Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Rejoinder Author(s): Leslie A. White Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 49, No.

3 (Jul. - Sep., 1947), pp. 400-413 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable 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 at http://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 support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

EVOLUTIONISM IN CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY: A REJOINDER

By LESLIE A. WHITE

pROFESSOR LOWIE'S recent article in the American Anthropologist, "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 plagiarism has never entered my mind. I merely pointed out, in the instance cited by him, that Morgan had preceded Lowie in suggesting that 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 writings 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.
EVALUATIONOF MORGAN

I am of course well aware of the complimentary remarks addressed to Morgan 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-Brown's complimentary allusion to Morgan's Systems. He does not point out, however, that in the bibliography of RadcliffeBrown's long article, "The Social Organization of Australian Tribes,"3 which contains 188 references to 101 titles by 52 authors, Morgan's 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 organization.4 As 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 recaljs also-despite some kind words in later years-Lowie's early
1 Lowie, 1946a.
2

3 Oceania, Vol. I, Nos. 1-4 inc., 1930-31.

White, 1943, 1944, 1945. 4 Morgan,1872;1877,Part II, Chap.I; 1880.

400

WHITE]

EVOLUTIONISMIN CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

401

characterization of Morgan as "the typical example of the 'comprehensive and weak mind' (esprit ample et faible) in Duhem's classification of intellects."5 And even now, when Lowie cites "gems" illustrative of Morgan's "narrowmindedness,"6 he is not wholly fair. For example, he quotes Morgan to the effect that certain frescoes by Michael Angelo are "substantially absurd." But he fails to tell us why Morgan thought so: "When M. A. thought he could picture the last judgment on three thousand square feet of plaster wall, and make it expressive of anything but his own folly, he deceived himself."7 I have never maintained, or even intimated, that Morgan was perfect. I have never denied that he committed errors and had shortcomings. To defend him against unjust accusations, as I have done, is not to declare him to be without flaw or blemish. Lowie says that he would "like to see some realization on White's part that sporadic impatience with Morgan may have an objective basis." I believe I have given such indication. A few years ago, I went to considerable length to demonstrate that the position Morgan took regarding the degree of development of Aztec society was untenable.8 Morgan insisted that Aztec society was democratic, that no American Indian group had developed beyond the societas. I was able to show, in a closely reasoned and amply documented argument, that Morgan and Bandelier were wrong on the basis of data that they themselves supplied and used. I do not believe that this argument could have been worked out by one held in the grip of the "obsessive power of fanaticism." Dr. Lowie may have forgotten this demonstration of my ability to take a critical attitude toward Morgan, although he reviewed the work for American Antiquity and, I may add, he found my critique "admirably balanced and convincing."9To summarize this point: Morgan has been alternately ignored, belittled and misrepresented-sometimes grossly so. I have tried to defend him against these injustices. To Lowie my attitude seems to be one of fanaticism and blind hero-worship; to me it is merely a sense of justice and fair play. I have never claimed perfection for Morgan. On the contrary, I have demonstrated my ability to regard him critically. If I have not compiled an inventory of his shortcomings, it is because (1) others have done- and overdone-this; and (2) because a great figure in science should be judged by the characteristics which set him apart from and ahead of his contemporaries, not by the errors and shortcomings which he shares with them.
MORGAN AND THE DARWINIANS

It 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, is
6 Lowie, 1915, p. 330. 7 White (Ed.), 1937, p. 285. 6 Id., 1946a, p. 225. 8 White 9 Vol. 27-46. I, pp. Lowie, 1941, p. 196. (Ed.), 1940,

402

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[N.

s., 49, 1947

this: After the publication of The Origin of Species a controversy arose in Europe and America. It was a struggle between the Christian theological conception of man and the conception held by science. I argued that if you were in this 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 from his orthodoxreligious 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 Darwin's side and not on the side of the theologians.This was the point at 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 "Morgan's Attitude Toward Religion and Science" as one of the parties to this particular misrepresentation of Morgan. He has, however, made his contribution: he speaks of Morgan as "a bourgeois lawyer who never severed his connections with Christian orthodoxy,"'?-and this in one of his most recentwritings, not something published in 1920 or before. It is important to note that Dr. Lowie does not now challengethe thesis of my essay on "Morgan's Attitude Toward Religion and Science." He makes no attempt 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 "never severed his connections with Christian orthodoxy" (Lowie). Instead, he makes quite a show of pointing out (1) that there were in Morgan's day distinguished men of science who were also deeply religious and (2) that Darwin was criticized 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 belief 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 that meaning was fairly clear from the context. It could hardly be claimed that Professor Lowie has clarified the issue here; he seems rather to have confused it 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 BOASIANSANTI-EVOLUTIONISTS?

