This course is the first of a year long sequence in ethnological theory and method. This first segment covers the history of anthropology primarily in the United States from the early paradigmatic developments of the 19th century to the fully rationalized "schools" of the mid-twentieth century. (The second course will deal with ethnological theory and method with an emphasis on developments in France, Britain and the U.S. and with some attention to theoretical perspectives in the 1980s and 1990s).
The course is designed to give graduate students in cultural anthropology a good grasp of the various paradigms--including assumptions, models and methods--that have been employed by anthropologists to understand and explain human culture and society.
The assigned readings will include a mix of original materials selected from writings of the anthropologists we are studying, as well as secondary accounts that tell us "what they really meant" or which explore the broader cultural and intellectual context of the time. The reading list for the semester is attached. There will be some lecture material presented each week, but the main emphasis will be on a discussion of the assigned reading. Aside from the required texts, most of the reading can be found in Clark Field Archive and Library (CFAL). Students will be expected to participate in each class session. One or two of you will be asked to volunteer as discussion leader for each class session. However, it is imperative that all students have read and thought about the required readings so that a productive discussion can be conducted in class.
Required texts:
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Stocking, George. 1982. Race, Culture and Evolution. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Benedict, Ruth. 1934/1960. Patterns of Culture. New York: Mentor Books.
Mead, Margaret. 1928/1961. Coming of Age in Samoa. New York: Morrow Quill Paperbacks.
Netting, Robert M. 1986. Cultural Ecology. Waveland Press
Optional:
Boas, Franz. 1940/1982. Race, Language and Culture. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press
Harris, Marvin. 1968. The rise of anthropological theory. Thomas Y. Crowell.
Service, Elman R. 1985. A century of controversy. New York: Academic Press.
CFAL - Clark Field Archive ERL - Ethnology Reading List (in CFAL)
Following is an outline of general topics for study and discussion.
August 26: Topic 1. Early Developments in Social Science
Western Europeans first had to confront biological and cultural diversity with the voyages of discovery in the 16th century. The encounter with new species and exotic customs forced a reappraisal of the classical scientific systems. By the Enlightenment of the 18th century, philosophers believed in the universal applicability of natural laws. They believed that the world could be understood and perfected through the use of reason. Although anthropology as a distinct discipline did not emerge until the 19th century, it was firmly constructed on the liberal ideas of 18th century Enlightenment thinkers.
September 2: Topic 2. The Foundations of Anthropology - Then and Now
In what sense can anthropology be considered a science? The concept of a scientific paradigm can be useful in understanding the various approaches that have been current in 20th century anthropology. The discipline first took form during the 19th century, initially emerging within the context of a general natural history paradigm, then developing more rigorously under the influence of a geological paradigm.
September 9: Topic 3. Nineteenth Century Cultural Evolution: Theory
Although based on the geological paradigm, this was the first genuine anthropological paradigm. The discipline received its name at this time, and became institutionalized in the museums where most of the work was centered. We will examine the theory of evolution and some of its implications.
September 16: Topic 4. Nineteenth Century Cultural Evolution: Methods
What methods did the evolutionists employ: What was the "comparative method," and how did they use it? What was the place of first-hand observation in the research method of the time?
September 23: Topic 5. The Rise of Ethnology
Anthropological research expanded rapidly during the two decades between Morgan's death (1881) and Kroeber's Ph.D. (Boas' first) in 1901. This period is marked by a growth in empirical research and increasing cultural relativism. Anthropology is also becoming institutionalized in museums, government bureaus and universities.
ESSAY I
September 30: Topic 6. Boas and the American Historical School: Theory
Why did Boas reject the "evolutionary assumptions" that were current when he began his anthropological work? What was the substance of his "historical" approach that was substituted for the evolutionist assumptions?
October 7: Topic 7. The American Historical
School: Methods
Kroeber/ Wissler/Goldenweiser
Under Boas fieldwork assumed central importance as a source of anthropological data. How did the people that the Boasians studied affect the kind of field investigations that they undertook?
October 14: Topic 8. Boas' Students: Kroeber, Sapir
Boas introduced or called attention to several concepts that became important in American anthropology, such as "understanding" culture, cultural relativism, language as a model for culture, the importance of ideas and emotions as expressed by the individual, and others. We will look at how these concepts were creatively developed by other anthropologists such as Kroeber and Sapir. We will also see how Kroeber in particular attempted to broaden the scope of anthropological conceptualization.
