Anthro 480
Dr. Erickson
12/10/2017
Take-Home Test 4
1. Franz Boas is known as the father of American anthropology. During his life, he
introduced a holistic, four-field approach, which is still widely used today in the United States
and in other parts of the world. Boas taught many students that would come to be very profound
anthropologists, like Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, Edward Sapir, and Leslie Spier (Erickson
2016a) and throughout his life, published over 700 articles and books (Erickson and Murphy
2017).
Boas focused heavily on cultural anthropology, and more specifically, deemed it crucial
to gather and record as much information as possible about Native Americans before their
cultures had assimilated to those of the Euro-American’s. He was strongly in favor of empirical
research and collected detailed observations, photographs and data to generate theories; he was
not one to postulate broad assumptions with little information. Boas was strongly opposed to
evolutionary theories relating to cultures, and urged anthropologists to consider diffusionism as
reason for the passing of traits and culture change. Many people have considered Boas to be a
historical particularist, due to his explaining present information of cultures in terms of the past,
and because he found individual cultures to all be distinct in their own way. In his studies, Boas
used a diachronic approach to understanding society; he viewed particular cultural traits and
elements as they were “across time”, rather than in the present moment, or a synchronic
approach. Boas also felt strongly in maintaining a cultural relativist perspective. He believed that
no one society was better or worse than another, just different, with various components
(Erickson 2016a). Boas was arguably one of the most influential American anthropologists, to
the field, training many that furthered his legacy.
2. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, diffusion was a hot topic in cultural-
anthropological debate. The idea was that, cultural traits, both material and non-material were
transmitted from one culture to another. Diffusion was a way to explain culture change, the
similarities in elements of nearby cultures, and the historical processes that specific cultural
elements went through. However, not everybody agreed with the idea, and many flaws would be
exposed of it, over time (Erickson 2016b)
Within the extreme view of diffusion, cultural elements are “invented” once, and then
these things are diffused outwards to other societies. It enforces the idea that people are
uninventive by nature and assumes that certain groups are more culturally rich than others. This
was in opposition to the theory of cultural evolutionism, which held that people invent the same
cultural traits in all societies as they progress, and that all social groups will eventually go
through the same processes (Erickson 2016b).
Max Müller popularized the idea in the 19th century with his studying of sacred texts in
the east. However, he was not only influential to diffusionists by claiming that the religions and
languages of ancient societies were related from contact, he also supported evolutionist ideas
with the notion that these languages were, simply, related (Erickson 2016b).
Friedrich Ratzel was a strong proponent for diffusionism, and suggested the idea of a
criterion of form. This view held that when there was resemblance in museum objects, there was
a single origin. He also proposed that there were stronger cultural states and weaker ones, with
, the stronger states growing more rapidly, and diffusing their cultural elements to the weaker
states (Erickson 2016b).
Leo Frobenius and Father Schmidt were both fans of the theory of culture circles, which
claimed that there were large areas of certain sets of traits that were distributed outward from the
center. Father Schmidt would go on to suggest four main culture circles that have existed in the
world, and have eventually overlapped with one another (Erickson 2016b).
Clark Wissler proposed a differing idea with the concept of culture areas, in which he
attempted to explain the vast differences between Native American cultures. He dived them into
individual geographical areas, and showed a center that was the point at which traits were
outwardly diffused (Erickson and Murphy 2017).
Although the theory of diffusionism, culture circles, and culture areas were widely used
across the world in cultural anthropology, there were many issues associated with them. These
absolute theories did not account for centers and boundaries shifting over time, or that some
traits are broken up and passed through cultures separately. It also doesn’t explain how very
different cultures can exist in nearby areas, with little to no similarities (Erickson 2016b).
3. A major player in the shaping of linguistic and cultural anthropology during the twentieth
century was Edward Sapir. While studying at Columbia University, he met Franz Boas and
became interested in unwritten languages. He was most fascinated by the relationship between
language, culture, and personality. He held a relativist perspective like Boas’ claiming that all
current languages have the potential to express the same ideas (Erickson 2016d).
Sapir believed that language and culture are both internalized in people and that there are
patterns and structures produced by this internalization that are engrained in humans. Individuals
are guided by these rules unconsciously in their daily lives and while they may not be able to
explain or articulate them, they know which speech and behaviors to use in all social settings.
Sapir is most well-known for the hypothesis he, Benjamin Whorf, and Franz Boas all proposed.
This notion suggested in the most extreme sense that individuals are limited in their perceptions
of the world by the language(s) they speak. Further, one can only perceive elements of the world
in the categories provided by their language (Erickson 2016d).
Alfred Kroeber, the first PhD student of Boas, would later tend to stray a bit from his
teachings and the views of the rest of his students. He focused on social anthropology, and
claimed that culture has “no laws” and “no cause except itself.” He would take part in highly
extensive field work that lasted for years at a time, taking note of hundreds, or sometimes
thousands, of elements to later compare and contrast between each other (Erickson 2016d).
Kroeber believed that culture was composed of much more than just the sum of its
individuals, and that the individuals themselves had no significant impact on the shaping of the
culture. In his book, “The Superorganic,” Kroeber argues that culture is not the product of
individuals, and even goes so far as to say that the concurrent inventions of “great men” prove
this. With many examples such as the theory of evolution being proposed at almost the same
time by two men in different parts of the world, he claimed that these findings were only made
because the cultures those men belonged to were ready for them. In conclusion, he stated that
these “great men” were only products of history (Erickson 2016d).
Kroeber’s impact on the way we study cultures today was profound. Society and culture
are still often viewed as open systems that interact and exchange elements between each other.
His suggestion that certain aspects of culture are also sometimes produced without any benefit or
cause, also remains as a perspective of some anthropologists (Erickson 2016d).
