This Content Downloaded From 147.52.231.11 On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC

Review
Reviewed Work(s): The Rise of Anthropological Theory by Marvin Harris

Source: Current Anthropology , Dec., 1968, Vol. 9, No. 5, Part 2 (Dec., 1968), pp. 519-533
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation
for Anthropological Research
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2740497
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 forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research
are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology
This content downloaded from

147.52.231.11 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
A CA* BOOK REVIEW:
The Rise of Anthropological Theory
& Marvzn Harris
With the agreement of author and publisher, pre-publication copies of The Rise of ness of which had been vindicated by
Anthropological Theory (New York: Crowell, 1968) were sent for review to 25 scholars. archaeological discoveries, they attemp-
Of these, the followingf responded in time for their reviews to be included here: Olga ted to sketch in the details of the evo-
Akhmanova, Milton Altschuler, B. Bernardi, Jan Bouzek, K. 0. L. Burridge, Jorge lutionary sequences which had led to the
Dias, Marshall Durbin, Alan Howard, Malcolm McFee, Donald S. Marshall, emergence of the major types of socio-
William R. Merrifield, Harry M. Raulet, Takao Sofue, John Tu Er-wei, L. F. Watson, cultural systems. Neither Spencer, Mor-
and Walter S. Wilson. Printed below are the author's precis (which reviewers received gan, nor Tyler neglected the divergent
along with the book), the reviews, and the author's replies. tendencies in cultural evolution, i.e.,
they were not "unilinear" evolutionists
(cf. Lowie and Morgan on the sib).
Although the comparative method led
progressive evolutionary and environ- to many false reconstructions, this was
Author's Precis mentalist outlook. Malthus' Essay on the result of the faulty ethnographic data
Population, the main inspiration for to which it was applied, rather than to
Anthropology as a discipline arose from Wallace's, Darwin's and Spencer's evo- any fundamental defect in the method
numerous 18th-century attempts to lutionary syntheses, began the trend to- itself. The main failing of the "evolution-
apply a physicalist model to the "uni- ward the biologization of history. During ists" lay elsewhere, in the theoretical im-
versal history of mankind." By 1750, the the first half of the 19th century, the passe created by biological reductionism.
concepts of culture as a largely extra- overriding issue was polygenesis versus Meanwhile, a cultural materialist
somatic heritage and of enculturation monogenesis. It was the racist interpre- option had been taken up by Marx and
as total education experience were well tation of history and society, combined formulated into a broad research strat-
established. The search for the "laws" with an emphasis upon individual and egy. Dialectical materialism and Spen-
of history led to the formulation of the group struggle, which led to Spencer's cerism were rooted in the same 18th-
doctrines of progress and perfectibility. concept of survival of the fittest and century quest for a science of history,
These doctrines, the precursors of Darwin's natural selection. Social Dar- placed the same emphasis upon progress
19th-century biocultural evolutionism, winism, more accurately described as and perfectibility, and contained essen-
were almost wholly dependent upon Biological Spencerism, transcended the tially the same answer to Malthus,
the differential unfolding of mind and Malthusian dilemma by showing how namely that conflict was an ultimately
thought for their explanation of dia- struggle and conflict produced "pro- beneficial process. The major advantages
chronic and synchronic cultural differ- gress." Scientism in the form of racism of Marx's strategy lay in its cultural
ences and similarities. The dominant reigned supreme. Spencer, Darwin, materialism and its continuity with the
strategy of the philosophes was thus a Huxley, Morgan, Tylor, Lubbock, radical environmentalism of the French
variety of cultural idealism. Although McClennan, McGee, and Brinton were, Revolution: social structure could be
several brilliant attempts were made, all racists. They all believed that no changed in a single generation, racial
especially in Scotland, to overcome the fundamental sociocultural change was factors notwithstanding. Marx was thus
paradox inherent in cultural idealism, possible without concomitant biological the first to formulate a consistent cultural
the century closed without having modification, which required the lapse materialist approach to a science of
achieved a coherent statement of a of many generations. history. However, two defects in Marx's
materialist alternative. Thus, as anthropology achieved disci- formulation must be noted: First, Marx
After the French Revolution, the plinary identity in the period 1860-90, argued for the imminence of radical
physicalist model, the doctrines of pro- its theoretical strategy encompassed sociocultural change on the basis of and in
gress and perfectibility, and environ- at best an eclectic mixture of racist conformity with Hegel's notion of dia-
mentalism were all attacked by politi- and cultural idealist proposals. The lectics. Orthodox Marxism has never
cally conservative theologians and social "evolutionists" nonetheless succeeded recovered from this crippling heritage.
philosophers. The trend toward scientism in advancing toward the fulfilment of Second, Marx's initial formulations were
quickly reasserted itself. Nourished by the Enlightenment's conception of a made without benefit of a knowledge of
spectacular advances in engineering, science of universal history. Using the prehistory or primitive cultures and
physics, chemistry, and geology, the comparative method (an Enlightenment reflected Hegel's contempt for peoples
new wave of scientism modified the contribution), the fundamental correct- whom the world-spirit had ignored or
Vol. 9 N No. 5 * December 1968 519

147.52.231.11 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC
left behind. With the publication o basis of partial, incorrect, or misinter- have "accounting for" in terms of para-
Engels' The Origin of the Family, Privato preted ethnographic evidence, ther( digmatic cognitive frames, which are
Property and the State, based on Marx' emerged a view of culture that exagger- accepted as givens. Even the leaders of
notes on Morgan's Ancient Society, anthro ated all the quixotic, irrational, and the nomothetic revival have substituted
pology was offered a cultural materialisi inscrutable ingredients in human life. the spurious issue of evolutionism for
strategy which embraced all varieties Delighting in diversity of pattern, an- the formulation of causal relationships.
of sociocultural systems. Morgan is thropologists sought out divergent and Yet the basic principle of sociocultural
credited with the independent discover) incomparable events. They stressed the evolution is already known. This prin-
of cultural materialism; but he was E inner, subjective meaning of experience ciple closely approximates the kind of
typical Spencerian with strong idealisi to the exclusion of objective effects and principle that has governed research in
commitments, and neither he nor any oi relations. They denied historical deter- evolutionary biology since the time of
his anthropological followers or critics minism in general, and above all, they Darwin in that it is not the statement of
carried out research in conformity witl denied the determinism of the material the specific "laws" of evolution, but
cultural materialist principles. conditions of life. By emphasizing in- rather the statement of a research strat-
It has been said that anthropolog) scrutable values, vain prestige, irrational egy by means of which a nomothetic
developed entirely independently oi motives, they discredited the economic causal understanding of sociocultural
Marxism. More correctly, 2Oth-centur) interpretation of history. phenomena may be achieved.
anthropology developed entirely in re- This state of affairs did not for long go The analogue of the Darwinian
action to Marxism. Almost simultane- unchallenged. A strong countercurrent strategy in the realm of sociocultural
ously, there arose in England, France tending toward the reinstatement of phenomena is the principle of techno-
Germany, and the United States schools nomothetic-that is, generalizing-in- environmental and techno-economic
of anthropology that in one way ox terests was already making itself felt in determinism. It holds that similar tech-
another rejected the scientific mandate the 1930's. Since then, the interest in nologies applied to similar environments
It came to be widely believed that an- regularities has spread, and the form, if tend to produce similar arrangements of
thropology could never discover the not the substance, of scientism is once labor in production and distribution,
origins of institutions or explain theii more in the ascendancy. Still, it remains and that these in turn call forth similar
causes. In the United States, the dom- uncertain to what extent anthropology kinds of social groupings, which justify
inant school flatly asserted that ther( is about to resume its eminence as the and co-ordinate their activities by
were no historical laws and that ther( science of history. The resistance to this means of similar systems of values and
could not be a science of history. formulation of the grand strategy of beliefs. It assigns priority to the study of
It has been said in defense of this anthropological research has acquired the the material conditions of sociocultural
period that anthropological theory had strength of habit. Many anthropologists life, much as the principle of natural
become overspeculative and that an inter- find it sufficient to apply themselves to selection assigns priority to the study of
val of intense dedication to the collection limited problems cast in an ostensibly differential reproductive success.
of empirical data was precisely what was scientific idiom but deliberately de- One of the central aims of the present
most needed at the time. In retrospect, tached from questions of causality and volume is to extricate the strategy of
however, it is apparent that the data origins. Various strategems have been cultural materialism from the grasp of
were collected neither without theoretical introduced that avoid statements of cold-war ideologues. The mystification
bias nor without theoretical consequence. causality while conveying the impression of world historical processes has been no
While the theoretical frame was ostensibly that an explanation is being offered. less severe under dialectical materialism
a restricted one, conclusions of the widest Rather than explanations of socio- than under bourgeois cultural idealism.
possible significance bearing on the nature cultural differences and similarities in There are signs that the next generation
of history and culture were formulated. terms of nomothetic principles, we have of anthropologists may be prepared to
These spread to adjacent disciplines and so-called functional explanations; we abandon both and go on to fulfil the
were incorporated into the intellectual have correlations in which it is not known Enlightenment's dream of a science of
prospectus of the public at large. On the how the causal arrow points; and we history.
guistics) should lean more heavily on and especially in Chapter 20, is most
Reviews logico-empirical abstraction than on commendable. It is too late in the day
mathematico-deductive logic. An opera- merely to invoke Trubetzkoy and the
by OLGA AKHMANOVA* tionalized metataxonomy of socio- classical Prague spirit. In the course of
cultural entities (together with reliably the three-odd decades that have gone
Moscow, U.S.S.R. 15 iv 68
"instrumented" research methodologies) by since then, too many difficulties have
This erudite compendium, brilliant and cannot be achieved without much more had to be contended with even on the
original in style, dramatically unfolds the comprehensive factual knowledge (see feature level (what with, among other
evergrowing awareness of a need for esp. pp. 612-final page, on Area Files, things, the enormous strides of experi-
nomothetic theory, culminating in the and pp. 419 and 585 on the problem of mental phonetics, especially the motion
nomothetician's finally emerging victor- "informants"; an interesting case in picture X-ray photography which pro-
ious from a long and unequal struggle point is the verb "to be": as a linguist, I mises to revolutionize phonology by
with the pragmatist. The consistent and could not agree more with what Harris proving that it is not the neatly seg-
scientifically valid approach of material- says about it on p. 420). mented units but rather the transitions
istic determinism serves as the basis of This brings us to the more general between them that bear the brunt of
nomothetic research, and nomothetic problem-the fallacy of "invocation of the semiological relevance of speech
explanation throughout. linguistics as the patron of intuited sounds. Little or nothing has been
As far as more concrete questions of regularities." The sober and well- achieved along these lines on the higher
method are concerned, it is evident that informed approach to the myth of the levels- notably the lexis-even within
anthropological theory (including lin- "linguistic model" throughout the book, linguistics proper. Besides, the further
520 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

