Evolutionism in Anthropology

7/27/2019 Evolutionism in Anthropology

1/15

Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Rejoinder

Author(s): Leslie A. WhiteSource: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1947), pp. 400-413Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/663499

Accessed: 16/02/2009 13:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing andAmerican Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toAmerican Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/663499?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/663499?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/15

EVOLUTIONISM IN CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY:A REJOINDERBy LESLIE A. WHITE

pROFESSOR LOWIE'S recent article in the American Anthropologist,"Evolution in Cultural Anthropology: A Reply to Leslie White,"' waswritten "to clarify the issues involved.' in three essays of mine, also publishedin this Journal.2I am not sure, however, that these issues have been clarified.On the contrary, I feel that at certain points Dr. Lowie has confused ratherthan clarified the matters in question. I should like, therefore, to make a fewadditional 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 citedby him, that Morgan had preceded Lowie in suggesting that animals may havebeen brought under domestication originally for non-utilitarian reasons. Butthis 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 particularcriticism.

EVALUATIONOF MORGANI am of course well aware of the complimentary remarks addressed to Mor-

gan by the English anthropologists Haddon and Rivers, by the Indian studentMitra, and by his American teacher, ClarkWissler. But I am also aware of thefact that many prominent anthropologists, particularly those of the Boasgroup, have ignored, belittled, and misrepresented Morgan by turn. I believeI have amply demonstrated this fact in my articles. I may, however, addanother interesting sidelight to which I have not previously called attention.Professor Lowie cites Radcliffe-Brown's complimentary allusion to Morgan'sSystems. He does not point out, however, that in the bibliography of Radcliffe-Brown's long article, "The Social Organization of Australian Tribes,"3whichcontains 188 references to 101 titles by 52 authors, Morgan's name does notappear 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-ganization.4 As a matter of fact, it would be little exaggeration to say thatMorgan, with the aid of his proteges, Lorimer Fison and A. W. Howitt, whomhe taught and guided through a decade of correspondence, founded the scienceof Australian ethnology. Yet Radcliffe-Brown mentions Morgan in the text ofthis article only to oppose him.

One recaljs also-despite some kind words in later years-Lowie's early1Lowie,1946a. 2 White, 1943, 1944,1945.3Oceania,Vol.I, Nos. 1-4 inc., 1930-31. 4Morgan,1872;1877,Part II, Chap.I; 1880.400


3/15

EVOLUTIONISMIN CULTURALANTHROPOLOGYcharacterization of Morgan as "the typical example of the 'comprehensive andweak mind' (esprit ample et faible) in Duhem's classification of intellects."5And even now, when Lowie cites "gems" illustrative of Morgan's "narrow-mindedness,"6 he is not wholly fair. For example, he quotes Morgan to theeffect that certain frescoes by Michael Angelo are "substantially absurd." Buthe fails to tell us why Morgan thought so: "When M. A. thought he could pic-ture the last judgment on three thousand square feet of plaster wall, and makeit expressive of anything but his own folly, he deceived himself."7I have never maintained, or even intimated, that Morgan was perfect. Ihave never denied that he committed errorsand had shortcomings. To defendhim against unjust accusations, as I have done, is not to declare him to bewithout flaw or blemish. Lowie says that he would "like to see some realizationon White's part that sporadic impatience with Morgan may have an objectivebasis." I believe I have given such indication. A few years ago, I went to con-siderable length to demonstrate that the position Morgan took regarding thedegree of development of Aztec society was untenable.8 Morgan insisted thatAztec society was democratic, that no American Indian group had developedbeyond the societas. I was able to show, in a closely reasoned and amply docu-mented argument, that Morgan and Bandelier were wrong on the basis of datathattheythemselves upplied and used. I do not believe that this argument couldhave been worked out by one held in the grip of the "obsessive power of fanati-cism." Dr. Lowie may have forgotten this demonstration of my ability to takea critical attitude toward Morgan, although he reviewed the work for AmericanAntiquity and, I may add, he found my critique "admirably balanced andconvincing."9-To summarize this point: Morgan has been alternately ignored, belittledand misrepresented-sometimes grossly so. I have tried to defend him againstthese injustices. To Lowie my attitude seems to be one of fanaticism and blindhero-worship; to me it is merely a sense of justice and fair play. I have neverclaimed perfection for Morgan. On the contrary, I have demonstrated myability to regard him critically. If I have not compiled an inventory of hisshortcomings, it is because (1) others have done- and overdone-this; and(2) because a great figure in science should be judged by the characteristicswhich set him apart from and ahead of his contemporaries, not by the errorsand shortcomings which he shares with them.