Professor Lowie tries to make it appear that "Boas and his students attacked not [cultural] evolution, but Morgan's and other writers' evolutionary
10Id., 1937,p. 54.

WHmIT]

EVOLUTIONISMIN CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

403

schemes."1 I am afraid he will have a hard time convincing many of his readers thai 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 (Lowie's) own books: "The theory of culturalevolution[is] to my mindthe most inane, sterile,and pernicious theoryever conceivedin the historyof science."(Laufer)12 How would he explain Sapir's 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 author's thesis that there
are "distinct types of social organization ... as well as interestingly conver-

gent forms that could not, however, be explained by any formula of evolutionary theory"?14 How explain Benedict's assertion that anthropological data are "best studied without the complications of any attempted evolutionary arrangement"; that "the idea of evolution"has "to be laid aside in the study of culture"?'5 Or Bunzel's discussion of "the fallacy inherent in all evolutionary arguments"?16Or Stern's contention that "cultures . . . are too complex and .. .too variable to fit into any definite social evolutionary scheme?"'7 According to Sapir, Lowie "believes that . . 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 attack upon the theory of cultural evolution "for more than a quarter of a century."'9 Paul Radin makes it very clear that it was not merely "Morgan's and other writers' evolutionary schemes" that the Boasians objected to. He writes: "if Boas and his school rejected the developmental schemes of Tylor and Morgan this must, in no sense, be ascribed to the inadequacies and crudities of those schemes, but
rather to the fact they rejected all developmental sequences. . . . [To the theory
11Id., 1946a,p. 227. In a subsequent communication (Lowie,1946b),he has declaredflatly that the Boas schoolwas not opposed to evolution but only to a "vapidevolutionarymetaphysics that has nothing to do with science." 12 Laufer, 1918, p. 90. Lowie points out that Laufer "was not trained by Boas." He was, however, at one with the Boas school on many points, especially those of anti-evolutionism and 13 Sapir, 1920a, p. 378. hostility toward creative imagination. 14 Id., 1927, p. 100. 15 Benedict, 1931, pp. 809-810. 16Bunzel, 1938, p. 578. 17 Stern, 1931, p. 135. 18 Sapir, 1920b, p. 46. 19 Williams, 1936, pp. 199-200.

404

AMERICAN- ANTHROPOLOGIST

[N.s., 49, 1947

of evolution] Boas always took a prevailingly antagonistic position"20 (italics mine). And, finally, one of Boas' leading disciples has only recently "gladly reaffirmed his belief" in the anti-evolutionary tradition.2' Thus, the testimony and evidence indicate definitely that Boas and his students wereopposed to the theory of cultural evolution itself, and not merely to certain specific formulations 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." (Tylor)22 Furthermore, we might ask, if it were only particularformulations of evolutionist 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 it, 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. It is a term that the late Alexander Goldenweiser-whom Lowie has called "the philosopher of American anthropology"23 -used a great deal to characterizethe philosophic outlook of the Boas school.4 Another student of Boas, Paul Radin, also has used it more than once in the same sense.26 Professor Lowie seems to have difficulty in understanding my phrase "reactionary philosophy of anti-evolution." He says it "naturally suggests the degeneration theories ... of de Maistre."26I 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 latter 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 Culture"29 (1943), and again in "Diffusion vs. Evolution"" (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 cultural 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
Radin, 1939, p. 303. Herskovits, 1941, p. 273. Herskovits has also purged his vocabulary of the evolutionist term "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. 30 White, 1945, p. 354. 29 White, 1943, p. 355.
21

20

WHITE]

EVOLUTIONISMIN CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

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 Lowie's Primitive Society, he said:31 ... is nowelaborately It is itself rapidlydrifting "Anthropology backwatering. to the anti-evolutionary, historicalmethod." 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 in science and philosophy.
DIFFUSION 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 that the evolutionist must take the facts of diffusion into account. As I have pointed out before, Tylor and Kroeber have sketched the evolution of writing without reference to diffusion. Einstein and Infeld have given us a treatise on The Evolution of Physics without 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 that it 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 maintains that "diffusion negates the possibility of proving evolution."33He seems unable to see that the development of a trait or complex and its diffusion 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 decoration, 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 diffusionist 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 Linton:34 "Diffusionhas made a doublecontribution to the advanceof mankind.It has stimulatedthe growthof cultureas a wholeand at the sametime has enrichedthe contentof individualcultures .... It has helped theevolution to accelerate of culture as a wholeby removingthe necessityfor every society to perfectevery step in an inventiveseriesfor itself" (emphasis mine).
831 Sapir,1920c,p. 533.
32 In one of his most recent works,Lowie speaksof the evolutionof the plow from the hoe withoutreference to diffusion.Lowie, 1940, p. 28. 33 34 Lowie, 1946a,p. 230. Linton, 1936a,p. 324.

