Anthropology Foundation 2024-25

Batch - 2.0
Handout#04
FRANZ BOAS
Boas as a Diffusionist

Boas and the anthropologist O. T. Mason engaged in a spirited debate about the organization of
ethnographic materials in museum displays. Though, it is an unlikely subject for such a fierce debate, 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.

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
In 1896, Boas published an article entitled “The Limitation of Comparative Method of Anthropology”
om
S

which dealt with his objection to evolutionary approach. Boas undercut the entire basis of nineteenth-
.c
IA

century cultural evolution. We might agree with Tylor and Morgan that certain technological processes
l
ai

have an inherent evolutionary order— fire must precede pottery making, flintlocks were invented before
gm
P

automatic rifles—but there is no ethnographic evidence indicating that matrilineal kin systems preceded
0@
lU

patrilineal kin systems or that religions based on animism developed before polytheistic religions. Boas
00

argued that this unilineal ordering is a simple assumption; there is no proven historical relationship nor any
28 n2
04 ms e

way to prove such a relationship.

28 ada
93 ju v
a

Boas argued that the comparative approaches of Morgan and

Le

Tylor were undercut by three flaws:

29
an

 The assumption of unilineal evolution

 The notion of modern societies as evolutionary
survivals.
 The classification of societies based on weak data and
inappropriate criteria.

These flaws were the targets of the Boasian attack. 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.

2nd Floor, 45 Pusa Road, Opp. Metro Pillar 128, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
Ph: 08045248491, 7041021151 | Email: students@[Link]
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. 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
om
S

collectors of tales and spinners of theories but should devote themselves to objective data collection
.c
IA

through fieldwork. Anthropologists must live among the people they study, both observing their activities
l
ai

and, where possible, participating in them. They should record as much information about the group’s
gm
P

culture as possible. Boas’ style of fieldwork became known as participant observation and has been the
0@
lU

hallmark of American anthropology.

00
28 n2

Boas expected that if tremendous quantity of data was collected the laws governing cultural variation
04 ms e
28 ada

would emerge from the mass of information by themselves. Historical particularists criticized the theory
93 ju v
a

of the nineteenth-century social evolution as non-scientific and proclaimed themselves to be free from
Le

preconceived ideas. Boas believed that if there were universal laws that could be derived from the
29

comparative study of cultures, the ethnographic

an

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

2nd Floor, 45 Pusa Road, Opp. Metro Pillar 128, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
Ph: 08045248491, 7041021151 | Email: students@[Link]
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.

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.
om
S

However, French ethnocentrism mattered a great deal to the Dogon. The French colonized Mali and
.c
IA

imposed their beliefs and institutions on its

l
ai

people.
gm
P
0@

Boas insisted that anthropologists free

lU
00

themselves, as much as possible, from

28 n2

ethnocentrism and approach each culture on its

04 ms e
28 ada

own terms. This position came to be known

93 ju v
a

as cultural relativism and is one of the hallmarks

Le

of anthropology. Boas and his followers

29

maintained that anthropologists must suspend

an

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.

Limitations of Historical Particularism

 The facts that are recorded even by the most diligent observers will necessarily reflect what that
individual considers important. Collection done without some preliminary theorizing, without ideas

2nd Floor, 45 Pusa Road, Opp. Metro Pillar 128, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
Ph: 08045248491, 7041021151 | Email: students@[Link]
about what to expect, is meaningless, for that facts that are most important may be ignored while
irrelevant may be 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.
 Overemphasis on Culture: Another criticism of historical particularism is that it places too much
emphasis on the role of culture in shaping human behavior. While culture is undoubtedly important,
some critics argue that other factors such as biology and psychology also play a significant role in
shaping human behavior.
 Ignoring Power Dynamics: Some critics argue that historical particularism ignores power dynamics
within societies. For example, historical particularism tends to focus on cultural diffusion and the
spread of ideas, but it does not necessarily consider how these processes are influenced by power
dynamics, such as imperialism and colonialism.
 Lack of Generalizability: Historical particularism emphasizes the uniqueness of each culture and their
historical context. As a result, some critics argue that it is difficult to generalize from one culture to
another, which limits the usefulness of historical particularism as a comparative framework for
studying human behavior.
 Insufficient Attention to Change: Finally, some critics argue that historical particularism does not
provide sufficient attention to the processes of cultural change and evolution. While historical
particularism emphasizes the importance of studying cultures within their historical context, it does
not necessarily provide a clear framework for understanding how cultures change over time.
om
S

Class Assignment
.c
IA
l

1. Historical Particularism
ai
gm

and Franz Boas. (10

P

marks)
0@
lU

2. Critically examine the

00

Historical Particularistic
28 n2
04 ms e

approach of Franz Boas to

28 ada
93 ju v

the study of culture. (15

a
Le

marks)
29
an

2nd Floor, 45 Pusa Road, Opp. Metro Pillar 128, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
Ph: 08045248491, 7041021151 | Email: students@[Link]