MORGAN AND THE DARWINIANSIt seems to me that Dr. Lowie has confused the issue that I raised in

"Morgan's Attitude Toward Religion and Science." The issue, as I see it, is6Lowie, 1915, p. 330. 6Id., 1946a, p. 225. 7 White (Ed.), 1937, p. 285.8 White (Ed.), 1940, Vol. I, pp. 27-46. 9Lowie, 1941, p. 196.

WHITE] 401


4/15

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGISTthis: After the publication of The Origin of Species a controversy arose inEurope and America. It was a struggle between the Christian theological con-ception of man and the conception held by science. I argued that if you werein this controversy ou were on one side or the other;you were either for religionor you were for science. Proceeding from this premise, I called attention to thecharge, made by several anthropologists, that Morgan nevergave allegiance toDarwinism because he was neverable tofree himself from his orthodoxreligiousbeliefs.I demonstrated that this charge is a false one. I proved, in fact, that theexact opposite was the case: that Morgan was on Darwin's side and not on theside of the theologians.This was the point at issue.Incidentally, since Lowie has counted fifteen citations to himself in one ofmy articles, may I point out that he is not mentioned in "Morgan's AttitudeToward Religion and Science" as one of the parties to this particular misrepre-sentation of Morgan. He has, however, made his contribution: he speaks ofMorgan as "a bourgeois lawyer who never severed his connections with Chris-tian orthodoxy,"'?-and this in one of his most recentwritings, not somethingpublished in 1920 or before.It is important to note that Dr. Lowie does notnowchallenge he thesis of myessay on "Morgan's Attitude Toward Religion and Science." He makes noattempt to 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 "neversevered his connections with Christian orthodoxy" (Lowie). Instead, he makesquite a show of pointing out (1) that there were in Morgan's day distinguishedmen 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 werereligious men who made contributions to science, as Lowie maintains, andthere were scientists who were devout. But they were not involved in theDarwin vs. Theology controversy-at least I know of no one who defended thebelief 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 againstScience."I believe that meaning was fairly clearfrom the context. It could hard-ly be claimed that Professor Lowie has clarified the issue here; he seems ratherto have confused it with a "diversionary attack." I submit that my thesis stillstands: Morgan was no friend of theological orthodoxy; he was a staunchchampion of Darwinism in particular and of science in general.

ARE THE BOASIANSANTI-EVOLUTIONISTS?Professor Lowie tries to make it appear that "Boas and his students at-tacked not [cultural] evolution, but Morgan's and other writers' evolutionary10Id., 1937,p. 54.

402 [N. s., 49, 1947


5/15

EVOLUTIONISMIN CULTURALANTHROPOLOGYschemes."1 I am afraid he will have a hard time convincing many of his readersthai this is the case. To be sure, many students in recent decades have declaredthat they were not opposed to evolutionbut to unilinear evolution. But theyeither do not specify what they mean by "unilinear" or they define it in sucha 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 butmerely to particular formulations of this concept, how would Lowie accountfor the statement that one of his admirers made in an enthusiastic review ofone of his (Lowie's) own books:

