-- how each specific paradigm worksI tend to offer a number of examples of concrete research, and of specific researchers. So you can see a paradigm not only as the answers, but also as the asking of questions; you can see paradigm as a process of research, as well as an outcome of research.
-- how paradigms work overall in a field
here, today, I'll begin with Leslie White. but the point is not so much to learn about him as a great man, but to see how he fits into a specific paradigm, and a specific place in the development of paradigms.
key point: when you listen, take notes: try to link everything you hear to the specific paradigm.
I have the question in my mind of how far back to start: at one point I taught this course with a section between the introduction and this one called "predecessors of cultural ecology" to give you an idea of the context from which cultural ecology sprang---that is, that scientists and other people had been writing about environment, society and culture for a long time, just not in the organized way that cultural ecologists have. but now I fit that material into the lectures here
one point to make: I've limited the classificatory cultural ecology paradigm mostly to two people, Leslie White and Julian Steward. they really are the most important ones. furthermore, there are some important similarities between their work. Most fundamentally, they are ecological...technology and environment as influences on culture and the emphasis on the evolution of culture (orderly patterns of development over time). Note also: an emphasis on classifying cultures into types. but there are also differences. so here I am, promising you on the one hand that these paradigms are really neat, tidy, coherent views of reality and on the other hand saying here are two overlapping but not identical approaches which together make up a "paradigm".
the solution? to say that at the beginning of cultural ecology (and therefore at the beginning of the first paradigm of cultural ecology, classificatory cultural ecology) there are founders in the plural, not just one founder, and to present each of their paradigms separately, and then to compare and contrast them. White has one coherent paradigm, Steward had one paradigm with 2 pieces to it.
the predecessors, whom I will touch on briefly.
a question: if the notion of paradigm is tied to the notion of paradigm change, then I face the question of moving further and further back: each paradigm had a predecessor. with the history of medicine, I went way back to the Middle Ages. here, with cultural ecology, I'll just touch on the nineteenth century.
note that these two approaches were paradigms in their own right. they both address the question of types: the unilinear evolutionists had too few types of cultures (a small number of types, quite rigidly defined, into which every culture could be placed) and the historical particularists had too many types--in fact each culture becamse a unique case. White, and even more so Steward, sought alternative positions on this question of types.
. 1. unilinear evolutionists. They have types: but not much environment.
firstly, Morgan and Tylor. in mid-nineteenth century, expansion of British, French empires into Africa, Asia; US expanding West, meeting Indian groups. what happens? new information about non-Western peoples, and fairly racist and elitist assumptions about how white European culture is the best, the most advanced. so, have a theory of cultural evolution which begins with primitive societies (called savages back then)--think of these as having been the one type of society in the remote past, which was being studied more through archaeology, and corresponding to some societies of the mid-nineteenth century like U. S. Indians, Africans; in ancient past, advanced to "barbarians" and still have some present examples, like peoples in North Africa and Asia. then to civilization.
this is old-style evolutionism. inevitably of march towards Christianity, decency, civilization
2. historical particularism. evolutionism was rejected by the first wave of academic anthropologists, who make several claims:
a) all cultures EQUAL
b) no need to assume that all cultures go through same evolutionary path
so develop approach with the long name of HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM. associated particularly with Franz Boas.
each culture has its particular history. check out the histories of each aspect of a culture---folklore, religion, technology, kinship. some borrowings, some independent invention.
often tended to be anti-ecological because --
a) historical particularists didn't want to assume that one aspect of culture which might be connected to environment (e.g., technology or food production) would be more important than another
b) historical particularists disliked generalizations, laws--they just looked at each particular culture, avoided seeking out more general patterns
c) they didn't distinguish between effective and total environment.
2. Some unifying aspects: note the three components of paradigms here
a. basic elements: a focus on cultures as collections of traits
b. methods: a concern for field research
c. theory: classification of cultures into a number of types
note that these all coincide on the "culture" as the unit of analysis, on the "culture" as the research object
3. Leslie White's life
One of the most important anthropologists in US in twentieth century along with Julian Steward, founder of modern cultural ecology:
little doubt about that
why 1 lecture here, 4 Steward -- not 2 and 3? more examples of work by Steward, and longer-lasting influence of Steward's work
however, White has been influential in a number of ways: through writings, professional activities, setting up anthropology department at Michigan, training students, he is also an unusual man: his ideas would be difficult to follow, to put into practice and his influence then is not that people use his ideas but rather, they take the general kind of position White has crusaded for over long periods, so: main thing: he stood out strongly for evolution, materialism; others will pick it up, not in his way, Hence, his importance must be seen in the context of American anthropology at the time, 1920-1950's.
Boasian approach dominant--in anthropology--NOT cultural ecology, since explain culture in its own terms -- history of culture traits [borrowing, invention of traits] White attack these consistently, in virtual total isolation. as important as his ideas, I think, were his tone: this thing of, single lone figure, attacking established anthropology:
Heyday of Boasian historical particularism and cultural schools. specific analyses of specific cultures in historical context, but not generalize, not draw laws , anti-evolutionary. White first trained in this kind of anthropology. study physics, intend to become natural scientist, study under Boasians, do some field work in Southwest Indians, Pueblo: still Boasian. he taught at Buffalo for a few years, that's where he first read Morgan, visit Iroquois. Morgan from upstate New York. White very struck with Morgan's ideas of cultural evolution, and how they had been so completely rejected. take on the cultural evolution. sometime in late 1920's, White's conversion to cultural evolution, of his sort. this is what he dedicate his life to:
His writings: one book, The Science of Culture, 1949. articles from 1930's, 1940's, including his one most important article "Energy and the Evolution of Culture", 1943 -- assigned for this week. Second book, The Evolution of Culture, 1959. part of intended larger 4-volume work he had intended to write, big biography, edited works of Morgan, never got around to it.
briefly, his main basic element is culture with 3 components.
