Historical Particularism
-Franz Boas, The Methods of Ethnology (1920)
-Alfred Louis Kroeber, Eighteen Professions (1915)
-Paul Radin, Right and Wrong (1927)
-Benjamin Whorf, The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language (1939)
Boas’ influence on American Anthro is very evident; Whorf’s is far less evident. Any idea as to why?
10 responses so far ↓
Mark // February 26, 2009 at 4:43 am |
From the readings it was hard to tell why Boas had the greater influence. But after a little internet surfing, it wasn’t hard to see why.
Boas, first off, was a very outspoken man. I gathered this from light readings. I mean light in the strictest sense. He wasn’t afraid to rattle the cage of the establishment by challenging their ideals and definitely wasn’t worried that his ideologies were incorrect. Based from the short read that was assigned, he was not only confident in his writings but was a little boisterous/arrogant to a certain extent. Of course, rightfully so, but moving on. He helped found the American Anthropological Association, his writings helped move anthropology from a perspective of cultural evolution to one of cultural relativism, and the man has been coined the “father of anthropology”. All of these reasons, like stated in the question above, are why boas’ influence is so extremely evident in American Anthro.
Now, for Whorf. Based on the manner in which the man wrote, he wasn’t as boisterous or outspoken as Boas. Now, this statement can be (and probably is) untrue. But I don’t see anyone else trying to take a shot at this (first one posting) so bugger off >_<. Haha, no, but from what I could garnish he was pretty factual, straight forward, and just presented the information as it was. How does this play a role? Well, from my perspective, Boas’ ideas were brought into the spotlight early by his personality and his hard hitting statements. Whorfs’ ideas, from what i could gather on the net, took a little longer to really be picked up by the anthropological mainstream. His widely known collection of work entitled Language, Thought and Reality did not surface until 1956, almost 15 years after his death.
Whorfs ideas were just as valid and as true as Boas, and the men lived and wrote around the same time. The only major difference was the focus of anthropologists at the time. The focus was on debate that Boas had brought to the foreground over cultural evolution and relativism.
Jessica // February 26, 2009 at 6:21 am |
Boas advocated a four-field perspective that included studying prehistory, linguistics, and physical anthropology in addition to the observation of culture. The term cultural relativism came into existence in the 1950s, and accurately describes Boas’ position. He disagreed with cultural evolutionists, who argued that all societies were following the same path from savagery to civilization. Instead, he thought cultures created themselves, and could only be understood with reference to their particular historical development. Boas’ ideas had more influence because they were less theoretical than Benjamin Whorf’s. Boas’ success was also situational- he decided to be a professor, and a large number of the anthropology students he taught were Jewish. Belonging to an ethnic minority that has been historically persecuted might have made his students more compassionate to people from different backgrounds. Whatever their reasons, they were less ready to accept the earlier theories of the nineteenth-century evolutionists. He, like Bob Dylan, “knew the times were a-changing”. Whorf, on the other hand, was not a teacher, and his ideas were harder to apply. Whorf provides examples from his work as an insurance inspector. He argued that an individual’s speech affects their actions, and influences their thoughts. He used gasoline drums in an example. Great care is exercised around a storage of gasoline drums, but if the drums are labeled “empty”, people are more likely to be careless. They may smoke or toss their cigarette stubs onto the floor. Empty is a virtual synonym for “null and void, negative, inert”, or is used to describe an empty container. The empty container still contained gas vapor, which is explosive. It isn’t known whether the worker’s behavior was driven by the data or if the data is just Whorf’s intrepretation. There might be other reasons why the worker acted the way he did. Whorf did not conduct an interview, so we don’t know the answer to this question. Though the relationship between language, thought, and behavior seems inuitively obvious, his theory is not proven. Linguists and psychologists have been experimenting with different aspects of Whorf’s ideas for fifty years without reaching any definitive conclusions.
Kathryne // February 26, 2009 at 5:51 pm |
This is a very good point. Boas was a real pushy guy, and quite frankly did not give a whole hoot about what his peers thought of him for ripping their methodology. Everything this guy stood for is what we call American Anthropology today. We all know cultural relativism and the major sub-fields of anthropology. Boas was extremely modern in thought, probably because he was raised by the hippies of the 19th century. Boas abdicated for the separation of the study, as far away from the social and biological evolutionists who dominated the field at the time.
Whorf was not as radical, but he also found merit in other areas of anthropology like Boas. Using the cognitive area of anthropology as his platform, Whorf used two theories to separate himself from those crazy linear evolutionists. Linguistic determinism was concerned with the individual and linguistic relativity focused on the society. So basically, he wanted Anthropologists to look at both the individual and the society they live in, which is now a normal concept to anthropologists. But, even so, his influence is just not there like Boas’s. Whorf proposed a new way of thinking, but Boas proposed a total overhaul of anthropology and the study’s organization.
