/' he says, "is to delay the process of the consolidation

of the bones." Therefore, he concludes, the person in question

may have been

as old as thirty or

his death. But,

he cannot

him

to

be those of a

resist

man who

even

time of

thirty-six at the

adding, the bones

appear to

still

died in his early twenties! Professor

Derry believes that the bones indicate an age of not more than twenty-three years. Regarding the pathology of the individual, there

contradiction as well as confusion. Elliot Smith,

is flat

was the

first

to

who

examine the skeleton, was convinced that he had

had hydrocephalus. A. R. Ferguson, Professor of Pathology in the Cairo School of Medicine, who also examined the cranium, declared, according to Elliot Smith, that "the signs of hydro-

cephalus were unquestionable." Derry, after further restoration of

it,

who examined

the cranium

declared that "the conformation of

whom

the skull does not support the statement that the person to it

belonged suffered from hydrocephalus ...

reverse of the shape produced

It is

indeed the very

by hydrocephalus,"

^®

(emphasis

ours).

In view of the evidence and conflicting testimony,

we would be justified in drawing the We do not know whose skeleton was

we

believe

following conclusions:

i.

is

some-

what uncertain but probably not more than twenty-five

years;

and

3.

The

clinical diagnosis

is

found;

2.

Its

age

inconclusive.

XI Attempt has ness

also

been made to account

for Ikhnaton's great-

by claiming that he was of foreign extraction. Weigall says must always be remembered that the king had much

that "it

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

266

foreign blood in his veins." Ruffer suggests that "his pecuhar genius may have been due to the foreign blood in his veins."

Numerous

authors believe that Ikhnaton's mother, Tiy, was not

an Eg}'ptian, although Breasted says that "there is not a particle " of evidence to prove her of foreign birth, as is so often claimed." Elliot Smith finds evidence of non-Egyptian ancestry in the facial skeleton.

The

between Ikhnaton and

differences

differences,

his father

they are

for

racial.

more than individual Amenothes Ill's face is cast in the Egyptian mould; but are "far

case of Kliouniatonou, the jaw clearly It

demonstrated

in the

form of

would not be surprising

have "foreign blood in

typically

is

at all

his veins."

its if

Armenoid, a

in the

most

fact

ascending ramus."

^^

Ikhnaton should prove to

We

know

that a

number

of

Egyptian kings before Ikhnaton had wives from Asia. But what is the significance of this foreign blood or the Armenoid jaw so far as intelligence or character,

are concerned?

The answer

monotheism or

political reform,

can only be: precisely nothing.

XII

How

then are the striking events which took place in Egypt

We

can choose bebetween 1375 and 1358 b.c. to be explained? and psychological is tween two types of interpretation: the one

anthropomorphic; the other

culturological.

is

What

are

their

relative merits?

We

have already seen that what took place during Ikhnaton's

reign was but a continuation

that had been going

on

and

a culmination of cultural trends

King"

for centuries before the "Heretic

was born. Philosophic development toward monotheism was already well advanced before Ikhnaton's birth. The rivalry between the throne and the temple, the struggle between priest and king for power, that,

this

was already hoary with age in 1386 sort of competition

where the temporal and tegrative

mechanism

is

b.c.

a characteristic of

ecclesiastical aspects of

More than all

nations

the central

are structurally differentiated.

We

in-

observe

IKHNATON these

267 trends

cultural

Ikhnaton's death. ecclesiastical fail it

continuing in Egypt for centuries after

The attempt

component

of the throne to eliminate the

of the integrative

mechanism

failed, as

must; the ecclesiastic aspect of social integration and regu-

lation has not yet

been eliminated from any nation so

far, as

the

Union makes emThe contest between church and state in Egypt

re-establishment of the church in the Soviet phatically clear.

continued after Ikhnaton's death with the priests growing in

power

as they

had

The theology of but we can trace this

in the reigns before his time.

monotheism collapsed

for the time being

current of thought in the centuries following Ikhnaton. In short,

the stirring events of Ikhnaton's reign can be accounted for as a part of a great process of cultural change

we

complexes and

classes of cultural

economic— which

and development. And

It is composed of elements— philosophic, political,

can explain this process in terms of

itself.

continually act and react

producing changes of

and new alignments.

all sorts,

We

upon one another,

new combinations and

can explain

this

syntheses,

culture process

in

way that we can account for the changes brought about in American culture by the introduction of the automobile. We do not need to call upon great men or upon psychological forces to make them intelligible. ancient Egypt in exactly the same

What

does the anthropomorphic, psychological— the Great

Man

—interpretation have to offer? In the

first

place,

we must

ask,

What

could a man, a

human

organism, of exceptional quality and ability have done in this or any situation

except to

respond to it— to work with the

materials at hand, to try to cope with the problems confronting

him; in short, to context?

A man

fit

of

himself to the culture process that superior

make-up might have made

is

his

neuro-sensory-glandular-muscular

a better,

i.e.,

more

effective,

response

than one of inferior brains and physique, but the pattern of the response would have been substantially the same because

it

would

have been determined by the same cultural situation. Further-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

268 more, the difference between another

is

sHght indeed

tlie

mentality of one

of an age-old cultural process. So that even

organism

if

Ikhnaton were an

of exceptionally fine quality, this fact

suffice to explain

man and

against the background

when measured

would not

at all

the events of his reign.

But we do not know that Ikhnaton was an organism of superior quality. On the contrary, virtually all that we know about him indicates that

Why,

he was a diseased and hence an

inferior organism.

then, has historian after historian explained this period

of Eg^'ptian history

by pointing to the

colossal genius of this

man?

The answer seems old, primitive,

to

be

that, as

we

indicated at the outset, the

anthropomorphic type of thinking that has been

many hundreds

so popular for so

of thousands of years has not

yet been outgrown. Science, and especially social science,

too young to have

any great extent.

make

its

made

And

itself felt in historical

the science of culture

still

so

new

proper designation, "culturology," sound outlandish.

pathetic thing about Great

man

they leave the great explanation of

What

is

is

fossils:

Man

interpretations of history

unexplained.

It

is

like the

is

The that

produced by "stone-making forces."

Breasted, Weigall,

Moret and others have done is and then to explain events

the culture process by citing various is

as to

medieval

create a personality for Ikhnaton

image of Ikhnaton

still

interpretation to

traits

of this personality.

to in

The

created by inference: great events took place

during his reign, therefore a great mind and will must have

brought them about; the struggle with the priesthoods was bitter

and prolonged, therefore Ikhnaton was a

and perseverance; a new era young king was original and

in art

man

of determination

was inaugurated, therefore the

creative.

He must

have had "foreign

olood in his veins" because his ideas were so novel.

been older than

his

He must

have

supposed skeletal remains indicate because

one so young could not have accomplished so much, and so on. may cite a particularly striking example of this. Sir Marc A.

We

:

IKHNATON

who made a study of and who consequently was Ruffer,

the paleopathology of ancient Egypt, intimately acquainted with the evi-

dence indicating Ikhnaton's abnormality, nevertheless argues

as

follows

"...

monarch who founds a monotheistic religion in the teeth of the opposition of a most powerful priesthood, who builds a new town where he worships his god away from old associations a

and among congenial surroundings, who endows that new town with beautiful temples,

who

who

perhaps composed the magnificent

be considered

new form of art, and hymn to Aton, cannot

patronizes a

lacking in energy, or as a degenerate, or an

as

effeminate person."

^^

Thus, certain

are not permitted for a

moment

facts

indicating pathology

to interfere with a cherished illu-

sion of historical interpretation. Surely the mastery of

realism could go

no

myth over

further.

Sometimes these psychological interpretations contradict each

Thus

other.

Sir

Marc

cites

Ikhnaton's "pathological obesity" as a

"The ex"may have been

possible reason for the loss of Egypt's Asiatic empire.

treme corpulency of the king," he responsible for his politics. disliked physical exertion,

he

On

account of his obesity he probably

may have been the reason why to war when the outlying But when he surveys the great achieve-

and

this

persistently refused to lead his

provinces were threatened."

vvnrites,

army

ments of the Eighteenth Dynasty, he "tireless

as

energy" that characterized

Ahmose!

The

fact

is

character. It

that

is

we know

and

is

very

virtually

nowhere

little

his

Ikhnaton

as

well

asserts that this

asserted

indeed about Ikhnaton as

Amenhotep is

his personality III

and

was Ikhnaton's

merely an assumption:

on any Eg}'ptian inscription." Concern-

ing the ancestry of other intimates of titi,

impressed with the

nothing about

usually said that

but Newberry

father,

is

rulers,

*^°

a political figure

"This

its

Ikhnaton— his

wife, Nefer-

"beloved" coregent Smenkhkara, and his son-in-law and

successor,

Tutankhamun— "nothing whatever

is

definitely

known"

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

270

(Newberry). His age at the time of his accession has been much debated and is still uncertain. Evidence concerning his health

and physical condition

is

so varied as to

be

virtually worthless.

We

We do not know why he became estranged from his wife. do not know how he met his death, whether from natural causes we do not know where he was we do not have adequate information of

or by violence. And, finally, to rest. If, therefore, sort,

we

data on

Ikhnaton as a king, a political institution,

this

could

expect to have any reliable information pertaining to his per-

sonality

and character? Indeed, do we have any

this subject?

That Ikhnaton

actually lived

not questioned, and he must

is

and

be inferred or deduced from the

a character.

But these cannot

political history of

Egypt. There

and

char-

whom we have

a vast

sharp disagreement today concerning the personality

D. Roosevelt, about

acter of the late Franklin

amount

of factual data obtained

might be

said of Lenin, Hitler,

political figure of recent times.

by

direct observation.

The same

Wilson, or any other outstanding

What

then can

we hope

to

know

or understand of this remote Egyptian king as a person?

students without details

number

give us the

about him, and they do

it

an exhaustive psychiatric

with confidence and assurance.

upon the

report of

analysis.

extent to which the personality and character of Ikhnaton

have been created ad hoc by scholars to explain the Egjptian culture history

is

sometimes remarkable.

impression that Weigall could not have

had he been

a

facts

of

gets the

his hero better

of Amenhotep Ill's household at the time and had associated with him daily until his

death. Weigall describes

thoughts wandered in

him fair

as

"...

a quiet, studious boy,

whose

places, searching for that happiness

had denied to him. His nature was young heart overflowed with love. He delighted, it

his physical condition

gentle; his

known

One

member

of Ikhnaton's birth

which

Yet

most intimate and personal

Indeed, they give the impression of drawing

The

on

facts at all

^^

therefore have had a personality

is

how

laid

IKHNATON

271 to walk in the gardens of the palace, to hear the

would seem,

birds singing, to watch the fish in the lake, to smell the flowers,

to follow butterflies, to

warm

Only where one knows

his small

so little can

bones in the sunshine."

^^

one write so much; the

absence of facts gives the imagination free rein.

Thus

Great

in the

Man

interpretation of history the

facts of the culture process are explained

known by

psychology, the

the unknown.

known

by the pseudo-facts of

A

worse error of reason-

ing would be hard to find— within or outside the field of scholarship.

XIII

To be history

of

many have were the

sure,

not

Ikhnaton's

all

students of Egypt have interpreted the

reign

in

anthropomorphic fashion;

this

seen clearly that these political and theological events

logical expression of a cultural historical process.

matter of

As a

Breasted himself describes and documents this

fact.

process very well indeed as our quotations from his works show.

But he seems

to

have given

chiatric explanation.

relatively little

weight to cultural

compared with biographic and

historical interpretation as

Let us turn

now

briefly to those

psy-

who have

emphasized, or at least have called specific attention

to,

the

process of culture history in their interpretations of Ikhnaton.

*'Up to a few years ago," writes T. E. Peet, "it was customary

movement was a product of the brain now know to be incorrect ... it [is] the movement not merely the personal

to believe that this entire of Ikhnaton

now

.

.

.

This we

necessary to see in

influence of an original genius, but also the inevitable product of ^^

the conditions of the time."

James Baikie writes: "It

is

not the sudden break with it is

evident, therefore, that

all

often represented as being;

native

soil,

Atenism was

the religious past of Egypt which

and could be traced

.

.

.

as far

thing in the history of the land."

^*

[it]

back

had as

its

roots deep in

you can trace any-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

272

John Pendlebury declares that Ikhnaton was not ''the first individual in history^ as has been claimed/' and points out that

"we know

actually

less

about him personally than about

many

of

his predecessors." Also, he not only recognizes the antecedents of the new religion but suggests Minoan inspiration for the new

Akhetaten which has so often been attributed to the genius of Ikhnaton himself. This "startling change ... in the spirit and outlook of Eg}TDtian art/' he says, "can only be attributed to a

art at

sudden intensification of Minoan influence/' occasioned by the destruction of Knosscs and the collapse of the Minoan empire.

H. Frankfort believes that the art of Ikhnaton may have derived some inspiration from the works of the reign of Thutmosis.^^

We

also find a live appreciation of the role of cultural forces

in history in the writings of Steindorff S.

R. K. Glanville, and others.

ever, as

we have

pointed out

Many

earlier,

and

Seele, P. E.

Newberry,

how-

of these students do,

invoke the peculiar

traits

of

Ikhnaton's personality as a means of accounting for the remarkable events of his reign.

XIV What we have man who

great

now

said

about Ikhnaton so

far

would apply

any

to

has been invoked to explain historical events.

We

wish to turn to aspects of the scholars' image of the Heretic

King that

When

are peculiar to him.

Breasted, Weigall and others create a

phenomenal person

to explain remarkable historical events they are, as

following a tradition that has flourished since the

But they had an added reason This It

we have

seen,

Old Stone Age.

for their exaltation of Ikhnaton.

is to be found in the religious outlook of these authors. would appear from their discussion of Ikhnaton's role

in

philosophic evolution that Breasted and Weigall believe that there

He

is

is

a

God, that there

is

only one God, and

an English-speaking, Protestant deity.

sume also— their assumptions

it

would seem.

They appear

are implicit rather than

to as-

explicit,

IKHNATON as

273

so frequently the case in philosophic or scientific discussions,

is

and the more basic the premise the more

likely it is to remain unexplicit— that mankind as a whole has been moving slowly

toward a realization that there

God and one

only one

is

true

faith— the one taught by Jesus Christ. As culture advanced, mankind came closer and closer to a recognition of the one true

and

to sense the precepts that

God

were eventually to be expounded

by His Son.

Now,

some reason which these authors do not make clear, God— the one and only God, our God, the English-speaking, for

Protestant

God— decided

about 1400

and

to reveal himself to this Egyptian king

Ikhnaton caught the

B.C.

whole

thereafter devoted his

attempt to establish the true not ready for

it.

Or, perhaps

was not

failed all

The

lost.

But he

God

Himself too soon. But though

was

failed.

by

it,

zeal, to

an

fired

with passionate

life,

faith.

vision,

The people were

miscalculated and revealed

adventure in monotheism

this

precious truth had been let out

truth cannot and will not die. It was

and

somehow communicated

to

the Hebrews who, after some centuries of incubation, were to bring

it

Such see

forth again in the person of Jesus Christ. is

to support

is

it.

Weigall believes that Ikhnaton was "the

God man

revealed himself

^^

Osiris

Ptah, Set, and Horus.

it

.

.

.

For the

the real meaning of God, as

comprehended." the

God who

was

now

our theory about Breasted and Weigall. Let us

what there

first

first

man

to

whom

time in the history of

we now understand

it,

had been

was but a mythological being. So were

Even Amon-Re was but

a superstition.

But

revealed himself to Ikhnaton was genuine; this time

real.

Ikhnaton was, according to Breasted, a "God-intoxicated man,

whose mind responded with marvellous

ment

to the visible evidences of

ecstatic in his sense of the

light

.

.

.

While

God

sensitiveness

about him.

and

He

discern-

was

fairly

beauty of the eternal and universal

to the traditional

Pharaoh the

state

god was

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

274

who

only the triumphant conqueror,

drove them

saw

in

crushed

peoples and

all

tribute-laden before the Pharaoh's chariot, Ikhnaton

him the beneficent

father of

all

men.

It

was the

first

time

in history that a discerning eye has caught this great universal truth,"

®^

(emphasis ours).

Ikhnaton devoted himself with "feverish fanaricism" to spreading the true faith, "fully convinced that he might enrirely recast

the world of religion."''^ After Ikhnaton had caught the vision of the true

came impatient with the paganism

God

God he

be-

of his fellow countrymen:

and having be the riddle of life, there was no place in his mind for aught but an open, fearless adoration of Akhnaton was the sworn enemy of the tablethe creator turners of his day, and the tricks of priestcraft were anathema to his pure mind (Weigall).^^ Boldly he looked to solved

what he deemed .

.

.

as a child to its father;

to

.

With

a revolution at

home on

his

hands

it is

.

.

not surprising that

the king did not have sufficient means to protect Egyptian pos-

But our authors have another explanation

sessions abroad.

for

Egypt's loss of empire at the close of the Eighteenth Dynasty. It

was because

(

i

)

Ikhnaton was too engrossed in his new philosophy

to concern himself with politics,

opposed to brute

and (2)

like Christ,

he was

force:

"Instead of gathering the army so sadly needed in Naharin,

Amenhotcp IV immersed himself

heart and soul in the thought of

the time, and the philosophizing theology of the priests was of

more importance

to

him than

all

the provinces of Asia

...

It

shows the astonishing leniency of Ikhnaton in a manner which

would indicate that he was opposed to measures of force" (Breasted). So he sat "singing hymns to the Disk at Tell elAmarna while the vast empire bequeathed to him by his fathers" went to pieces.^" Weigall

tells

us that Egypt lost her empire because

Ikhnaton's principles to fight.

He

"had the power to

it

let

was against loose

upon

IKHNATON

275

Asia an army which would silence

insult

all

such a step consistent with his principles

.

.

but

not find

[he] did

Akhnaton

.

definitely

refused to do battle believing that a resort to arms was an offence to

God

.

.

.

like that greater

Pharaoh suffered

Agony

a very

were leading him to the

The image

Teacher 1300 years as he realized that

of Ikhnaton created by Breasted

one whose mission

indeed "the

first

human

life"

is

now

ours.

.

"The

.

.

mankind.

like Jesus

first

a

moment

the

...

faith of the patriarchs

One might

believe that Almighty

Syria or Palestine before the time of Christ"

(

the lineal

is

is

God had more

though more momentarily, interpreted there than ever

call

a prophet

Akhnaton

revealed himself to Egypt, and had been

Both Breasted and Weigall

He was

expression of the true

ancestor of the Christian faith; but the creed of isolated prototype.

.

(Breasted)."

authors see in Ikhnaton the

faith that

.

and Weigall bears is no doubt proper

to bring the true faith to

prophet of history

both of nature and of

Our

is

.

his principles

loss of all his dearest possessions." ^^

a considerable likeness to that of Jesus Christ, as to

later

He

its

for

clearly,

was in

Weigall ).^^

attention to similarities between

Egyptian hymns to Aton and Psalms of the Hebrews. Breasted

Book of Proverbs Amenemope; that

points out that about "a chapter and a half of the is is,

largely

the

drawn verbatim from the

Hebrew

Egyptian."

version

The

is

of

practically a literal translation

from the

"teachings of the Egyptian sages exerted a pro-

found influence on Hebrew effected lodgment first

Wisdom

religious thinking and,

in Palestine, they

stage in their long transition

having thus

had advanced through the

from Egypt to us of the modern

world." *

* Breasted, The Dawn of Conscience, p. 22. Baikie admits that the resemblance between the Egj'ptian hymn and the Hebrew Psalter 104 is "indeed sufficiently striking" but sees "no need to imagine that there was borrowing on the part of the later author" {The Amarna Age, p. 321). W. O. E. Oesterly, on the other hand, feels that the evidence of historical connection is "convincing" ("Egypt and Israel," pp. 244-45, in The Legacy of Egypt, S. R. K. Glanville, ed.).

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

276

Thus Ikhnaton

is

not merely the Great

Man who

moves and

shapes the culture history of Egypt; he becomes the instrument of Divine Purpose. Through him did God first reveal himself to man.

But the time was not yet

paganism and idolatry were

ripe;

still

too strongly entrenched. So the revelation was handed on, perhaps from Joseph to Moses, down the ages until He who came to re-

deem

us all was born. Breasted was once enrolled in a Protestant theological school.

It

is

probable that Weigall was a Protestant,

way

interest, therefore, to note the

church regards like

this

a

some

of

is

Roman

Catholic

him. "With the single exception of Amenhotep IV," says the

scheme

"who allowed himself

to reform the Egyptian religion,

just rulers." ^*

But, after

all,

no

approve of a temporal ruler

likely to

out

also. It

which the

"God-intoxicated man." Plainly, they do not

Catholic Encyclopedia,

and

in

priests,

and confiscates

be drawn into

to

all its

kings were wise

hierarchy

ecclesiastical

who

their wealth.

is

closes temples, drives

The

other Pharaohs,

however, those who, according to this Catholic authority were

...

to the erec-

richly

endowed"—

"great builders, and devoted their vast resources tion of magnificent temples

.

.

.

which they

these rulers he finds were "wise and just." It will be noted, too, that this writer says that Ikhnaton "allowed himself to be

into" the

the

scheme to reform Egyptian

movement

drawn

religion; in other words, that

against the priesthoods was a political device of

temporal politicians to safeguard or enhance their power. Catholic scholars

do not take

himself

first

much

stock in the theory that

to an Egyptian.

may have been

or

God

revealed

scout the notion that Moses

influenced by the teachings of Ikhnaton:

"Although Moses, learned Eg\'ptians,

They as

he was

may have been indebted

two external features

in

the wisdom of the

to an Egyptian

in his organization of

he was, thanks to the Divine

model

for

one

Divine worship,

inspiration, entirely original in the

establishment of the Jewish priesthood, which

is

based on the

unique idea of Jahweh's covenant with the Chosen People."

^^

IKHNATON

277

The author much too

is

temporal or

of the article "Egypt" in the

sophisticated

ecclesiastical to believe that it

natural vision

and

was Ikhnaton's super-

animated him, 'The

religious zeal that

Amenhotep IV," he

of

CathoHc Encyclopedia

the ways of politicians whether

in

effort

writes, "to introduce the cult of his only

god, Aton, was perhaps not prompted exclusively by a religious ideal, as

is

generally supposed."

monotheism

in

He

believes the long trend toward

Egypt "must have been encouraged by the Phar-

aohs in their capacity rather of political than of religious rulers ^^

of the nation."

Jewish scholars, too, reject the idea that Moses

may have been

They admit that the "concept of Divine Unity has appeared among other religious and philosophic groups," but insist that "Hebrew monotheism is unique." * If Ikhnaton was indeed the means of the first revelation of God to man, it was apparently, as we have suggested, the Protestant deity who made himself known. influenced by Ikhnaton.

XV The drama

of Ikhnaton

and monotheism

Mann world

uses Joseph in sick

and

Egypt

in turmoil.

is

and

for the artist as well as for the historian

excellent material scientist.

as the vehicle for his

Amenhotep

was the pharaoh of Egypt during the

III,

Thomas

message to a

the father of Ikhnaton,

earlier part of Joseph's life,

according to Harry Slochower's interpretation of Mann's novel.^^ Potiphar, the eunuch husband of

Mut, was

Aton movement; Mut, with the party *

Abraham Shusterman, "Monotheism,"

pedia, Vol.

VII (New York, 1942),

p.

in

624.

of

allied

Amon. The symbolism

The It

with the growing

Universal Jewish Encyclobe recalled that James

will

Baikie was unwilling to admit that Hebrew psalmists may have drawn upon Egyptian hymns. Now Baikie was a clergyman. Thus it would appear that all are unwilling to clerical scholars Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish alike

—

—

admit any connection between their own religious faith and tradition and another; historical connections are not in keeping with divine revelation. Their bias, springing from vested interest, is of course understandable; but it in hardly conducive to sound scholarship.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

278 of Mut's longing for Joseph

Joseph's rejection of

and her attempt

Mut and

his

subsequent

but does not concern us here. Ikhnaton

to

fate,

seduce him, intriguing

is

may have been

the phar-

aoh before \^•hom Joseph was brought after he had interpreted his fellow-prisoners' dreams.

him

but describes Pharao

is

dreamy

does not identify

him by name,

seventeen. This hypersensitive and tender youth, a

searcher of a

Mann

as follows:

God,

like Joseph's forefathers,

religion of love, has

and enamoured of

ascended the throne during the

time of Joseph's imprisonment. He is an anticipating, a premature Christian, the mythical prototype of those, who are on the right way, but not the right ones for that way.^^

We can

only conclude that this pharaoh was indeed Ikhnaton.

Like Breasted and Weigall,

Mann

sees in

him the instrument

of

God's revelation to man. But, because he "was not the right one for that way," it remained for the Jews to keep the vision alive until the

coming

of the Messiah, our Christ.

Sigmund Freud, too, has been captured by the engrossing theme of Ikhnaton, Moses, and monotheism.^^ He assumes that Moses was an Egyptian— mose is an ending of many Egyptian proper names— and a devout follower of Ikhnaton. Frustrated in his desire and attempt to monotheize the Egyptians, Moses determined to give the new theology to the Hebrews then in Egypt. In this way the philosophy of Ikhnaton was perpetuated.

XVI "Until Ikhnaton the history of the world had been but the irresistible drift of tradition. All

men had been but

in the great current" (Breasted).

must conclude that of culture

Our

and that

inquiry has

reign were

but

history all

shown

is still

men

are

Now

drops of water

that our study

is

done we

the irresistible flow of the stream

but chips floating on that stream.

conclusively that the events of Ikhnaton's

links in a chain that

extended for centuries before

IKHNATON

279

and after his lifetime. The Hnks were more striking or emphatic no doubt, but Hnks, nevertheless. We can come to no other conclusion than that the general trend of events would have been the same had Ikhnaton been but a sack of sawdust.

The Great Man

theory of historical interpretation

is,

however,

one of compelling power and appeal:

A man

Caesar

pire, Christ

born, and for ages after

is

we have

a

Roman Em-

born, and millions of minds so grow and cleave

is

he

confounded with virtue and the possible is the lengthened shadow of one man; as Monachism of the Hermit Antony; the Reformation, of Luther; Quakerism, of Fox; Methodism, of Wesley; Abolition, to his genius that

of a man.

An

...

of Clarkson

is

institution

history resolves itself very easily into the

all

biography of a few stout and earnest persons (Emerson, Essay

on

Self

Rehance).

Thus wrote the man who provided the with the verbal conception

is

reflexes called

still

Great Man. But

He is

popular. History

how

either taken for granted or

defies all laws

.

.

many

America

The

years.

"explained" by citing the

said to

accounted

be

for?

inexplicable.

He

isn't.

"Genius

."

The Great Man pomorphism.

is

is

Man

the Great

is

intelligentsia of

"thought" for so

theory

It pictures

is,

of course, the quintessence of anthro-

man,

God, a

like

first

cause, a

prime

mover: "Let there be light and there was light ... an institution is

but the lengthened shadow of one man."

Man

ever creates

himself in God's image.

The Ikhnaton we meet is

in the sober studies of the scholars'

a sheer fictional character,

berry Finn. tain

and

conflicts

no more

real

We know nothing about

direct.

And

at every point

with evidence,

it is

him

as a person that

where the Great

Man

is

cer-

theory

the evidence that must give way.

the ossification of bones indicates a

have done what the Great

pen

than Hamlet or Huckle-

Man

man who

did, a

If

died too young to

way must be found

to

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

280

delay the process of ossification. If an empire is lost, it is because the Great Man is morally opposed to the use of force; or he is too fat

lazy to lead his army. If a

and

becomes a dynamo of

city

all

determines British foreign policy. it

nothing but the

no

is

from

different

invented by the Pueblo Indians to "ex-

plain" the spirals of dust in the hot desert

who Men, whether

is

the political, social, military and

philosophic events of his day. As such he

Whiriwind Old Man,

Man

built the Great

is

This Ikhnaton

energ}'.

composite personification of

new

And

air,

so

or the John Bull

it is

with

Great

all

be a Paul Bunyan of the folk or a George

Wash-

ington of historians. goes without saying that

It

Some

abilities.

But

more than

takes

it

Great Man.

Perhaps

respect or another.

we

ment forces

be

make

to

and

a

Men

in their talents

man

say

and glands exceptional

is

said to

more than exceptional

Man

one

endow-

is

required also.

No

one can

without a play, a stage, and an audience. Con-

of mediocre talents

is

in

a

than

have been

natural

may become Great

at the focal

but the neural

if

chance

point of a tremendously

significant historical event. In the process of cultural

Great

rather

Great Man; a certain concatenation of cultural

and circumstance place him a

and

make

to

have been pathological for example,

historical circumstances

a great actor

versely, a

should

Mohammed,

epileptic. It takes, then,

an

differ

superior brains

some Great

for

superior,

men

are silk purses biologically; others are sows' ears.

development,

medium through which an

im-

portant synthesis of culture elements takes place. Darwin, Newton,

Beethoven, and Edison were

men

of this type. Tliey were the

neurological loci of important cultural events.

may have been

superior organisms.

To be

sure, they

But had they been reared

as

swineherds. Greatness would not have found them. In history, in political

and

social

movements, the Great

Man

is

that ana-

tomical part of a social organism that functions as a directive, regulative

or

integrative

chance, or both together,

mechanism.

Ability— or

may have put him

epilepsy— or

in this position.

The

IKHNATON Great

Man

281 is

an instrument employed by a nation or a movement

its functions. Torn from his context, the Great Napoleon, a Kaiser sawing wood, the mutilated corpse of Mussolini, a Big Name in a "War Crimes Trial"— is

in the exercise of

Man— an

exiled

human flesh. The measure of a Great Man in the life of nations can be taken when we see how independent of him the behavior of a nation is. The behavior of the social organism that is Russia has remained but an insignificant hunk of

constant for decades and even centuries: expansion toward the east,

tropismatic gropings toward warm-water ports, penetration

of the Balkans, Pan-Slavism. in the driver's seat

Whether

a

Czar or a Commissar

immaterial; the great organism goes

is

its

sits

own

way unalterably. The same observations may be made in the case of Germany. Whether the Great Man be Wilhelm, Bismarck, or Hitler, the organism that was Germany followed a constant and uniform course: Drang nach Oesten, lebensraum, colonies, commercial rivalry.

The

reasons for this uniformity of national be-

havior are of course plain: the land, the people

the resources of the land or

who grow upon

lack of them,

its

its

it,

position with

reference to other nations, the trade routes of the world, etc.

These remain

relatively constant

and consequently the behavior

of the social organism remains constant. Great ogies

do more to obscure these fundamental

them. The Great

Man

alization, of the social

is

facts

Men

and

Ideol-

than to explain

the instrument, the Ideology, the ration-

organism

international jungle of nations.

as it struggles for survival in the

CHAPTER TEN THE LOCUS OF MATHEMATICAL REALITY

"He's [the Red King's] dreaming now," said Tweedledee: "and what he's dreaming about?" Alice said, "Nobody can guess that." "Why, about you.'" Tweedledee exclaimed, clapping his hands triumphantly. "And if he left off dreaming about you, where do you suppose you'd be?"

do vou think

"Where

I

am now,

of course," said Alice.

retorted contemptuously. "You'd you're only a sort of thing in his dream!"

"Not you!" Tweedledee where.

Why,

"If that there

out

—bang! —

be no-

King was to wake," added Tweedledum, "you'd go

just like a candle."

"I shouldn't!" Alice exclaimed indignantly. "Besides, sort of thing in his

dream, what are you,

I

should

like to

if

I'm only a

know?"

"Ditto," said Tweedledum. "Ditto, ditto!" cried Tweedledee. He shouted this so loud that Alice couldn't help saying "HushI if you make so much noise." no use your talking about waking him," said Tweedledum, "when you're only one of the things in his dream. You know

You'll be waking him, I'm afraid,

"Well,

it's

very well you're not real." "I

am

real!" said Alice,

"You won't make

and began to

cry.

yourself a bit realler

by crying," Tweedledee

re-

marked: "there's nothing to cry about."

—

—

"If I wasn't real," Alice said half laughing through her tears, it all seemed so ridiculous "I shouldn't be able to cry." "I hope you don't suppose those are real tears?" Tweedledum interrupted in a tone of great contempt. Lewis Carroll Through the Looking Glass

—

D

o mathematical truths reside in the external world, there

to be discovered by man, or are they man-made inventions? Does mathematical reality have an existence and a validity 282

THE LOCUS OF MATHEMATICAL REALITY

human

independent of the the

human

is

it

merely a function of

nervous system?

Opinion has been and

Mary

species or

283

still

is

divided on this question. Mrs.

Somerville (1780-1872), an Englishwoman v^ho

men

corresponded with such

W.

Lussac,

as Sir

knew

or

John Herschel, Laplace, Gay

Whewell, John Stuart Mill, Baron von Humboldt, and De Candolle, and who was herself a

Cuvier,

Faraday,

scholar of distinction,* expressed a view widely held

when

she

said:

"Nothing has afforded

me

so convincing a proof of the unity

of the Deity as these purely mental conceptions of numerical and

mathematical science which have been by slow degrees vouch-

man, and

safed to

are

now

Differential Calculus,

of which

from

it

superseded by the Higher Algebra,

existed in that sublimely omniscient

all

Mind

^

eternity."

Lest

than

must have

granted in these latter times by the

still

be thought that Mrs. Somerville was more theological

scientific in

her outlook,

let it

be noted that she was de-

nounced, by name and in public, from the pulpit by Dean Cock-

burn of York Cathedral In

America,

scholar

(the

for her support of science.^

Edward Everett

first

(1794-1865),

American to win

a

a

distinguished

doctorate at Gottingen),

reflected the enlightened view of his day

when he

declared:

we contemplate absolute truths mind before the morning stars sang continue to exist there when the last of

"In the pure mathematics

which existed together,

in the divine

and which

will

their radiant host shall have fallen

In our

own

day, a

from heaven."

^

prominent British mathematician, G. H.

Hardy, has expressed the same view with, however, more technicality than rhetorical flourish, in *

A

Mathematician's Apology:

She wrote the following works, some of which went into several editions: oi the Heavens, 1831 (which was, it seems, a popularization of the Mecanique Celeste of Laplace); The Connection of the Physical Sciences, 1858; Molecular and Microscopic Science, 1869; Physical Geography,

The Mechanism

1870.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

284

"I believe that mathematical reality lies outside us,

our function

which we

to discover or observe

is

prove,

and that the theorems

it,

and which we describe grandiloquently

Taking the opposite view we find the distinguished

W.

Bridgman, asserting that

"it is

our

as

*

* 'creations' are simply our notes of our observations."

P.

and that

physicist,

the merest truism, evident

once to unsophisticated observation, that mathematics is a human invention." ^ Edward Kasner and James Newman state that

at

truths have

"we have overcome the notion that mathematical

own minds.

existence independent and apart from our

It is

strange to us that such a notion could ever have existed."

From

a psychological

latter

conception

valid.

There

realities

is

is

^

and anthropological point of view,

the only one that

is

scientifically

an

even

this

sound and

no more reason to believe that mathematical

have an existence independent of the

to believe that mythological realities can

from man. The square root of minus one

human mind than

have their being apart is

real.

So were

Wotan

and Osiris. So are the gods and spirits that primitive peoples believe in today.

things real?, but,

The question at issue, however, is not. Are these Where is the locus of their reality? It is a mis-

take to identify reality with the external world only.

more real than an hallucination. Our concern here, however, is not mathematical pose to do

is

reality as

is

one view of

What we

pro-

phenomenon of mathematical bemake clear, on the one hand, why the

to present the

havior in such a belief in the

to establish

sound, the other illusory.

Nothing

way

as to

independent existence of mathematical truths has

seemed so plausible and convincing

for so

many

centuries, and,

* The mathematician is not, of course, the only one who is inclined to believe that his creations are discoveries of things in the external world. The theoretical physicist, too, entertains this belief. "To him who is a discoverer in this field," Einstein obsen'es, "the products of his imagination appear so

necessary and natural that he regards them, and would like to have

them

regarded by others, not as creations of thought but as given realities," ("On the Method of Theoretical Physics," in The World as I See It, p. 30).

THE LOCUS OF MATHEMATICAL REALITY

on the

other, to

show

that

of

all

285

mathematics

is

nothing more

than a particular kind of primate behavior.

Many

persons would unhesitatingly subscribe to the proposition

must

that "mathematical reality us."

Are these not the only

lie

either within us, or outside

As Descartes once

possibilities?

reasoned in discussing the existence of God,

we can have unless there

be somewhere, either in us or out of

which comprises,

though

"it

impossible

is

the idea or representation of anything whatever,

in reality

."

,

may

reasoning

this

.

^

an original

us,

(emphasis ours). Yet,

appear to be,

it

is,

in

irresistible

our present

The

problem, fallacious or at least treacherously misleading.

fol-

lowing propositions, though apparently precisely opposed to each

one

other, are equally valid;

is

the other:

as true as

"Mathe-

i.

matical truths have an existence and a validity independent of the

human mind," and phrased as they

mind"

2.

"Mathematical truths have no existence or

from the human mind." Actually, these propositions,

validity apart

are, are

misleading because the term "the

used in two different senses. In the

is

first

statement, "the

human mind" refers to the individual organism; in the to the human species. Thus both propositions can be, and Mathematical truths

are, true.

which the individual

second, actually

exist in the cultural tradition into

born, and so enter his

is

But apart from

outside.

human

mind from the

cultural tradition, mathematical concepts

have neither existence nor meaning, and of course, cultural

tradi-

tion has

no existence apart from the human

realities

thus have an existence independent of the individual

species.

Mathematical

mind, but are wholly dependent upon the mind of the

species.

Or, to put the matter in anthropological terminology:

mathe-

matics in

human

entirety,

its

its

"truths" and

culture, nothing more.

ture which already existed

Culture

traits

its

"realities,"

Every individual

and which

is

is

is

a part of

born into a

cul-

independent of him.

have an existence outside of the individual mind

and independent of

it.

The

individual obtains his culture

by

learn-

ing the customs, beliefs, techniques of his group. But culture

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

286

and can have, no existence apart from the human Mathematics, therefore—hke language, institutions, tools, the arts, etc.— is the cumulative product of ages of endeavor of the

itself

has,

species.

human species. The great French make

to

this clear.

mentars^

Forms

ological

Method

its

savant Emile

He

discussed

Durkheim was one

of the Religious Life. especially

he

And

first

The

Ele-

The Rules

in

of Soci-

set forth the nature of culture

human mind. Others, relationship between man and

too,

relationship to the

discussed the

of the

in the early pages of

it

and

have of course

culture,

but Durk-

heim's formulations are especially appropriate for our present cussion and

we

upon him

shall call

to speak for us

dis-

from time to

time.^

Mathematics herits

from

its

is,

of course, a part of culture. Every people in-

predecessors, or contemporary neighbors, along with

ways of cooking, marrying, worshipping, calculating, in fact, a

and whatever

else

tens,

cardinal

ways of counting, is,

form of behavior: the responses of a particular kind of

primate organism to a set of stimuli. fives,

etc.,

mathematics does. Mathematics

Whether

twelves or twenties; whether

numbers beyond

5,

or possesses

a people counts

by

no words for the most modern and has

it

highly developed mathematical conceptions, their mathematical

behavior

is

determined

by the mathematical

which

culture

possesses them.

We

can see

now how

the belief that mathematical truths and

human mind

flourished.

They

They

enter

the individual mind, as Durkheim says, from the outside.

They

realities lie

do

lie

outside the

outside the

impinge upon

mind

his organism, again

cosmic forces do.

is

secreted, like bile;

tot boys

and

it is

is

so.

can

see,

and

just as

by observing him-

Mathematics

something drunk,

grow up and behave, mathematically

in obedience to

Durkheim,

to quote

Any mathematician

self as well as others, that this

that

arose

of each individual organism.

is

not something

like wine.

