white, l.a. (1947). evolutionism in cultural anthropology. a rejoinder

7/25/2019 White, L.a. (1947). Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology. a Rejoinder

1/14

EVOLUTIONISM IN CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY:

A

REJOINDER

B y LESLIE

A.

WHITE

ROFESSOR LOWIES recent article in the

American Anthropologist,

P

Evolution in Cultural Anthropology:

A

Reply to Leslie White, was

written to clarify the issues involved in three essays of mine, also published

in this Journal.2

I

am not sure, however, that these issues have been clarified.

On the contrary, I feel that at certain points Dr. Lowie has confused rather

than clarified the matters in question. I should like, therefore, to make a few

additional remarks.

First of all,

I

wish to say that the idea of accusing Professor Lowie of plagi-

arism has never entered my mind.

I

merely pointed out, in the instance cited

by him, tha t Morgan had preceded Lowie in suggesting tha t animals may have

been brought under domestication originally for non-utilitarian reasons. But

this is not plagiarism; many modern ideas of today can be found in the writ-

ings of Aristotle. I am sorry that Lowie received any other impression.

Let us turn now to some of the issues that he has selected for particular

criticism.

EVALUATION

OF

MORGAN

I am of course well aware

of

the complimentary remarks addressed to Mor-

gan by the English anthropologists Haddon and Rivers, by the Indian student

Mitra, and by his American teacher, Clark Wissler. But

I

am also aware of the

fact that many prominent anthropologists, particularly those of the Boas

group, have ignored, belittled, and misrepresented Morgan by turn. I believe

I

have amply demonstrated this fact in my articles.

I

may, however, add

another interesting sidelight to which

I

have not previously called attention.

Professor Lowie cites Radcliffe-Browns complimentary allusion to Morgans

Systems.

He does not point out, however, that in the bibliography

of

Radcliffe-

Browns long article, The Social Organization of Australian

tribe^, ^

which

contains 188 references to

101

titles by 52 authors, Morgans name does not

appear even once, despite the fact that he was one of the first, if not the first,

anthropologist of any stature to write on the subject of Australian social or-

gan i~a t ion .~s a matter of fact, it would be little exaggeration to say that

Morgan, with the aid of his proteges, Lorimer Fison and A. W. Howitt, whom

he taught and guided through a decade of correspondence, founded the science

of Australian ethnology. Yet Radcliffe-Brown mentions Morgan in the text

of

this article only to oppose him.

One recalls a l sv desp i t e some kind words in later years-Lowies early

Lowie,

1946a. 2 White, 1943, 1944, 1945.

3 Ocrania,

Vol.

I, Nos. 1 4

nc.,

1930-31. 4 Morgan, 1872; 1877, Part 11, Chap. I; 1880.

400


2/14

WHITE] E V O L U T IO N I S M I N C U L T U R A L A N T HR O P O LO G Y

401

character izat ion of Morgan a s the typical example of the comprehensive an d

weak mind espri t ample e t fa ib le) in D uhe m s classification of intellects.6

And even now, when Lowie cites gem s i l lu strativ e of M organ s narrow -

mindedness,6 he i s no t wholly fa ir . F or example , he quotes M organ to the

effect th a t cer tain f rescoes by Michael Angelo are subs tant ial ly absurd . B u t

he fai ls to t e ll us why Mo rgan th oug ht

so:

W h e n

M .

A. th ou gh t he could pic-

ture the last judgm ent on three thousand square feet of plaster wal l, and m ake

it express ive of an yt hi ng b u t his own folly, he de ceived himself.7

I

have never m ainta ined, or even in t imated , th a t Mo rgan was per fec t.

I

have never denied th a t he comm it ted er rors and h ad shor tcomings . To defend

him against unjust accusat ions, as I have done, i s not t o dec lare h im to be

withou t f law or blemish. Lowie say s th a t he would like t o see some realization

on Whi tes pa r t t ha t sporadic impat ience wi th Mo rgan m ay h ave a n objec tive

basis.

I

believe

I

hav e given such ind ication. A few yea rs ago,

I

went to con-

siderable length to demonstrate that the posi t ion Morgan took regarding the

degree of deve lopm ent of Aztec society was untenab le.* M organ insisted th at

Aztec society was dem ocrat ic , th at n o American In dian group h ad developed

beyond the societas. I was able to show, in a closely reasoned an d a mp ly docu-

mented argum ent , tha t M organ an d Bandelier were wrong

on

the basis of dat a

that they themselves suppl ie d and used .

I

do not be l ieve th a t th i s a rgum ent could

hav e been w orked ou t by one held in th e grip of t h e obsessive power of fa nati-

cism. D r. Lowie may hav e forgot ten this demo nstrat ion of m y abi l i ty to tak e

a cr it ical a t t i tude towa rd Morgan , al though he reviewed the work for American

Ant iqui ty and, I may add, he found my cr i t ique admirably ba lanced and

~ o n v i n ~ i n g . ~

T o

summarize this point : Morgan has been al ternately ignored, bel i t t led

an d misrepresented-sometimes grossly so. I have t ri ed to defend h im agains t

these injustices. To Lowie m y a t t i tu de seems to be one

of

fana tic ism an d b l ind

hero-worship; to me i t is merely a sense of justice a n d fair play.

