Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Theory of Culture Change-Julian-Steward PDF

    Uploaded by

    AdelaKokic
    226 views14 pages

    Original Title

    Theory of Culture Change-Julian-Steward.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    226 views14 pages

    Theory of Culture Change-Julian-Steward PDF

    Uploaded by

    AdelaKokic

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 14
    1 cltual studies i is important to dings a aentific,general ‘sing approach from a hisria,partcularzing approach, The former attempts to arrange phenomena in orderly categorie, to recogni ensistentinterelatonships hetwoen them, to establish la of Fg last, and to make formulations which have predictive value. The later is more concerned with the securrence of phetemena in time and place, the uniquenes ofeach constellation, and the ethos of value systems which characterize culture reas. The concep and methods fof the former must fer in art fom the of the latter. My purpese this collection of esay isto develop a methodology for determining regularities of form, faeson, snd prcces which recur ero smong societies found in diferent eultaral areas, Anthropology has been ditnctive among the weil sciences largely Deeause of is historieal and comparative approach to culture, Ts tak tha been twofold: to describe the varieties of culture found through fut the world and te explain their development. Descriptive ethnology Inu produced a vast body of data concerning the customs of differing sroups of mankind, and archaclogy together wth history hat Tecan Strcted the temporal at wel ar spacial occurrences of these ruse ‘There is a wide diferece of opinion, however, concerning what Dropesly constitutes an “explanation” of culture, The many ways in hich explanation are concept involve fundamentally dere Print of view concerning the nature of altar developocet eed thee tur ental diferent ways of rearing clue fact Hise developmental explanations have, i gener, een sented thre diferent wap: Fin, the socalled “unlnesr evan pote Ine that al soles ps hough le developmental opr Sie contemporary prinitve ropes ae presumed to represent stages the dearoprent of more sdvaned sarton they teh lub Lind of areed development Second, in det cone toe snilinar evaluat, deel eats Se eal developnet st esentally divergent, and thy focus atention upon enunes hat sing saciets fom one another. Alto toy pu conieae ‘enon to wifes or slate which are caue by ison ‘estos within etre ares thy conse each arent be basal Alferent from ll them. Ti, te pon of males evlosng (Chapter 1) which constitutes the saetholgal prion of the present collin of ey, sumer that eran base Wes of ale fray develop in sina ways under nla codons et thet ee concrete aspects of elt will ppsar amen all groupe af mand invs regular sures?” The cultural paters and cas iterations which may develop sepeatcly in diferent pars ofthe world and ths comme co, colt rgulares are subject to both syuchrofe ne dahon fort fn oe nt, te cnt ef ha which cca repeatedly because ceria plesemenapresppoeeter ‘The sea ern hn tna and me ot eat terms of historical change, ne dep, ov developmental proce ‘Thea regulars are scone: Tn oer cts there ancien ‘sm constellations which sacred one acter in agar and Dredetemined way trease of devlopmenal laws. "Thee develop ‘ental regular are acronis snd equi proua formulons Functional or schon formulations of regu are Mestre in the case of dnpered fan groape (Chaps), pineal band (Clinger 7), and compost nds of hunter (Chapa 8), Diane formulations are usrated in the cae ofthe development ef mul “1 do oat ow the eign of te tem allies etolation” Te has Ben wed by Hat Witag wih mock the te cones! eacntion a the Pesentvene Im "The Iafurne ef Lennar Sinan on Choa dase alial ond Suc Seece Sop, 193, op 2 ‘Wieoge se Marts hee” lan societies (Chapter 9) and iergaion cisiations (Chapter 11). ‘Chapters 1 to Selaborate the heuriic concepts for determining crowcultural types Chapter I presente the general concept of multe {near evolution It is an afination that significant cros-cltural reg. tlanites ext but a denial that such regularities must pertain to all Ihuman societies. The concept st forth here are to be clealy dix Yinguithed from the views of L. H. Morgan, EB. Tylor and other ineteenth-century writers and of V. Gordon Childe and Lele