Upload
mary-claudius
View
226
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/10/2019 theory neo evolution
1/15
On Julian Steward and the Nature of Culture
Author(s): Mary W. HelmsSource: American Ethnologist, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Feb., 1978), pp. 170-183Published by: Wileyon behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/643743.
Accessed: 15/05/2014 03:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
WileyandAmerican Anthropological Associationare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access toAmerican Ethnologist.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/stable/643743?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/643743?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black8/10/2019 theory neo evolution
2/15
on Julian Steward and the nature of culture
MARYW. HELMS-NorthwesternUniversity
Evolution
and
Ecology: Essays on Social Transformation by Julian H.
Steward.
JANE
C.
STEWARD and ROBERT F. MURPHY, Eds. Robert
F.
Murphy, introduction. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977. ix
+
406
pp., illustrations. $12.95 (cloth).
In his last years Julian Steward planned to prepare a volume much like Theory
of
Culture
Change (Steward 1955),
based on
various
papers he had prepared and published
during the 1960s. He did not live to complete this task. Consequently, Jane Steward, with
the assistance of Robert Murphy, compiled Evolution and Ecology, a commemorative
collection
of
Steward's papers intended
as
a retrospective
of
his professional interests,
theories,
and
ideas. The
seventeen
papers that, together
with
an introduction by Murphy,
compose the volume achieve
this
goal
well
and invite reflection on the man, his contribu-
tion,
and
his
era.
The papers presented
in
Evolution
and
Ecology
show
no
overlap
with
the articles
that
compose Theory of Culture Change, although many of the same topics are considered
in
the
constituent essays.
Two
papers are published here
for
the first time: Wittfogel's
Irrigation Hypothesis, a reflection on the concept of the hydraulic society; and
Modernization in Traditional Societies, part of a chapter that Steward had originally
intended
as an introduction
to
Contemporary Change
in
Traditional Societies (Steward
1967),
but that was never
published.
Five
articles
predate Theory
of
Culture
Change:
Determinism
in
Primitive
Society? ; the well-known The Direct Historical Approach
to
Archaeology ; Function
and
Configuration
in
Archaeology ; Concepts and Methods of
Area Research
(from Steward 1950);
and a little-known
work
entitled
The
Ceremonial
Buffoon
of
the
American
Indian,
a shortened version
of
Steward's
doctoral
dissertation,
that
first
appeared
in
1931 in
volume
14 of
the
Papers
of the
Michigan
Academy
of
Science,
Arts,
and Letters.
Ten
of
the
papers reprinted
in Evolution and
Ecology postdate
Theory
of
Culture
Change.
Included
here
are, among others,
The
Concept
and
Method
of Cultural Ecology (reprinted from Sills 1968); Cultural Evolution in South America
(reprinted
from Goldschmidt
and
Hoijer 1970);
Carrier Acculturation: The Direct His-
torical
Approach (reprinted
from
Diamond
1961);
Limitations
of
Applied Anthropol-
ogy:
The Case
of
the
Indian
New Deal
(from
the
Journal
of the
Steward
Anthropologi-
cal Society,
volume
1, 1969);
and The
Foundations of
Basin-Plateau Shoshonean
Society (first published
in
Swanson
1970).
Some
of
these
essays, particularly
those written after the
publication
of
Theory
of
Culture
Change, present
refinements
and corrections in
previously published
data
and
interpretation.
In other
instances Steward
reaffirms the
validity
of
his earlier
approaches
in
reply
to
new directions
of
anthropological thought.
In
general,
the
essays
in Evolution
and
Ecology
reveal
a
scholar
who
remained
in
touch with the
flow of
his
discipline
to
an
exceptional degree
and whose later
writings
can be read with
profit
for
their
maturity
of
thought
and
for
the
cautionary perspectives
derived
from a
long
and fruitful
career.
By
the same
token some
themes
remain
unfortunately
consistent
over
the
years. Steward,
in
fact, appears very
much as
a man
of
his time.
Like other
theorists
of
cultural
change,
past
170 american ethnologist
This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 theory neo evolution
3/15
and
present, his major
works
illuminate
a
particular
era in
American
anthropology as
much as
they
have
pioneered
new directions. This is to
say that,
whereas the
papers
composing Theory
of Culture
Change
stimulated
the
anthropological
community
of
the
1950s
with
their forceful
developmental
and
ecological perspective,
o a readerof the
late
1970s the papers presented
in Evolution and
Ecology
invite
consideration of
Steward's
contribution within a more restrainedand more historicalperspective.The methodologi-
cal
and theoretical
frontiers that were
stimulating
n the 1955
publication
have
provided
foundations in the
succeeding
decades
for
still newer directions in
anthropology that,
however,
now make
more apparent
not
only
the
insights
but
also some
of
the limitations
in Steward's
work.
culture
and
environment
The
variance
n perspectives
argely
reflects differences in
the
anthropological limate
of opinion between the Second WorldWarand immediate postwar era and the current
decade
of
the 1970s.
During
he immediate
postwar
decades some trends in North
Ameri-
can
anthropology
were
reaching
their
apogee
while
other,
heretofore
nascent,
directions
were in
the ascendancy, though
not
yet fully
realized. World
War 11and its
aftermath
bluntly
revealed the
impact
of
industrial
societies
on
technologically
less
sophisticated
peoples
and,
in
anthropologicalcircles,
forced
prewarconcepts
of
cultural
relativism
o
give way
to a
growing
recognition
of
culturaldominanceand a
renewedconcern
with the
development
of
complex
societies
(see
Wolf
1964).
After
the
fury
of world
war the
traditional, elf-contained,
all-encompassingoncept
of
culture, long
the
underlyingprem-
ise
of
Boasian
anthropology,
was at the
height
of
its
anthropological
mpact, combating
psychological
reductionism
as
its
majorprotagonist
or
the
explanation
of social
behavior
(see
Kaplan 1965).
At the same
time, however,
the
traditional
concept
of
culture
was
changing, loosening
a bit to
accommodate
a
growing
interest
in
the functional
interrela-
tionships
of
particular
ultural
phenomena
with
biological
and
environmental
actors. But
concepts involving
environment, although by
no means
absent in Boasian
anthropology
(see
Hatch
1973a),
were still
relatively
unfamiliar
to
many
anthropologists
and
held
explanatorypotential
still to be realized.
During
the current decade the
significance
accorded
environmental actors in anthro-
pological paradigms
has
grown
tremendously,
while
in
some
anthropologicalcircles the
traditionalconcept of culture showssignsof decliningas a heuristicdevice. Indeed,where
previously,
in
the
first half
of
the
twentieth
century, concepts
of
cultureprovided
both
a
theoretical
and an
ideological
base for the
discipline,today
a
similar
heoretical-ideologi-
cal focus on
(natural)
environmental
concepts,
reflected in the
general
use
of
the term
ecology,
characterizes a
significant
sector
of
the
anthropologicalcommunity.