Hotten-

as well as otherwise,

in conformity with the mathematical

and

THE LOCUS OF AAATHEMATICAL REALITY

287

EngHsh or American youths do the There is not one iota of ana-

other

traits in their culture.

same

in their respective cultures.

tomical or psychological evidence to indicate that there are any significant innate, biological

racial

matical or any other kind of

human

Newton been

own

behavior

is

concerned.

Had

reared in Hottentot culture

he would have calcuG. H. Hardy, who know, through well as from the observation of others,

Men

lated like a Hottentot. their

differences so far as mathe-

experience as

like

that mathematical concepts enter their minds from the outside,

conclude understandably— but erroneously— that they have their

and locus

origin

the external world, independent of man.

in

Erroneous, because the alternative to "outside the the individual mind, that

is,

human mind,"

not "the external world, inde-

is

pendent of man," but culture, the body of traditional thought and behavior of the

human

species.

Culture frequently plays

We

ing.

tricks

upon

us and distorts our think-

tend to find in culture direct expressions of

"human

nature" on the one hand and of the external world on the other.

Thus each people

is

beliefs are direct

and

"human

disposed to believe that

its

man's nature.

faithful expressions of

nature," they think, to practice

own customs and

monogamy,

to

It is

be jealous

of one's wife, to bury the dead, drink milk, to appear in public

only

when

clad, to call

your mother's brother's children "cousin,"

to enjoy exclusive right to the fruit of your

happen

to

us that there of

the

toil,

etc.,

they

if

have these particular customs. But ethnography the widest divergence of custom

is

world:

there

are

polyandry, lend wives as a

peoples

mark

who

among

loathe

milk,

of hospitality, regard

tells

the peoples practice

inhumation

with horror, appear in public without clothing and without shame, call their

who

mother's brother's children "son" and "daughter," and

freely place all or the greater portion of the

toil at

the disposal of their fellows. There

that can be said to express Similarly

it

"human"

is

produce of their

no custom or

belief

nature more than any other.

has been thought that certain conceptions of the

^

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

288

were so simple and fundamental that they immediately and faithfully expressed its structure and nature. One is inclined to think that yellow, blue, and green are features of the external world

which any normal person would distinguish until

external world

he learns that the Creek and Natchez Indians did not distinguish yellow from green; they had but one term for both. Similarly,

many

the Choctaw, Tunica, the Keresan Pueblo Indians and other peoples

make no

terminological distinction between blue

and green.

The

great

Newton was deceived by

his culture, too.

for granted that the concept of absolute space directly

diately corresponded to

he thought, the

To be

took

it

and imme-

something in the external world; space,

something that has an existence independent of

is

human mind,

concept space

He

is

"I

do not frame hypotheses," he

But the

said.

a creation of the intellect, as are other concepts.

Newton himself did not create the hypothesis of came to him from the outside, as Durkheim puts it. But although it impinges upon the organism

sure,

absolute space. It properly

comme

Jes ioTces

cosmiques,

it

has a different source:

not

it is

the cosmos but man's culture.

For centuries

it

was thought that the theorems of Euclid were

merely conceptual photographs, so to speak, of the external world; that they

had a

validity quite

independent of the

human mind;

that there was something necessary and inevitable about them.

The

invention of non-Euclidean geometries by Lobatchewsky,

Riemann and

others has dispelled this view entirely. It

is

now

clear that concepts such as space, straight line, plane, etc., are

no more necessary and inevitable

as a

consequence of the

ture of the external world than are the concepts green

—or

struc-

and yellow

the relationship term with which you designate your mother's

brother, for that matter.

To

quote Einstein again:

"We come now

to the question:

necessary, respectively in

what

is

a priori certain or

geometry (doctrine of space)

or

its

THE LOCUS OF MATHEMATICAL REALITY foundations? Formerly

we thought

289

everything; nowadays

—nothing, Aheady the distance-concept

logically

is

there need be no things that correspond to

mately."

it,

we

think

arbitrary;

even approxi-

^°

Kasner and

Newman

say that "non-Euclidean geometry

proof

is

man's own handiwork, subject only to the limitations imposed by the laws of thought." ^^

...

that mathematics

is

Far from having an existence and a validity apart from the

human species, all mathematical concepts are "free inventions of the human intellect," to use a phrase with which Einstein characterizes the concepts

and fundamental principles of

because mathematical and

scientific

physics.

But

concepts have always entered

mind from the outside, everyone until recently has concluded that they came from the external world instead of from man-made culture. But the concept of culture, as a scieneach individual

tific

concept,

The

is

but a recent invention

cultural

itself.

nature of our scientific concepts and beliefs

by the Nobel prize winning

clearly recognized

physicist,

is

Erwin

Schrodinger, in the following passage:

"Whence molecules

is

arises

the v^ddespread belief that the behavior of

determined by absolute

viction that the contrary

is

causality,

whence the con-

unthinkable? Simply from the custoniy

inherited through thousands of years, of thinking causally,

which

makes the idea of undetermined events, of absolute, primary casualness,

seem

complete

nonsense,

a

logical

absurdity," ^*

(Schrodinger's emphases). Similarly,

are a

Henri Poincare

mere "conventions,"

priori

tions

.

We

.

i.e.,

axioms of geometry

asserts that the

customs: they "are neither synthetic

judgments nor experimental

facts.

They

are conven-

." ^^

turn

now

to another aspect of mathematics that

is

illu-

minated by the concept of culture. Heinrich Hertz, the discoverer of wireless waves, once said:

"One cannot

escape

the

feeling

that

these

mathematical

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

290

formulas have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers

[sic],

put into them."

that

we

get

more out

them than was

of

originally

^*

Here again we encounter the notion that mathematical formulas have an existence "of their own," (i.e., independent of the human species), and that they are "discovered," rather than man-made.

The

concept of culture

clarifies

the entire situation. Mathematical

formulas, like other aspects of culture, do have in a sense an

"independent existence and intelligence of their own." The English language has, in a sense, "an independent existence of its

own." Not independent of the human species, of course, but independent of any individual or group of individuals, race or nation. It has, in a sense, an "intelligence of its own." That is, it behaves, grows and changes in accordance with principles which are inherent in the language itself, not in the human mind. As man self-conscious of language,

becomes

and

the science of philology

as

matures, the principles of linguistic behavior are discovered and its

laws formulated.

So

it

is

real sense

with mathematical and scientific concepts. In a very they have a

life of their

culture, of cultural tradition.

own. This

the

life is

As Durkheim expresses

it:

life

of

"Col-

ways of acting and thinking have a reality outside the individuals who, at every moment of time, conform to it. These

lective

ways of thinking and acting

be quite possible

exist in their

money,

right."

^^ It

would

and adequately the evolu-

to describe completely

tion of mathematics, physics,

own

architecture, axes, plows,

language, or any other aspect of culture without ever alluding to the

human

species or

the most effective as

if

the

human

way

any portion of

race did not exist.

iVenient to refer to the nation that

man who

it.

As

a matter of fact,

to study culture scientifically

To be first

sure

coined

it

is

to proceed

is

often con-

money

invented the calculus or the cotton gin. But

necessary, nor, strictly speaking, relevant.

The

or to the it is

not

phonetic shifts in

THE LOCUS OF AAATHEMATICAL REALITY Indo-European

291

summarized by Grimm's law have

as

to

do

solely

with linguistic phenomena, with sounds and their permutations, combinations and interactions. They can be dealt with adequately

without any reference to the anatomical, physiological, or psychological characteristics of the primate organisms who produced

them. a life [they]

And

with mathematics and physics. Concepts have of their own. Again to quote Durkheim, "when once born, so

it is

obey laws

all

their

own. They

other, unite, divide themselves

culture

other

interact

traits,

syntheses and combinations.

may form ciated

attract each other, repel each

and multiply with

Two

each

.

,

other,

associated with

others. Certain ideas of electrical

grow from the "Faraday

new

forming

coming together The laws of motion asso-

new concept or synthesis. with Newton were syntheses of concepts and

Ideas, like

or three ideas

a

Galileo, Kepler

." ^^

phenomena

stage," so to speak, to those of Clerk

Maxwell, H. Hertz, Marconi, and modern radar. "The application of

Newton's mechanics to continuously distributed masses

led," says Einstein, "inevitably to the discovery partial differential equations,

which

and application of

in their turn first provided the

language for the laws of the field-theory" (emphasis ours).

The

theory of relativity was, as Einstein observes, "no revolutionary act,

but the natural continuation of a line that can be traced

through centuries."

More

Maxwell and Lorentz led relativity." ^^ is

Thus we

immediately, inevitably

to

see not only that

"the

theory of

Clerk

the special theory of

any given thought-system

an outgrowth of previous experience, but that certain ideas

lead

inevitably

machine,

belief,

to

new concepts and new

outgrowth of previous culture

traits.

An

nature of culture makes clear, therefore,

Any

systems.

philosophy, custom or institution

is

tool,

but the

understanding of the

why Hertz

felt

that

"mathematical formulas have an independent existence and an intelligence of their

own."

His feeling that "we get more out of them than was originally

put into them,"

arises

from the

fact that in the interaction of

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

292

new

culture traits

syntheses are formed which were not antici-

pated by "their discoverers," or which contained impHcations

made them

that were not seen or appreciated until further growth

more

Sometimes novel features of a newly formed

explicit.

synthesis are not seen even

tem the

many

of

in whose nervous sysThus Jacques Hadamard tells us

by the person

synthesis took place.

occasions in which he failed utterly to see things that

"ought to have struck

he

stances in which

.

.

.

[him] blind."

failed to see

He

numerous

cites

in-

"obvious and immediate con-

sequences of the ideas contained" in the work upon which he was engaged, leaving

them

be "discovered" by others

to

later.^^

contradiction between the view held by Hertz,

The

Hardy and

others that mathematical truths are discovered rather than

made

is

man-

thus resolved by the concept of culture. They are both;

they are discovered but they are also man-made.

product of the mind of the

human

species.

They

are the

But they are en-

countered or discovered by each individual in the mathematical culture in which

he grows up. The process of mathematical

we have

pointed out, one of interaction of matheupon one another. This process requires, of course, a basis in the brains of men, just as a telephone conversation requires wires, receivers, transmitters, etc. But we do not

growth

is,

as

matical elements

need to take the brains of

men

into account in an explanation of

we have to when we wish to ex-

mathematical growth and invention any more than take the telephone wires into consideration plain the conversation

numerous inventions

of

it

carries.

Proof of this

lies

in

the fact

(or "discoveries") in mathematics

made

simultaneously by two or more persons working independently.*

*

The

following data are taken from a long and varied list published in by F. Ogburn (New York, 1923), pp. 90-102, in which simultaneous inventions and discoveries in the fields of chemistry, physics,

Social Change,

Wm.

biology, mechanical invention, etc., as well as in mathematics, are listed. Law of inverse squares: Newton, 1666; Halley, 1684.

Introduction of decimal point: Pitiscus, 1616-17.

1608-12; Kepler,

1616; Napier,

THE LOCUS OF MATHEMATICAL REALITY If

293

these discoveries really were caused, or determined, by indi-

we would have

vidual minds,

On

to explain

them

as coincidences.

the basis of the laws of chance these numerous and repeated

coincidences would be nothing short

explanation

culturological

The whole

once.

of

Each

individual

is

culture

shape and mould each person's

and

direction.

Mathematics

the total culture.

It acts

is,

upon

at

embraced by

customs and institutions. These

of beliefs,

tools,

is

clear

born into a pre-existing

organization traits

situation

population of a certain region

a type of culture.

But the

miraculous.

makes the whole

of course,

life,

give

it

content

one of the streams

individuals in varying degree,

in

and

they respond according to their constitutions. Mathematics

is

the psychosomatic response to the mathematical culture.

But we have already noted that within the body of matheis action and reaction among the various elements. Concept reacts upon concept; ideas mix, fuse, form new syntheses. This process goes on throughout the whole extent of culture although more rapidly and intensively in some regions matical culture there

(usually the center) than in others (the periphery).

process of interaction

new to

this

certain point,

syntheses * are formed of themselves. These syntheses are,

be

The

and development reaches a

When

sure,

real

events and have location in

places are of course the brains of

process has been going

time and place.

men. Since the

on rather uniformly over

a

cultural

wide area and

Logarithms: Burgi, 1620; Napier-Briggs, 1614. Calculus: Newton, 1671; Leibnitz, 1676. Principle of least squares: Gauss, i8og; Legendre, 1806. A treatment of vectors without the use of co-ordinate systems: Hamilton, 1843; Grassman, 1843; and others, 1843. Contraction hypothesis: H. A. Lorentz, 1895; Fitzgerald, 1895. The double theta functions: Gopel, 1847; Rosenhain, 1847. Geometry with axiom contradictory to Euclid's parallel axiom: chevsky, 1836-40; Bolyai, 1826-33; Gauss, 1829. The rectification of the semi-cubal parabola:

Lobat-

Van Heuraet, 1659; Neil, 1657; Fermat, 1657-59. The geometric law of duality: Oncelet, 1838; Gergone, 1838. * Hadamard entitles one chapter of his book "Discovery as a Synthesis."

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

294

new

population, the

synthesis takes place simultaneously in

a

number of brains at once. Because we are habitually anthropocentric in our thinking we tend to say that these men made these discoveries. And in a sense, a biological sense, they did. But if we wish to explain the discovery as an event in the growth of mathematics we must rule the individual out completely. From this standpoint, the individual did not make the discovery was something that happened to him. He was merely the place where the lightning struck. A simultaneous "discovery" by three men working "independently" simply means that culat

all.

It

tural-mathematical lightning can and does strike in

one

invention or discovery, the individual

is

merely the neural locus

which the advance occurs. Man's brain

in

more than

place at a time. In the process of cultural growth, through

is

merely a catalytic

agent, so to speak, in the culture process. This process cannot exist

independently of neural

nervous system

is

tissue,

but the function of man's

merely to make possible the interactive process

to effect syntheses of cultural elements.

and

To be

sure individuals differ just as catalytic agents, lightning

One person, one set of brains, medium for the growth of mathematical culture than another. One man's nervous system may be a better catalyst for the culture process than that of another. The matheconductors or other media do.

may be

a better

matical cultural process of brains than another

therefore

is

as

its

more

medium

likely to select

of expression.

one

But

it

set is

easy to exaggerate the role of superior brains in cultural advance. It

not merely superiority of brains that counts. There must be a

is

juxtaposition of brains with a specific cultural tradition. If the

proper cultural elements are lacking, superior brains will be of

no

avail.

There were brains

as

good

as

Newton's

in

10,000 years before the birth of Christ, at the time of the conquest, that

or any other

we know about

the neuroanatomy of

period

fossil

of English

history.

England

Norman

Everything

man, the prehistory of England, and

Homo

sapiens will support this statement.

THE LOCUS OF MATHEMATICAL REALITY

There were brains

good

as

But the

in Darkest Africa.

Newton's

as

295 in aboriginal

America or

calculus was not invented in these

other times and places because the requisite cultural elements

were lacking. Contrariwise, when the cultural elements are present, the discovery or invention becomes so inevitable that it takes place independently in two or three nervous systems at once.

Had Newton been

reared as a sheep herder, the mathematical

culture of

England would have found other brains

achieve

new

its

synthesis.

another's, just as larger.

But

his

One

hearing

may be more

just as a "brilliant" general

is

better than

acute or his feet

one whose armies are

mathematical or otherwise,

victorious, so a genius,

which to

in

may be

man's brains

is

a person in

whose nervous system an important cultural synthesis takes place; he is the neural locus of an epochal event in culture history. The nature of the culture process and its relation to the minds of

men

is

well illustrated by the history of the theor}' of evolu-

tion in biology.

wdth Darwin. of

reactions

As

We

is

well

find

it

many

known, in

one form or another before

others

this theory did

not originate in the neural

Danvin was born:

Buffon,

Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, and others. As a matter of virtually all of the ideas

which together we

be found in the writings of

J.

call

Darwinism

fact,

are to

C. Prichard, an English physician

and anthropologist (1786-1848). These various concepts were interacting upon each other and upon current theological beliefs, competing, struggling, being modified, combined, resynthesized, etc., for

decades.

ment was

The time

finally

came,

i.e.,

the stage of develop-

reached, where the theological system broke

down and

the rising tide of scientific interpretation inundated the land.

Here again the new synthesis of concepts found expression simultaneously in the nervous systems of two

men working

inde-

pendently of each other: A. R. Wallace and Charles Darwin.

The

event had to take place

infancy, the culture process

medium

of expression.

when

it did. If Darwin had died in would have found another neural

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

296 This

illustration

especially interesting because

is

own

vivid account, in Darwin's

we have

a

words, of the way in which the

synthesis of ideas took place:

"In October 1838," Darwin wrote in his autobiographic sketch, "that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I

happened

amusement 'Malthus on

to read for

and

Population,'

being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everyM'here goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants,

at

it

once struck

me

that under these

cir-

cumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and

The

unfavourable ones to be destroyed. the fomiation of a

new

theory by which to work

This read

is

species. .

.

."

result of this

Here then

J

had

would be

at last got a

(emphasis ours).

an exceedingly interesting revelation. At the time he

Mai thus, Darwin's mind was

filled

with various

ideas,

(i.e.,

he had been moulded, shaped, animated and equipped by the cultural milieu into which he happened to have been born and reared— a significant aspect of which was independent means; had he been obliged to earn his living in a "counting house" we might have had "Hudsonism" today instead of Darwinism).

These

ideas reacted

upon one another, competing,

eliminating,

strengthening, combining. Into this situation was introduced, hy

chance, a peculiar combination of cultural elements (ideas) which bears the

name of Malthus. Instantly a reaction took place, a new formed— "here at last he had a theory by which

synthesis was

to work." Darwin's nervous system was merely the place

where

came together and formed a new synthesis. happened to Darwin rather than something

these cultural elements

was something that

It

he

did.

This account of invention in the

field of

biology

calls to

mind

the well-known incident of mathematical invention described so

by Henri Poincare.

vividly

on a problem but without ".

.

.

contrary to

my

One

evening, after working very hard

success,

custom,

I

he

writes:

drank black coffee and could

THE LOCUS OF AAATHEMATICAL REALITY not sleep. Ideas rose in crowds; next morning

them

felt

I

making

interlocked, so to speak,

297 collide until pairs

By the

a stable combination.

had established the existence of a class of Fuchsian functions ... I had only to write out the results, which took but a few hours." ^^ I

Poincare further illustrates the process of culture change and

growth in

subjective

its

imaginative analogy.

something

He

aspect by means

neural)

(i.e.,

of

an

imagines mathematical ideas as being

"the hooked atoms of Epicurus. During complete

like

repose of the mind, these atoms are motionless, they are, so to

hooked

speak,

mental

No

to the wall."

activity,

combinations are formed. But in

even unconscious

activity, certain of

"are detached from the wall and put in motion. every direction through space .

.

.

Then

tions."

^°

is

.

.

like the

They

flash in

molecules of a gas

mutual impacts may produce new combina-

their

This

.

the atoms

merely a description of the subjective aspect of

the culture process which the anthropologist would describe objectively

(i.e.,

without reference to nervous systems).

say that in cultural systems, traits of various kinds act

He would and

react

upon one another, eliminating some, reinforcing others, forming new combinations and syntheses. The significant thing about the loci of inventions and discoveries from the anthropologist's standpoint

is

not quality of brains, but relative position within

the culture area: inventions and discoveries are to take place at culture centers, at places deal of cultural interaction, than

much more

where there

on the periphery,

in

is

likely

a great

remote or

isolated regions.

The dominating upon the it is

individual

influence of the external cultural

mind

is

sometimes

seldom recognized for what

it

really

felt

is.

tradition

very distinctly, but

Thus, Goethe declared

that:

"All productivity of the highest kind, every important conception, every discovery, every great thought which bears fruit,

...

is

in

no one's

control,

and

is

beyond every earthly power.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

298

Such things are as

be regarded

to

pure divine products."

The

as

unexpected

gifts

from above,

-^

brothers Goncourt speak of "an

will, a sort of compulsion to write,

unknown

force, a superior

which commands the work

and guides the pen; so much so that at times the book which comes forth from your hands seems not to have been born of ." " And George Eliot declared that "in all yourself at all .

.

her writings which she considered her best, there was a 'not herself which took possession of her and made her feel 'her own personality to be merely the instrument through which the spirit

acted/ "

To be

^^

"something outside one's

sure, there is a

a force, that lays hold of one and compels

But there

is

him

to

self,"

nothing mysterious or mystical about

something unearthly or divine the great tradition of culture

powerful embrace.

When,

it.

Goethe suggested. It that holds each one of as

as if in a river,

we

a power,

do thus and It is is

so.

not

simply

us in

are caught

up

its

in

a current or rapids of culture change, or swept into the vortex

we can do naught but give ourselves wholly Then indeed do we feel a spirit and a power within us that we know full well is not our own. But we know whence it comes of cultural synthesis, to

it.

and what

human

its

nature

is.

culture, flowing

carrying us

upon

its

It

is

down

the great and cumulative stream of to us

from

sources in antiquity,

its

bosom, nourishing and sustaining

us, using,

but yet preserving rather than consuming, us for the culture and the generations yet to come.

If

mathematical ideas enter the mind of the individual mathe-

matician from the outside, from the stream of culture into which

he was born and

reared, the question arises,

general,

and mathematical culture

the

place?

It

first

How

did

it

arise

in

where did culture in

particular,

and acquire

its

come from

in

content?

goes without saying, of course, that mathematics did not

originate with Euclid

and Pythagoras— or even with the thinkers

THE LOCUS OF AAATHEMATICAL REALITY

299

Egypt and Mesopotamia. Mathematics is a development of thought that had its beginning with the origin of man of ancient

and culture

a million years or so ago.

To be

was made during hundreds of thousands of

sure, little progress

years. Still,

we

find in

mathematics today systems and concepts that were developed by primitive and preliterate peoples of the Stone Ages, survivals of

which

are to

be found among savage

tribes today.

The

system

of counting by tens arose from using the fingers of both hands.

The

A

pebbles.

To

Maya

vigesimal system of the

use of toes as well as fingers.

be

straight line

sure, the first

To

astronomers grew out of the

calculate

is

to

count with

mathematical ideas to

exist

into being by the nervous systems of individual

They

not been for the in symbolic

beings.*

Had

it

ability to give these ideas overt expression

form and to communicate them from one person to

another so that

new

were brought

human

were, however, exceedingly simple and rudimentary.

human

calculi,

was a stretched linen cord, and so on.

new combinations would be formed, and

these

syntheses passed on from one generation to another in a

continuous process of interaction and accumulation, the species

human

would have made no mathematical progress beyond

initial stage.

This statement

is

its

supported by our studies of anthro-

* The question of the extent to which the form and content of mathematical thought are determined by the structure of the human mind, i.e., by the neuro-sensory-muscular-etcetera system of man, is interesting and relevant but one into which we shall not go at length here. Obviously the structure of

human organism conditions all of man's experience, mathematical and With regard to such things as "inherent and necessary laws of thought," however, it may be remarked that normal children and many primithe

otherwise.

nothing wrong with the notion that a body can be in two same time not to mention the objection that is raised to the phrase "at the same time" by the theory of relativity; 3=1 in some philosophies; an animal need not be either a mammal, A, or a non-mammal, not-A; it may be a monotreme, like the duckbill who lays eggs reptilian fashion but who suckles its young; etc. Whatever the influence of the structure and processes of the human organism upon the "laws of thought or logic" may be, it must, of course, find expression in one cultural form or another; any neurological imperative will therefore always be conditioned by tive peoples find

different places at the

convention.

—

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

300

They

poid apes.

are exceedingly intelligent

and

versatile.

They

have a fine appreciation of geometric forms, solve problems by imagination and insight, and possess not a little originality. But they

cannot express

overt symbolic form.

their

They cannot communicate

another except by gestures,

Hence

ideas cannot react

systems to produce

neuro-sensory-muscular

i.e.,

by

their ideas to

signs rather than

upon one another within

Nor can

syntheses.

nev^'

concepts

in

one

symbols.

their nervous

these ideas be trans-

mitted from one generation to another in a cumulative manner. Consequently, one generation of apes begins where the preceding generation began. There

Thanks

is

neither accumulation nor progress.

to articulate speech, the

Ideas are cast into symbolic form

human

species fares better.

and given overt expression.

Communication is thus made easy and versatile. Ideas now impinge upon nervous systems from the outside. These ideas react upon one another within these nervous systems. Some eliminated; others strengthened.

new to

syntheses achieved.

someone

else,

communicated

of mathematical ideas has

creative range of the individual

matical progress

cultural tiadition. is

made by

From

human

this

gone

nervous

sys-

time on, mathe-

the interaction of ideas already in

existence rather than by the creation of

new

concepts by the

nervous system alone. Ages before writing was invented,

individuals in

all

cultures were

dependent upon the mathematical

ideas present in their respective cultures.

behavior of an Apache Indian

is

by the mathematical

same was true

Neanderthal

for

man and

Mesopotamia and Greece.

modern Thus we

Thus, the mathematical

the response that he makes to

stimuli provided

Eg}q3t,

in turn

transmitted to the next generation. In a relatively

tem unaided hy

human

are

combinations are formed,

These advances are

short time, the accumulation

beyond the

New

It

ideas in his culture.

The

the inhabitants of ancient is

true for individuals of

nations today.

see that mathematical ideas were produced originally by the human nervous system when man first became a human

THE LOCUS OF MATHEMATICAL REALITY

301

being a million years ago. These concepts were exceedingly rudimentary, and the human nen'ous system, unaided by culture, could never have gone beyond them regardless of

many

hov^^

generations lived and died. It was the formation of a cultural that made progress possible. The communication of from person to person, the transmission of concepts from

tradition

ideas

one generation stimulated

nervous

new

action formed

minds

to another, placed in the

their

systems)

men

of

(i.e.,

which through

ideas

inter-

syntheses which were passed on in turn to

others.

We return now, in conclusion, to some of the observations of G. H. Hardy, to show that his conception of mathematical reality and mathematical behavior is consistent with the theory we have

of culture that

by

presented here and

is,

in fact, explained

it.

"I believe that mathematical reality lies outside us," If

by

''us"

he means "us mathematicians

They do

right.

lie

culture into which

But he

we

also

"physical reality," tures

.

What

.

.

[of]

then

that "there

is

is

he

says.

he

is

quite

outside each one of us; they are a part of the

mathematical truth ours).

individually,"

^^

are born.

is

part

Hardy

of

reality," ^^

"mathematical

distinguishes

and

feels that "in

objective

some

sense,

(emphasis

reality"

from

"pure geometries are not

insists that

pic-

the spatio-temporal reality of the physical world." the nature of mathematical reality? Hardy declares

no

agreement

sort of

on

~^

maticians or philosophers"

.

this

.

.

among Our

point.

either mathe-

interpretation

provides the solution. Mathematics does have objective reality.

And

this reality, as

world. But there

is

Hardy

insists, is

not the

no mystery about

sort of reality possessed

by

it.

reality of the physical

Its reality is cultural:

the

a code of etiquette, traffic regulations,

the rules of baseball, the English language or rules of grammar.

Thus we reality.

We

see

that there

is

no mystery about mathematical

need not search for mathematical "truths"

in the

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

302

is

Mathematics

or in the structure of the Universe.

mind

divine

a kind of primate behavior as languages, musical systems

penal codes

and

Mathematical concepts are man-made just as traffic rules, and bird cages are man-made. But this

are.

ethical values,

does not invalidate the belief that mathematical propositions lie outside us and have an objective reality. They do lie outside us.

They

existed before

in the

world about

^•idual. i.e.,

The

we were

us.

But

born. As

we grow up we

them

locus of mathematical reality

is

cultural

tradition,

the continuum of symbolic behavior. This theory illuminates

phenomenon

also the

Ideas interact with

of novelty

and progress

If

men

the owners of these nervous

systems are aware of what has taken place they

Hadamard

in mathematics.

in the nervous systems of

one another

and thus form new syntheses.

as

find

this objectivity exists only for the indi-

call it

invention

does, or "creation," to use Poincare's term. If they

do not understand what has happened, they call it a "discovery" and belie\'e they have found something in the external world. Mathematical concepts are independent of the individual mind but

lie

wholly within the mind of the species,

Mathematical invention and

discover}^ are

i.e.,

culture.

merelv two aspects of

an event that takes place simultaneously in the cultural tradition

and

in

culture

one or more human nervous systems. Of these two is

evolution

the

more

significant;

lie

here.

Tlie

catalyst that

makes the

factors,

the determinants of mathematical

human

nen'ous system

cultural process possible.

is

merely the

CHAPTER ELEVEN

AND PROHIBITION

THE DEFINITION OF INCEST

"Again and again before

plainly

must have had between

in the world's history, savage tribes

minds the simple

their

marrying-out and being killed out

.

.

."

alternative

practical

—E. B. Tylor

i

man.

7,:. he subject of incest has a strange fascination for

He

was preoccupied with

We

art of writing.

of

ogies

countless

it

long before he developed the

find incestuous episodes in the mythol-

peoples.

And

in

advanced

from

cultures,

Sophocles to Eugene O'Neill, incest has been one of the most

popular of

all literary

continue to find

be reckoned

it

themes.

ever fresh

Men

one of man's major

as

seem never to

tire of it

interests in life.

Yet, despite this intense and perennial concern, that incest

is

but

have been obliged to declare that

it is

little all

but

and absorbing. Incest must indeed

understood even today.

it

Men

is

a fact

of science

too often to admit that they are baffled and

too mysterious, too obscure, to yield to rational

interpretation, at least for the present.

One

of the

more common explanations of the universal prois that it is instinctive. Thus Robert H. Lowie

hibition of incest

once

accepted

stinctive." it is

^

To

"Hobhouse's

view

that

the

sentiment

"explain" an element of behavior by saying that

"instinctive" contributes little to our understanding of

a rule.

in-

is

Sometimes

it

it

as

merely conceals our ignorance with a verbal

curtain of pseudo-knowledge. incest are "instinctive"

is

To

say that prohibitions

against

of course to declare that there 303

is

a

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

304 natural, inborn

and innate

close relatives.

But

enact

strict

feeling of revulsion toward unions with

were the

this

if

prevent them?

laws to

why should

case,

Why

societies

should they legislate

against something that everyone already wishes passionately to

avoid?

Do

not, as a matter of fact, the stringent

and worldwide

and powerful desire

prohibitions indicate a universal

for sexual

unions with one's relatives? Clinical evidence points in the same direction,

"Freud has shown

but conclusively," writes Golden-

all

weiser, "that incestuous tendencies represent one of the most

deeply rooted impulses of the individual."

There are further objections to the marriage with a

societies regard

others do not. Are

we

to

tribe to tribe? Certainly

first

when we

some

societies

it

theory.

Some

instinct varies

consider our

own

from

legal defini-

state to state, to claim that a

biological instinct can recognize state

grotesque. In

instinct

cousin as incestuous while

assume that the

which vary from

tions of incest,

^

is

boundary

lines

is

somewhat

incestuous to marry a parallel

cousin (a child of your father's brother or your mother's sister)

but

it

cross

is

cousin

brother).

and may even be mandatory, to marry a

permissible, (a

We

either; in fact,

child

of your father's

sister

how "instinct" we cannot see how instinct cannot see

cousin from a parallel cousin. It

is

or your mother's

can account for

this,

can distinguish a cross

usually incestuous to marry a

clansman even though no genealogical connection whatever can

be discovered with him, whereas marriage with another clan

may be

not help us at it

all,

a close relative in

permissible. Plainly, the instinct theory does

and

it is

not easy to find a scientist to defend

today.*

* In

1932, Professor Lowie abandoned the instinct theory of incest proBut he comes no closer to an explanation than to observe that "the aversion to incest is, therefore, best regarded as a primeval cultural adaptation" (Lowic, 1933) p. 67. In one of his most recent works. An Introduction to Cultural Anthiopohg}' (2nd ed., New York, 1940) he again discusses incest but goes no further than to suggest that "the horror of incest is not inborn,
THE DEFINITION

AND

PROHIBITION OF INCEST

305

Another theory, championed generations ago by Lewis H. * and others, and not without defenders today, is that

Morgan

incest was defined

and prohibited because inbreeding causes

logical degeneration.

evident, but

it is

This theory

wrong

for all that. In the

first

bio-

seem

so plausible as to

is

self-

place, inbreeding

as such does not cause degeneration; the testimony of biologists

To be

conclusive on this point.

is

inheritance of

brother and

good or bad.

If

sister are inferior it is

stock,

inferior

traits,

sure, inbreeding intensifies the

the offspring of a union of

because the parents were of

not because they were brother and

superior traits as well as inferior ones can

be

But

sister.

intensified

by

in-

breeding, and plant and animal breeders frequently resort to this

device to improve their strains. If the children of brother-sister or father-daughter unions in our

own

minded

it

or otherwise inferior

viduals are

are normal

more

likely to

is

society are frequently feeble-

because feeble-minded

indi-

break the powerful incest taboo than

men and women and hence more

likely

to beget

degenerate offspring. But in societies where brother-sister marriages are permitted or required, at least within the ruling family, as in ancient

find excellence. Cleopatra riages

we may

Egypt, aboriginal Hawaii and Incaic Peru,

was the offspring of brother-sister mar-

continued through several generations and she was "not

...

only handsome, vigorous, intellectual, but also prolific perfect a specimen of the

age or

a

class of society."

human

race as

^

But there is still another objection means of accounting for the origin

A

number

of

to the degeneration theory as of prohibitions against incest.

competent ethnographers have claimed that

tribes are quite ignorant of

certain

the nature of the biological process

of reproduction, specifically, that they are

unaware of the

relation-

ship between sexual intercourse and pregnancy. Or, they believe that coitus of

it.^

is

as

could be found in any

may

prerequisite to pregnancy but not the cause

Malinowski, for example, claims that the Trobriand

Is-

landers denied that copulation has anything to do with pregnancy,

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

306

among human

not only well."

among

beings but

This thesis of ignorance of the

the lower animals as

facts of life

among

primitive

peoples has been challenged by other ethnologists, and

prepared to adjudicate the dispute. But

it

may be

that such ignorance should not be ver)' surprising.

I

am

not

pointed out

Once

a fact

becomes well known there is a tendency to regard it as self-evident. But the relationship between coitus and pregnancy, a condition that would not be discovered until weeks or even a few months later, is

anything but obvious. Furthermore, pregnancy does not

always follow intercourse. for explaining so especially, in

many

And knowing

things, the

primitive man's penchant

phenomena

of life

and death

terms of supernatural forces or agents,

we should

who do

not under-

not be surprised to find some tribes even today stand the physiology of paternity.

At any

rate, there

must have been a time at which such undermembers of the human race.

standing was not possessed by any

We have

no reason to believe that apes have any appreciation of

these facts, and

There

it.

it

must have taken man

are reasons, however, as

we

a long time to acquire

shall

show

later on,

for

believing that incest taboos appeared in the very earliest stage

human

of

social evolution, in all probability prior to

standing of paternity.

The

an under-

reason for the prohibition of inbreed-

ing could not therefore have been a desire to prevent deterioration of stock

if

the connection between copulation and the birth of

children w^ere not understood.

This thesis receives additional support from a consideration of the kinship systems of primitive peoples. In these systems a per-

son

calls

many

of his collateral relatives "brother"

and

"sister,"

namely, his parallel cousins of several degrees for example, and the children

mother's and father's parallel cousins, also of

of his

several degrees.

Marriage between individuals

"brother" and "sister"

is

strictly

who

call

each other

prohibited by the incest taboo,

even though they be cousins of the third or fourth degree. But marriage with a

first

cross-cousin

may be permitted and

often

THE DEFINITION

Now

required.

is

AND

PROHIBITION OF INCEST

307

may not understand

these people

the biology

and pregnancy, but they know which woman bore

of conception

we see that the marriage rules disregard the degree of biological relationship so far as preventing inbreeding is each child. Thus

concerned; they cousin

who

may

prohibit marriage with a fourth parallel

called "brother" or "sister," but permit or require

is

marriage with a

first

cross-cousin

who

is

called "cousin." Obviously,

the kinship terms express sociological rather than biological lationships.

Obvious

the pattern of social

also ties

is

rather than those of blood.

But suppose that inbreeding did produce

we

re-

the fact that the incest taboos follow

inferior offspring, are

to suppose that ignorant, magic-ridden savages could have

established this correlation without rather refined statistical tech-

niques?

How

could they have isolated the factor of inbreeding

from numerous others such

mother and

infant, etc.,

as

genetics,

nutrition,

illnesses

without some sort of medical

of

criteria

and measurements— even though crude— and v^ithout even the rudiments of Finally,

if

statistics?

we should

grant that inbreeding does produce de-

generacy, and that primitive peoples were able to recognize this fact,

why

did they prohibit marriage with a parallel cousin while

allowing or even requiring union with a cross-cousin? Both are equally close biologically. Or,

why was

prohibited even though the blood

not be established

genealogically

memory, while marriage with though he was a close blood theory

is

as

weak

as

tie

marriage with a clansman

was so remote that

with

the

data

it

could

available

to

a non-clansman was permitted even relative? Obviously, the

the instinct hypothesis although

degeneracy it

may be

more engaging intellectually. Sigmund Freud's theory is ingenious and appealing— in a dramatic sort of way at least. Proceeding from Darwin's conjectures concerning the primal social state of man, based upon what was then known about anthropoid apes, and utilizing Smith's studies of totemism and

sacrifice,

W.

Robertson

Freud developed the

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

308

following thesis: in the earliest stage of lived in small groups each of

human

male, the Father. This individual monopolized

people

society,

which was dominated by

a powerful

females in the

all

group, daughters as well as mothers. As the young males grew

and became sexually mature, the father drove them from sharing his females with him.

Totem and Tahoo, "the

day," says Freud in

"One

them away

up

to keep

expelled

brothers joined forces, slew and ate the father, and thus put an

end

to the father horde.

Together they dared and accomplished

what would have remained impossible they did not divide their father's they had planned.

Now

gressiveness disappeared,

that

and

for

them

singly."

women among

he was dead

their love

and

^

But

themselves as

their hatred

and

ag-

him came give him in

respect for

to the fore. As a consequence, they determined to

death the submission and obedience they had refused in

life.

They made therefore a solemn pact to touch none of their father's women and to seek mates elsewhere. This pledge was passed on from one generation to the next:

do with the

women

*

You must have nothing to i.e., of your own

of your father's household,

group, but must seek other mates. In this

way the

incest taboo

exogamy came into being. This part of Totem and Taboo is great drama and not without value as an interpretation of powerful psychological forces, just as Hamlet

and the

is

drama

great

would

institution of

still

in the

same

sense.

be inadequate even

if

But

as

ethnology, Freud's theory

much were verifiable. It does the many and varied forms of

this

not even attempt to account for incest prohibition. It is

not our purpose here to survey and criticize

theories that have

been advanced

in the past to

all

of the

many

account for the

* In another work, Contributions to the Theory of Sex, Freud suggests, if he does not say so outright, that the incest taboo became incorporated into the germ plasm and was consequently transmitted by means of biological

heredity:

"The

incest barrier probably belongs to the historical acquisitions of

moral taboos, it must be fixed in through organic heredity," (Freud, 1938) p. 617.

humanity and,

like other

many

individuals

AND

THE DEFINITION

PROHIBITION OF INCEST

and prohibition of

definition

notice two others before

we

We

incest.