406

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[N. s., 49, 1947

Dr. Lowie makes a good point when he shows that Morgan did infer tribal history from his evolutionist formulas, and he is fully justified in calling this history "veritable pseudo-history." But this does not prove that the formulas are invalid. It merely demonstrates that an evolutionist is capable of misusing them as well as an anti-evolutionist. The evolutionist's formulas were devised to show how one cultural form grows out of another-as exemplified, e.g., by Kroeber's seven stages in the development of weaving.35 They were not designed to reconstruct tribal history, and if they are so employed, an error has been committed regardless of whether the author of the mistake is an evolutionist or an opponent of this theory. But, let it be emphasized, a formula is not invalidated merely because someone makes improper use of it. When employed for the purpose for which they were designed, evolutionist formulas can be illuminating and fruitful.
THE ORIGIN OF EVOLUTIONIST FORMULAS

Professor Lowie makes the point that I have nowhere explained how evolutionist formulas are "ultimately derived."36He asks if they are "empirical inductions" or "a priori constructs." Since his article was written another essay of mine, "Kroeber's 'Configurations of Culture Growth"'37has been published, in which I have something to say on the subject. I have tried to show that many of the great organizing and vitalizing principles of science are not the products of induction. To quote Einstein again:38 "Thereis no inductivemethodwhichcould lead to the fundamental concepts errorof this fact constitutedthe basicphilosophic of physics.Failureto understand so many investigatorsof the nineteenthcentury.... We now realizewith special clarity, how much in errorare those theoristswho believe that theory comes inductivelyfromexperience...." What Einstein says here of physics will of course apply to science in general and to ethnology. 'The Boas school has long proceeded from the premise that if you marshal enough facts something constructive will come out of them. As Radin has put it:39 "The essence of his [Boas']method was ... to gather facts, and ever more facts ... and permitthem to speakfor themselves...." Unfortunately, facts do not speak for themselves; they require imaginative intellects to speak for them. Facts as facts lie inert and meaningless until they are quickened into life and meaning by the creative power of intelligence.40
39 Radin, 1939, p. 301. a distinguished protege of Morgan, Adolph F. Bandelier once put it: "Lines of thought are superior, in the end, to lines of fact, because fact is dead without the constant action of thought upon it." See White (Ed.), 1940, Vol. II, p. 207. 40 As

36Lowie, 1946a, p. 231. 35 Kroeber, 1923, pp. 360-361. 37 White, 1946. - 38 Einstein, 1936, pp. 360, 365, 366.

WHITE]

EVOLUTIONISMIN CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

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 generalizations41and systems, his impatience with theory, in short, with a creative, synthesizing intelligence on the other. They learned to scoff at the evolutionists. Sapir called them "closet He declared that "the old classical anthropology, still current, philosophers."42 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 imagination";44evolutionist theory "a substitute for critical thought."46 Hostility to reflective thought, creative imagination and theory became traditional among the Boasians. Radin speaks of "an exaggerated distrust of theories of whatever description,"46in the United States. Rivers, too, comments upon the anti-theoretical basis of American ethnology.47 The Boasian attitude was forthrightly stated by Laufer in these words:48 "I must confessthat I am in a state of mindwhereI wouldno longer givea dime to anyonefor a new theory,but I am always enthusiasticabout new facts . . ." (emphasismine). This confession, which might strike a physicist or other man of science as incredible, was inspired by Lowie's book, Are We Civilized? The aversion for theory became so pronounced among American anthropologists that "to suggest that something is 'theoretical'," says Kluckhohn, "is to suggest that it is slightly indecent."49 The consequences of this anti-imaginative, anti-theoretical outlook were much what one might expect: a mass of facts that did not mean much or make much sense. Kroeber has called the fruit of this philosophy and method "rather sterile."60In 1921 (a year after Lowie's Primitive Society appeared), Goldenweiser noted that "the critical ethnologist has developed a certain timidity [sic] in dealing with ideas," and warned that in the absence of "constructive ideas ... 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 an aggressive hostility to theory, the very breath of life of science, has been carried as far as it has by the Boas group.
41The late Elsie Clews Parsons has noted that "Dr. Lowie is ruthless of formulas." Parsons, 42Sapir, 1920a, p. 377. 48 Sapir, 1920b, p. 46. 1920, p. 245.

