Kluckhohn, as also the majority of cultural anthropologists, followed Boas’ rules and undertook a number of ethnographic field expeditions. The result was his studies in the domain of the magical and religious ideas of the Navajo.168
At one point, Kluckhohn collaborated closely with Kroeber and acted as his coauthor for the book Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions.169
In the theoretical sphere Kluckhohn proposed that cross-cultural studies should be guided by the method of “value orientations.” This method puts forward a classification of cultures according to five main value criteria:170
• The assessment of human nature (whether good, evil, or mixed);
• The relations of man to nature (whether in the submission of man to nature, the submission of nature to man, or their harmonious balance);
• The understanding of time (with a special emphasis being placed on the past/tradition, present/enjoyment, or future/posterity/delayed reward);
• Activity (being, becoming/inner development, or activity/striving/technique);
• Social relations (whether hierarchical, associative/collective-egalitarian or individualistic).
It is easy to demonstrate the potency of these criteria by the example of the analysis of the fundamental ethnosociological moments.
With the help of Klukhohn’s criteria it is also possible to describe more subtle differences, or variants of societies in transitional conditions, and separate sociocultural, political, ideological, or religious groups within the framework of one or another society.
Kluckhohn’s Criteria / Society
Ethnos
Narod/Laos
Nation
Civil Society
Human Nature
Mixed
Mixed or Evil
Mixed or Evil
Good
The Connection between Man and Nature / Balance
Balance
Balance
Man above Nature
Man above Nature
Time
Present
Past / Tradition
Future / Progeny or Present/Enjoyment
Present / Enjoyment
Activity
Being
Becoming / Inner Development
Action/Striving/Technology
Action / Striving / Technology
Social Relations
Egalitarianism
Hierarchy (Caste, Estate)
Hierarchy (Class, Economic)
Individualism
Figure 7. Table of correspondence of Kluckhohn’s criteria to the types of society in the ethnosociological series.
Clifford Geertz: Symbolic Anthropology
One of Kluckhohn’s pupils was the famous American anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1926–2006), the founder of Symbolic Anthropology.
Geertz participated in field studies on the island of Java, in Bali, and in Morocco. He wrote a few fundamental works of cultural anthropology, devoted to the interpretation of the religious ideas of archaic ethnoses and to the ecological aspect of the economy — in particular, to the problem of the agrarian sector in societies subject to accelerated acculturation and modernization.171 , 172
In his work, Geertz combines the influence of Boas’ school and the “culture and personality” circle, the sociological ideas of Parsons and Weber, the philosophical outlook of the late Wittgenstein, who developed the idea of “language games,” and the philosophical theories of Structuralism (Ricoeur). On the basis of these sources, he elaborates a model of “Symbolic Anthropology.” The task of the researcher of the cultures of ethnic societies, according to Geertz, is the clarification of their structures and its interpretations, their hermeneutic explanations in terms borrowed from those cultures themselves. Geertz uses the name “thick description” to clarify the essence of such a method. It is “thick” in the sense of a refusal to willingly select from the studied ethnic culture fundamental semantic axes, which would sort the accumulated givens according to their relevance or irrelevance in relation to the knowingly specified criteria. The “thick description” of a culture proposes an initial trust in it and a readiness to adjust the sociological and anthropological apparatus in accordance with what the organic bearers of the culture themselves consider important or unimportant. “Thick description” is characteristic for myth, with its synchronism, symbolism, and multidimensionality; “flat description” for rational discourse, built on strictly causal ties.
The essence of “Symbolic Anthropology” consists in building one’s own systems on the basis of what the members themselves of the examined culture consider of primary and secondary importance. This can run counter to the attitudes of the researcher of this or that anthropological school, who is inclined to attribute priority meaning to entirely different factors, but Geertz insists that in every case the value hierarchy of the ethnos be taken into account in the most serious manner. It is easy to recognize the law of William Thomas in this principle: “if society considers something great, then it is great.” Or Mauss’ doctrine of the “total social fact”: if in some society something is considered important which is considered by the researcher entirely unimportant (on the basis of the value system of the society to which the researcher belongs), he is obligated to register this importance as “symbolic,” to reckon with it, and to take it into account in the construction of his own system of interpretation.
Geertz laid out his foundational ideas in the book “The Interpretation of Cultures.”173 Earlier we saw that the contemporary English sociologist Anthony Smith named a version of the “primordialist approach” after Geertz (“Geertz’s Primordialism”), which is the most constructive and optimal model of Ethnosociology as such.
Clark Wissler: Cultural Area
A relatively independent version of Cultural Anthropology was proposed by Clark Wissler (1870–1947), who was the curator of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, though he did, at one time, work together with Franz Boas and was not able to escape his influence entirely. Wissler’s works became a source of inspiration for many American and European ethnosociologists.