309

may, however,

briefly

leave the subject, namely, those of

E. Westermarck and Emile Durkheim.

Westermarck's

mous

thesis that "the

fundamental cause of the exoga-

prohibitions seems to be the remarkable absence of erotic

between persons

feelings

living very closely together

hood, leading to a positive feeling of aversion

thought

of,"

and would

^

not in accord with the

is

still

be inadequate

annihilate sexual desire, and

if

if

it

it

from

when the

facts in

the

first

child-

act

is

place

were. Propinquity does not

did there would be no need

for stringent prohibitions. Secondly, incest taboos are frequently

in force

between persons not

Durkheim attempts

living in close association.

to explain the prohibition of incest as a

part of his general theory of totemism." tively,

To

Durkheim reasoned,

that blood

shed the blood of one's

sin or crime. Since

course, a

own

is

The

all

knew

intui-

a vital fluid or principle.

totemic group would be a great

blood would be shed in the

man must eschew

savage

women

of his

initial act

own

of inter-

totem. Thus the

taboo against incest and rules of exogamy came into being. This theory are

is

wholly inadequate ethnologically. Taboos against incest

much more

widespread than totemism; the former are uni-

versal, the latter

far

is

from being

even attempt to explain the

and prohibition of

many

And

so.

diverse forms of the definition

incest.

In view of repeated attempts and as for the origin of definitions of incest

prohibition,

is

it

many

and of

failures to

account

rules regulating

its

any wonder that many scholars, surveying de-

cades of fruitless theories, have

come

the theory does not

to feel that the

problem

become discouraged and have is

still

too difficult to yield to

scientific interpretation?

In the same work in which he presented his theory, but some pages

earlier,

Freud

said: "Still, in the end,

one

is

compelled to

subscribe to Frazer's resigned statement, namely, that

we do not

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

310

know

the origin of incest dread and do not even

guess at

know how

to

" « it.

Professor Ralph Linton treats of the subject as follows:

The

which

causes

technically

known

understood.

Since

such

underlie

on

limitations

incest regulations, are very

as

regulations

these

are

marriage,

imperfectly

universal

of

occur-

rence, it seems safe to assume that their causes are everywhere present, but biological factors can be ruled out at once. Neither are Close inbreeding is not necessarily injurious .

.

.

purely social explanations of incest regulations altogether

facton^ since the forms which

...

extremely varied

It

satis-

assume are seems possible that there are certain these regulations

psychological factors involved, but these can hardly be strong

enough or constant enough

to account for the institutionaliza-

tion of incest regulations

.

from a combination of

.

all

.

They have probably

originated

.^^

these factors

.

,

In other words, somewhere in the man-culture situation

the causes of incest regulations, but where they are and

how

lie

why and

they are exercised are matters too obscure for description or

explanation.

The

late

Alexander Goldenweiser, a prominent disciple of Franz

Boas, never discovered the secret of the prohibition of incest. In

Early Civih'zation he spoke of certain taboos that "are everywhere reinforced by the so-called 'horror of incest,' an emotional reaction

somewhat mysterious

of

origin."

pology, his last major work,

Fifteen years later in Anthro-

he could go no

farther than to repeat

these identical words.^^

The

sociologists

have

little to offer.

Kimball Young, for example,

disavows instinct as the source of incest prohibitions, but he

*

Totem and Taboo,

origin of

217. Frazer's statement was: "Thus the ultimate it the law of incest since exogamy was devised remains a problem nearly as dark as ever," {Totemism p.

exogamy and with

to prevent incest

—

and Exogamy, Vol.

I,

p.

165).

—

THE DEFINITION

AND

PROHIBITION OF INCEST

311

advances no further explanation than to assert that "the taboo is and expected result arising from the very nature

a rather constant

of the social interaction between parents

the children themselves" i^— which explanation at

is

and children and among

virtually equivalent to

no

all.

Dr. Clark Wissler, one of the foremost anthropologists of our day, observes: ".

.

.

so far as

we can

see,

the only facts sufficiently well estab-

lished to serve as a starting point are that anti-incest responses of

some kind universal,

These

among mankind. As to why these no nearer a solution than before." ^*

are universal

we

are

are

are discouraging words indeed. "Anti-incest responses"

help us no more than "an instinctive horror" of incest. But in the phrase "we are no nearer a solution

may

[now]

than before,"

way out of the dilemma. Perhaps theorists have been on the wrong track. Science has found on the wrong track countless times during its relatively find a clue to a

career so

far.

So many,

ments of science

in fact, that

consist,

many

itself

brief

of the important achieve-

new

not in the discovery of some

fact

or principle, but in erecting signs which read "Blind alley.

not enter!" Phrenology was one of these blind has been explored,

it

how

can one

we

these

alleys.

But

Do

until

know whether a passage is new world? Once it has

a blind alley or a corridor leading to a

been found to be a blind

however, other scientists need

alley,

not and should not waste their time exploring

we

are confronted

by blind

alleys in

and exogamy that we have that

"we

are

us to think

no nearer a

again. Perhaps

surveyed. Wissler's admission

solution [now] than before"

would lead

so.

Fortunately

we

lost his bearings

We

just

it

the various theories of incest

do not need

are not in the situation of a mariner

who

has

and who must

try to recover his true course.

new

path in the hope of finding an

to seek a

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

312

.

The

adequate solution of the problem of incest. already been found, and that long ago.

Confusion

solution has

in this field of ethnological theory has

circumstances such as

we have

been due to

just described. Theorists

who have

sought biological or psychological explanations of incest taboos have been on the wrong track; they have only led us into blind

Those who have sought a culturological explanation have succeeded fully and well. The culturological point of view is

alleys.

younger and sociological.

less

widely

Although

it

known than the was

psychological or even

simply and adequately by

set forth

the great English anthropologist, E. B. Tylor, as early as 1871, in

the ,

first

chapter of Primitive Culture— which was significantly

enough entitled 'The Science of Culture"— it has not become widely

known

or appreciated

cultural anthropologists.

new

among

There

social scientists,

even

some who recognize

are

among the

in

science of culture only a mystical, fatalistic metaphysic that

should be shunned like the Devil. So habituated to psychological interpretations are

many

human

students of

behavior that they

are unable to rise to the level of culturological interpretation.

Thus, Goldenweiser looked to psychology for ethnological tion:

"It

seems hardly

to

fair

doubt that psychoanalysis

salva-

will

ultimately furnish a satisfactory psychological interpretation this

incest'." ^^

'horror of

Wm.

Professor

F.

Ogburn

of

observes

that:

"Incest taboos and marriage regulations

may be

described historically and culturally, yet there

is

quite fully

something de-

cidedly strange about incest and about marriage prohibitions.

One's curiosity * Social

is

Change,

culturology cannot

not

satisfied

p. 175. tell

What

us all that

by the cultural

Professor

we want

facts."

*

Ogburn means apparently is that know about incest. This is true; also. But one must insist upon a

to

psychology must be enlisted in the inquiry sharp and clear distinction between the psychological problem and culturological problem. Psychology cannot account for the origin or the form of the .prohibitions; only culturology can do this. But for an understanding of the way the human primate organism behaves thinks, feels, and acts within, or with reference to, one of these cultural forms, we must go to psychology.

—

—

AND

THE DEFINITION

And

even

men

like

PROHIBITION OF INCEST

313

Lowie and Wissler, who have done

excellent

•work along culturological lines in other areas, have relapsed to

when confronted with

the psychological level incest.

Thus Lowie once declared

that "it

is

the problem of

not the function of

the ethnologist but of the biologist and psychologist to explain I

why man is

has so deep-rooted a horror of incest."

inclined to turn over

psychologist, leaving to

And

Wissler

problems of cultural origins to the

the anthropologist the study of

science of culture has, as

we have

traits

careers. ^^

have been launched upon their cultural

after they

The

all

^'^

already indicated, long

ago given us an adequate explanation of incest prohibitions. find

it

set forth

published in 1888:

ment

of

We

simply and succinctly in an essay by E. B. Tylor

"On

Institutions,

a

Method

of Investigating the Develop-

Applied to the Laws of Marriage and

Descent." "Exogamy," he wrote, "enabling a growing tribe tol

keep

compact by constant unions between

itself

clans, enables

it

to

its

spreading

overmatch any number of small intermarrying

groups, isolated and helpless. Again and again history, savage tribes

must have had

in

the world's

plainly before their

minds

the simple practical alternative between marrying-out and being killed out"

The

(p.

origin of incest taboos greatly antedates clan organization,

but a sure clue to an understanding of incest prohibitions and

exogamy

is

given by Tylor nevertheless: primitive people were

confronted with a choice between "marrying-out and being killed

The argument may be set forth as follows: Man, like all other animal species, is engaged in a struggle for existence. Co-operation, mutual aid, may become valuable means of carrying on this struggle at many points. A number of individuals working together can do many things more cfEciently and effectively than the same individuals working singly. And a

out."

co-operative group can do certain things that lone individuals can-

not do at vidual

all.

Mutual

and group.

\

,^^A

267).

aid

makes

One might

life

more

secure for both indi-

expect, therefore, that in the struggle

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

314

co-operation and to secure

Among

would be made

survival every effort

and

for security

to foster

benefits.

its

the lower primates there

is

co-operation.

little

To be

sure, in very simple operations one ape may co-ordinate his efforts with those of another. But their co-operation is limited and rudimentary because the means of communication are crude and

communication. Monkeys and apes

limited; co-operation requires

can communicate with one another by means of signs— vocal utterances or gestures—but the range of ideas that can be com-

municated

this

in

way

very narrow indeed.

is

speech can make extensive and

and

this

is

lacking

among

versatile

Only

articulate

exchange of ideas possible,

anthropoids. Such a simple form of

co-operation as "you go around the house that

way while I go is beyond the

around the other way, meeting you on the far side,"

With

reach of the great apes.

the advent of articulate speech,

however, the possibilities of communication became virtually unlimited.

We

in general

can readily see

and

One might

for incest

significance for social organization

its

and exogamy

in particular.

from some psychologists, the

get the impression

Freudians especially, perhaps, that the incestuous wish

somehow

instinctive, that

sexual desires

among

is

itself

a person "just naturally" focuses his

upon a relative rather than upon a non-relative, and, upon the closer rather than the remoter degrees

relatives,

of consanguinity. This view

is

quite as unwarranted as the theory

of an "instinctive horror" of incest; an inclination toward sexual

union with close

relatives

is

no more

regulations devised to prevent

well as food hunger. individuals as stances.

He

he does

And he

it.

A

fixes

his food

instinctive than the social

child has sexual hunger as

his sex

hunger upon certain

hunger upon certain edible sub-

finds sexual satisfaction in persons close to

him

be-

cause they are close to him, not because they are his relatives.

To be

sure, they

but that

is

may be

close to

him because they

are his relatives,

another matter. As a consequence of proximity and

satisfaction the child fixates his sexual desires

upon

his

immediate

AND

THE DEFINITION

PROHIBITION OF INCEST

and

associates, his parents

his sibhngs, just as

315

he

fixates his

food

He

thus

hungers upon familiar foods that have given satisfaction.

comes

to

have definite orientations and firm attachments in the

realm of sex

the

as in

about incestuous

field of nutrition.

desire;

it

There

is

thus no mystery

merely the formation and

is

fixation,

of definite channels of experience and satisfaction.

|

We find therefore, even in sub-human primate families, a strong one

inclination toward inbreeding;

strives to

faction from a close associate. This tendency

human

society.

way

life

of

But here

it

is

makes

possible.

life

is

made more

mutual aid

\

most

fully

the

have the best chance to survive.

will

may become

co-operation

crisis,

a matter of

life

or

death. In providing food and maintaining an effective defense against foreign foes, co-operation

becomes all-important.

But would primordial man be obliged to construct a co-operative organization for subsistence and defense from the very beginning, or could he build upon a foundation already in existence? it be social or biological, we new growing out of, or based upon, the old. And such was the case here; the new co-operative organization for food and defense was built upon a structure already present:

In the evolutionary process, whether

almost always find the

the family. After

virtually

all,

or another, and the

everyone belonged to one family

identification of the co-operative group with

the sex-based family would

would be shared by

all.

mean

When,

that the benefits of mutual aid therefore, certain species of an-

thropoids acquired articulate speech and became

human

beings, a

new

element, an economic factor, was introduced into an institu-

tion

which had up

now

to

between male and female.

economic

in a rather

'

secure thereby.

factors being constant, the tribe that exploits

In times of

In the basic

and defense against enemies, co-operation

becomes important because possibilities of

satis-

carried over into

incompatible with the co-operative

is

that articulate speech

activities of subsistence,

Other

obtain sexual

rested solely

We

are,

upon

sexual attraction

of course, using the term

broad sense here to include safety

as well

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

316 as

subsistence.

now become

family had

The human primate

corporation with nutritive and protective functions

and incidentally reproductive functions.

sexual

more secure

as a

And

family would be correspondingly limited in

operation

members

mutual

The problem was now

benefits.

its

advantageous within family groups,

is

families as well?

was made

consequence.

a regime of co-operation confined to the

But

life

a

well as

as

why

of a

If

co-

not between

to extend the scope of

aid.

In the primate order, as

we have

seen, the social relationships

between mates, parents and children, and among siblings antedates articulate speech and co-operation. They are strong as well as primary. And, just as the earliest co-operative group was built

upon these

social ties, so

would

a subsequent extension of

At

aid have to reckon with them. agains.t

this

point

we run

the tendency to mate with an intimate associate. Co-

operation between families cannot be established child;

mutual squarely

and brother,

sister.

A

way must be found

and prohibition of

overcome

this

way was found

centripetal tendency with a centrifugal force. This in the definition

parent marries

if

to

incest. If persons

were

for-

bidden to marry their parents or siblings they would be compelled to

marry into some other family group— or remain

is

contrary to the nature of primates.

The

was found to unite families with one another, and a

as

human

difficult to

affair

was launched upon to establish strong

families, social evolution could

which

its

way

social evolution

career.

It

would be

exaggerate the significance of this step. Unless

way had been found between

celibate,

leap was taken; a

and enduring

some

social ties

have gone no farther on

human level than among the anthropoids. With the definition and prohibition of incest,

the

r

hmilies became

units in the co-operative process as well as individuals. Marriages

I

1

came

to

be contracts

Llargcr groups.

The

first

between

ship and choice of mates for

it

families, later

between even

much of his initiative in courtwas now a group affair. Among

individual lost

THE DEFINITION

many

AND

PROHIBITION OF INCEST

primitive peoples a youth

his bride before marriage; in

her. Children

may be

riage,

And

not even be acquainted with

cases

he may not even have seen

betrothed in childhood or infancy— or even

To be

before they are born.

become acquainted

may

some

sure, there are tribes

own

our

society today a marriage

is

is

"But

I

am

there nevertheless.

still

tween families to a very considerable extent. expostulated,

where one can

or even intimate with his spouse before mar-

but the group character of the contract in

317

an alliance be-

Many

a

man

has

marrying her, not her family!" only to

discover his lack of realism later.

The

widespread institutions of levirate and sororate are explain-

able by this theory also. In the levirate a

wives of his deceased brother.

the

unwed

sister of his

When

a

man marries the man customarily

deceased wife the practice

In both cases the group character of marriage

group of consanguinei supplies a

member

is

is

wife or marries

called sororate.

manifest.

a spouse. If the spouse dies, the relatives of the deceased

supply another to take his or her place. families

Each

of the other group with

The

alliance

must

between

important and must be continued; even death cannot

is

part them.

The

equally widespread institutions of bride-price and

dowry

likewise find their significance in the prohibition of incest to

between family groups. The

establish co-operation

necessitates marriage

between family groups. But

it

incest taboo

cannot guar-

antee a continuation of the mutual aid arrangement thus established.

This

devices for

is where bride-price and dowry come in: they are making permanent the marriage tie that the prohi-

bition of incest has established.

When

a family or a group of

relatives has received articles of value as bride-price or

distribute

them

the marriage

tie

as a rule

among

be broken or

their various

dissolved, they

dowry, they

members. Should

may have

the wealth received at the time of the marriage. This certain to relatives

be the case

if it

to return is

almost

can be shown that the spouse whose

were the recipients of the bride-price or dowry was at

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

318 fault.

It very

often happens that the relatives are reluctant to

return the wealth

consumed they

if

will

indeed they

still

have

it.

have to dig into their

If it

own

has already been pockets. It

already be earmarked for the marriage of one of their

own

may

group.

In any event, the return of dowry or bride-price would be an in-

convenience or a deprivation. Consequently they are likely to take a keen interest in the marriage and to try to prevent their relative from doing anything to disrupt

own

it.

According to our theory the prohibition of incest has at bottom

.

an economic motivation— not that primitive peoples were aware of I

this motive,

however, for they were not. Rules of exogamy origin-

ated as crystallizations of processes of a social system rather than

products of individual psyches. Inbreeding was prohibited and

as I

marriage between groups was

maximum

the '

we

made compulsory

in order to obtain

benefits of co-operation. If this theory

be sound,

should find marriage and the family in primitive society wear-

ing a definite economic aspect. This

is,

in fact, precisely

what we

j

do

Let us turn for summary statements to two leading au-

find.

thorities in social anthropology. Professor

Robert H. Lowie writes

as follows:

Marriage, as

we cannot

too often or too vehemently

insist, is

only to a limited extent based on sexual considerations.

primary motive, so is

A

precisely the

Kai

[of

New

far as the individual

founding of a

The

mates are concerned,

self-sufficient

economic aggregate.

Guinea] does not marry because of desires he

can readily gratify outside of wedlock without assuming any responsibilities;

he marries because he needs a

woman

pots and to cook his meals, to manufacture nets and plantations, in return for

game and

And

fish

to

make

weed

his

which he provides the household with

and builds the dwelling.^^

A. R. Radcliffe-Brown makes similar observations con-

cerning the aborigines of Australia:

THE DEFINITION

The

AND

PROHIBITION OF INCEST

important function of the family

and the

man

that

provides for the based on the coand wife, the former providing the flesh food is

feeding and bringing up of the children. operation of

319 it

It is

latter the vegetable food, so that quite apart

question of children a

man

without a wife

is

from the

in an unsatis-

factory position since he has no one to supply him regularly with vegetable food, to provide his firewood, and so on. This economic aspect of the family is a most important one ... I

believe that in the

of marriage,

i.e.,

importance

than

minds of the

its

natives themselves this aspect

relation to subsistence,

the fact

that

is

man and

of greatly

wife

are

more sexual

partners .^^

Turning

to the colonial period in

America we find the economic

character of the family equally pronounced. According to Professor

Wm.

F.

Ogburn:

In colonial times in America the family was a very important

Not infrequently it produced subconsumed, with the exception of such things as metal tools, utensils, salt and certain luxuries. The home was, in short, a factory. Civilization was based on a domestic system of production of which the family was the economic

organization.

stantially all

that

it

center.

The economic power of the family produced certain corresponding social conditions. In marrying, a man sought not only a mate and companion but a business partner.* Husband and wife each had specialized skills and contributed definite services to the partnership. Children were regarded, as the laws

We

* recall Benjamin Franklin's account of his proposal to marry a girl providing her parents would give him "as much money with their daughter as would pay off my remaining debt for the printing-house." He even suggested that they "mortgage their house in the loan-office" if they did not have the cash on hand. The parents, however, thought the printing business a poor risk and declined to give both money and girl. "Therefore," says Frankhn, "I was forbidden the house, and the daughter shut up," (Auto-

biography, Pocket Books, Inc.,

New

York, 1940), p. 78.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

320

of the time showed, not only as objects of affection but as productive agents. The age of marriage, the birth rate and

the attitude toward divorce were

all

affected

by the

fact that

home was an economic institution. Divorce or separation not only broke a personal relationship but a business one as

the

well.2°

And

own society today, the economic basis of marriage family is made clear by suits for breach of promise and

in

and the

our

alienation of affections in

which the law takes a very

materialistic,

even monetary, view of love and romance.* Suits for non-support, alimony, property settlements upon divorce, the financial obligations between parents and children, and so on, exhibit further the economic function of the family. Marriage for many women today means a greater economic return for unskilled labor than could

be obtained in any other occupation. It is interesting to note, in

according to popular

this connection, that

belief, "attributes

theless declares that "the motivating force of

fundamentally economic."

The

notion that marriage

society

is

is

an institution brought into being

means

of satisfying their sex hunger

naive and anthropocentric. Marriage does provide an avenue of

sexual exercise .

human

^^

to provide individuals with a i~is

Freud who,

everything to sex," never-

sire that

*

and

satisfaction, to

be

sure.

produced the institution. Rather,

But it

it

was not sexual de-

was the exigencies of

One

court ruling observes that "the gist of the action for ahenation of is the loss of consortium. 'This is a property right growing out of the marriage relation' . . ." (Supreme Court of Connecticut, Case of Maggay vs. Nikitko, 1933), quoted by Anthony M. Turano, "The Racket of Stolen affections

Love," (American Mercury, Vol. 33, p. 295, November, 1934). Another legal statement says that "the law generally takes the rather worldly view that marriage is a 'valuable' consideration; a thing not only possessing value, but one the value of which may be estimated in money, and therefore, in a sense, marriage engagements are regarded as business transactions, entered into with a view, in part, at least, to pecuniary advantage," (Ruling Case Law, Vol. 4, p. 143), quoted by Anthony M. Turano, "Breach of Promise: Still a Racket," (American Mercury, Vol. 32, p. 40, May, 1934).

THE DEFINITION

AND

a social system that

PROHIBITION OF INCEST

was striving to make

321

use of

full

resources

its

an institution, finds

for co-operative endeavor. Marriage, as

its

explanation in terms of sociocultural process rather than individual psychology. In primitive society there was frequently ample means

And

of sexual exercise outside of wedlock.

own

in our

society the

great extent of prostitution, the high incidence of venereal disease as

an index of promiscuity,

other evidence, show that

as well as

the exercise of sexual functions

not confined to one's

is

spouse by any means. As a matter of

ideally considered

Nor

monogamy

the scope of one's sexual activity. Indeed,

restricts

is

is

own

marriage very often

fact,

the next thing to celibacy.

love the basis of marriage and

the family, however

No

culture could afford

fondly this notion

may be

to use such a fickle

and ephemeral sentiment

of an important institution.

cherished.

Love

is

as love as the basis

here today but

it

may be

gone tomorrow. But economic needs are with us always. Absence of love is not sufficient grounds for divorce. Indeed, one may despise and loathe, hate and fear, one's

mate and

to obtain a divorce. Until very recently at least

still

one

be unable

state in the

Union would grant no divorce at all. And certain religious faiths take the same position. Marriage and the family are society's first and fundamental way of making provision for the economic needs of the individual.

And

of incest that initiated his

But These

was the definition and prohibition

it

whole course of

to return to the definitions vary, as

we saw

variations are to

at the outset,

be explained

under which co-operation will require

another set

is

in

social

development.

and prohibitions themselves. from culture

to culture.

The

terms of the specific circumstances

to take place.

One

set of circumstances

one definition of incest and one form of marriage; customs. The habitat and the

will require different

technological

adjustment to

it,

the

mode

of subsistence,

cir-

cumstances of defense and offense, division of labor between the sexes, and degree of cultural development, are factors which condition the definition of incest

and the formulation of

rules to

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

322 prohibit

No

it.

known

people

modern

to

customarily

science

child. Brother-sister marriage

permits marriage between parent and has been permitted in certain cultures such as those of ancient Egypt, Hawaii, and Peru under the Incas, but in each instance it

was

restricted to the ruling household.

Lowie and Fortune

or "royal incest" as

was

it

incest"

"sanctioned

"Sanctioned incest"

this

was not incest

Nor

call it respectively."

Kimball Young's phrase."

use

to

But

of course a contradiction of terms; incest

is

by definition something criminal and prohibited. These marriages between siblings of royal families were not only not pro-

is

hibited, they

the

were required. They are examples of endogamy, as

prohibition

exogamy. Solidarity society,

source of strength and

a

is

co-operation

as

endogamy promotes

marriages

brother-sister

of

is

a

are

examples

of

effective action in

way of achieving security. And exogamy fosters size and strength

solidarity as

of mutual aid groups.

In view of the fact that a sure clue to the reason of the origin of prohibitions of incest was set forth by Tylor as early as 1888, it

is

rather remarkable that

sociologists

who

who

today

we

should find anthropologists and

juggle with

"anti-incest responses"

and

look to psychoanalysis for ultimate understanding. As a

matter of

we The

fact,

Augustine in

find the reasons for

City oi

God

(Bk.

exogamy

set forth

XV), more

by Saint

than 1400 years

before Tylor.

"For

it is

very reasonable and just/' Augustine says, "that

among whom concord

honorable and useful, should be bound

is

together by various relationships, and that one

himself sustain ships should

many

relationships,

be distributed among

to bind together the greatest 'Father'

When,

and

man

man

should not

but that the various several,

number

'father-in-law' are

therefore, a

men,

relation-

and should thus serve

in the

same

social interests.

the names of two relationships.

has one person for his father, another for

his father-in-law, friendship extends itself to a larger

number."

AND

THE DEFINITION

PROHIBITION OF INCEST

He comments upon "So too Eve her children

.

Adam

the fact that

father-in-law to his sons

323

was both father and

and daughters:

was both mother and mother-in-law to while had there been two women, one the

his wife .

.

mother, the other the mother-in-law, the family affection would

have had a wider

Then

field.

the

sister herself

by becoming

a wife

sustained in her single person two relationships which, had they

been distributed among individuals, one being other being wife, the family

number

sister,

would have embraced

tie

and ana greater

of persons."

Saint Augustine does not, in

these passages at least,

make

which would accrue to consequence of exogamy. But he makes it quite

explicit the advantages in security of life

the group as a

community

clear that

of social interest

and "greater numbers of

persons" in the group are the reasons for the prohibition of incest. If

an understanding of incest and exogamy

philosophy as Saint Augustine and

why

science as Tylor, so

little

understood

is it

as

early

that the subject

among

scholars

as old in social

is

in anthropological still

is

today?

so obscure

We

and

have already

suggested the answer: a preference for psychological rather than culturological explanations.

habit in

human

thought.

chology—of wish,

Anthropomorphism

To

is

an inveterate

explain institutions in terms of psy-

desire, aversion, imagination, fear,

human

been popular. Explanations of

etc.— has long

behavior in terms of psy-

chological determinants preceded therefore explanations in terms of cultural determinants.

But

culturological problems cannot

be

solved by psychology. Preoccupation with psychological explanations has not only kept it

has prevented

many

scholars

from finding the answer;

them from recognizing the

been reached by the science of culture. The such

As a

scientific explanation it

as

and meaningless. The

is

is

not only inadequate;

sociologist's

fixation

it

has

sociological explana-

Kimball Young's "social interaction,"

tion,

when

solution

upon

no it

is

"social

better.

empty inter-

action" keeps him, too, from appreciating a scientific interpreta-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

324

phenomena. Even men who

tion of culture as a distinct class of

have made notable contributions to culturology, such as Kroeber, Lowie, and Wissler, have failed to appreciate the full significance of Tylor's early discussion of exogamy.

remarkable and revealing. Tylor's

printed

Development

essay,

The

following incident

A. L. Kroeber and T. T. Waterman

"On

Method

the

the

Investigating

of

Book

of Institutions/' in their Source

is

re-

in Anthro-

pology in 1920. But in a subsequent edition, they cut the article down apparently to conserve space, and omitted this highly significant passage!

Important contributions to science are sometimes their time," that

made

"before

before the general level of scientific advance

is,

has reached a point where widespread appreciation becomes pos-

There was

sible.

Darwin; most

if

really very little that

not

all

But the broad frcnt

before.

thought had not advanced general acceptance

of this

problem of

An

incest.

was novel

and

of the ideas

facts

in the

work of

had been presented

of the cultural process of biologic

1859 to make a

sufficiently prior to

point of view possible. So

it is

with the

adequate explanation has been extant for

decades. But, because the problem

is

a culturological one, and

because the science of culture

so

young and

is still

even today are able to grasp and appreciate

an understanding of incest and

understanding

problems

will

as well as that of a

prohibitions

is

few scholars

is

still

this

become commonplace.

a considerable

this

understanding

and confusion of many

number who do understand

Thus Reo Fortune states that: "A separation of affinal relationship

from

scholars,

incest taboos.

consanguineous

relationship assures a wider recognition of social obligation,

Any

very

host of other supra-psychological

do not wish to minimize the extent of

today. Despite the ignorance

there

so

nature and scope,

As culturology develops and matures, however,

limited.

We

its

its

.

.

.

incestuous alliance between two persons within a single con-

AND

THE DEFINITION

sanguineous group

is

PROHIBITION OF INCEST

in so far a

325

withdrawal of their consanguineous

group from the aUiance and so endangers the group's

survival." ^*

Malinowski, too, has illuminated the problem of incest taboos. Instead of emphasizing, however, the positive values that would

accrue from alliances formed as a consequence of compulsory

exogamy, he dwells upon the disruption and discord that the un~ restricted exercise of sexual appetites

would introduce into

^

a small (

group of writes,

relatives or close associates.

sexual impulse,"

general a very upsetting and

in

"is

"The

socially

he

disruptive

cannot enter into a previously existing sentiment without producing a revolutionary change in it. Sexual interest is force,

[it]

incompatible with any

therefore

family

relationship,

whether

parental or between brothers and sisters ... If erotic passion were

allowed to invade the precincts of the

home

it

would not merely

and competitive elements and disorganize the would also subvert the most fundamental bonds of

establish jealousies

family but

it

kinship on which the further development of is

based ...

A

stable family;

all social relations

which allowed incest could not develop a would therefore be deprived of the strongest

society it

foundations for kinship, and this in a primitive community would

mean absence

of social order."

B. Z. Seligman expresses

^s

somewhat

views— as well

as

others that are less discerning. John Gillin has a fine statement

on

similar

the origin and function of incest taboos tucked away in a footnote in a

monograph on the Barama River

Raymond

Caribs.

Firth

presents an illuminating "sociological" analysis of the problem in

We,

the Tikopia.

Wm.

I.

Thomas

sees clearly the reasons for pro-

hibitions of incest: "the horror of incest derivation."

And

is

thus plainly of social

^^

Freud, apart from his drama of patricide, comes close to an

The

understanding of incest taboos and exogamy. hibition,"

he

says,

"had ...

need does not unite men; nothing

left for

it

"incest pro-

a strong practical foundation. Sexual

separates

them

.

.

.

Thus

there was

the brothers [after they had killed their father],

i

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

326 if

they wanted to live together, but to erect the incest pro-'

hibition."

In another work he observes that: of this [incest] barrier

"The observance

above

is

all

a

demand

of

which must guard against the absorption by the family of those interests which it needs for the production of higher social units. Society, therefore, uses all means to loosen cultural society,

ties in

those family

The

every individual."

cultural function,

^s

not the genesis, of incest taboos and

if

be very clearly seen and appreciated

of rules of

exogamy seems

here. It

interesting to note, too, that

is

to

Freud holds substantially

the same view of the relationship between restrictions upon sexual gratification

One

this essay.

contents

is

nunciation privation'

and

social evolution that has

been

themes of Civilization and

of the principal

"the extent to which civilization gratifications

instinctual

of

dominates the whole

human

beings."

He

a larger

number

of

.

is .

.

Its Dis-

up on

built

This

re-

'cultural

field of social relations

between

sees that "the first result of culture

was that

human

common";

beings could live together in

that "one of culture's principal endeavors

women

set forth earlier in

together in larger units."

^^

is

to

cement men and

Thus, although he proceeds

from different premises, Freud comes to

essentially the

same con-

clusion as ours.

There

then,

is,

exogamy extant

understanding

considerable

of

incest

and

in the literature today. Yet, in a comparatively

recent review of the whole problem a prominent anthropologist,

John M. Cooper, has concluded that "the desire to multiply the social bonds [has] in all probability not been [an] important factor" in the origin of incest prohibitions.

an understanding of the problem factors"

which he

and intimate

is

How

far

he

is

from

indicated by the two "chief

"(a) sex callousness, resulting from early

cites:

association

.

.

.

;

(b) the distinctly social purpose

of preserving standards of sex decency within the family and kinship circle."

^°

The

first

factor

incest rather than callousness.

is

contrary to fact; intimacy fosters

The second

explains nothing at

THE DEFINITION all:

what

PROHIBITION OF INCEST

are standards of sex decency,

tribe to tribe,

The

AND

and why

is

it

why do

culturological theory of incest receives support

our own,

as

is

punishment seldom exceeds ten

The

common;

quite years

reason for this difference

families

is

ties

were more important than

developed cultures.

The

not

the

our society

in

is

often

far to seek. In

between individuals they

are

in

highly

small mutual aid group was a tremen-

dously important social unit in the struggle for security. survival of the

than in

Among

imprisonment and

primitive societies, personal and kinship

and

of incest

societies

Freud, Fortune and others have observed.

former the penalty of death

less.

from a com-

The crime

punished with greater severity in primitive

much

they vary from

necessary to preserve them?

parison of primitive cultures with our own. is

327

The

very

group depended to a considerable extent upon

al-

formed by exogamy. In advanced cultures the situation is different. Society is no longer based upon kinship ties, but upon liances

property relationships and state has replaced the tribe

territorial

and

clan.

distinctions.

The

political

Occupational groups and

become important bases of social life. The importance of exogamy is thus much diminished and the penalties for incest become less severe. It is not to be expected, however, that restrictions upon inbreeding will ever be removed economic organization

entirely.

Kinship

is

portant,

feature

of

remain so

still

an important, though

relatively less im-

our social organization and will probably

indefinitely.

fore continue to

our

also

Rules of exogamy and endogamy will there-

be needed to regulate and order

this aspect of

social life.

In the various interpretations, both sound and unsound, of the definition

and prohibition of incest we have

a neat

example of a

contrast between psychological explanations on the one culturological

explanations on the other.

does not yield to psychological solution.

hand and

The problem

On

simply

the contrary, the

evidence, both clinical and ethnographic, indicates that the desire

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

328

form sexual unions with an intimate associate is both powerful and widespread. Indeed, Freud opines that "the prohibition against incestuous object-choice [was] perhaps the most maimto

ing

wound

... on the

ever inflicted

erotic life of

man."

^^

Psy-

cholog}' discloses an "incestuous wish" therefore, not a motive for readily, however, to culits prevention. The problem yields very

interpretation.

turological

groups in the

—that

Man,

an animal

as

human

lives

in

by the culture of the group sentiments, tools, techniques, and bedependent upon the use of symbols and

species are determined

by the

is,

species,

between individuals

as well as individually. Relationships

ideas,

havior patterns, that are

which are handed down from one generation to another by means of this same faculty. These culture traits constitute a continuum,

new

a stream of interacting elements. In this interacting process,

some traits become obsolete and drop out of the stream, some new ones enter it. The stream of culture thus flows, changes, grows and develops in combinations and

syntheses

are

own.

accordance with laws of

its

actions of the organism

man

formed,

Human

behavior— in the mass, or of

a typical

fore culturally determined.

A

cow's

milk,

avoids

behavior

is

member

of a

mothers-in-law,

stimuli

or grasshoppers,

etc.,

re-

Human

group— is

there-

people has an aversion to drinking believes

that

exercise

motes health, practices divination or vaccination,

worms

but the

to this stream of culture.

eats

roasted

because their culture contains

that evoke such responses.

These

traits

pro-

trait-

cannot be

ac-

counted for psychologically.

And

so

it is

psychology

we

From human animal tends to unite sexually him. The institution of exogamy is not

with the definition and prohibition of incest. learn that the

with someone close to

only not explained by citing this tendency;

it

is

contrary to

it.

But when we turn to the cultures that determine the relations between members of a group and regulate their social intercourse

we

readily find the reason for the definition of incest

origin of exogamy.

The

struggle for existence

is

and the

as vigorous in

AND

THE DEFINITION

human

the

group

PROHIBITION OF INCEST

species as elsewhere. Life

well as individual,

as

makes co-operation society. Incest

possible,

is

329

made more

secure, for

by co-operation. Articulate speech extensive, and varied in human

was defined and exogamous

rules

were formulated

make co-operation compulsory and extensive, to the life be made more secure. These institutions were created

in order to

end that by

social

tems.

not by neuro-sensory-muscular-glandular

systems,

They were

sys-

syntheses of culture elements formed within the

interactive stream of culture traits. Variations of definition

and

prohibition of incest are due to the great variety of situations. In

one

situation, in

one organization of culture traits— technological,

social, philosophic,

incest

we

and one

etc.— we will find one type of definition of

set of rules of

find another definition

mode

rules. Incest

and exogamy are

people— by the means and circumstances of offense and communication and transportation, customs

thus defined in terms of the

mode

exogamy; in a different situation

and other

of life of a

of subsistence, the

defense, the

means

of

And

the

aspects, technological, sociological,

and

of residence, knowledge, techniques of thought, etc.

mode

of

life,

philosophical,

in all is

its

culturally determined.

CHAPTER TWELVE

MAN'S CONTROL OVER CIVILIZATION: An

".

Anthropocentric Illusion

numerous

.

.

here

[in

pleases

survivals of the anthropocentric bias

sociology], as elsewhere, they bar the

man

to renounce the unlimited

way

still

power over the

social order

has so long attributed to himself; and on the other hand,

him

that,

if

collective forces really exist,

he

is

remain and

to science. It dis-

it

he

seems to

necessarily obliged to

submit to them without being able to modify them. This makes him inclined to deny their existence. In vain have repeated experiences taught him that this omnipotence, the illusion of which he complacently entertains, has always been a cause of weakness in him; that his power over things really began only when he recognized that they have a nature of their own, and resigned himself to learning this nature from them. Rejected by all other sciences, this deplorable prejudice stubbornly maintains itself in sociology. Nothing is more urgent than to liberate our science from it, and this is the principal purpose of our Emile Durkheim i efforts," ". it appears like a grandiose dream to think of controlling according

—

.

.

to the will of

burn

man

the course of social evolution

.

.

."

—Wm.

F. Og-

2

-Ihe belief that

man

controls his civilization

and deeply rooted. Customs and chines, science, art,

is

widespread

institutions, tools

and ma-

and philosophy are but man's creations

and are therefore here only

to

do

his bidding. It lies

within man's

power, therefore, to chart his course as he pleases, to mold civilization to his desires

Thus we

find

a

and needs. At

distinguished

James Jeans, assuring us that: 330

least so

British

he fondly

scientist,

believes.

the late Sir

^

MAN'S CONTROL OVER CIVILIZATION

331

We

no longer believe that human destiny is a plaything for good and evil, or for the machinations of the Devil. There is nothing to prevent our making the earth a paradise again— except ourselves. The scientific age has dawned, and we spirits,

recognize that of his soul.

man

He

free to navigate

is

on the

himself

the master of his

is

it

fate,

and

controls the course of his ship,

the captain

so, of course,

into fair waters or foul, or even to run

it

rocks.

Mr. Stanley

Field, President of the Field

Museum (now

the

Chicago Natural History Museum), appeals to anthropologists in espousing Free Will:

But

if

we

listen to the anthropologists,

demonstrate that

it

is

who

can

scientifically

not color of skin, or type of hair or

features, or difference of religion, that creates

peoples, but factors for which

man

is

problems between

responsible and which

he

we shall at least come within sight of that better world which we now realize we must achieve if we are not finally to perish as victims of our own can control or change

if

he

will,

then

perversity.*

G. Westgate,

Professor Lewis

us that

tells

man

in

an

article in Scientific

Monthly,

can "take the problem of his future in hand and

solve it":

track The mind that can weigh the infinitely distant stars dig the Panama Canal down the minute carriers of disease can solve its social problems when and if it decides to do .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

so.=

It

would thus seem that the

come

salvation of an earlier era has be-

the social reconstruction of today:

will; if

we

fail it is

we

can achieve

it

if

we

because of our "perversity."

Father Wilhelm Schmidt, the leader of the Kulturkreis school of ethnology,

and

his disciples in

America believe firmly in

free

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

332 will;

indeed,

And

appears to be one of their cardinal principles .«

it

for the most part infused

even V. Gordon Childe, whose work is with the spirit of scientific materialism and determinism, a

book

significantly entitled

in culture ... can

scious

and

be

Man Makes

initiated, controlled, or

choice

deliberate

of

says, in

Himseli, that "changes delayed by the con-

human

their

and

authors

^

executors."