equates creative 4Goldenweiser, 1921, p. 55. It is significantto note that Goldenweiser in its place! imaginationwith the evolutionists.This, to a Boasian,put "creativeimagination" 47 Rivers, 1911,p. 491. 46Radin, 1933, p. 253. 46Id., 1924,p. 433. 49 Kluckhohn,1939,p. 333. 48Laufer,1930,p. 162. 50 Kroeber,1920, 61 Goldenweiser, 1921,p. 65. p. 380.

408

A MERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[N. s., 49, 1947

To return to the source and derivation of evolutionist formulas: When, Lowie demands to know if they are "empirical inductions" he is faintly reminiscent 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 aptly puts it, "free inventions of the human intellect."52 Darwin did not come by his formulas by "empirical induction," by piling up fact upon fact. He createdthem, as he himself tells us,53by synthesizing an idea expounded by Malthus with ideas from other sources.
AND EVOLUTION CATHOLICANTHROPOLOGISTS

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 at heart, and the former, according to Lowie, "even [accepts] the term 'evolution'."54 Schmidt makes a distinction between evolutionand evolutionism,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.55 And it is true, of course, that Schmidt speaks of evolutionary stages, etc., just as Lowie has spoken of "the stage preceding the evolution of the sib,"56"the independent 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 in Ancient Society.) But it takes more than occasional recognition of the evolutionist process to;make an evolutionist. Professor Lowie's attempt to present Catholic priests as evolutionists is of considerable interest, especially in the light of the following points: 1. The Catholic priests cited by Lowie as well as many others are on record as unequivocably opposed to evolutionist theory in the science of culture; 2. Boas and his school have been highly praised by a prominent Jesuit anthropologist 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.,
52 Einstein,1934,p. 54 Lowie,

63Darwin, 1896,Vol. I, p. 68. 33. 1946a, p. 232; see also, pp. 226-227; Lowie, 1946b, p. 240. 66 Schmidt, 1939, p. xxvi. 56Lowie, 1919, p. 32. 68Lowie, 1940, p. 98. 67Lowie, 1917, p. 142.

WHITE]

EVOLUTIONISM IN CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY

409

anthropologist, and Franz H. Mueller, M.C.S., Dr. rer. pol., sociologist, state that their book, The Social Life of Primitive Man, published under an archbishop's imprimatur, "endeavors to prove how inadequate the evolutionist interpretation was."59They also discuss Morgan's "evolutionist vagaries," his "purblindness," his "ridiculous interpretations,"60etc. Father Albert Muntsch, S. J. devotes his Evolution and Culture to showing that "the picture drawn by the evolutionary delirium [sic] is false."61 He points to "the utter defeat of the evolutionary view of the development of culture" in his Cultural Anthropology.6 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 at 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 evolution'."64 Chapter II is entitled "Evolutionary 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 evolutionarytheory of cultureand establishesthe family and State on the solidgroundof Christian ethics."6 At 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 Spalding's story and Robert H. Lowie is equally close to the role of hero. In addition to opposing Morgan's "vagaries" and his "far-fetched and unproved 'lines of human progress'," the authors oppose him on a number of specific points: promiscuity, primitive communism, etc. "But his [Morgan's] 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 that "Fr. Koppers and Dr. Lowie have arrived independently at important conclusions which have shaken the foundations of all strictly evolutionary explanations of social progress."67Since Dr. Lowie has counted the number of times I have cited him in one of my articles, he may be interested to learn that his name appears on the first page of Chapter 1 of IntroductorySociology and some 24 times thereafter up to page 60. Father Schmidt's name appears 13, Fr. Kopper's 17 times in the same space. He is cited or quoted 33 times in Muntsch's 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 Anthropological Association, has published a very interesting article, "Boas and
69 Sieber and Mueller, 1941, p. 10. 60 Id., pp. 37, 28. 62Muntsch, 1936, p. 11. 61Muntsch, 1923, p. 31.

6 Muntsch and Spalding, 1928. " Id., p. 98. Id., p. xiv.

67

Id., p. 7. Id., p. S.