I

have never

claimed perfection for Morgan. On the contrary, I have demons t r a t ed my

abili ty to regard him cri t ically. If

I

have not compiled an inventory of his

shortcomings, i t is because

(1)

oth ers ha ve done-and overdone-this; a n d

(2) because a great f igure in science should be judged by the characterist ics

which set him a pa r t f rom an d ahead of his contemporar ies , not by the errors

and shortcomings which he shares wi th them .

M O R G A N A N D

THE

D A R W I N I A N S

I t seems to me tha t Dr . Lowie has confused the i ssue tha t

I

raised in

Morgans At t i tu de To ward Religion an d Science. T he issue, a s

I

see it,

is

Lowie,

1915, p. 330. Id . , 1946a,

p.

225.

White

(Ed.) , 1937, p. 285.

* W h i t e (Ed. ) ,

1940,

Vol. I , pp.

27-46. Lowie, 1941, p. 196.


3/14

402 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [N

s.,

49, 1947

this: After the publication of

The Origin of Species

a controversy arose in

Europe and America. I t was a struggle between the Christian theological con-

ception of man and the conception held by science. I argued that

if you were

i n thi s controversy

you were

on one side

or

the other;

you were either for religion

or you were for science. Proceeding from this premise,

I

called attention to the

charge, made by several anthropologists,

that Morgan never gave allegiance to

Darwinism because he was never able

to

free himself fr om his orthodox religious

beliefs.

I

demonstrated that this charge is a false one. I proved, in fact, that the

exact opposite was the case:

that Morgan was on Darwins side und not on the

side

of

the theologians.

This was the point a t issue.

Incidentally, since Lowie has counted fifteen citations to himself in one of

my articles, may

I

point out that he is not mentioned in Morgans Attitude

Toward Religion and Science as one of the parties to this particular misrepre-

sentation of Morgan. He has, however, made his contribution: he speaks of

Morgan as a bourgeois lawyer who never severed his connections with Chris-

tian orthodoxy,lO-and this in one of his

most recent

writings, not something

published in

1920

or before.

It

is important to note that Dr. Lowie

does not now challenge the thesis of m y

essay

on Morgans Attitude Toward Religion and Science. He makes no

attempt t o rehabilitate the caricature of Morgan, the conservative Biblicist

Linton) who rejected the theory of organic evolution Radcliffe-Brown),

who nowhere in his books uses the word evolution Stern), who never

severed his connections with Christian orthodoxy Lowie). Instead, he makes

quite a show of pointing out (1) that there were in Morgans day distinguished

men of science who were also deeply religious and

(2)

that Darwin was criti-

cized by men of science. These claims may of course be admitted. There were

religious men who made contributions to science, as Lowie maintains, and

there were scientists who were devout. But they were not involved in the

Darwin vs. Theology controversy-at least I know of no one who defended the

helief of divine creation and at the same time espoused the cause of Darwin.

That is what I meant when I said

if

you were for Theology you were against

Science.I believe tha t meaning was fairly clear from thecontext.

It

could hard-

ly be claimed tha t Professor Lowie has clarified the issue here; he seems rather

t o

have confused i t with a diversionary attack.

I

submit that my thesis still

stands: Morgan was no friend of theological orthodoxy; he was a staunch

champion of Darwinism in particular and of science in general.

ARE THE BOASIANS ANTI-EVOLUTIONISTS?

Professor Lowie tries to make it appear that Boas and his students at-

tacked not [cultural] evolution, but Morgans and other writers evolutionary

10 Z d , 1937, p. 54.


4/14

WHITE] E V O L U T IO N I S M I N C U L T U R A L A N T HR O PO L OG Y

403

schemes. I am afraid he will have a hard time convincing many of his readers

that this is the case. To be sure, many students in recent decades have declared

that they were not opposed to

evolution

but to

unilinear

evolution. But they

either do not specify what they mean by unilinear or they define it in such

a way as to exclude such men as Tylor and Morgan from its adherents-if any.

If the Boasians were not opposed to cultural evolutionism as such but

merely to particular formulations of this concept, how would Lowie account

for the statement that one of his admirers made in an enthusiastic review of

one of his (Lowies) own books:

The theory

of

cultural evolution [is] to m y mind the most inane, sterile, and

pernicious theory ever conceived in the history

of

science. (Laufer)l*

How would he explain Sapirs assertion that evolutionism as an interpretative

principle of culture is

merely a Passing phase in the history

of

thought?13

(All

emphases in this paragraph are mine.) Or the same authors thesis tha t there

are distinct types of social organization

.

as well as interestingly conver-

gent forms that could not, however, be explained by any formula of evolution-

ary theory?14How explain Benedicts assertion that anthropological data are

best studied without the complications of

any

attempted evolutionary ar-

rangement; that the idea

of

evolution has to be laid aside in the s tudy of

culture?16Or Bunzels discussion

of

the fallacy inherent in

all

evolutionary

arguments?16 Or Sterns contention that cultures

. . .

are too complex and

.