When, however, we culture we begin first

look for examples of man's control over

We

to wonder, then to doubt.

begin our inquiry by asking

two World Wars

if

are evidence of planning or perversity, or

in

will

not

one generation

whether Germany and

Japan were crushed and Soviet Russia made dominant in Eurasia in accordance with a farsighted plan or as a result of blindness

and

folly.

We

During the and

tiny

will

we

century

last

name but

a few.

segments of our culture, such

rational calendar,

and make

more

it

measurements we now

Reform

rational, to devise a

in spelling has

use.

illogical

agglomeration of

But what successes can we point

been

negligible.

We

have succeeded

to a considerable extent but not wholly in eliminating the u

such words as honor. But to do away with silent the b in Iamb,

is

letters,

too big a mountain for us to move.

spellings-and-pronunciations as rough, cough, dough, are

much

too strong to yield to our

great political spelling or a

and

more

and to adopt an ordered system of weights and

measures instead of the cumbersome,

to?

as

the system of weights and measures, to

There have been repeated and heroic attempts

to simplify spelling

folk

modest.

have witnessed attempts to control

relatively insignificant

spelling, the calendar,

much more

with something

start

social

puny

from

such as

And

such

and through

efforts. It usually takes a

upheaval to effect a significant change in

calendrical

system as the French and Bolshevik

made clear. And as for the metric system, it has among the little band of esoterics in science, but

revolutions have

found a place

yards, ounces, rods, pints,

inefficiently— the layman.

and furlongs

still

serve— awkwardly and

MAN'S CONTROL OVER CIVILIZATION

We and

begin to wonder.

we

If

333

are not able to perform such tiny

insignificant feats as eliminating the b

how

ing our calendar system,

on a worldwide

social order

from Iamb, or modify-

we hope

can

to construct a

new

scale?

Men

Let us look about us further.

Man

contending with fashions.

and women

perennially

rebels

are forever

against

his

attire. It is

often uncomfortable, injurious to the health at times,

and, some

men

think, the ordinary

coat and tie

is

unesthetic, the

He must wear his He is not permitted

no matter how hot the weather.

wear pink or blue shoes.

to

costume

But what can he do?

formal attire ridiculous.

And

as for

"evening clothes"— he must

submit to them or stay home. Man's vaunted control over tion

is

But

civiliza-

not particularly conspicuous in this sector. if

man

is

woman

helpless,

fashion.

She must submit

or ugly.

To be

fantastic

is

an abject

slave, in

any change, no matter

may not

sure, she

and ugly

to

at the time;

realize that the

the grip of

how

new

fantastic

designs are

"the latest style" can becloud a

woman's judgment. But one has only

browse through an album

to

of old snapshots to realize that beauty, grace,

and charm do not

dominate the course of fashion.

And long.

as for

A

women's

skirts!

First they are short;

then they are

distinguished anthropologist. Professor A. L. Kroeber of

the University of California, has

made

revealing study of the dimensions of siderable period of time.

He

a

very interesting and

women's

dresses over a con-

found that "the basic dimensions of

modern European feminine dress alternate with fair regularity between maxima and minima which in most cases average about fifty years is

apart so that the full-wave length of their periodicity

around a century."

Women creators

^

The rhythms

have nothing to say about

must conform

are regular

it.

Even the

to the curve of change.

and uniform. designers

and

We find no control

man— or woman— here, only an inexorable and impersonal trend. When a maximum point on the curve is reached, the trend

by

is

reversed

and

skirts

lengthen or shorten as the case

may

be,

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

334

Women are helpless; they can do nothing but follow the trend. When the curve ascends they must shorten their dresses; when it descends, they must lengthen them. It a great class of citizens

of their

own

may seem remarkable

point

control the dimensions

who cannot even

themselves into clubs,

skirts will ne\ertheless organize

to administer the affairs of the world.

that

We

shall return to this

later.

undertake to repair an automobile or a radio

Few men would

without some understanding of

its

mechanism.

We

tend more

and more nowadays to leave medicine and surgery to those who know how. Knowledge and skill are required even to make good pies or home brew. But in matters of society and culture everyone feels qualified to analyze, diagnose,

and

prescribe. It

one of the

is

premises of democracy that not only do the people rule, but they

have

the

In matters

effectively.

and

knowledge

requisite

political,

understanding

one man's view

is

do

it

good

as

to as

another's.

When,

ing with which the again to wonder. different flation,

we examine

however,

affairs of

Wc

the knowledge and understand^

the nation are administered

find the

most august

and even contradictory views on such subjects the

function

of

labor

of ignorance, not of

When we

the

leaders,

popularity of crooners, and so on. This

is

ders?

divorce

rate,

in-

the

turn from matters of national proportions, such as

Does

capital

To

we

are not always re-

punishment diminish the number of muraffect the divorce rate?

people keep dogs? They are noisy,

Why

dirty, unhealthful, useless,

say that they are kept because people like

merely to phrase the problem in a different form. "like" raccoons?

amiable.

as

wisdom.

Does the use of alcohol

expensive.

begin

a picture of the anarchy

the cause of inflation, to lesser problems assured.

we

authorities espousing

They

Why

do and

them

is

don't they

are cute, cleanly in their habits,

and very

CONTROL OVER

AAAN'S

CIVILIZATION

335

The fact is, we don't really know very much about the civilizawe live in. Let us take one of the simplest and most ele-

tion

Why

mentary questions imaginable: polygamy? Other

Europe once

We

did, also.

man

does our society prohibit

permit plural mates, and Western

societies

But now we

feel very strongly

about

it.

he takes unto himself more than one wife at one time. His wives may be perfectly satisfied with the arrangement and he may have injured no one. Yet put a

will

we put him one There less

in a prison for years

in gaol.*

Why? Why

if

not have one more wife and

schoolmarm? are,

polygamy

is

to

be

ready

sure,

"wrong,"

answers

"immoral,"

to

these

questions:

"undemocratic,"

etc.

But

practices are not prohibited because they are "wrong"; they are

wrong because they have been prohibited. It is not wrong to buy sell whiskey now; it was while the Eighteenth Amendment was on the books. And as for democracy and equality, we permit and a

man

to

have two yachts

he can

if

afford

them, why not two

wives?

know

I

of no really adequate answer to this question in such

am

literature of social science as I

of fact, the question in a

great

number

is

acquainted with. As a matter

very seldom raised.

of treatises

I

have looked for

written during the last quarter century without finding social scientists of

it

on sociology and anthropology it.

Some

the latter half of the nineteenth century tried

to explain the prohibition of

polygamy but we cannot accept

their conclusions.

The

fact

is

we

are ignorant.

We

do not know the solution to

such an elementary problem as singular or plural mates.

*

We

And

in

which a man was sent to the penitentiary some twelve women without ever bothering with the ritual of

recall a recent instance in

for marrying

divorce. Had he been less honorable or chivalrous and lived with each woman without the formality of marriage, his "crime" would have been much less. This man served society well in a municipal railway system. His numerous

wives pressed no complaint.

him?

Why

did society feel

it

necessary to incarcerate

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

336

we have not reached the point of asking such questions, of answering them. As Archibald McLeish has nothing to say said, "We know all the answers, but we have not yet asked the our day,

questions."

Over

a half-century ago the great

French savant, Emile

Durkheim, commented upon the immaturity of

social science as

follows:

In the present state of the science

what

we

do not even know

really

are the principal social institutions, such as the state, or

We

are is the right of property or contract they depend on which the factors ignorant of completely almost shed even a glimmer of light ; we are scarcely beginning to

the family; what

.

.

.

.

.

.

on some of these points. Yet one has only to glance through the works on sociology to see how rare is the appreciation of this ignorance and these difficulties.*

made

Despite the progress that has been written,

this

since

The Rules was

statement has a certain relevance today.

science of society and civilization

still

is

so

immature

unable to solve such tiny and elementary problems hibition of polygamy,

where

ing requisite to planning a

new world

order?

best tools are

One would

made

are the

new

the

If

as to

be

the pro-

as

knowledge and understand-

social system, to constructing a

not expect a savage craftsman, whose

of chipped

flint,

to design

and build a

loco-

motive.

Let us have a look at

The

thing

first

whether

it

we

this civilization

notice

be technology,

does not have

its

is

man

antiquity.

its

thinks he controls.

There

is

roots in the

remote

past.

made

The

lens of the

200-inch telescope, for example,

is

from the manufacture of faience

in ancient Egypt,

originated pottery,

apparently

as

no part of

it,

institutions, science or philosophy, that

a

of glass. Glass

new

emerged

which

in turn

by-product of burning bricks and

which followed the use of sun-dried

brick, and, earlier.

MAN'S CONTROL OVER CIVILIZATION

mud

337

The United Na-

daubs of Neolithic or even Paleolithic huts.

tions can be traced back to primitive tribal councils

and beyond.

Modern mathematics goes back to counting on one's so on. Culture

million

odd

it

and

has continued and developed to the present day.

and progressive

a continuous, cumulative,

is

fingers,

man himself. It had its beginnings a when man first started to use articulate

as old as

years ago

speech, and

Culture

is

Everyone— every

since the very earliest period of

some

culture, a civilization, of

and meager, or

affair.

group— has,

individual, every generation, every

human sort.

been born into a might be simple, crude

history,

It

might be highly developed. But

it

cultures,

all

whatever their respective degrees of development, have technologies (tools, machines), social systems (customs, institutions), beliefs

a

fluenced by

how he he

philosophy, science) and forms of

(lore,

when

that

baby it.

is

As

will believe in,

will

be

in-

a matter of fact, his culture will determine

will think, feel,

will speak,

This means

art.

born into a cultural milieu, he

what

and

act. It will

clothes,

how he

determine what language

he

any,

if

will wear,

will marry, select

what gods he

and prepare

his foods,

and dispose of the dead. What else could one do but react to the culture that surrounds him from birth to death? treat the sick,

No its

people makes

its

own

ancestors or borrows It is easy

ture,

enough

it

culture;

from

man

for

its

and

inherits

to believe that

each generation contributing

controls

it

directs its course

it

ready-made from

neighbors.

its

share,

he has made

his cul-

and that

he who

it is

through the ages. Does he not chip

the arrowheads and stone-axes, build carts and dynamoes, coin

money and spend

it,

elect presidents

symphonies and carve

one cannot always

statues,

rely

and depose

upon the obvious.

It

modern thought where we

man who

compose

was once obvious

that the earth remained stationary while the sun

could see that for himself.

kings,

worship gods and wage war? But

We

are

now

moved; anyone

approaching a point in

are beginning to suspect that

controls culture but the other

it is

way around. The

not

feat of

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

338

Copernicus in dispelling the geocentric illusion over four hundred years ago is being duplicated in our day by the culturologist who is

dissipating the anthropocentric illusion that

man

controls his

culture.

Although

man who

is

it

arrowheads,

chips

composes sym-

etc., we cannot explain culture merely by saying that "man produced it." There is not a single question that we would

phonies,

want

about culture that can be answered by saying

to ask

did thus and so." did;

why

it

We

want

assumed a great

know why

to

"Man

culture developed as

it

variety of forms while preserving at

why the rate of cultural change has accelerated. Wc want to know why some cultures have money and slaves while others do not; why some have trial by jury, others ordeal by magic; why some have kings, others chiefs or presidents; why some use milk, others loathe it; why some the same time a certain uniformity,

pcnnit, others prohibit, polygamy.

"Man wanted them

saying,

that

To

way"

explain

is

all

these things by

of course absurd.

A device

that explains everything explains nothing.

Before entirely

we go in

our

very far efforts

we

discover that

to explain

we must

cultural

disregard

Man may

differences— in short, culture or civilization as a whole.

be regarded

Man color,

is

as a constant so far as cultural

are superficial, as

change

one species and, despite differences of

shape of head,

he

is

lips,

and nose,

is

concerned.

skin, eye,

stature, etc.,

which

and hair after all

highly uniform in such fundamental features

brain, bone, muscle, glands,

and sense organs. And he has

undergone no appreciable evolutionary change during the 50,000 years at least.

man

growth and cultural

We may,

therefore, regard

man

as a

last

constant

both with regard to the races extant today, and with regard to his ancestors

during the

a certain structure

last tens of

Man

has

desires

and

thousands of years.

and certain functions; he has certain

needs. Tlicse are related to culture, of course, but only in a general, not a specific, way. serves the needs of

man

We

may

as a species.

say that culture as a

But

this

whole

does not and cannot

MAN'S CONTROL OVER CIVILIZATION

339

all when we try to account for the variations of specific You cannot explain variables by appeal to a constant.

help us at cultures.

You cannot

explain the vast range of cultural variation by invok-

ing man, a biological constant. In England in a.d. 1500 there was

one type of plained in

culture; in Japan, another. Neither culture can

terms of the physical type associated with

underwent change

in

England between

be

Culture

it.

1500 and 1900,

a.d.

ex-

as it

did in Japan. But these changes cannot be explained by pointing to the inhabitants in each case; they did not change. Plainly,

cannot explain cultures

Nor can

in

be explained

cultural differences

ment. Quite apart from the

we

Man.

terms of

in terms of environ-

accounting for differences

difficulty of

in musical styles, forms of writing, codes of etiquette, rules of

marriage, mortuary

terms of environment,

rites, etc., in

discover that even economic, industrial,

and

we soon cannot

social systems

be so explained. The environment of Central Europe so cerned has remained constant for centuries. region, however, has varied enormously. fallacy of explaining the variable If,

then,

we cannot

The

and made

is

culture of the

Here again we

see the

by appeal to a constant.

explain cultures in terms of race or physical

type, or in terms of psychological processes,

environment

far as

and mineral resources are con-

climate, flora, fauna, topography,

equally futile,

how

are they to

and

if

appeal to

be accounted

for

intelligible to us?

There seems

to

be only one answer

—after- one becomes used to

it,

plained in terms of culture. As a continuum.

Each

trait

left

and that

at least. Cultures

we have

fairly plain

must be

traits,

earlier cultural situation.

grown out of

all

is

each stage of

The steam

engine can be traced back to the origins of metallurgy and International cartels have

ex-

already noted, culture

or organization of

development, grows out of an

is

fire.

the processes of ex-

change and distribution since the Old Stone Age and before. Our science, philosophy, religion,

forms. Culture

is

and

art

have developed out of

earlier

a vast stream of tools, utensils, customs, beliefs

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

340

that are constantly interacting with each other, creating new combinations and syntheses. New elements are added constantly to the

stream; obsolete

the cross-section

of

The

drop out.

traits

culture of today

is

but

stream at the present moment, the

this

resultant of the age-old process of interaction, selection, rejection,

and accumulation that has preceded us. And the culture of tomorrow will be but the culture of today plus one more day's growth. The numerical coefficient of today's culture may be said to

be 365,000,000

+

365,000,000

1.

tomorrow:

(i.e.,

a million years of days); that of

The

culture of the present was determined

by

the past and the culture of the future will be but a continuation

makes

of the trend of the present. Thus, in a very real sense culture itseU.

At

least, if

must proceed

as

if

one wishes

made

culture

with the determination of there, of course, to

its

make the

itself,

as

ii

man had

determined.

It rests

upon

must be

existence of the culture process pos-

own

its

he

nothing to do

Man

course or content.

But the nature and behavior of the process

sible.

own

to explain culture scientifically,

principles;

it is

itself

is

self-

governed by

its

laws.

Thus, culture makes

makes

itself.

what he

is,

man what he

same time An Eskimo, Bantu, Tibetan, Swede, or American is

thinks, feels,

and

acts as

is

and

at the

he does, because

his culture

influences— "stimulates"— him in such a way as to evoke these responses.

The Eskimo

or

American has had no part

ducing the culture into which he was thrust at birth. ready there; he could not escape to

and that on

it,

its

own

it;

The

and

all

al-

react

English language, the

institutions,

our

mills,

factories, railroads, telephones, armies, navies, race tracks, halls,

pro-

was

he could do nothing but

terms.

Christian religion, our political

in

It

mines,

dance

the other thousands of things that comprise our

They have weight, mass, and momentum. They cannot be made to disappear by waving a wand, nor can their structure and behavior be altered by an act

civilization are here in existence today.

of will.

We must come to

terms with them as

we

find

them

today.

:

MAN'S CONTROL OVER CIVILIZATION

341

x\nd they will be tomorrow what their trend of development in

the past dictates.

We

can only trot along with them, hoping to

keep up.

Man

has long cherished the illusion of omnipotence. It

flattering

and comforting

to his ego. In days

gone by,

man

is

has

believed that he could control the weather; countless primitive

peoples have had rituals for making rain, stilling high winds, or

Many

averting storms.

have had ceremonies by means of which

the course of the sun in the heavens could be "controlled."

With

the advance of science, however, man's faith in his omnipo-

tence has diminished. But he

still

believes that

he can control

his civilization.

The

philosophy of science— of cause and effect relationships,

of determinism— has been firmly established in the study of physical

phenomena.

Psychology

It

is

well entrenched in the biological field, also.

may have demonstrated

the operation of the principle

of cause and effect, of determinism, in mental processes, and

may

have dispelled the notion of free will for the individual. But social science

is

collective

still

free

so

as to permit one to find refuge in a As Professor A. L. Kroeber has recently

immature

will.

observed

I

suspect that the resistance [to the thesis of cultural determin-

ism] goes "back to the

common and

tion that our wills are free.

As

this

deeply implanted assump-

assumption has had to yield

ground elsewhere, it has taken refuge in the collective, social, and historical sphere. Since the chemists, physiologists, and psychologists have unlimbered their artillery, the personal free-

dom

of the will

is

thankless terrain to maintain. Culture they

have not yet attacked; so that becomes a refuge. Whatever the degree to which we have ceased to assert being free agents as individuals, in the social realm we can still claim to shape our destinies. The theologian is piping pretty small, but the social reformer very loud.

We are renouncing the kingdom

of heaven.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

342

but going to establish a near-millenium on earth. Our personal wills may be determined, but by collectivizing them we can still social freedom.^"

have

Primitive

man

could believe that he could control the weather

only because he was meteorolog)'.

And

he knew

ignorant;

today,

it

nothing of

virtually

only our profound and compre-

is

hensive ignorance of the nature of culture that makes

we

for us to believe that

and control

direct

it

possible

As man's knowl-

it.

edge and understanding grew in meteorology, his illusion of power and control dissipated. And as our understanding of culture increases,

our illusion of control will languish and disappear. As

Durkheim once observed, still

Needless to say, this

is

we

"as far as social facts are concerned,

have the mentality of primitives."

"

not the view taken by

many

today

who

look to science for our salvation. Far from expecting belief in

our ability to control to diminish with the advance of social science,

many

people expect just the reverse.

fashion these days to declare that as

advanced

become the

has

only our social sciences were

as the physical sciences,

we now

culture as

if

It

then

we

could control our

control the physical forces of nature.

lowing quotation from a

letter

The

published in Science recently

folis

a

conservative statement of this point of view:

For

if,

by employing the

scientific

method,

understand and control the atom, there that they can in the

human group

same way

behavior ....

ability that social

is

men

can

learn to understand

It is

come

and control

quite within reasonable prob-

science can provide these techniques

for "keeping the peace"]

if it is

to

reasonable likelihood

given anything like the

[i.e.,

amount

of support afforded to physical science in developing the atomic

bomb.^2 In

similar

vein

Professor

Gordon

W.

Allport

of

Harvard

observes that "the United States spent two billion dollars

on the

MAN'S CONTROL OVER CIVILIZATION invention of the atomic in spending

means

for

bomb" and

an equivalent sum,

its

control?"

The premise

if

343 asks

"What

necessary,

there absurd

is

on the discovery

of

^^

underlying this view

wars are caused, or at least

made

is

unsound.

possible,

It

assumes that

by ignorance and the

lack of social control that goes with ignorance. It assumes that,

given understanding through generous grants of funds to social

wars could be prevented— the "peace could be kept."

scientists,

The lack of understanding and realism displayed here is pathetic. The instinct of self-preservation of a society that subsidized atom bomb inventors rather than social scientists holding views such as these is a sure one. Wars are not caused by ignorance, nor can "the peace be kept" by the findings of social scientists. Wars are struggles

between

vival, struggles for

earth, for

fe'rtile

social

organisms— called nations— for

sur-

the possession and use of the resources of the

fields; coal, oil,

and iron deposits;

for

uranium

mines; for seaports and waterways; for markets and trade routes;

No amount

for military bases.

of

understanding will alter or

remove the basis of this stmggle, any more than an understanding of the ocean's tides will diminish or terminate their flow.

But the

fallacy of

assuming that we can increase and perfect

our control over civilization through social science egregious

than

essence of

which

we have is"

indicated.

To

call

is

upon

even more

science,

acceptance of the principles of cause and effect

and determinism, to support a philosophy of Free Will, close to the height of absurdity. Verily, Science has

modern magic! The and man

the

belief that

alike ii only

man

can work his will

is

fairly

become the upon nature

he had the light formulas once flourished

in primitive society as magic. It

is still

with us today, but

we now

call it Science.

No amount

of development of the social sciences

would increase

or perfect man's control over civilization by one iota. In the

man-culture system,

man

is

the dependent, culture the inde-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

344 pendent, variable.

by

his culture.

laws.

A

What man

thinlcs, feels,

and does

determined

is

culture behaves in accordance with

And

own

its

would only make

mature development of social science

this fact clear.

The the

philosophy of Free Will and omnipotence of education

field

principals,

(see p.

commencement

of telling the world that

its

rampant in

is

107). "Educators," high school

and others never seem to

orators,

salvation lies in education.

tire

An eminent

anthropologist, the late Clark Wissler, looking at our civilization as

he would

Indians, the

mankind— of

other cultures of

at

—finds that a faith in education and trait of

a characteristic

the Blackfoot

tribes of Africa, or the aborigines of Australia

Bantu

our culture.

its

efficacy to cure all

"The

fact is,"

he

says,

ills

is

"that

No matter what we seek to solve every difficulty by education. inauguration of a new combating of disease, the may the it be, .

public service, the appreciation of

we

of that kind,

popular."

Our

"Our

faith in education has, in

thing

culture

we

call

is

,

reform, or anything

make it universal and fact, become our religion,

look to education to

Dr. Wissler sees

as

art, dress

.

it:

characterized

by an overruling

belief in

education— a kind of mechanism to propitiate the

intent of nature in the manifestation of culture. faith that this formula, or

more happily

some-

fulfilled, is

method,

our

will cause this

Our

implicit

purpose to be

real religion." ^*

Dr. Wissler compares our education formula with the magical formulas of primitive tribes:

We often

find among peoples we choose to call less civilized, a men whom we designate as shamans, medicine men, conjurors, etc. Where such men flourish they are called class of

.

.

.

upon whenever the course of events goes wrong, sickness, famine, love, war, no matter what the nature of the trouble

may

be, and they always proceed in one way: i.e., recite or demonstrate a formula of some kind. They may sing it, they

MAN'S CONTROL OVER CIVILIZATION

may dance idea

may merely act it out— no matter, the you go through with the correct formula the

or they

it,

that

is

345

if

forces of nature will right the wrong. ... In every culture formulae are used to propitiate nature in whatever form of gods or powers she is conceived, and cultures differ not in this, .

.

for so far they are

all alike,

but

.

as to

the kinds of formulae into

which they put their faith. Our great formula for bringing about the realization of our leading ideals is education. .

It

is

uate and perfect our culture

The

faith of primitive

medicine

men and

repetition of the

ills

man

better magic.

."

in

and

his formulas

him

that his formulas and rituals were

him

And we who

that

he needed more and

look to education for our "salvation"

are not shaken in our faith by the spectacle of tragedy piled disaster.

To

What we

to exert influence his needs

and

with which

we

upon the

desires.

we

But education

need,

say,

is

man, magic was

primitive

We

upon

more education. a means, available to

external world

and so

mankind,

to shape

it

to

think of education as an instrument

can transform society and mould

is

his

rituals,

they were supposed to prevent or cure. Lack

only convinced

it

.

.

was not shaken by a perpetual

conjurors,

of success did not prove to inefficacious;

.

.

by which we hope to perpet-

a kind of grand over-formula

it

to our will.

not a force or instrument outside of society, but

a process within

it.

social organism.

Education

It

is",

so to speak, a physiologic process of the j

carrying on

its

own

is

a

means employed by

society in

own

objectives.

activities, in striving for its

'

Thus, during peacetime, society educates for peace, but when the nation

is

at war,

it

educates for war. In times of peace, munitions-

makers are "Merchants of Death"; in wartime, "Victory Business." In peacetime.

comes people

it's

He

"Praise the Lord

who

is

the Prince of Peace, but

and pass the ammunition."

control their culture through education;

it

is

Their

when war not

It

is

is

rather

the other way around: education, formal and informal,

is

the

>

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

346

new

process of bringing each

system of culture.

It

generation under the control of a

unrealistic in the extreme, therefore, to

is

think of education reforming society from the outside.

No

one

between education and society better than the great French social scientist, Emile Durkheim:

has stated the relationship

But

this

to attribute to education a

is

power which

it

does not

only the image, the reflection of society. Education and reproduces it in abridged form, but it does society imitates is healthy when the nation itself is in Education not create it. possess. It

is

a healthy state, but, not having the it

power of

becomes corrupted when the nation

milieu as

modification,

self

decays. If the moral

experienced by the teachers themselves

it is

is

corrupt,

fail to be affected by it; how then can they impress upon those whom they train an outlook that differs from the one that they have received? Each generation is brought up by the previous generation and it is necessary therefore to reform the latter if it is to improve the one which follows it. We go around in circles. At long intervals it may well happen that someone may come along whose ideas and aspirations are in

they cannot

\

advance of those of his contemporaries, but the moral constitution of a people is not made over by these isolated individuals. No doubt it pleases us to believe that one eloquent voice

is

sufficient to transform the social fabric as

but, here as elsewhere, something ing.

The

is

if by magic, not produced from noth-

strongest wills cannot create out of nothing forces

which do not

exist,

and

failures in

experience always

come

to

dispel these easy illusions. Besides,

even though a pedagogical system could succeed by an incomprehensible miracle in establishing itself in antagonism to the social system, it would have

no

effect

by reason of

organization state that

not

fail

one wishes

this very is

to

to be influenced

contact with protect

(society)

him

it.

The

for a

antagonism.

If

the collective

maintained from which the moral

combat is derived, then the child canby it from the moment he comes into

artificial milieu of the school can only time and then but feebly. In proportion as

CONTROL OVER

AAAN'S

CIVILIZATION

347

the real world takes greater hold of him, it will destroy the work of the educator. Thus education cannot reform itself unless society itself is reformed. And in order to do that we must go to the causes of the malady from which

The

it suffers.^^

position taken here will of course be vigorously denied

opposed. People do not give up their illusions

Kroeber has put

Our minds

easily.

it:

instinctively resist the

first

shock of the recognition

of a thing [cultural determinism] so intimately

and yet

and As A. L.

woven

into us

We

above and so uncontrollable by our wills. feel driven to deny its reality, to deny even the validity of dealing with it as an entity; just as men at large have long and bitterly so far

resented admitting the existence of purely automatic forces

and system possible

in the realm that underlies

the

existence

our

of

and

and makes

carries

the

personalities:

realm

of

nature.^^

A common determinism

reaction— verbal reflex— to the theory of cultural

is

to

brand

William James branded fatalisms"

the

"fatalistic" or "defeatist."

it

Long ago

"the most pernicious and immoral of

as

philosophy

"the

of

contemporary

sociological

school" that espoused "general laws and predetermined tenden-

and "denied the

cies,"

and Free Will

vital

importance of individual

("I believe in free-will myself,"

he

initiative"

says).^^

And

today another student of philosophy. Dr. David Bidney, writing in the

American Anthropologist, has repeatedly

called the deter-

The when one employs

ministic point of view of culturology "fatalistic."

words

is

significant.

ciple of cause

and

phenomena no one it

to

Why

human is it

Why

is

it

that

effect in the

the prin-

realm of physical and chemical

cries "fatalism,"

cultural

choice of

phenomena

but the instant one applies this

accusation

leaps

forth?

that an admission of our inability to control the weather

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

348

no charge of "defeatism"' whereas this reproach is promptly levelled against anyone who recognizes man's inability brings forth

to control the course of civilization?

The

reason

is

"defeatism," omnipotence. in

When

atoms,

Free Will;

implies

"Fatalism"

plain.

fairly

or tissues behave

cells,

accordance with their nature and properties no one calls it because no one expects freedom of choice and action

fatalistic

But when one asserts that cultural phenomena have a nature of their own and consequently must behave in terms of of them.

their nature, the response

and

of cause

effect

many

but a charge of "fatalism." "To many edu-

the great English anthropologist, E. B. Tylor,

cated minds/'

wrote

not an acceptance of the principle

is

seems something presumptuous and

years ago, "there

mankind

repulsive in the view that the history of

parcel

the

of

nature,

of

history

and actions accord with laws

our

that

We

have combined "a

says Alfred

anywhere

is

it is

of the higher animals as being

inconsistency"

is

^^

(emphasis ours).

He

"much

responsible for

hearted and wavering in our civilization.

It

.

.

.

by reason of the inconsistency lurking

[thought]

and

bases,

"

everywhere."

based on mechanism,"

scientific realism,

self-determining organisms" "radical

law

North Whitehead, with "an unwavering

men and

world of

If

wills,

those which govern the

as definite as

motion of the waves, the combination of acids and the growth of plants ...

and

part

is

thoughts,

belief in the

composed of feels that this

that

half-

is

enfeebles in

.

.

.

the back-

ground." Implicit in the charge of "fatalism"

further notion of refutation.

many minds, would go

if

sibly exist?" is

it is

false as well.

it

and therefore

fatalistic

minism

to call

To brand

false,"

were made

is

the

is,

"Cultural determinism

to is

about the way the reasoning

"How can determmism posimphed but unspoken. "Deter-

explicit.

the question that

unthinkable."

is

and "defeatism" a view "fatalistic"

And

is

so

it

is

to

one possessed by 2

CONTROL OVER

AAAN'S

philosophy of free

CIVILIZATION

We

will.*

349

find this point of view rather well

expressed by Lawrence K. Frank in a recent

"What

article,

is

Social Order?"

Perhaps the major obstacle essentially

we

tradition

defeatist

face today, therefore,

expressed

is

the various

in

this

con-

ceptions of social order described earlier, as above and beyond

human control ... In this situation, therefore, we can and we must find the courage to view social order as that which must be achieved by man himself.^^ all

Of

course

man

can "find the courage" to view social order as

something "that must be achieved by himself." courage to do

however; what

this,

is

required

It is

does not take

ignorance and

man him-

hope. "Must find the courage," "must be achieved by self," is

hardly the language of science.

and rhetoric— of "if

we

No

a type

with which

but purpose in our hearts

will

doubt the

It is, rather,

exhortation

we have long been .

.

to question man's control over the weather,

first

and snow

to claim that the winds will blow, the rain

the

first

fall,

the seasons

familiar:

."

come and

go, in accordance with their

own

rather than in obedience to man's wish and will expressed

and

ritual,

were accused of "fatalism" and "defeatism,"

if,

they were not dealt with more harshly. But, in time,

come

to accept our

conciled

to

it.

If

impotence it

weather because that

in this regard

be argued that is

a

man

and

to

nature in spell

indeed,

we have

become

re-

cannot control the

part of the external world whereas

* Note that we have said possessed by, rather than "believes in." Philosophies possess, hold, animate, guide and direct the articulate, protoplasmic mechanisms that are men. Whether a man an average man, typical of his group "believes in" Christ or Buddha, Genesis or Geology, Determinism or

—

—

Free Will, is not a matter of his own choosing. His philosophy is merely the response of his neuro-sensory-muscular-glandular system to the streams of

upon him from the outside. What is called "phimerely the interaction of these cultural elements within his organism. His "choice" of philosophic beliefs is merely a neurological expres-

cultural stimuli impinging

losophizing"

is

sion of the superior strength of

some

of these extra-somatic cultural forces.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

350

man-made,

culture, being

is

subject to his control,

pointed out that the exact opposite

the case.

is

It

the realm of the external world that man's control

can harness the energies of

rivers, fuels,

is

must be

it

precisely in

is

possible.

He

and atoms because he,

as

of the forces of nature, lies outside their respective systems

one and can therefore act upon them. But man, ism, as a species, is

lies

an animal organ-

as

within the man-culture system, and there he

the dependent, not the independent, variable; his behavior

merely the function of his

and

theoretically

not

culture,

practically, therefore,

it

is

is

determinant. Both

its

man

possible for

to

more control over the weather than over culture, for he can exert some control over the former even now and he may increase this control in the future. But he exerts no control whatever over his culture and theoretically there is no possibility of exert

his ever

The

doing

so.

usual reactions to this manifesto of cultural determinism

are as unwarranted as are the assumptions of Free Will,

from

which, of course, these responses flow. After expostulating on the

theme of "fatalism" and "defeatism" the conventional protest goes on to demand, "What is the use then of our efforts? Why should

we

try to

do anything to improve our

control over our culture?

Why

not just

sit

evolutionary process take care of everything? a science of culture possibly

grasp?

ing

What

good

These questions of

is

we can do about

what the

say.

The

man

is

man

if

we have no

back and

Of what

control

an understanding of culture

lies if

let

the

use could

beyond our

there

is

noth-

it?"

are naive

and betray a lack of understanding

cultural determinist— the culturologist— is trying to

He knows

full

He

man

is

irrelevant to the

well that the contrary

an absolute prerequisite to

could be no culture. that

if

determinist does not assert that

culture process.

that

be to us

lot

realizes

plays in the systen?. that

it,

that without

is

the case;

man

there

very clearly the essential role is

man-and-culture.

What

the

MAN'S CONTROL OVER CIVILIZATION culturologist contends is

351

human organism

that in this system the

is

not the determinant; that the behavior of the culture process

cannot be explained of the culture

terms of this organism but only in terms

in

that the growth and changes

itself;

among

Indo-European languages, for example, cannot be accounted

the for

man's nerves, muscles, senses, or organs of speech;

in terms of

or in terms of his hopes, needs, fears, or imagination. Language must be explained in terms of language. But to turn to some of the specific questions with which dis-

determinism

satisfaction with the philosophy of

the

first

place,

we cannot

process take care of

all

the evolutionary

our problems. While

we

live

we must come

just sitting back, incubating a case of

suicide rates

it."

So

is

various

for

is

some

minants are more abundant tions

than of others.

It

determinants vary: hara-kiri

an organism

that, of its

form of motion we

This

in the

is

own

it. is

Even

"doing

suicide; as a matter of fact,

is

is

high; in others

not because suicide deter-

chromosomes of some popula-

due to the

is

are con-

provide excellent indexes of

societies the rate

virtually non-existent.

we

to terms with

dementia praecox,

committing societies

cultural determinism. In

suicide

expressed. In

let

fronted by our culture and

something about

is

back" and

"just sit

fact

that the cultural

something that a culture does to nature, tends to persevere in that

call "Life." It is

we cannot

obvious that

avoid

reacting to our culture.

To assume

that the process of cultural evolution will take care

of everything without effort on our part

is

of course absurd,

and

no part of the determinist's philosophy. Of course we must exert ourselves while we live; we cannot do otherwise. But constitutes

the question evolution?"

through

not

is

It

is

human

nature, the form

beings.

is

does the work, ourselves or cultural

The

question

and content of

culture process, the

The answer

"Who

obvious that the energy

is

expended by or

What

determines the

this expression of

human organism

of course fairly

is.

energy in the

or the extra-somatic culture?

obvious— after a small amount of

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

352

Let us consider two groups of

reflection.

A

and B. Group

human

no currency,

pottery, speaks a Polynesian language, has chiefs but is

non-literate, drinks kava,

and

so on.

greatly concerned with genealogy,

is

Group B mines

and

coal

iron, talks

food from the outside, uses money,

its

Now

the question

is.

Why

A

organisms,

wood, makes no

raises taro, catches fish, carver

is

literate,

Welsh, imports drinks ale, etc.

does each group behave as

does?

it

one group of organisms possesses traits or characteristics—genes, instincts, or psychological tendencies— that cause Is

that

it

them

to drink kava rather than ale? This

the one group of organisms logically. It

It

organism

is

is,

of course, ridiculous;

fundamentally like the other bio-

obvious that each group of organisms behaves as

is

does because each

it

stimuli.

is

is

reacting to a particular set of cultural

obvious also that a consideration of the

is

totally irrelevant to the question.

Why

human

one group

is

stimulated by one set of stimuli rather than by another? This

is

a cultural historical question, not a biological or psychological

one. So, one

not so

is

silly as

to say,

or catch fish? Let our culture do

mines the

And, the

coal,

but what

is

"Why

it."

The

should

we mine

question

is

coal

who

not

the determinant of this behavior?

culturologist points out the obvious: the culture

is

the

determinant.

The

of many sincere, altruistic and conscientious upon being told that it is not they who control their culture and direct its course, is "Why then should we try to do good, to better our lot and that of mankind?" We have answered reaction

people,

\

this question in part already. In the first place

one cannot avoid

trying to do something.

life

to continue with

the

To

name we

it

As long

as

and

he must exert himself. "Trying"

is

willing

is

merely

give to the effort exerted in the process of living.

strive for this or that, therefore,

But what one

one accepts

strives for

and how

is

inseparable from our

his effort

is

expressed

lives. is

de-

termined by his culture. For example, the goal of one people

may be

eternal life in heaven for

which

their terrestrial existence

MAN'S CONTROL OVER CIVILIZATION is

but a preparation. below."

*'here

may admit

One

The

group

existence

its

353

goal of another might

may deny and

be the good Hfe

the reality of sickness; another

combat

try to

One

it.

may

group

use charms and incantations; another, clinics and laboratories.

Whatever the is

a matter

But,

goal

and whatever the means employed to reach

it,

determined by the culture of the group.

should be pointed out with emphasis, this

is not a philosophy of defeatism or hopelessness by any means. Least of all does it declare that one's efforts do not count. The fact that

it

stamp out tuberculosis are

one's efforts to in

no way minimizes the

A

saved.

matter what kind or

A

life

congressman has an

letter written to a

how much. A

determined

culturally

effort or the result.

saved

on world

resolution

a life

is

no

effect, too,

affairs

passed by a woman's club has a real function in society, although it

may be a very different one from that imagined by The question we raise is not one of the value

ladies.

Human effort is geologist. And effort

or whether effort has consequences. as

anything in the realm of the

by consequences Living

human

But

this

is

of effort

just as real is

followed

just as effect follows cause in physics or geology.

beings cannot help but exert themselves, and every-

thing they do counts for something in one

from wishing

the good

to

deny or ignore

this,

way

we wish

or another. Far to emphasize

not the question raised by the culturologist, the

tural determinist.

What

he claims

is,

not that

it is

it.

cul-

futile to try

because what one does counts for nought, but that what one does,

done

how he

does

it,

and the end and purpose

culturally determined,

is

group rather than by the free group.

More than

termined or at constitutes the

that,

what

least defined

"good

life"

for

which

it

is

determined by the culture of the

is

will of the individual or of the

a person or group desires

by the for

culture,

any people

not by them. is

is

de-

What

always culturally

defined.

From

the cultural determinist's point of view,

are merely the instruments through

human

beings

which cultures express them-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

354

A physician,

selves.

saving lives each day,

is

an instrument through

which certain cultural forces express themselves; if they were not there, or if they were different, the organism in question would not be practicing medicine or he would practice

The

way.

it

in a different

gangster, evangelist, revolutionist, reformer, policeman,

impoverished beggar, wealthy parasite, teacher, soldier, and sha-

man each

are likewise instruments of cultural action

and expression;

a type of primate organism grasped and wielded by a

is

certain set of culture traits. It

only the inveterate habit of

is

thinking anthropocentrically that makes this point of view seem strange or ridiculous.