410

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[N. s., 49, 1947

American Ethnologists," in Thought, a Jesuit review.68The gist of the article is praise of Boas and his disciples for having fought the theory of cultural evolution with vigor, persistence, and success. Boas "completely revolutionized the trend of scientific thought among American ethnologists," says Williams. Early American ethnology had been strongly evolutionist in outlook and this "continueduntil ProfessorBoas of Columbiain turn invoked ethnologyfor the precise purposeof testing and confoundingthe very theories advanced by the influenceof this quiet evolutionaryschool .... It is preciselythe extraordinary unobtrusivescholarthat interests us at present, especiallyas it hag manifested the classicaltheory of evolutionamongpracticallythe entire itself in suppressing of Doctor group of leading Americanethnologists.... Directly in consequence Boas' personalleadership, evolution, especiallyin its classicalform, has steadily to Professor falleninto disfavoramongAmerican ethnologists.... It wasreserved Franz Boas to becomethe founderof the Americanschool that was destinedto at the very start the open up a new era in culturalanthropology,undermining entiresystemof evolutionof culture."69 In view of these statements, it does not appear that Dr. Lowie's attempt to present the Catholic priests as evolutionists is an adequate portrayal of their views.
IS SECURE EVOLUTIONISM

Dr. 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 emphasized its importance in all fields of science and have pointed out that cultural anthropology and orthodox theology are about the only places of hospitality and refuge for a philosophy of anti-evolutionism at the present time. I believe, however, as I have said before, that this era of reaction will come to an end some day, 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 than because of anything they have done to aid it. According to their own statements, the record of their achievements, and the testimony of others, the Boas school hag fought the theory of cultural evolution with vigor, tenacity, and success for decades. Evolutionism in ethnology has been pronounced "dead" by numerous observers.70"Actually, however, the question must still be regarded as a living one," Father Williams shrewdly observes, "and it is likely to continue so for some time to come, despite thefact that at least in this field of science, due to the initiative and indefatigableeffort of Dr. Boas, the theory of evolution is steadily losing ground"71 (emphasis mine).
68 Williams, 1936.
70

Id., passim. See Linton, 1936b, p. 316; Hooton, 1937, p. 221; Radin, 1933, p. 4; Schmidt, 1939, p. 36. 71 Williams, 1936, p. 196.
69

wIlr9]

EVOLUTIONISM IN CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY

411

Yet, Lowie advises me to "relax." With evolutionism "steadily losing ground," thanks to the indefatigable efforts of the Boasians and their clerical comrades 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 one of its most powerful tools will be ill-advised to relax their efforts-for the present, at least. I would not agree, however, with Father Williams' prediction of 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 response to my articles, especially from the younger anthropologists, lead me to believe that there is some dissatisfaction with the Boasian point of view and a considerable interest in evolutionism.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

ANN ARBOR BIBLIOGRAPHY

BANDELIER, ADOLPH F. (See WHITE,

Ed.), 1940.

BENEDICT, RUTH

1931 The Scienceof Custom(in TheMakingof Man, V. F. Calverton,Ed., New York).

BUNZEL, RUTH

1938 Art (in General F. Boas, Ed., New York). Anthropology,

DARWIN, FRANCIS

1896 TheLife and Letters Darwin,2 vols. New York. of Charles

EINSTEIN, ALBERT

1934 Onthe Methodof Theoretical as I SeeIt, by A. Einstein. New Physics(in TheWorld York). 1936 Physics and Reality (Journalof the FranklinInstitute,221: 349-382).
GOLDENWEISER, ALEXANDER

1914 The SocialOrganization of the Indiansof North America(Journalof American FolkLore,27: 411-436). 1921 Four Phases of Anthropological AmericanSocioThought (Papersand Proceedings, logicalSociety,Vol. 16). 1924 Anthropological Theoriesof Political Origins(in Historyof Political Theories, C. E. Merriamand H. E. Barnes,Eds., New York). 1925a CulturalAnthropology H. E. Barnes, (in HistoryandProspects of theSocialSciences, Ed., New York). 1925b Diffusionism and the AmericanSchool of HistoricalEthnology (American Journal 31: 19-38). of Sociology,
HERSKOVITS, MELVILLE J.

49: A Rejoinder (The Journal of Political Economy, 1941 Economicsand Anthropology: 269-278).
HOOTON, EARNEST A.