.too variable to fit into

any

definite social evolutionary ~ cheme?~ccord-

ing to Sapir, Lowie believes tha t . there are

no

valid evolutionary schemes

that may guide us in the history of human society.18 Sapir concurs in this

view. In his article, Boas and American Ethnologists, Williams hails Boas

for founding a school and leading it in a whole-hearted at tack upon the theory

of cultural evolution for more than a quarter of a century.lQ Paul Radin

makes it very clear that it was not merely Morgans and other writers

evolutionary schemes tha t the Boasians objected to. He writes: if Boas and

his school rejected the developmental schemes of Tylor and Morgan this must,

i n no sense,

be ascribed to the inadequacies and crudities of

those

schemes, but

rather to the fact

dhey rejected all developmental sequences.

. . [To the theory

l1 Id . , 1946a, p. 227. In a subseq uent communication (Lowie, 1946b), he h as declared flatly

th at the Boas school was not opposed to evolution but only to a vapid evolutionary metaphysics

th at ha s nothing to do w ith science.

le

Laufer, 1918, p. 90. Lowie points out t h a t Laufer was not trained by B oas. H e was, how-

ever, at one with the Boas school on many points, especially those

of

anti-evolutionism and

hostility tow ard creative imagination.

13 Sap ir, 1920a, p. 378.

l4

I d . ,

1927, p. 100.

l8 Bunzel, 1938, p. 578.

l 8

Sapir, 1920b, p.

4 6

Ben edict, 1931, pp. 809-810.

Stern, 1931, p. 135.

W illiams, 1936, pp. 199-200.


5/14

404 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[N . ,

49, 1947

of evolution]

Boas always took a prevailingly antagonistic position20

italics

mine). And, finally, one of Boas leading disciples has only recently gladly re-

affirmed his belief in the anti-evolutionary tradition.21 Thus, the testimony

and evidence indicate definitely tha t Boas and his students

were

opposed t o the

theory of cultural evolution itself, and not merely to certain specific formula-

tions of this theory. They have, in short, shown little hospitality for that

great principle which every scholar must lay firm hold of if he intends to

understand either the world he lives in or the, history of the past. Ty10r )~~

Furthermore, we might ask, if it were only

particular formulation s

of evolu-

tionist theory that the Boasians objected to and not the basic concept itself,

why did they not develop more adequate statements? When men of science

grappled with the theory of evolution in biology in the early days they did SO to

correct i t, to improve and develop it . What have the Boasians done to develop

an adequate form of evolutionist theory to take the place of the early and

relatively crude presentations?

As

for the term anti-evolutionist, let me hasten to say that it is not an

epithet of my own invention. I t is a term that the late Alexander Golden-

weiser-whom Lowie has called the philosopher of American a n t h r o p o l ~ g y ~ ~

-used a great deal to

characterize the philosophic outlook

of

the Boas school.24

Another student of Boas, Paul Radin, also has used i t more than once in the

same sense.26

Professor Lowie seems to have difficulty in understanding my phrase re-

actionary philosophy of anti-evolution. He says it naturally suggests the

degeneration theories

.

of de Maistre.26

I

cannot see how anything

I

have

ever said could suggest such a conclusion. I believe

I

have made myself fairly

clear. In 1938

I

spoke plainly of anti-evolutionists of

the twentieth century

who opposed the cultural evolutionists of the lat ter half of the nineteenth.27

A

year later, in A Problem in Kinship Terminology,

I

expressed the same

view.28

It

is stated plainly again in Energy and the Evolution of Culture29

1943), and again in Diffusion vs. Evolution30 1945). In each instance it is

made explicit and clear that the anti-evolutionists are anthropologists of the

twentieth century who opposed the theory of culiural evolution as developed

in the latter half of the nineteenth century. By reactionary,

I

meant opposing,

reacting against, a theory-one of the most fundamental and fruitful theories

in all fields

of

science, physical, biological, and cultural-in such a way as to

Herskovits,

1941,

p.

273.

Herskovits has also purged his

vocabulary of

the evolutionist

Tylor, 1881, p. 20.

0 Radin, 1939, p. 303.

t e rm

preliterate and uses %on-literate instead.

$3

Lowie,

1922,

p.

235.

l

oldenweiser,

1914,

p.

412; 1925a, pp. 22 1,2 26,2 27; 1925b, p. 19.

l6

adin, 1932, p. 8; 1933, p. 4.

White,

1938,

pp.

386-387.

Professor

Lowie,

in

a

let ter to me, commented on this very point.

White,

1939,

pp.

571-572. so

White,

1945,

p .

354.

2e Lowie, 19468, pp. 226, 23 1.

29 White, 1943, p. 355.


6/14

WHITE] EVO LU T IO N IS M I N CU L T U R AL ANTHROPOLDGY 405

oppose progress in the philosophy of science. Sapir recognized the direction, if

not the significance, of the anti-evolutionist efforts of the Boasians when, in

reviewing Lowies

Primitive Society,

he said

a

Anthropology

.

is

now elaborately backwatering.

It

is itself rapidly drifting

t o t he

anti-evolutionary, historical method.

Whether one calls it reactionary or backwatering makes little difference.

