Anthropology: Origins, Evolution, and Epistemology

Theme 2: The Evolution and Birth of Anthropology

Origins

Evolution represents a set of ideas suggesting that the universe, or parts of it, are subject to irreversible and cumulative change, increasing in variety and complexity. Evolution contrasts with the belief in a static universe. These theories can apply to the universe as a whole or specific aspects like human, cultural, or mental evolution. Following Arthur Lovejoy, one conception presents the universe as a hierarchy or “chain of being,” from the simplest to the ens perfectissimun (most perfect being).

The “chain of being” concept is a rigid, static scheme. In the 18th century, two principles, as defined by Lovejoy, underpinned this idea:

• Principle of Plenitude: The universe is a complete expression of all conceivable life forms, present from the beginning, with no increase in diversity over time.
• Principle of Continuity: Beings gradually transition to one another without gaps.

These principles suggest a static universe with no room for new or intermediate beings. However, they began to crumble in the 18th century with the emergence of the “temporalizing of the Great Chain of Being”—the idea of a historical progression from simple to complex life.

Buffon, in his Histoire Naturelle, reflects this shift. While supporting the static view by arguing for the immutability of species, he also suggests a common origin for humans and apes. Maupertius, in Systeme de la Nature, discusses transmutation and diversification, explaining them through embryology. He observed “deviations from the norm” (“errors”) that create heritable new traits. If beneficial for adaptation, these traits lead to new species. These random “errors” eliminate the need for design or teleology. Diderot, in Pensees sur l’interpretation de la Nature, introduces dynamic matter, with inherent movement and feeling, explaining all phenomena. Over millions of years, living beings experienced “infinite organizations and developments,” resulting in feelings, thoughts, languages, law, science, and art. This universal change is organic, not pre-planned or mechanical, like the life cycle of organisms.

Pre-Darwinian evolutionary theories faced two problems: lack of evidence and explanation for evolutionary processes. Darwin’s Origin of Species offered three propositions:

1. All species descend from a few through gradual modification.
2. Natural selection acting on heritable variations causes transmutation.
3. Natural selection explains adaptations, leading to improvement and extinction.

The Classic Social Evolution

Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) and the Concept of Evolution

Spencer first used “evolution” in Social Statics, linking it to societal change or “progress.” He viewed civilization as the development of latent capabilities under favorable circumstances. In Progress: Its Law and Cause, he describes evolution as a universal tendency towards coherent heterogeneity from incoherent homogeneity. Applied to society, this translates to increasing differentiation.

Spencer’s sociology studied “superorganic evolution,” emphasizing structure and function. His systemic view of society, analogous to an organism, highlighted interdependence. Change in one part affects others. Structure guides evolution, focusing on entire societies rather than isolated elements. He integrated structure, function, and evolution.

Edward Burnet Tylor (1822–1917)

Tylor focused on individual cultural elements rather than systems. He believed no cultural stage arises spontaneously but develops from an earlier one. He used “survivals”—cultural remnants persisting in later stages—as evidence of evolution. Tylor’s three-stage prehistoric sequence includes savagery (hunting-gathering), barbarism (agriculture), and civilization (urban life).

Tylor applied evolutionism to religion, myth, and language, arguing that primitive religion’s rationale demonstrates a rational understanding of the world. Religious evolution progressed from animism to spirits, polytheism, and finally, monotheism.

Lewis Henry Morgan (1818–1881)

In Ancient Society, Morgan outlines “ethnic periods” marking societal development, primarily based on technology. These include savagery (lower, middle, upper), barbarism (lower, middle, upper), and civilization. He discusses two governmental levels: Societas (based on kinship, egalitarian) and Civitas (based on property, unequal). The “gens” (clan) is the basic unit of Societas. Morgan also describes five family stages, from consanguine to monogamous.

Morgan’s analysis of property shows its undeveloped nature in savagery, increasing individual ownership in barbarism, and eventual dominance in civilization. He envisioned a future of democracy, brotherhood, and equal rights, a revitalization of the old “gens.”

Epistemology of Classical Evolutionary Theories

Morgan offers two interpretations of evolution: interconnected inventions and discoveries, and institutions developing from germs. Stephen Toulmin distinguishes between “evolutionary” (unfolding of a cosmic plot) and “revolutionist” (responses to specific situations) formulations. Maurice Mandelbaum labels classical evolutionists as “historicists,” viewing change as the unfolding of inherent potential, guided by “directional law” rather than causal laws.