147.52.231.11 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC
rom the merely "distinctive" level th Harris: THE RISE OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORY
category of mere "otherness," the mor

obstinate the issue of consubstantialit bY MILTON ALTSCHULER* of wood, etc.). However, ethnoscience is
Thus if the "emic" is obviously no mor not a theory, but a discovery procedure
Carbondale, Illinois, U.S.A. 20 iv 68
than an "Anderssein" of the "etic," wha for eliciting system where it had not
is the "etic" counterpart for the "super Marvin Harris has done a great service been thought to reside before. It may
organic," the "ideational," the ontolog for anthropology in undertaking an indeed be a novel experience for an-
of "constructs," "structures," etc. i] exhaustive examination of theories in thropologists to be confronted with
anthropology in general and in "ethno anthropology and their cultural histori- analysis of cultural domains which do
semantics" in particular? cal background. He has done so success- not "pretend to offer solutions which
Completely unacceptable is the at fully and elegantly and in the process have sociological ... relevance in any
tempted debunking of Hegel (I shoul( has made a major contribution to theory necessary sense. . . ." The ethnoscientists
also be wary of picking to pieces sundr himself. In a manner of speaking, this may indeed become so enamored of
grand old members of the profession!) book is a massive preamble to his The methodology that content will be re-
To Marx, the revolutionary, socia Nature of Cultural Things, wherein the stricted to the banal. This would be a
science and political action were in materialist reality of culture and not great pity. What is really at issue, and
separable: "The philosophers have inter cultural abstractions are held to be the Harris gives signs of recognizing it, is
preted the world in various ways: th proper domain of anthropology. that the tool kit of the anthropologist
point however is to change it." If Harri Harris systematically examines all should contain relevant methodologies.
chooses to confine himself to Marx' events and philosophical movements from While space limitations preclude
more general materialist formulation- his vantage point of cultural materialism. further discussions of the many other
if, for his specific purposes (and fo In so doing he demonstrates, convincing- interesting sections of this book, I would
reasons clearly explained in differen ly, that Marxism, divorced of its political like to make one last comment. It is extra-
parts of the book), he insists on leavin polemics and Hegelian metaphysics, is ordinary that in a volume devoted to the
out "the Hegelian and revolutionar quite acceptable as a strategy for re- oppositions between materialism and
activist ingredients in Marx"-so othe search guidance. (Of course, one can idealism in anthropological thought al-
people will insist on dealing with th wonder, with reason, whether the residue most no mention can be found of Max
whole, the unexpurgated teaching c can now be called Marxist.) He recog- Weber. Surely here a viable and produc-
the greatest revolutionary philosopher c nizes, as did Marx and Engels, that many tive synthesis is possible. But perhaps
our times. In whatever one does-in th, if not most of their followers were sim- Harris will brook no compromise; con-
field of linguistics, for example-one ca: plistic in their application of economic sidering the number of people, some great
(1) confine one's activities (as so man determinism to social analysis, and he and some not so well known, who are
people in America have done, the sloga: rightly scores the many critics of Marx discussed in detail the omission of Weber
being "Leave your language alone!") t who have followed the cultural litany of is a curious fault.
a mere "description" of "corpuses" chanting that he viewed economics as a
or (2) concentrate on theory, laws an single-factor causal agent for culture, by B. BERNARDI*
regularities, parameters and patterns which is just too complex to be viewed
Rome, Italy. 22 Iv 68
configurations and constructs, etc. an thus. He presents copious quotations
regard these as the ultimate aim of one' to illustrate that Marx and Engels were Nomothetic generalizations represent,
activities. But one can (and should! indeed aware of cultural complexity and according to Harris, the summum bonum
regard these as steps to a higher an( careful to speak of ultimate relationships of scientific research. This opinion, e.g.,
more important kind of activity: th between production base and super- becomes the bias which determines his
teaching of countless millions of people t( structure. This is all refreshing and judgments regarding the relevance or
use language, both in its oral and writtei Harris has succeeded in assuring Marx irrelevance of anthropological theories.
form. The practical and theoretical knowl and Engels their rightful position in the While his discussion is always very stimu-
edge, acquired under (1) and (2) equip ranks of contributors to anthropological lating and stylistically even brilliant, I
the linguist for this most important an( theory, but I do not agree that theirs cannot help feeling disappointed by his
urgent task he has to face in the moderi was a major contribution. I believe that narrow attitude of mind. He seems to
world. The linguist must learn to pre Marx's view of cultural complexity was have been trapped by a cultural material-
scribe, to work out norms, rules, etc a simple form of trait-listing. For Marx, ist particularism rather similar, as a basic
Needless to say, he can do it properl, each new relationship that derived from attitude, to all the different particular-
only if he is in full command of the law a given increment in the mode and distri- isms of the past that he reproaches so
and regularities which govern the partic bution of production was simply added efficaciously. His enthusiasm for cultural
ular sphere of human life within th to the preceding ones arithmetically. materialism as the only true method of
more general political and economi Thus, in Marx's theory of labor, skilled anthropological research is sometimes
context. labor is merely unskilled labor compoun- couched in candid and almost naive
I shall conclude by expressing my dis ded. This is not unlike Harris' (1964) terms, as when he describes the scientific
appointment that the book did not giv( actonic approach (which I am sympa- approach led by George Peter Murdock
more -attention to metalanguage. Foi thetic to as a partial method), in which and byjulian Steward and Leslie White
example, are "parameters," "scorinE nodal counts alone are held to yield as ''a new era of creative theory" or a
variables," and "determinants," or "pat systematic episode chains and ultimately "renaissance" (p. 606).
terns," "models," "constructs," "con permaclonic supersystems. The causal study of culture is, accord-
figurations," "structure," and "frame The perfect foil for Harris' materialism ing to Harris, the only approach that
work" synonyms? The variety of expres is the New Ethnography. To the extent can make anthropology a science, and
sions in the body of the book would b( that the New Ethnography has become causes can only be such if they are
more acceptable if the index constituted the New Religion, Harris' critique of it ecological, techno-environmental, and
first step in a systematic study of th is fully justified, including the charge techno-economic. Harris does contend
metalanguage of "cultural anthropo that formal approaches have not been also that both the "emic" and the
worth the effort expended on trivia "etic" strategies are needed for a total
(color categories, how to chop a block analysis of culture (pp. 579-80), but, in
Vol. 9 * No. 5 December 1968 521

147.52.231.11 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC
his opinion, ecological, techno-environ pological theory (as developed primari cultural systems) seem to be dynamic
mental, and techno-economic causes ar in the Soviet Union and post-war Easte: ones, dealing with the internal changes
the "first causes" of development. Wer Europe) remains almost unknown to tl and relations between the different
we to take this "first" as referring to th author. It is often less dogmatic than tl groups. Archaeologists need comparative
chronological order for reconstructio: theory he reviews. Attempts have be( models which must include artefacts:
of cultural history, I would have n4 made to make the old Engels schen the relations between artefacts of differ-
objection to stressing the fundamenta conform with new evidence; some ent societies; what their makers consider
precedence of ecological and techno these are at the level of "collectir important in their arbitrary character-
environmental as well as techno-eco arguments to confirm a thesis," bi istics (for instance, decoration); how a
nomic causes in any anthropologica others seem to be no worse than tl society adopts foreign products or in-
analysis; but Harris means more thai Stewart (1947: 671) scheme except f( ventions, etc. It is a pity that the
that. He means that these are the onl the frequent shortcomings of stri, achievements of the Vienna school in this
true causes in terms of which culture ca unilinearism and rejection of the idea, field receive so little recognition among
be measured exactly and foreseen. Thi cultural stagnation and regression. anthropologists today.
is the crux of the matter. I fail to se written history of these attempts do
any real difference between the socio not exist, but a bibliography (Problet by K. 0. L. BURRIDGE*
cultural laws of Radcliffe-Brown, th 1960) and a survey of discussion of ti
]Nedlands, Australia. 10 iv 68
regularities of Steward, and the strat "Oriental" model (Pecirka 1967) haN
egies of Harris. Generalities of that kin( appeared in recent years. This is about as long a work as it is
can no more serve to foresee and plar The book is extremely interesting f( possible to get between a pair of stiff
the acts of man and the trends of cultur its historical survey alone, but its chi, covers, and Marvin Harris provides a
than can the ancient Vico's courses anc importance lies in the author's ow wide coverage that is selective, but per-
recourses or any other similar law. theoretical conclusions, expressed most] haps still too detailed. I think he says too
The bias towards nomothetic generali in the last chapters. They seem, howeve little too longwindedly about earlier
ties makes Harris' work a dissertatior to simplify the "materialist strategy authors and the roots of the subject, and
on the historical foundations of cultura more than necessary. For instanc while he uses the same style to say much
materialism; and even as such it suffer Childe does not seem to be understoo more about more recent controversies,
from the lack of complete historica well: his statement that any society takin it is doubtful whether he has been fair to
information. I refer, in particular, to th4 over a new invention must need it, k those authors whose approaches to the
significance (which is ignored) of th4 able to produce it, and almost be able t subject he does not like (and this means
International African Institute, whos4 invent it (Childe 1956:157) well express( the large bulk of anthropologists). This
founding in 1928 was determinant of the his concept of diffusion, one which strictl would be alright, providing the slaughter
new approach of British anthropolo respects chronological and chorologic- is efficient and clears the ground for some-
gists to culture change (Lugard n.d. relations. I prefer "tendencies to particu thing more worthwhile; but I doubt
Forde n.d.). I would add also that Daryl] larism" (pp. 681-83) to the simp] whether either is the case. Accepting a
Forde was not the only one among the "hydraulic hypotheses," for none of th wide spectrum of differently expressed
British to analyze the habitat and the first civilizations in Europe (Cret4 views, opinions, and assumptions, Harris
economic foundations of culture; TheNue) Mycenae, Greece, or Rome) was base does not, I think, use the kind of work-
by Evans-Pritchard (1940, esp. Chaps. on irrigation. Change in the economi manlike tools which will separate the
1-3) is a fine piece of ecological and and social patterns of a social group d( trivial from the important and order the
techno-environmental study. But, o: pends also on its flexibility (for instanc4 latter. This means, in effect, that he is
course, he became such a heretic! the "hydraulic "system was an obstacl forced to take up some indeterminate
Synchronic and diachronic studies o: to economic evolution; the Gree middle ground between his own frame
culture are certainly to be equally tribal structure, which was alien to th of reference and those of the authors
pursued; but just as the comparative pre-Dorian part of population, was to whom he discusses. This is asking for
method must be resumed as qualified, sc weak to prevent democratic reform, trouble; for though, to be sure, he
cultural materialism must be informed while the Hungarian tribal chieftain measures these others against his own
and complemented by a broader attitude could establish themselves as feuda "option" for "cultural materialism," he
of mind. Culture is borne by man, and landlords), on its relations with neigh can scarcely do justice to others if his own
there is much more in man than cultural boring social groups, on its geographi case is unclear.
materialism would have us believe. milieu and natural resources, and s I don't like the phrase "cultural
forth. The author apparently wanted t materialism," and I am puzzled at the
by JAN BOUZEK* point out the most important relations rather shrill terms with which Harris
but simplification can discredit an advocates its adoption. The kind of
Prague, Czechoslovakia. 25 iv 68
research strategy. thing that lies behind the phrase "cul-
The Rise of Anthropological Theory is itself a I would be very pleased if I coul( tural materialism"-otherwise known
series of reviews, and it is impossible to represent European appreciation o as economic anthropology-has always
express opinions concerning all the American post-war archaeology (p. 684) played a significant and distinguished
different personalities in a few lines. but the criticism by Steward and Seltzer role in anthropology as a whole. Harris'
Morgan, Darwin, and Levi-Strauss quoted on p. 684, is near to the truth rediscovery of Marx and Engels is matter
would seem to deserve more attention The anthropological tasks of archaeolog) for congratulation. His reformulation of
than many of the American anthropo- are still seriously neglected. For a nev the materialist case in the rather crude
logists of the Boas school, whose work, synthesis, however, both sides must fulfi and tautologous terms of the 19th
though of great importance for method- their duties. Archaeology must worn century, however, is surely a disservice.
ology and field research, is not really with very incomplete patterns of pas There is more to it than that. Further, it
relevant to the author's main theme, the societies, and they can certainly be is insufficient to dismiss what has been
"theory of techno-environmental and better interpreted by using comparison: done along these lines as the work of
techno-economic determinism." With with the complete patterns of knowi "party hacks and bourgeois toadies"
the exception of the work of Childe and societies. More instructive than static (p. 5). Such language is neither muscular
Wittfogel, "orthodox Marxist" anthro- models (i.e., the structures of socio- nor to the point. It is simply vulgar and