"Thetheoryof culturalevolution[is]to my mindthe mostinane,sterile,andpernicious heoryeverconceived n the historyof science." Laufer)12How would he explain Sapir's assertion that "evolutionism as an interpretativeprinciple of culture is merely a passing phase in the history of thought?"13(Allemphases in this paragraph are mine.) Or the same author's thesis that thereare "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"?14 How explain Benedict's 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 study ofculture"?'5Or Bunzel's discussion of "the fallacy inherent in all evolutionaryarguments"?16Or Stern's contention that "cultures . . . are too complex and.. .too variable to fit into any definite social evolutionary scheme?"'7Accord-ing to Sapir, Lowie "believes that . . there are no valid evolutionary schemesthat may guide us in the history of human society."18 Sapir concurs in thisview. In his article, "Boas and American Ethnologists," Williams hails Boasfor founding a school and leading it in a whole-hearted attack upon the theoryof cultural evolution "for more than a quarter of a century."'9 Paul Radinmakes it very clear that it was not merely "Morgan's and other writers'evolutionary schemes" that the Boasians objected to. He writes: "if Boas andhis school rejected the developmental schemes of Tylor and Morgan this must,in no sense, be ascribed to the inadequacies and crudities of thoseschemes, butrather to the fact they rejected all developmental sequences. . . . [To the theory

11Id., 1946a,p. 227.In a subsequent ommunicationLowie,1946b),he has declared latlythat the Boas schoolwasnotopposedo evolution ut only to a "vapidevolutionarymetaphysicsthat has nothing to do with science."12 Laufer, 1918, p. 90. Lowie points out that Laufer "was not trained by Boas." He was, how-

ever, at one with the Boas school on many points, especially those of anti-evolutionism andhostility toward creative imagination. 13Sapir, 1920a, p. 378.14 Id., 1927, p. 100. 15Benedict, 1931, pp. 809-810.16Bunzel, 1938, p. 578. 17 Stern, 1931, p. 135.18Sapir, 1920b, p. 46. 19Williams, 1936, pp. 199-200.

WHmIT] 403


6/15

AMERICAN- ANTHROPOLOGIST

of evolution] Boas always took a prevailingly antagonistic position"20(italicsmine). And, finally, one of Boas' leading disciples has only recently "gladly re-affirmed his belief" in the anti-evolutionary tradition.2' Thus, the testimonyand evidence indicate definitely that Boas and his students wereopposed to thetheory 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 tounderstand either the world he lives in or the history of the past." (Tylor)22

Furthermore, we might ask, if it were only particular ormulations 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 sciencegrappledwith the theory of evolution in biology in the early days they did so tocorrect it, to improve and develop it. What have the Boasians done to developan adequate form of evolutionist theory to take the place of the early andrelatively crude presentations?As for the term "anti-evolutionist," let me hasten to say that it is not anepithet of my own invention. It is a term that the late Alexander Golden-weiser-whom Lowie has called "the philosopher of American anthropology"23-used a great deal to characterize he philosophic outlookof the Boas school.4Another student of Boas, Paul Radin, also has used it more than once in thesame sense.26Professor Lowie seems to have difficulty in understanding my phrase "re-actionary philosophy of anti-evolution." He says it "naturally suggests thedegeneration theories ... of de Maistre."26 cannot see how anything I haveever said could suggest such a conclusion. I believe I have made myself fairlyclear. In 1938 I spoke plainly of "anti-evolutionists" of the twentiethcenturywho opposed the cultural evolutionists of the latter half of the nineteenth.27A year later, in "A Problem in Kinship Terminology," I expressed the sameview.28 It is stated plainly again in "Energy and the Evolution of Culture"29(1943), and again in "Diffusion vs. Evolution"" (1945). In each instance it ismade explicit and clear that the anti-evolutionists are anthropologists of thetwentieth century-who opposed the theory of cultural evolution as developedin the latter half of the nineteenth century. By reactionary, I meant opposing,reacting against, a theory-one of the most fundamental and fruitful theoriesin all fields of science, physical, biological, and cultural-in such a way as to

20 Radin, 1939, p. 303.21 Herskovits, 1941, p. 273. Herskovits has also purged his vocabulary of the evolutionistterm "preliterate" and uses "non-literate" instead.22 Tylor, 1881, p. 20. 23 Lowie, 1922, p. 235.24 Goldenweiser, 1914, p. 412; 1925a, pp. 221, 226, 227; 1925b, p. 19.25 Radin, 1932, p. 8; 1933, p. 4. 26 Lowie, 1946a, pp. 226, 231.27 White, 1938, pp. 386-387. Professor Lowie, in a letter to me, commented on this very point.28 White, 1939, pp. 571-572. 29 White, 1943, p. 355. 30 White, 1945, p. 354.