The Causes of Cultural Evolution

Classical evolutionists increasingly recognized material conditions’ role in cultural progress. Morgan, considered a materialist, emphasized technology and property. Some argue his focus on productive forces aligns with Marx. Others view Morgan as idealistic, prioritizing mind and “germs of thought.” Tylor’s focus was on intellectual development, particularly in religion.

Key material factors include subsistence (Morgan, Tylor), economic factors (Morgan’s emphasis on property, Spencer’s on industrial development), and the state (Morgan, Spencer’s focus on war).

Characteristics of Classical Cultural Evolution

Is Classical Evolution Unilinear?

Classical evolutionists are often labeled unilinear, but this is inaccurate. They acknowledged the possibility of skipping stages. Harris distinguishes between strong (rigid stages) and weak (flexible) unilinearity.

Classical Evolution and the Comparative Method

Evolutionists used the comparative method, ordering cultural information to represent historical sequences. Spencer extensively used this method, while Tylor used “survivals.” Their disregard for cultural diversity led to errors. Boas later criticized this method.

Is Marxism an Evolution?

Technological Determinism and Technological Development

Some interpret historical materialism as evolutionary. Cohen highlights two Marxist theses: primacy (productive forces determine relations of production) and development (inherent tendency for productive forces to develop). While some view Marx as a technological determinist, he also emphasized the dominance of relations of production. Marx’s stages of historical development include tribal, ancient, feudal, and capitalist. He believed in progress but not necessarily in a rigid unilinear sequence.

Marx and the Periodization of History

Marx’s theories of history explain stability and transformation through ruling class power and productive forces. He was not a pure technological determinist. His stages are not strictly unilinear.

Engels, Marx, and Morgan

Engels’s Origin of the Family draws heavily on Morgan. He links women’s declining status to private property and stratification. The state protects the ruling class. Engels’s views, emphasizing class struggle and reproduction, deviate from classical evolution.

Anthropology in the Anti-Evolution Era

Boas and the Boasians

Boas opposed the evolutionists’ scientific approach and social Darwinism. He rejected the idea of uniform causes and advocated for inductive, historical methods. He emphasized studying individual cultural elements in their context. While some consider Boas a historicist, others see him as anti-evolutionary. His legacy includes extensive fieldwork data, though limited by lack of context. Boasian anti-evolutionism dominated American anthropology.

The Anti-Evolutionism of Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown

Malinowski challenged the division between theory and fieldwork, advocating for participant observation. He and Radcliffe-Brown emphasized synchronic analysis, rejecting conjectural history. Malinowski’s functionalism explained cultural elements by their function within the system. Radcliffe-Brown linked function to structure. They prioritized functional studies over historical ones.

Revitalization of Evolution: Leslie White and Julian Steward

The late 1930s saw a renewed interest in evolution, led by White and Steward, influenced by Childe and Lesser. Childe identified the Neolithic and Urban Revolutions. Lesser advocated for “descent with modification” in both biological and cultural evolution.

Leslie White (1900–1975)

White’s evolutionism, similar to Tylor and Morgan’s, focused on culture as a whole. He distinguished between historical and evolutionary explanations. His “Law of Cultural Evolution” posits that increased energy use drives progress. He categorized culture into technology, social systems, and ideology. He also distinguished between primitive and civil societies. Despite his materialism, he was criticized for neglecting environmental factors.

Julian Steward (1902–1972)

Steward, a cultural ecologist, emphasized environmental factors in cultural evolution. He criticized White and the Boasians. He proposed a multilinear evolutionary sequence influenced by archaeological findings. He distinguished between unilineal, universal, and multilinear evolution.

Marshall Sahlins

Sahlins proposed that evolution has two aspects: specific developments (adaptive variations) and general trends (overall movement). He linked stratification to economic productivity and compared Melanesian and Polynesian political systems.

Elman Service

Service, rejecting a single evolutionary driver, emphasized flexibility and adaptation. He refined Oberg’s typology into bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states. Fried challenged the tribal stage, proposing egalitarian, ranked, and stratified societies. Service offered a functionalist theory of stratification and the state.

Marvin Harris

Harris’s cultural materialism prioritizes techno-environmental factors. He distinguished between parallel, convergent, and divergent evolution. His theory emphasizes the infrastructure (production and reproduction), structure (domestic and political economy), and superstructure (ideology). He argued that intensification of production drives cultural evolution.