147.52.231.11 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC
unbecoming. One hopes that this an( Harris: THE RISE OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORY
other similar lapses will be excised fron

the book. They add nothing, and the of population, the formation of urbar boldt, etc. These sources are easily
dirty a most important line ofinvestigation nuclei, and the specialization of work; accessible (see Chomsky 1966) and the
Let me be clear: This is a usefu it contributes to the emergence of writingideas contained in them are important
source book of summaries of the maii and mathematics, the development of for anthropological theory because the
controversies in anthropology, and Harri the arts, the organization of an army and beginning of a nomothetic approach to
is determinedly tussling with some ver3of a body of public servants, the appear- human behavior was outlined at that
important but recalcitrant problems ance of a supreme chief (at times, of time and that has now largely been
processes of change, and the criteria divine origin), the formation of classes abandoned.
of the objective. These problems are or castes, the establishment of a religious In Chapter 6 ("Evolutionism: Meth-
too important to be allowed to rest ir institution, etc. In the field of non- ods"), Harris devotes 15 pages to the
the slough of an argument that I finc cumulative activities, like the arts, the comparative method. He traces the
flaccid, and rhetorical rather thar religions, and philosophical thought, on comparative method to the notion of
pointed. Those who are really interested the other hand, their very non-cumula- "progress" in the period of the Enlighten-
in the material bases of social life or ir tive character and greater dependence ment and mentions that the idea of the
making useful generalizations on histori- on exceptional personalities make it im- comparative method, in embryonic form
cal events will probably not be put ofl possible to find a total parallelism of at least, was shared by all 18th-century
by this argument. cultures. social philosophers. In his exposition of
I would like to add that the hydraulic the comparative method, there are three
by JORGE DIAS*W theory is a good theory for explaining principal periods of evolution:
certain civilizations of the New World; (1) The observation that one structure
Lisbon, Portugal. 23 Iv 6E
but in Mesopotamia, in Egypt, in the (or one form of behavior) may arise
Once the evolutionist position is accepted Hindus Valley, and in China there is, out of another. It is probably impossible
-and such a position seems difficult to in addition to irrigation-and perhaps to trace the origin of the idea because of
reject when archaeological data are even more important, at least in its its great antiquity. However, we do
considered in the light of those of ethno- general consequences-an association of know of some early attempts in this
graphy-one is led to admit that in the animal motive power with plough and matter. The Stoics concluded that their
technological field evolution conditioned cart, with all the consequences resulting language had undergone a process of
by the natural environment can be from the combination of agriculture and corruption from an original form.
observed. animal husbandry from which sprang the Scaliger (1484-1558) compared Latin
I believe that environment can never integrated whole known as higher and Greek, and his son (1540-1609)
function as a constant, however, because agriculture. tried to classify all the languages of
man maintains a dialectical relation Europe and he believed that English
with it, both adapting himself to it and by MARSHALL DURBIN* could be traced to Persian (Dinneen
transforming it in various ways. The 1967: 176-77).
New Orleans, La., U.S.A. 3 iv 68
environment of Central Europe 2,500 (2) The recognition of systematic
years ago was highly adverse to the Harris' book has two highly commend- correspondences and their by-products,
survival of the human groups then living; able aims: (1) an attempt to present the cognates. As Harris mentions (p. 153),
the environment of Greece, on the other history of anthropological theory (which Sir William Jones is credited with this
hand, was extremely favourable. Today, I feel he has admirably executed) and discovery in linguistics in 1786; but we
the fertile plains of Central Europe, rich (2) to make a plea for a return to nomo- have excellent evidence that the early-
in raw materials and sources of energy, thetic studies in anthropology (which I 16th-century Italian Claudio Tolomei
support a prosperous industrial civiliza- heartily endorse). recognized systematic correspondences,
tion, while Greece has little to offer other One basic fault with the book, which cognates, regular phonemic change, and
than a good climate and the monuments is perhaps not Harris' fault and one the borrowing of learned words (Hall
of an old civilization, which serve merely which represents a general problem 1964: 301-2). Thus, we have system-
as tourist attractions. common to historians in an endeavor atic correspondences, cognates, regular
If one accepts a dialectical relation of this magnitude, is that as Harris phonemic change, and direct borrowing
between culture and environment, in draws closer to present day anthropologi- (diffusion) being noted more than 200
which both of them function as variables, cal theory (as evidenced in the 50's and years before Sir William Jones (1784)
one finds that in general the greater the 60's), he becomes decidedly more and Linnaeus (1735) made their first
technical capacity of a group, the greater emotional in his presentation and pronouncements.
its capacity for transforming its environ- criticism of the theories under survey. (3) Sir WilliamJones'( 1 784)pronounce-
ment. Some environments however, such In Chapter 20 ("Emnics, Etics and the ment on the affinity between Indic and
as the Arctic or the deserts, so circum- New Ethnography"), Harris' biases are European language paved the way for
scribe Man's actions that his transform- so clear and so derogatory that an the third step: the recognition that sets
ing capacity becomes very restricted otherwise concise presentation of an- of correspondences can be derived from
indeed, and other environments, such as thropological theory is badly marred. a proto-unit in the parent language
the American prairies, are easily trans- In Chapter 2 ("Enlightenment"), and that this proto-unit can be recon-
formed, even by hunters and gatherers, Harris discusses the influence upon structed by a methodologywhich involves
into excellent tilling land. anthropological theory of John Locke's the concepts of complementary distri-
Another point that I think should be concept of the human mind as an bution (mutually exclusive environ-
emphasized more clearly in the dis- "empty cabinet." I think it is unfortun- ments), contrast, phonetic similarity
cussion of evolution is the distinction be- ate that Harris fails to mention another (partially shared sets), and pattern con-
tween the cumulative and the non- stream of thought which was prevalent gruity (Hoenigswald 1950). It was this
cumulative aspects of culture. Technical during the same period-that expressed step that gave rise to descriptive linguistics,
progress carries with it an increase in the in the works of Descartes, Cordemoy, and the same concepts were employed
production of food which is, in turn, and Herbert among others and later by by the Neo-Grammarians in the positing
reflected in an increase of the densitv H erder, Sch.iegel, Cudworth, Hmr- of the phoneme.
Vol. 9 N No. 5 - December 1968 523

147.52.231.11 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC
What I have outlined above does n( than he is in providing historiographic much sounder to regard them as com-
refute Harris' statements about th analysis. Indeed, one of the great ironies plementary. From the standpoint of
comparative method but I feel tha of the book is that it is written in a his- general theory, emic accounts of particu-
Harris could and should have made toric vein that is diametrically opposed lar cultures provide fruitful hypotheses
better exposition of the comparativ to the author's own canons. As an for nomothetic testing, while in the
method in view of the fact that thi "ethnographic" study of the anthro- interest of sound ethnography, nomo-
method is so important for the develop pological culture it is almost completely thetic principles provide guidelines for
ment of a nomothetic science. mentalistic, with ideas begetting ideas inquiry into emic distinctions within
Thus phonemics developed directl in fact, it would fit quite neatly into the particular cultures. Both pursuits are
out of the comparative method; a metho tradition of Boasian historical particular- legitimate, and Harris' attempt to
for handling diachronic data was suk ism! Even as an attempt to derive a subordinate the ethnography of particu-
sequently applied to synchronic data. I: historical charter for his theoretical lar cultures to the development of
view of this, Pike's pronouncements o commitments the book is unconvincing, nomothetic theory simply reflects his
"emics" and "etics", to which Harri for it would be quite possible to begin own bias. The relative merits of general
devotes a great deal of attention, ar at Harris' starting point and demonstrate theory and particularistic ethnography
an afterthought. In ethnography, phc that anthropological thought has evolved can only be measured in terms of the
netics, descriptive linguistics, and trans along a much more unilinear track, from goals one has in mind. I do not see how
formational grammar, the only eventua racial explanations for cultural pheno- an understanding of nomothetic princi-
recourse we have is to the informant' mena, to perceiving the behavior of ples of the type Harris has in mind can
decision as to whether two events ar non-Western peoples as culturally deter- facilitate communication between people
same (mutually exclusive, complemen mined but essentially irrational or non- from different cultures in the same way
tary) or different (contrast) at a give] rational, to seeing their behavior as that, for example, Edward Hall's emic
level of interpretation. This is, as I see il quite rational within their own cognitive approach to cultural codes can. On the
the comparative method applied intra environments. The culmination of the other hand, it would be foolish to
culturally instead of inter-culturall) latter trend would be the "new ethno- attempt to predict the effects on social
Consequently, I cannot understand wh graphy." structure of a significant change in mode
Harris is so opposed to "emics, etics, an( The book is a failure for much more of production without reference to nomo-
the new ethnography." I am as eager a decisive reasons, however, the most thetic principles.
Harris to see the return of nomotheti important being that the opposition of The priority which Harris assigns to
studies, and I cannot accept "emics" an( nomothetic and ideographic strategies is techno-environmental factors in causa-
"etics" as an eventual answer to man far less significant than Harris makes it tion is also a dogmatic restriction that
of the questions which are current i] out to be. In wielding his etic sword to anthropology can ill afford. Such vari-
anthropology; but it is a mistake to stat assault fellow anthropologists, both past ables rarely create conditions which are
that the ". . . linguistic model . . . is in and present, his analysis is as often mis- necessary and sufficient to produce
herently incapable of making discoverie leading and obscuring as it is incisive, invariant cultural outcomes, and the
about the content of history and th in large part because the etic-emic oppo- more efficient the system of production
nature of historical processes (p. 603) sition is only marginally related to many the less it is a determinant of cultural
when in fact that linguistic model i anthropological issues. (This is particu- features. Rather than assume the priority
directly traceable to the historical com larly apparent when he comes to such of such variables we should pose the
parative method outlined above. current approaches, such as culture and issue empirically: how much variance do
One last criticism is that althougl personality.) More pertinent, however, particular sets of factors account for?
Chomsky (1965, 1966) has always bee: is that by equating emic description in The answer will depend on what types
keenly interested in nomothetic studies the form advocated by Goodenough and of variance we choose to investigate.
I find only one indirect reference to hin others with the analysis of ideology, or This is not to say that techno-environ-
(p. 598) in this book. "mentalism," Harris demonstrates that mental variables are not a useful starting
In spite of these criticisms, I still fee he has either failed to read the literature point in a chain of causation that may
this is an excellent presentation o carefully or has been so thoroughly end in ideology or personality character-
anthropological theory, and I can onl, blinded by his prejudices that he does not istics; but the more removed one gets
hope that anthropologists will hee( understand it. Otherwise he would not from the beginning of this chain, the less
Harris' call to return to a science o have made the peculiar challenge to the likely efficient causes are to be found in
universal laws. ethnosemanticists to account for the rule such variables as mode of production,
which links large families to the main- particularly in technologically advanced
by ALAN HOWARD* tenance of poverty in Brazil, for he countries. By dismissing the value of
himself offers an explanation in terms middle-range theory, Harris eliminates
Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. 24 iv 64
of peasant fathers' accepting "the pan- from investigation many kinds of vari-
This is a perplexing book. While readin( Brazilian rules emphasizing the import- ability that his colleagues find interesting,
it I frequently found myself arguint ance of the kindred and the compad- and that perhaps is the most distressing
against positions which I share with th( razco" (p. 603). The pressures he draws point of his entire thesis-despite feeble
author simply because of the polemi( attention to are emic in the sense that denials to the contrary, it is not so much
and self-righteous way in which h( Brazilians distinguish between economi- a plea for a particular theoretical view-
states his case. Perhaps its primary virtu( cally successful men and those who are point as it is an attempt to restrict the
is the kind of stimulation it provides. I not, and more frequently choose the domain of legitimate interests, and that I
should certainly provoke other scholar former to maintain active kinship ties find intolerable. For those of us to whom
to write counter-books, if for no othe: with, thereby creating a drain on their culture is by definition ideational, Harris'
reason than they will not be willing tc resources. The point of emic analysis is approach would eliminate from investi-
allow this volume to stand as the majo: not that it is mentalistic but that it gation all of the processes that are of cen-
modern source of our profession's histor) makes use of contrasts inherent in the tral interest, i.e., the dynamics of com-
for a generation of graduate students. cultural data. munication, the logic of behavioral
Harris is obviously more interested ix; Rather than opposing nomothetic and strategy, decision-making procedures, etc.
beating his favorite theoretical drunr ideographic strategies, it would be From this point of view these are rele-