Wissler devoted a series of works, which received recognition in scientific circles, to the Native peoples of North America.174
Wissler’s specific contribution was the development of the theory of “cultural areas,” with the help of which he proposed to interpret the ethnosociological regionalization of cultures and to establish an asymmetrical correlation between them. Later an analogous approach received the name “mapping,” the compilation of conceptual correspondences between diverse pluralities, represented as situated in space (“on a map”). Wissler proposed to analyze cultural areas in a criss-cross manner, establishing different types and forms of analogy between them.
In the theoretical domain, Wissler insisted on stricter formulations of basic anthropological principles and strove to render Cultural Anthropology a more exact discipline, with the help of the statistical method. He considered culture to be an “obligatory standard,” defined as “acquired behavior,” and he suggested that it be studied as a “complex of ideas.”175
Margaret Mead: Children — Capitalists, Materialists, Cynics
It is worth mentioning another group of Boas’ followers and students, who made a substantial contribution to Ethnosociology. The brightest figure of contemporary Anthropology was Boas’ student Margaret Mead (1901–1978), who developed certain ideas of the circle of “culture and personality.” Ruth Benedict, in particular, was a big influence on her.
Mead conducted ethnographic field studies in New Guinea and in Bali, and the books she consequently wrote about them became bestsellers around the world, selling in numbers unthinkable for serious anthropological, scientific works or ethnosociological studies.176
In her works, Mead shows the relativity of opinions, deeply rooted in modern society, about the status of the child, gender, the processes of socialization, etc., which were considered universal. On the ba
sis of extensive ethnographic and ethnosociological material, Mead shows that in many archaic societies (and even in the majority of them) myths, legends, and stories are the prerogative of adult, socially responsible men, for whom belief in the supernatural is an inalienable part of their social status. If an adult, socially responsible man ceases to believe in myths, he loses his status, becomes an outcast and outsider.
Children in archaic societies, on the other hand, display vivid examples of rationalism, skepticism, materialism, and cynicism. Before the passing of the stage of puberty, models of the childish explanation of reasons for phenomena are notable for their crudity and linearity. If in some tribes, adults consider the birth of children the coming into the tribe of the spirits of ancestors, then children, on the contrary, are inclined to ascribe this to the sexual activity of their fathers and mothers on the marriage bed. If adults consider the exchange of objects a symbolic act, necessary for maintaining the balance of the world and signifying that in the ritual or the giving of gifts one must give away as much as (if not more than) one receives, the children of archaic tribes try to amass for themselves as many valuable objects (rocks, boar tusks or dog teeth) as possible and to give away as little as possible, employing for this end rather ingenious tricks, calling to mind in their general features the strategy of modern capitalism, marketing, and even legal procedures, unknown to the world of adults, who are living in accordance with the sacred rules of the “economy of the gift.”
Such asymmetry is explained by the fact that children are not yet familiar with culture, and for this reason behave like contemporary “civilized” Europeans.
Gregory Bateson: The Criticism of Monotonic Processes
Margaret Mead’s husband Gregory Bateson (1904–1980) was, for a time, another student of Boas’, and he too left his mark on Ethnosociology, Linguistics, Philosophy, Psychology, and Psychiatry. He participated in field studies in New Guinea together with Mead, in which he described in detail the initiatory rituals of the tribes of the Iatmul and gave this phenomenon a thorough analysis using the categories of eidos, ethnos, and schismogenesis.177 He continued his studies in Bali.178
Bateson applied his ethnographic knowledge and Boas’ scientific program to the domains of psychology and linguistics, advancing the hypothesis that the structure of language almost entirely programs a person’s behavior in the social environment. On this principle, he built his “double bind theory,” applicable in both psychiatry and in ethnosociological analysis.
The “double bind theory” consists of this: in certain circumstances a man or the social group may receive a linguistic message, containing within itself a contradiction. This contradiction can provoke a significant malfunction of the social system or psychological balance of the person, since it affects the inner, unconscious structures of the psyche, which comprise the basis of the cultural matrix. Hence, Bateson advanced the hypothesis (subsequently completely confirmed) that the speech disorders of parents can serve as the reason for the mental disorders (in particular, schizophrenia) of their children. The receipt of an order formulated in a way that violates the logical structures of language (for instance: “move closer away from me”) can in the case of multiple repetitions lead to a serious psychological illness, since the correspondence between grammar, significance, and sense will be shattered.
This becomes a frequent phenomenon on the level of culture, accompanying acculturation. An archaic tribe aggressively attacks one of a higher culture, along with its values, semantic fields, and social codes, which leads to a failure in the functioning of both local and imported social attitudes. Generalizing, it is possible to say that the acceleration of the modernization of archaic or traditional societies in certain cases leads to the establishment of pathological systems of “double binds,” to social pathology.
Bateson’s ideas concerning “monotonic processes” are extremely important. From his point of view, reason functions in the logic of “monotonicity”; noticing a tendency towards growth, it automatically prolongs it into infinity, conjecturing by default that growth in the present will continue in the future also. The laws of life, on the other hand, are cyclical and reversible. At some moment, growth ends and depreciation, decline, and decay begin. The system becomes, in turns, more complex and simpler. Thus, reason and its structure enter into contradiction with the peculiar logic of life. This can be traced in both societies and in separate individuals or natural types.