But, granting that what turally determined, of if

we do

what use

is it

counts even though

cul-

is

to develop a science of culture

we cannot control civilization or direct

science of pathology in order to

it

combat

its

course?

We

have a

disease, sciences of physics

and chemistry to control the external world. But if we do not control our culture and cannot ever hope to control it, of what use would a science of culture be? to this question

temperature of a

might begin our reply

by asking, of what value is it to know the away? Questions such

star a million light years

as these betray a limited \

We

understanding of science. Science

is

not

primarily a matter of control in the sense of harnessing rivers

with hydroelectric plants or constructing uranium is

a

means

Man is

of adjustment; control

is

piles.

Science

but one aspect of adjustment.

which he must adjust if he Mythology and science are means of

finds himself in a universe to

to continue to live in

it.

adjustment; they are interpretations of the world in terms of

which man behaves. There

is,

of course, a vast difference in terms

of adjustment between a philosophy that interprets stars as a flock of

snow

birds lost in the sky,

and one that measures

their

masses, distances, dimensions, and temperatures. This difference is

a very practical one, too, in terms of the contribution that

philosophy makes to the security of

Our

each

life.

ancestors once thought they could control the weather as

MAN'S CONTROL OVER CIVILIZATION contemporary savages even going so

They

do.

still

355 finally

far as to outgrov^ calling

outgrew

this illusion,

new view

the

"fatalistic"

But we do not think a knowledge and an understanding of weather and climate useless. On the contrary, we are devoting more time and money to meteorology now than ever and

"defeatist."

Here again we

before.

but adjust to

more

for

it

and

effective

vantageous

we

if

see the situation in terms of adjustment

We

may not be able to control the weather we must. And knowledge and understanding make

rather than contwh

satisfying adjustments.

then weather prediction

it is

learn to predict

the time and traffic

it.

many

them

if

we

ad-

cannot,

for prediction

fact,

course but

its

we make

are quite accurate:

car

would be

understanding.

cannot control

As a matter of of

freight

fatalities,

reserves,

We

with culture.

And

the next best thing.

is

we must have knowledge and So

It

couJd control the weather. But

loadings,

births,

we can

predictions

all

wheat production, exhaustion of

oil

and many other matters are already within the reach

of limited but nevertheless valuable prediction. If our ability to

predict were greatly increased by the development and maturation of a science of culture the possibilities of a rational, effective,

and humane adjustment between man and culture and between

one If,

cultural

segment and another would be increased accordingly.

for example, a science of culture could

trend of social evolution

is

toward larger

demonstrate that the

political groupings,

then

the chances of making the futile attempt to restore or maintain the independence of small nations would be lessened. trend of cultural evolution enterprise

why

is

If

the

away from private property and

free

strive to perpetuate

them?

If it

could be shown

that international wars will continue as long as independent,

sovereign nations exist, then certain delusions find less nourishment

been evolving

as

matic process so

and support. The

fact

now is

popular would

that culture has

an unconscious, blind, bloody, brutal, far.

It

tropis-

has not yet reached the point where

intelligence, self-consciousness,

and understanding are very con-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

356

Our

spicuous.

ignorance

is

still

deep-rooted and widespread.

We

do not understand even some of the most elementary things— the prohibition of polygamy for example. In short, we are so ignorant that we can still believe that it is we who make our culture and control

its

course.

This ignorance long since

we

is

not surprising however.

It

has not been very

gave up burning witches, cudgelling hysterics to

and other savage practices. Even in technology, which tends to outstrip the social and ideological sectors, we have surpassed the savage at two points— fire-making and the use of

drive out demons,

the

bow and arrow— only

matches are but a

little

within the

more than

last

century or two. Chemical

a century old

and the bow and

arrow was used in bison hunting on the American plains in preference to the best firearms available at the time within the last

hundred

years. It

is

a small portion of

savagery.

only yesterday, culturologically speaking, that

mankind began

For most of

upon wild matter of

to

emerge from a condition of

his career thus far

foods; less than

man

has subsisted wholly

two per cent of human

history, as a

has elapsed since the origin of agriculture. Other

fact,

significant indexes:

some

0.7 per cent of culture history since the

beginning of metallurgy, 0.35% since the first alphabet, 0.033% since Galileo, 0.009% since the publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species, and only 0.002% since William Jennings Bryan

and the Scopes is

trial.

A

mature, urbane, and rational civilization

not to be achieved in a mere million years from the anthropoid

level.

made come about as

should be

It

should

clear that

if

an adequate understanding

a consequence of a science of culture

would not have been "us" who achieved

it

but our culture. In

the interaction of elements in the culture process, those effective in providing

it

traits less

adequate adjustment in terms of under-

standing and control are gradually relinquished and replaced by

more and

effective traits.

spells give

way

Thus, bronze axes replace stone

to laboratories

and

clinics,

and

axes, ikons

finally,

a science

AAAN'S of

CONTROL OVER

human

CIVILIZATION

357

culture begins to challenge the primitive philosophy of

omnipotence and Free Will. The new science to prove

its

will of course

have

superiority over the older view just as astronomy,

chemistry, and medicine have in other sectors of experience.

The

success of science— the philosophy of materialism, of cause

and

effect, of

determinism— in the physical and

biological sectors of

experience encourages us greatly in the belief that this point of

view and these techniques of interpretation will prove effective in the social sphere also.

Our nor

role in this process

as individuals

a

is

modest one. Neither

do we have a choice of

as

groups

roles or of fates.

Swedes

and Yankees

are born into their culture just as Zulus, Tibetans,

are born into theirs.

some to

And

each individual

is

be molded by the particular organization of

that play exists

by

thrust

birth into

particular place in the "magnetic field" of his culture, there

upon him. Thus he may

only in the mind, or

upon him— or

cultural influences

have the belief that typhoid

caused by witches or

is

"into his mind."

bacilli, thrust

He may be endowed

with a belief

in personal immortality, the efficacy of prayer, or the Periodic

Law

of Mindeleyev.

faith to the

He may

be

inspired to preach the only true

heathen in distant lands, or to wear out his

life in

genetics laboratory, or to believe that "only saps work." sure, the response of the

will vary

to cultural stimulation

with the quality of the organism.

purses; others, sows' ears.

goes experiences will

human organism

is

The

Some

will

as a, c, b.

silk

An

a,

b, c,

experience will have one effect

There is room, therefore, for of permutation and combination in the

at fifteen; quite another at

almost infinite variety

be

order in which an organism under-

important, too; the influence of events

not be the same

a

To be

fifty.

experience of individual organisms.

Man

discovers his place in the

with extreme reluctance.

planted in the center, the sun and

heaven, and

men and

cosmos slowly and accepts it his solid earth was

Time was when stars

spread upon the vault of

gods together acted out the drama of

life

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

358

and death. It was all so compact, so familiar, so secure. Then it was that man, like God, could cry "Let there be light" and there was light. Like God, too, man was "omnipotent," if, however,

With

to a lesser degree.

charms, and

different.

is

rituals,

Man

man

enlist the

and even

seasons,

magic formulas,

his

mighty

gods in the service of man.

finds himself

species crawling about

Once

unknown among But

this

all

culture,

life

beginning to understand

this.

Man

is

one

been developed:

and laws of

institutions

tools,

own.

its

culture.

Man

just

is

wholly at the mercy of external forces, astronomic

As a matter of

geologic.

think of

of life has

mass of extra-somatic

this

and philosophies, has a

and

faculty,

other species: articulate speech. As a con-

new way

this, a

how narrow

is

Change the temperature, phere of the earth but a

rather disconcerting to

fact, it is

the margin within which velocity,

little

and

amount would

life

man

lives.

of water, or atmoscease. It

is

a curious,

and from a cosmic viewpoint, momentary, concatenation of cumstances that has his

made

life possible.

dependence upon these outside

Man

his precious his existence

and unique

so

Durkheim

now

it

fact,

be wholly

man

at their

has employed

speech more to deny the facts of

than to improve upon them. But a certain portion

human

race has

upon nature and

And

gift of

cir-

did long rebel against

forces; to

mercy was unendurable. As a matter of

of the

it

now

the child of God, he

an ex-ape. But he has acquired a new

find himself

Now

but one of innumerable animal

insignificant planetary speck, fight-

on an

ing, feeding, breeding, dying.

sequence of

his spells, prayers,

could control the weather, the

is

says,

come at last to make the most

to try to

accept our dependence of

it.

with culture. Belief in our omnipotence has, always been a source of weakness to us. But

we

as

are

we can in time we have to the To give up magic

discovering the true nature of culture and

reconcile ourselves to this extra-somatic order as

astronomic, geologic, and meteorologic orders. and mythology which promised much but yielded nothing— noth-

AAAN'S

CONTROL OVER

CIVILIZATION

359

ing but the soothing comfort of illusion— was a painful experience.

But

receive

to

promises

men

less

and accept

a science

are loathe to lose.

We

understanding of culture will just as these traits

To be

sure,

here, alter

its

and a technology which

but achieves a great deal

is

to reach a goal most

may believe that knowledge and make for a more satisfactory life

have been of value in physics and biology.

understanding culture will not,

as

course or change the "fate" that

it

we have argued has in store for

any more than understanding the weather or the tides will change them. But as long as man remains an inquiring primate he us,

will crave understanding.

provide

him with

it.

And

a

growing Science of Culture

will

PART

III

Introduction

ENERGY AND CIVILIZATION

1n

we have dealt with various aspects now encompass it in its entirety. human culture as a whole is here in-

the preceding chapters

of the culture process.

The development terpreted

upon the

we

demonstration,

of

We

culturological level.

And,

provide, in this Part, a

in addition to further

dynamic interpretation

of culture growth in terms of its most fundamental factor, namely, energy. Cultures are dynamic systems; they require energy for their activation.

The

history of civilization

is

the story of the control

over the forces of nature by cultural means. But the story of

energy control its

may

provide the epitaph of civilization, also. In

infancy or youth, culture achieved control over

fire.

Plants

and

animals were brought within the orbit of cultural control in Neolithic times through the arts of agriculture and animal hus-

bandry. Coal and

became

of age.

oil

the core of matter

even as

dawn

and water power were harnessed, and culture

And now itself

culture has succeeded in penetrating to

and has learned how to create energy,

the Sun, our Father in Heaven, has created

of time.

And

this

advance

S}Tnbolism of an ancient m)i:h, eat of the fruit of every tree in restrial fire

since the

was tolerable, but to create energy by the transforma-

tion of matter

is

fire. Whether it can be The new Prometheus may

to play with celestial

done with impunity remains also

it

may possibly be the last. In the it may indeed be hazardous to the garden. The mastery of ter-

to

be seen.

be the executioner.

1

|i

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE

"The degree

of civilization of any epoch, people, or group of peoples, measured by ability to utilize energy for human advancement or ." needs George Grant MacCurdy, Human Origins ^ "... the history of civilization becomes the history of man's advanc." ing control over energy Wilhelm Ostwald, The Modern Theory is

.

—

.

.

of Energetics

H.aving examined aspects,

—

.

^

we now

the culture process in a

turn to a consideration of

it

number as a

of

its

whole.

As we have already seen, "culture" is the name of a distinct phenomena, namely, those things and events

order, or class, of

that are dependent to the

more

human

upon the

species, that

exercise of a mental ability, peculiar

we have termed

specific, culture consists of material

ornaments, amulets, etc.— acts, in contexts characterized

beliefs,

"symbolling."

objects— tools,

To be

utensils,

and attitudes that function

by symbolling.

It is

an elaborate mecha-

nism, an organization of exosomatic ways and means employed

by a particular animal

and

species,

man,

in the struggle for existence

survival.

One

of the significant attributes of culture

is its

transmissibility

by non-biological means. Culture in all its aspects, material, social, and ideological, is easily and readily transmitted from one individual, one generation, one age, one people, or one region, to another by social mechanisms. Culture social heredity.

We

is,

so to speak, a form of

thus view culture as a continuum, a supra363

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

364

biological, extra-somatic order of things

and events, that flows

through time from one age to the next.

down

We

have seen

also, in

preceding chapters, that since culture

constitutes a distinct order of

phenomena, it can be described and and laws of its own. Cultural

interpreted in terms of principles

We

elements act and react upon one another in their own way. can discover the principles of behavior of various sub-classes of cultural elements

and of

formulate the laws of cultural

We

now propose

and we can

cultural systems as a whole;

phenomena and

systems.

to sketch the evolution of culture

beginning upon an anthropoid level to the present time. regard the of

all

human race— man— as

a one.

We

may

from

its

We may

likewise think

of the various cultures, or cultural traditions, as constituting

a single entity: the culture of mankind.

We

may, therefore, ad-

dress ourselves to the task of tracing the course of the develop-

ment

of this culture

from

Let us return for a structure

its

source to the present day.

moment

to a further consideration of the

and function of the organization of things and processes,

we call culture. Culture is an organized, integrated we may distinguish subdivisions within, or aspects system. For our purpose, we shall distinguish three sub-

the system, that system. But of, this

systems of culture, namely, technological, sociological, and ideological

systems.

The

technological system

material, mechanical, physical,

is

composed

of the

and chemical instruments, together

with the techniques of their use, by means of which man, animal species,

is

articulated with his natural habitat.

as

Here we

an

find

the tools of production, the means of subsistence, the materials of shelter, the instruments of offense

system

is

made up

and defense. The

sociological

of interpersonal relations expressed in patterns

of behavior, collective as well as individual. In this category

we

find social, kinship, economic, ethical, political, military, ecclesiastical,

The

occupational and professional, recreational,

ideological system

is

composed

etc.,

systems.

of ideas, beliefs, knowledge,

exjpressed in articulate speech or other symbolic form.

Mythologies

'

ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE and

365

theologies, legend, literature, philosophy, science, folk wis-

dom and common These whole.

sense knowledge,

They

others and

is

make up

this category.

comprise the system of culture

three categories

\

]

by them

affected

in turn.

not equal in

But the influence

The

mutual

interaction

by the

several sub-systems in the culture process as a

is

all

directions.

not equal by any means.

The primary

role

nological system. This

of course, as

we would

it

is,

could not be otherwise.

qu ently

c ulture

as

Man

a whole,

is

as

is

an animal

He must

of this

whole are

played by the techexpect

species,

it

to be;

and conse-

dependent upon the material,

if

he

attained only is

is

his enemies.

to continue to live,

These three things he

and these

rest

and basic

and depend upon

in importance; all

human

life

it.

Social systems are in a very real sense secondary

to technological systems. In fact a social system realistically as

objectives are

by technological means. The technological system

therefore both primary

and culture

Man

be protected from the elements. And

he must defend himself from

must do

a

roles played

mechanical means of adjustment to the natural environment.

must have food.

as

upon the

of course, interrelated; each reacts

are,

the organized effort of

human

and subsidiary

may be

defined

beings in the use

of the instruments of subsistence, offense and defense, and protection.

ship,

A

social

system

is

a function of a technological system.

Childe, "and the tools employed in

says

symbolize a whole economic system."

dependent

variable,

as the latter change, so .

.

.

technology

is

the

in-

by systems

of technology;

do the former. "The bronze axe which

[the stone axe]," again

only a superior implement,

economic and

A

production

the social system the dependent variable.

Social systems are therefore determined

replaces

The

its

it

social structure."

to

quote Childe,

also presupposes a

"is

not

more complex

^

Ideological, or philosophical, systems are organizations of beliefs in

which human experience

finds

its

interpretation.

But experience

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

366

and interpretations thereof are powerfully conditioned by technologies. There is a type of philosophy proper to every type of technology. The interpretation of a system of experience in which a

coup de poing

this

is

a characteristic feature will, as

kind of experience.

coup de

It

must, reflect

it

would not be improper

to speak of a

poiiig type of philosophy as well as of technology.

A

pastoral, agricultural, metallurgical, industrial, or military tech-

nology will each find

its

corresponding expression in philosophy.

type of technology will find expression in the philosophy of

One

totemism, another in astrology or quantum mechanics.

But experience of the external world

is

not

and interpreted

felt

merely at the point of technological articulation;

through the prism of

social systems also.

The

is

filtered

and

features

it

qualities

of social, political, ecclesiastical, economic, military, etc., systems are therefore reflected in philosophies.

We

may view

a cultural system as a series of three horizontal

strata:

the technological layer on the bottom, the philosophical

on the

top, the sociological stratum in between.

These positions

The

express their respective roles in the culture process. logical

system

technologies;

is

basic

and philosophies express technological

flect social systems.

minant of social

The

technological factor

is

of course, that social systems

technologies, or that social

and

re-

therefore the deter-

form of

and society together determine

the content and orientation of philosophy. This

one

forces

a cultural system as a whole. It determines the

systems, and technology

affected

techno-

and primary. Social systems are functions of

is

not to

say,

do not condition the operation of

and technological systems are not

by philosophies. They do and

are.

But to condition

is

thing; to determine, quite another.

We

are now in possession of a key to an understanding of the growth and development of culture: technology. A human being is

The

planet earth

a material body; the cosmos, a material system.

Technology

a material body; the species, a material system. is

ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE is

367

the mechanical means of articulation of these two material

man and

systems, static;

cosmos. But these systems are dynamic, not

energy as well as matter

is

involved. Everything— the cosmos,

man, culture— may be described in terms of matter and energy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the cosmos as a

whole

breaking

is

namically; matter

is

down

and running down

structurally

becoming

less

dy-

organized and energy more

uniformly diffused. But in a tiny sector of the cosmos, namely in living material systems, the direction is

reversed: matter

more concentrated.

of the cosmic process

becomes more highly organized and energy Life

is

a building

up

process.

But

in order to

run counter to the cosmic current, biological organisms must

draw upon to

work

free energy in non-living systems, capture

in the

maintenance of the

vital

struggle for free energy. Biological evolution

sion of the

it

and put

process. All life is

is

it

a

simply an expres-

thermodynamic process that moves

in a direction

opposite to that specified for the cosmos as a whole by the Second

Law.

It is

ferentiation

a

movement toward of

structure,

greater organization, greater dif-

increased

specialization

of

function,

higher levels of integration, and greater degrees of energy concentration.

From

^^^

a zoological standpoint, culture

is

but a means of carrying \

on the life process of a particular species. Homo sapiens. It is a mechanism for providing man with subsistence, protection, olfense and defense, social regulation, cosmic adjustment, and recreation. But to serve these needs of man energy is required. It becomes the primary function of culture, therefore, to harness and control energy so that it may be put to work in man's service. Culture thus confronts us as an elaborate thermodynamic, mechanical system.

and put

By means

of technological instruments energy

to work. Social

and expressions of

is

harnessed

and philosophic systems are both adjuncts

this technologic process.

culture as a whole therefore rests

upon and

The is

functioning of

determined by the

I

/

\

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

368 of energy harnessed

amount

and by the way

which

in

it

put

is

to work.*

But "the way

which

in

it

put to work" introduces another

is

factor besides energy. Energy by itself significant in cultural systems, energy

is

must

meaningless.

To be

be harnessed, directed,

and controlled. This is of course accomplished by technological means, by means of tools of one kind or another. The efficiency of technological

amount

means

varies;

some

are better than others.

of food, clothing, or other goods

The

produced by the

ex-

penditure of a given amount of energy will be proportional to the efficiency of the technological means with which the energy is

put to work, other factors remaining constant.

We

may

therefore distinguish

situation or system:

(i)

the

three factors

amount

in

any cultural

of energy harnessed per

capita per year; (2) the efficiency of the technological

which energy tude of

is

human

means with

harnessed and put to work; and, (3) the magnineed-serving goods and services produced. Assum-

ing the factor of habitat to be a constant, the degree of cultural

development, measured in terms of amount of serving goods

the

amount

and

services

produced per

capita,

of energy harnessed per capita

is

human

need-

determined by

and by the

efficiency

means with which it is put to work. We may and succinctly with the following formula: > C, in which C represents the degree of cultural deEX T velopment, E the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year, and T, the quality or efficiency of the tools employed in the

of the technological

express this concisely

expenditure of the energy.

We

can

now

formulate the basic law

of cultural evolution: Other factors remaining constant, culture

evolves as the is

amount

of energy harnessed per capita per year

increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental

*

The

means

oi put-

functioning of any particular culture will of course be conditioned environmental conditions. But in a consideration of culture as a whole, we may average all environments together to form a constant factor which may be excluded from our formula of cultural development.

by

local

ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE ting the energy to

work

is

simultaneously of course. cultural

development from

Both

increased.

We

may now

369 factors

may

increase

sketch the history of

this standpoint.

mechanism for harnessing energy, it must find this energy somewhere; it must lay hold of natural forces in some form or other if they are to be put to work in the service of man's needs. The first source of energy exploited by the earliest If

culture

is

a

human organism by human energy and

cultural systems was, of course, the energy of the itself.

by

The

original cultures

this source

man

average adult

horsepower.

were activated

and form alone. The amount of power that an can generate

When women

are considered, the average

and

small, about

is

%oth

children, the sick, aged,

power resources of the

one

of

and feeble

earliest cultural

systems might be reckoned at about K»oth horsepower per capita.

Since the degree of cultural development— the

amount

of

human

need-serving goods and services produced per capita— is proportional to the

amount

of energy harnessed

and put to work per

capita per year, other factors remaining constant, these earliest cultures of

mankind, dependent

energy resources of the crude, as indeed they

human

they were upon the meager

body, were simple, meager, and

No

cultural system, activated

energy alone, can develop very

course be

means

human

had to be.

as

made by

far.

Some

by

progress can of

increasing the efficiency of the technological

of putting energy to work, but there

of cultural advance on

this basis.

We

is

a limit to the extent

can form a

of cultural development within the limits of sources by looking at such

modern

realistic

human

picture

energy

re-

cultures as those of the Tas-

manians, Fuegians, or Andamanese; or the Paleolithic cultures of

Europe. If

culture

is

to

advance beyond the limits of

maximum

tech-

and the energy resources of the human body, it must devise new ways to harness additional amounts of energy by tapping natural resources in some new form. In some prenological efficiency

literate cultural systems, fire,

wind or water was exploited

as

a

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

370

source of energy, but only occasionally and to a very insignificant

The conquest

extent.

but

it

that

was

of fire

was a very early cultural achievement,

not until the invention of a practical

became important

fire

form of energy. Fire was im-

a

as

steam engine

portant in early cultures in cooking, providing warmth, frightening wild beasts, and as a symbol, but not as a form of energy.

In more advanced cultures,

fire

was important or essential in

the ceramic and metallurgical

arts,

but here also

we cannot

it is

not function-

equate, or substitute,

ing as a form of energy:

i.e.,

muscle power

any of these contexts. There

for fire in

however, in which

context,

functions as energy

fire

in

primitive cultures: in hollowing out tree trunks in the facture of dugout

And

power. But,

in

all

modern

canoes.

there all,

Here

may be

a

fire

is

substituted

is

for

one

some manu-

muscle

few more similar uses of

fire.

prior to the invention of the steam engine in

times, cultural systems

made

very

little

use of

fire as

a

form and source of energy which could be substituted for human muscle power. Primitive peoples could float freight

down

a flowing stream,

but until the invention of the water wheel shortly before the era, there was no other way in which moving water could be used as a source of energy for culture building. Wind was not employed as a source of energy until

beginning of the Christian

comparatively recent times, and

it

never has been an important

source of power.

Thus, we see that

fire,

water and wind were utilized as sources

of energy only to a very limited and insignificant extent during

the

first

there tive it:

hundreds of thousands of years of culture history. But

is still

another source of energy that was available to primi-

man, and eventually we

find his cultural systems harnessing

the energy of plants and animals. Plants are, of course, forms and magnitudes of energy. Energy

from the sun stored

up

is

in the

captured by the process of photosynthesis and

form of plant

tissue. All

animal

life is

dependent,

ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE in the last analysis, life,

therefore,

is

upon

this solar

371

energy stored up in plants. All

dependent upon photosynthesis.

first men subsisted upon plants and animals as, of course, pre-human ancestors did before them. The earliest culture

The their

systems developed techniques of hunting, fishing, trapping, lecting, gathering, etc., as

means

of exploiting the plant

col-

and animal

But merely appropriating natural resources harnessing and controlling them is quite another.

resources of nature. is

one thing;

After

some 985,000

years of cultural development, certain plants

were brought under the control of domestication and cultivation^

and various animal domestication.

species were brought

The

under control through

energy resources for culture building were

greatly increased as a

consequence of

The

the forces of nature.

plant materials per unit of

this increase in control over

yield of plant food

human

and other useful

labor was greatly increased by

the substitution of plant cultivation for wild plant gathering.

Improved

strains

were developed through selective breeding. Cul-

tivation, fertilization

per unit of

human

and

irrigation served to increase the yield

energy, or labor.

under cultivation, the

cereals

Among

the plants brought

have been especially important.

Tylor has called them "the great moving power of civilization." All of the great civilizations of antiquity were brought into being

by the cultivation of

cereals;

no great culture has ever been

achieved independently of the cultivation of

The

cereals.

domestication of animals, too, increased the energy

re-

sources for culture building as a consequence of the increase in

control over these forms of energy. Their yield in food and other useful animal products per unit of

human

labor was greatly in-

creased by the substitution of domestication for hunting. In a

hunting economy animals had to be

killed before they could

be

used, and when they were consumed more had to be found and killed. its

By means

of domestication a people could subsist

upon

herds and flocks without diminishing their numbers at

all;

they could even be increased. Animals, like plants, were improved

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

372

through selective breeding, and, in addition to supplying milk, meat, wool, and hides, some species could be used as motive power, either to carry burdens or to draw plows or vehicles. The

amount

domestication of animals thus greatly increased the

of

energy under cultural control and available for culture building. A great advance in cultural development would be expected, therefore, as a

consequence of the great increase in the amount

of energy harnessed

and controlled per capita per year by means

of the agricultural and pastoral arts. place.

The

And

this

is

exactly

what took

archeological record bears out our theory fully at this

point. In a few thousand years after the inauguration of the arts

of domestication and cultivation, the great civilizations of antiquit}',

of Egypt,

World,

in

Mesopotamia, India, China, and,

in the

New

Mexico, Middle America, and the Andean Highlands,

came quickly

into being. After hundreds of thousands of years of

relatively slow

and meager development during the Old Stone

Ages, culture suddenly shot forward under the impetus of aug-

mented energy

resources achieved

bandry. Great

cities,

villages, tribes,

and confederacies

cultural Revolution.

Old World,

in

all

nations,

by agriculture and animal hus-

and empires took the place of as a

consequence of the Agri-

Rapid progress was made,

of the arts— industrial, esthetic

especially in the

and

intellectual.

Great engineering projects were undertaken and executed; huge architectural lurgical

arts

edifices

erected.

expanded and

The

ceramic,

flourished.

textile

and metal-

Astronomy, writing, and

mathematics were developed. Beginnings were made in a rational science of medicine. Impressive works of art were produced, in relief,

sculpture,

took place in

all

and even

in painting.

Development and progress

aspects of culture.

But culture did not advance continuously and a

consequence of increased energy resources

indefinitely as

won by

the tech-

niques of agriculture and animal husbandry. After a period of rapid growth, the

plateau.

The

upward curve of progress

levelled off onto a

peaks of cultural development in Egypt, Mesopo-

ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE

373

China were reached prior to looo b.c, in some and from that time until the beginning

tamia, India, and

cases considerably earher,

of the Fuel Age, about a.d. 1800, no culture of the surpassed, in any profound levels achieved in the

Old World and comprehensive way, the highest

Bronze Age. This

that there was no progress at

is

not to

from 1,000

all

say, of course,

to a.d. 1789.

b.c.

There were innovations here and there and many refinements of already existing

ing

traits.

them by such

But, taking cultures as wholes, and measur-

yardsticks as size of political unit, size of city,

magnitude of architectural

edifices

of population, production

and accumulation of wealth,

cultures

of

and engineering works, density the

etc.,

Europe between the disintegration of the Roman

Empire and the

rise of

the Power

Age were

in general inferior

to those of the ancient oriental civilizations.

The

reason

why

cultures did not continue indefinitely to advance under the im-

petus of an agricultural and stockraising technology that It

we

shall

is

a matter

consider presently.

appears then that culture had developed about as far as

it

could on an agricultural and animal husbandry basis before the

^beginning of New World

the Christian lagged

era, at least in

the Old World; the

somewhat behind. And

it

is

reasonable to

suppose that culture never would have exceeded the peaks

al-

ready achieved by this time had not some way been devised to harness additional amounts of energy per capita per year by tapping

the forces of nature in a

new

form.

A

way was found, however,

to do this: energy in the form of coal, and, later,

oil

and

gas,

was harnessed by means of steam and internal combustion engines.

By tapping the vast mendous increase in

deposits of coal, oil and natural gas, a tre-

the

amount

of energy available for culture

The consequences of the Fuel much like those of the Agricultural

building was quickly effected.

Revolution were in general

Revolution: an increase in population, larger political units, bigger cities,

an accumulation of wealth, a rapid development of the

arts

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

374

and extensive advance of culture

sciences, in short, a rapid

and

as

a whole.

But, again, after a very rapid

ment began

show some

to

basis, for

we do

the question of a

not believe

can detect signs of a slowing

we

how

the curve of cultural develop-

had already gone

to intimate that culture

Fuel

rise,

signs of levelling off.

it

had;

down

far cultural

We

as far as

do not wish could on a

it

we merely

believe that

of the advance.

But before

development could advance on

Fuel-Agricultural-Animal-Husbandry-Human-Energy basis could

become anything

like

matter of immediate concern, a

a

tre-

mendously significant technological event took place: the energy

For the

resources of atomic nuclei were harnessed.

culture history

harnessed.

No

energy in a form

cultural advance has as yet

new form

utilization of this

power.

And

other than

before

fateful question will

time in

had been

been effected by the

of energy as a source of industrial

becomes

it

first

solar

significant in this respect, another

have to be met and answered, namely, the

consequences of the use of atomic energy in warfare.

Thus we

(

levels to

trace the

development of culture from anthropoid

the present time as a consequence of periodic increases in

amount of energy harnessed per capita per year effected by Itapping new sources of power. There is, however, another tech-

(the

nological factor involved cidentally so far;

which we have merely mentioned

we must now

consider

it

more

fully,

in-

namely^

the role of tools in the culture process.

Energy

is

of course neither created nor annihilated, at least

not within cultural systems;

and

it

is

machines. of

human

it is

merely transformed.

put to work or expended. But

The amount

It

is

harnessed

this requires tools

of energy harnessed

and

may, and the amount

need-serving goods produced per unit of energy does,

depend upon the

efficiency of the tools employed. So far, we have been holding the tool factor constant and varying the energy factor.

We now We get,

of tools.

hold the energy factor constant and vary that then, the following generalization: the degree of

;

ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE development

cultural

varies diiecily as the efficiency of the tools

employed, other factors remaining constant. is

engaged

in

375

If,

for example,

.

one

chopping wood, the amount chopped per unit of

energy expended will vary with the efficiency of the axe; the

amount

with the improvement of axes from the Old

will increase

Stone Age, through the Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron ages up to

And

the finest axe of alloyed steel of the present day.

so

it

is

with other instrumental means, such as saws, looms, plows, harnesses, wheeled vehicles, boats, etc. Cultural advance fected, therefore, creases in the

But the there is

amount

tools as well as

is

ef-,

by

in-

of energy harnessed.

cannot be increased indefinitely; beyond which improvement of any given tool

efficiency of a tool

a point

is

by an improvement of

impossible. Thus, a canoe paddle can be too long or too short,

too narrow or too wide, too heavy or too light,

We

etc.

may

therefore both imagine and realize a canoe paddle of such size

and shape

make any alteration of either result Similarly, we may improve bows and

as to

of efficiency.

plows, saws,

etc.,

up

to

as a practical matter,

mated.

No

decades. its

significant

The steam

limits of size

in a decrease

arrows, hoes,

but not beyond a certain point. Perfection,

is

either reached or at least closely approxi-

improvement has been made

in violins in

locomotive has apparently come close to

and speed. To be

sure,

improvements may be

continued for a time by the use of new materials or alloys and

by the application of new mechanical

principles.

But even

so,

the improvement of any tool or machine approaches closely, it

does not reach, a limit.

liners a

We cannot expect locomotives

mile long; they would

fall

apart of their

In the culture process therefore,

we

own

if

or ocean

weight.

find that progress

and

development are effected by the improvement of the mechanical

means with which energy is harnessed and put to work as well as by increasing the amounts of energy employed. But this does not mean that the tool and energy factors are of equal weight and significance.

The

energy factor

is

the primary and basic one;

it

i

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

376 is

the prime mover, the active agent. Tools are merely the means

The

that serve this power.

energy factor

may be

increased indefi-

nitely; the efficiency of the tool only within limits.

amount far: to

cultural

of energy,

the limits of the efficiency of the tools.

have been reached, no further increases

amount

for a lack of increase in

amount

creases in the

Drogress

all

With

a given

development can progress only so

When

these limits

can make up

in efficiency

of energy harnessed.

But

in-

of energy harnessed result in technological

along the line, in the invention of

new

tools

and in

the improvement of old ones should further improvement be possible. We see, therefore, that important though the tool factor

may

be,

it

merely secondary to the primary and basic factor

is

of energy. And, since increases of energy foster tools,

one may

say that

it

is

improvement of

energy that, at bottom, carries the

onward and upward. The general statement

culture process

that,

the environmental factor being constant, the degree of cultural

development

is

proportional to the

per capita per year

is

amount

of energy harnessed

therefore sound and illuminating.

We turn now to a consideration of social systems of cultural development.

must If a

A

be, closely related to

social its

system

is,

as

in the process

we have

seen

it

underlying technological system.

people are nomadic hunters— i.e., use certain technological

instruments in certain ways in order to obtain food,

and other need-serving materials— they

will

system. If they lead a sedentary

feeding

shellfish, or if

maritime

life,

furs, hides,

have one type of

upon

social

rich beds of

they are pastoralists or intensive agriculturalists, or

traders, or industrialists, etc.,

of social systems.

The

the technological means with which

determinant of

social

they will have other types

process of military offense and defense it is

and

exercised also acts as a

organization, sometimes a very powerful

Thus we see that the social system of a people is at bottom determined by the use of the technological means of subsistence and of oflfense and defense. Those social institutions not directly one.

ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE

377

related to the technology are related indirectly; they serve to co-

ordinate the various sectors of society with one another and to

them

integrate

The

into a coherent whole.

social systems of primitive peoples vary

tremendously in

detail because the specific circumstances of natural habitat

technology vary. But energy

mon

pre-pastoral, pre-agricultural ) basis

(i.e.,

They

type.

are

all

and

find no highly developed

and

of pastoralists

societies

stages of these technological

human

As

social systems

development of the

agriculturalists

the early

in

developments are likewise

simple, undifferentiated systems. all

a matter of fact

up

relatively

we may

char-

to a certain point in the

agricultural, or farming-and-animal-husbandry,

technology as primitive society: tribes based upon kinship free access to the resources of nature for

differentiation equality.

We

upon the primitive foundation

powered by human energy alone.

of a technology

acterize

human

belong to a com-

specialization of function.

societies

and

and manifest a minimum

relatively small

of structural differentiation

The

systems resting upon a

social

all

and

When,

specialization,

ties,

relatively little social

all,

and a high degree of

social

however, a certain point in the development of

agriculture was reached, a profound change in social systems took place. This

was the

social aspect of

Let us trace the course of

the Agricultural Revolution.

this social revolution in its

main

out-

lines at least.

means of producing more

Agriculture and animal husbandry are

food and other useful materials per unit of ca-n

be obtained by hunting,

culture

is

fishing, or gathering.

combined with stock is

practiced.

Not

energy than

When

agri-

raising the energy resources for

culture building are of course greater than

of plants alone

human

when the

cultivation

only do flocks and herds supply

meat, milk, wool or hides, but their muscle power to carry burdens,

draw plows and

civilizations of the

Old World grew up on the

carts,

and animal husbandry. Since, however,

it

etc.

is

may be

used

All of the great

basis of agriculture

the cultivation of

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

378 cereals that

is

new

the basic factor in the

husbandry technology,

we may

agriculture-and-animal-

for the sake of brevity speak of

"the social consequences of a developing agricultural technology." As the agricultural arts developed and matured, as plants were

improved through selective breeding,

as

new techniques

of cul-

tivation, irrigation, drainage, rotation of crops, fertilization, etc.,

were introduced and improved, the amount of food produced increased. As the food supply was enlarged the population increased. Small tribes grew into large tribes and these into nations and empires; villages grew into towns and towns into

Not only was more food produced by

cities.

agricultural techniques

than by hunting, fishing, and gathering, but more food per capita,

more per unit arts

of

human

labor expended.

developed, the productivity of

creased. It gradually

became

tion to produce food for

And,

human

the agricultural

as

labor in this field in-

possible for a portion of the popula-

all.

This meant that a portion of the

population could be diverted from agriculture and turned into other channels, such as the industrial and esthetic

arts.

As the

agri-

more and more of the population could thus be withdrawn from the fields and put to work at other tasks and occupations. Society thus became divided along occupacultural technology advanced,

tional lines, differentiated structurally

and specialized functionally.

This led to further social developments as

moment. The mere

increase in population

another direction

also.

we

shall

see in a

had important consequences

in

Tribes and clans were organized upon a

basis of kinship ties; social relations

were largely exercised in

this

form. Tliis mechanism worked very well as long as the social units were relatively small; a clan or tribe could

be

effective as a

mechanism of social organization and intercourse as long as its members were not exceedingly numerous, as long as social relations could be personal. But when, under the impetus of a developing and an increasing food supply, clan and huge size, they tended to fall apart of their

agricultural technology tribal units

grew to

ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE

own

379

weight. Primitive society tended therefore to disintegrate as a

A new

consequence of sheer increase of numbers. organization was therefore required

if

type of social

chaos was to be averted.

This new organization was found in the State. This was another

consequence of the Agricultural Revolution.

The

developing agricultural technology brought about a pro-

found change

in

economic organization,

In tribal society

also.

production, exchange, and consumption of wealth took place upon a personal, kinship basis; the

economic organization was

identified with the kinship system. This

ganization worked well in a small society with a division of labor

and with

along occupational ferentiated, as a

human

lines.

little differentiation

But

must be

way

society

became

new done

extensively dif-

form the

relations

mone-

we have

a system in

basis of social relations rathei tribal, kinship, society.

preliterate cultural levels there tribal groups.

one another

either in a feudal or a

than the reverse, as was the case in

On

of

type of economic system was

tar}'-market system. In either case, however,

between

minimum

of social structure

of relating classes economically to

devised. This can be

which property

or-

consequence of the increase in productivity of

labor in agriculture, a

required; a

as

virtually

type of economic

Competition

was of course some fighting

for favored

hunting and

fish-

ing grounds or other natural resources, vengeance for real or fancied

magical) injuries, led to a certain

(e.g.,

tribal conflict.

But the

amount

factors necessary for large scale

of inter-

and

sys-

tematic and sustained warfare w^ere lacking. These were supplied,

however,

consequence of the Agricultural Revolution.

as a

A

high

degree of development of the agricultural, metallurgical, ceramic,

and other

arts resulted in

amounts of wealth. natural

A

the production and accumulation of vast

rich nation's possessions together with the

and human resources that made the wealth possible would

constitute a rich prize to any people fare

became

a profitable occupation.

Mesopotamia,

who

could conquer

Thus we

it.

War-

find, especially in

a condition of almost chronic warfare: nations con-

,

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

380 tending with one another of palace

for. rich, fertile river valleys,

new empires rising upon the ruins of old. The social consequences of systematic and with

collaboration

rulers

political

and

class,

which

sometimes

even

become a powerful political force; the reduc-

may

autonomously,

chroijic warfare are

formation of a professional military

significant: the

in

the treasures

and temple, one nation conquering and looting another,

tion of peoples of conquered nations to the status of slavery or

serfdom; and the subordination of the masses at

home

to the im-

peratives of prolonged military conflict. Thus warfare tended

divide society

into

two major

small ruling group

who

organized and directed the

powerfully to relatively

whom

campaigns and to

a

classes:

social

the overwhelming proportion of the

who provided common soldiers,

wealth taken as booty went, and a large class the "sinews of

war"— the

There was often but

etc.

masses at after

home and

peasants, serfs, the difference

little

between the

lot of the

that of the masses of the vanquished nation

conquest and subjugation had been accomplished.