147.52.231.11 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC
gated to the status of irrelevancies Harris: THE RISE OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORY
much as Watsonian behaviorism ignore(

mental processes in psychology. All he i in all nations and ages, and that human Harris' massive mislabeled work clearly
concerned with is the stimulus (mode o nature remains still the same, in its principles is a labor-of-love. But this formidable
and operations.... Mankind are so much
production) and response (cultura tome (which, if appropriately edited,
the same, in all times and places, that history
"things"). To equate this approach wit] could be a valuable source of ideas)
informs us of nothing new or strange in this
scientism is a position few behaviora must be rejected as a modern scientific
particular. Its chief use is only to discover
scientists would be willing to accept. Foi the constant and universal principles of text. It is not really a "book," but is a
the problems in which he is interested human nature, by showing men in all vast jumble of jottings and minor essays,
his approach is sound: but to insist tha varieties of circumstances and situations, usually left incomplete. Despite the
we all play the same game would be t4 and furnishing us with materials from which author's interest in "scientism," the
destroy anthropology's greatest asset we may form our observations and become volume could be considered at best a
which is diversity of interest as well a, acquainted with the regular springs of kind of "Golden Bough" of cultural
human action and behavior.
approach. materialism, at worst a diffuse collection
By choosing such a narrow viem of one man's philosophical comments
Harris has presented a vastly over This, first published in 1748, could be on aspects of "-isms." It is larded with
simplified picture of the rise of anthro used to support an argument that Hume quotations, but lacks an effective be-
pological theory. His judgments fre was a cultural relativist and an exponent ginning or ending. It requires extensive
quently border on bigotry, with individ of monogenesis. Later checking of rearranging, condensing, cutting and
ual scholars declared failures to the Curtin disclosed that the passage used by fitting, and a supplementing but reduct-
degree that their views diverge from hi. Harris was from a footnote, added in ive use of appropriately developed
own. How much more useful and signifi the 1753-54 edition of Hume's collected tabulations, diagrams, and depictions
cant the book would have been had he works, to the essay "On National to meet the needs of modern science and
conformed to his own dictums. Perhaps Characters." Was Hume a monogenesis scholarship.
he would then have accounted in causal and non-racist man in 1748, a poly- Grossly distorted by Harris' concern
terms for the academic traditions tha genesis and racist man by 1753? Was with racism and race relations, which
prevailed in various places and times he inconsistent, shifting positions in intrudes itself throughout the work
relating them to the cultural ecological differing contexts? These questions re- (see p. 132), the volume contains section
milieu in which they flourished. Instead quire an intensive re-examination of after section of discourse relative to
he is preoccupied with passing moral Hume's works. scientism, materialism, relativism, evolu-
judgments on the basis of his owr The important message from this is tionism, idealism, determinism (of
mentalisms. Perhaps the greatest ironw that men who live long and write much various kinds), Spencerism, particular-
of all, in a book filled with them, is thal may be inconsistent. We may find the ism, diffusionism, Cartesianism, syn-
Harris should be so strongly motivated roots of quite diverse ideas in the work chronism, mentalism, and innumerable
to change men's minds with ideological of one man. Harris demonstrates this other "-isms." The restless reader is
arguments that he perceives as effects when he moves nearer the present, where brought to attention by, for example, a
rather than causes. Or are anthropolo- our textbook treatment of our intellectual sudden reference to "white, Anglo-
gists free from the effects of cultural forebears is shown to be inadequate. He Saxon Protestant intellectual and busi-
materialism? For a man who presumes shows the many sides, the breadth of ness elites" (p. 297), or the offhand
ideology to be an effect of cultural mat- inquiry, the changes and consistencies assertion that
erialism he is somewhat less humble than in the thinking of Tylor, Boas, and
might be expected. The United States' slaves were declared free
others, as revealed through careful
(and only in the enemy slave states!) during
study of all they wrote.
the most ferocious war in history [sic!]. This
By tracing the antecedents of his
by MALCOLM MCFEE* was done in order to encourage uprisings in
central theme of "techno-environmental
the South and to gain conscripts for the
Eugene, Ore., U.S.A. 23 iv 68 and techno-economic" determinants of Union Army.
Let me begin with a complaint, explore cultural evolution, Harris has made a
its implications, and move to a more posi- very important contribution to the Scattered throughout are critiques of
tive statement. Harris uses too many discipline. Anthropology is now of the work of various scholars, scientists,
secondary sources in his treatment of the sufficient age to have history, and this and men of letters with reference to
17th- and 18th-century social philoso- book is but a view of it. This same past one or another of Harris' own "-isms"
phers, making it difficult for the reader can be re-examined many times from (which, I gather, are "scientism" and
to evaluate the validity of his judgments other perspectives as the antecedents of some form of evolutionism, cultural
of them made on the basis of the quota- diverse ideas are traced. Other histories materialism, and economic determinism) .
tion, and also making it difficult to locate.will be written. Harris has provided This work is tested and, for the most
My discomfort with some of these judg- stimulation, even grounds for controversy part, found wanting; but neither it
ments led me to trace to its source a with this book. nor the ideas of his own with which
paragraph by David Hume, taken from Harris compares it is delineated system-
Curtin (1964: 42), which Harris uses by DONALD S. MARSHALL* atically as to concept or theory. Men
(p. 88) to categorize Hume as an expo- and ideas are treated in bits and pieces.
Alexandria, Va., U.S.A. 23 iv 68
nent of polygenesis and racism. Harris Nowhere-in prospect, in retrospect, in
does not indicate from which of Hume's In large measure my comments on diagram, or in discourse-do we see a
essays the quotation was drawn; the Harris' book are restricted to problems totality or a route or even a promise of a
following, however, from his "An En- of communication and orientation, leav- pattern. One is not enlightened; instead
quiry Concerning Human Understand- ing to other associates the discussion of one is hammered by assertions, dogma,
ing" (Burtt 1939: 635-36), came to details as to its specific content. Although and discourse. Would-be witty sub-
light: I would like to comment in more detail, headings, one or more to a page ("Mysti-
the very nature of the book and my cism, Cynicism, and Miniskirts" or "The
It is universally acknowledged that there is a reaction to it preclude a more direct Old Rope Trick"), substitute for the
treatment. lack of form.
V'ol. 9 -No. 5 * December 1968 525

147.52.231.11 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC
No reader/reviewer could or should theory against which his view can be the new ethnographers. The latter have
tell an author what to write or how to put to the test. Granted that he does not not been thorough enough, however,
write it; but one can make suggestions set out in this book to present a theory on his behalf, since he remains puzzled
for improvement, based upon a careful as such, I draw this conclusion from the by the implicit reference in a quotation
appraisal of a would-be serious work. kind of criticism he directs at others. from Frake (p. 572) to the useful dis-
Most significantly (apart from presen- In particular, it seems to me that the tinction (made by Chomsky) between
tation and problems of communication) so-called new ethnographers (see Chap- competence and performance and is
in Harris' case, I found myself asking ter 20, "Emics, Etics, and the New preoccupied with "the question of how
again and again: What is "the anthro- Ethnography") have made a modest to proceed with this operation."
pological theory" that has risen? And, move in the direction of such a theory; Linguists generally recognize the need
more important, what should it be? (And but because they have not placed prim- for both a general theory which will
is it "Theory," as in the title, or "Theor- ary and immediate emphasis on the account for the phenomenon of lan-
ies," as on p. 5? What is "the science of ultimate question of causality, Harris guage and particular theories which will
history"? And is it "the science of discounts them as (forgive the loose account for specific languages. Harris
history" p. (1) or "the science of culture" language) "cultural idealists." evidently does not see the need for such
(pp. 8, 21) or "the science of society" (p. Chapter 20 (which is to me of most distinction when he chides Schneider and
205) ? What is the "scientism," "evolu- interest) is, in a word, disappointing. Beattie for seeking "a cross-culturally
tionism," "cultural determinism," "eco- Harris writes off the commonly accepted valid emic [sic] definition of kinship
nomic determinism," against which meanings of the terms "etic" and "emic" distinct from a biological genealogy"
Harris measures the contributions of as "gratuitous" and presents new defini- (p. 578). He seems content with a
other anthropologists and finds them tions which require several readings dichotomy of "emic categories and re-
wanting? before communication results. This lations" which are "appropriate or
I have looked carefully at Harris' treat- brings up the problem of communication meaningful to the actors" of a particular
ment for some of our colleagues concepts and perhaps (in light of the desired culture, as opposed to those "etic" ones
and contributions to theory that seem concern with etiology) a new disease we of "the ethnographer's data language."
of greatest value in my own anthro- might call "dyadic-conjunctionitis." Such Harris assumes that since emics has
pological thinking (for example Morris neologisms as "logico-empirical" "tech- to do with the natives' interpretation of
Opler's theme/counter-theme, Gregory Bate- no-economic," "techno-environmental," an event, it is then impossible to dis-
son's schismogenesis, or John Roberts' "economic-determinist," "social-struc- tinguish the event from the interpre-
small-group cultures). While the work of tural," "cultural-materialist," and tation. Somehow "etics" has to do with
these anthropologists appears in Harris' "cultural-idealist," all of which occur the "uninterpreted event" and "emics"
extensive bibliography, I cannot find frequently, are high-sounding, but hardly with the event and its interpretation, the
their concepts in his text. Harris dwells beneficio-requisite for purposes of com- two elements being inextricably bound.
on what he takes to be Opler's anti- munication and perhaps even "obfusco- Harris knocks down a straw man by
Marxist comments on Leslie White, or adiaphorous." What makes matters stating that accounts of ideal and actual
his appraisal of Morgan; he does not worse, before introducing these com- behavior can both be emic, but fails to
deal with Opler's brilliant contributions pletely new definitions, Harris smothers recognize that what he considers an
to anthropological theory. And where the reader with such otherwise meaning- "eminently etic category" (p. 581)
is the treatment of such senior colleagues less collocations as "etic research options," might also have emic status in a "gener-
as Edward Handy-can we comprehend " etic strategies," "cetic operations," "cetic al" theory.
theories of primitve religion without analyses", and "etic systems." (It is only Without offering us a theory to
using his treatment of mana ? May a fair to say that the tautologous "emic account for what we might, for lack of a
scholar write a serious treatise on the system" which he quotes comes from better term, call "good" or "normative"
rise of anthropological theory without Pike.) performance, Harris chides the new
reference to Panchanan Mitra's "A He is also guilty of failing to distinguish ethnographers for lacking a theory
History of American Anthropology"? sociocultural theory from discovery pro- which will also account for " 'change of
Or, today, without some treatment of the cedure, as witness the frequent occur- mind,' 'groping for the right word,'
concept of "values"? rence of such words and phrases as "etic argument, lying" (p. 589), and so
As an anthropologist, rather than a analyses," "structural results," "emic forth. When Harris can even furnish a
political philosopher, I cannot view as a operations," "procedures," "techniques," theory to handle the former he will have
useful contribution any book that pre- "how to proceed," "etic strategies." done us a service; but when he has
tends to deal with "The Rise of Anthro- Much of the credit for clarifying, in presented one to handle also the latter,
pological Theory" but does not include linguistics, the difference between dis- he can be sure that linguists and eth-
the seminal ideas of our valued col- covery procedures and the theory (say, nographers alike will sit up and take
leagues. the syntax of a particular language) dis- notice.
covered by such procedures must go to Any viable linguistic theory must,
by WILLIAM R. MERRIFIELD* Noam Chomsky. Though Harris is among other things account for variation,
acquainted with some of Chomsky's ambiguity, and poor performance; and
Ixmiquilpan, Mexico. 4 iv 68
work-cf. p. 572, any linguistic practitioner must even
In the name of "scientism" and in the watch out for lack of competence. The
guise of one seeking a "science of history" ... in stating the rules by which grammatical lengthy derision (p. 590) based on a
Harris presents us with an interpretation utterances are generated in a specific misconception by Harris of "emic rules
of the rise of anthropological theory language, the "test of adequacy" is the of behavior" therefore falls flat. He
from the point of view of what he likes to native speaker's intuitive knowledge of the evidently has not considered the possi-
call "techno-environmental and techno- grammaticality of the sample utterances bility that such a notion as "sin" might
generated according to such rules.
economic determinism." Like so many be emic.
anthropologists of the past (and present ?), The intimation (p. 583) that am-
he seems more concerned with asserting -he does not mention any of it in the biguity in language is limited to "such
his view of causation in sociocultural bibliography, and we must conclude that activities [?] as poetry, art," etc., is only
he has learned of Chomsky's work from naive. The fact that there are "rcomnlpy