404 [N.s., 49, 1947


7/15

EVOLUTIONISMIN CULTURALANTHROPOLOGYoppose progress in the philosophy of science. Sapir recognized the direction, ifnot the significance, of the anti-evolutionist efforts of the Boasians when, inreviewing Lowie's Primitive Society, he said:31

"Anthropology.. is nowelaboratelybackwatering.t is itselfrapidlydriftingto the anti-evolutionary, istoricalmethod."Whether one calls it "reactionary"or"backwatering"makes little difference.In either case, we find an attempt to run counter to the stream of thought inscience and philosophy.

DIFFUSION VS. EVOLUTIONI appear to have failed to make myself understood to Lowie in my essay

on this subject, for he still seems to think that the evolutionist must take thefacts 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 of Physics with-out a concern for diffusion. Couldwe not work out the evolution-the temporalfunctional sequence of forms-of mathematics, Gothic architecture, Greekdrama, currency, clans, cartels, the locomotive, parliamentary government,relativity, radar, symphonies, metallurgy, the piano, or culture as a whole,without regardfor diffusion?Do we not, as a matter of fact, actually have suchstudies, in anthropological literature or elsewhere? That valid studies of thissort have been and can be made seems so obvious that it is rather hard to seewhy Professor Lowie is unwilling to accept the principle upon which thesestudies rest.32Yet he insists on bringing diffusion into the picture and main-tains that "diffusion negates the possibility of proving evolution."33He seemsunable to see that the development f a trait or complex and its diffusion to otherregions are two quite different processes, and that far from opposing eachother, 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 oneregion and spreads to others. The collaboration of the evolutionary and diffu-sionist processes in culture is exemplified throughout the writings of Morganand Tylor. We find contemporary recognition of this fact well set forth in arecent work by Ralph Linton:34

"Diffusionhas madea doublecontribution o the advanceof mankind. t hasstimulated he growthof cultureas a wholeand at the sametime has enriched hecontent of individualcultures .... It hashelpedoaccelerateheevolutionfcultureas a wholeby removing he necessityforevery societyto perfecteverystep in aninventiveseries or itself"(emphasismine).831Sapir,1920c,p. 533.32 In one of his most recentworks,Lowiespeaksof the evolution of the plowfrom the hoewithoutreference o diffusion.Lowie,1940,p. 28.33 Lowie,1946a,p. 230. 34 Linton,1936a,p. 324.

WHITE] 405


8/15


9/15

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

appreciate the creative imagination. On the contrary he would be inclined toregard it as objectionable and unscientific. Students of Boas like to point tohis "merciless logic," his "scientific rigor," his "acidly critical faculty" on theone hand, and his "abhorrence" of generalizations41and systems, his impa-tience with theory, in short, with a creative, synthesizing intelligence on theother. They learned to scoff at the evolutionists. Sapir called them "closetphilosophers."42He declared that "the old classical anthropology, still current,is not a science but a pseudo-science like medieval alchemy."43To Goldenweiserthe field of cultural evolutionist theory was but "a happy hunting ground forthe exercise of the creative imagination";44evolutionist theory "a substitutefor critical thought."46

Hostility to reflective thought, creative imagination and theory becametraditional among the Boasians. Radin speaks of "an exaggerated distrust oftheories of whatever description,"46 n the United States. Rivers, too, com-ments upon the anti-theoretical basis of American ethnology.47The Boasianattitude was forthrightly stated by Laufer in these words:48"I must confess hat I amin a state of mindwhere wouldnolonger ivea dimeto anyone or a newtheory,but I am alwaysenthusiasticabout new facts . . ."(emphasismine).