Society and environment are subsumed under culture so theory are the relations of these 3 components. Methods are very broadly defined -- include cultures as units of analysis, grouped into stages
1. Basic element of culture [refer back to culture lecture]
a. culture as the superorganic (Kroeber use this term, a Boasian)
culture above the individual, beyond the individual
White have a notion of levels of phenomena, just as biology above physical/chemical,
not reducible so culture above biology, psychology. he define culture as:
Tylor definition (go back to Tylor) [cultural evolution] "that complex
whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any
other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society"
b. culture is an organized whole, nevertheless, traits too
c culture determines behavior
OxC1 = B1
OxC2 = B2
OxC3 = B3
(that is, take an individual; expose him/her to culture 1, 2, 3 and get appropriate cultural response)
gives example: simultaneous inventions. sunspots were discovered by several people independently in the year 1611. the culture was simply ready to advance to a new levels. culture beyond the minds of individual people, has its own structure: language is the example: mathematics. consequence of culturology: culture cause of behavior, culture subject to regular laws, hence human behavior subject to laws
2. culture contains three sub-systems: --> note - see integration opposed to historical parts to cultural schools technological, social, ideological interrelations of the three. technology gets some causal priority, explain: technology not just in modern society but in all links to environment via technology. Important note: no separate treatment of society -- it's part of culture. Not much treatment of environment -- if it's there at all in his work, it fills in under "technology" -- for example, agriculture, for him a kind of technology, only possible in certain environments.
3. Culture as autonomous
hence, an autonomous science of cultures, CULTUROLOGY
White seem to fully expect, this would grow like sociology. he find some guy who had used term earlier, but not develop. point of culturology is: if culture is a different order of phenomena than physical/chemical and biology, then it must have its own laws in and of itself, this new: so, White feel that it's important to generalize, this lead him to ignore particulars. he kept saying things like, the law of gravity doesn't tell you how fast hailstones and feathers will fall, it's more general and similarly, laws of culturology need not tell you particulars of individual cultures. his law is a law of cultural evolution. cultures evolve -- cultures have the property of changing in predictable ways over time. relations of concept (culture - subsystems - technological determining social and ideological.)
CULTURAL EVOLUTION
White concerned with general evolution -- unilinear. not look at specific
details of specific cultures as problem to be handled. in general, he seems
to be a stage theorist, like Morgan and Tylor, a set of specific
stages that human culture as a whole goes through. explain stages: fixed
sequence of development. he also say that not all cultures recapitulate,
repeat the general history of mankind: some can be distinct, influence
of diffusion. basically -- he sees evidence of evolution, an anomaly for
Boas, key example for him. nevertheless, in The Evolution of Culture
he picks up on the comparative method for Morgan and Tylor. takes current
small-scale societies (preliterate is a term he likes) as examples of earlier.
the details of his schemes of cultural evolution are his laws of culturology.
2. (this is right in this week's readings) law: "Other factors remaining constant, culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is increased, or as the efficiency of the means of putting the energy to work is increased." Note: here the relations are among components of culture: technology, society, ideology
3. model of stages and revolutions
Agricultural Revolution; Fuel Revolution; Atomic Revolution?
Results/findings:
note: each stage, specific levels of technological, social and ideological subsystems, and they fit together, with technological subsystem most important.
energy: two main revolutions: rapid shifts (unclear why rapid shifts). Agricultural Revolution (use solar energy more efficiently through plants and animals). consequences of agriculture: here are a few: end of kin-based societies and shift to territorial-based states and to social classes, details of kinship change, agriculture permit the accumulation of wealth: lead to war, now that there's something to fight over, armies, develop trade, commerce.
Fuel Revolution: coal and oil (he seem to think atomic energy a third revolution) [parallel Morgan: savagery, barbarism, civilization though not quite]
Fuel Revolution: sharp increase in population, new kinds of governments,
changes in class structure, rate of change accelerated. overall movement:
increasing efficient of energy use, via technology, leads to increasing
population, new social and political forms, new ideologies. his three-part
evolution hence unidirectional, ever upward. White see evolution as continuing.
Morgan and Tylor pretty much see European civilization as endpoint. White
want to predict future as well. The Evolution of Culture goes from earliest
times to Fall of Rome; it's over 350 pp., whole manuscript had been 2500
and it hasn't been published. problem: NOT EXPLAIN WHERE energy use increase
comes from. from this scheme, he draws some conclusions: See how regularities
of change appeared as anomalies to Boasian approach, by examples for White's
cultural evolution.
2, review of history, published ethnography for description of stages. data on technology, energy use technical bias. why: more energy, or more efficient leads to more production. see implicit measures of cultural evolution.
note that these methods are brief, simple: in part because it's so easy to fit each culture into a particular stage, that he can draw on published materials.
theories: energy use (technological) determines changes in other aspects (social, ideological) of culture. revolutions cause changes from one stage of cultural evolution to the next.
methods: broad comparisons, units of analysis: cultures, stages broad comparison, not bring in his field work much (Morgan). armchair anthropologist, widely read, not concerned with particulars of cases: falling bodies.
2. White's influence odd speculation, not fit into mainstream academia. he given recognition: visit at Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Berkeley, Chicago and his department at Michigan, have a good reputation but still, extreme, polemicist. less influential than other paradigms. what's come out of his work:
1. reintroduce the notion of cultural evolutionI would say, these ideas have not been used the way White used them, his particular models aren't followed too much, culturology (this will be clear in comparison to Steward) but he did make it possible to talk about these issues, that's a major contribution.
2. reintroduce the notion of laws of culture change
3. materialist basis of society [energy]
Back to Menu Page