147.52.231.11 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC
[verbal] messages which are perfectly HaJnrrisc TH-E PRISE OP ANTT4rOpPnL CO2(-TCAT TH-EOpR
communicative on the phonemic, mor-

phemic, and syntactic levels" does not An inadequate handling of this prob- Harris is deeply concerned with
preclude that languages have ambiguity lem, quite inconsistent with the em- methodological and epistemological
at all these levels. More important, the phasis he places on levels in certain issues, interests which were reflected in
clear implication that the study of these sections of his discussion, impairs Harris' his The Nature of Cultural Things and
levels lies within the domain of linguis- attempt to resolve theoretical contro- which in the present volume are especi-
tics but that semantic information does versies among the cultural evolutionists. ally apparent in his masterly treatment
not betrays Harris' limited acquaintance Principally, he misses the relevance of the emic-etic problem, in his dis-
with current linguistic theory. His re- of formulations oni "universal" and cussion of personality and culture
peated suggestions that linguistics is "general" evolution for dealing with research, and elsewhere. He is well
different from ethnography (and there- levels of integration, and in his rather per-
aware that behaviorism, empirical rigor,
fore needs different conceptual tools) functory examination and hasty rejection mathematical sophistication, and the
loses its force when we find he does not of the Sahlins and Service analysis of like do not, in themselves, necessarily
know what is going on in linguistics general and specific evolution he misses promote a successful cultural materialist
except for bits and pieces he has picked out on a good bet for advancing our strategy. His approval of the methodo-
up from those he criticizes. understanding of these vexatious areas. logical practices of a certain school
I must end with an apology (as Harris He views universal evolution as coming does not lead him to overlook short-
begins, p. 7) for seeming to be only down merely "to an extreme expansion comings in their total program of
negatively critical. With more space, I of the tolerated degree of abstraction" inquiry. One gets the feeling, neverthe-
would be able to indicate many points (p. 645), a quantitative problem only less, that a certain tendency toward
of agreement with Harris, even in regard (p. 653), and he applies this argument methodological puritanism misleads him
to failings of the new ethnography to date, to a refutation of the Sahlins-Service at crucial junctures in evolutionary
and also in regard to conflicting uses synthesis. One of the penalties of this theory. I do not question the imperative
by linguists of the emic/etic dichotomy. mistake is difficulties with the direction need for comparative and statistical
of the causal arrow in the investigation research (nor, certainly, the importance
by HARRY M. RAULETS of important kinds of culture change. of avoiding mongrelized emic-etic frames
Thus international political forces and in data-gathering and analysis); but it
East Lansing, Mich., U.S.A. 22 iv 68
local power relations may be more seems to me that by increasing degrees
The few comments permitted in the "basic" than techno-environmental of emphasis, his methodological plank
space allotted here can do scant justice forces in specific instances of change in becomes extended to the point where it
to a book which covers such a vast contemporary peasant societies. The can no longer bear the weight of the
scope, raises such important issues, and introduction of new techno-environmen- tasks he imposes. As I have indicated,
may well come to be considered some- tal adaptations in South Asian villages his call for rigorous controlled compari-
thing of a landmark in our discipline. To is likely to be dependent on the outcome son of cultures to find regularities must
quarrel with a few points seems un- of political process. I do not regard be accompanied by hypotheses about
generous, but the seriousness of this such apparent "reversals" of causal- the properties of levels of cultural
work calls for an attempt, at least, to ity as contradicting cultural materialist organization which take into account
grapple with some of the major questions theory in these cases where we are not the trans-local nature of the stream of
it raises. primarily concerned with the pristine cultural events and the relative all-round
Throughout Harris' account of the emergence of novel cultural features. adaptability of competing sociocultural
vicissitudes of anthropological theory, Human culture history is largely the systems.
he has woven a dialogue between the story of the spread of culture systems, and Harris' treatment of Durkheim and
potentialities of a cultural materialistic processes other than techno-environ- the varieties of functionalism and struc-
strategy of inquiry and the sterility of mental adaptations may have to be taken turalism is generally brilliant. He con-
alternative, anti-scientific approaches, as independent variables in analyzing curs with Bottomore's view that function-
which are ultimately based on idealistic cultural developments in specific areas alism interprets institutions in terms of
epistemological premises. Certainly, as and in searching out parallels and the purposes and values of individuals.
Harris indicates time and again, funda- divergences. In fact, it is only from the He feels that even Radcliffe-Brown does
mental to the cultural materialist strategy perspective of general evolution that the not escape from this and the attendant
is a model based on techno-environ- causal arrow maintains a one-way dependence upon psychological uni-
mental determinism and base-structure- direction. The step by step cumulation versals. He points to the priority of
superstructure relationships. Serious of technology, which is basic to Harris' social structure in the functionalism of
attention to taxonomies based on macro- scheme, is obviously not a process which Radcliffe-Brown and others, and the
evolutionary theory is an indispensable occurs within the confines of localized distortion of the relationship between
requirement for fruitful inquiry in this cultural manifestations. A general evo- social structure and economy resulting
vein. Harris underlines this in pointing lutionary concept such as all-round from this position (p. 518). In his own
to the sources of failure in Murdock's adaptability is indispensable heuristically attempts to deal with homeostatic
Social Structure and in his approval of in providing a firm foundation for a levels- processes there are some peculiar
Murdock's recent revisions, which will of-integration taxonomy; and it would ambiguities. Lineage solidarity does have
make it possible "to choose samples seem to reflect the facts of history. In deal- a place in his reinterpretation of the
which will be approximately represen- ing with recent historical epochs,where in relationship between mother's brother
tative of different levels of sociocultural fact there has been increasing tendency and sister's son in South Africa (pp. 529,
integration" (p. 632). It would be hard toward ecumenicalism, the point becomes 530). His account differs from that of
to overstress this issue. With the nomo- especially clear. There is no good reason to Radcliffe-Brown mainly in highlighting
thetic revival there is no great lack of expect an adequate taxonomy to emerge the ultimate ecological function of the
interest in ecological and comparativist from an approach which compares local structural features, but here at least,
studies; many of the difficulties arise in cultural phenomena as if the only subject there is room for indirect and dialectical
taxonomic procedures explicitly or im- matter were relatively isolated primitive relationships among base, structure, and
nlicitlv g'uiding this work. societies or even hydraulics states. superstructure. Elsewhere he tends to pre-
Vol. 9 - No. 5 * December 1968 527

147.52.231.11 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC
fer interpretations of homeostasis, stress- presumably determined by social struc his examples of the "extraordinary
ing rather direct economic functions. He ture and ideology and ultimately th( mutability of national character" do
completely overlooks fruitful possibilities material conditions upon which thi not seem to be adequate. He writes that
in the concept of reciprocity and in the rests. Perhaps some new synthesis, ir "the authoritarian Japanese become
substantive approach in economic an- which theory is kept separate frorr the democrats of Asia." The real situa-
thropology for explaining institutions. practice and is at the same time basec tion is not so simple. Although the
Granted, there are difficulties in studies upon practice, is intended by Harris surface of the Japanese personality has
along these lines, but the alternatives but he does not enlighten us fully on thi: been considerably changed in accord-
offered by formal economic analysis point. ance with the drastic post-war reforms
for dealing with exchange phenomena in sociopolitical systems, its core has
in primitive societies, though useful remained much the same as before. Ex-
in some ways, tend to depend strongly on by TAKAO SOFUE* treme awareness of the superior-inferior
the interpretation of institutions in relationship is still the most important
Tokyo, Japan. 11 iv 6&
terms of the purposes and values of indi- feature of the Japanese personality.
viduals. Harris may have been influenced I have found this book very interesting Therefore, the Japanese case may rather
in this matter by an inability to recog- and valuable, and I am very much im be regarded as an example of "consis-
nize the possibility of serendipity pressed by the author's wide range o tency and change coexisting" in national
coming from Narcel Mauss, whose knowledge, extending from archaeolog' character.
work he regards as cultural-idealist in to linguistics. I am somewhat unsatisfied
the extreme. however, that the author did not full)
The issue of the relationship between discuss the interrelationships betweer by JOHN Tu ER-WEI*
theory and practice, discussed by Harris each theory and the social or worlc Taipei, Taiwan. 13 v 68
in his chapter on dialectical materialism, situation of its time. Ruth Benedict'
Harris' book would be a better one if he
is a difficult one. Harris rightly under- Patterns of Culture, for instance, was pub
had reviewed not only the faults, but
lines the penalties incurred in the politici- lished in 1934. In this same year th(
also the good points, of the work of the
zation of social theory. He points out "Indian Reorganization Act," was passec
scholars he treats. The methods and
that hypotheses in social science, as in and consequently all bans on Indiar
theories of these scholars all had some-
other sciences, can be tested by means language as well as ceremonies, wer(
thing of good in them, and the applica-
of retrodiction rather than always in ex- removed (Underhill 1953: 335). Car
tion of them has often produced valuable
perimental situations, which in the case we conclude from this fact that th(
results. Schmidt, for one, is unjustly
of macro-social-theory, would involve tendency toward cultural relativism wa
criticized; Harris' example of "similari-
politics. This is, perhaps, a little too facile. already dominant among intellectuals a
ties of canoe paddle blades that must
Without questioning the importance of that time, and Benedict was influencec
have broad surfaces" (p. 384) should
retrodiction in testing hypotheses in or stimulated by this? Margaret Mead'
not belong to the "Criterion of the
geology or meteorology, there is room use of the phrase "A psychological stud)
Quality" of Schmidt. That the most
for considerable doubt as to the extent of primitive youthfor Western civilization'
characteristic events do not repeat them-
to which the theoretical status of such (italics mine) as a subtitle of Coming of Ag
selves must be seen as a basic principle.
findings is independent of a larger cumu- in Samoa (1928) and the practical orienta
Diffusionism is worthy of serious con-
lative body of theory, crucial parts of tion of her psychological approach ma)
sideration.
which do receive experimental and reflect the interest among the genera
Materialistic determinism denies the
practical tests. In the social sciences, public in the late 1920's in the urgen
importance of human freedom. That the
notoriously non-cumulative so far, there problems of unemployment, neurosis
environment has influence, there is no
are abundant instances of application suicide, and juvenile delinquency. Again
doubt, but the human spirit dominates.
of micro-theory in the laboratory (and the influence of Freudian psychologw
For example, the nature of the human
in everyday practical situations), but upon Sapir and other anthropologists
spirit requires religion, and so religion
there is certainly no consensus about the is closely related to the extreme popu-
exists everywhere; environment can only
ways in which this supports or contra- larity in the 1920's of this theory, which
modify it.
dicts the more wide-ranging theories, stimulated a "revolution in manners and
The kind of history of anthropology I
and thus, contending theoretical systems morals" among the American general
still hope for is one which considers the
persist. In social science, the choice of public (Allen 1964: 81). It probably
achievements that can be ascribed to the
an embracing theoretical perspective even led American literature and movies
various methods and theories. One judges
serving as a framework for interpretation along a new direction toward the prob-
the tree by its fruit.
of more limited findings remains under lem of sex as exemplified by Faukner's
the influence of ideological factors. The Sanctuary published in 193 1. The rela-
Weberian prescription for the divorce of tionship between cultural background by L. F. WATSON*
politics and social science is often mis- and anthropological theory, neglected in
Saskatoon, Canada. 18 v 68
taken for an established fact rather than this book as in all the other publications
something possibly to be striven for. In on the history of anthropology, to date,This sparkling, harsh, tendentious book
Harris' program for anthropology, the is what I would most like to know. Simi- could hardly have been expected to
cultural materialist strategy transcends larly, some remarks on the influence of sustain its polemic theme with equal
these limitations, but we are not given a Levi-Strauss upon contemporary French plausibility and relevance throughout its
clear account of how this is to be done. ideologies which recently has been dis- swashbuckling survey of so much of
He tells us that the political and moral cussed by J.-P. Sartre and other philoso- anthropology. Dramatic unity has been
consequences of hypotheses, including phers in France (see, e.g., Pouillon 1966),gained at the expense of forcing some
even passive ones, have to be made should have been added. materials into a framework not their own.
explicit (p. 222) and in this way scientific Due to space limitation, I shall com- Granted that Harris and others can make
fealty to the data can be assured. ment only on one further point. I fully a case persuasively for the strength and-
Objective social science obviously implies a agree with the author that time pers- for some purposes-centrality of ecologic-
qualitative change from an earlier state pective should be supplied to all psycho. technologic-economic-evolutionary re-
of affairs in which consciousness is cultural analyses (p. 456), but some of search orientations it remains far from