In either case, we find an attempt t o run counter to the stream of thought in

science and philosophy.

D I F F U S I O N VS.

EVOLUTION

I appear to have failed to make myself understood to Lowie in my essay

on this subject, for he still seems to think t ha t the evolutionist must take the

facts of diffusion into account.

As

I

have pointed out before, Tylor and Kroe-

ber have sketched the evolution of writing without reference to diffusion.

Einstein and Infeld have given us

a

treatise

on The Evolution o j Physics

with-

out a concern for diffusion. Could we not work out the evolution-the temporal

functional sequence of forms-of mathematics, Gothic architecture, Greek

drama, currency, clans, cartels, the locomotive, parliamentary government,

relativity, radar, symphonies, metallurgy, the piano, or culture as a whole,

without regard for diffusion?

Do

we not, as a matter of fact, actually have such

studies, in anthropological literature or elsewhere? That valid studies of this

sort have been and can be made seems

so

obvious tha t i t is rather hard to see

why Professor Lowie is unwilling to accept the principle upon which these

studies rest.32Yet he insists on bringing diffusion into the picture and main-

tains that diffusion negates the possibility of proving ev~lution.~~e seems

unable t o see th at the

development

of a trai t or complex and its

d i j u s i o n

to other

regions are two quite different processes, and that far from opposing each

other, they may work together in perfect harmony: a style of pottery decor-

ation, a type of loom, a form of writing, currency, etc., is developed in one

region and spreads to others. The collaboration of the evolutionary and difiu-

sionist processes in culture is exemplified throughout the writings of Morgan

and Tylor. We find contemporary recognition of this fact well set forth in a

recent work by Ralph L i n t ~ n : ~ ~

Diffusion has made a double contribution t o t h e advance of mankind. It has

stimulated the growth of culture as a whole and at t h e same t ime

has

enriched the

content

of

individual cultures.

It has helped to accelerate the evolution of culture

as

a

whole by removing the necessity

for

every society

to

perfect

every

step

in

an

inventive series

for

itself emphasis mine).

t

Sapir, 1920c,

p. 533.

In one

of

his

most

recent works, Lowie speaks

of

the evolution

of

the

plow

f rom

the hoe

without reference to diffusion. Lowie, 1940, p . 28.

Lowie, 1946a,

p. 230.

34 Linton, 1936a, p. 324.


7/14

406

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

IN S . 49, 1947

Dr . Lowie makes a good poin t when he shows th a t Morgan

did

infer t r iba l

his tory f rom his evolut ionis t formulas, an d he is fully justif ied in call ing this

his tory ver i table pseudo-his tory. B ut this does not prove th a t th e

formulas

are inval id.

It

merely d em onstrates th at an evolut ionis t is capable of misusing

them as well as a n ant i -evolut ionist . Th e evolut ionis t s form ulas were dev ised

to show how one cu ltu ral form grows ou t of another-as exemplified, e.g., b y

Kroebers seven stages in the deve lopm ent of w eaving.36 T h e y were n o t d e-

signed t o reconstruct

tribal

history, a n d if th ey ar e so employed, an er ror ha s

been com mit ted regardless of w hether th e auth or of th e mistake

is

an evolu-

t ionis t or an opponent of this theory. B ut , le t i t be emphasized, a formula is

not invalidated merely because someone make s impro per use of i t . W hen em -

ployed for the purpose for which th ey were designed, evolution ist formulas can

be i l luminat ing a n d frui tful .

THE ORIGIN OF EVOLUTIONIST FORMULAS

Professor Lowie makes the poin t th a t

I

hav e nowhere explained how evo-

lutionist formulas are ult im ately derived.36 H e asks if the y a re em pirical

induct ions or a pr ior i constructs . Since his ar t ic le was wri t ten anoth er essay

of m ine, K roe bers Con figurations of C ult ure G rowth 37ha s been publ ished,

in which

I

have something to say on th e subjec t .

I

have t r i ed to show tha t

m any of the g rea t organizing a n d vitalizing principles of science are n o t the

pro du cts of induc tion. T o quo te Einstein again:38

There

is

no inductive method which could lead

t o

the fundamental concepts

of

physics. Failure

t o

understand this fact constituted the basic philosophic error of

so many investigators of the n ineteenth century. . We now realize with special

clarity,

how much in error are those theorists who believe that theory comes

in-

ductively from experience

W h at Einstein s ay s here of p hysics will of course app ly t o science in gene ral

an d t o e thno logy .

T h e Boas school has long proceeded from th e premise th a t if you ma rshal

enough facts som ething construct ive will come o ut of them . As R a d in h a s p u t

i t :39

The essence of his [Boas] method was.

.

t o gather facts, and ever more

facts . . and permit them t o speak for themselves . . .

Unfortunately, facts do not speak for themselves; they require imaginat ive

intel lects to speak for them . F ac ts as facts lie iner t a n d meaningless unt i l th ey

a re qui ckened i n to life and mean ing by t he c r eat ive power of i n t e l l i g e n ~ e . ~ ~

36

Kroeber,

1923, pp. 360-361.

white 1946.