This confession, which might strike a physicist or other man of science asincredible, was inspired by Lowie's book, Are We Civilized?The aversion fortheory became so pronounced among American anthropologists that "to sug-gest that something is 'theoretical'," says Kluckhohn, "is to suggest that it isslightly indecent."49The consequences of this anti-imaginative, anti-theoretical outlook weremuch what one might expect: a mass of facts that did not mean much or makemuch sense. Kroeber has called the fruit of this philosophy and method "rathersterile."60In 1921 (a year after Lowie's Primitive Society appeared), Golden-weiser noted that "the critical ethnologist has developed a certain timidity[sic] in dealing with ideas," and warned that in the absence of "constructiveideas ... method and criticism are doomed to sterility."81It would be difficult,I venture to say, to find another chapter in the history of science in which anaggressive hostility to theory, the very breath of life of science, has been carriedas far as it has by the Boas group.

41The late Elsie Clews Parsons has noted that "Dr. Lowie is ruthless of formulas." Parsons,1920, p. 245. 42Sapir, 1920a, p. 377. 48 Sapir, 1920b, p. 46.

4Goldenweiser, 1921, p. 55. It is significant o note that Goldenweiserquates creativeimaginationwith the evolutionists.This, to a Boasian,put "creative magination"n its place!46Id., 1924,p. 433. 46Radin,1933,p. 253. 47 Rivers,1911,p. 491.48Laufer,1930,p. 162. 49 Kluckhohn,1939,p. 333.50 Kroeber,1920,p. 380. 61Goldenweiser, 921,p. 65.

407WHITE]


10/15

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

To return to the source and derivation of evolutionist formulas: When,Lowie demands to know if they are "empirical inductions" he is faintly remi-niscent of opponents of Darwin who, like Bryan, demanded to know if anyonehad ever seen one species change into another, an ape into a man. But we havealready dealt with empiricism and induction. We shall add only that withoutcreative imagination there is no science; with it, theories and formulas will beforthcoming. They are, as Einstein aptly puts it, "free inventions of the humanintellect."52Darwin did not come by his formulas by "empirical induction,"by piling up fact upon fact. He created hem, as he himself tells us,53by synthe-sizing an idea expounded by Malthus with ideas from other sources.

CATHOLICANTHROPOLOGISTS ND EVOLUTIONLowie assures us that anthropological theory is not really as dark as I have

painted it, that amongst the dark clouds of reactionary philosophy there aremany silver linings of evolutionism. He finds that the Catholic priests, Schmidtand Koppers, are really evolutionists at heart, and the former, according toLowie, "even [accepts] the term 'evolution'."54Schmidt makes a distinction between evolutionand evolutionism,one whichI confess is not too clear to me. But if he "accepts the term 'evolution'," he isunalterably opposed to "evolutionism." "Neither do I want to be a bedfellowof a 'qualified evolutionism' or some kind of Neo-evolutionism," he declares.55And it is true, of course, that Schmidt speaks of evolutionary stages, etc., justas Lowie has spoken of "the stage preceding the evolution of the sib,"56"theindependent evolution of this feature,"57and in one of his most recent works,in a paragraph headed "Evolution," of a "germ of further development."58("Germs of development" is, of course, a phrase much used by Morgan inAncient Society.) But it takes more than occasional recognition of the evolu-tionist process to;make an evolutionist.Professor Lowie's attempt to present Catholic priests as evolutionists is ofconsiderable interest, especially in the light of the following points: 1. TheCatholic 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. Boasand his school have been highly praised by a prominent Jesuit anthropologistfor their staunch opposition to evolutionism; and, 3. Lowie himself is citedrepeatedly by Jesuit anthropologists for his fight against evolutionist theoryin general and his assaults upon Morgan in particular.We have just seen that Father Schmidt says flatly that he will have nothingto do with evolutionism, even in qualified form. Sylvester A. Sieber, S.V.D.,

52 Einstein,1934,p. 33. 63Darwin,1896,Vol.I, p. 68.54 Lowie, 1946a, p. 232; see also, pp. 226-227; Lowie, 1946b, p. 240.66Schmidt, 1939, p. xxvi. 56Lowie, 1919, p. 32.67Lowie, 1917, p. 142. 68Lowie, 1940, p. 98.