This
change
in
focus
has come about
perhaps
to
strengthenanthropological cientific
creden-
tials,
as
Harris
uggests 1968:655),
or
perhaps
because
of
the
uncomfortable
mplications
of
inevitabledisaster if the
contemporary
world
of
nuclear
superpowers
and
of
growing
population
and
resource
imbalances s
interpreted
n
culturological
terms
(see
Anderson
1973:206,
21
2-215).
The bulk of Steward'swork falls in a middleground,a transitionperiod,a time of
significant
transformation
n
American
anthropology
when a
discipline
strongly
identified
by concepts
of
culture
was
moving
toward a new
rapprochement
with
the
concept
of
ecology.
Steward's
work and
thought played
a
major part
in
effecting
this shift.
His
insight
did much
to
provide
a
bridge
between traditional
acceptance
of
concepts
of
culture and
contemporary
attitudes focused
on
an
ecological perspective.
Not
surpris-
on
Julian Steward 171
This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 theory neo evolution
4/15
ingly,
during the yearsof this
transitionera itself, the
years also
of Steward'sprofessional
career, the analytic
view that developed,
and that
he himself did much
to shape and
express,
was largely
dualistic in perspective
as relationships
were recognized between
select
cultural practices and particular
biological
andenvironmental
actors. In Steward's
work this dualism
was patternedin several
ways. Aspects of culture
could
be combined
with interpretationsof the naturalenvironment o createa singleparadigmwith whichto
analyze
a
given society, as
in the concept
of culturalecology.
As a corollary to
this
approach
we
find
a reworkingof the
holistic concept of culture
to provide a contrast
between
the environmentally
related cultural
core and additional
nonadaptive secon-
dary
cultural features.
Environmental
actors and cultural factors
also could be applied
in different degreesto differing
types of society, as
in Steward'sview of
native or tribal
peoples as primarily
ubject
to ecologicalrequirements
while complex societies
were
more
stronglyshaped by
purely
cultural
(nonbiological,
nonenvironmental)eatures.
In accordance
with the general
anthropological
climate of
opinion of the postwar
years, however,
Steward's
dualism
had
distinct
leanings towardthe cultural
side of the
equation;which is to say, the usefulnessof concepts of ecology and environment ay in
what they
could tell about the
nature
of culture. Although the
attractionof Steward's
concept
of
cultural
ecology when it was
first presented ay in its
emphasison opening
the
concept of the superorganic
o include noncultural,
cologicalperspectives,
his intellectu-
al roots
in more traditional
culturalpostures
of the disciplineremained
visible
throughout
his career(see Hatch
1973b: 118-123). His
acceptance
of the heuristicvalue
of a concept
of culture in general
was clearly a legacy
of his grounding
n Boasiananthropology
as
interpreted
by
A.
L.
Kroeber
and
Robert
Lowie,
under
whose
guidanceStewardpursued
graduatestudy
at Berkeley
in the late 1920s. Indeed, a really
adequate
analysis of
Steward's
various
contributions also
requires
assessment
of
the work of both
Lowie
and
Kroeber.1Manyof Steward'sbasicassumptionsregardingquestionsof typology and the
classification
of cultures, the
validity
of
cross-culturalomparisons,
he natureof causa-
tion, and
the
character
of
primitive
societies and complex civilizations
were firmly
rooted in Kroeber's
and
Lowie's anthropology.
Steward
refined and
redirected
he Kroe-
berian
and Lowien
positions
on
these
matters
and,
most
significantly,gave
them
(or
portions
of
them)
a
theoretical
unity
through
concepts
of
environment and
ecology
stimulated
in
part
by
his
college major
in
zoology
and
geology
and the influence
of the
cultural geographer
Carl Sauer
at
Berkeley.
In
so
doing,
Steward
successfully
transformed
a number
of
prewar
historical-particularistopics
into
major
concerns
of a more
func-
tionalist
postwar
anthropology.
At the presenttime, however,when ecologicalstudies of one type or anotherare the
focus
of
so much
anthropological
interest and
work,
Steward's
pioneering
efforts
to
introduce
environmental
actors
into the
study
of
society
are rather
nfrequently
cited
in
specific
ecological
case
studies, though prominently
referred o in theoretical
essays
and
general surveys
of the field.
This
situation,
which
was remarked
upon
by
Shimkin
a
decade
ago (1964:12-16),
may
reflect
Steward's
strong emphasis
on culture as the
more
important
element
of his
ecological equations.
In recent
years
there
has been a
discernible
trend
in
anthropological
circles
toward
narrowing
the
concept
of culture
so that
it
includes
less
and reveals
more
(Keesing
1974:73).
One finds
among anthropological
ecologists
in
particular
considerable
variation
in the
degree
to which the
concept
of
culture
is
used
in
contemporary
ecological
studies and uncertaintyas to its place, if any,
as a heuristic
device
in
ecological
analyses (see
Damas
1969:180-183;
Vayda
and
Rappa-
port 1968;
and
Anderson
1973).
The
tendency
among
the new
ecologists
is to delete
a
concept
of
culture
from
ecological analyses
as much
as
possible,
or, perhaps
better
said,
to
merge
culture
with environment
so that distinctions
between the two blur and
fade
172 american
thnologist
This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 theory neo evolution
5/15
and
tend
to
disappear.
Those
aspects
of
human ife
styles
of
interest to
ecologicalanthro-
pologists are reduced instead
to
another form of
adaptive animal behavior
and man
becomes another organism
illing
a
niche within the
ecosystem.
Culture, n turn, becomes
the referent
primarily
for the
symbolic
side
of
human
behavior (see
Anderson 1973:
212-215; Vayda and Rappaport
1968:492-497; Keesing
1974:74-77; Moore
1974).
Steward himself voiced concern for the implications of this current trend toward
interpretingthe behavior
of
mankind
as
relatively
rather
than
absolutely (qualitatively)
different from other animals(see Manners
1973:895-896). He made it
quite clear
that, in
his
opinion, man was distinctive as
a culture-bearing nimal
and, more importantly, the
study of
his lifeways, including
his
material
needs,
was
basically
a
study
of
culture. Man
enters the
ecological
scene
. . . not
merely
as
another
organism
which is
related to other
organisms n terms
of
his
physical
characteristics.He
introduces the
superorganic
actor
of
culture which also affects and
is
affected
by
the
total web of
life (Steward
1955:31).
The
heuristic
value
of
the
ecological
viewpoint
is to
conceptualize
noncultural
phenom-
ena that are relevant to
processes
of
cultural evolution
(p. 44).