Warfare was not, however, the only means, or

social process,

that operated to divide societies of the post-Agricultural Revolutionary era into a small, wealthy, powerful, ruling class

hand, and a large

The

class of peasants, serfs, or slaves

on the one

on the

other.

peaceful process of commerce, and especially the use of

money, operated

commerce

are

also to bring

means

about the same end. Trade and

of concentrating wealth. In this competitive

process the big merchants grew at the expense of the small ones.

Wealth tended

to gravitate into a

particularly rapid

and the wealthy to

and

few hands.

effective

means

When

interest

richer.

one hundred percent or even more,

as

times, the small borrowers rapidly sink into

the money-lenders.

It

was not

at all

Money

lending

is

a

making the poor poorer rates range from say thirty

of

they did in ancient

economic bondage to

uncommon

in

Greece be-

fore the reforms of Solon or Kleisthenes for a small farmer to sell his children into slavery in order to

pay merely the

interest

on

his

ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE

381

loan, let alone the principal. Taxes levied

by the ruling

class

through the mechanism of the state and exorbitant rents levied

upon small tenants by

large landlords also tended to reduce the

masses to a condition of economic bondage and impotence.

Thus we

see that the social, political

and economic

effects of

the technological revolution in agriculture were: the dissolution of the old social system of primitive society, the obsolescence of tribe

and

clan; the division of society into various occupational

groups— guilds ruling class ruling class Civil

two major

and a

division of society

a small, powerful, wealthy,

classes:

governed and exploited by the

large class,

and held in bondage

in

one form or another by them.

upon property relations took the based upon kinship; the State replaced

society based

primitive society clan.

and craftsmen; the

of artisans

horizontally into

The

place of tribe

and

technological revolution in agriculture precipitated and

carried through a revolution in the social, political,

and economic

sectors of culture.

As the amount of energy harnessed and put

work per

by the development of the became more and more differenand increasingly specialized functionally. Con-

to

capita per year was increased

agricultural technology, society tiated structurally

comitant with

was the emergence of

this trend

a special social

mechanism of co-ordination of functions and correlation of structures, a mechanism of integration and regulation. This political mechanism had two aspects, secular and ecclesiastic, sometimes closely related, this special

sometimes

mechanism of

the State-Church.

The

distinct,

but always present.

We

call

co-ordination, integration and regulation

evolution of

civil

society

from the

early

metallurgical era to the present day, passing through a variety

of forms of the state and class relations,

turn to presently.

touched upon If

At

this point

we wish

is

a story that

we

shall

to return to a matter

earlier.

culture evolves

when and

per capita per year increases,

advance indefinitely

as a

as

the

why

amount

of energy harnessed

did not culture continue to

consequence of the technological revolu-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

382

As we have already

tion in agriculture?

contrar}', after attaining certain levels

on a plateau

thereafter continued

seen,

it

On

did not.

the

ceased to advance and

it

until

a

new and powerful

impetus came from the Fuel Revolution. Yet, agriculture as a technological process, as a mechanism of harnessing solar energy, was not developed to its technological limits by any means; it has not even yet reached those limits or even approached them very closely according to agronomists. logical progress in agriculture eventually

Why, slow

then, did techno-

down and

virtually

stop after so rapid a rise?

The answer seems

the relationship between socio-

to lie in

economic system and technological system established by the Agricultural Revolution. As we have noted, every social system rests

upon and

is

determined by a technological system. But every

technological system functions within a social system fore conditioned cultural

by

it.

Revolution

whole

The

it"

the

social

system of

technological

civil

so

as

in culture

society

is

wealth; the former appropriated so large a portion of

would accrue

there-

how it was done. was, as we have seen, divided class. The latter produced the

This

and an exploited

the latter with but

is

process

and to bring further progress

virtually to a standstill.

into a ruling class

and

system created by the Agri-

social

affected

eventually to "contain as a

The

minimum means

of subsistence.

to the producing class

if

it

No

as to leave

advantage

they enlarged their pro-

duction through increased efficiency; the increment would only be appropriated by the ruling class

were not

class.

On

likely to resort to a

the other hand, the ruling

long range plan to improve

the techniques of agricultural production.

than they were obtaining at the

moment

If

they needed more

the need was immediate

and a long range plan would have been of no use. They would therefore resort to greater exactions from the producing class. But in many, if not most, instances, it would seem, the ruling class had ample

for their needs. As a matter of fact, a great deal of evidence indicates that one of the problems they had to contend

ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE

383

with was that of overproduction rather than of insufEciency.

Thus we

see, especially in Eg\'pt

but also in Mesopotamia and

elsewhere, the ruling class engaging in "conspicuous waste and con-

sumption" and that on a grand scale. Palaces and temples were loaded with wealth and vast treasures were deposited with the dead in tombs. In addition to this, great public works programspyramids, monuments, temples, tombs and palaces— were continually being built. It

would appear that the ruling

class

was

frequently confronted with the problem of over-production and

the threat of technological tion

among

the lower

unemployment

classes.

or a surplus of popula-

Their great public works programs,

the wholesale disposition of wealth in mortuary customs,

etc.,

enabled them to solve both these problems with one stroke. Thus the social system tended to act as a damper on further increase in technological progress once a certain stage of development

been reached. In addition to the

factors

had

mentioned above, Childe

has pointed out that the social system operated not only to concentrate wealth in the hands of the ruling minority but effectively

prevented the tributed

fruits

among

of technological progress

from being

dis-

the masses of the population. There was, con-

sequently, no chance for the technology of production to expand quantitatively or to improve qualitatively.

We see, then, that the new agricultural technology resulted in a tremendous growth of culture this

advance a

social

in its initial stages.

But

in effecting

system was created that eventually curbed and

contained the technological system in such a way as to bring progress virtually to a stop, despite the fact that the technological limits of agricultural

proximated. culture

We may

development had not been even

closely ap-

reasonably conclude, therefore, that

would never have gone

substantially

human

beyond the peaks

achieved prior to the beginning of the Christian era had not the

amount

of energy harnessed per capita per year been considerably

enlarged by tapping the forces of nature in a

new

form.

/

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

384

of a Fuel Revolution was the culmination and synthesis number of streams of cultural elements that had been in progress

The

of development for

some time

just as the Agricultural

Revolution

And, like was the organized florescence of trends of earlier ages. brought about great social, its predecessor, the Fuel Revolution of greatly augconsequence a as changes political and economic menting the energy resources solar energy in a

new

for culture building

form, this time in coal,

oil

by harnessing

and natural

gas.

As in the case of the Agricultural Revolution, the new fuel technology resulted in a great increase in population. The popula^ tion of

Europe

prior to the

Coal Age grew only from 100,000,000 From 1800 to 1900, however, it

in 1650 to 187,000,000 in 1800.

increased to over 400,000,000.

The

population of England, to cite

the country in which the Industrial Revolution got under

and

which

in

it

way

developed to a very great extent, increased 50 per-

cent between 1700 and 1800. But during the nineteenth century, it

increased 260 percent. In the two centuries prior to 1850, the

populatio nof Japan increased but 41 percent. In the following

1872— about the time

began— however, Urban development was

new technology

powerfully stimulated and acceleiated by the

had been by the developing

technology

agricultural

Bronze Age. The European feudal system— a agricultural production for use

economy—was

and replaced by an urban, parliamentary, for-sale-at-a-profit

differentiated

human

rural,

in

as

the

aristocratic,

rendered obsolete

industrial, production-

economy. Social structure became ever more

and functions more

specialized.

The productivity of Farm populations

labor increased as technology advanced.

decreased relatively and in

Changes occurred basic

years

industrialization

the population increased over 80 percent.

it

fifty

in

some

the

dichotomy— a minority

instances absolutely.

class

structure of society also.

ruling class

The

and the majority of the

population in a position of subordination and exploitation— re-

mained, but the composition of these classes underwent radical change. Industrial lords and financial barons replaced the landed

ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE aristocracy of feudalism as the class,

and an urban,

385

dominant element

in the ruling

industrial proletariat took the place of serfs,

peasants, or slaves as the basic element in the subordinate class. Industrial strife took the place of peasant revolts

and

of slaves

Church functioned to maintain

And,

serfs of earlier days.

as a co-ordinative

in a

new

and uprisings

form, the State-

and regulative mechanism

the integrity of society by containing these

class

antagonisms and by mobilizing the resources of society for offense

and defense.

We

may pause

at this point to take note of an interesting

feature of the process of cultural evolution: as culture evolves the

growth

rate oi

growth in than in

is

As we have already seen, the rate of Bronze times was much greater and Eolithic Ages, The Agricultural

accelerated.

late Neolithic

and

the Paleolithic

early

Revolution required but a few thousand years to run

But the Fuel Revolution centuries effected

change

is difficult

radical

its

course.

only a century and a half or two

old at most, and already greater changes have been

by is

is

perhaps than by

it

so rapid

and we are

all

so

to grasp the situation

earlier ages

much and to

in the

put together. midst of

realize the

it

The

that

it

profound and

nature of the revolution, social and political as well as

which we are passing. Twenty-seven years Viewpoints in American History, Professor A. M.

technological, through

ago in

New

Schlesinger compared the culture of the United States of Lincoln's

day with that of Benjamin Franklin's on the one hand, and with the culture of 1922 on the other. life

that

He

remarked that the daily

with which Lincoln was familiar was in most respects like

known

in 1922

to

George Washington and Franklin. But our culture

would have been strange and bewildering

to Lincoln

had

he returned to the American scene:

more than three or four stories high would be new. The plate-glass show windows of the stores, the electric streetBuildings

lighting, the moving-picture theaters, the electric elevators in

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

3g^

stores would be the buildings and especially the big department

things

his

in

The smooth-paved streets and The fast-moving elec-

day unknown.

cement sidewalks would be new to him. tric street-cars and motor vehicles would

fill

him with wonder.

Even a boy on a bicycle would be a curiosity. Entering the White House, someone would have to explain to him such commonplaces of modern life as sanitary plumbing, steam heating, friction matches, telephones, electric lights,

the Victrola,

and even the fountain pen. In Lincoln's day, plumbing was in beginnings, coal-oil lamps and gas-jets were coming into use, and the steel pen had only recently superseded the quill

its

pen.

The

the steel bridge, high-powered locomotives, artificial ice, the cream separator, the tv^dne

steel rail,

refrigerator cars,

binder, the caterpillar tractor,

money

orders, the parcels post,

rural free delivery, the cable, the wireless, gasoline engines, re-

peating

rifles,

hundreds of other inventions

now

in

and

airplanes— these

submarines,

dynamite,

common

use were

all alike

unknown.^

But consider the changes that have taken place— in transportation, medicine, communication, and in technology in general— since Schlesinger wrote in 1922! In warfare perhaps better than in

other areas of our culture, progress

made

World War

is

the dizzying rate of technological

The

dramatically apparent.

looks quaint today, and

techniques introduced for the already obsolete.

One

first

all

some

first

weapons and

of the

time in World

War

II

are

hardly dares to picture the next great mili-

tary conflict; novelties already unveiled

suggest

technology of the

and others only intimated

too vividly the distance that technological progress has

gone since the days of Pearl Harbor.

And behind

the scenes in

the theater of Mars are the great research laboratories and proving grounds, working under forced draft to develop and perfect

new

tools

and techniques

rate of cultural life,"

advance

is

in all phases of

now

our technology.

greater than ever before.

wrotQ the distinguished physicist, Arthur Holly

The "Our

Compton

in

ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE 1940, "differs from that of

can

life

387

two generations ago more than Ameri-

of that day differed from the civihzed hfe at the

dawn

of

And, since Compton wrote these words, a profound and awful revolution— perhaps the most significant in all written history."

human

*

history— has taken place: the harnessing of atomic energy.

But, even as in the case of the Agricultural Revolution and aftermath, so in the Power

new

fuel technology

cultural advance.

came

The

Age the and

its

system created by the

upon

eventually to act as a brake

price

and technological progress

tion

social

further

profit system stimulated producas

long as the output could find

a market. But, like the socio-economic system of the Bronze Age,

the

new commercialism

tions.

No

of the Fuel era

industrial nation

sufficient to

keep and absorb

industrial profit system

had

its

inherent limita-

had or could have purchasing power its

own

output; the very basis of the

was an excess in value of product over

the cost of production in terms of wages paid to the industrial workers. Export of surplus was therefore essential; or die"

is

a cry of desperation heard

in recent years.

But

as the

"we must export

from more than one nation

For a time new markets could be found abroad.

output of industrial nations increased with advances in

technology, and as non-European nations such as Japan industrialized

and hence competitors

international profit system began to

for

foreign

bog down. The world market

diminished as the industrial output increased.

When

no longer be sold profitably abroad, production

home. Entrepreneurs be sold at a

goods could

w^as curtailed at

are disinclined to produce goods that cannot

profit. Factories, mills

of workers were

became

markets, the

and mines were

closed. Millions

thrown out of employment. Surplus goods were

destroyed, agricultural production reduced.

The

awful plague of

overproduction and unemployment, "star\'ation in the midst of plenty," settled

upon the

land.

The

social

system was strangling

the great technological machine of industry and paralyzing the

body

politic as

a whole.

The

death or war and revolution.

alternatives If

were stagnation and

the social system were able to

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

388

contain the Fuel technology and the commercial rivalries and class conflicts

more

engendered by

the forces

ever,

it,

would become

society

new technology be

the

inherent in

surmount and overcome the

stabilized in a

industrial feudalism. Should,

form of

or less stagnant

restrictions of the price

how-

able to

and

parlia-

mentary system, then culture could advance toward higher levels. There is evidence aplenty that culture, powered by the mighty forces of Fuel technology,

The

is

embarking upon the

phase of the second great Cultural Revolution— the

first

Industrial

Revolution— has run

its

course and

we

revolution.

And,

the past, war

as in

means of profound

political

is

entered

and economic

proving to be an effective

The

change.

system of free and

and commerce

individual enterprise in business

now

are

the second phase, that of social, political

upon

latter course.

The gold standard is merely a memory The parliamentary system of government,

is

now

virtually

extinct.

of an era that

closed.

a device designed

to permit the greatest financial enterprise,

is

freedom

for the

growth of industrial and

practically obsolete also. Private right

is

longer significant chiefly as a means of freedom for growth as

was

in the early days of

commercialism.

It

petitive rivalry, internecine strife, chaos, trations of

own

power without public

is

now

leads toward

and

paralysis.

responsibility

among

no it

com-

Concen-

those

who

or control vast wealth, or in the ranks of organized labor, are

no longer compatible with the degree of unity, integrity and strength that a nation

with

its

rivals in

must have

if

it

is

to

the international arena.

compete

The

successfully

exigencies of na-

tional survival require the subordination of private right to general

and mechanism of civil society, is destined to acquire ever power and to wield more and more control. Social evolumoving inexorably toward higher levels of integration,

welfare, of part to whole. In short, the State, as the integrative

regulative greater tion

is

toward greater concentrations of '

On

evolution can be discerned: \

political

power and

control.

the international level, too, an interesting trend of social

movement toward

ever larger and

ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE larger political units.

with

cities,

The

389

Agricultural technology replaced villages

with nations and empires.

tribes

working toward larger

technology also

is

concentrations

of political

power.

The modern Fuel

political groupings, fewer

The

relatively

recent

trend

toward amalgamation can be seen in the unification of Germany and Italy in the nineteenth century. The Treaty of Versailles attempted, with the "Balkanization of Europe," to oppose the age-old trend of social evolution by breaking the continent little pieces.

One

Second World

up into

of the conspicuous and significant aspects of the

War

in

initial

its

the unification of Europe.

A

phase was a movement toward

half-dozen or so

World Powers

engaged in the First World War; only two great powers emerged

from the second. The competition

The

testants are eliminated.

for

power narrows

logical conclusion

is,

con-

as

however, not

simply the domination of the world by a single nation— this would

be but will

stage—but a single

a transitional

political organization that

embrace the entire planet and the whole human

such a denouement

moving But

a

race.

Toward

our mighty Power technology rapidly

is

us.

new and ominous element

ture: nuclear

has recently entered the pic-

atomic energy for military purposes. Here again the

significance of this

new

factor derives

from the

new Once

fact that a

source of energy has been harnessed and in awful form.

more we are upon the threshold of a technological revolution. But the consequences of this new technological advance may possibly differ radically from those of the Agricultural and the

New

technologies in the past have rendered old

social systems obsolete

but they have replaced them with new

Fuel Revolutions.

systems.

The new

nuclear technology however threatens to destroy

civilization itself, or at least to cripple

might require regain

its

it

to such

an extent that

it

a century, a thousand, or ten thousand, years to

present status.

and military men

At

tell us; as

ignorance, with almost

all

least this

is

what eminent

laymen we are

in a child's

scientists

world of

the significant facts kept beyond our

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

390 reach.

destruction of a few score of centers of science

The

Europe and the United

industry in

Western

would

within the realm

would seem

well

is

The hope

not to say probability.

of possibility,

and

about do for

just

civihzation and, authorities assure us that this

and the salvation of mankind and civilizaemergence from the next war of a

of the future therefore, tion

States

to lie in the

victor— not merely a survivor— and one with sufficient power and resources to organize the

whole planet and the entire human

species within a single social system.

We have thus presented a sketch of the evolution of the culture of

mankind from the horizon

present time. It

is

of a species lifting itself

mere animal

status of a

of our

prehuman

forebears to the

a fascinating story of adventure

up by

its

and

cultural bootstraps

new way

to a radically

of

progress;

from the

way

a

life,

destined to win mastery over most other species and to exert a

powerful and extensive control over the natural habitat. of culture elevated the evolutionary process to a

longer was

necessary for the

it

human

new

The

origin

plane.

No

animal to acquire new

powers and techniques through the slow process of biological

now had an

change; he

extra-somatic

and control that could grow one stream of

cultural

the story of

man becomes an

Technology

and

is

rivers, sticks

and

Man

it

to

is

sun, air

and

is

a world of rocks

starlight, of galaxies,

but a particular kind of material

The means

of adjustment

and

survival, are of course technological.

becomes primarily

work

Thus

certain things to maintain his status in a

cosmic material system.

putting

in the progress of each.

account of his culture.

steel, of

atoms and molecules.

and

Moreover, advances in

the hero of our piece. This

body who must do security

freely of itself.

of adjustment

development could diffuse readily to other

might share

traditions so that all

mechanism

a

mechanism

control, of

Culture thus

for harnessing energy

in the service of

man, and,

and of

secondarily, of

channelling and regulating his behavior not directly concerned

ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE

391

with subsistence and offense and defense. Social systems are therefore determined by technological systems, and philosophies

and the

arts express

by

refracted

experience as

logical level are capable of growth.

any energy

Thus

defined by technology and

it is

social systems. Cultural systems like those of the bio-

is

That

also the ability to harness

is, the power to capture more and still more of it.

cultural systems, like biological organisms, develop, multiply,

and extend themselves. The sun

is

thermodynamic system operated by activated

all

continue to do so after

it

may

is

still

should survive and

reach

have this

the leading character in our play,

turn out to be a villain instead of the hero.

Technology builds but that civilization,

terrestrial supplies of fissionable fuels

civilization

But technology

even though

At least, solar energy has up to now, and it will

cultural systems of history

been exhausted— if point.

the prime mover; culture, a it.

won

it

may

also destroy.

The

at such great cost in pain

belief

and

and

faith

labor, simply

cannot go down in destruction because such an end would be too

monstrous and

senseless,

is

whimper. The cosmos does

little

what man has done here on tion of the

the

first

but a naive and anthropocentric

know

nor will

this tiny planet.

human race— for come

it

will

long remember

it

The

eventual extinc-

sometime— will not be

time that a species has died out. Nor

will

it

be an event

of very great terrestrial significance.

But man may though

survive the

his culture

is

coming holocaust of

tumbled to the

radioactivity even

level of Neolithic times,

only to begin the long climb over again, this time perhaps by a

somewhat

different route; culture too

experience. itself

with

salvation.

may be

able to profit from

But culture may not destroy or even its

new

powers. Destruction

next test of strength

in

no more

inevitable than

will—be in the

the international

powers of the new technology

may be

wound

may— and

is

Great though the devastation

critically

arena,

the creative

sufficiently great to rise

from the ruins and to enclose the whole world

up

in a single political

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

392

Then and only then will the curse of war be way made free and open for a fuller and richer life.

embrace. the

sketch of the evolution of culture

Our

it

is,

will

lifted

and

be noted,

wholly culturological. It does not resort to race, physical type, intelligence,

moral sense, the dignity of man, the

a

spirit

of

progress or democracy, the individual— genius or otherwise— the rejection of the father, consciousness of kind, a set of instincts or

interaction, a basic personality structure,

social

"drives,"

training in infancy, or breast vs. bottle feeding

toilet

and weaning, to

account for the behavior and growth of this great extra-somatic

We

tradition.

explain

shower or a tornado

is

A

thunder-

explained in terms of antecedent

and con-

in terms of culture itself.

it

comitant meteorological events; a clan or a constitution

accounted for by citing Culture

is,

as

its

we have

is

likewise

and concomitants.

cultural antecedents

pointed out repeatedly, a stream of inter-

upon others and is affected by become obsolete and are eliminthem in return. Some elements ated from the stream; new elements are incorporated into it. acting elements; one trait reacts

New

permutations, combinations, and syntheses are continually

being formed. Whether cultural

we

deal with a restricted portion of the

as

the evolution of mathematics or the

continuum such

genealogy of the steam engine, or whether in

its

we encompass

entirety, the principle of interpretation

is

culture

the same: cul-

ture grows out of culture. In our sketch of the evolution of culture

whole we deal with large categories: technology,

as a

tems, and philosophies.

and

tool factors.

their

break technology

We observe the action

impact upon others, the

systems,

upon

We

and steam-driven

social sys-

into energy

of each class of elements,

effect of

technology upon social

and the influence of economic and

agriculture

down

factories.

political institutions

We

note the role

that war as a culture process has played in the course of political

change. And,

finally,

we

see the fate of civilization delicately

ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE

393

balanced in a scales to be tipped this way or that, we know not how, by the modern miracles of nuclear technology. the newest venture of science. After centuries of cultivation in the fields of astronomy, physics, and chemistry;

Culturology

after

scores

is

of years

of tillage

in

physiology and psychology,

science has at last turned to the most immediate and powerful

human behavior: many failures it was

determinant of man's peated

trials

and

as

cannot be explained psychologically; merely anthropomorphisms in

and must be

of culture

is

young but

full of

the subject of

and upward.

its

promise.

such

culture.

After

interpretations

scientific clothing.

culturological. It is

his

re-

discovered that culture

The

The

are

explanation

science of culture

is

destined to do great things— if only

study will continue

its

age-old course:

onward

PART

IV

CULTUROLOGY

CHAPTER FOURTEEN THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

hundred

"During the

last

culture

represents

it has become increasingly clear that a distinct domain . that demands for ." investigation a distinct science . its R. H. Lowie, Cultural Anthropology; a Science "TTiese specifically human peculiarities which differentiate the race of the homo sapiens from all other species of animals is comprehended in the name culture; therefore the science of specifically human activities ." may be most suitably called culturology Wilhelm Ostwald, Principles oi the Theory oi Education .

.

.

years,

...

.

E.'very

living

adjustment to

duce

its

—

.

its

environment

in order to live

kind. "Understanding"

is

adjustment.

the

We

minimum

and to repro-

name we

give to

one

do not as a rule use

term in speaking of the lower forms of

for example.

.

organism must effect a certain

aspect of this process of this

.

—

.

life,

such as plants

But plants do the same kind of thing— and,

if

any-

more surely— that human beings do in contexts to which we apply the word "understanding." Scientific observations and experiments on apes make it quite clear that their behavior thing,

possesses qualities that

standing"; and

it is

we can

more than

mals share these attributes here alone that

ment

we

also.

only

call

"insight" and "under-

likely that other

But

it is

in the

sub-human mamspecies and

human

find understanding as a process of adjust-

on by symbolic means. In the symbol the process of evolution attained a metasensory mechanism of adjust-

carried

biological

ment. All sub-human species must

effect

their

adjustments in

terms of meanings grasped and interpreted with the senses. 397

But

— THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

398

can go beyond the reach of sense impressions; he can grasp

man

world with symhoh. Thanks to this abihty, he may acquire understandings and effect adjustments on a higher be incomlevel than any other animal. His' understandings may parably richer than those of the highest apes, and he can share

and interpret

them

his

readily with his fellows.

Thus

new

a

and adjustment has come into existence

type of understanding

in the zoological world.

use of the neuro-sensory-symbolic faculty in the process of adjustment finds expression in verbal formulas that we may call beliefs. The sum total of beliefs of a people we term their

The

A

philosophy.

philosophy, therefore,

is

an elaborate mechanism

by means of which a certain kind of animal, man, adjusts himself to the earth beneath him and to the cosmos around him.

A

philosophy

is

of course closely related to other aspects of the

cultural system of

which

it is itself

and to forms of

organization,

art.

a part: to technology, to social

But our concern here

is

with

philosophy as such, as a technique of interpretation, as a way of rendering the world intelligible so that articulation with this

world can be effected to the greatest advantage to man. Philosophy, like culture as a whole, has grown and developed

through

the ages that have elapsed since

all

Philosophy this

is

respect

man began

to symbol.

an instrument devised and used for a purpose. In

it

is

exactly like an axe.

One

philosophy

may be

better— a better instrument of interpretation and adjustment than another,

ment than

just as

one axe may be a better chopping

instru-

another. There has been a progressive development of

philosophies just as there has been development and progress of axes or of culture as a whole.

take to

tell,

The

or at least to exhibit,

preceding chapters under-

some

of the story of this

development.

The first men interpreted things and events in terms of their own psyches. They were not aware of their standpoint of interpretation, however;

that the minds to

on the contrary, they

which the events of

insisted

emphatically

their experience

were

at-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

399

tributed were not their own, but those of spirits, of gods or demons. They were, however, merely the projection of the human

ego into the external world. Thus the whole cosmos, the entire range of experience, was interpreted as the expression of mind

and of

of desire, will

spirit,

animism

and

and purpose. This was the philosophy but above all, of anthro-

supernaturalism,

pomorphism. It

took time for the

human

primate to acquire

and com-

skill

petence in the use of his newly acquired faculty, the symbol.

Hundreds of thousands of years elapsed before any advance was made beyond the original— and self-deceptive— premise that the cosmos was and could be only the expression of an ego like

man

man's. In his philosophies primordial

world in his

own

image.

simply created the

Nor have we outgrown

this

point of

view even today as the prevalence, vigor and respectability of theologies clearly show.

But

after eons of explaining the

world of things and events and plans of supernatural beings,

in terms of the desires, wills

an advance was made to a new of invoking spirits

entities,

essences, principles, etc.,

saying, for example, that fossils

now

said that they

level,

new

a

of premises.

set

and minds to account

Instead

for

events,

were called upon. Instead of

were fashioned by

were formed by "stone-making

a god, it

was

forces," or that

they were "the congelation of lapidific juices." This type of explanation, theless

empty and

senseless as

advance

great

a

interpretation that

over

and that was

may seem animistic,

today, was neversupernaturalistic

had prevailed before. The answers of super-

naturalism were complete and will,

it

the

that; there

final:

God

was nothing

did

it;

it

was God's

left to say. Actually,

of course, these answers told one nothing; they were as

they were better;

final.

what

And, worst of

else

empty

as

they shut the door to anything

could one ask or learn after being told that an

event was but an act of

term— type

all,

God? The metaphysical— to use Comte's

of interpretation at least freed

one from the bondage

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

400

anthropomorphism.

of

were formed by "stone-making

fossils

If

one was, by impHcation, invited to inquire into the nature

forces,"

come into direct contact with the real world— instead of one's own image reflected therein— and to learn something about it as a consequence. The metaphysical of such forces and thus

empty in themselves were nevertheless they opened the way to something better: science.

pro-

explanations though gressive;

We

have not yet outgrown the metaphysical type of

pretation even in social science.

We

still

inter-

find events explained in

terms of "the separatism of the natives," "tendencies of the hu-

man mind," essential

we

are

If

"the principle of the equivalence of brothers," "the

democracy of the Plains

making

tribes," etc.

But

(see p. 65).

progress.

one accepted the invitation implicit

of explanation,

in

if,

one "went

forces" really are,

in the metaphysical type

an endeavor to find out what "stone-making to nature, took the facts into one's

own

hands, and saw for himself" (Agassiz), he would stand a good chance of achieving the point of view and the techniques

of science. At any

out

rate, this

is

a type of interpretation that

and eventually superseded

of

metaphysical

Things and events were no longer explained pose or plan of

spirits,

in

grew

explanations.

terms of the pur-

nor yet as caused by principles or essences;

they were explained in terms of other things and events. Thus, an

earthquake

is

punishment

not merely an expression of divine wrath, an act of for our sins;

nor

"principle of vulcanism." It

is

is

it

merely the expression of a

a geologic event that

is

to

be

ex-

plained in terms of other geologic events.

In science the

human

come

primate has

at last to a realistic

upon the external world to which he must As an explanatory device, animistic, anthropomorphic and supematuralistic philosophies were worse

and

effective grasp

adjust

if

he

is

to survive.

than worthless, for false knowledge all.

One

has only to think of

been put to death

as witches

all

and

the

is

often worse than none at

men and women who have

heretics to get

some notion

of

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

401

the magnitude of the disadvantages imposed by this type of philosophy.

To be

sure, primitive philosophies

tions than explanatory; they sustained

man

had other func-

with

they

illusions,

provided him with courage, comfort, consolation, and confidence, all

of

which had a

But

biological survival value.

techniques, primitive philosophies were a total

as explanatory

loss.

Metaphysical philosophies did not really explain the external world either, but they paved the way for interpretation in the point of view

niques that

we

call "science."

A

a realistic

and with the

profile of

and

effective

intellectual tech-

modern philosophy

closes its genealogy as well as its structure

new, vigorous and growing component of science; an

and

its

nourishment dwindles;

anthropomorphism and giving

way

to a

more

philosophy

is

a

and

mechanism

we

but

this, too,

there.

human

of adjustment of the

man

bottom of

philo-

pointed out in our chapter on

"The

animal to his cosmic setting, then sophic concern. As

its field

growth of

and odds and ends of meta-

virile flora;

physical reasoning here

If

a rather lush

free will in certain sectors,

a

old, primitive

supernaturalism, strong in certain sectors but declining as contracts

dis-

and composition:

is

at the

Expansion of the Scope of Science," we can trace the history and the growth of science from the standpoint of determinants of

human

behavior. Astrology was an attempt to appraise the role

of heavenly bodies in

human science

human

affairs

and to predict the course of

events as determined by the

found

its

first

expression

in

stars.

The philosophy

astronomy because

of

the

heavenly bodies, being the least significant of determinants of

human

behavior, could be dislodged most easily from the anthro-

pomorphic

The

tradition

in

which

self

was confused with

not-self.

point of view and the techniques of science, once established

began to spread to other areas. The course of expansion of the scope of science was determined by in the sector of the celestial,

this law: science will

advance and develop in inverse

ratio to the

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

402 significance of

phenomena

Tenestrial physics and mechanics followed cal

sciences

phenomena

human behavior. astronomy. The physi-

as determinants of

took form before the biological because physical are less significant as determinants of

human

behavior

than are biological phenomena. Within the biological realm, anatomy develops first, then physiology and psychology. The point

upon which these three sciences focused was the individual organism. But it came eventually to be realized that there is a class of phenomena outside and beyond the individual that is nevertheless powerful

behavior. Sociology

and

and

significant in the determination of his

social

psychology were the organizations

of scientific techniques to grapple with this class of meta-individual determinants. In the organization of these sciences

it

was

assumed that the categories of determinants of human behavior

had now been exhausted. Astronomy and

terrestrial physics

would

take care of the inanimate determinants; anatomy, physiology,

and psychology would encompass the individual determinants;

and

sociology, the science of society,

would deal with the

supra-

what other determinants were there to

individual determinants:

be reckoned with?

As we have already shown, the assumption of the founders of sociology was far from adequate. differently in the

company

as roosters, dogs, ducks, rat,

dog, or

duck— is

True enough,

of his fellows than

and apes do.

A

man

a

when

sociology of

behaves

alone, just

man— or

ape,

in order, therefore, in addition to a psy-

chology. But to go no further would be to overlook a fundamental difference rat, as

between

we have

pany of

his fellows

individual

and

man and

just noted,

than

we

as

such

other species.

when

alone.

We

A

monkey, dog, or

when

in the

is

social

We can

system of behavior in which the

the focus of attention and interpretation.

distinguish both individual

com-

distinguish therefore

social aspects of this individual's behavior.

go farther and recognize a system

all

behaves differently

and

social systems.

But—and

Thus here

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE to the fundamental difference

we come

being and

all

behavior in it

individual or

its

between

we

other species— whether

social aspects,

its

human

as a

rat,

dog, or ape

whether we regard

social systems, the deter-

We

the biological organism.

is

man

consider

form of individual systems or

in the

minant

403

find

one type of

social

system or behavior in one species of animal, another type in another species; ducks will have one type of social system or behavior, eagles another; lions

kind, herring another, etc.

tems

S

=

functions

are

oi

is

the organism.

is

its

Human

social aspects,

symbolic

level of

behavior, either in

nowhere

is

its

a function of

behavior does not vary as the organism

with the extra-somatic factor of culture.

varies; it varies

behavior

Human

sys-

organisms:

biological

on the

species,

not the case.

average individual or

the lower species, social

respective

their

human

f(0). But in the

behavior, this

one type, bison another; sharks one

Among

B

a function oi culture:

=

Human

i{C). As the culture

varies

so will the behavior.

Thus

it is

not society, or the group, that constitutes the

human

a series of categories of determinants of

the lower species, the group

is

minant

of the behavior of any

human

species,

the group

whether we find

tradition:

is

its

culture.

The

last of

Among

properly regarded as a deter-

one of

itself

members. But

its

in the

determined by the cultural

a guild of artisans, a clan, a

household, or an order of knights in a

upon

behavior.

human

polyandrous

society will

depend

discovery of this class of determinants and

the isolation, in logical analysis, of these extra-somatic cultural

determinants from the biological individual

—has

— in

group aspect

their

been one of the most

significant

science in recent times. This assertion will as

extravagant.

We

are so accustomed

no doubt

to

as well as

advances in strike

some

being regaled with

accounts of the marvels of modern science— meaning physics, chemistry, and

medicine—and so used

science, that to claim that the

to disparagements of social

achievement of the concept of

cul-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

404

significant advances in

one of the most

ture

is

well

seem preposterous to some.

We

modern

may

science

have no desire whatever to

minimize the significance of recent advances in physics, chemistry, genetics, or medicine.

Some

and genetics

in physics

of them, such as

may

in biology,

quantum mechanics

quite properly be called

But such advances have taken place

revolutionary.

in fields that

have been cultivated by science for generations or even centuries.

But with the achievement of the concept of culture a whole new was opened to science. The lack of significant achievement so far in the new science of culture is therefore not an indica-

field

tion of extravagance of claim

on our

our science, the fact that this

new

part.

The

very newness of

sector of experience

covered, isolated and defined only yesterday, in itself there has not yet been time for

discovery of a

new world

that

much accomplishment. is

We

it

far

in

new

this

hard for some to believe that the lowly

is

"social" sciences can ever

match them. This point of view

course understandable in a day tribution of galaxies in the

temperature of field,

the

It is

are so impressed with the achievements of physics

and astronomy that

other

dis-

so significant, not the relative

magnitude or value of achievements won so world.

was

means that

when

science can

map

is

the

of

dis-

cosmos and measure the mass and

stars a million of light years

away, whereas in an-

science has no adequate answer to the question of

the prohibition of polygamy in certain societies. But the lot and destiny of

man on

galaxies, splitting

planet embrace

this

atoms, or discovering a

socio-political-economic

systems— in

which the human species

much

to

short,

And we may

the cultures— within

and breathes and propagates have

do with the future of Man.

realize this. tific

lives

more than measuring new wonder drug. The

We

are just beginning to

look forward to a time

comprehension of such cultural processes

inflation will

ment

be considered quite

when the

as

as significant as

scien-

polygamy and the measure-

of distant stars, the splitting of atoms, or the synthesis of

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE organic compounds.

405

The

may one day rank in importance in the history of science with the hehocentric "discovery" of culture

theory of Copernicus or the discovery of the cellular basis of

all

hving forms.

This

man

is

not to

say, as v^^e

have

tried to

make

clear earlier, that

going to win control over the course of cultural develop-

is

ment through

a scientific comprehension of its structure and any more than we have won control over the sun or distant galaxies by coming to a considerable understanding of

processes,

them. Understanding, process.

The growth

development of

scientific

of science

understanding, is

is

itsdi a cultural

a culture process just as the

a musical style, a type of architecture, or forms

of corporate organization in business are culture processes.

development of understanding culturology alike will

adjustment of the

Profound advances

many to

years for

make

human

in astronomy, in medicine,

possible a

more

in science

make

their

and

realistic

species to the earth

The

and

in

effective

and cosmos.

way

slowly. It took

mankind, even the educated stratum of

society,

accept the heliocentric theory of the solar system and

to

exploit the resources of this point of view. It took considerable

time also for the idea of the biological evolution of

The

its

way

of

the unconscious by psychoanalysis

against older conceptions.

resistance. It

is

met with

to

win

hostility

and

not particularly surprising, therefore, to discover

that the present advance of science into the is

man

discovery and exploration

new

field of

culture

meeting with considerable resistance and opposition.

We

discover a

common

basis for all of these resistances

and

oppositions to the advances of science. Scientific interpretation

non-anthropomorphic,

non-anthropocentric.

theories of Copernicus, Galileo

conception of

man and

to

*s

the

and Darwin proceeded from an

anthropomorphic and anthropocentric istic

Opposition

as well as a supernatural-

the cosmos:

man was

the chief work

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

406

he w^s created in God's image; the world was motionless and in the center of the uni-

of the Creator of

all;

was made for him;

it

interverse; everything revolved about the earth; everything was deterministic, is interpretation preted in terms of man. Scientific

and by

as

such evokes the hostility of

all

who

are activated or directed

a philosophy of Free Will.

The

social

of

sciences

man have been purged

of

super-

naturalism to a very great degree— but not wholly as the existence

and

helm Schmidt, still

Wil-

respectability of the anthropological school of Father

to

mention but one example, proves. But they are

anthropomorphically and anthropocentrically oriented to a

very high degree.

are furthermore animated

They

ophy of Free Will to science of culture

is

thus readily understood.

by the

philos-

Opposition to the

a considerable extent.

An

anthropocentric

point of view cannot, of course, tolerate the thesis that

it

is

culture, not man, that determines the form and content of hu-

man

The

behavior.

philosophy of Free Will cannot accept a

theory of cultural determinism.

To many

and

sociologists

cul-

tural anthropologists the notion that culture constitutes a distinct

order of phenomena, that principles

it

and laws, and

turological terms,

is

is,

ever that their position

that

it

reified

is

them people,

its

own

therefore, explainable only in cul-

a "mystical metaphysics."

Those who oppose the obvious, to

behaves in accordance with

culturological point of view feel

is

thoroughly

that culture could not exist without real

man, and

and blood human beings

flesh

entity called "culture"— who

how-

realistic. It is so plain, so

—not

a

do things; anyone can see

this for himself.

As we have previously rely in science

upon the

tried to

out

human

clear,

one cannot always

"self-evident" features of

observation and reasoning.