White mong contemporiry author, Whereas thee walters have sought 0 ormnlate cultural development in terms of universal stages, my ob- jective isto seek cames of culture change. Since “evolution” sill ‘Hrongly connotes the nineeesthcentry view, I hesitate toute i but find no beter tere (Chapter 2 deveiops a method for recognizing the ways in which clare change i induced by adaptation to environment This adapta- tion, an important creative proces, i called cllual ecology, a on cept which sto be distinguished fom the ecological concep, “human fenlogy" cr “soca ecology” The eroweulural rgularice which ‘rae from similar adapive process in sini eniconments are fune- tonal or eysehreni in nate But no culture has achieved so perfect an adjustment to its ex vironment that its state. The diflerences which appeae in auccesive Perode during the development of culture in any locality entail not nly increasing complexity, or quantitatively new patterns, but abo ‘qualitatively new patterns’ Consequently, in the comparison of the History of two or more areas in which the cultural ecological proces ae the same, it must be rcagaised that late period in one seta may ‘be much more Ike a comparable late or homtail sila period in another area than the ealer periods in ether aes. Cultural de- ‘velopment therefor must be conceptualized not only a8 2 mater of Increasing complexity but also at one of the emergence of axccesive levels of socioeatwal integration. This conceptualzation is elaborated in Chapter 3. Ths concept of levels of sociocultural integration is iful in naling the internal structure of complex contemporary systems aswell a is characterizing the succesive emergence of qualia Uvely new levels ia historical development. Chapter 4 illustrates the application ofthis soncept to a national evel system. ‘The concept of culture type (Chapter 5) is bated on the two frames of reference previeuly presented: cultural features devved from syne ‘ehronie, functional, and ecological factors and those represented by 4 particular diachronic or developmental level. Crose-culeral regu 5 eamony oF cure cxanon Jarites are thus conesved as recurrent constellations of baie features =the cultural core — which have similat functional interrlaioshipe resulting from local ecological adaptations and similar levels of socio. ‘cultural integration. The concept of culture type confronted by the ‘parent dificulty posed by the fark that fori, patterns, ov sree silfer greatly. Since, however, similar functions may be served by different forms while similar forma may serve vared function, the ingle concept of form-function i intrevced, ‘Ghapers 6 to 12 Hstate the methodology st forth in preceding ‘chapters through analysis of several eultre types. These types ate pe sented in succesive chapters according to ther level of socioeultural integration, The lowest level, that of the Shoshonean Indians of the Great Basin described in Chapter 6, exemplifies society of hunters and gatherers which functioned ona family bass, Because the cultural ‘ological adaptations in this atea precluded permanent multifamily societies of any kind the individual or nuclear family caved on neatly all ealtural activites, ‘Among the other hunters and gatherers, special cultural ecological adaptation led to dightly higher levels of tocioelturl integration. (Chapter 7 analyns the particular conditions which brought about patrilineal hunting bands in several widely separated. pats of the worl. Chapter 8 shows how the somewhat diferent eavironmental {actors of northern Canada entailed an adaptation which created com posite hunting bands in aboriginal dines while the postEaropean evelopment of the fur trade led to division of the county into fanly Many primitive people ae divided into several nonlocalied clans ‘hich ae fantionally interdependent parts of uillages or tibes. These represent a higher level of sciocultual integration than lead lineages, and they have prebably developed frm such lineages many times in different parts of the world. Chapter 9 utes archaclogieal and ethnographic data from the Southwest to reconstruct the proces ‘through which multclan village organization developed independently from localized lineages in atleast thee separate can Although cerain ecological adapeationt produce patrilineal Bands or other social types and permit litle if any