In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 [First Page] [299], (1) Lines: 0 to 11 ——— 0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [299], (1) appendix 5 Theory, Culture Anthropology 103, Winter Session, 1946–1947 september 25, 1947 Bibliography of general works (supplementing mimeographed bibliography, which was handed out and is reproduced at the end of course text). F. Boas, Race, Language and Culture B. Malinowski, Dynamics of Culture Change M. Mead, Cooperation and Competition Among Primitive Peoples C. Wissler, Relation of Man to Nature in Aboriginal North America E. Durkheim, Les Regles de la Methode Sociologique F. Boas,“Anthropology” in Encyclopedia of Social Sciences R. Benedict, Patterns of Culture (Books added in the third class:) W. Schmidt, High Gods in North America E. Westermarck, History of Human Marriage V. F. Calverton, The Making of Man L. Lévy-Bruhl, Primitive Mentality The problems to be taken up in this course are these: 1. Evolutionary schemes, for example, L. H. Morgan 2. The repetitiousness of human behavior studies, for example, J. Frazer and E. Westermarck 3. Diffusion of traits: a. the extreme diffusionists,for example,F. Graebner, G. Elliot Smith; b. the time equals space people 4. Functionalism 5. Personality and culture 6. Culture vs. culture; idealists vs. materialists; free will vs. planning. The unifying factor in anthropology has always been the comparative material . 299 Appendix 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 [300], (2) Lines: 110 ——— 0.0pt Pg ——— Normal Pag PgEnds: TEX [300], (2) september 30, 1947 Science in General On the dynamics of inquiry, see, J. B. Conant, On Understanding, Science, especially chapter 1 and footnotes. His discussion of Pearson’s definition of science as the gathering and ordering of relevant materials, he asks why the process takes so long. It is because there are numerous discoveries from observation. For example, Darwin, through the mechanism of natural selection ,a new conceptual scheme stands firm,in contrast to controversies about fossil man. Conant said that it is the misleading conceptual schemes which create the big problem,because they prevent scientists from arriving at newer and more fruitful conceptual schemes. The different schools in anthropology emphasize different conceptual schemes, and they do not see the conceptual schemes implicit in their materials. There is no neat dividing line between the various schools. Much of the data stressed by the later schools was included in the earlier schools. All the great men of anthropology refuse to be classified. Prescientific anthropology: Interest in other peoples long predates anthropology . Herodotus discussed the ways of life of the eastern Mediterraneans. Like all Greeks working with cross-cultural materials he was asking, what is the best, giving opinions on the characteristic of a good society. For example the Egyptian calendar is best. Aristotle in The Politics examined some 150 constitutions to find the best. This shows just how small the states were then. He defined the state as composed of people in face-to-face contact. After the Greeks there was a long period of little work. Marco Polo wrote a book of marvels, in no way similar to the serious approach of Aristotle. He had no interest in the development of customs nor in comparison. By the Middle Ages, the serious consideration of cross-cultural material was absent. In the 18th century in France Montaigne did several serious cross-cultural essays. He did not consider Tupinamba cannibalism extraordinary. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the discovery of America in 1492 were great stimuli to the development of anthropology. Was the white man a brother to the darker man? This opened discussion of polygenesis or monogenesis of man. In the 16th century a Papal Bull was monogenetic. Later Bulls were polygenetic. During this time and the succeeding two centuries the nature of the good society was the great problem, especially for Rousseau and Hobbes: Rousseau’s social contract and simple savage, and Hobbes, with man’s war against man and the need for strong rulers of men. No fieldwork was done in this period. Really there was only a very little actual investigation, butstillthesavagewasbroughtinasillustrativematerial...

Share