October 21: Topic 9. Boas' Students: Parsons, Reichard, Hurston
During the 1920s Boas had a number of women students, including Elsie Clews Parsons, Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, Gladys Reichard, & Zora Neale Hurston. This week we will examine the Columbia milieu and the place of women in it, focusing on three women who were close to the "Boasian mold": Elsie Clews Parsons, Gladys Reichard and Zora Neale Hurston. Parsons, a wealthy feminist, was a contemporary of Kroeber and the financial patron of the Department. Reichard was more like a daughter, often living in the Boas family apartment & caring for Boas when he was ill. Hurston was more daring in her research activities and thinking. Failing to find a profes-sional career in anthropology, she eventually left it to pursue interpretive folklore and fiction. All three contributed to & expanded the Boasian notion of ethnography, a topic we will explore in the assigned readings.
October 28: Topic 10. Boas' Students: Ruth Benedict.
Benedict was perhaps the most important theorist and writer among Boas' students who wrote in the 1930s and 1940s, though, unlike Kroeber, Sapir, Lowie, and other males she was not head of a department and she did not become a full professor until a few months before her death. She is usually thought of as a founder of the "culture and personality" "school"- a group of anthropologists (Sapir, Mead, Benedict, Linton, Dubois) who, influenced by Freudian theory, began to focus on the role of the individual in culture. Newer scholarship acknowledges Benedict with her interest in philosophy, humanism and poetry, as an early "interpretivist" anthropologist, a precursor of the anthropology of the 1970-90s lead by Clifford Geertz and others.
ESSAY II
November 4: Topic 11. Margaret Mead: Culture and Personality
Margaret Mead's work spans the entire development of "culture and personality" as an approach, from Coming of Age in Samoa, an ethnography that incorporates the testing and personality profiles of adolescent girls to her contributions to national character study during World War II and her work on culture change after the War. The recent controversy raised by Derek Freeman over Mead's work in Samoa brings up issues of method, theory, and bias in anthropological field research.
November 11: Topic 12. Acculturation Theory
Part of the dissatisfaction with the standard Boasian paradigm came from the recognition by anthropologists of the phenomenon of change among the peoples they were studying. By the 1930s a vigorous debate had broken out concerning whether or not this was a legitimate topic for research. Publication of the "Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation" in 1936 marked not only legitimation of the study of change, but also brought together Boasians (Herskovits) and non-Boasians (Linton, Redfield) in collaboration on their research.
November 18: Topic 13. Economic Anthropology
Another new line of inquiry focused on economics. Firth and Herskovits naively tried to apply classical economic concepts within the "primitive" context. Soon the economist Polanyi, in collaboration with several anthropologists, developed a more sophisticated model differentiating various types of economic system. By the 1960s Polanyi's ideas formed the basis for the model known as "substantivist economics," while those models developed out of classical economics were lumped together as "formalist economics."
November 25: Topic 14. Robert Redfield and the Study of "Folk," Peasant, Urban Societies.
Quite independently of Boas, Robert Redfield, based at the University of Chicago, developed a kind of American social anthropology. He was influenced first by the Chicago school of sociology (Louis Wirth and Robert Park [his father-in-law]), and later by Radcliffe-Brown during his tenure at Chicago from 1931-37. Though his ideas generated a great deal of interest and stimulated much productive research, Redfield never succeeded in achieving the clarity and precision that marked British social anthropology.
December 2: Topic 15: Neo-Evolution
Though trained by Alexander Goldenweiser, the most Boasian of Boasians, White became dissatisfied with the limitations of the Boasian paradigm in answering fundamental questions about the nature of culture and its process of development. Contact with the Iroquois led him to study Morgan, and as a result White gradually developed an alternative paradigm, that came to be known as neo-evolution. Meanwhile Steward, drawing on Kroeber's Cultural and Natural Areas, developed an ecological perspective which naturally extrapolated into a more complex evolutionary model. While White vigorously rejected historical particularism, Steward always sought to keep one foot in both paradigms.
December 9:
Cultural ecology developed as an extension of neo-evolution to specific cases. It was further stimulated by the growing interest of biologists in the complex interrelations of natural communities, as well as increasing popular concerns about pollution and environmental degradation. Early models used the ecosystem approach which examined the network of interacting individuals, populations, and communities and how each affected the others. The emphasis was on how traditional practises and beliefs enabled a population to maintain itself in a specific environment. Contemporary cultural ecology is more problem oriented, addressing such issues as 'the tragedy of the commons,' how state and international institutions impact environmental stategies, and the formulation, implementation and impact of environmental policy.
ESSAY III
Once you are finished here, please feel free to return to the UNM Homepage or the UNM Fall 1998 course listing.