40

As

a distinguished protege of Morgan, Adolph F. Bandelier once put

it:

Lines of thought

are superior, i n the end,

to

lines of fact, because fact is dead without the constant action of

thought upon it. See White Ed.), 1940, Vol.

11

p. 207.

Lowie, 1946a, p. 231.

38 Einstein, 1936, pp. 360,365, 366.

Jg

Radin, 1939, p. 301.


8/14

WHITE] EVOLUTIONISM IN CU LTU RA L ANTHROPOLOGY

407

An anthropologist trained by Boas was not in a very favorable position to

appreciate the creative imagination. On the contrary he would be inclined to

regard it

as

objectionable and unscientific. Students of Boas like to point to

his merciless logic, his scientific rigor, his acidly critical faculty on the

one hand, and his abhorrence of general i~at ions~lnd systems, his impa-

tience with theory, in short, with a creative, synthesizing intelligence on the

other. They learned to scoff at the evolutionists. Sapir called them closet

philosopher^. ^^

He declared tha t the old classical anthropology, still current,

is not a science but a pseudo-science like medieval alchemy.43To Goldenweiser

the field of cultural evolutionist theory was but a happy hunting ground for

the exercise of the creative i m a g i n a t i ~ n ; ~ ~volutionist theory

a

substitute

for critical th o~ gh t. ~ 6

Hostility to reflective thought, creative imagination and theory became

traditional among the Boasians. Radin speaks of an exaggerated distrust of

theories of whatever descri~tion,4~n the United States. Rivers, too, com-

ments upon the anti-theoretical basis

of

American ethn~logy.~he Boasian

attitude was forthrightly stated by Laufer in these words:48

I

must confess that I a m

in

a state of mind

where

I would no onger give dim e

to anyone for a new theory,

but

I

am always enthusiastic about

new

facts.

emphasis

mine).

This confession, which might strike

a

physicist or other man of science as

incredible,

w a s

inspired by Lowies book,

A re W e C ivi li ze d?

The aversion for

theory became so pronounced among American anthropologists t hat to sug-

gest tha t something is theoretical, says Kluckhohn, is to suggest tha t i t is

slightly inde~ent.4~

The consequences of this anti-imaginative, anti-theoretical outlook were

much what one might expect: a mass of facts th at did not mean much or make

much sense. Kroeber has called the fru it of this philosophy and method rather

sterile.sO In

1921

a year after Lowies

Primitive Society

appeared), Golden-

weiser noted that the critical ethnologist has developed a certain timidity

[sic]

n dealing with ideas, and warned tha t in the absence of constructive

ideas

. .

method and criticism are doomed t o sterility.61

It

would be difficult,

I

venture t o say, to find another chapter in the history of science in which an

aggressive hostility to theory, the very breath of life of science, has been carried

as far as

i t

has by the Boas group.

1

The la te Elsie Clews Parsons has noted tha t Dr. Lowie is ruthless of formulas. Parsons,

1920, p. 245.

44

Goldenweiser, 1921, p. 55. It is significant to note that Goldenweiser equates creative

imagination with the evolutionists. This, to a Boasian, put creative imagination in its place

6

Id. ,

1924, p. 433.

Laufer, 1930, p. 162.

so Kroeber, 1920, p. 380 .

Sapir, 1920a, p. 377.

48 Sapir, 1920b, p. 46.

46

Kadin, 1933, p. 253.

Rivers,

1911

p. 491.

Kluckhohn, 1939, p. 333.

61

Goldenweiser, 1921, p. 65.


9/14

408 A M E R IC A N

ANTHROPOLOGIST

[N ., 49 1947

To return to the source and derivation of evolutionist formulas: When

Lowie demands t o know i they are empirical inductions he is faintly remi-

niscent of opponents of Darwin who, like Bryan, demanded to know if anyone

had ever seen one species change into another, an ape into a man. But we have

already dealt with empiricism and induction. We shall add only that without

creative imagination there is no science; with it, theories and formulas will be

forthcoming. They are, as Einstein apt ly puts it , free inventions of the human

intellect.62 Darwin did not come by his formulas by empirical induction,

by piling up fact upon fact. He

created

them, as he himself tells us,63by synthe-

sizing an idea expounded by Malthus with ideas from other sources.

CATHOLIC ANTHROPOLOGISTS AND EVOLUTION

Lowie assures us that anthropological theory is not really as dark as

I

have

painted it , that amongst the dark clouds of reactionary philosophy there are

many silver linings of evolutionism. He finds that the Catholic priests, Schmidt

and Koppers, are really evolutionists a t heart, and the former, according to

Lowie, even [accepts] the term ev0lution.~4

Schmidt makes a distinction between evolution and evolutiolzism, one which

I

confess is not too clear to me. But if he accepts the term evolution, he is

unalterably opposed to evolutionism. Neither do I want to be a bedfellow

of a qualified evolutionism or some kind of Neo-evolutionism, he declares.6s

And it is true, of course, th at Schmidt speaks of evolutionary stages, etc., just

as Lowie has spoken of the stage preceding the evolution of the sib,60 the

independent evolution

of

this fea t~re ,~ nd in one of his most recent works,

in a paragraph headed Evolution, of a germ of further development

. 68

(Germs

of

development is,

of

course, a phrase much used by Morgan in

Ancient Society.) But it takes more than occasional recognition of the evolu-

tionist process to make an evolutionist.