408 [N. s., 49, 1947


11/15

EVOLUTIONISM IN CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY

anthropologist, and Franz H. Mueller, M.C.S., Dr. rer. pol., sociologist, statethat their book, The Social Life of Primitive Man, published under an arch-bishop's imprimatur, "endeavors to prove how inadequate the evolutionistinterpretation was."59They also discuss Morgan's "evolutionist vagaries," his"purblindness," his "ridiculous interpretations,"60etc.Father Albert Muntsch, S. J. devotes his Evolutionand Cultureto showingthat "the picture drawn by the evolutionary delirium [sic]is false."61He pointsto "the utter defeat of the evolutionary view of the development of culture"in his CulturalAnthropology.6Introductory Sociology, by Albert Muntsch, S.J., and Henry S. Spalding,S.J.,63contains considerable discussion of anthropological theory. They attackthe theory of cultural evolution at the very outset. Chapter I "is based on thefact that the scientific and unprejudiced study of the history of culture cannotaccept the theory of 'cultural evolution'."64Chapter II is entitled "Evolution-ary Theories of Culture Opposed by Facts." In their Introduction they listseven "outstanding features" of their book, the first of which is:

"(1) It rejectsthe evolutionary heoryof culture and establishes he familyandState on thesolidgroundof Christian thics."6At the risk of again being accused of "melodrama" I will say that LewisH. Morgan comes fairly close to being the villain of Muntsch and Spalding'sstory and Robert H. Lowie is equally close to the role of hero. In addition toopposing Morgan's "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 [Morgan's]work was a merehypothesis which proved to be false, as was shown with admirable clearnessand conviction by Robert H. Lowie."66The authors point out that "Fr. Kop-pers and Dr. Lowie have arrived independently at important conclusions whichhave shaken the foundations of all strictly evolutionary explanations of social

progress."67Since Dr. Lowie has counted the number of times I have cited himin one of my articles, he may be interested to learn that his name appears onthe first page of Chapter 1 of IntroductorySociologyand some 24 times there-after up to page 60. Father Schmidt's name appears 13, Fr. Kopper's 17 timesin the same space. He is cited or quoted 33 times in Muntsch's tiny volume of95 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 and69Sieber and Mueller, 1941, p. 10. 60Id., pp. 37, 28.61Muntsch, 1923, p. 31. 62Muntsch, 1936, p. 11.6 Muntsch and Spalding, 1928. B Id., p. 7.Id., p. xiv. " Id., p. 98. 67 Id., p. S.

WHITE] 409


12/15

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGISTAmerican Ethnologists," in Thought,a Jesuit review.68The gist of the articleis praise of Boas and his disciples for having fought the theory of cultural evo-lution with vigor, persistence, and success. Boas "completely revolutionizedthe trend of scientific thought among American ethnologists," says Williams.Early American ethnology had been strongly evolutionist in outlook and this

"continueduntil ProfessorBoas of Columbia n turn invokedethnologyfor theprecisepurposeof testing and confounding he very theoriesadvancedby theevolutionary chool ... It is precisely he extraordinarynfluenceof this quietunobtrusive cholarthat interests us at present,especiallyas it hag manifesteditself in suppressinghe classical heoryof evolutionamongpractically he entiregroupof leadingAmericanethnologists ... Directly in consequence f DoctorBoas'personal eadership, volution, especially n its classical orm,has steadilyfallen nto disfavoramongAmerican thnologists ... It wasreserved o ProfessorFranzBoas to becomethe founderof the American choolthat was destinedtoopen up a new era in culturalanthropology,undermining t the very start theentiresystemof evolutionofculture."69In view of these statements, it does not appear that Dr. Lowie's attemptto present the Catholic priests as evolutionists is an adequate portrayal of theirviews.

EVOLUTIONISM S SECUREDr. Lowie assures us that "evolution as a scientific doctrine . . is secure."