socal variation, there are instance where the interelationahip between culture and envionment allows considerable latitude er potential variation in sociocultural ‘ypes. Where latitude & posible, historic factors may, determine the tare of the society. Chapter 10 shows how the exvirSameatal adap- tations of the Carrier Indians of British Columbia fit permitted srmcwvccent 7 tang in te pes tine rom compost hunting Hand a System oflcalad, landowning mois and pial came, when these Pine ee infeed y the Norns Car alle vem in nt yeas it fyi heh ow ing Cenk and eee pec aber ft Inger Caan ‘scl! pen Hey, Mompotanin, Chinn, Mew-Anerc, and the Cente Anita Stnpantany sop tito delped onthe bass Sion ptr. Chaperone hw i ech te not Enamel cult eel dane vac siot, ‘Sea een whch yen wa singe ag orginal feat ted wry here a tga a lta ees Bape many pans nich tse aa iret ba ae tut pera form, fntonal itrnSraie been Calc! fue andthe elope pres were oy ch ‘tesme ‘Sper 12 ify lsat the spplcon of the coc of colt alogy ev of sacl egion and cle etnies ancmporary sce Puce Rien te sey of Fans ws's tng pte nfl ns pats he ‘Mr sah labort and tee emer Be nea wot tas “hed har ben made to define the chins and methods font itis sola sv sey a pomble That anton ‘che many apres noe beng develope in sal ene Se ey tay ae peel oe pens pre ed ot esr tat et ac 8 quate Ty we cle ad nity sia nich ar now prey inves ave get Ie Porance wo probine of individual adjustment, I eannct se that they evant ote bse poten deemed us ey Egaped by cate, rt as rever ben shown at re ‘rat ty Peony, Ts we cou atin nema seme Sirocly oued pcm cay by rearing crt reed Satur chng at by ening cw ptr pe hone pea Sct Bot tat ave bree changes Te opener sree ta pat aed cmepending een St arcnt preted veer miley In be ce te ‘Siar develo quately now putes wich exc aod rent Shed new palo "inl, Tahoe tatty deliniation of problem snd metbod predate wo chi ciel explo o oman: ‘of uman behavior. In view of what I take fo bea very widespread interest among social sient in hing such explanation nd foe lations their ultimate goal, iti extremely inpertaut to be sen of the implication of this fac. Parieular patiern of behavior Sound jong one or more but not all groups of maakind must be expllned in very diffrent tes than behavior cmon to all people. Ps fac Pertcular patterns must be conceptualized diferenty then univenale, ‘The fist constitute culture in is proper sent. The second const fnhrrent Braman biological nl pojchologieal charset the former axe determined by history and by special leal adaptations ‘They are super-organic, The later are reducible to biochemeal and psychological procemes, All men eat, but this isan organie and not a cultral fact. Te is ‘universally explainable in term of bilogical td chemical peocenes What and how diferent groups of men eat ia eultu fact esplee abe only by culture httory and enviromental factom, All men sence but the universal feature of dacing i bodily lythm which is honey rather than altura tat. Specie movements, muse ste, steal and other atubutes of dancing which have limited covurrence sed ave dances meaning as cultural facts are not subject to univenal Planation or formulation. A formula that explain Iehavior af a ‘mankind cannot explain culture 1 is dificult to conceive the Kinds of understandings that Lesie Whit, an uncompromising eulturologit, hope to gain by dealing ith culture in general rather than with culture in particule, Yet White like so many social cients, seems to believe that trly seeig formulation mst explain all mode of behavior. I conclude ths Inte Auction therefore by emphasizing that my own cbjcetive i to formalane the conditions determining phenomens of limited occurrence, The «xtogory of nature to which these belong i known generally culture and is found among all mankind, tut no cultural plesomcne, ore Sniveral Hl. concepts and methods Multilinear Bvolutio Evolution and Process! CGalusal evolution, although log an unfashionable concept, has ‘commanded renewed interest in the lit two decades, This interest oes not indicate any serious reconsideration of the particular historical ‘ontructions of the nineteath-centary evlutonss, for these were Guite thoroughly dered on empiscal grounds, It aise from the Potential methodological importance of cultural evolution for con- temporary reiearch from the implication ofits