Professor Lowies attempt t o present Catholic priests a s evolutionists is

of

considerable interest, especially in the l ight of the following points: 1. The

Catholic priests cited by Lowie as well as many others are on record as une-

quivocably opposed to evolutionist theory in the science

of

culture;

2.

Boas

and his school have been highly praised by a prominent Jesu*itanthropologist

for their staunch opposition to evolutionism; and, 3 . Lowie himself is cited

repeatedly by Jesuit anthropologists for his fight against evolutionist theory

in general and his assaults upon Morgan in particular .

We have just seen that Father Schmidt says flatly that he will have nothing

to do with evolutionism, even in qualified form. Sylvester A. Sieber, S.V.D. ,

5

Einstein, 19 34,

p.

33.

64

Lowie, 1946a,

p.

232;

see

also,

pp

226 22 1; Lowie, 1946b,

p.

240.

66 Schmidt, 1939, p. xxvi.

n Lowie, 1917,

p .

142.

53 Darwin, 1896,

Vol. I p.

68.

Lowie, 1919,

p.

32.

li8 Lowie, 1940, p. 98.


10/14

WHITE] EVOLU TZONISM

I N

CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 409

anthropologist, and Franz H. Mueller, M.C.S., Dr. rer. pol., sociologist, state

that their book, The Social Lije of Pr imi t ive M an , published under an arch-

bishops imprimatur, endeavors to prove how inadequate the evolutionist

interpretation They also discuss Morgans evolutionist vagaries, his

purblindness, his ridiculous interpretations,aO etc.

Father Albert Muntsch, S. J. devotes his Evolution and Culture to showing

that the picture drawn by the evolutionary delirium

[sic]

s false.6l He points

to the ut ter defeat of the evolutionary view of the development

of

culture

in his Cultural Anthropology.s2

Introductory Sociology, by Albert Muntsch, S.J., and Henry S. Spalding,

S.J.,63contains considerable discussion of anthropological theory, They attack

the theory of cultural evolution a t the very outset. Chapter I is based on the

fact that the scientific and unprejudiced study of the history of culture cannot

accept the theory of cultural e vo l ~ t i on . ~~hapter I1 is entitled Evolution-

ary Theories

of

Culture Opposed by Facts. In their Introduction they list

seven outstanding features of their book, the first of which is:

1)

It

rejects the evolutionary theory of culture and establishes the family

and State on

the

solid ground of Christian ethics.

A t

the risk of again being accused of melodrama I will say that Lewis

H. Morgan comes fairly close to being the villain of Muntsch and Spaldings

story and Robert H. Lowie is equally close to the role of hero. In addition to

opposing Morgans vagaries and his far-fetched and unproved lines of hu-

man progress, the authors oppose him on a number of specific points:

promiscuity, primitive communism, etc. But his [Morgans] work was a mere

hypothesis which proved to be false, as was shown with admirable clearness

and conviction by Robert H. Lowie.66The authors point out th at Fr. Kop-

pers and Dr. Lowie have arrived independently a t important conclusions which

have shaken the foundations of all strictly evolutionary explanations of social

progre~s.~ince Dr. Lowie has counted the number of times

I

have cited him

in one of my articles, he may be interested to learn tha t his name appears on

the first page of Chapter

1

of

Introductory Sociology

and some

24

times there-

after up to page

60.

Father Schmidts name appears 13, Fr. Koppers 17 times

in the same space. He is cited or quoted 33 times in Muntschs tiny volume of

95

pages for his service in the cause of anti-evolutionism.

Father Joseph J. Williams, S.J., Ph.D. , Professor of Cultural Anthropology,

Boston College Graduate School, and sometime President of the Jesuit An-

thropological Association, has published a very interesting article, Boas and

6 @ Sieber and Mueller, 1941, p. 10.

60

I d . , pp. 37,

28.

Muntsch, 1923, p. 31.

62

Muntsch, 1936, p. 1 1.

6* Muntsch and Spalding, 1928.

M

Id . , p .

7 .

Id . ,

p.

xiv.

I d . ,

p . 98.

6

Id . , p.

15.


11/14

410

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [N . ,

49, 1947

American Ethnologists , in Thought, a Jesuit review.ss T h e gist of th e art icle

is praise of Boas an d his disciples for havin g fo ug ht th e theo ry of cultu ral evo-

lution with vigor, persistence, and success. Boas completely revolutionized

th e trend of scientific thoug ht am ong American ethnologists, sa ys Williams.

Early American ethnology had been s t rongly evolut ionis t in out look an d this

continued until Professor Boas of Columbia in tu rn invoked ethnology for the

precise purpose

of

testing and confounding the very theories advanced by the

evolutionary scho ol.

. . .

