ANTHROPOLOGY
_and Modern Life_
_By_
Franz Boas, Ph.D.
Professor of Anthropology, Columbia University
NEW YORK
W · W · NORTON & COMPANY, INC
_Publishers_
Copyright, 1928
W · W · NORTON & COMPANY, INC.
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FOR THE PUBLISHERS BY THE VAN REES PRESS
Contents {p. v}
CHAPTER PAGE
I. WHAT IS ANTHROPOLOGY? 11
Anthropology treats of man as a member of a social
group--Pure and applied anthropology.
II. THE PROBLEM OF RACE 18
Significance of the term “Race”--Overlapping of racial
types--Subjective existence of types--Racial heredity and
family lines--Inbred and heterogeneous types--Functional
differences between individuals of the same bodily
form--Environmental influences upon bodily form--Races
considered from an evolutionary viewpoint--Relation between
the size of the brain and intelligence--Man as a domesticated
form--Physiological and mental differences between
races--Difficulty of distinguishing between hereditary and
environmental conditions--Significance of intelligence
tests--Tests of American Negroes--Relative importance of
cultural experience and racial descent--Racial descent
disregarded by ethnologists.
III. THE INTERRELATION OF RACES 62
Race consciousness--Open and closed societies--Race a type
of closed society--Intermingling of races--Conditions under
which race antipathies break down.
IV. NATIONALISM 78
Confusion between the terms “Race” and “Nationality”--Mixed
descent of European nations--Language as basis of national
groupings--Culture and political organization as basis of
nationality--Fictitious groupings based on distant relation
of speech--Increase in size of political units--Early
development of tribal units--Decrease in feeling of
difference between tribal groups--The function of nationalism.
V. EUGENICS 102
Effects of selection--Effect of environment and
heredity--General degeneracy--Selection for development
of specific qualities--Social effects of eugenic
legislation--Elimination of the unfit--Dangers of eugenic
procedure.
VI. CRIMINOLOGY 120
Criminals as a class--Criminals as defectives--Social
conditions and crime--Relative importance of hereditary and
environmental factors.
VII. STABILITY OF CULTURE 131
Acceleration of cultural development--Periodicity of the
rate of change--Automatic habits--Relation between material
inventions and automatic habits--The relation between
language and thought--Actions are more stable than their
interpretations--Stability of patterns of thought--Negative
effect of automatism--Intolerance--Independence.
VIII. EDUCATION 164
Phenomena of growth and development--Influence of
heredity--Development of functions--Retardation and
acceleration--Comparison of sexes--Application of
generalized observations to the establishment of
educational standards--Racial characteristics--Cases in
which standards are applicable--Prediction of individual
development--Generalized standards are not applicable to
individuals--Cultural effects of education--Effect of
education upon mental freedom--Conflicts in educational
aims--Effect of education upon crises in the life of the
individual--The cultural outlook of classes--Cultural outlook
of educated class--Cultural outlook of the masses.
IX. MODERN CIVILIZATION AND PRIMITIVE CULTURE 198
Applicability of anthropology--Valuation of different
cultural aims--Objective study must be based on different
cultures--Anthropology an historic science--Prediction
of development of culture impossible--Primitive
cultures as historic growths--General social
laws--Progress in inventions and knowledge--Stability
of moral ideas--Progress in ethical behavior--Progress
in social organization--Leadership--Position of
woman--Marriage--Property--Is the direction of
cultural development predetermined?--Culture not
superorganic--Geographic and economic determinism.
REFERENCES 237
CHAPTER I {p. 11}
WHAT IS ANTHROPOLOGY?
Anthropology is often considered a collection of curious facts,
telling about the peculiar appearance of exotic people and describing
their strange customs and beliefs. It is looked at as an entertaining
diversion, apparently without any bearing upon the conduct of life of
civilized communities.
This opinion is mistaken. More than that, I hope to demonstrate that a
clear understanding of the principles of anthropology illuminates the
social processes of our own times and may show us, if we are ready to
listen to its teachings, what to do and what to avoid.
To prove my thesis I must explain briefly what anthropologists are
trying to do.
It might appear that the domain of anthropology, of “the science of
man,” is preoccupied by a whole array of sciences. The anthropologist
who studies bodily form is confronted by the anatomist who has spent
centuries in researches on the gross form and minute structure of the
human body. The physiologist and the psychologist devote themselves to
inquiries into the functioning of body and {12} mind. Is there, then,
any justification for the anthropologist to claim that he can add to
our fund of knowledge?
There is a difference between the work of the anthropologist and
that of the anatomist, physiologist, and psychologist. They deal
primarily with the typical form and function of the human body and
mind. Minor differences such as appear in any series of individuals are
either disregarded or considered as peculiarities without particular
significance for the type, although sometimes suggestive of its rise
from lower forms. The interest centers always in the individual as a
type, and in the significance of his appearance and functions from a
morphological, physiological or psychological point of view.