147.52.231.11 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC
clear that he can fully justify his persistent Harris: THE RISE OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORY
disparagement of any and all other re-

search interests, problems, and findings. anthropological views in the field c bY WALTER S. WILSON*
Above all, his harsh dismissal of eclecticism inquiry and discussion directly involve(
Agana, Guam. 20 iv 68
(p. 3) is out of order. Anthropology as a with what is roughly called "communit,
discipline has grown and still grows in development." These emphasize Ver For those of us who have been waiting
notably eclectic fashion; indeed, his own stehen as a matter of short-run practicalit, for a comprehensive treatment of the
materialist formula is itself an eclectic in action programs, giving forestag; history of ethnological theory, Harris
compound. to the urgency for emic models in con has succeeded in covering about as
To take a rather trite but crucial junction with holistic views of functiona much material as anyone could be
example: do we not often find ourselves relations and of the whole interactiona reasonably expected to cover; the 76-
giving a double-barreled response to lay- field, including change agents, as per page bibliography testifies to this.
mens' suppositions about "primitive" lan- ceived by the group in question in terms He has dealt with this wealth of
guages? In terms of what linguists are of their given emic structuring for thei material from a very consistent point
mainly concerned with, there is no such behavioral world. Of course the medical of view. This gives the work a unity that
thing as "primitive" though there are, agronomic, engineering, or other such would be hard to achieve otherwise;
to be sure, differences in gross range of agents do fill the "materialist" role tc from his position he has managed to
vocabulary, readily predictable con- which Harris (and the rest of us) would point up the lack of recognition of
trasts in some of the directions of lexical give primacy, but it seems anthropology's Marx both in terms of his contributions
expansion, etc. The second part of such appropriate contribution lies in warningto a science of history and in terms of
an eclectic "on the one hand...; on of the short-run failures due to oblivious- the reaction to his ideas. Harris points
the other hand . ." statement corres- ness of a particular culture's emic idio- out the unfortunate partisanship which
ponds to what Harris' desiderato for the syncrasies as well as latent interdepen- makes it difficult to judge Marx solely on
central emphasis in anthropology in dencies of the sociocultural system (see the basis of his theoretical contributions.
that in this area trends may be shown Goodenough 1963). In a book which He gives the so-called unilineal evo-
which undoubtedly reflect gross socio- otherwise abounds with case-material lutionists a more favorable hearing
cultural evolution in other, basically documentation for his dashing asperities than they usually get in introductory
techno-economic, respects. Surely, how- and put-downs, with regard to applied texts, discussing their positive contribu-
ever, no anthropologist could neglect to anthropology Harris has not gone intc tions as well as their shortcomings.
give at least equal emphasis to the first specifics. This might excite no wonder. The work is not only a history of
part of the statement. Harris may reason- except that his critical excursions have ethnology but also a statement of a
ably choose to stress the second "option" otherwise taken account of implicit as strategy for developing an ethnology of
here, but let it be noted that the choice well as explicit theory, in seekingquarrels,
history. Whether or not this strategy is
will pretty inevitably require acknow- and he has at the outset (p. 3) so very the only one, or even the best one, Harris
ledgement of a certain theoretical eclec- pointedly made an issue of the role of has provided a formidable argument
ticism. anthropology in international develop- and will force anthropologists to examine
A head-on collision is implied be- ment programs and directed cultural just exactly what it is they are doing and
tween Harris' views and dominant change. why they are doing it.
sible for giving Altschuler this impression.

Replies I can see some basis for regarding my
to B. BERNARDI
own view of cultural evolution as additive, (1) "Narrow Attitude of Mind." Bernardi
by MARVIN HARRIS but nothing could be less true of Marx. thinks that to evaluate explanations of
In conformity with Hegelian doctrine, sociocultural differences and similarities
to MILTON ALTSCHULER Marx regarded quantitative changes as by appealing to scientific models of truth
significant only to the extent that they and intellectual adequacy, is narrow-
(1) "Preamble to 'The Nature of Cultural contributed to qualitative changes, i.e., minded. Many anthropologists un-
Things.' " Altschuler is correct in em- the antitheses of the dialectic. I contend doubtedly share this view.
phasizing the close relationships between that it is not necessary to embrace Hegel's (2) "Couched in . . . almost naive terms."
these two efforts. Many of my colleagues dialectic in order to escape the errors Bernardi thinks it naive to associate
will now understand why I struggled to which Marx and Engels identified as Murdock, Steward, and White with "a
write a book which insisted on rigid "mechanical materialism." Actually my new era of creative theory." But the
separation of etic and emic data lan- view of the transformation of cultural contributions of these men are subjected
guages. On the other hand, without the forms is neither mechanical nor dialectic: to a prolonged and searching critique
epistemological exploration of The Nature it is Darwinian. I believe that had Darwin in which many of their views are
of Cultural Things, it would not have been published fifteen years earlier, Marx's rejected.
possible to formulate a research strategy model for evolution-through-struggle (3) "Causes can only be such if they are
distinct from cultural idealism and eclec- would have been Darwin's rather than ecological, techno-environmental, and techno-
ticism. I would have had no way to treat Hegel's. economic." A false description of my view-
those who regard themselves as materi- (3) Max Weber: the omission of Weber point. Cultural materialist strategy re-
alists but who constantly mix up is a result of a decision, explained in quires that priority be given to research
emic and etic data. The Nature of the Introduction, not to treat 20th- concerned with the material conditions
Cultural Things might therefore be re- sociologists. It should be clear
century of sociocultural systems; cultural materi-
garded as a preamble to the present however that I have had Weber very alist hypotheses should be abandoned for
volume. much in mind in discussing the fallacy cultural idealist hypothesesi or for admis-
(2) "Alarx's view . . . a simple form of of eclecticism and in defending the sions of ultimate inscrutablity only after
trait-listing." I hope that it is not my ultimate determinism of techno-economic the material circumstances have been
interpretation of Marx which was respon- and techno-environmental conditions. luCI a iLuuI.
Vol. 9 N No. 5 * December 1968 529

147.52.231.11 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC
(4) "He means that these are the only trw paralleled importance for a science o whether two events are same ... or different.... "
causes." Bernardi failed to read the chapter man; but I shall also insist on the error o This is precisely the kind of linguistic
on Dialectical Materialism, especially the Marx and Engels's attempt to shackli imperialism to which the emotionality of
sections entitled "The Strategy of Cul- cultural materialism to the spooks o the chapter on Emics and Etics and the
tural Materialism," "The Myth of the Hegel's dialectic. I am convinced that th4 New Ethnography is directed. I and my
Monadic Explanation" and "Marx and coming generation of social scientists i, students, using video-tape recordings of
Engels Warn against Oversimplification" prepared to say to party hacks anc natural behavior have experienced no
(240-45). Bernardi associates me with bourgeois toadies, 'a plague on both you: difficulty in determining what is similar
simplistic single factor explanations, the houses,' and to get on with the business o or different without recourse to the in-
bogey man of anthropologists whose seeking the truth, wherever the searci formant's opinion (and indeed, often
understanding of Marx's role in the may lead." (p. 5.) significantly at variance with the in-
development of cultural theory has been formant's opinion).
formed in their intestines. Bernardi to JORGE DIAS (4) "Linguistic model inherently incapable
doesn't believe in anybody's "laws." He I am not certain that a reply is neces of making discoveriesabout the content of history
finds small choice between the theories of sary here since Dias' remarks are quit( and the nature of historical processes." Durbin
Vico, Radcliffe-Brown, Steward, and congruent with the relevant portion o shows that modern linguistic analysis is a
myself. This kind of assertion in the the book. However, the reader might gel by-product of centuries-old interests in
writings of a hostile critic fills one with the idea that disagreement rather thar the origin and evolution of language. But
pleasure. agreement is being registered. It shoulc the fact that modern grammarian con-
(5) "There is more in man than cultural be stressed, therefore, that Dias is re cepts were spun off from historical lin-
materialism would have us believe." Perhaps, stating and explicating in his own terms guistic research, and the fact that they
there is more in cultural materialism the meaning of "techno-economic anc are still essential for historical linguistics,
than Bernardi would like man to believe. techno-environmental determinism.' does not, contrary to Durbin's argument,
While Dias is certainly correct in his prove anything at all concerning the
to JAN BOUZEK opinion that it is impossible to find a applicability of the linguistic model to
"total parallelism of culture," he neglects the study of the origin and evolution of
(1) " 'Orthodox Marxist' anthropological
to state that my approach to this probler non-linguistic sociocultural phenomena.
theory." I admit to lack of familiarity with
is from the other direction: how mucl The tenacity with which even friendly
this literature, but I know enough about
parallelism is there and how do we linguists cling to the idea that the word is
it to protest the inclusion of Wittfogel as
explain it? the alpha and omega of existence is truly
an example!
astonishing. Words have no measurable
(2) "Simple 'hydraulic hypotheses.' " It is to MARSHALL DURBIN energy cost; sociocultural evolution must
Bouzek who makes it simple. No one
concern itself with the energy budgets of
(1) "Neglect of Descartes." I am well
denies his "tendencies to particularism."
aware of the Cartesian influence in the specific populations in specific environ-
development of idealist version of nomo- ments. Chomsky's ideas will become
to K. 0. L. BURRIDGE thetic theory. I specifically mention relevant to the study of the evolution of
(1) "Cultural Materialism-otherwise Descartes as relevant to the development technology, economic organization, kin-
known as economic anthropology-has always of the New Ethnography and especiallyship organization, political organization,
played a significant and distinguished roleto
inFrench Structuralism. My reasons for and ideology, when he relates the rules of
anthropology as a whole." Burridge, who rejecting this genre of nomothetic theorygrammar to the rules which govern
wants "workmanlike tools ... to separate are clearly exposited in sustained dis- techno-economic and techno-environ-
the important from the trivial" ignores cussions of the defects of cultural idealism. mental adaptations. In the meantime, I
hundreds of pages devoted to the differ- (2) " The comparative method." Durbin is leave it strictly to the linguists to evaluate
ence between the historically dominant a linguist and his review of the develop- Chomsky's influences upon anthropo-
anthropological mode of treatment of ment of the comparative method is from logical studies of languages.
"material culture" and "economic or- the perspective of linguistics. I welcome
ganization" and the field of phenomena his augmentation of my own reconstruc- to ALAN HOWARD
relevant to the strategy of cultural tion which traced the vicissitudes of the (1) "It is almost completely mentalistic."
materialism. No reading of my book notion that the institutions of contem- This impression must have been derived
could lead to the conclusion that cultural porary primitives are survivals of institu- from the fact that I trace the continuity
materialism is what anthropologists have tions ancestral to our own. Although of ideas about cultural causality from
conventionally intended to be the mean- equally rooted in the concepts of progress the 18th century to the present, show-
ing of economics or economic deter- and evolution (Durbin's step one), the ing the logical relationship between the
minism. The entire course of modern linguist's comparative method and the thoughts of Locke, Turgot, Millar,
anthropology is comprehensible as a ethnologist's comparative method have Fergusson, Helvetius, Malthus, De
reaction to dialectical materialism; the different methodological and substantive Maistre, Comte, Hegel, Marx, Spencer,
study of so-called economic anthropology consequences. In the first case we end up Darwin, Durkheim, etc., and the thoughts
has been carried out wholly under the with the principle of complementary dis- of Boas, Kroeber, Schmidt, Benedict,
influence of cultural idealist premises tribution as a guide to the reconstruction Levi-Strauss, Allan Howard, etc. In
which "emicize" and "mysticize" eco- of proto-languages, and in the second, we addition to such traditional intellectual
nomic behavior. end up with the statistical correlations of history, there is no lack of analysis of
(2) " Vulgar ... unbecoming ... diry.... .Tylor's "adhesions" as a means of recon- institutional matrices and of the political
Burridge is moved to these workmanlike structing the probable sequence of insti- and economic developments which are
observations by a line in the introduction tutional transformations. These two en- responsible for spawning competing
which, in context, reads as follows: "The terprises are not analogous: there is no visions of a science of culture. I relate the
mystification of world historical pro- equivalent of the concept of the phoneme sociology of knowledge of anthropology
cesses under dialectical materialism is no in the work of the 1 9th-century successively to the forces which generated
less severe than under bourgeois cultural institutional evolutionists. the French Revolution, the political
idealism. I shall recognize in the writings (3) "In ethnography . .. the only recourse
restoration, the triumph of the bourgeois
of Marx and Engels achievements of un- we have is to the informant's decision as to state, nationalism, the emergence of