It is precisely the extraordinary influence of th is quie t

unobtrusive scholar that interests us a t present, especially as

it

has manifested

itself in suppressing the classical theory

of

evolution among practically the entire

group

of

leading American ethnologists. . Directly in consequence

of

Doctor

Boas personal leadership, evolution, especially in its classical form, has steadily

fallen into d isfavor among American ethnologists . t was reserved to Professor

Franz Boas

to

become the founder

of

the American school that was destined

to

open up a new era in cultural anthropology, undermining at the very start the

entire system of evolution of culture.69

I n view of th ese statem ents , it does not ap pear tha t D r . Lowies a t t e m pt

to present th e Cathol ic pr iests as evolut ionists is an ad equ ate por t raya l of thei r

views.

EVOLUTIONISM IS SECURE

D r. Lowie assures

us

th a t evolution as

a

scientific do ctri ne . is secure.

I,

too, feel th a t i t is , or will be, in th e long run .

I

have repeatedly emphasized

its im por tanc e in a ll fields of science an d have poin ted out th a t cu l tura l an thro-

pology a n d orthodox theology are abo ut th e only places of h ospitali ty a n d ref-

uge for a philosophy of anti-ev olutionism a t the pres ent t im e. I believe, how-

ever, as I have said before, t h a t this era of react ion will come to a n en d some

day , an d th a t cul tural anthropology will again become n ot only hospi table to,

bli t em ploy with skil l a n d vigor, this basic conc ept of al l science.

But if evolutionism is secure, it is

so

in spite of the Boasians rather than

because of anything they have done to aid i t . According to their own state-

men ts , the record of their achievements , an d the test imon y of o thers , the Boas

school has fou gh t the theory of cul tural evolut ion with vigor , tenaci ty, a nd

success for decades. Evolut ionism in ethnology h as been p ronounced de ad

by num erous Actu ally, however, the question mu st st i l l be re-

garded as a l iving one, Fath er Wil l iams shrewdly observes, an d it is likely

to cont inue

so

for some t ime t o come,

despite the fact that at least i n this field

of

science, due

t o

the initiative and indefatigable egort of D r. Bo as, the theory of evo-

lution i s steadily losing ground? (emphasis mine).

O8

Williams, 1936.

7 0

See Linton, 1936b,

p.

316; Hooton, 1937,

p.

221; Radin, 1933,

p .

4 ; Schmidt, 1939,

p.

36.

OQ

Id . ,

Passinz.

Williams, 1936, p. 196.


12/14

WHITE]

E V O L U T I O N I S M I N C U L T U R A L A N TH R O PO L O GY 41 1

Yet, Lowie advises me to relax. With evolutionism steadily losing

groun d, tha nk s to the indefatigable efforts of the Boasians an d their clerical

com rade s in arm s, with disciples of B oas glad ly reaffirming the ir faith in th e

teaching s of th e m aster , those who wish t o see ethnology ma ke

ful l

use

of one

of its m ost p owe rful tools will be ill-advised to relax th eir efforts-for th e

present , at least. I would no t agree, however, with F ath er W illiams prediction

of a decade ago. I do no t believe th at evolutionism is steadi ly losing ground

at the present t ime. On t he con t ra ry , t he l e t te r s t h a t I have received in re-

sponse to m y art icles, especially from the youn ger anthro polog ists, lead me to

believe th a t there is some dissatisfaction with t he Boasian point of view a n d a

considerable interest in evolutionism.

UNIVERSITY

F MICHIGAN

A N N

A R B O R

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

BANDFLIER, ADOLPH F. See

WHITE, Ed.) ,

1940.

BENEDI CT, RUTH

1931

T he Science of Custom (in The Making

o

M a n , V.

F

Calverton, Ed., New York).

1938

Art (in General Anthropology, F. Boas, Ed., New

York).

1896

The

Life

and Letters

of

Charles Darwin,

2

vols. New York.

1934

On th e Meth od of The oretical Physics (in

The World as I See

I t

by A. Einstein. New

1936

Physics and Reality

Journal of thP Franklin Instilule,

221:

349-382).

1914

T h e Social Organization

of

the Indians

of

No rth America

Journul of American Folk-

1921

Four Phases of Anthropological Thought Pap ers and Proceedings, Americ an Socio-

1924

An throp olog ical Theo ries of Politic al Origins (in History

of

Political Theories, C . E.

1925a

Cu ltura l Anthropology (in History and Prospects ofthe Social Sciences, H. E. Barnes,

1925b

Diffusionism and th e American School

of

Historical Ethnology Ame rica n Journal

BUNZEL, RUTH

DARW I N, FRANCI S

E I N S T E I N , A L B E R T

York).

COLDENW EI SER, ALEXANDER

LOYP,

7 41 1-436).

logical Society, Vol.

16).

Merriam and

H. E.

Barnes, Eds., New Y ork).

Ed., New York).

of Sociology,

31 19-38).

HERSKOVITS, MELVILLE

J .

1941

Economics and Anthropology: A Rejoinder The Journal

of

Political Economy,

49:

269-278).

HOOTON, EARNEST

A.

1937

1939

The Place of T heor y in Anthropological Stud ies Th e Philosophy of Science,

6 : 328-334).

1920

Review of

R .

H. Lowie, Primitive Society Ame rica n Anlhropologist,

22 : 377-381).

1923

Anthropology.

New York.

Apes ,

M e n

and Morons. New York.