Furthermore,
while the
humancapacityfor cultureand the resultantculturalevolution reston biologicalprecon-
ditions, the
fact
that
cultural
evolution is
an
extension
of
biological
evolution does
not
imply
that cultural
evolution
follows
the
principles
of
biological
evolution
(p. 69).
order from
diversity
One
of
Steward'sdualistic
ecological
approaches,
hat in
which the
social
arrangements
of
a
given
society
are
shaped by
the
interactionof
technology
and
the behavioral
patterns
of work (the cultural
core)
with
select features
of
the
natural
environment,
particularly
subsistence resources,has also frequently been criticized by contemporaryecological
anthropologists.
It is faulted as
too
restrictive and thus unsuited
to
the much
broader
systemic approach
currently
in
vogue,
which
perceives
a
constantly fluctuating
inter-
dependency
of a multitude
of
behavioral,
environmental,
even
cognitive
elements,
all
of
which are to
some
degree
or at some times
causally significant
within the
ecosystem.
Although
in
his later
writings
Steward
recognized
the
validity
of
widening
the
range
of
effective environmental
forces
(p. 45),
he
always
remained selective in
his choice
of
socioeconomic
and
environmental
actors
and
regarded
he
simpler
societies affected
by
these
factors
to
be
integrated by
them
only up
to a
point,
for an
aggregate
f
secondary,
nonadaptive
raits were
recognized
as
part
of the
culture
pattern
of
a
society,
too. It
must be remembered,however,that when Stewardpostulatedthe primacyof a restricted
cultural core
he
was
not, strictlyspeaking,
concerned with
ecological problemsper
se and
he
was
responding
o an
anthropological
milieu
that
no
longer weighs
as
immediately
or
as
heavily
on us
today.
Prior to and
during
Steward's
years
of
graduatetraining
n the late
1920s
and in the
early years
of his
professional
career n the
1930s,
anthropologists
were
quite
uneasy
over
the theoretical
limitations of
the
purely
descriptive,highly particularistic
evel
of
Boasian
historicism,
which viewed
cultures as
congeries
of
diffused
or
locally
invented traits. A
search
for
conceptual
frameworks
that could
elucidate
more
general
theories was well
under
way. Steward put
forth
his
concept
of
culturalecology
as a contributiontoward
this goal, encouraged no doubt by Lowie's recognition with respect to kinship that
parallel
unctional
relationships
did
exist,
at
least
to
a limited
degree, andthat a measure
of
order could be
empiricallyrecognized
n the
cultural
domain
(see Murphy1972:65). In
other
words,
the
initial
step away
from Boasian
particularism
equired
a
searchfor cross-
cultural
similarities
to
reduce
the
perception
of total
variation n
cultural
traits to a
more
on JulianSteward
173
This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 theory neo evolution
6/15
manageable
orm. Steward'spostulateof
an
adaptivecultural
core (as distinguished rom
diffused secondary eaturesor
outer embellishments )was intended to reveal
a degree
of
functional
interrelatednesswithin a sector of culture
that seemed to be leastaffected
by historical
vicissitudesand to facilitate
a discrete cross-culturalomparisonof
regular-
ities (Steward
1955:88).2 It was, therefore, a notable
contribution to the perceived
theoretical
shortcomingsof the traditionaldiscipline. It
is not surprising hat contempo-
rary ecological analysis, which is not faced with creating order out of a shredsand
patches view of culture and
which
is not greatly concerned
with problemsof cross-cul-
tural
comparisons, finds little
commonality with Steward's necessarily selective
and
restrictive
paradigm.
Steward's
own dualistic
ecological interpretations
were
sometimesweakened
or at least
limited
by his dismissal
of
so-calledsecondary eatures
as nonadaptive raits. Mostserious
here was
his treatment of social organization,
in which, in his general views,
he was
strongly
influenced
by
Lowie. Steward
rejected
as
secondary many
forms
of
supracom-
munity
and
suprafamilial
ocial
organization(including
clans, moities,
and
religious
and
secular associations)
which
seemed
to show
tremendous
diversity among societies
and
which, he
felt, could not be placed
into ordered patternsshowing adaptive significance.
He
focused
insteadon the fundamentalmportance of
the nuclear amily as anadaptive
element.
Lowie,
who
emphasized
the
nuclear
(bilateral) amily
as
the
absolutely
univer-
sal unit of human
society,
had
argued
that this unavoidableuniversalityrestedon the
biological
basis of
the
parent-child
unit, although
the
particularexpressions
of
parent-
hood and
childhood found in varioussocieties were
understandablen social, not biologi-
cal, terms (Lowie 1940:246, 251-252,
1947:63-67).
Steward
adopted
the
view
of the
essentially
noncultural basis
of
the nuclear
family
and,
if
anything, emphasized
its
biological
features more
strongly
than did his mentor.
For example, Steward stressed the groundingof the family in a biologicallyconceived
division
of labor and child rearing (p. 47), although Lowie, emphasizing
the
widely
varying sexual division of labor
so noticeable in family life, recognized that
strictly
cultural features were responsible (1947:74). Steward,
however, was seeking uniform
aspects
of human behavior
that
seemed
to
lie
outside the
vagaries
f
historical
particular-
ism,
and the
existence
of
such
biologically
determined factors
of
human
life as child
bearingaccordingly
attracted
his
attention,
as did
prolonged
human
growth
and
biologi-
cally (that
is, genealogically)
determined lines
of
relationship.
Factors such as these
made
it
apparent
to him
that
explanations
of human
behavior
should be
opened
to
include
fundamental
noncultural
actors.
The nuclear
family (though
admittedly
ethno-
graphically areasan independent ocial andresidentialunit, asStewardrecognized) n its
interrelationship
with
residence, kinship systems,
and
subsistence was thus considered
ecologically adaptive.
In
contrast, supracommunity
and
suprakinship
orms
of
social
organization,
which were
strictly
culture
traits
and thus
diffusable,
were
considered
non-
adaptive
and
secondary
in
the
ecological
context
(pp.
51, 146). Although
Steward
later
conceded
that the
nuclear
family
was also
determined at
least
in
part by
cultural actors
(pp. 119, 383),
he
maintained
his
emphasis
on
it
as the
focal
point
of his
kinship
and
ecological
analyses(pp. 382-383, 390).
Yet
here again
it
is
well to
remember
the task
that Steward faced
and also
the
conditions
of
fieldwork
in
which
he first
worked, for,
as
Murphy
has
phrased t,
theories
emergefrom data just as much as data feeds from theory (1970:154). Inretrospectan
empirically
sound
approach
to the
new method
of cultural
ecology-and
Steward
was
empirically
ocused
almost
to a
fault-would
require
that the
simplest
andmost
obvious
examples,
that
is,
those
with fewest
variables,
be
investigated
irst.
By
accident of
field-
work
this,
in
fact,
occurred. The
nuclear
family,
the fundamentalhumansocial
unit,
was
174 american thnologist
This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 theory neo evolution
7/15
evidenced
ethnographicallyamong
the
poverty-stricken
populations
of
Shoshoni,
among
whom both Lowie
and Steward
conducted
their first
fieldwork
(see
Murphy
1972:52;
Manners
1973:888, 890).