147.52.231.11 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC
imperialism, capitalist slavery, the migra- Harris: THE RISE OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORY
tion of eastern and southern Europeans

to the United States, the development of of legitimate interest. .. ." Obviously ther ter on the 18th century. It is unfair
the U.S. educational establishment, 20th- are many interests which ethnograph) of McFee however not to mention the
century colonialism, and the cold war. To serves other than the construction o: fact that not only are the great bulk of the
the best ofmy knowledge this has never pre- scientific theories of sociocultural differ references to the primary sources, but
viously been attempted, on so large ascale. ences and similarities. These interests- that I attempted throughout to indicate
(2) "Opposition of nomothetic and idio- aesthetic appreciation, cross-cultura: dates of original editions, even when the
graphic strategies . .. far less significant thancommunication, community develop originals could not be consulted. In the
Harris makes it out to be." The choice here ment, resolution of intergroup conflict particular instance, the quote from
is between science and history; generali- etc.-are socially and professionally un- Hume, I was unable to locate the edition
zation and particularization; Marxism assailable. There is not a single line in mr to which Curtin (1964) referred. The
and Neo-Kantianism; the scientific tradi- book which demeans or degrades such assumption that a library which did not
tion and the humanist tradition. I cannot interests per se. I refuse however to accepl have Curtin's book would have the 1753-
conceive of the circumstances under the expression of such interests as a sub- 1754 edition which Curtin used does not
which the importance of these issues stitute for the mandate of nomothetic make sense. If the point of the quote had
could be overestimated, nor does Howard inquiry. Historically, it is incontestable been primarily to indicate that Hume
indicate what they might be. that if there has been any "intolerable" was or was not a polygenist and racist,
(3) "Emics . . . the analysis of ideology ... restriction of interest, it has consisted o: greater attention to the rest of Hume's
Goodenough's mentalism ... and ethno- various covert (and at times quite overt) work would obviously have been required
semantics." Goodenough (1963:39) has pressures against the devotion of teaching and McFee has already indicated what
stated that the "great problem for a and research efforts to the consideration kind of a monumental undertaking would
science of man is how to get from the of the cultural materialist strategy. be needed to do a thorough job. The
objective world of materiality . . . to the Howard's attempt to frighten my col- point, however, was that there were poly-
subjective world of form as it exists in ... leagues with the spectre of a book which genist and racist cross-currents among
the minds of our fellow man." Such views "would eliminate from investigation all the predomninantly monogenist and egali-
are shared by those who explicitly con- of the processes that are of central in- tarian leaders of the enlightenment. In
cern themselves with the cognitive calculi terest" is a cheap form of professional relying on Curtin, I was following the
or algorithms of kinship terminologies sectarianism. I would prefer to see greater only course which was both prudent and
and other emic data. They are also the emphasis upon the kinds of research practical for the non-specialist.
basic methodological imperative of the which in my opinion promise the solution
principal representatives of the Boasian, of the mysteries of life and mind. In
British Functionalist, French Structuralist arguing for my version of the anthropo- to DONALD S. MARSHALL
and many other schools. My identifica- logical mandate, I seek the response of my
The Index of this volume covers 41
tion of such interests with mentalism and colleagues, aware that there are other
pages; the bibliography 76 pages. Opler
philosophical idealism is historically, visions of ultimate concern thought by
is treated lavishly. His evaluations of
logically, philosophically and scientific- many to be as enduring and as legitimate
Tylor and Morgan are cited and affirmed.
ally correct. as mine. I contest the legitimacy of these
His political attack on Meggers is ole-
(4) Poverty in Brazil. Howard maintains alternatives only when they are advanced
nounced. I did not discuss his concept of
that I unwittingly embrace an emic as strategies for achieving nomothetic
"themes" because Opler's "themes" con-
explanation when I suggest that the explanations of sociocultural differences
form to the widespread interest in idio-
poverty of the Brazilian peasant is and similarities. A perfect example of
graphic and emic statements of rules or
partially the result of widespread accep- such a challenge is Howard's pronounce-
patterns. This interest is discussed at
tance of the rules of kinship. Recognition ment: "the more efficient the system of
great length. Bateson is not altogether
of kinship obligation slows the formation production, the less it is a determinant of
neglected in connection with the Freudian
of capital among economically successful cultural features." I don't believe there
phase of culture and personality studies.
types. The crux of this paradox however is a shred of evidence to support such a
Considerations of space lead to the deci-
is that the same rules help to concentrate view, while the evidence in support of the
sion not to discuss schismogenesis. Among
rather than disperse capital when fol- contrary hypothesis is available to any-
culture and personality specialists, aspects
lowed by those who control the society's one who has the slightest familiarity with
of the work of Benedict, Mead, Roheim,
strategic resources. The poverty of the the massive convergences in style of life
Gorer, Wallace, Kardiner, and Whiting
peasantry is not caused by their accep- which are associated with industrializa-
are given emphasis. I wonder if Marshall
tance of kinship obligations but by their tion. If Howard wants to argue the sub-
learned anything from any of these
lack of control over or access to strategic stance of this issue, however, that is his
analyses. If not, would it have really
resources. The same rules of behavior privilege. But he can scarcely expect
helped him to have also included a dis-
lead to opposite consequences when acted serious consideration of his attempt to
cussion of Bateson's work? Would he
out in different etic contexts. Ideas dupe those who have not read my book
have really liked the book any better if it
materialize themselves through the be- into believing that I would "destroy
had included a discussion of Handy,
havior of individuals interacting with the anthropology's greatest asset" and that I
Roberts and Mitra? Since he evidently
specific material conditions provided not have insisted "that we all play the same
dislikes everything I have had to say
by other ideas, but by given techno- game." Few colleagues will regard with
about everybody, I should imagine that
environmental and techno-economic re- enthusiasm the novel form of professional
lationships. I repeat my challenge to the he would count those who have been
evaluation here introduced by Howard
ethno-scientists. Let them explain the omitted as twice blessed.
whereby I am accused of bordering on
phenomena ofpoverty as a manifestation of "bigotry" for having ventured to express
cognitive rules. In the meantime let me professionally unpopular opinions.
assureHoward that the explanation which to WILLIAM R. MERRIFIELD
he falsely attributes tome is unacceptable. to MALCOLM MCFEE
(1) "Seems more concerned with asserting
(4) " Value of emic ap7proach . .. Dogmatic (1) Secondary sources. I regret that some
his view of causation ... than with presenting
Restrictions . . . attempt to restrict the domain
secondary sources were used in the chap- a body of theory." There are twenty-three
Vol. 9 * No. 5 - December 1968 531

