FRANZ BOAS

Boas as a Diffusionist: Boas and the anthropologist O. T. Mason engage in a spirited debate about the
organization of ethnographic materials in museum displays; it is an unlikely subject for a fierce debate, but
it produced an illuminating exchange. Mason, an evolutionist, proposed organizing ethnographic displays
in the Smithsonian Institution by artifact classes—pottery, stone tools, musical instruments—regardless of
their place of origin, displaying what Mason called “similarities in the products of industry.” Mason wanted
to illustrate the evolutionary parallels in human nature, arguing that cultural products stemmed from
similar, universal causes. But Boas argued to use geographical categories, instead of evolutionary trends so
that museum visitors get better insight. When the items of museum were arranged according to
geographical areas, it was observed that cultural items of Indian tribes that lived close to another were
more similar than those groups who lived further apart. The geographical regions that displayed such
internal similarities, were called as “culture area”. The isomorphism of cultural items was, thus, explained
by diffusion.

Boas said that the geographical continuity of distribution was the major proof for historical connections or
diffusion. A break in this continuity should be presumed as similar traits has arisen independently.

HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM
3
32
52
35
02

In 1896, Boas published an article entitled “The Limitation of Comparative Method of Anthropology”
which dealt with his objection to evolutionary approach. Boas undercut the entire basis of nineteenth-
century cultural evolution. We might agree with Tylor and Morgan that certain technological processes
have an inherent evolutionary order— fire must precede pottery making, flintlocks were invented before

IA ve
automatic rifles—but there is no ethnographic evidence indicating that matrilineal kin systems preceded
patrilineal kin systems or that religions based on animism developed before polytheistic religions. Boas

Le
argued that this unilineal ordering is a simple assumption; there is no proven historical relationship nor any
way to prove such a relationship.

Boas argued that the comparative approaches of Morgan and Tylor were undercut by three flaws: (1) the
assumption of unilineal evolution, (2) the notion of modern societies as evolutionary survivals, and (3) the
classification of societies based on weak data and inappropriate criteria. These flaws were the targets of
the Boasian attack.

It argued that each society is a collective representation of its unique historical past. Boas rejected parallel
evolutionism, the idea that all societies are on the same path and have reached their specific level of
development the same way all other societies have. Instead, historical particularism showed that societies
could reach the same level of cultural development through different paths.

Boas suggested that diffusion, trade, corresponding environment, and historical accident may create similar
cultural traits. Three factors, as suggested by Boas, are used to explain cultural customs: environmental
conditions, psychological factors, and historical connections, history being the most important (hence the
school's name).

This approach claims that each society has its own unique historical development and must be understood
based on its own specific cultural and environmental context, especially its historical process. Its core

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: +91-8826486658, +918826496658, | Email: [email protected]
premise was that culture was a “set of ideas or symbols held in common by a group of people who see
themselves as a social group”

Boas stressed on the apparently enormous complexity of cultural variation and perhaps because of this
complexity he believed it was premature to form universal laws. He felt that single cultural traits have to
be studied in the context of the society in which they appeared.

In it he stated that Anthropologists should spend less time in developing theories based on insufficient data.
Rather they should devote their energy in collecting as much data as possible, as quickly as possible, before
cultures disappeared (so many already had, after coming in contact with foreign societies). He asserted that
only after this body of data was gathered could valid interpretation be made and theories proposed.

Boas’ studies and his experiences among the Inuit convinced him that evolutionary anthropology was both
intellectually flawed and, because it treated other people and other societies as inferior to Europeans,
morally defective. Boas argued that anthropologists should not be collectors of tales and spinners
of theories but should devote themselves to objective data collection through fieldwork. Anthropologists
must live among the people they study, both observing their activities and, where possible, participating in
them. They should record as much information about the group’s culture as possible. Boas’ style
of fieldwork became known as participant observation and has been the hallmark of American
anthropology.

Boas expected that if tremendous quantity of data was collected the laws governing cultural variation
would emerge from the mass of information by themselves. Historical particularists criticized the theory
of the nineteenth-century social evolution as non-scientific and proclaimed themselves to be free from
preconceived ideas. Boas believed that if there were universal laws that could be derived from the
comparative study of cultures, the ethnographic database was not yet robust enough for us to identify
those laws. To that end, he and his students collected a vast amount of first-hand cultural data by
conducting ethnographic fieldwork. Based on these raw data, they described particular cultures instead of
trying to establish general theories that apply to all societies.

Boas also argued that one had to carry out detailed regional studies of individual cultures to discover the
distribution on culture traits and to understand the individual process of culture change at work. In short,
Boas sought to reconstruct histories of culture. He stressed on meticulous collection and organization of
ethnographic data on all aspects of many different societies.

Boasian also believed that so many different stimuli acted on the development of a culture that this
development could only be understood by first examining the particulars of a specific culture so that the
source of stimuli could be identified. One of Boas’ core beliefs was that cultures are the products of their
own histories. He argued that a culture’s standards of beauty and morality as well as many other aspects
of behavior could be understood only in light of that culture’s historical development. Because our own
ideas were also the products of history, they should not be used as standards to judge other cultures.
Evolutionists failed partly because they assumed, incorrectly, that the most evolved cultures were those
that had values most similar to their own. In other words, the evolutionists failed because of their own
ethnocentrism. In one sense, ethnocentrism is simply the belief that one’s own culture is better than any
other. In a deeper sense, it is precisely the application of the historical standards of beauty, worth, and
morality developed in one culture to all other cultures.

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: +91-8826486658, +918826496658, | Email: [email protected]
 People all over the world tend to see things from their own culturally patterned point of view. For example,
when the people living in Highland New Guinea first saw European outsiders in the 1930s, they believed
them to be the ghosts of their ancestors. It was the only way they could initially make sense of what they
were seeing (Connolly and Anderson 1987).

Although most people are ethnocentric, the ethnocentrism of Western societies has had greater
consequences than that of smaller, less technologically advanced, and more geographically isolated
peoples. Wealth and military technology have given Westerners the ability to impose their beliefs and
practices on others. It may matter little, for example, to the average Frenchman if the Dogon (an ethnic
group in Mali) believe their way of life to be superior. The Dogon have little ability to affect events in France.
However, French ethnocentrism mattered a great deal to the Dogon. The French colonized Mali and
imposed their beliefs and institutions on its people.

Boas insisted that anthropologists free themselves, as much as possible, from ethnocentrism and approach
each culture on its own terms. This position came to be known as cultural relativism and is one of the
hallmarks of anthropology. Boas and his followers maintained that anthropologists must suspend judgment
to understand the logic and dynamics of other cultures. Researchers who view the actions of other people
simply in terms of the degree to which they correspond to their own notions of the ways people should
behave systematically distort the cultures they study.

Boas also focused on the role of individual to culture formation. He said individuals react to culture in
different ways. Thus, culture and personality influence each other. These insights were more systemically
analyzed by latter Anthropologist, Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict.

WEAKNESSES OF HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM

• The facts that are recorded even by the most diligent observers will necessarily reflect what that individual

IA ve
considers important. Collection done without some preliminary theorizing, without ideas about what to
expect, is meaningless, for that facts that are most important may be ignored while irrelevant may be

Le
recorded.
• Although it was appropriate for Boas to criticize previous ‘arm chair’ theorizing, his concern with
innumerable local details did not encourage a belief that it might be possible to explain the major variations
in culture that Anthropologist observe.

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: +91-8826486658, +918826496658, | Email: [email protected]