Furthermore,
t
was,
apparently,
the search
for
sparce
and
scattered subsistence resources
with
elementary exploitative
devices
(Steward
1949:672)
that
forced
the
dispersal
of these food
collectors into small clustersof
nuclear
families.Thus, the Shoshoni becamethe clearestexample of the primacyof the nuclear
family for
Lowie and of the association
of
the
behavior
of these familial units
with
subsistenceand environmental
equirements
or
Steward.
In Steward's
interpretation,
as
conditions moved
away
from
this
simplest
condition
of
band
life,
as resources
became more
abundant
and
technology
better
developed(particu-
larly as
hunting and
fishing
increasedand as
farming
allowed
food
production),
popula-
tion
increased,communities
grew
in
size,
and
greater
variation
and
elaboration
in
social
and ritual
patterns
could be
supported
(pp. 48,
135).
The social
and
religious
elaborations
themselves,
such as
clans,
moities,
age-grades
nd
other
forms of
associations,
were com-
patible with the
biological
constraints of
age
and
sex
characteristic
of
primitive
society,
but were still in the main diffused secondaryembroiderieson the basic social fabric
(pp.
51, 78).
Although Steward
admitted that such
social
elaborations were
permitted
by
richer
economies
and
could
become
functionally
intertwinedwith
subsistence
activi-
ties (p.
116),
he
noted
the
great
diversity
with which
they appeared
among
the
simpler
hunting,
fishing,
and horticultural
societies
whose
ecological
adaptations,
in
contrast,
showed
such
striking parallels.
Such
diversity
could
only
be
explained
by
historicaltradi-
tions that
made these
customs
available
by
diffusion.
Although
their
acceptance
and
patterning
n
any given
society
was
limited
by
the
particular
cological
situation,
they
did
not
form a
system
with
the
ecologically
adaptive
elements
(Steward
1949:674,
678).
the
native
and
the civilized
Had Steward
graspedthe
adaptive facet
of
these
broader
elements of social
organiza-
tion more
clearly
his
ecological
analyses
of
individual
ocieties
would
have been
signifi-
cantly deepened.
The considerable
gap
in his
work
between the
simplest
hunting-gather-
ing
bands and
horticultural
communities on the
one hand
and
complex states
on the
other also
might
have
been
more
adequately
illed.
As
it
was,
Stewardtended
in
a
number
of
his more
general
writings
to
emphasize the
strong
discontinuities,indeed the
qualita-
tive
differences,
between
socially
unadorned,
egalitarian
primitive ) ocieties
and inter-
nally specialized,class-structuredtates, althoughhe sensed that suchstructural ontrasts
could
be linked
by cumulative
processes such
as
demographic
growth and
population
nucleation
(pp. 79,
135,
141, 247).
In
this
context
Steward
turned from
the
relativismof
his
Boasian
predecessors o
the
comparative
dichotomies
developed by nineteenth
century
evolutionists and
revitalized
by Redfield:
societas
and
civitas, Gemeinshaftand
Gesellschaft,folk and
urban(p. 79).
Steward's
mid-twentieth
century interpretation
of
these idealized
contrasts of
human
experience
so
attractive
to
Western
evolutionary thought
became
another
version
of
his
dualist
perspective
of
environment
and
culture
in
which
native
society
evidencedprimar-
ily
biological
and
environmental
ecological) integrative
eatures
while
complex societies
were organized on strictly cultural
principles.
More
specifically,
native society
was still
significantlyresponsive
to
and influenced
by,
indeed
directlyorganized
upon, the strictly
biological constants
(sexual
union,
child
rearing,
the
long
human
life span)
that were
understood
to
underlie
marriage
and
the
family, that
purportedly
formed the
basis for
sexual division
of
labor,
and
that
emphasized the
importance of
age in role
structure.
On Jul
an Steward
175
This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 theory neo evolution
8/15
These biological principles
could be modified and elaborated, but they
could rarely be
superseded or eliminated in the tribal world where purely culturological
(sociopolitical)
principleshad not taken complete
command.
Furthermore, t was in this milieu, where humansocieties were still strongly
responsive
to natural principles, that culturalecology operatedmost effectively,
for the particular
variations of family or kinship organizationdepended on the relationshipbetween a
particular echnology and environmental actors (pp. 5, 7, 76, 78). One
also senses in this
perspective an implication
that to Steward the concept of cultural ecology
may have
carried, or was associated with,
a more personal philosophicalview of the essential sim-
plicity or naturalness f unhamperednative life.
In complex states, however, Steward felt that cultural ecology became
increasingly
subsidiary
o
other processes that underliestate formation (p.79), essentially,
t appears,
because
no
single
nation-wideculturalcore
of
ecological relationships or, for that matter,
of any genuinely shared nationalbehavioror NationalCharacter) ould
be identified (pp.
87-99,
247,
262-263). Societies
based on internal specialization and hereditary social
classes are coordinated by new principlesof integration that are explicitly political in
nature and thus are entirely
cultural. Significant featuresof peoples' livesare regimented
now
by
state
controls, as power
over people rather than over natural resources
becomes
the focus
of
social organization.Although
the
family and household may
continue to be
organizedat least in part by
biological principlesof age and sex, these
are suppressedor
overshadowedas
the
local
community becomes part of a larger society. Similarly, the
interaction
with the naturalenvironment s modified
by
the
larger ocial
context (pp. 53,
146,
147,
249).
The
organization
and
operation
of
complex
societies in effect
mirrors
he influence of
man's creative capacity.
This
distinctly
cultural
ability
is
expressed
n scientific know-
ledge, state administration,religiousand aestheticdevelopments,and the application of
reason
n
elaborating echnological developments.These,
in
turn, provide
greater
ree-
dom
from
environmental
pressures
and
permit
a wider
range
of latitude for
various
sociopolitical types (pp. 52,
80-81;
Steward
1955:40-42).
Ecological
and
political processes
are,
we realize
now, intimately interdependent.Elu-
cidation
of
this
point
has
come most
strongly
from
analysis
of
the critical field
of
centralized
nonstate societies
(rank societies,
or
chiefdoms)
that
bridgeegalitarian
and
state
organizations
n
important
respects
and that
were
becomingrecognized
as
a
distinct
cultural
type during
the
postwar years.
Steward
anticipated
a number
of
definitive
ecological
and
political
characteristics
of these
societies
but
failed
to
grasp
their
func-
tional relationship.He recognizedthat such societies were organized argelyon the basis
of
class and integratedby religious priest-templecomplexes.
He noted that
special
and
delimited powers
were accorded chiefs
and
other
influential
persons
in
particular
on-
texts. He
recognized
the correlation
of
chiefdoms
with areas
of
rich
and
diverse natural
resources
capable
of
producing surpluses
bove
the
needs
of the
immediate
amily.