I, too, feel that it is, or will be, in the long run. I have repeatedly emphasizedits importance in all fields of science and have pointed out that cultural anthro-pology and orthodox theology are about the only places of hospitality and ref-uge for a philosophy of anti-evolutionism at the present time. I believe, how-ever, as I have said before, that this era of reaction will come to an end someday, and that cultural anthropology will again become not only hospitable to,but employ with skill and vigor, this basic concept of all science.But if evolutionism is secure, it is so in spite of the Boasians rather thanbecause of anything they have done to aid it. According to their own state-ments, the record of their achievements, and the testimony of others, the Boasschool hag fought the theory of cultural evolution with vigor, tenacity, andsuccess for decades. Evolutionism in ethnology has been pronounced "dead"by numerous observers.70"Actually, however, the question must still be re-garded as a living one," Father Williams shrewdly observes, "and it is likelyto continue so for some time to come, despitethefact that at least in this field ofscience, due to the initiative and indefatigableeffortof Dr. Boas, thetheoryof evo-lution is steadily losing ground"71 (emphasis mine).

68Williams, 1936. 69 Id., passim.70 See Linton, 1936b, p. 316; Hooton, 1937, p. 221; Radin, 1933, p. 4; Schmidt, 1939, p. 36.71 Williams, 1936, p. 196.

410 [N. s., 49, 1947


13/15

EVOLUTIONISM IN CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGYYet, Lowie advises me to "relax." With evolutionism "steadily losingground," thanks to the indefatigable efforts of the Boasians and their clericalcomrades in arms, with disciples of Boas "gladly reaffirming"their faith in the

teachings of the master, those who wish to see ethnology make full use of oneof its most powerful tools will be ill-advised to relax their efforts-for thepresent, at least. I would not agree, however, with Father Williams' predictionof a decade ago. I do not believe that evolutionism is "steadily losing ground"at the present time. On the contrary, the letters that I have received in re-sponse to my articles, especially from the younger anthropologists, lead me tobelieve that there is some dissatisfaction with the Boasian point of view and aconsiderable interest in evolutionism.UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGANANNARBOR

BIBLIOGRAPHYBANDELIER, ADOLPH F. (See WHITE, Ed.), 1940.BENEDICT, RUTH1931 The Scienceof Custom(in TheMakingof Man,V. F. Calverton,Ed., New York).BUNZEL, RUTH1938 Art (in GeneralAnthropology,. Boas, Ed., New York).DARWIN, FRANCIS

1896 TheLifeandLetters f CharlesDarwin,2 vols. New York.EINSTEIN, ALBERT1934 Onthe Methodof TheoreticalPhysics(in TheWorld s I SeeIt, by A. Einstein.NewYork).1936 Physicsand Reality(JournaloftheFranklin nstitute,221:349-382).GOLDENWEISER, ALEXANDER1914 The SocialOrganization f the Indiansof NorthAmerica JournalofAmericanFolk-Lore,27:411-436).1921 FourPhasesof Anthropological hought (Papersand Proceedings,AmericanSocio-logicalSociety,Vol. 16).1924 Anthropological heoriesof PoliticalOrigins in Historyof PoliticalTheories,C. E.MerriamandH. E. Barnes,Eds., New York).1925a CulturalAnthropologyin HistoryandProspects fthe SocialSciences,H. E. Barnes,Ed., New York).1925b Diffusionism nd the AmericanSchool of HistoricalEthnology(American ournalofSociology, 1: 19-38).HERSKOVITS, MELVILLE J.1941 Economicsand Anthropology:A Rejoinder (TheJournalof PoliticalEconomy, 9:269-278).HOOTON, EARNEST A.1937 Apes,Menand Morons.New York.KLUCKHOHN, CLYDE1939ThePlaceofTheory nAnthropologicaltudies(ThePhilosophy fScience,6:328-334).KROEBER, A. L.1920 Reviewof R. H. Lowie,"PrimitiveSociety"(AmericanAnthropologist,2:377-381).1923 Anthropology.ew York.

wIlr9] 411


14/15

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGISTLAUFER, B.1918 Review of R.H. Lowie,"Cultureand Ethnology" AmericanAnthropologist,0:87-