scientific objectives, its tmonomie procedure, and its conception of historical change and cultural causality. An appraisal of cultural evolution therefore, Tut be concemed with definitions and meaning. But 1 do not wish to engage in stances, Tahal attempt to show tha f certain din tions in the concept of evolution are made, iis evident that certain ‘methodological propositions find airy wide acceptance today. In onder to clear the ground, tie necsary fint #9 consider the seating of cultural evoition in relation to biblical evluton, for there i a wide tendeney to comider the former ab an extension of, Tis chapter it api fom “Bolom agd Poca” in dnt ‘Tole ihn Bnelopate Factory, cy A Ls Rreeber (Uni f Chea From 1989), 31.2, by cour af The Unive of Chengy Pe 12 naman oF cunrune nance and therefore analogous to, the latter, Ther is of cours, a elation: ship tetwen bilogcal and cultural evolution in thet a minimal development of the Hominidae was a precondition of culture. But cultural evolution is an extemion of olga evlaton ony ia hronological sense’ (Huxley, 1952). The nature of tae evolutionary schrmes and of the deeelapiental process difler profoundly biology and in culture. In biological evolution tf astumed that all forms ane genetically lated aad that ther developments eaeialy ddvergent, Fatale, such ae the development of ying sriminsng, ad warm blood, are supercial and faily uncommon, ‘Hes latter oe ove, ate generally considered to ba instances of convergent evolu father than truc parallels In cultural eveation, on the ether hand is sume that Cultural pater in diferent parts of the work! ae genetically unrelated and yet pas through parallel sequences, Divers ent trends which do not follow the prtulated universal sequence, duc as those caused by disnetive local environments, are atebted ‘only secondary importance. Such moderday unilinearevelationats 28 Lac White and V. Gordon Childe evade the amkward facts of cultural divergence and local variation by pusporting to deal with father than with particular cultures, But Chik (1951: 160) ‘quite explicitly dinghies bisloical from cultura ‘volution by stesing the divergent nature of the former and the ‘operation of diffusion and the frequency of emergence inthe latter, 1s intersting that such istory 3 implied incur relativin 3. rather similar to that of biological evolution: the variations ad unique Dattems of the different areas and subareas are clearly enced to present divergent development and presumably an ultimate genetic relationship. It is only the complementary concept of difsion, a ‘Phenomenon unknown in biology, that prevents cultural eatin from having an exclusively genetic significance, like that of bloc cvolion, Analogies between cultural and biological evolution are also alleged to be represented by to atebuter of each: fst, a tendency toward increasing complexity of forms and, second, the developmnt of superior forms, that i improvement or progres. I, of ruse, quite pomible to define complexity and progres soa to make then chara terinics of evolution, But they’ am not attibutes excaively of ‘evolution; they may alo be considered characteristics of cultural change or development as conceived frm any nonevolutonay point of view, culture ae 2 whe ‘The assumption that cultural change normally involves incesting ‘complexity is found in virally ll historia interpretations of cultural ‘ats. But complexity in biology and culture difer As Kroeber (1948: 297) sates: “The process of cultural development isan additive and therefore accumulative one, where the proces of organic evlution isa subtitutive one.” Ie is on the quertion not of complexity but of divergence that the rlatvss and evolutionists dilfer According to the former, cumulative change follows parallel tends, whereas, ae ‘oding to the Later, its erdiayly divergent, though sometimes is onvergent and ocasionaly it pale Although complexity as such it not distinctive of the evolutionary concept, an allied concept might be considered to distinguish bath bioigicaland cultural evolution from nonevolutionsty cultural histor ‘al concepts, This is the concept ef organizational types and levels Whereas relativism seems to hold that a rather fixed and qualitatively ‘wrigque pattem persists in each eutural tradition, despite cumulative shanges which create quanttaive complexity, itis implicit