But
he attributed
the existence
and
the
operation
of
centralized
authority
to
historical
influences
that introduced
class
structuring
o a
particular ociety
and to diffused
pat-
terns
of
warfare
and
religious
cults
that introduced the
priests
who came to assume
secular
controls
(pp.
49,
138, 142;
Steward
1949:673, 674).
Alternatively,
Stewardcon-
sidered
such societies
to fall within the
category
of
states, which,
in his
interpretation,
became
a
very
broad
classification
of
centralizedsocieties
including
chiefdoms and
statelets
as
well
as
sultanates, mpires
and other varieties
p. 140).
Steward
appreciated
that
functional
relationships
existed between the
sociopolitical
and the
economic-ecological,
most
notably
in
the
context
of the influence of
complex
states
on local
communities,
in
which national
interests
anddirectivesaffected the
adap-
176 americanethnologist
This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 theory neo evolution
9/15
tations of the local group
and the
region.
This
theme
appears
n a
number
of
his
works,
including the
Puerto Rican
project
and
analyses
of contact
experiences
of
variousnative
American groups. He also expressed this
perspective
more
broadly
in the
rather select
context
of
Wittfogelian-inspired
orrelations
concerning population
and
community
growth, managerial
ontrol of
irrigationagriculture,
nd the
development
of
earlyciviliza-
tions in the Middle
East, Asia,
and native America
(1955:178-209). In light of the
findings of later researchSteward
eventually recognized
the
need
for
revision in the
specifics
of
Wittfogel'shyphothesis
and in
his
own
original trialformulation, although
he
cautioned subsequent researchersnot to err in the opposite direction by discounting
too
greatly
the
importance
of
water
control
in
their
investigations
of
the
complex pro-
cesses underlying he originsand operations
of
ancient
states (pp. 87-99, 106, 129).
diversity redux
In actuality, of course, the significance of Steward's nitial study of complex societies
(irrigationcivilizations) lay not so much in
the matter of economic-political onjunctions
but
in
its strong exemplification of his particular oncept of multilinear volution. ,3
The
utility of
the
method and
theory
of cultural
ecology lay
in the elucidation of
examples of multilinear evolution in terms of parallelecological adaptations.This is to
say (again) that
in
Steward's
view
the anthropological ignificanceof the naturalenviron-
ment and those elements of culture directly involvedwith its exploitation (culturalcore)
lay
in
the greater ease and clarity with which functional order could be analytically
perceived
there
(see Murphy1970),
in
contrast to the seemingly particularisticwelter of
most of the other social, political,
and religious traits composing a given society or
appearing ross-culturally.Indeed, the lesson to be learned rom the consistent and rele-
vant cross-culturalregularities
similarities) n ecological adaptation that were revealed
by cases of multilinearevolution was that
they seemingly stood significantlyoutside
the
vicissitudes of
a
random
and
fortuitous historical particularism hat formed the basis of
Boasian classifications based on
culturally unique differences. Through recognition of
similar
ecological adaptations
or
cultural cores
constituting cross-culturally ignificant
social
types,
which
revealed
a
limited number of forms of sociocultural ntegration,
the nature of culture
emerged instead
as
controlled
diversity (p. 152; Steward1955:5-6,
43-63, 87-92, 1940:669, 1973:46-52).
Yet recognition
of the
diversity
of cultural traits
and
expressions
has
tended to main-
tain the upper hand, both for Stewardand for us. As is well known,Steward'sown sense
of
the
specificity
of
history
and
the
general emphasis
on
cultural
diversification
and
uniquenessstill
characteristic
of
much
of the
anthropologicaldiscipline
in which he was
trained
(and expressed
in his
own
acceptance
of
secondaryfeatures )
made
his claims
for cross-cultural omparabilities
atherhesitant
(pp. 70-72). Although
he
recognized
hat
there
are
typological
similarities
between societies of the
differing
cultural traditions
represented
n
the
major
world
areas,
he felt that
considerable
omparative tudy
would
be
necessary
to isolate
the definitive
dynamics
of
developmentalprocess
and of
struc-
tural-functional
ypes
and that
the
varieties
of
cultures
past
and
present
differ so
greatly
that cross-cultural
egularities
would
be valid
only
in a limited
sense
(pp. 230, 236).4
This cautionarystance has been applauded by some and criticizedby others, for the
problems
of
typology
and
classification,
of
order
and
diversity,
are
still with
us, indeed,
will
always
be
with
us
(see
Lehman
1964). Admittedly,
the
underlying
climate
of
opinion
has
changed
somewhat.
The fundamental
perspective
of
an
empiricallyrecognizable
order
in cultural
materials
and
operations
that Steward
championed
and
that
lay
at the
heart
of
on JulianSteward
177
This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 theory neo evolution
10/15
his research s now largely accepted as a general tenet of the discipline. In this respect it
may be said that one of the basic goals of Steward'sresearch nterestshas been achieved.
But in the furtherpursuitof the implicationof culturalorder, particularly hose involving
cross-cultural issues, problems have arisen that threaten the further development of
Steward's nsight.
In
recent years investigationsby students of Stewardand other scholarshave extended
the scope of culturalecology to include the sociopolitical and ideological factors that
Steward considered too diverse
to
be
adaptive.They have also grappledwith the critical
problemof accounting or the considerabledifferencescontained within categoriesof like
cultural types, a problem that Steward, in his necessarilypriorconcern with establishing
the validity
of
recognizingcultural types
or
categories in general,failed to consider (see
Sahlins
and
Service1960:41-42; Service
1971
b:46-98). However,as these researcheshave
revealedthe complexities underlyingboth culturalsimilarities nd differences,and as the
new ecology has gainedascendancy n anthropology, he reaction n many quartershas
been
to
turn
away
from
cross-cultural
uestions
of
typology and classification,of similari-
ties and differencesand the reasonsfor them; there has been movement toward a dis-
tinctly relativisticapproach
n which
ecological holism (systems analysis) focuses on the
details of the functional operation
of
particular
ocioenvironmental
nteractions
as exer-
cises in the logic
of
the
unique
event
(Heider1972:212-213;
but see
Kottak
1975).
To
be sure, renewed recognition
of the
complexity
of
adaptationalprocess
and de-
tailed concern
with
specific
cases
has
helped greatly
to
deepen
our
understanding
f
the
operation
of
individualsystems,
both cultural and
ecological. Unfortunately, this line of
investigation
has
also led
increasingly way
from the
admittedly
difficult issues
of
change
and
process
as revealed
in
cross-cultural
omparisons,
n a manner
reminiscent
n
many
ways
of the
Boasian reaction against
the
problems
of
nineteenth century evolutionism.
Once againwe not only havea focus on relativism,but we hearthe familiarstrains o the
effect that, while cross-cultural omparison
s
an appropriate oal,
the
complexity of the
problem necessitates,first,
a
greater sharpening
of the
expertise required
or
application
of the ecologicalmethod
and
the development
of a
more sufficient
data
base
(see Heider
1972:210-212).5
The
legitimacy
of these
requirements
s not
questioned.