Dr. Erickson
12/10/2017
Take-Home Test 4
1. Franz Boas is known as the father of American anthropology. During his life, he
introduced a holistic, four-field approach, which is still widely used today in the United States
and in other parts of the world. Boas taught many students that would come to be very profound
anthropologists, like Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, Edward Sapir, and Leslie Spier (Erickson
2016a) and throughout his life, published over 700 articles and books (Erickson and Murphy
2017).
Boas focused heavily on cultural anthropology, and more specifically, deemed it crucial
to gather and record as much information as possible about Native Americans before their
cultures had assimilated to those of the Euro-American’s. He was strongly in favor of empirical
research and collected detailed observations, photographs and data to generate theories; he was
not one to postulate broad assumptions with little information. Boas was strongly opposed to
evolutionary theories relating to cultures, and urged anthropologists to consider diffusionism as
reason for the passing of traits and culture change. Many people have considered Boas to be a
historical particularist, due to his explaining present information of cultures in terms of the past,
and because he found individual cultures to all be distinct in their own way. In his studies, Boas
used a diachronic approach to understanding society; he viewed particular cultural traits and
elements as they were “across time”, rather than in the present moment, or a synchronic
approach. Boas also felt strongly in maintaining a cultural relativist perspective. He believed that
no one society was better or worse than another, just different, with various components
(Erickson 2016a). Boas was arguably one of the most influential American anthropologists, to
the field, training many that furthered his legacy.
2. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, diffusion was a hot topic in cultural-
anthropological debate. The idea was that, cultural traits, both material and non-material were
transmitted from one culture to another. Diffusion was a way to explain culture change, the
similarities in elements of nearby cultures, and the historical processes that specific cultural
elements went through. However, not everybody agreed with the idea, and many flaws would be
exposed of it, over time (Erickson 2016b)
Within the extreme view of diffusion, cultural elements are “invented” once, and then
these things are diffused outwards to other societies. It enforces the idea that people are
uninventive by nature and assumes that certain groups are more culturally rich than others. This
was in opposition to the theory of cultural evolutionism, which held that people invent the same
cultural traits in all societies as they progress, and that all social groups will eventually go
through the same processes (Erickson 2016b).
Max Müller popularized the idea in the 19th century with his studying of sacred texts in
the east. However, he was not only influential to diffusionists by claiming that the religions and
languages of ancient societies were related from contact, he also supported evolutionist ideas
with the notion that these languages were, simply, related (Erickson 2016b).
Friedrich Ratzel was a strong proponent for diffusionism, and suggested the idea of a
criterion of form. This view held that when there was resemblance in museum objects, there was
a single origin. He also proposed that there were stronger cultural states and weaker ones, with
, the stronger states growing more rapidly, and diffusing their cultural elements to the weaker
states (Erickson 2016b).
Leo Frobenius and Father Schmidt were both fans of the theory of culture circles, which
claimed that there were large areas of certain sets of traits that were distributed outward from the
center. Father Schmidt would go on to suggest four main culture circles that have existed in the
world, and have eventually overlapped with one another (Erickson 2016b).
Clark Wissler proposed a differing idea with the concept of culture areas, in which he
attempted to explain the vast differences between Native American cultures. He dived them into
individual geographical areas, and showed a center that was the point at which traits were
outwardly diffused (Erickson and Murphy 2017).
Although the theory of diffusionism, culture circles, and culture areas were widely used
across the world in cultural anthropology, there were many issues associated with them. These
absolute theories did not account for centers and boundaries shifting over time, or that some
traits are broken up and passed through cultures separately. It also doesn’t explain how very
different cultures can exist in nearby areas, with little to no similarities (Erickson 2016b).
3. A major player in the shaping of linguistic and cultural anthropology during the twentieth
century was Edward Sapir. While studying at Columbia University, he met Franz Boas and
became interested in unwritten languages. He was most fascinated by the relationship between
language, culture, and personality. He held a relativist perspective like Boas’ claiming that all
current languages have the potential to express the same ideas (Erickson 2016d).
Sapir believed that language and culture are both internalized in people and that there are
patterns and structures produced by this internalization that are engrained in humans. Individuals
are guided by these rules unconsciously in their daily lives and while they may not be able to
explain or articulate them, they know which speech and behaviors to use in all social settings.
Sapir is most well-known for the hypothesis he, Benjamin Whorf, and Franz Boas all proposed.
This notion suggested in the most extreme sense that individuals are limited in their perceptions
of the world by the language(s) they speak. Further, one can only perceive elements of the world
in the categories provided by their language (Erickson 2016d).
Alfred Kroeber, the first PhD student of Boas, would later tend to stray a bit from his
teachings and the views of the rest of his students. He focused on social anthropology, and
claimed that culture has “no laws” and “no cause except itself.” He would take part in highly
extensive field work that lasted for years at a time, taking note of hundreds, or sometimes
thousands, of elements to later compare and contrast between each other (Erickson 2016d).
Kroeber believed that culture was composed of much more than just the sum of its
individuals, and that the individuals themselves had no significant impact on the shaping of the
culture. In his book, “The Superorganic,” Kroeber argues that culture is not the product of
individuals, and even goes so far as to say that the concurrent inventions of “great men” prove
this. With many examples such as the theory of evolution being proposed at almost the same
time by two men in different parts of the world, he claimed that these findings were only made
because the cultures those men belonged to were ready for them. In conclusion, he stated that
these “great men” were only products of history (Erickson 2016d).
Kroeber’s impact on the way we study cultures today was profound. Society and culture
are still often viewed as open systems that interact and exchange elements between each other.
His suggestion that certain aspects of culture are also sometimes produced without any benefit or
cause, also remains as a perspective of some anthropologists (Erickson 2016d).