91).1930 Reviewof R. H. Lowie,"AreWe Civilized?"Ibid.,32:161-165).LINTON, RALPH1936a The Study of Man. New York.1936b Error n Anthropologyin TheStoryof HumanError,JosephJastrow, Ed., NewYork).LOWIE, ROBERT H.1915 Reviewof W. H. R. Rivers,"Kinshipand SocialOrganization"AmericanAnthro-

pologist, 17: 329-340).1917 Cultureand Ethnology. New York.1919 Family and Sib (American Anthropologist,21: 28-40).1922 Review of A. Goldenweiser, EarlyCivilization,"Ibid.,6/235-236).1937 History of Ethnological Theory.New York.1940 Introduction to CulturalAnthropology,2nd ed. New York.1941 Reviewof LeslieA. White,Ed., "Pioneersn AmericanAnthropology: he Bandelier-MorganLetters,1873-1883" AmericanAntiquity, : 196-197).1946a Evolution n CulturalAnthropology: Replyto LeslieWhite(AmericanAnthropolo-gist,48: 223-233).1946b ProfessorWhite and "Anti-Evolutionist" chools Southwesternournalof Anthro-pology,2: 240-241).

MORGAN, LEWIS H.1872 Australian Kinship (Proceedings,American Academyof Arts and Sciences, 8: 412-438).1877 Ancient Society. New York.1880 Introductionto "Kamilaroi and Kurnai," by Lorimer Fison and A. W. Howitt. Mel-bourneandSydney.

MUNTSCH, ALBERT1923 Evolution and Culture. St. Louis.1936 CulturalAnthropology,nded. New York,Milwaukee, ndChicago.MUNTSCH, ALBERT, and HENRY S. SPALDING1928 IntroductorySociology.New York.PARSONS, ELSIE CLEWS1920 Reviewof R. H. Lowie,"PrimitiveSociety" (TheNewRepublic, 4: 245-246).RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A. R.

1930-31 The SocialOrganization f AustralianTribes(Oceania,Vol. I, Nos. 1 to 4, inc.).RADIN, PAUL1932 Social Anthropology.New York.1933 The Method and Theoryof Ethnology.New York.1939 The Mindof PrimitiveMan (TheNewRepublic, 8: 300-303).RIVERS, W. H. R.1911 An Ethnological Analysis of Culture (Proceedings,British Associationfor the Advance-ment of Science, pp. 490-499).SAPIR, EDWARD1920a Reviewof R. H. Lowie,"PrimitiveSociety"(TheFreeman, :377-379).

1920b Reviewof R. H. Lowie,"PrimitiveSociety" (TheNation,111:46-47).1920c Reviewof R. H. Lowie,"PrimitiveSociety"(TheDial,69:528-533).1927 Anthropology and Sociology (in The Social Sciences and Their Interrelations, Wm. F.Ogburn ndA. Goldenweiser, ds., New York).

412 [N. s., 49, 1947


15/15

EVOLUTIONISM IN CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGYSCHMIDT, WILHELM1939 The CultureHistoricalMethod f Ethnology.New York.SIEBER, SYLVESTER A., and FRANZ H. MUELLER1941 TheSocialLifeof PrimitiveMan. St. Louis.STERN, BERNHARD J.1931 LewisHenryMorgan:SocialEvolutionist.Chicago.TYLOR, E. B.1881 Anthropology.ondon.WHITE, LESLIE A.1938 Science s Sciencing ThePhilosophy fScience,5: 369-389).1939 A Problem n KinshipTerminologyAmericanAnthropologist,1: 566-573).1943 Energyandthe Evolutionof Culture Ibid.,45: 335-356).1944 Morgan'sAttitudetowardReligionand Science Ibid.,46: 218-230).1945 Diffusionvs. Evolution:An Anti-EvolutionistFallacy (Ibid.,47: 339-356).

1946 Kroeber's"Configurationsf CultureGrowth" Hid., 48: 78-93).WHITE, LESLIE A., ED.1937 Extracts from the EuropeanTravel Journal of Lewis H, Morgan (Publications,Rochester istorical ociety,Vol. XVI. Rochester,New York).1940 Pioneers n AmericanAnthropology:heBandelier-Morganetters, 873-1883,2 vols.Albuquerque, . M.WILLIAMS, JOSEPH J.1936 BoasandAmericanEthnologists Thought, 1: 194-209).

WHITE] 413

Evolutionism in Anthropology

Documents