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