1937 Apes, Men and Morons.New York.

KLUCKHOHN, CLYDE

1939 The Placeof Theoryin Anthropological Studies(ThePhilosophy of Science,6: 328-334).

KROEBER, A. L.

22: 377-381). 1920 Reviewof R. H. Lowie,"PrimitiveSociety"(American Anthropologist, 1923 Anthropology. New York.

412
LAUFER, B.

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[N. s., 49, 1947

1918 Review of R. H. Lowie, "Cultureand Ethnology"(American 20: 87Anthropologist,

91).

1930 Reviewof R. H. Lowie, "AreWe Civilized?" (Ibid., 32:161-165).

LINTON, RALPH

1936a The Study of Man. New York.

1936b Errorin Anthropology (in The Storyof HumanError,Joseph Jastrow,Ed., New York).
LOWIE, ROBERT H.

1915 Review of W. H. R. Rivers, "Kinshipand Social Organization" Anthro(American

pologist, 17: 329-340). 1917 Culture and Ethnology. New York. 1919 Family and Sib (American Anthropologist, 21: 28-40).

1922 Reviewof A. Goldenweiser, "EarlyCivilization,"(Ibid.,6/235-236).

1937 History of Ethnological Theory. New York. 1940 Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, 2nd ed. New York.

1941 Reviewof LeslieA. White, Ed., "Pioneers in American The BandelierAnthropology: 7: 196-197). MorganLetters, 1873-1883"(American Antiquity, 1946a Evolutionin CulturalAnthropology: a Reply to LeslieWhite(American Anthropologist, 48: 223-233). 1946b ProfessorWhite and "Anti-Evolutionist" Schools(Southwestern Journalof Anthropology,2: 240-241).
MORGAN, LEWIS H.

1872 Australian Kinship (Proceedings, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 8: 412-438). 1877 Ancient Society. New York. 1880 Introduction to "Kamilaroi and Kurnai," by Lorimer Fison and A. W. Howitt. Mel-

bourneand Sydney.
MUNTSCH, ALBERT

1923 Evolution and Culture. St. Louis.

MUNTSCH, ALBERT,

1936 Cultural 2nd ed. New York,Milwaukee, and Chicago. Anthropology, and HENRY S. SPALDING
1928 IntroductorySociology. New York.

PARSONS, ELSIE CLEWS

1920 Reviewof R. H. Lowie, "PrimitiveSociety"(TheNew Republic, 24: 245-246).

RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A. R.

of Australian 1930-31 The Social Organization Tribes (Oceania, Vol. I, Nos. 1 to 4, inc.).
RADIN, PAUL

1932 Social Anthropology.New York. 1933 The Method and Theory of Ethnology. New York.

1939 The Mind of PrimitiveMan (TheNew Republic, 98: 300-303).

RIVERS, W. H. R.

1911 An Ethnological Analysis of Culture (Proceedings, British Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 490-499).
SAPIR, EDWARD

1920a Reviewof R. H. Lowie,"PrimitiveSociety"(TheFreeman, 1: 377-379). 1920b Review of 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.

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

WHITE]

EVOLUTIONISM IN CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY

413

SCHMIDT, WILHELM

Historical Method New York. 1939 The Culture of Ethnology.

SIEBER, SYLVESTER A., STERN, BERNHARD J.

and

FRANZ H. MUELLER

1941 TheSocialLife of Primitive Man. St. Louis. 1931 LewisHenryMorgan:SocialEvolutionist. Chicago.

TYLOR, E. B.

1881 Anthropology. London.

WHITE, LESLIE A.

1938 1939 1943 1944 1945 1946

ScienceIs Sciencing(ThePhilosophy of Science,5: 369-389). A Problemin KinshipTerminology 41: 566-573). (American Anthropologist, Energyand the Evolutionof Culture(Ibid.,45: 335-356). Morgan'sAttitude towardReligionand Science(Ibid., 46: 218-230). Diffusionvs. Evolution:An Anti-Evolutionist Fallacy (Ibid.,47: 339-356). Kroeber's of CultureGrowth"(Hid., 48: 78-93). "Configurations

WHITE, LESLIE A., ED.

1937 Extracts from the EuropeanTravel Journal of Lewis H, Morgan (Publications, Rochester Historical Society,Vol. XVI. Rochester,New York). 1940 Pioneers in American TheBandelier-Morgan Anthropology: Letters, 1873-1883,2 vols. N. M. Albuquerque,
WILLIAMS, JOSEPH J.

1936 Boas and American 11: 194-209). Ethnologists(Thought,