in the utionary view that develope levels are marked by the appeate | spce of qualitatively dininctve pater or typeof enganization, Just 2 simple unicellular forms of Iie are suceeded by multicellular and imtemally specialiand forme which have stinctive kinds of total Dorraization, so social forms consisting of singe fais ani Tincages are succeeded by muliailal community, band or tbe, and the, in turn, by state pater, each involving not only greater internal heterogeneity and speciation but why new Kinds of over-all inte sation (Steward, 1950, 1951). ‘Ths evolutionism i ctingwishre rom relativism by the fact dat the former atibutes qualitative distinctive. ses to sueceve stages, garde of the particular tradition, whereas the Iter ataibuts ito the particule taliton or culture area eather han w the development sage ‘This brings us to the question of progress, whieh is the second characteristic atuibuted (9 both biological and cultural evolution Progress must he measured by definable values Mest of the soa siencrs are sll 0 ethnocentric, spell in thee practical applies Vion, that value jadgments ate alt inescapable. Even the “State: ‘ment on Human Right (1917) offered tothe United Nations bythe ‘American Anthropological Awociaton cleanly reflects the Areca value placed upon individual rights and politcal democeay. ‘This or any other criterion of value, however, certainly des not imply eve Ition, Tn fat, the concept of progirs is largely separable from cvoltion, and it may be approached in many ways. Kroeber, who is yo rane an evolutionist, suggests three criteria for meaning progress! "the atrophy of magic need on payhopathaigy; the de ‘ine of infantile ctmesion with the outstanding physiological event ‘of man life; and the persistent tendency of tehnoly and scence to grow accamulatvely (Kroner, 1948: 304). These valu are ot bsolte ina philphialwease they are “the ways in which progr ‘nay legitimately be considered property or am atibute of cular Ty dentin, then, ff pomtble although not nrceaary 40 ryan progres af a characteristic of any form of caltaral change, whether it fi cmarkcrel evolatonary ares ‘We mat conchae that eultral evolution isnot ditnguse form cultural relative or Bitreal particular by any excl snilsity ff ie deeloperatal scheme with that of bile even, haractrte of increasing complesiy o bythe atebte of prowess ‘Ths i not to 24y, however, that evolution lacks dsintve feature, ST cthedology Of volition contai two italy important seup tions Fist, it postulates that genuine parallels of form and function evelp in sorely independent sequences or cultural wadions, ‘Scond, it explane these paral by the independent operation of identical causality in each case The methodology i therefore avowed Scientie and generalizing rather than historical and particulaizing, Tei les concerned with unique and divergent (oe convergent) pt terme and features of cultte although it docs not recesily deny such divergence —than with parallch and sinilartes which recur frowecultrally. Tt endeavors to determine recurrent patterns and process and to formulate the Hntrrlationships between phenomena, in tern of “laws” The nineteenth-century evolutions are important te contemporary studies mone becaine of ther scene jective and preoccupation with hws than Deca of thee particular substantive CGaltural evolution, then, may be defined broadly as a quest for clara regularities or Law; but hoe are theeeditinctive ways in Sehich evolutionary data may be handled. First, anilnear evolution, the classkal ninetenth-century formulation, dealt with partculag ‘altares, Placing them in sages ofa imletoal wqucnes. Seommel tuviceral eooluion a rather arbitrary label to designate the moder vatnping of linear evolution —ie concerned with cultoe rather than with colton. Thied, mlilincer evolution, a somewhat ese mbitious approach than the other two, lke wnilinearevoltion in dealing with developmental qucnecs, but i i dstnctive fo parallels of linited occurrence instead of univer The etitcal diferenocs between these thire coneyps of evolution have not been reeognird, and there is alla general tcadency to idemtfy any effort to determine similar form amd proces in parallel developmcats with ainctentivcatury wrilinear evolution aed this ategorcally to reject it. The Mars and Communist adoption of rinetrenth

    You might also like