Basically, because of Boas’s guts, we have the model for today’s anthropology. And Whorf can also thank Boas’s guts for allowing modern methodology to be more widely accepted.
KateK // February 26, 2009 at 7:53 pm |
I beleive Boas is very outspoken and not a afraid of critizing a theory. Boas came up with an idea that was absurd to earlier anthropologists that culture and civilization does not travel in a straight line but have different histories. His more holistic appoarch as been looked to for many generations of anthropologists.
Whorf was not as “pushy” as Boas, which is something I can sympathize with. Since Boas is more boistorious than Whorf, Boas’s theory got more attaintion. However, Boas brought many different ideas and concepts to anthropology. He made anthropology more scientific with his thought of waiting for more inperical data to support a theory and his ideas about looking at one culture through its unique history.
Inconditus alio // February 26, 2009 at 8:36 pm |
Indeed with his concepts of non-unilineal culture change and his critical interpretation of others work Boas spoke his mind. Interestingly enough with his doctorate in physics he chose to study humans. Seeing an orthogenetic line towards western European civilization he did not, and many times attacked those whom championed the theory. With a solid methodology and mass collection of data it is understandable that he is regarded so highly in the field.
Elfego Franco // February 26, 2009 at 10:02 pm |
I agree with everyone that a main cause for Boas’ influence being more evident had to do with the man’s confidence. He was not afraid to voice his theories and claims during a time when his work could have been constreued as alien.
Upon studying the language of Native American people, Boas determined that language is determined by people’s cultures and lifeways. Whorf further supported this and determined that language determines thought or the way one perceives the world. You could say that Boas’ initial study came first and was used as a starting point for others to follow.
sunshinebtfly (Jennifer) // February 27, 2009 at 12:36 am |
Sometimes it is the loud mouth of a group who gets all the credit because they are willing to speak up. In this case, I see it as introvert vs. extrovert. The extroverts of the world seem to get more attention because they choose to seek that attention. For example, Darwin almost missed out on the theory of evolution because he was afraid to publish his results. Only the strong survive is true in academia.
Different conceptual views of the wolrd based on different linguistic traditions is true. Language and culture have gone together, regardless of whether the language was written or oral. I think that many Europeans felt that the hierarchy of culture (savage-barbarism-civilization) was based on written language, but there has not been a group of Homo sapiens without some way of communicating and some aspects of culture.
Words are not just words, in Whorf’s opinion. The meaning is always derived from the culture.
theanthrogeek // February 27, 2009 at 1:20 am |
In terms of Whorf and Boas, you also have to keep in mind that Whorf was a student of Boas.
Jessica // March 5, 2009 at 4:17 am |
I think the reason Boas’ ideas are more well-known is that they are easier to grasp. The division of anthropology into four subfields is not difficult to understand. Cultural relativism answered the question anthropologists had asked since it became an academic discipline-Is the rest of the world like us? Can we be compared to them?-
Whorf’s new concept, that language precedes thought, was not only new, it answered a question that hadn’t been considered before.
Boas was also the first to publish his work. He founded the school of Historical Particularism. Whorf published later, within Boas’ school. His work, then, was secondary.
Boas was also in a better position to be heard-he taught at a university, and had a strong cause-equal rights. Whorf worked for an insurance company, and was probably not publicly known. His work did not appeal to people’s emotion, or sense of right and wrong.
Gaudium // March 5, 2009 at 6:59 pm |
I think in considering the effects of each man on anthropological thought, one must keep in mind the scope of the area each man was attempting to explain. Boas dealt with Anthropology more as a whole. He set forth the program as said earlier in the comments, and determined subfields that should be investigated. This is a rather large scope he affected with his ideas. Allowing more people to argue with him and, thus, more publicity for his ideas. Furthermore, one of the sub-fields he determined was linguistics, the area to which Whorf (mainly) contributed. Whorf wrote about language and thought specifically, and though he was a second generation student of Boas and incorporated Boas’ ideas in his interpretations, Whorf’s scope was much more limited.
The timing of the publication of each man’s work should also be taken into account. Boas published earlier on, affecting the course of anthropology through writing and training others. Whorf’s ideas came from the Boasian tradtion, and thus could not be as sensational. The linguistic relativism Whorf championed was not as shocking or new as Boas’ ideas of cultural relativism, simply because Boas had already proposed the idea. It had gained support and opposition, and was already circulating. Linguistic determinism and relativism was just a new bent on an old idea.