The critique of monotonic processes and the attempt to formulate an approach that would synthesize the principles of rationalism and the vital laws of nature is one of Bateson’s main theoretical merits.179
Melville Herskovits: The American Negro as the “Basic Personality”
Another student of Boas, Melville Herskovits (1895–1963), focused his field studies on the problem of the Negroes in both North and Central America (the Caribbean region). Herskovits developed the first exhaustive reconstructions of the ethnosociological peculiarities of the Negro population in America, the study of their cultures, customs, and typical social characteristics. Herskovits aimed to recreate and accurately describe the “basic personality” of the Negro as a normative sociological figure.180
Herskovits continued the theme of studying Negro societies beyond the borders of America, turning to the study of African societies in Africa itself. Studying this matter, he made a few fundamental discoveries in the area of Economic Anthropology, which first and foremost contemplates the interconnection of ethnic and ethnosociological phenomena with the structure of the economy and economic practices.181
The problem of the Negros in the US and in the countries of Central America led Herskovits to the more general theme of social acculturation, the influence of some societies (as a rule, more complex ones) on others (as a rule, simpler ones), with the compulsory displacement of the autochthonous culture by the imposed culture. Herskovits devoted a separate work to this theme as well a joint memorandum, written together with two other outstanding ethnosociologists, Ralph Linton and Robert Redfield.182 , 183
Robert Redfield: Folk Society
Herskovits and Linton’s coauthor Robert Redfield (1897–1958) made a significant contribution to Ethnosociology through his fundamental studies of small agrarian societies.184 Redfield, like all cultural anthropologists, engaged in field studies. In particular, he researched the culture of Mexico, with an emphasis on the rural population.185
The main object of his sociological studies was “peasant culture.”186 Redfield introduced into Ethnosociology the crucial concept “folk society.” The definition of folk society can be applied to the ethnos with full justification: one can put an equal sign between these two sociological categories.
Redfield describes folk society in the following terms:
• The people composing the folk society look very much alike;
• Their mores and habits are identical;
• All of the members of the folk society possess a strong feeling of belonging to one another;
• A folk society is a small, isolated community, most often illiterate, homogeneous, and with a strong feeling of group solidarity;
• There is almost no division of labor (except gender-based) in folk society;
• The subjects and objects of production are families;
• Folk society can be defined as “sacred society.”187
Redfield follows the fate of folk society in more complex social constructions. They can be preserved as unique enclaves, assimilate entirely, set off into continuous wandering (Romani), end up in slavery and become a “second class narod” (Negros in America), comprise a class of peasants, villagers, the urban underclass, become colonists of new lands, etc.188
Paul Radin: The Figure of the Trickster
Extremely important for Cultural Anthropology are the works of yet another student of Boas’, Paul Radin (1883–1953), a recognized specialist in the ethnography of the Native tribes of North America, and the author of the bestselling book, The T
rickster, the preface to which was written by the Swiss psychoanalyist Carl Jung.189 , 190 Radin thoroughly studied the myths, traditions, and rituals of the Winnebago and reconstructed on that basis a general type, met with in the mythologies of the most diverse narods, which he described as the figure of the trickster.
The trickster is a cultural hero whose actions are always ambivalent, not given to unambiguous classification along the scale of good and evil, truth and lies, use and harm, and so on. This is a very important figure, since in it we see the matrix of the social culture of society in its primordial state, even before it is raised to the level of distinct awareness and the differentiated distribution of socio-formative pairs.
This theme interested Jung, since in his theory the collective unconscious precedes structured moral systems and is always ambivalent in itself. Just as ambivalent is the even deeper structure of the ethnos, the personification of which is the mythological trickster, discovered and conceptualized by Radin.
To Radin belongs also a series of works on the philosophy and religion of simple societies.191 , 192
Mircea Eliade: Eternal Return
The Romanian historian Mircea Eliade (1907–1986), who lived the second half of his life in the US and fundamentally influenced American Sociology and scientific culture, exerted a tremendous influence on Cultural Anthropology and Ethnosociology.
Even in his early words, Eliade put before himself the task of describing the fundamental differences between archaic and traditional societies and the societies of the Modern era. He studied ancient and modern religions, societies, and cultures, trying to find the most important markers that distinguish contemporary Western culture from the ancient societies of both Europe and also from the East. Eliade came to the conclusion that traditional society, even when it possesses a written culture and highly differentiated rationality, is oriented toward a cyclical model of the understanding of time and on the symmetrical homology of society and the cosmos. Modern societies, on the other hand, are built around the concept of linear, unidirectional time and on the principle of a total asymmetry between the subject (culture) and object (nature).193 Thus, Eliade developed criteria that make precise the structure of the relationship between social models and various paradigms.
The Foundations Page 17