To the anthropologist, on the contrary, the individual appears
important only as a member of a racial or a social group. The
distribution and range of differences between individuals, and the
characteristics as determined by the group to which each individual
belongs are the phenomena to be investigated. The distribution of
anatomical features, of physiological functions and of mental reactions
are the subject matter of anthropological studies.
It might be said that anthropology is not a single science, for
the anthropologist presupposes a knowledge of individual anatomy,
physiology and {13} psychology, and applies this knowledge to groups.
Every one of these sciences may be and is being studied from an
anthropological point of view.
The group, not the individual, is always the primary concern of the
anthropologist. We may investigate the distribution of size of body
as measured by weight or stature in a racial or social group. The
individual interests us only as a member of the group. We inquire
into determinant factors and the manner of their action in the group.
The relation between the composition of the social group and the
distribution of individual statures interests us. The physiologist
may study the effect of strenuous exercise upon the functions of the
heart. The anthropologist will investigate the interrelation between
social conditions that make for strenuous exercise in a group and
the physiological behavior of its members. The psychologist may
study the intellectual or emotional behavior of the individual. The
anthropologist will investigate the social or racial conditions that
determine the behavior as distributed in the group.
The individual develops and acts as a member of a racial or a social
group. His bodily form is determined by his ancestry and by the
conditions under which he lives. The functions of the body, while
controlled by bodily build, depend upon social conditions. If the
people live by choice or necessity on an exclusive meat diet, their
bodily {14} functions will differ from those of other groups of the
same build that live on a purely vegetable diet; or, conversely,
different racial groups that are nourished in the same way may show a
certain parallelism in physiological behavior. The mental reactions of
the Indians of the western plateaus, a people of simple culture, differ
from those of the ancient Mexicans, a people of the same race, but of
more complex organization.
The phenomena of anatomy, physiology and psychology are amenable
to an individual, non-anthropological treatment, because it seems
theoretically possible to isolate the individual and to formulate the
problems of the variation of form and function in such a way that
the social or racial factor is apparently excluded. This is quite
impossible in all basically social phenomena, such as economic life,
social organization of a group, religious ideas and art.
The psychologist may try to investigate the mental processes of
artistic creation. Although the processes may be fundamentally the same
everywhere, the very act of creation implies that we are not dealing
with the artist alone as a creator but also with his reaction to the
culture in which he lives and that of his fellows to the work he has
created.
The economist who tries to unravel economic processes _must_ operate
with the social group, not {15} with individuals. The same may be
said of the study of social organization. It is possible to treat
social organization from a purely formal point of view, to demonstrate
by careful analysis the fundamental concepts underlying it. For the
anthropologist this is the starting point for a consideration of the
dynamic effects of such organization as manifested in the life of the
individual and of the group.
The linguist may study the form of language, the “norm” of linguistic
expression at a given time and the mechanical processes that give
rise to phonetic changes; the psychological attitude expressed in
language; and the conditions that bring about changes of meaning. The
anthropologist is more deeply interested in the social aspect of the
linguistic phenomenon, in language as a means of communication and in
the interrelation between language and culture.
In short, when discussing the reactions of the individual to his
fellows we are compelled to concentrate our attention upon the society
in which he lives. In all these cases we cannot treat the individual
as an isolated unit. He must be studied in his social setting, and the
question is relevant whether generalizations are possible by which
a functional relation between generalized social data and the forms
and expression of individual life can be discovered; in other words,
whether any {16} generally valid laws exist that govern the life of
society.
A scientific inquiry of this type is concerned only with the
interrelations between the observed phenomena, in the same way as
physics and chemistry are interested in the forms of equilibrium and
movement of matter, as they appear to our senses. The question of the
usefulness of the knowledge gained is entirely irrelevant. The interest
of the physicist and chemist centers in the development of a complete
understanding of the intricacies of the outer world. A discovery has
value only from the point of view of shedding new light upon the
general problems of these sciences. The applicability of experience
to technical problems does not concern the physicist. What may be
of greatest value in our practical life does not need to be of any
interest to him, and what is of no value in our daily occupations may
be of fundamental value. The only valuation of discoveries that can
be admitted by pure science is their significance in the solution of
general abstract problems.
While this standpoint of pure science is applicable also to social
phenomena, it is easily recognized that these concern our own selves
much more immediately, for almost every anthropological problem touches
our most intimate life.
The course of development of a group of children {17} depends upon
their racial descent, the economic condition of their parents and their
general well-being. A knowledge of the interaction of these factors may
give us the power to control growth and to secure the best possible
conditions of life for the group. All vital and social statistics are
so intimately related to policies to be adopted or to be discarded that
it is not quite easy to see that the interest in our problems, when
considered from a purely scientific point of view, is not related to
the practical values that we ascribe to the results.
It is the object of the following pages to discuss problems of modern
life in the light of the results of anthropological studies carried on
from a purely analytical point of view.
For this purpose it will be necessary to gain clarity in regard to
two fundamental concepts: race and stability of culture. These will be
discussed in their proper places.