That
they may
become
ends in themselves
s
feared.
history,
the
state,
and culture
change
Steward's
own
efforts
to deal
with causation
and
culture
change frequently
fell con-
siderably
short for
a numberof
reasons, including
his
dismissal
of
numerous
secondary
features from
adaptive consideration,
his
essential functionalism
(see Murphy 1971),
which revealed synchronic
correlations
rather than
underlying
conditions
stimulating
processual effects,
and
his
focus
on cultural
regularities
and their
persistance
rather
than
on
cultural
contrasts and
change. Nonetheless,
he
pointed
the
way
toward more
refined
methodologies
for
dealing
with
change
in several
of his most notable
studies,
those
analyzing
the
adaptations
of
tribal societies
to
the
economic frontiers
of
western
civilization.
Included
in this
volume are
Tappers
and
Trappers:
ParallelProcesses
in
Acculturation, Determinism n PrimitiveSociety? and CarrierAcculturation:The
Direct HistoricalApproach.
In these
essays,
a distinct diachronic
perspective
s
provided
by augmentation
of informant's
accounts
with ethnohistoric recordsand other histori-
cally
based studies.
This
method allows the documentation
over
significant
ime
spans
of
the
interplay
between
the wider
contact culture
and the
local
ecological setting
and
178 american ethnologist
This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 theory neo evolution
11/15
revealsmore clearly the resultant
development
of
various
social
structuralaccomodations.
Moreover
he ecological frame
of
reference is
now
expanded to
include the wider socio-
cultural milieu, the social
environment,
as
well
as
the
local naturalenvironment.
These studies, in which
the
use
of
documentary
evidence
andrecognition
of
the social
environmentemerge, are part
of
the
corpus
of
Steward'swork in
which he
attempted
to
bridgethe perceivedgap between nativesociety and complex society. He attemptedthis
reconciliationby considering
he
effect
of the definitive
characteristics f the
latter
(the
importance
of
sociopolitical features)
on the definitive
characteristics f the former
(local
ecological relationships)
n
terms of more than the diffusion of
secondary
traits. A
comparable
conjunction also
is
attempted
in
the
highlyinfluential
study
of
Puerto Rican
communities
(pp. 240-296)
and
in the more recent
project focusing
on
cross-cultural
regularities
n the modernizationprocedures
of
certaintraditional
ocieties (pp. 297-330;
Steward
1967).
In all these
instances,
the
wider
society
or
the
social
environment s
considered
highly
determinative
of
local
community patterns
through processes
of
what
Steward came to call social
adaptation
in
contrast to
cultural-ecological daptation )
(p. 315).
The expansion
of the
concept
of
adaptation
o
include the
broadersocial
milieu is
one of Steward's
greatest
contributionsand one with tremendous
mplications
or
anthro-
pology, most
obviously
in the
study
of
contemporary
ruraland
urban
ife, ethnicity, and
other aspects
of
currentcomplex
society.
Less
obvious,
but
equallyimportant
o anthro-
pological
interpretation
are the
perspectives
hat
might appear
if the
traditionalanthro-
pological ideology
of the
pristine,
isolated, aboriginalcommunity
or
society
were seri-
ously
reexamined in
light
of
the fact that
much
of
the
world had been influenced
by
complex
societies
of one
form
or
another
for
hundreds,
n some
areas
thousands,
of
years
before
professional
anthropologistsappeared.
The basic data bank of the
discipline
con-
tains much informationacquiredover the last century on the assumption hat the native
communities
visited
by anthropologists
were
to be
considered as unaffected
by
state
contact unless there was
obvious evidence otherwise.6
When
proof otherwise appeared,as
in
the often
obvious disruptionof North Ameri-
can Indiancultures
by European nfluence,
the contact
situation
initially was regarded s
an
ethnographically
ontaminated
end
point
for
the
reconstructionof
aboriginal
ondi-
tions via
memory
culture. Later
it was examined
under
the
rubricof
acculturation,
n
which
adjustments
of
contemporary
societies to reservation ife were
compared
with a
previous
base line
culture,
derived
from
documents
and/or
the
remembrances
f
aged
informantsand assumed
to
represent
a
pristine,precontact
situation.
Consequently, in many cases we really do not specifically know how much of the
structure and
organization,
of
the
similarity
and
diversity,
of
traditional
ocieties re-
flect
actual
prestate
conditions and
how
much
reflect
adaptations,perhaps
of
long
stand-
ing,
to
the
outlying
frontiers
of
state influence
(see
Service
1971a:151-1
57;
Fried
1975).
We
do
not
yet sufficiently appreciate
that the more
accurate
historical-and scientific-
assumption
for
anthropology
would be to
recognize
that
pristine conditions
have only
rarely been available or
anthropological tudy;
that most
of the native
societies we have
visitedprobablyhavebeen significantlyaffected in
the past, at least indirectlyand discon-
tinuously
if not
directly
and
continuously, by prior
state
contact;that the
remembrances
of the most
aged
informantsand even the earliest
documentaryevidence
may be record-
ing already
changed
conditions.
To
be
sure,
both
perspectives
are stated
here in
the
extreme,
but
during
the
century
of
anthropology's
existence as
a
formal
discipline
the
resulting
errors
of
interpretation
have
fallen to the first
assumption(no state contact
unless
proved
otherwise)
much more than
to
the
second (state
contact unless proved
otherwise).
on Julian Steward
179
This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 theory neo evolution
12/15
Steward's
work on
Carrier acculturation
and
his
analysis with Murphy
of the
con-
tact experiences of the
Mundurucu nd Montagnais
were
not written with this
problem
directly in
mind.7 But by emphasizing
he wider realm
of state influence as part
of the
environment
to which adaptations
are effected
and showinghow
even the earliest,most
marginal
contact may begin to influence
local social organizations,
hey point in the right
direction.8
Steward's
emphasison adaptations
over time also encourages
onsideration
of
how change
continuously affects
structureand organization.
As a corollary, the
develop-
ing social forms appear
not just as a
melange
of
old
and new traits but as
emergent
types
of
society evidencing
cross-cultural egularities
n the developmental
ines they
take (see
also Steward'spenetrating
discussion of these
issuesas they
affected the Indian
New
Deal,
pp. 333-346).
It is unfortunate
that Steward's recognition
of the importance
of social adaptation
has not been more
influential
among ecological
anthropologists. Although
the social
environmentmay
be
recognized
n
general
in
ecological
studies,
analysis tends to center
on the relationship
between a population
and its physical
and/or biotic context.
All too
often the conceptualframework s not extended to includeinteractionswith othersocio-
cultural units (see Sahlins
1977:217).
This omission may
be most serious since
the social
environmentmay
be
relatively
ess
stable
than the
biological
and
physicalworld
and has a
high probability
of initiating adjustments
in the ecological
system
and of determining
change (see
Segraves1975:115,
note
3).