Of

common

sense

course culture could not exist with-

beings. Obviously

milk, speak English or

make

men

cast votes,

some other language,

drink or loathe

believe in witches or

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

4O7

make

other causative agents, build ships,

The

anti-culturologists

To

scientific interpretation of things.

prizes milk as a beverage

is

knows

"—that drinks the milk or

also that observation of

Why

well that or

rejects

an event does the

milk, believe in witches or bacteria, etc.?

the behavior of the

loathes or

merely to recognize an event, not to

it. The culturologist knows full human organism— and not "a rarefied

an explanation thereof.

man

say that a

explain

'culture'

war, play pinochle, etc.

confuse the existence of things with a

human organism

it

is

it

as

man,

is

entity

reified

a

called

loathsome. But he

not the same thing as

man prize or loathe the The culturologist explains

in

terms of external, extra-

somatic cultural elements that function as stimuli to evoke the response and give

knows the

it its

human

And

form and content.

also that the culture process

the culturologist

explainable in terms of

is

organism, collectively and individually,

is

itself;

irrelevant—

not to the culture process itself— but to an explanation of the ture process.

We

glandular-etcetera organization that

such things

From

as clans,

is

man

as

though culture had a

an existence of

in interpretations of

codes of law, grammars, philosophies,

the standpoint of an explanation of

proceed

cul-

need not consider the neuro-sensory-muscular-

life of its

own independently

its

human

behavior,

own, even

of the

etc.

as if it

human

we had

species.

Lowie observed long ago, "but sound scientific method"; a procedure, we might add, that is taken for granted in the more mature fields of science such as physics. The "This

is

law of

not mysticism"

as

falling bodies treats

them

as

if

they pass through a perfect

vacuum. Physicists frequently attack and solve problems by considering vehicles that

book

I

read:

"A

rigid

move without body

is

any forces that are applied to to say: "Such do not exist" culturologists

a

A

body

is

friction.

In

one whose shape it."

my is

physics text-

not altered by

But the next sentence goes on

only an ideal conception, for rigid bodies

person with the philosophic outlook of our anti-

would

find these physicists "unrealistic," too.

They

THE SCIENCE OF CULT3K,

408

would

reject

the law of falling bodies because

event that never actually occurs.*

and

vehicles as "mystical"

They would

describes

it

.'

dismiss frictioi.ie^ "abstractions."

reject rigid bodies as

The

point of view of the anti-culturologist simply cannot realize

that

it is

is

precisely because

he works

in this

able to achieve significant results. It

is

way that the

physicist

precisely because the law

of falling bodies does not describe any particular event that

has universal significance and

"The paradox

validity.

now

is

it

fully

Whitehead, "that the utmost abstractions are weapon with which to control our thought of concrete

established/' says

the true fact."

'

The

culturologist proceeds along the

same

lines,

with the same

outlook and the same techniques of interpretation, as the physicist. Cultures can no

without

friction.

pendent of

man

more exist without men than But one may regard culture just as

they were independent actually tion.

were

The

rigid.

the physicist

may

of friction, or deals

These

vehicles can as

if

it

move

were inde-

consider vehicles as

with bodies

as

if

if

they

are effective techniques of interpreta-

whom the sun obviously moves whom falling bodies must pass through an whom frictionless vehicles and rigid bodies do

realism of those to

around the earth, for atmosphere, for

not *

exist;

We

the realism of those

have, in a recent

who

insist that

it

is

people not

work by R. H. Lowie, a good example of the con-

fusion of thought that results from a failure to understand one of the elementary techniques of science due to this attitude of pseudo-realism. In a

consideration of laws of cultural evolution he says that "there are

bound

to

produced by special causes [quotbe so many 'deviations from uniformity ing Lewis H. Morgan]' that a law, if operative, could hardly be discovered by human reason" (Social Organization, p. 53). The significance of Newton's work finds no appreciation here. No two bodies fall alike; the "deviations from uniformity" are as numerous as the falling bodies themselves. Yet the human mind was quite able to discover a principle common to all particular events and to express it in the form of a thoroughly adequate scientific law. Of course, a law of cultural evolution would describe no actual series of events any more than the law of Newton describes any particular falling body. But infinite variety of particulars does not preclude universals; on the contrary, particulars imply and presuppose universaJs. How quaint then to expect a scientific law, a statement of the universal, to describe this and that particular. .

.

.

SCIENCE OF CULTURE

who

ire

etc.,

enamel their nails, loathe milk, form of pseudo-realism that has no place in

vote, speak English,

a pathetic

is

409

science.

"During the

hundred

last

become

years," writes Lowie, "it has

increasingly clear that culture

.

.

.

[is]

domain

a distinct

.

.

,

that

demands for its investigation a distinct science." ^ But what are we to call our new science? We have taken much pains to demonstrate the fundamental difference between a science of culture and the sciences of psychology and sociology; these terms are therefore quite unsuitable. 'Anthropology' also reasons.

The term

used to designate so

is

almost meaningless.

It

is

unsuitable for

many

many

things as to be

includes Physical Anthropology, which in

human paleontology, comparative morphology of human genetics, physiology and psychology, etc. Cul-

turn embraces primates, tural

anthropology

variously conceived as psychology, psycho-

is

analysis, psychiatry, sociology, applied anthropology, history,

would not be facetious

so on. It

and

at all to define anthropology as

the activity that a person, bearing the professional label "anthropologist," engages in.

As

a

matter of

fact,

the late Franz Boas once

suggested that "the whole group of anthropological

may be

evanescent, that they

may be

at

bottom

psychological problems, and that the whole field

phenomena

biological

and

of anthropology

belongs either to the one or to the other of these sciences." Thus,

Boas not only

failed to recognize a science of culture

suggested that anthropology itself "will a

method

that

may be

than a science by

applied by a great

itself."

^

The term

but even

become more and more number of sciences, rather

"anthropology"

is

therefore

quite unsuited to our purpose.

But

is

not the answer to our problem obvious? Does not the

solution lie right before our eyes?

What

else

could one

science of culture but culturology? If a science of

mammalogy,

call

mammals

a is

of music, musicology, of bacteria, bacteriology, etc.,

why should not

a science of culture be culturology?

Our

reasoning

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

410

seems perfectly legitimate and proper, our conclusion sensible and sound. Yet, so conservative, timid, or indifferent are many of the workers in the sciences of

an innovation

as a

new

man

that so radical

and revolutionary

an old familiar word seems pre-

suffix for

some other way.

tentious, absurd, or objectionable in

We

recall

the objections that were raised to Spencer's use of the term "sociology."

As he

tells

us in the introduction to his Principles of

him from using the word

Sociology, his friends tried to dissuade

on the ground that

it

was a "barbarism." Similarly today, some

scholars find that culturology grates harshly

upon

Thus,

their ears.

V. Gordon Childe writes that "the prejudices engendered by Literae Humanioies are too strong to allow [him] to adopt White's term 'culturology'."

*

Similarly

L. Myres, in a review of

J.

Expansion of the Scope of Science," barous name." It

calls

°

appears that those

who condemned

Spencer's use of "soci-

ology" as a "barbarism" did so on etymological grounds: derived from both Latin and Greek. This,

make

"The

"culturology" a "bar-

it

seems,

is

it

is

enough to

a purist's flesh crawl. But, for better or for worse, the trends

and processes of sibilities.

from

living languages

The Anglo-American

foreign

languages— taboo,

have

little

regard for such sen-

language readily absorbs words

shaman,

coyote,

tobacco— and

new words ("kodak") or new forms ("trust-buster") rather Nor does it hesitate to resort to hybridizations and other improvisations upon occasion, such as numerology, thermocouple,

creates easily.

thermopile, automobile,

etc., as

well as sociology. "Television"

one of the most recent offspring of though Professor Childe does not that "such hybrids linguistic progress."

seem

like "culturology"

he remarks

to accord with the general tendency of

H. L. Mencken, the distinguished authority

on the American language,

finds "culturology" a "rather

clumsy

we have

"estab-

word, but nevertheless logical," and he lished the fact that

is

linguistic miscegenation. Al-

it

feels that

ought to be used."

*

We feel as did Spencer

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

411

that "the convenience and suggestiveness of our symbols are of more importance than the legitimacy of their derivation."

We may

call attention, in this

connection, to the fact that the

departments of anthropology at the University of Chicago and at the Chicago Natural History Museum have been using the term

"museology" for some time to designate the

and management.

ganization, equipment,

in the sense of "science of," then

"museum

science"

is

no more

If

museum

art of

"-ology"

museology

a

is

is

or-

interpreted

misnomer,

for

a science than "library science,"

"military science," or "domestic science" are sciences; they are

not sciences.

arts,

If

"museology" can become respectable, why not

"culturology," for which there

is

more

justification

on etymological

grounds?

The

concept of a science of culture

have made

an old one;

clear,

it

but

relatively very little,

and

specific sense in

ago,

and today

it is

in the exact

over a third of a century

being used on at least three continents. of the Sciences," delivered in 1915

(see p. 116), the distinguished

winner,

it,

first

"culturology" has

was employed

it

which we use

"The System

In his address,

as the preceding pages

The term

chapter of Pnmitive Culture in 1871.

been used

is,

goes back at least to Tylor's

Wilhelm Ostwald,

while ago [emphasis ours] to

German chemist and Nobel

said

"I

call

the

prize

proposed, therefore, a long field in

of civilization or culturology (Kulturologie)."

question the science

We have not been

^

able as yet to discover this earlier use, or uses, of this term by him.

Fourteen years after the publication of Ostwald's "The System of the Sciences,"

Read Bain,

a sociologist, speaks of "culturology"

American Sociology, edited by

in a chapter written for

Trends

in

Geo. A. Lundberg and

others.^

The

term

however; he seems to equate "culturology"

is

not wholly

clear,

sense in which he used the

with sociology in one place and with

human

He

between

also speaks of the "close kinship

and culturology." believe, in

"A

ecology in another. social

psychology

used "culturology" in print in 1939, I Problem in Kinship Terminology," ^ although I had I

first

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

412

employed

my

in

it

courses for years prior to this time. Dr.

Cheng

Che-Yu subtitled his Oriental and Occidental Cultures Contrasted, published in Berkeley in 1943, "An Introduction to Cul-

He

turology."

me

has written

he had previously used not

that

only "culturology," but "culturosophy," in publications in Chinese.

Wen

Huang

Professor

National Sun

Shan, of the Institute of Anthropology,

Yat Sen University, Canton, has published a

num-

ber of articles on culturology in Chinese, and he has informed

me

book on culturology now

that he has a

cently seen an advertisement for a

by

turologia,

course, there

}.

book

in progress. I

entitled

have

re-

Epitome de Cul-

Imbelloni, published in Buenos Aires. And, of

may be

other instances that have not

come

to

my

attention.

The Chinese language

is

apparently

innovations as "culturology" than

Chinese

is

wen wha

common Chinese grate

upon the

is

more congenial

to such

English. ''Culturology" in

(culture) hsueh (science of).

Both words are

terms and their combination seems not to

ears of

Chinese scholars or to wound their sen-

sibilities.

But the objections

not wholly philologic by

to "culturology" are

any means. Linguistic objections come readily to the surface; but deep down underneath

views and values that will oppose the

lie

adoption and use of this term even more strongly than will the classicist

nourished in the Literae Humaniores. "Culturology"

specifies a sector of reality

upon the

trespasses

and defines a

prior claims of psychology

does more than trespass, of course; it

makes

it

it

lie

it

sociology. It is,

problems

within the provinces of psychology and soci-

ology as previously supposed, but belong

by— a

and

expropriates as well. Tliat

clear that the solution of certain scientific

does not properly

only

science. In so doing

to— i.e., can be

solved

science of culture. Psychologists and sociologists alike

are loath to admit that there are problems pertaining to the be-

havior of

man

that

lie

outside

their

domains; and they arA

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE inclined to resent

413

and oppose an upstart science that claims them

for itself.

But most of

perhaps, culturology repudiates and rejects a philosophy that has been dear to the hearts of men for ages, and still

and nourishes many

inspires

man. This

all,

the ancient and

is

a social scientist as well as laystill

anthropocentrism and Free Will.

What

culture does this or that! is

not culture that does things;

human feels,

beings. It

and

acts.

is

respectable

"What

culture but an abstraction? It

people, real flesh and blood

it is

who

always the individual

is

Anyone can

see this for himself!

what

to talk of a science of culture;

in

effect operates in

everywhere

How

absurd then

As

is

all

too prevalent

American anthropology today,

Culturology means determinism,

and

and

really thinks,

a distortion of reality!"

the preceding pages have shown, this view

and vigorous

philosophy of

nonsense to say that

else in

tural situation has

also.

The

principle of cause

phenomena

the realm of cultural

our experience of the cosmos.

Any

does

as it

given cul-

been determined by other cultural events.

If

certain cultural factors are operative, a certain result will eventuate.

Contrariwise, certain cultural consummations cannot be realized,

however devoutly they may be wished, unless the to

factors requisite

the consummation are present and operative. This

self-

is

evident in meteorology and geology, but in the interpretation of

human it is

behavior

it

is

still

called "fatalism"

and "defeatism";

or,

regarded as immoral-and-therefore-false.

The

sweet soothing illusion of omnipotence

market and

and shape

a great it

as

cultural destiny

demand.

we and

We can

"Mankind under God

will.

free to

is

still

lay hold of our

choose and

finds a ready

own

destiny

own

controls his

realize the

ends

Educators can control the culture process by "establishing

.

.

/'

cer-

tain value systems in his pupils." Psychologists will "study scientifically

the sources of

remove them,"

,

.

.

[war] in

Social scientists

trolling cultural forces

men's minds and

will

scientifically

perfect formulas for con-

and the mastery of our destiny

if

only the

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

414

them anything like the financial support given the makers of the atomic bomb, etc., etc. Science, it appears, is to become the handmaiden of a species of modern federal

government

will give

magic; the social scientist, to assume the role of a super-shaman. It

and force of

against the weight

is

this

this passion of free will,

premise of anthropocentrism, that a science of culture must

make

way.^°

its

But these non-linguistic objections to "culturology" serve also effectively to emphasize the need for a special term with which to designate our

new

science and to reveal the peculiar fitness of

"culturology" for this purpose. ture

"demands

for

its

The

"distinct

domain" that

investigation a distinct science," as

is

cul-

Lowie

has argued for over two decades. Durkheim, too, saw the "need to

formulate entirely

new concepts

appropriate terminoJogy."

means of concepts made effectively,

science

to

We

.

.

,

[and to express them] in an

think and work in science only by

explicit

in

symbolic form.

To

think

make fundamental distinctions, without which we must have precision tools, exact con-

impossible,

is

cepts."

"Psychology" labels a distinct

class of

phenomena the :

reactions

But it does not distinguish cul-. phenomena from non-cultural, and the interpretation of the

of organisms to external stimuli. tural

interaction of extra-somatic elements in the culture process lies

beyond

its

proper boundaries. "Sociology," too, suffers from the

"fatal defect" of failure to distinguish the cultural

Ostwald and Kroeber pointed out long ago.

as

ture to

its

basic concept of interaction,

from the

social,

It assimilates cul-

making culture an

aspect,

or a by-product, of the social process of interaction whereas the structures

As

and processes of human society are functions of

a matter of fact,

we have

in "sociology" a

culture.

good example of

the confusion of thought that flows from the use of an ambiguous

and equivocal terminology.^^

The term "anthropology" different

has been used to designate so

many

kinds of activities— measuring crania, excavating pot-

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE sherds,

ceremonies,

observing

whole

natives, psychoanalyzing

and crafts— that

arts

415

it

studying

clans,

civilizations,

psychoanalyzing

tracing histories of

now

could not well be restricted

to the

and particular task of interpreting the culture process and that alone. "Cultural anthropology" also has been used to specific

And

designate a great variety of kinds of interpretation.

anthropology"

With

is

virtually indistinguishable

the expansion of the scope of science, a

The

and interpretation of

of phe-

class

nomena was distinguished from the psychological and It was named "culture" by those who discovered and analysis

"social

from "sociology." the social. isolated

it.

this distinct class of events has

been called the science oi culture by numerous anthropologists— Kroeber, Lowie, Murdock, and others— since Tylor

first

coined

the phrase in 1871.

And what is a science of culture but culturology? With this we shall make it plain, to even the least discerning mind,

term

continuum

that the extra-somatic

the same thing at

all

of symbol-borne events

as a class of reactions of

human

not

is

organisms

considered individually or collectively; that the interaction of cultural elements

action, of

we

is

human

not the same thing as the reactions, or

organisms.

We

may seem

to exaggerate

inter-

when

claim that a change in terminology can and will produce a

profound change

in thinking

and point of view. But,

pointed out, until the distinction ture" was

made

clear,

it

as

Poincare

between "heat" and "tempera-

was impossible to think

effectively of

thermal phenomena. "The true discoverer," says Poincare, "will

workman who has patiently built up some of these combinations, but the man who has brought out their relations The invention of a new word will often he sufficient to bring out not be the

.

the relation, and the word will be creative." the significance of "culturology": the

human

This

is,

.

of course,

brings out the relation between

organism, on the one hand, and the extra-somatic

tradition that

and

it

^^

.

defines a

is

culture on the other. It

new

science.

is

creative;

it

establishes

CHAPTER REFERENCES CHAPTER 1.

2.

SCIENCE

1.

IS

SCIENCING

Shapley, 1920, 1924. Douglass, 1929.

3.

Einstein, 1929, p. 107.

4.

Minkowski,

p. 75. Einstein, 1936, p. 350

ff.; 1934, p. 33. Kroeber, 1931. 7. J. Jeans et ah, 1931a; Russell, 1929.

5.

6.

CHAPTER 1.

2.

THE SYMBOL

Hankins, pp. 56, 327; Linton, 1936, pp. 79, 68, 60; Goldenweiser,

1937, p. 39. 2. 3.

4. 5.

Descartes, p. 189. Carlson, pp. 477-79.

Locke, Book III, Ch. 9. ibid.. Book IV, Ch. 11.

Kellogg, p. 289. Locke, Book II, Chs. 11, 10. 8. Tylor, 1881, pp. 54, 123. 9. Carlson, p, 477; Bernard, L. L., 1927a, p. 399; Yerkes, p. 301; Hooton, 1931, p. 167. 10. Hooton, 1931, p. 153. 11. Cf. Thomas, pp. 50-54, 776-777. 12. Keller, 23-24, 303-317, passim. -

6.

7.

CHAPTER

3.

ON THE

1.

Argyll, p. 147.

2. 3.

Clodd, p. 217. Schmidt, 1934, p. 41.

4.

Schnierla, 1948.

5.

6.

USE OF TOOLS BY PRIMATES

Hooton, 1931, pp. 138-39. Lowie, 1929, p. 5.

7. Yerkes, p. 8.

347. Tylor, 1881, p. 51.

9.

Hooton, 1931, pp. 139, 136.

10. Kohler, p. 295. 11. ibid., p. 277.

416

REFERENCES 12.

Dewey,

417 p. i.

13. Kroeber, 1928, p. 340.

CHAPTER

4.

1.

Newman,

2.

Case, p.

3.

Huxley, p. 35.

IS

MINDING

164.

p.

3.

CHAPTER 1.

MIND

5.

Gumplowicz,

THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE

p. 74.

Giddings, 1896, pp. 24, 25. 3. Cattell, p. 597; Baldwin, p. 621. 4. Allport, F. H., pp. 12, 4; Washburn, 1946; Gault, 1927. 5. Blackmar, p. 786; Ward, 1903, p. 59; Giddings, 1906, pp. 788, 794 and 1896, Preface; Hobhouse, p. 130; Salomon, p. 140; Ellwood, 1906, p. 859; Small, pp. 35, 622; Giddings, 1932, p. 402; Bernard, L. L., 1927b, 2.

p. 348.

Ross, p. 869; Maclver, 1937, p. vii. p. 19; Bain, 1942, p. 87 and 1929, p. 110; NimkoflF, p. 63; Ellwood, 1944, p. 6. 6.

7.

Young, 1934,

Ogburn and

Groves, p. 23; Groves and Moore, pp. 13-14; Young, 1942, p. 36. Lynd, pp. 72, 186 et passim; Bernard, J., p. 68. 10. Simmel, p. 665; Spykman, p. 27. 11. Gary, p. 182. 12. Ellwood, 1944, pp. 6, 14, 13; Willey, p. 208; Willey and Herskovits, 8.

9.

p. 191. 13. Maclver, 1930, p. 181 and 1934, p. 243; Lynd, pp. 22, 27; Bernard, L. L., 1942, p. 800. 14. Kroeber, 1936, pp. 331, 333. 15. Tylor, 1871, pp. 5, 8. 16. Durkheim, 1938, p. Ivi and 1915, p. 16.

17. 18. 19.

Durkheim, 1897, Durkheim, 1938, Durkheim, 1915,

p. p. p.

354. li.

16 and 1938, pp. 110, 102.

20. Kroeber, 1917, pp. 192, 206. 21. Kroeber, 1919, p. 263 and 1928, p. 325. 22. Kroeber, 1923, p. 325. 23. Kroeber, 1936, pp. 338, 337. 24. Lowie, 1917, pp. 17, 66, 95 and 1936, pp. 301, 307. 25. Wissler, 1923, pp. 99, 247, 363 and 1927, pp. 75, 87. 26. Wissler, 1927, pp. 62-63, 73' ^4-

27. Wissler, 1923, pp. 333-334. 28. Durkheim, 1933, pp. 285-286. 29. Goldenweiser, 1927, pp. 85, 86. 30. Boas, 1928, p. 235; Benedict, 1934, p. 251

and 1943,

p. 31.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

418 31. Schmidt, 1939, p. 7. 32. Bidney, 1944, p- 42. 33. Radcliffe-Brown, 1940, pp. 34. Hallowell, pp. 175, 174.

10-11 and 1937, pp. 21, 71.

35. Linton, 1936, pp. 288-89, 363. 36. Herskovits, 1945, pp- 150, 158.

37. Hooton, 1937, pp. 272, 223; 1939, p. 38. Hart, 1938.

370 and 1943a,

p. 5.

39. Meggers, pp. 195-97. 40. Gillin, 1939, p. 45. 41. Goldenweiser, 1933, p. 59; Boas, 1936, p. 137 and 1932, p. 612; Sapir, 1917, p. 442; Benedict, 1939, p. 467; Hallowell, p. 174; Linton, 1936, p. 464.

42. See, especially, 1937, pp. 16, 154, 269-70, 294-95, 43. Kroeber, 1944, pp. vii, 763. 44. Tylor, 1871, p. 2.

45. Durkheim, 1938, p. Iviii. 46. Kroeber, 1919, p. 263.

47.

Mead,

p. 13.

CHAPTER

6.

CULTUROLOGICAL

INTERPRETATIONS OF 1.

Durkheim, 1893,

2.

Seligman, p. 238. Havens, pp. 21-22.

3.

4.

Rivers, p. 2.

5.

Williams, p. 83.

6.

Morgan,

7. Allport, 8.

9.

10. 11. 12.

13.

p.

p. 390; 1938, p. 104.

p. 22.

Sheen, 1948. Breasted, 1909, pp. 516, 449. Boas, 1945, p. 101. Benedict, 1942, p. 763. Boas, 1945, pp. 77-78. Kroeber, 1936, pp. 331, 333.

7.

CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF MIND

1.

Durkheim, 1938, pp.

2.

Kroeber, 1944, p. 224. Linton, 1945, p. 5.

3.

5.

6.

1-2; Radcliffe-Brown,

Goldenweiser, 1933, p. 59. Sapir, 1916, p. 43. Benedict, 1934, p. 253.

7. Wissler, 1927, p. 87. 8.

PSYCHOLOGICAL

505.

G. W.,

CHAPTER

4.

VS.

HUMAN BEHAVIOR

Linton, 1938, p. 248.

9. Hallowell, p. 174.

1934, p. 531.

REFERENCES

4^9

10. Goldenweiser, 1935, p. 75; Malinowski, 1939, p. 964. 11. Sapir, 1917, p. 442. 12. James, 1880. 13.

Newton,

p. 544.

14. Breasted, 1909, p. 357. 15. White, L. A., 1942, p. 82. 16. Tylor, 1871, pp. 306-07.

by Gumplowicz, p. 45, Gumplowicz, pp. 156-57.

17. quoted 18.

19. NovicoflF, pp. 2 10-2 n.

CHAPTER

8.

GENIUS:

Galton, p. 40. Galton, p. 342. 3. Spencer, 1873, p. 28 4. James, 1880, p. 453.

Its

Causes and Incidence

1.

2.

5.

ibid., p.

ff.

449.

Hewett, p. 140; Hooton, 1943b, p. 4; Frank, p. 476; Millikan, p. 214; Goldenweiser, 1922, p. 26; Boas, 1945, p. 76; Wissler, 1923, p. 331; Linton^, 1936, p. 95. 6.

James, 1880, p. 453. ibid., pp. 445, 457, 453. 9. Cooley, p. 346. 10. James, 1880, p. 454. 11. Kroeber, 1917, p. 200. 12. idem. 7. 8.

13. Bell, 1937, p. 532. 14. Hecht, pp. 98-99. 15.

Quoted

in Shapley,

1943, p. 147.

16. Cooley, pp. 352-53.

17. Ostwald, 1910, p. 185. 18. White, L. A., 1945. 19. Kroeber, 1917; Sapir, 1917.

CHAPTER

9.

IKHNATON: The

Great

Man

Vs. the

Culture Process Kroeber, 1944, p. 839; 1923, p. 133. 1909, p. 357. 3. Breasted, 1912, p. 339. 4. Breasted, 1909, p. 362; 1912, p. 342; 1929, p. 78; Weigall, p. 68; Hall, p. 58; Breasted, 1912, p. 342; Gardiner, p. 858; Moret, 1912, p. 45, 5. Budge, pp. 106, 77-78; Baikie, p. 315; Steindorff and Seele, pp. 201,. 80; Pendlebury, p. xiv. 6. Breasted, 1929, pp. 79, 78. 7. Breasted, 1929, p. 80; Weigall, pp. 46, 51, 91. 1.

2. Breasted,

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

420 8.

9.

Moret, 1927, Moret, 1927,

p. 441. p. 319.

10. Weigall, pp. 6g, 70;

Moret, 1927, p. 319.

11. Roosevelt, p. 114. 12. Harrington, p. 413.

13. Breasted, 1909, p. 62. 14. ibid., p. 171.

15. ibid., p. 247. 16. idem. 17. Breasted, 1909, p. 272. 18. Glanville, p. 135; Feet, 1926, pp. 202-03.

19. Breasted, 1909, p. 362; Peet, 1926, pp. 202-03. 20. Budge, p. 76; Glanville, p. 124; Steindorff and Seele, pp. 77-80. 21. Steindorff and Seele, p. 221; Glanville, pp. 134-36. 22. Steindorff

and

Seele, pp. 223-26.

23. ihid., p. 242. 24. Baikie, pp. 426-27. 25. Scharff, p. 144. 26. Breasted, 1909, p. 401. 27. ibid., pp. 402, 403.

28. ihid., pp. 475, 489, 490. 29. ibid., pp. 491-92. 30. ibid., p. 494.

and Seele, p. 254. and Seele, pp. 256, 269; Breasted, 1909, pp. 506-07. 33. Steindorff and Seele, p. 270; cf. Edgerton, p. 153, who alludes to a tiew and different interpretation of Hrihor's role in this political drama. 31. ibid., p. 496; Steindorff 32. Steindorff

34. Breasted, 1909, p. 359. 35. ibid., pp. 170-71. 36.

Breasted, 1933, p. 145.

37. Breasted, 1912, pp. 312, 315. 38. Breasted, 1933, p. 296; Peet, "Akhenaten, Ty, etc.," pp. 93, 96-97, 102; Peet, 1926, p. 205. 39. Breasted, 1909, p. 362; Moret, 1912, p. 45. 40. Moret, 1927, p. 324. 41. Peet, 1926, p. 203.

42. Peet, "Akhenaten, Ty, etc." 43. Peet, 1926, p. 207. 44. Budge, p. 152. 45. ibid., p. 41. 46. Peet, "Akhenaten, Ty, etc.," p. 86; see, also, Derry, p. 115,

and Engel-

bach, p. 99. 47. Peet, "Akhenaten, Ty, etc.," p. 86. 48. Newberry, p. 51; Steindorff 49. Breasted, 1909, p. 272.

and

Seele, p. 223; Pendlebury, p. 29.

50. Breasted, 1909, pp. 367, 399; Weigall, pp. 71, 144, 139.

51. Weigall, p. 71; Breasted, 1909, p. 369.

REFERENCES

42i

52. Weigall, p. 98. 53. ibid., pp. 46, 51, 91. 54. Moret, 1927, p. 319; Ruffer, pp. 168, 170, 336; Gardiner, p. 858. 55. Weigall, p. xvii; Smith, 1912, pp. 51, 54; Sethe, pp. 127-28; Engelbach, 1931; Derry, 1931; Peet, "Akhenaten, Ty, etc."; Pendlebury, p. 9.

56. Smith, 1923, p. 84; 1912, pp. 54-55; Derry, p. 117, 57. Weigall, p. 69; Ruffer, p. 332; Breasted, 1909, p, 329. 58. Smith, 1912, p. 55. 59. Ruffer, pp. 332-333.

60. Ruffer, pp. 170, 333. 61. Newberry, pp. 51, 50; Steindorff and Seele, p. 222. 62. Weigall, p. 52. 63. Peet, 1926, p. 205. 64. Baikie, pp. 304, 311, 313-14. 65. Pendlebury, pp. xiv, 7, 148, 126; Frankfort, p. 29. 66. Weigall, p. io6. 67. Breasted, 1912, p. 334; 1909, p. 377. 68. Breasted, 1929, p. 80; 1912, p. 342.

69. Weigall, p. 175. 70. Breasted, 1909, pp. 356, 385; Peet, "Akhenaten," pp. 106-07. 71. Weigall, pp. 196, 202, 207. 72. Breasted, 1909, p. 377; 1933, p. 296. 73. Weigall, p. 101. 74. Hyvernat, p. 339. 75. Pohle, p. 410. 76. Hyvernat, p. 345. 77. Slochower, p. 46. 78.

Mann, 1942,

p. 13.

79. Freud, 1939.

CHAPTER 1.

10.

THE LOCUS OF MATHEMATICAL REALITY

Somerville, pp. 140-41.

2. Somerville, p. 375; 3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

Quoted by

White, A. D.,

I,

p. 225, ftn.

Bell, 1931, p. 20.

Hardy, 1941, pp. 63-64. Bridgman, p. 60. Kasner and Newman, p. 359. Descartes, Pt. I, Sec. XVIII,

p. 308.

N. Altshiller-Court refers to Durkheim's treatment of this point "Geometry and Experience," (Scientific Monthly, January, 1945). 9. White, L. A., 1943. 8.

in

10. Einstein, 1929. 11. Kasner

and Newman,

p. 359. 143. the Nature of Axioms," in Science and Hypothesis, Poincar^,

12. Schrodinger, 13.

1913.

"On

p.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

422 14. 15. 16.

Quoted by Bell, 1937, p. Durkheim, 1938, p. Ivi. Durkheim, 1915, p. 424;

16.

see, also,

1938, p.

17. Einstein, 1934, pp- 58, 69, 57. 18. Hadamard, p. 50. 19 "Mathematical Creation," in Science

li.

and Method,

in Poincar^, 1913,

20. ibid., p. 393. 21. Quoted by Leuba, p. 240. 22. Goncourt, p. 98. 23. Leuba, p. 241. 24. Hardy, 1941, p. 63. 25. Hardy, 1929, p. 4.

26. Hardy, 1941, pp. 62-63, 65.

CHAPTER 11. THE DEFINITION AND PROHIBITION OF INCEST 1.

Tylor, 1888, p. 267.

Lowie, 1920, p. 15. Goldenweiser, 1937, p. 303. 4. Morgan, pp. 69, 378, 424. 5. Mahaffy, p. 1. 2. 3.

6. Cf. Montagu for discussion of this point as well as for extensive bibliography. 7. Malinowski, 1929a, pp. 153 ff., 3, 171. 8.

Freud, 1931, p. 247.

9.

Westermarck, table of contents Durkheim, 1898, p. 50 ff.

10.

for

Chapter XX,

11. Linton,

1936, pp. 125-26. 1922, p. 242; 1937, p. 303. 13. Young, 1942, p. 406.

12. Goldenweiser,

14. Wissler, 1929, p. 145. 15.

Goldenweiser, 1922, p. 242; 1937, p. 303.

16. Lowie, 1920, p. 15. 17.

Wissler, 1927.

18. Lowie,

1920, pp. 65-66. Radcliffe-Brown, 1930, p. 435. 20. Ogburn, 1933, pp. 661-62. 21. Freud, 1920, p. 269. 19.

22. Lowie, 1940, p. 233; Fortune, 1932, p. 622. 23. Young, 1942, p. 406. 24. Fortune, p. 620. 25. Malinowski, 1931, p. 630; 1929b, p. 407. 26. Scligman, pp. 243-44, ^47, 268-69; Gillin,

ct seq.;

Thomas,

p. 197.

27. Freud, 1931, pp. 250-51.

1936, p. 93; Firth, p. 324

REFERENCES

423

28. Freud, "Contributions to the 29. Freud, 1930, pp. 63, 68, 72. 30. Cooper, p. 20.

Theory of Sex,"

in

1938, pp. 616-17.

31. Freud, 1930, p. 74.

CHAPTER

12.

MAN'S CONTROL OVER CIVILIZATION

2.

Durkheim, 1938, p. Iviii. Ogburn, 1922, p. 346.

3.

Jeans, 1931b, p. 109.

1.

4. Field, p. 9. 5.

6. 7. 8.

9.

Westgate, p. 165. Schmidt, 1939, p.

8; Sieber and Mueller, pp. 119-120. Childe, 1936, p. 19. Kroeber and Richardson, p. 148; Kroeber, 1919.

Durkheim, 1938, p. xlvi. and Richardson, Durkheim, 1915, p. 27.

10. Kroeber 11.

p. 152.

12. Bassett, pp. 25-26. Allport, p. 23. 13. G.

W.

14. Wissler, 1923, p. 8. 15. ibid., pp. 8-10. 16.

Durkheim, 1897, pp. 427-28.

17. Kroeber, 1919, p. 263. 18. James, 1890, p. 2439; 1880, p. 442.

19. Tylor, 1871, pp. 2, 24. 20. Whitehead, p. 94.

21. Frank, p. 475.

CHAPTER 13. ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE MacCurdy,

3.

II, p. 134; Ostwald, 1907, p. 511. Childe, 1936, pp. 7, 9. Schlesinger, pp. 247-48.

4.

Compton,

1.

2.

p. 576.

CHAPTER

14.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

1. Lowie, 1936, p. 301 and 1917, p. 17; Ostwald, 1915b, p. 192; Whitehead, p. 48. 2. Lowie, 1936, p. 301; 1917, p. 17. 3. Boas, 1908, pp. 7, 10. 4. Childe, 1946, p. 251. 5.

Myres, p. 11.

6.

Mencken, personal communication.

7. 8.

Ostwald, 1915a, p. 167; see, also, pp. 168-69; 1915b, pp. 192-94, 205. Bain, 1929, pp. 108, 110-11.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

424 9. White, L. A., 1939, p. 571 10. Bidney, 1946, p. 541; Linton, •

p

.

1941, pp. 9,

16-17;

^

G.

...

W.

...

22. '

Durkheim, 1938, p. 37. 11. Lowie, 1917, p. 17; 1936, PP- 301' 307; Kroeber, 1918, p. 641. 12. Ostwald, 1915a, p. 167; 1915b, p. 192; 13. Poincar6, 1913, p. 371.

.

Allport,

BIBLIOGRAPHY The

following abbreviations are used for those serial publications, handbooks,

and encyclopedias that

AA

are cited

two or more times.

American Anthropologist American Anthropological Association, Memoirs American Journal of Sociology Atlantic Monthly Annales du Service des Antiquites de L'figypte

AAA-M AJS

AM AS

CE EB

SF

Catholic Encyclopedia Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed. Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute Proceedings, Congress of Arts and Sciences, St. Louis, 1904, Vol. 5, Boston, igo6. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters Science Social Forces

SM

Scientific

SWJ

Southwestern Journal of Anthropology

ESS JEA JRAI P-CAS

P-MA S

Monthly

Abel, Th.

1929. "Is a Cultural Sociology Possible?" (AJS 35:739-52). Allport, F.

H.

1924. Social Psychology. Boston. Allport,

G.

W.

1947. "Guide Lines for Research in International Cooperation," (Journal of Social Issues, 3:21-37). Argyll,

Duke

of

1872. Primeval Baikie,

Man. New York.

James

1926. The Bain, Read

Amarna Age. London.

1929. "Trends in American Sociological Theory," (in Trends in American Sociology, G. A. Lundberg, et al., eds.. New York). 1942. "A Definition of Culture," (Sociology and Social Research, 27: 87-94). Baldwin, J. M. 1906. "The History of Psychology," (P-CAS).

425

.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

426

Raymond E. 1946. Letter to Editor, (S, 103:25-26). Bell, E. T. 1931. The Queen of the Sciences. Baltimore. 1937. Men of Mathematics. New York.

Bassett,

Benedict,

Ruth

1934. Patterns of Culture.

New

York.

1939. "Edward Sapir," (AA 41:465-468). 1942. "Primitive Freedom," (AM, 169:756-763). 1943. "Franz Boas as an Ethnologist," (in Franz Boas, 61). A. L. Kroeber et a/.,

1858-1942, by

AAAM

Bernard, Jessie 1929. "History and Prospects of Sociology," (in Trends in American Soci-

G. A. Lundberg

ology,

et aJ, eds.

New

York).

Bernard, L. L. ig27a. "The Psychological Foundations of Society," (in An Introduction to Sociology, J. Davis and H. E. Barnes, eds., Boston). 1927b. "Sociology and Psychology," (in The Social Sciences and their Interrelations, F. Ogburn and Alexander Goldenweiser, eds. New

Wm.

York). 1942. Introduction to Sociology. New York. Bidney, David 1944. "On the Concept of Culture and Some Cultural Fallacies,"

(AA

46:

30-44).

1946. "The Concept of Cultural Crisis," Boas, Franz

(AA 48:534-552),

1908. "Anthropology," (in Columbia University Lectures in Science, Philosophy and Art. New York )

1928. Anthropology and Modern Life. New York. 1932. "Aims of Anthropological Research," (S, 76:605-613). 1936. "History and Science in Anthropology: a Reply," (AA 38:137-141). 1940. Race, Language and Culture. New York. 1945. Race and Democratic Society. New York. Breasted, }. H. 1909. A History of Egypt, revised edition. New York. 1912. The Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt. New York.

1929. "Ikhnaton," (EB). 1933. The Dawn of Conscience. Brett,

G.

New

York.

S.

1929. "History of Psychology," (EB).

Bridgman, P. 1927.

W.

The Logic

of

Modern

Physics.

New

York.

Budge, E. A. Wallis

Tutankhamen, Amenism, etc. London. Anton J. 1926. "The Dynamics of Living Processes," (in TTie Nature and Man, H. H. Newman, ed. Chicago).

1923. Carlson,

of the

World

BIBLIOGRAPHY

427

Case, E. C.

"The Modern Biologist's Attitude Toward the Problem (The Michigan Alumnus Quarterly Review, 40:1-12)

1934. Cattell,

J.

of Life,"

McK.

1906. "Conceptions and Methods of Psychology," (P-CAS) Childe, V. Gordon 1936. Man Makes Himself. London. 1946. "Archeology and Anthropology," (SWJ 2:243-251).

Grahame From Savagery Clodd, Edw. Clark,

1946.

The

1888.

to Civilization.

London.

Story of Creation. London.

Compton, A. H. 1940. "Science Shaping American Culture," (Proceedings, American Philosophical Society, 83:573-582).