KLUCKHOHN, CLYDE

KROEBER,

A .

L .


13/14

412 AM ER I C A N A N T H ROPO LO G IS T [N.

s.,

49, 1947

LAUFER, B .

1918 Review of R . H. Lowie, Culture and Ethnology Anie rican Anthropologist, 20: 87-

1930 Review

of

R .

H.

Lowie, Are We Civilized? lbid., 32: 161-165 .

1936a The Study of Man. New York.

1936b

Error in Anthropology (in The Story of Human Error, Joseph Jastrow, Ed., New

91 .

L IN T O N , R A L P H

York).

L O W IE , R O B E R T H .

1915

Review

of W. H.

R. Rivers, Kinship and Social Organization American Anthro-

1917 Culture and Ethnology. New Y or k .

1919

Family and Sib Am erican Anthropologist,

21: 28-40 .

1922 Review of A. Goldenweiser, Early Civilization, Zbid., 6: 235-236 .

1937

History

o

Ethnological Theory . New York.

1940

Introduction to Cultural Anlhropology,

2nd ed. New York.

1941

Review

of

Leslie A. Wh ite, E d. , Pioneers in A merican Anthrop ology: The Ban delier-

Morgan Letters, 1873-1883 American Anliguity, 7: 196-197 .

1946a Evolution in Cultural Anthropology: a Reply to Leslie Wh ite American Anlhropolo-

1946b Professor White and Anti-Evolutionist Schools SouthwesternJournal o Anthro-

pologist, 17: 329-340 .

gist,

48: 223-233 .

pology,

2: 240-241 .

MORGAN, LEWIS H.

1872 Australian Kinship Proceedings, American Academy of Ar ts and Sciences, 8: 412438 .

1877 Ancien t Society. New York.

1880 Introduction lo Kamilaroi and Kurnai, by L orimer Fison an d

A .

W. Ho witt . Mel-

bourne

and Sydney.

M U N T S C H , A L B E R T

1923 Evolution and Culture. St . Louis.

1936 Czcltural Anthropology,

2nd

ed. New Y ork, Milwaukee, and Chicago.

1928

Introductory Sociology.

New

York.

1920

Review of R. H. Lowie, Primitive Society The

New

Republic,

24: 245-246 .

1930-31

The Social Organization

of

Australian Tribes

Oceania, Vol. I,

Nos.

1

to

4

inc.).

1932 Social Anthropology. New York.

1933

The Method and Theory

of

Ethnology. New York .

1939 The M ind

of

Primitive Man The New Republic, 98: 300-303 .

1911 An Ethnological Analysis of Culture Proceedings, British Association f or the Aduance-

MUNTSCH,

ALBERT, and

HEN R Y

s. SPALDING

P A R S O N S , E L S IE C L E W S

R A D C L IF F E -B R O W N , A . R .

R A D I N , P A U L

RIVERS, W. H. R .

ment ojScience, pp. 490-499 .

S A P IR , E D W A R D

1920a Review

of

R . H. Lowie, Primitive Society Th e Freeman, 1: 377-379 .

1920b

Review

of R . H.

Lowie, Primitive Society The N ation,

111: 46-47 .

192Oc Review of R . H. Lowie, Primitive Society T h f Dial, 69: 528-533 .

1927 Anthropology and Sociology (in

Th e Social Sciences and The ir Interrelations,

Wm

F.

Ogburn and A. Goldenweiser, Eds., New York).


14/14

WHITE] E V O L U TI O N I SM I N C U L T U K A L A N TH R OP O LO G Y

413

SCHMIDT, WILHELM

1939

1941

1931

1881 Anthropology. London.

1938 Science Is Sciencing The Philosophy

of

Science, 5: 369-389 .

1939 A Problem in Kinship Terminology

American Anthropologist, 41

566-573 .

1943

Energy and the Evolution

of

Culture

Zbid. , 45: 335-356 .

1944 Morgans Attitude toward Religion and Science Ibid., 6: 218-230 .

1945

Diffusion

vs.

Evolution: An Anti-Evolutionist Fallacy

Zbid., 47 339-356 .

1946 Kroebers Configurations of Culture Growth Z l i d . , 48: 78-93 .

1937

Extracts from the European Travel Journal

of

Lewis H . Morgan

Pzrblicatiorzs,

1940

Pioneers in American Anthropology: The Bandelier-Morgan Letters,

1873-1883, 2 vols.

The Cicltitre Historical Method of Ethnology.

New York.

Th e Social Life of Prim itive Man. S t .

Louis.

Lewis Henry Morgan: Social Evolutionist.

Chicago.

SIEBEK

SYLVESTER A . , and F R A N Z H. M UELLER

STERN, BERNI I ARD J.

T Y L OR , E . B .

WHITE, LESLIE A.

WHITE, LESLIE A . , E D .

Rochester Historical Society,

Vol.

XVI. Rochester, Ne w York).

Albuquerque, N. M .

W I I LI AM S, J OSEPH J

1936

Boa s and American Ethnologists

ThozcgLt, 11

194-209 .

white, l.a. (1947). evolutionism in cultural anthropology. a rejoinder

Documents