The contributions
of the Carrier
studies
and
the
Tapper
and Trapperanalysis are
attributable
o Steward'srecognition
of the relevance
of
culture
history to anthropologi-
cal enquiries.
It was his general
opinion
that multilinearevolution is inevitablycon-
cerned also with historical
reconstruction
1955:18).
This perspective,though
essential
to concern
with process
and change,
is neglected by many
contemporary ethnologists
who persist in subscribingat least in practiceto the misguidedcontrast of scienceversus
history.
The issue
is
a continuation
of
the
problem
that
bedeviledBoasian
anthropology,
that is,
how to
order accurateethnographic
data into
ethnologically
useful
categories,
how
to
recognize
structural orms
and
processes,
not
only
in the traits characteristicof
existing
cultures
but also
in the
details
of
past
historical
particulars
evealed
by
written
records
and the memory
of
aged
informants.
The
Boasian
emphasis
on
data
control
by
direct observation
and
participation
hrough
ieldworkstill constitutesthe heart of
ethno-
logical
research,which,
as
a
result,
continues
to assume
a
strongly
synchronicperspective.
Insights
nto processesproducing
uccessions
of
forms,
which
require
a diachronic
dimen-
sion in
research methods,
have been
difficult
to achieve
largely
because
of
unsolved
problemsof data control. Consequently,historicalperspectivesare still all too frequently
summarized n
an
introductory
chapter
or
concluding
appendix
on
culture
contact and
then
largely
gnored
n the
study
itself.
Yet
the problem
reflects
a
more fundamental
dilemma.
Although
the difficulties
of
interpreting
live
human
behavior
in its
infinite
variety
are
easily
as
great
as those
of
historical research,
he
vagaries
of human
behaviorare considered
more
readily
overcome
by
anthropologists
um
fieldworkers
han
are the
problems
of
imperfect
historical
records
by
anthropologists
um
ethnohistorians.
Since
most
anthropologists
are
almost
as
poorly
trained
for
ethnographic
fieldwork
as
they
are for
historical
research,
this
position
in
favor
of
participant-observation
bviously represents
not
only
a
methodological
stance
but also an ideological support for anthropology as a discipline, comparablein this
respect
to
the
traditionalconcept
of culture.
Historical
nterests,
n
contrast,
still
bear
as
ideological
taint the
methodological
problems
associated
with
nineteenth
century
evolu-
tionism.
One
of
Steward's
strengths
as
an
anthropologist
lay
in his
ability
to
combine,
on
180 american
ethnologist
This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 theory neo evolution
13/15
occasion,
ethnographic particulars
of
fieldwork with those derived
from
historical re-
search.
Although
as
a
professional
he was hesitant
to extend his cross-cultural
indings
too
broadly,
his personal vision,
like that of
his
mentors,
Lowie
and
Kroeber, ncompassed
a
certain
breadth of human
affairs,
a
strong
sense
of
time,
and an
appreciation of the
ongoing
stream
of
culturesthrough
time.
Steward also
sought
to
strengthen
he
method-
ological value of this perspective
or
anthropology by advocating
he
concept
of
cultural
ecology as a means to bringethnologically significantorder to the chaotic diversityof
documentarydata.
He
focused this research
strategem
on
early
historic
periods, viewing them as
vantage
points from which
to
move,
via
documentary
researchand historic
archaeology,
both
forward
through
the contact era
to
contemporaryethnography
and backward nto the
prehistoric
past. Steward'sespousal
of
the
so-called
direct
historical
approach
o arch-
aeology is recognized
as
a definitive statement on the value of
coordinating
archaeologi-
cal, ethnohistoric,
and
ethnographic
methods
so
as to
place
the
study
of
prehistoric
and
historic
peoples
into
a common
processual
ramework
pp.
201-214). Equally
mportant,
though
less
widely recognized,
is
his
cognizance
that
historical
acculturation
studies,
also
utilizing documentary
evidence and historic
archaeology,
can
place historically
docu-
mented
peoples
and
ethnographically
known
societies into a common
ethnological
frame-
work,
thereby elucidatingaspects
of
culture
change
and
adaptation
n
ethnology (p.
205).
Steward
committed himself
to the
major anthropological issues of his
day and
advancedthem significantly.
He did not
solve
them,
but
it is unreasonable o
expect that
he might
have. Most
of the
problems
Steward
grappled
with
are
issues that are never
settled.
They
are
instead
redefined,
to
be
approached
either
with
greaterrigor
or from
distinctly different
perspectives.
At
the
present
time
both
directions are
observableas
contemporaryanthropologists
either
continue
to
investigatethe
potential of the
concept
of cultural ecology, in the processemphasizingparticularlytscultural focus (see Murphy
1970) or
turn to
the
perspective
of
the
new
ecology
that
places
man
firmly
within the
naturalor
physical environment.
Both
lines of
investigation
have
furthered the
study of
particular issues
of
interest
to
Steward
and both
have
benefited
from his
thought.
Steward
himself
recognized that,
while
many
of
the
specific
directivesgenerated in the
course
of
a
scholarly ife will
be found
wantingunder
later
examination,such light
as may
be
cast on
problems will, nonetheless,
illuminate the
steps
of
successors.
He
wrote, a
scholar's
contributions
to
science
should
be
judged
more
by
the
stimulus
he
gives
to
research-by
the nature
of
the
problems
he raisesand the
interestshe
creates-than
by the
enduring qualities
of his
provisional
hypotheses. (p. 87).
These words
were penned
in
appreciationof his friendandcolleague,KarlWittfogel.They standequallywell as tribute
to julian
Stewardhimself.
notes
'Steward himself has
contributed
to this
goal
with his
interpretation
of
Kroeber's life
and
works.
See
Steward
1973; also Murphy
1972;
Harris
1968:337-341.
2The
contrast between
the cultural core and
secondary
features
is
closely
related, although
with
different
emphasis,
to Kroeber's contrast between
reality
culture and value
culture.
See
Hatch
1973b:
107, 109, 116-117.
3According to Murphy 1972:75, Steward adopted this term from Lowie, who originally coined it
in reference to his
argument
for
multiple
lines of
development
of
social
organization.
The context of
parallel processes intended
by
Steward in his use of this
phrase
was
initially impressed upon
him by
Wittfogel's work
on
hydraulic
societies.
'Steward viewed his
classificatory
devices
primarily
as
tools
for
area
research and as
correctives to
the
traditional
delineation of
culture
areas,
which
he
criticized as
merely
a
descriptive
catch-all
device
on Julian
Steward
181
This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 theory neo evolution
14/15
for the collection of
data and a technique that
perpetuated the
emphasis on cultural differences
rather
than providing
an integrating concept
for anthropological
analysis of similarities (p.
220; Steward
1955:52, 78-97).