147.52.231.11 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC
chapters in the volume, of which Merri- and am perfectly satisfied with the pro- (2) General evolution. Raulet implies
field appears to have read only one. gress which linguists are making in their that I reject the notion of general evolu-
Chapters 9-23 deal with 2Oth-cen- attempt to perfect our understanding o: tion. But in fact, I insist throughout that
tury anthropology and each contains linguistic phenomena. But I am tired o: successive epochs of human life have been
an examination of specific ethnological getting pushed around by anthropologists characterized by increments in the size
who insist that the world is intelligible
issues as tests of a general body of theory and efficiency of cultural energy systems.
associated with the strategy of cultural only if we see it as an emanation o: My objection to Sahlins' and Service's
materialism. Specific theories and hypo- grammatical rules inside of God's mind. formulation of general evolution is that
theses are offered involving techno (7) The intimation that ambiguity in lan- they equate such advances with "pro-
economic and techno-environmental ex- guage is limited to ".. . poetry, art," etc., is onlj gress." It is quite possible that some of us
planations of the potlatch, Kwakiutl bi- naive. Again a wrenching out of context will regard the next phase of general
laterality, Crow warfare, the BaThonga since my charge of failing to deal witb evolution as very "unprogressive." This
avunculate; Trobriand Kula; Vedda, ambiguity is leveled against the new has nothing to do with Raulet's observa-
Algonkian, and Queensland hunting terri- ethnographers and not the linguists. tion that without a theory of macro-
tories; population density in relation tc (8) "Clear implication that" . . . semantic evolution, micro-evolutionary processes
state formation in Africa; matrilateral information "does not lie within the domain oJ will remain inscrutable. I agree com-
cross cousin preference, determinants o: linguistics." These "intimations" and pletely and apologize if I have failed to
kinship terminology; hydraulic bases o: "implications" are clear only to Merri- make myself sufficiently clear in this
civilization, pig feasts in New Guinea. field which is quite remarkable because matter. I thought I had done so, however,
cattle in India, race relations in Brazil nothing else is clear to him. when I argued for the necessary depen-
and the United States; etc. How large (9) "He does not know what is going on indence of Radcliffe-Brown's functional
must a body of theory be in order tc linguistics." The question is whether I analyses upon evolutionary hypotheses.
attract Merrifield's notice? know what is going on in cultural anthro- I even traced the origins of this view back
(2) "Commonly accepted meanings" o: pology. I am not a linguist and have to Auguste Comte!
emic and etics.... "Completely new defini- attempted no critique of linguistic theory. (3) " Overlooks . . . concept of reciprocity."
tions. ..." My use of these corresponds tc I explicitly omitted linguistic theory from But Raulet overlooks repeated invoca-
Pike's usage. Pike introduced them. I do consideration because I claim no profes- tions of the concept of redistribution. I am
not "write off" the other usages as sional competence in that field. I do feel unenthusiastic about reciprocity because
"gratuitous" but discuss them at length. competent however to criticize Good- it depends upon emic, psychological
The word "gratuitous" is wrenched from enough's failure to deal with the problem expectations. Redistribution (which oc-
its context. The point is that the equi- of ambiguity in U.S. kinship terminology. curs in both egalitarian and stratified
valence between emics and structure is (10) " With more space . . . many points oj forms) is an etic concept and therefore
acceptable in linguistic analysis but it is agreement with Harris." Merrifield's first more useful for evolutionary theory.
gratuitous for Pike and many others who obligation was to state the "failings of the (4) Theory and Practice. I regret not
have attempted to impose the linguistic new ethnography" and the "conflicting being able to solve this question to
model on the entire field of sociocultural uses by linguists of the emic/etic dichot- Raulet's or my own satisfaction. Since
phenomena to insist that etic strategies omy." I accept neither his apology nor completing my book I have had addi-
may not also provide an understanding of his excuse. The chapter in question was tional opportunities to realize that my
non-verbal systems and structures. submitted as an article for publication in own anthropological theories are part of
(3) "Neologisms." Merrifield dislikes the American Anthropologist over two years a political process. If we carry the unity
hyphens. My editor and many anthro- ago. It was rejected by the editor, Ward of theory and practice too far, we will
pologists happen to like hyphens. (Cf. Goodenough. If there are any substantial destroy anthropology. If we don't carry it
Bradshaw-Morren, 1966) A hyphen points of agreement between Merrifield far enough, we will destroy our civiliza-
does not a new word make. and myself concerning the critique of the tion.
(4) "Guilty offailing to distinguish socio-new ethnographers, it is his obligation
cultural theory from discovery procedure." The
not to contribute further to the censor-
whole point of the book, argued from a ship which these ideas have already to TAKAO SOFUE
dozen different angles, is that theory and experienced. (1) "Benedict's 'Patterns of Culture' " and
discovery procedures are one and the the "social or world situation." A detailed
same, and ultimately indistinguishable. explanation of precisely what Sofue is
(5) "Competence and performance ... how to HARRY M. RAULET asking for is to be found in five chapters
to proceed with this operation." Neither (1) "International politicalforces and local
dealing with Boas and his students. I
Merrifield, Chomsky, nor Frake has power relations may be more 'basic'. . . ." should
This like to redirect Sofue's attention to
specified or carried out the operation is the "primacy of politics" issue. I agree the discussions therein of Boas' and
which would separate competence from certainly that in numerous contemporary Benedict's relationship to the neo-
performance in the realm of non-verbal local instances, political processes appear Kantians, Windelband, Rickert, and
behavior. They may be able to do it for to dominate maintenance or formations Dilthey and to the significance of this,
language phenomena, but the question of both infrastructure and superstructure. ideology in the context of early 20th-
which I raise is whether the new ethno- To the extent that these apparent ano- century political and economic conflict.
graphers know how to do it for non-verbal malies are products of Euro-American A second reading may lead Sofue to my
phenomena. political hegemony, they readily yield to hundred-page explanation of how Boas'
(6) Failure to offer "a theory to account for
cultural materialist analyses. Elsewhere, historical particularism culminated in
... 'good' or 'normative' performance." Here as in the case of China, we shall have to synchronic personality studies. In the
again Merrifield overlooks the numerous wait and see if a distinctive trajectory of meantime, I advise him to forget the
theories and hypotheses which I offer to development can be maintained on the influence of the 1934 Indian Reorganiza-
explain both good or normative events basis of a unique political organization. tion Act upon an approach which
(emics) and actual performance (etics), Already, however, we have witnessed Benedict had already published in 1928.
and their inter-relationship. It is true some consequences of the miscalculation (2) The influence of Freud. CA's readers
that I don't offer any theory of language, of the relationship between revolutionary should not be misled into assuming that
but that is because I am not a linguist zeal and material conditions. there is any neglect of the influence of

147.52.231.11 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC
Freud. If he had read nothing else but Harris: THE RISE OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORY
the chapter titles-Culture and Personality:

Pre-Freudian; Culture and Personality: would reread my book, he might learn sideration if we wish to explain, on the
Freudian-he might have recognized the the secret revealed therein, of how it is one hand, why primitive languages be-
importance attributed to the meeting and possible for me to be an atheist, a cultural came extinct; on the other, why societies
mixing of Freudian and Boasian doc- materialist, historical determinist, and at primitive in other respects have not
trines. These chapters actually contain the same time to believe that I have more become extinct; and on yet another hand,
manysuggestionsfor a sociology of knowl- freedom than he has. why the languages of primitives remain
edge capable of dealing with the con- distinguished from those of industrial
version of anthropology to psychoanalysis state-organized peoples. There is no
and the concomitant synchronization and to L. F. WATSON harsh dismissal of eclecticism in my book;
de-raciation of Freudian psychology. (1) "Persistent disparagement of any and rather there are hundreds of pages of
(3) Politics and Japanese Personality. all other research interests, problems, and proof that much "on the other hand"
Sofue argues that the "core" ofJapanese findings." I have engaged in disparage- thinking in anthropology emanates from
personality has remained unmodified, ment of research interests only because the prevailing lack of comprehension
while its "surface" has "considerably such interests have resulted in a restriction concerning the function of hypotheses
changed" in accordance with "drastic" of the scope of theoretical options avail- and the role of research strategies in the
sociopolitical reforms. The issue however able to others; serious research problems development of theory.
is precisely whether an understanding of have been disparaged in my book only (3) "Head on collision . . . between Harris'
what culture and personality specialists after careful and lengthy analyses of their views and dominant anthropological views in
have traditionally regarded as the "core" philosophical, epistemological and the field ... of 'community development.' "
of national character can be usefully methodological premises. Research find- The question in dispute is not the fact of
applied to the understanding of socio- ings have been disparaged only after and the collision, but the justification. I would
cultural evolution. Moreover, it seems by means of contrary bodies of ethno- contend that our community develop-
highly probable that what Sofue regards graphic evidence. I repeatedly refer to ment programs are failures because they
as the "core" is well on its way to becom- this evidence in my critique of Dialectical have been guided principally by eclectic
ing the "surface." I doubt if the Japanese Materialism, Boasian Particularism, or cultural idealist theories which have
police regard awareness of superior- British Functionalism, Pre- and Post- stressed Verstehen, emics, and other
inferior relationship as the core of the Freudian Culture and Personality, "matters of short-run practicality."
militant student personalities with whom etc. Watson is correct when he says I have
they have had to deal in recent years. (2) "Harsh dismissal of eclecticism." not gone into the specifics of the implica-
Watson thinks that eclecticism means the tions of my book for community develop-
ability to make "on the other hand" type ment; if he is interested in these specifics
to JOHN Tu ER-WEI statements. He seems to think that a he will find the exchange between myself
"Materialist determinism denies the impor- cultural materialist can't say "on the and John Bennet (CA 8:251-53) sug-
tance of human freedom." This political other hand." Granted that there are now gestive. Watson seems to be saying that if
manifesto smacks of the Red Guards. Any no "primitive languages," does this mean the main thrust of my argument is
determinism denies the importance of they never existed? A materialist, non- correct, then many applied anthropolo-
human freedom; idealist determinism eclectic, "on the other hand" response to gists might want to reconsider their
(e.g. Calvinist pre-destination) as much this question would be that the material contributions to government-sponsored
as dialectical materialism. If Tu Er-wei conditions of life have priority of con- development programs. That's right.
DINNEEN, FRANCIS P. 1967. An introduction New York: Random House. [MM M ]

References Cited to general linguistics. New York: Holt, JINNE, KARL VON. 1735. Systema natura
Rinehart and Winston. [MD *] IUGARD, F. D. The International Institute
ALLEN, FREDERICK LEWiS. 1964. Only yester- EVANS-PRITCHARD, E. E. 1940. The Nuer. of African Languages and Cultures.
day: An informal history of the 1920's. New Oxford: Clarendon Press. [BB *] Africa 1:1-12. [BB *]
York: Harper & Row. (Originally pub- FORDE, DARYLL. Anthropology and the - - -. A five-year plan of research. Africa
lished by Harper & Brothers in 1931.) development of African studies, Africa 5:1-13. [BB *]
[TS *] 37:389-406. [BB *] dEAD, MARGARET. 1928. Coming of age in
BENEDICT, RUTH. 1934. Patterns of culture. GOODENOUGH, WARD HUNT. 1963. Coopera- Samoa. New York: Morrow. [TS W]
New York: Houghton Mifflin. tion in change: An anthropological approach ZECfRKA, J. 1967. Von der asiatischen
[TS W] to community development. New York: duktionsweise zu einer marxistischen
BRADSHAW-MORREN, GEORGE E. 1966. A Russell Sage Foundation. Analyse der friuhen Klassengesellschaften.
catalogue of hyphenated anthropologists. HALL, ROBERT A., JR. 1964. Introductory Eirene 16:141-74 [JE *]
American Anthropologist 68: 1020-1 linguistics. New York: Chilton Books. EOUILLON, J. (Editor). 1966. Problemes du
CHILDE, V. G. 1956. Piecing together the past. [MD W] structuralisme (Les Temps Modernes no. 246).
London. [JE *] HARRIS, MARVIN. 1964. The nature of cultural (Japanese translation by S. Tajima et al.,
CHOMSKY, NOAM. 1965. Aspects of the theory things. New York: Random House. K6zdshugi towa nanika? [What is structural-
of syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. [MA ] ism?] Tokyo: Misuzu Shobo, Co., 1968).
[MD W] HOENIGSWALD, HENRY M. 1950. The princi- [TS *]
---. 1966. Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in pal step in comparative grammar. Droblemy istorii pervobytnogo obchtchestva. 196
the history of rationalist thought. New York: Language 26:357-64. [MD *] Trudy instituta etnografli 54.
Harper and Row. [MD *] HUME, DAVID. 1939. "An enquiry concern- JNDERHILL, RUTH. 1953. Red Man's America:
CURTIN, P. 1964. The image of Africa: British ing human understanding," in The A history of Indians in the United States.
ideas and actions, 1780-1850. Madison: English philosophers from Bacon to Mill. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
University of Wisconsin Press. [MM *] Edited by Edwin A. Burtt, pp. 585-689. [TS W]
Vol. 9 - No. 5 - December 1968 533

147.52.231.11 on Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC

This Content Downloaded From 147.52.231.11 On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This Content Downloaded From 147.52.231.11 On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

This Content Downloaded From 147.52.231.11 On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:26:42 UTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review

Reviewed Work(s): The Rise of Anthropological Theory by Marvin Harris

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2740497

This content downloaded from

The Rise of Anthropological Theory

& Marvzn Harris

Vol. 9 N No. 5 * December 1968 519

This content downloaded from

520 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from

category of mere "otherness," the mor

Vol. 9 * No. 5 December 1968 521

This content downloaded from

522 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from

other similar lapses will be excised fron

Vol. 9 N No. 5 - December 1968 523

This content downloaded from

524 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from

much as Watsonian behaviorism ignore(

V'ol. 9 -No. 5 * December 1968 525

This content downloaded from

526 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from

communicative on the phonemic, mor-

Vol. 9 - No. 5 * December 1968 527

This content downloaded from

528 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from

disparagement of any and all other re-

sible for giving Altschuler this impression.

Vol. 9 N No. 5 * December 1968 529

This content downloaded from

530 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from

tion of eastern and southern Europeans

Vol. 9 * No. 5 - December 1968 531

This content downloaded from

532 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from

the chapter titles-Culture and Personality:

DINNEEN, FRANCIS P. 1967. An introduction New York: Random House. [MM M ]

Vol. 9 - No. 5 - December 1968 533

This content downloaded from

You might also like