Comte, Auguste no date. Positive Philosophy,

translated

edition, Peter Eckler, publisher.

by Harriet Martineau, one volume

New

York. Cooley, C. H. 1897. "Genius, Fame, and the Comparison of Races," (Annals, American

Academy Cooper, John

of Political

and

Social Science, 9:317-358).

M.

1932. "Incest 1-20). Derry, D. E.

Prohibitions

in

Primitive

Culture,"

(Primitive

Man,

5:

1931. "Note

on the Skeleton Hitherto Believed to be that of King Akhenaten," (AS, 31:115-119). Descartes, R. 1901. Discourse on Method (in The Method, Meditations and Philosophy, translated and edited by John Veitch. New York). Dewey, John 1920. Reconstruction in Philosophy. New York. Douglass, A. E. 1929. "The Secret of the Talkative Tree Rings,"

Magazine, 56:737-770). Durklieim, Emile 1803. La Division du Travail.

(National Geographic

Paris.

1897. Le Suicide. Paris. 1898. "La Prohibition de L'Inceste et ses Origincs," (L'Ann6e Sociologique, 1:1-70). 1915. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, translated by J. W. Swain. London. The Division of Labor in Society, translated by George Simpson. New York. 1938. The Rules of Sociological Method, translated by S. A. Solvay and

1933.

J.

H. Mueller. Chicago.

Edgerton, 1947.

Wm.

F.

"The Government and the Governed

in

(Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 6:152-160).

the Egyptian Empire,"

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

^28 Einstein, A.

1929. "Space-Time," (EB). York. 1024. The World as I See It. New of 1936. "Physics and Reahty," (Journal

the

Franklin

Institute,

221:

349-382). Ellwood, C. A. 1906. Remarks (P-CAS). (SF, 23:6-15). 1944. "Culture and Human Society," Eneelbach, R. „ , . r. o \ Akhenaten, (AS, 31:98-114). 1931. "The So-Called Coffin of Field, Stanley

_ ^^ Museum

Progress," (Field 1943. "Fifty Years of Firth,

Raymond We, the

1936. Fortune,

Tikopia.

New

^^

.

^^ News, Vol. 14). ,

York.

Reo

1932. "Incest," (ESS). Frank, L. K. 1944. "What Frankfort, H.

is

Social

Order?" (AJS, 49:470-477).

,„,.,« (m The

Mural Painting of El-Amarneh, Mural Painting of El-Amarneh, H. Frankfort, ed., London).

"The

1929.

Affinities

of the

Freud, S. 1920. General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. New York. 1930. Civilization and its Discontents. New York. 1931. Totem and Taboo, New Republic ed. New York. 1938. The Basic Writings of Library ed. New York).

Sigmund Freud, A. A.

Brill,

ed.

(Modem

1939. Moses and Monotheism. New York. Galton, Francis 1869. Hereditary Genius. London. Gardiner, Alan H. 1917. "Philosophy, Egyptian," (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings, ed. Edinburgh and

New

York).

Gary, Dorothy of Culture," (in Trends in American SociG. A. Lundberg et al., eds. New York). Gault, R. H. 1927. "Recent Developments in Psychology Contributory to Social Explanation," (in Recent Developments in the Social Sciences, E. C. Hayes,

1929.

"The Developing Study

ology,

ed. Philadelphia).

Giddings, F. H. 1896. 1906.

The Principles of Sociology (1921 printing. New York). "The Concepts and Methods of Sociology," (P-CAS).

1932. Civilization and Society. Gillin,

New

York.

John

The Barama River Caribs of British Guiana, Museum, Vol. 14, No. 2. Cambridge).

;i936.

(Papers,

Peabody

BIBLIOGRAPHY

429

i939."Some Unfinished Business of Cultural Anthropology," (Ohio Archeological and Historical Quarterly, 48:44-52). S. R. K. 1929. "Amenophis and his Successors in the XVIIIth Dynasty," (in The Great Ones of Ancient Egypt, W. Brunton et al., London). Goldenweiser, A. 1917. "The Autonomy of the Social," (AA, 19:447-449). 1922. Early Civilization. New York. 1927. "Anthropology and Psychology," (in The Social Sciences and Their Interrelations, F. Ogburn and A. Goldenweiser, eds. New York). 1933. History, Psychology and Culture. New York. Not a Marxist," (Modern Monthly, 9:71-76). 1935. "Why I 1937. Anthropology. New York.

GlanviUe,

Wm.

Am

Goncourt, Journals 1937. L. Galantine, ed. Garden City, Groves, E. R. 1928. Introduction to Sociology. Groves, E. R. and Moore, H. E. 1940. Introduction to Sociology.

New New

New

York.

York. York.

Gumplowicz, Ludwig 1899. Outlines of Sociology. Translated by F.

W.

Moore. Philadelphia.

Hadamard, Jacques 1945. Hall,

The Psychology

of Invention in the Mathematical Field. Princeton.

H. R.

1929. "Egypt, Religion," (EB). Hallowell, A. Irving 1945. "Sociopsychological Aspects of Acculturation," (in The Science of Man in the World Crisis, Ralph Linton, ed. New York).

Hankins, F. H. 1928. An Introduction to the Study of Society. New York. Hardy, G. H. 1929. "Mathematical Proof," (Mind, 38:1-25). 1941. A Mathematician's Apology. Cambridge, England.

Harrington, H.

1929. Hart, C.

"Roman W. M.

Catholic Church" (in part; EB).

1938. "Social Evolution and Modern Anthropology" (in Essays in Political Economy, H. A. Innis, ed. Toronto).

Havens, R. D. 1944.

"The Burden

of Incertitude,"

Hecht, Selig 1947. Explaining the Atom.

New

(University of Rochester).

York.

1940.

M. J. The Economic

1945. the

"The Processes of Cultural Change," (in The World Crisis, Ralph Linton, ed. New York).

Herskovits,

Life of Primitive Peoples.

New

York. Science of

Hewett, Edgar L. 1942. "From Culture to Civilization," (El Palacio, 49:133-142).

Man

in

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

430

Hobhouse, L. T. 1924. Social Development. London. Hooton, E. A. 1931. Up From the Ape. New York. York. 1937. Apes, Men and Morons. New Cambridge. 1939. Crime and the Man. 1943a. "Why We Study Apes and Monkeys," (Fauna, 5:2-6). 1943b. "Morons into What?" (Woman's Home Companion, 70:4, 96). Huxley. T. H. 1870. The Physical Basis of Life. New Haven.

Henry

H>'%'ernat,

1909. "Egypt," (CE). James, 1880. "Great Men, Great Thoughts and the Environment,"

Wm.

(AM,

46:

441-459). 1890. Jeans,

"The Importance

James

of Individuals,"

(The Open Court, 4:2437-2440),

et al

1931a. "The Evolution of the Universe," (Appendix, Report of the Ceor tenary Meeting, British Association for the Advancement of Science). 1931b. Essay in Living Philosophies. New York.

Edw. and Newman, James

Kasner,

1940. Mathematics and the Imagination. Keller,

New

York.

Helen

1903. Kellogg,

The

Story of

My

Life.

New

N. and L. A. 1933. The Ape and the Child.

Kohler,

York.

W.

New

York.

W.

1926. The Mentality of Apes. New York and London. Kroeber, A. L. 1917. "The Superorganic," (AA, 19:163-213). 1918. "The Possibility of a Social Psychology," (AJS, 23:633-650).

"On

1919.

Changes

the

of Order in Civilization (AA, 21:235-263).

Principle

in Fashion,"

1923. Anthropology. New York. 1928. "Sub-Human Cultural Beginnings,"

as

Exemplified

by

(Quarterly Review of Biology,

3:325-342). 1931. "The Culture-Area Concepts of Clark Wissler," (in Methods in Social Science, S. A. Rice, ed. Chicago). 1936. "So-Called Social Science," (Journal of Social Philosophy, 1:317-

340) 1944. Configurations of Culture Growth. Berkeley. 1948. "White's View of Culture," (AA, 50:405-415). Kroeber, A. L. and Richardson, Jane •

1940. Three Centuries of Women's Dress Fashions; a Quantitative Analysis (Anthropological Records, Vol. 5, No. 2, University of California, Berkeley).

Leuba, 1925.

J.

H.

The Psychology

of Religious Mysticism.

London.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

431

Linton, Ralph 1936. The Study of Man. New York. 1938. "The Present Status of Anthropology," (S, 87:241-248). 1941. "Potential Contributions of Cultural Anthropology to Teacher Education," (in Culture and Personality, American Council on Education.

Washington, D. C). 1945. The Cultural Background of Personality. New York. Locke, John 1894. An Essay Concerning the Human Understanding. London. Lowie, R. H. 1917. Culture and Ethnology. New York. 1920. Primitive Society. New York. Civilized? New York. 1929. Are 1933. "The Family as a Social Unit," (P-MA, 18:53-69). 1936. "Cultural Anthropology: a Science," (AJS, 42:301-320). 1940. Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, 2nd ed. New York.

We

Lynd, Robert

S.

1939. Knowledge for

What?

Princeton.

MacCurdy, Geo. G. 1933. Human Origins, 2 Maclver, R. M. 1930.

"The Trend

vols.

New

York.

to Internationalism," (ESS, Vol. 1).

1934. "Sociology," (ESS). Textbook of Sociology. 1937. Society:

A

Mahaflfy,

J.

New

York.

P.

1915. "Cleopatra VI," (JEA, 2:1-4). Malinowski, B. 1929a. The Sexual Life of Savages. London. 1929b. "Kinship," (EB). 1931. "Culture," (ESS). 1939. "The Group and Individual in Functional Analysis," (AJS, 44:938-

964).

Mann, Thomas 1942. "The Theme Maxwell,

J.

of the Joseph Novels." Washington,

Clerk

1892. Matter and Motion.

New

York.

Mead, Margaret 1943. Introduction to

Is

Germany

Incurable? by R.

M.

Brickner. Phil-

adelphia.

Meggers, Betty

J.

1946. "Recent Trends in American Ethnology," (AA, 48:176-214). Millikan, R. A. 1939. "Science and the World Tomorrow," (SM, 49:210-214).

Minkowski, H. 1923. "Space and Time,"

(in

The

Principles of Relativity,

H. Lorentz

London). Montagu, M. F. Ashley al.

1937. "Physiological Paternity in Australia," (AA, 39:175-183).

et

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

432

Moret, Alexandre York. 1912. Kings and Gods of Egypt. London and New Civilization. New York. Egy-ptian and Nile The 1927.

Morgan, L. H. 1877. Ancient Society.

New

York.

Murdock, Geo. P. 1932.

"The

Science of Culture," (AA, 34:200-215).

M\Tes, John L. 1948. Review of White,

"The Expansion

of the Scope of Science,

^ '

(Man,

48:11). Newberrv, P. E. 1932. '"King Ay, the Successor of Tutankhamun," (JEA, 18:50-52),

Newman, H. H. 1926. "The Nature and Origin of Life," (in The Nature and Man, H. H. Newman, ed. Chicago). Newton,

of the

World

Isaac

1934. Principia Mathematica, F. Cajori, ed. Berkeley. Novicoff, Alexander B. 1945. "The Concept of Integrative Levels and Biology," (S, 101:209-215).

Ogburn,

Wm.

F.

1922. Social Change. New York. 1933. "The Family," (in Recent Social Trends in the United States, one

volume edition. New York). Ogburn, Wm. F. and Nimkoff, Meyer F. 1940. Sociology. Boston.

Ogburn,

Wm.

F. and

Thomas, Dorothy

1922. "Are Inventions Inevitable?" (Political Science Quarterly, 37:83-98). Ostwald, Wilhelm 1907. "The Modern Theory of Energetics" (The Monist, 17:481-515).

1910. Natural Philosophy. New York. 1915a. "The System of the Sciences," translated by Thomas L. Blayney (The Rice Institute Pamphlet, 2:101-190. Houston, Texas). 1915b. "Principles of the Theory of Education," English translation (ibid.,

2:191-221

).

Feet, T. E.

1926. "Contemporary Life and History, Vol. 2. New York),

no

date.

Queens Pendkbury,

Thought

in

Egypt," (Cambridge Ancient

"Akhenaten, Ty, Nefertete, and Mutnezemt," (in Kings and of Ancient Egypt, W. Brunton et al. New York). D. S. J.

1935. Tell el-Amarna. London. Pohle, Joseph 1911. "Priesthood," (CE). Poincar^, H.

1913. The Foundations of Science. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R.

New

York.

1923. "The Methods of Ethnology and Social African Journal of Science, 20:124-147).

Anthropology,"

(South

BIBLIOGRAPHY

433

"The

1930-31.

Social Organization of Australian Tribes,"

(Oceania, Vol

to 4). 1934. "Sanction, Social," (ESS). 1937. "The Nature of a Theoretical Natural Science of Society," (University of Chicago, mimeographed notes). 1,

Pts.

"On

1940. Rivers,

1

W.

Social Structure,"

(JRAI, "70:1-12).

H. R.

1916. "Sociology and Psychology," (The Sociological Review, 9:1-13). Roosevelt, Franklin D. Hunt. Los Angeles. 1934. Public Addresses. Compiled by M.

W.

Ross, E. A.

1906. Ruffer,

"The Present Problems Marc A.

of Social Psychology,"

(P-CAS).

1921. Studies in the Palaeopathology of Egypt. R. L. Woodie, ed. Chicago. Russell,

H. N.

1939. "Stellar Evolution." (EB). Salomon, Gottfried 1934. "Social Organism," (ESS). Sapir, E.

Time Perspective in Aboriginal American Culture (Canada Dept. of Mines, Memoir 90. Ottawa). Need a Superorganic?" (AA, 19:441-447). 1917. "Do Scharff, Alexander 1929. "Haremhab," (in The Great Ones of Ancient Egypt, W. Brunton 1916.

We

London).

et al.

Schlesinger, A.

1922. Schmidt,

New

M. Viewpoints in American History.

New

York.

W.

1934. "Primitive Man," (in European Civilization, Ed. Eyre, ed. London). 1939. The Culture Historical Method of Ethnology. New Yorik. Schnierla, T. C.

1948. "Psychology, Comparative," (EB). Schrodinger, Erwin 1935. Science and the Human Temperament.

Seligman, B. Z. 1929. "Incest

and

Descent:

Their

Influence

New on

York. Social

Organization,"

(JRAL 59:231-272). Sethe, Kurt

1921. "Beitrage zur Geschichte Amenophis IV," (Nachrichten von der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philologischhistorische Klasse aus dem Jahre 1921. Berlin). Shapley, Harlow

1920. "Thermokinetics of Lfometopum apiculatum Mayr," (Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences, 6:204-211). 1924. "Note on the Thermokinetics of Dolichoderine Ants," {ibid., 10:

436-439). Shapley, Harlow, ed.

1943.

A

Treasury of Science.

New

York.

THE SCIENCE OF CULTURE

434

Sheen, Fulton J. 1948. "The Psychology of a Frustrated Soul," (The Catholic Hour, National Broadcasting Company, January 4).

Simmel, Georg 1898. "The Persistence of Social Groups," (AJS, 3:662-698). Slochower, Harry 1938. Thomas Mann's Joseph Story.

W.

Small, Albion

1905. General Sociology. Chicago. Smith, G. Elliot 1912. The Royal Mummies. Cairo.

1923. Tutankhamen. London. Somerville, Martha, ed. 1874. Personal Recollections of

Mary

Somerville. Boston.

Spencer, Herbert 1868. "On the Genesis of Science," (Essays: Speculative, Vol. 1. London). 1873. The Study of Sociology. New York.

Spykman, N.

Scientific,

Political

and

J.

Theory of Georg Simmel. Chicago. Geo. and Seele, K. C. 1942. When Egypt Ruled the East. Chicago. Stern, Bernhard J. 1929. "Concerning the Distinction between the Social and the Cultural," 1925.

The

Social

Steindorff,

(SF, 8:264-271). Swanton, John R. 1943. Are Wars Inevitable? (Smithsonian 12. Washington).

Thomas,

Wm.

War

Background Studies, No.

I.

1937. Primitive Behavior. New York. Tylor, E. B. 1871. Primitive Culture. Fifth edition, 1929 printing. London. i88i. Anthropology. London. 1888. "On a Method of Investigating the Development of Institutions; Applied to Laws of Marriage and Descent," (JRAI, 18:245-269). Ward, Lester F. 1895. 1896.

"The "The

Place of Sociology

among

Filiation of the Sciences,"

the Sciences," (AJS, 1:16-27). (report

by

W.

C. Winlock,

292-294). 1903. Pure Sociology. New York. Washburn, Margaret F. 1946. "Social Psychology," (in Encyclopedia Americana). Weigall, Arthur 1923. Tlie Life and Times of Akhnaton. London. Westermarck, Edw. 1921.

The

History of

Human

Marriage, 3 vols. London.

Wcstgate, Lewis G. 1943. "Man's

Long

Story,"

(SM, 57:155-165).

S, 5:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

435

White, A. D.

A

History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 1930 printing. New York, White, Leslie A. 1939. "A Problem in Kinship Terminology," (AA, 41:566-573), 1942. The Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico, AAA-M 60. 1943. "Keresan Indian Color Terms," (P-MA, 28:559-563). 1945. "History, Evolutionism and Functionalism: Three Types of Interpretation of Culture," (SWJ, 1:221-248), Whitehead, Alfred N. 1933. Science and the Modern World. Cambridge, England. Willey, Malcolm M. 1929. "The Validity of the Culture Concept," (AJS, 35:204-219), Willey, M. M. and Herskovits, M. J. 1923. "The Cultural Approach to Sociology," (AJS, 29:188-199). Williams, Mary W.

1896.

2 vols,

1934. "Slavery, Wissler, Clark

Modern," (ESS).

1923. Man and Culture. New York. 1927. "Recent Developments in Anthropology," (in Recent ments in the Social Sciences, E. C. Hayes, ed. Philadelphia), 1929. An Introduction to Social Anthropology. New York, Yerkes, R. M. and A. W. 1929. The Great Apes. New Haven. Young, Kimball 1934. An Introductory Sociology. New York, 1942. Sociology, a Study of Society and Culture. New York,

Develop-

NAME INDEX Case, E. Cattell,

G. W., 130, 342-43, 425 Duke of, 40, 425

Allport, Argyll,

Aristotle, 52 Augustine, Saint, 322-23

Baikie, James, 238, 271,

425

Bain, Read, 83, 411, 425

Baldwin, J. M., 75, 425 Barnes, Harry E., xv Bassett,

Raymond

E., 342,

426

Bastian, Ad., 182 Bell, E. T., 211, 426 Benedict, Ruth, 95, 130-31, 162,

426 Bernard, Jessie, 83, 426 Bernard, L. L., 32, 82, 86, 426 Bidney, David, 95, 108-09, 347,

J.

Darwin, Charles, 14, 27, 40, 229, 296 Day, Clarence, 123 Derry, D. E., 264, 265, 427 Descartes, R., 30, 68, 285,

426 Blackmar, F. W., 82 Boas, P., 65, 95, 104, 136, 194, 409, 426 Breasted,

C,

53, 427 McK., 75, 427 Cheng Che-Yu, 412 Childe, V. Gordon, 203, 332, 365, 410, 427 Clark, Grahame, 41, 427 Clodd, Edw., 40, 427 Compton, A. H., 386-87, 427 Comte, Auguste, 56, 59, 69-70, 427 Condon, E. U., xii Cooley, C. H., 196, 218, 427 Cooper, John M., 326, 427

Abel, Th., 84-85, 425 Allport,F. H.,75,425

H.,

J.

130,

237,

427

Dewey, John, 46, 427 Douglass, A. E., 4, 427 Durkheim, Emile, xix, 72,

238,

239, 245, 247, 251, 253, 255, 256, 257, 261, 266, 273, 274, 275, 426

78, 79, 88-90, 97, 106, 121, 146, 286, 290, 291, 309, 330, 336, 342,

346, 414,

G. S., 52, 426 Bridgman, P. W., 284, 426 Budge, E. A. Wallis, 238, 247,

427

Brett,

Edgerton,

291, 428

258-59, 426 Burgess, E. W., 20

Carlson, A.

J.,

Carroll, Lewis,

24, 32,

Wm.

F., xiii, 252, 427 Einstein, A., 6, 185, 284, 288-89,

George, 298 Ellwood, C. A., 82, 83, 85, 428 Eliot,

Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 279 Engelbach, R., 264, 428

426

282 436

NAME INDEX Eubank, E.

437

E.,

Fan Chen, 52

Hertz, H., 289-90, 291 Hewett, E. L., 193, 429

74 283

Everett, Edw.,

Hobhouse, L. T., 82, 430 Hooton, E. A., 6, 32, 41, 42, 43, 105, 193,430 Huang Wen Shan, 412 Huxley, T. H., 53, 55, 430 Hyvernat, Henry, 430

ftn.

Farrar, Curtis, xv

Farrar, John, xv

Field, Stanley, 331, 428 Firth, Raymond, 325, 428

Fletcher, Alice

C, 66

Fortune, Reo, 324-25, 428 Frank, L. K., 193, 349, 428

Imbelloni,

Frankfort, H., 272, 428 Franklin, Benjamin, 40, 319 Freud, S., 277-78, 307-08, 309-10, 320, 325-26, 328, 428

James,

Galton, F., 191-92, 428 Gardiner, Alan H., 238, 264, 428 Gary, Dorothy P., 84, 428 Gault, R. H., 75, 428 Giddings, F. H., 74, 82, 428 Gillin, John, 104, 325, 428-29 Glanville, S. R. K., 248, 429

Goethe, J. W. von, 297-98 Goldenweiser, Alex., 23, 94, 104, 162, 193-94, 310, 312, 429 Goncourt, the brothers, 298, 429

J.,

412

Wm., 29, 68, 74-75, 131, 163, 192-93, 194, 196-97, 347,

430 Jeans, Sir James, 330-31, Jones, Volney H., xv

430

Kasner, Edw., 284, 289, 430 Keller, Helen, 36-39,

Kellogg, 35-36,

430 N. and L.

W. 430

A.,

27,

Wm.

Knickerbocker, S., xiii Kohler, W., 40, 45, 430 Kroeber, A. L., xiii, xviii, xix, xx, 41, 48, 87, 90-92, 105, 106, 109, 160, 190, 230, 233, 333, 341, 347, 430

Groves, E. R., 83, 429

Gumplowicz, Ludwig, 72, 429

182,

I.,

429

W. M., 103, 429 Havens, Raymond D., 125, 429 Hecht, Selig, 213, 429

Hart, C.

429

J.,

65,

217

W., 14

Lilienthal, David, 125

98-99, 105, 162,

Hankins, F. H., 23, 429 Hardy, G. H., 283-84, 301, 429 Harrington, Rev. H., 195, 243,

M.

L.,

Leo XII, Pope, 159 Leuba, J. H., 422, 430

429

Herskovits,

J.

Leibnitz, G.

Hadamard, J., 292, 429 Hall, H. R., 237, 429 Hallowell, A.

Lagrange,

85,

104,

Linton, Ralph, 23, 105, 107-08, 130, 161, 162, 194, 310, 431 Locke, John, 25, 30, 49, 431 Lowie, R. H., xix, 42, 47, 61, 65, 78, 92-93, 130, 303, 304, 318, 397, 407, 408, 409, 414, 431 Lyell, Ch., 221

Lynd, Robt.

S.,

83, 86, 431

MacCurdy, Geo. G., McDougall,

Wm.,

363, 431

75

NAME INDEX

438 Planck,

Maclver, R. M., 83, 86, 431 McLeish, Arch., 336 Mace, C. A., 75 Mahaffy, J. P., 431 Malinowski,

B., 20, 162, 325,

Mann, Thomas,

Plato,

431

277-78, 431

Marx, Karl, 186 Maxwell, J. Clerk, 61, 81, 431 Mead, Margaret, xii, 107, 431 Meggers, Betty J., 431 Mencken, H. L., 410 Millikan, R. A., 193, 431 Minkowski, H., 7, 431 Montagu, M. F. Ashley, xii, 431 Moore, H. E., 83, 429 Moore, Jared Sparkes, xiii

Moret, Alex., 238, 239, 257, 258, 263, 432 Morgan, Lewis H., 20, 129, 241, 305, 432 Murdock, G. P., 93, 141, 432 Myres, J. L., xiii, 410, 432

Max, 100

47

Pohle, Joseph, 432 Poincare, H., 51, 67, 211, 289, 296-97, 415, 432 Potter,

Alden

A.,

xiii

Radcliffe-Brown, A.

R.,

20,

65,

96-98, 157, 241, 318-19, 432-33 Reuter, E. B., 210

W. H. R., 126, 433 Roosevelt, F. D., 242, 433 Ross, E. A., 75, 83, 433 Ruffer, Sir Marc, 263, 266, 269, Rivers,

433 Russell,

H. N., 433

Salomon, G., 82, 433 Sapir, E.,

94, 104-05, 162, 171, 230, 433 Scharff, Alex, 250, 433 Schlesinger, A. M., 385, 435

Schmidt,

Father

Wm.,

41,

95,

33i'433 Newberry, P. E., 261, 432 Newman, H. H., 53, 432

Newman, Newton,

James, 284, 289, 430 Isaac, 14, 163, 217, 288,

432 Nimkoff, Meyer

F., 83, 85, 432 Novicoff, Alex. B., 185, 432

Ogburn, Wm. F., 83, 85, 207, 312,319-20,330,432 Orrmont, Arthur, xi Ostwald, Wilhelm, 113-17, 225,

363,397,411,432 Park, Robert E., 20 Peet, T. E., 247, 258, 260, 271,

432

D. 264, 272, 432

Pendlebury,

}.

S.,

Pennington, L. A., 211 Pillsbury, W. B., 211

238, 261,

Schnierla, T. C., 41,

433

Sehrodinger, E., 289, 433 Seele, K. C, 238, 261, 434 Seligman, B., 125, 325, 433 Sethe, Kurt, 264, 433 Shapley, Harlow, 4, 433 Sheen, Mns. Fulton J., 130, 434 Simmel, G., 84, 162, 434 Slochower, Harry, 277, 434 Small, Albion W., 82, 434

Smith, G.

Elliot, 260, 264, 265, 266, 434 Somerville, Mary, 283, 434 Spencer, Herbert, 20, 56-58, 81,

192, 410,

434

Spykman, N.

J.,

434

Steindorff, G., 238, 261, Steinour, Harold H., xiii

Stern, B.

Stout,

G.

J.,

93,

F.,

434

434

75 Swan ton, John R., 107, 434

NAME INDEX Taylor,

W.W.,

Thomas,

Wm.

439 181 I.,

325,

434

Tylor, E. B., xix, xx, 20, 30, 43, 87-90, 105-06, 107, 180, 303, 313, 348,

371,434

Westermarck, Edw., 309, 434 Westgate, Lewis G., 331, 434 White, A. D., 435 White, Leshe A., 435 Whitehead, A. N., 107, 348, 408,

435 Urey, H., 213-14

Ward,

Wilder, R. L., xv Willey, M. M., 85, 435 Williams, Mary W., 418, 435

Lester F., 57, 82, 434 Warren, H. C, 52 Washburn, M. F., 75, 434 Watt, James, 212 Weaver, Warren, xiii

Wissler, Clark, xix, 92-93, 194, 311, 344, 435 Wolfe, Thomas, 150-51

Weigall, A., 239, 263, 264, 265, 270, 273, 274, 275, 434

435 Young, Kimball, 83, 310-11, 435

Yerkes, R. 43'

M. and

A.

W.,

162,

32, 41,

5

SUBJECT INDEX

and social evolu313-16; among lower primates, 314 Culture, an "abstraction," 96; an-

Co-operation,

Agricultural Revolution, 372 Agriculture, a means of harnessing

energy, 371; crease,

and population

tion,

in-

378

Animism, 66

atomy

Anthropocentrism, 177, 338, 357-

control

58,

fined

406

Anthropology,

and

of,

Anthropomorphism, 65, 106, 183, 234, 406, 413 Apes, imitation among, 42-43; lack culture, 42; mentality of, 23, 43, 45, 212; size of brain, 32-33; 32,

depends dis-

life of its own, 358, 407; importance of concept of, 403-

05; "intangible," 101-02; interpretations of, xvii-xix, 84; nature of, 15-16, 140, 240-41; a "psychological" phenomenon, 104-

tools, 4iff.

05; rate of growth of, 385; rate of growth and mental ability,

Brain, size and weight of, 32-33 Bride-price, 317

reality of questioned, 101; science of, see "Science of culture"

218-22;

Cereals and cultural development,

Culture pattern and achievement, 215-17 Culture process, 166, 181, 328;

371

Chance, and the course of history, 228-29; ^"^ genius, 202 Church, political functions of, 59-60, 242-44; vs. state, 242-

44, 258, 266-67 Class structure, 380, 382-83, 384-

Complexity of phenomena, 61-63 Conscience, nature

87;

has a

35-36; use of

Art, nature of, 3 Astronomy, 4-5 Atomic energy, 389

1

by Tylor,

73, 92, 397, 409; evolution of, 221, 241, 364flF., 390-93; explained in terms of culture, 92, 100, 105, 167, 181, 201, 339, 351, 392; felt as "outside force," 297-98;

409, 41

and speech,

364; belief in man's 234, 33off.; de-

over,

upon symbolling, 15, 33; a tinct class of phenomena,

psychiatry,

105; regression of, 1035., 110;

scope

of,

of,

and individual, i6iff., 183-84; and inventions, 168-70, 292 Culture, and cereals, 371; and dreams, 179-81; and energy, 166, 363ff.; and environment, 339; and genius, 215-18; and

human

156-58

440

behavior, 79, 287, 328,

<

5

SUBJECT INDEX

441

337' 3 ^'5^' ^"<^ human nature, 287; and the individual, 161, 183, 369; and physical type,

124, 138, 164, 167; and race, 124, 138, 164, 167 Cultural determinism, 208, 341,

water, 370, plants and animals, 370, fuels, 373, atomic nucleus,

374 Etiquette,

1

59

Evolution vs. history, 229-30 Evolutionary process, loff.

347' 348 evolution, basic law or,

Exogamy, 318, 322, 327

368, 374-75; and improvement of tools, 375; opposition to, 20

Family, in colonial America, 319-

.

C?iltural

Cultural trends, prediction of, 355 Culturology, and sociology, 80-86; the word, 116, 409-12, 415; see "Science of culture"

20;

economic

basis of, 318-21;

in primitive society,

Fashions

in

dress,

318-19 tyranny

of,

333-34 Fatalism and science of culture, 347-48, 413

Darwinism, a synthesis, 295-96 Democracy, theory of, 178 Determinants of human behavior, 66ff.

Determinism,

in culture process,

341, 347, 348; in culturology, 413; in science, 406 Dictatorship of proletariat, 178 Discoveries; see Inventions and

208,

Fire, role of, in cultural develop-

ment, 370

Food

habits, 153 Free Will, 107-08, 112, 331-32, 341, 344, 347, 406, 413 Fuel Revolution, 373

Genius, of,

chance occurrence and cultural milieu,

igofi.;

202;

Division of labor, 378 Divorce, 321

218; and culture pattern, 21517; and intelligence, 210-14; and invention, 210; nature of,

Dogs, why kept, 334 Domestication of animals, a means

197-98; and neurological locus, 226, 231

discoveries

Geometry, non-Euclidean, 288

of harnessing energy, 371

Dowry, 317 Dreams and

Economic

in ethnological theory, 10809, 413; as explanatory device,

God, culture, 179-81

factor, in marriage

and

family, 315-21 Education, and culture process, 346-47; and magic, 344-45 Egyptian priesthoods, power of, 246-47, 253; wealth of, 245-46, 252-53 Endogamy, 322 Energy, and culture, 363ff.; forms of harnessed by culture: humam organism, 369, fire, wind and

399 Golshok, 50 Great Man, 234; and

i92flF.;

and

culture,

history, 227ff.; inter-

pretation of history, 271, 279-81

"Group mind," 186-87 History, nature of, 8-9; vs. evolution,

229-30

Human behavior,

determinants of, determined by

66ff., 77-79, 147;

culture, 79, 200, 287, 328, 337,

SUBJECT INDEX

442 351-52; nature of, 18, 121-23,

146

Human and

nature, 126, 131, i49ff.;

culture,

Human

vs.

287

non-human behavior,

34-36, 171

Human

.

organism, locus ot culture

process, 226, 231,

Idealism, philosophy of, 46, 233 Ideas, syntheses of, 291, 293,

297

of, 260, 264; alleged foreign blood, 239, 266; art under, 238-39; Catholic view

Ikhnaton, age

276-77; death of, 249; Freud on, 278; God reveals himself to, 273; our ignorance concerning, of,

269-70; innovations of, 256; instrument of Divine Purpose, 276; Jewish view of, 277; loses empire, 269, 274-75; Mann on, 277-78; and Moses, Asiatic

mummy

of,

264; pathology of, 239, 263, 265; alleged personal characteristics, 237-39; vs. the priests,

248, 257-58, 266; reign of, 235; resembles Jesus, 263, 274-75; rewards his followers, 261-62; revolution of, interpreted, 258-

59 Inbreeding, 305-07; primates, 315 Incest,

158-59,

theory

of, 304;

among

303!?.;

taboos,

and

culture

process,

lytic agent, 181, 294; differences,

locus of events, 226, 231, 296; the originator of culture, i6iff.; as prime mover, i6iff., 175, 181; vs. social achievement, 225 Inquisition and mental ability, 221 Intra-,

lower

instinct

and physical deinterpreted

extra-organismal

contexts,

51, 81

Inventions and discoveries, as cultural syntheses, 168-70, 203-04, 292; inevitability of, 205-09; made simultaneously but independently, 169-70, 205-07, 20911, 292-93; tion,

and social stratificaand technology,

223-24;

224 Kinship, 241, 327, 377, 381; sociological vs. biological,

307

Kissing, 153

Language, and the science of ture,

terioration, 305-07

Incest

Individual,

Young, 310-

174, 199, 294; the instrument of culture forces, 298; a neural

293

276-78; supposed

309; Wissler, 311; 11

i6iff., 183-84, 295, 369; a cata-

.

.

^

322-23; Seligman, 325; Thomas, 325; Tylor, 313; Westermarck,

cul-

141; and sensory experi-

ence, 288 Law, of cultural evolution, 368, 374-75; of development of phi-

losophy,

69,

111;

everywhere,

107 by:

Cooper, 326; Durkheim, 309; Firth, 325; Fortune, 324-25; Freud, 307-08, 325-26, 328; Gillin, 325; Goldenweiser, 310; Linton, 310; Lowie, 303-04; Malinowski, 325; Morgan, 305; Ogbum, 312; Saint Augustine,

Laws

of thought, 299 ftn.

Levirate, 317 Liberals, 179

Living vs. non-living systems, 51 Love, marriage and the family, 321

Man, behavior

of, 34; a

constant,

culture a variable, 200, 226, 294,

SUBJECT INDEX

443

338-39; man's control over culture, belief in, 234, 342-43;

and

man

culture, 96-101, 123, 138-

man's place in cos-

39, 164, 167;

mos, 357-58 Marriage, brother-sister, 305, 322; with cousins, 306-07; economic aspect of, 315-21; group aspect of, 317; and love, 321 Mathematics, growth of, 292, 298-

301; origin of, 299;

and

culture,

Mathematical concepts, locus

of,

283, 301-02

and the course of cultural and achievement, 221; and the Inquisition, 221; and rate of culture growth, 218-22; and techability,

history,

Physiology defined, 81 Polygamy, prohibition of, 335 Population, increase of, 378, 384 Prediction of culture change, 355 Primitive society vs. civil society, 241, 377, 381 Profit system,

285-86, 293

Mental

major types, 64; a mechanism of adjustment, 401; and technology, 366 Physical type and culture, 124, 138, 164, 167

226;

Projection

387

self into external world, 84, 86 Psychology, defined, 4, 81; growth of, 73-74; and the individual, 75

of

Psychological

vs.

culturological in-

terpretations, 77-79, 105, 12lff.,

236-37, 266ff., 312, 412

nology, 224-25

Metaphysical interpretations, 65,

400 Mind, minding, 495.; and bodily

man,

23ff.,

man

vs.

sub-

35-36, 44-45;

and

structure, 148; of race,

148-49 Mind-body problem, 491?. Monotheism in Egypt, 254-56

"Mysticism" and

tlie

culture, 88, 95,

407

Natural law and

Race and culture, 124, 138, 164 Race prejudice, explanations of, 134-37 Rats, neuroses of, 35 Realism, pseudo-, 143, 183, Reality, locus of, 284

406

Revolutionists, 178-79

science of

Savagery, recent emergence from,

affairs,

Science, blind alleys of, 311; expansion of scope of, 55ff-, 71,

356

human

72,

401-02; a means of adjustment, 354; the modern magic, 343; na-

107 Naturalism, 65

ture of,

3ff.;

and

reality, 8

Oedipus complex, 155 Omnipotence, illusion of, 341, 413

Science of culture, and anthropo-

Paternity, biological, ignorance of,

Philosophy, development of, 399; as explanatory device, 64, 398;

thered by: Kroeber, 90, Lowie, 92, Wissler, 93; a demonstration of, 392; and determinism, 413; nature of, 99-101, 140-42, 397; opposed by: Benedict, 95,

two

L. L. Bernard, 86, Bidney, 95,

305-06 Personality studies, 105

law of development

of, 69;

morphism, 134-38; begun by: Durkheim, 88, Tylor, 87; fur-

SUBJECT INDEX

444 Boas, 95, Goldenweiser, 94, Hallowell, 98, Hart, 103, Hooton, 102, Lynd, 86, Radcliffe-

Brown, 96-98,

Sapir, 94;

oppo-

Symbol, 22ff.; and culture, 15, 46; and the tool -process, 45ff. Symbols, significance of, 398 Symbolling, neural basis

of,

31-33

sition to, 86, 94ff., 105-06, 143,

406; origin 404; a

76, 87, 142, other sciences,

Technology, key to understanding of culture, 366; and mental ability, 224-25; and population in-

18-19, 59-63;

crease, 378, 384; role of in culture process, 390-93; and phi-

70, 114;

losophy, 366; and social systems,

of, xix,

rival of

412 Sciences, classification of,

and

56;

complexity,

"hierarchy"

of,

56ff.,

levels of, 15, 19, 56;

development

sequence of

Thermodynamics and

63

Scientific interpretation, nature of,

and

Signs

vs.

64-69

not-self,

symbols,

26ff.,

culture, 166,

367-68

Thermodynamics, Second Law and life and culture, 367

407-08 Self

365, 376-85 _

of, 551?.,

of,

Tools, efficiency of in cultural development, 375; and symbols,

300

Slavery, explanations of, 128-29

use

Social evolution, present trends in,

45ff.;

388-89 Social organism, 132, 175, 281 Social psychology, 75, 82 Social science, immaturity of, 336;

apes, 4iff.

of,

406?.;

use of by

Unconscious, somatic and cultural, 158-61

"laboratories" of, 236 Social stratification, 380, 382; inventions, 223-24 Social

systems

and

and

Vitalism-mechanism, 53 Voting, 176-77

technology,

365, 376-85 Society, evolution of, 241 Sociology, beginnings of, 74; and concept of culture, 80-81, 83-

War,

causes of, 343; explanations

_

86;

and

social psychology, 76,

82

Sororate, 317

Space-time, 7 Speech, articulate, and culture,

Western

civilization,

present

trends, 109-10; threatened with

3 3-

34, 240, 300, 314 State-church, the, 242, 381, 385 Supernaturalism, 65

Syllabus of Errors, 243

129-34 Warfare, and social evolution, 380; yesterday and tomorrow, 386 of,

destruction, 389-90 water, as sources of energy,

Wind, 370

"Wolf children," 36 Words, meaning of, 27-30, 37-38; and thought, 51 ftn., 53, 414

^