'Admittedly notable
efforts have
been
made
in cross-cultural studies
by some ecologically minded
anthropologists. See,
for example, the studies summarized
in
Heider 1972:213-21 7.
6This perspective probably increased
in American
anthropology during
the years following World
War II,
when American anthropologists
began to
do fieldwork abroad in countries
where disruption
of
native lifeways by European colonialism was not as obvious as it was in some portions of North
America.
7
Indeed, some
of
Steward's ecological
analyses have been
appropriately criticized for
his failure
to
consider
the possible
effects of earlier state contact
on social organization
(see Service 1971b:46-98).
8These
studies also emphasize
again Steward's
recognition of the unavoidable
cultural element
in
ecological anthropology,
for the environmental
resources such
as rubber trees and beaver
pelts utilized
in these cases became
appropriate
for
local
exploitation only
when identified as such by
contact agents
of
the
state.
references
cited
Anderson, James N.
1973
Ecological
Anthropology
and Anthropological Ecology.
In Handbook of Social
and Cultural
Anthropology. John J.
Honigmann, Ed. Chicago: Rand
McNally. pp.
179-239.
Damas,
David, Ed.
1969 Contributions
to
Anthropology:
Ecological Essays. National
Museums of Canada, Bulletin
230.
Anthropological Series,
no.
86. Ottawa: National
Museums of
Canada.
Diamond, Stanley
1961
Culture
in History: Essays
in Honor
of
Paul Radin. New York:
Columbia University
Press.
Fried,
Morton H.
1975
The Notion
of
Tribe.
Menlo
Park,
CA:
Cummings.
Goldschmidt, Walter,
and Harry Hoijer, Eds.
1970
The
Social
Anthropology
of
Latin America: Essays
in Honor of
Ralph L. Beals. Los Angeles:
Latin American Center, University
of
California
Press.
Harris,Marvin
1968
The Rise
of
Anthropological
Theory.
New
York:
Thomas Y. Crowell.
Hatch,
Elvin
1973a
The Growth of Economic, Subsistence, and
Ecological Studies in American
Anthropology.
Journal
of
Anthropological
Research 29:221-243.
1973b Theories
of
Man
and
Culture.
New York:
Columbia Press.
Heider,
Karl
G.
1972 Environment,
Subsistence,
and
Society.
In Annual Review
of
Anthropology 1. B. J.
Siegel,
Ed. Palo
Alto,
CA:
Annual Reviews.
pp.
207-226.
Kaplan,
David
1965 The
Superorganic:
Science
or
Metaphysics?
American
Anthropologist
67:958-976.
Keesing,
Roger
M.
1974
Theories
of
Culture.
In
Annual
Review
of
Anthropology
3. B.
J. Siegel,
Ed.
Palo
Alto,
CA:
Annual Reviews. pp. 73-98.
Kottak,
Conrad
1975
Some
Thoughts
about
Links between
Materialist, Marxist,
and Structural
Approaches
in
Anthropology. Michigan
Discussions in
Anthropology
1. Ann
Arbor:
Department
of
Anthropol-
ogy,
University
of
Michigan.
pp.
96-108.
Lehman,
Frederick
K.
1964
Typology
and the Classification
of Sociocultural
Systems.
In Process and Pattern
in
Culture:
Essays
in Honor
of
Julian
H. Steward.
Robert
A.
Manners,
Ed.
Chicago:
Aldine.
pp.
376-396.
Lowie,
Robert
H.
1947
Primitive
Society.
New York:
Liveright.
1940 Introduction
to Cultural
Anthropology.
Second Edition.
New York: Farrarand
Rinehart.
Manners,
Robert
1973
Obituary
of
Julian
Haynes
Steward.
American
Anthropologist
75:886-903.
Moore, John H.
1974
The
Culture
Concept
as
Ideology.
American
Ethnologist
1:537-549.
Murphy,
Robert
F.
1970 Basin
Ethnography
and
Ecological Theory.
In
Languages
and Cultures
of Western
North
America:
Essays
in
Honor
of
Sven
S.
Liljeblad.
Earl H.
Swanson, Jr.,
Ed. Pocatello: Idaho
State
University
Press.
pp.
152-171.
1971
The
Dialectics
of
Social
Life: Alarms
and Excursions in
Anthropological
Theory.
New
York:
Basic
Books.
182
american thnologist
This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 theory neo evolution
15/15
1972 Robert H. Lowie. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Sahlins, Marshall D.
1977 Culture and Environment.
In
Horizons
of
Anthropology.
Second
Edition. Sol Tax and Leslie
Freeman, Eds. Chicago: Aldine, pp. 215-231.
Sahlins, Marshall D.,
and Elman R.
Service,
Eds.
1960 Evolution and Culture.
Ann
Arbor:
Department
of
Anthropology, University
of
Michigan.
Segraves,
B. Abbott
1975 Ecological Anthropology: A Critical Recapitulation. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology
1.
Ann Arbor: University
of
Michigan Press. pp. 109-127.
Service,
Elman
R.
1971a Cultural Evolutionism:
Theory
in
Practice.
New
York:
Holt,
Rinehart
and Winston.
1971b
Primitive Society:
An
Evolutionary Perspective. Second Edition.
New
York: Random
House.
Shimkin,
Demitri B.
1964 Julian
H. Steward:
A
Contributor
to Fact and
Theory
in Cultural
Anthropology. In
Process
and Pattern in Culture:
Essays
in
Honor of
Julian
H.
Steward.
Robert A.
Manners,
Ed.
Chicago:
Aldine. pp. 1-17.
Sills, David L.,
Ed.
1968 International Encyclopedia
of
the
Social
Sciences
4.
New York:
Macmillan.
Steward, Julian
H.
1949 South American Cultures: An Interpretative Summary. In Handbook of South American
Indians
5. Smithsonian
Institution,
Bureau
of
American
Ethnology Bulletin 143. Washington:
United States Government
Printing
Office.
pp.
669-772.
1950 Area
Research: Theory
and
Practice.
New York:
Social
Science Research Council.
1955 Theory
of
Culture Change.
Urbana:
University
of
Illinois Press.
1973
Alfred Kroeber.
New York: Columbia
University
Press.
Steward,
Julian
H.,
Ed.
1967 Contemporary Change
in
Traditional
Societies. Urbana:
University
of
Illinois Press.
Swanson,
Earl
H., Jr.,
Ed.
1970 Languages and Cultures
of
Western
North
America:
Essays
in
Honor
of
Sven S. Liljeblad.
Pocatello: Idaho State University
Press.
Vayda, Andrew P., and Roy A. Rappaport
1968 Ecology:
Cultural
and
Non-Cultural.
In
Introduction to
Cultural
Anthropology. James A.
Clifton, Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. pp. 477-497.
Wolf,
Eric R.
1964
Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Date
of
Submission: August 29, 1977
Date
of
Acceptance: September 16,
1977
on Julian
Steward 183