DIFFUSIONISM & HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM
Historicism is an approach to the study of anthropology and culture that dates back to
the mid-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It encompasses two distinct forms of
historicism: diffusionism and historical particularism. This approach is most often
associated with Franz Boas and his many students, but it was actually developed much
earlier by diffusionists who sought to offer alternative explanations for culture change to
those argued for by evolutionists.
The evolutionists posited that humans share a set of characteristics and modes of
thinking that transcend individual cultures (psychic unity of mankind) and therefore, the
cultural development of individual societies will reflect this transcendent commonality
through a similar series of developmental stages. This implied that the relative
“progress” of individual societies could be assessed in comparison with other societies
and their “measured” level of sociocultural attainment determined. Low levels of
development were attributed to relatively lower mental developments than in more
developed societies.
Historicism, on the other hand, placed great importance on cautious and contextualised
interpretation of data, as well as a relativistic point of view, and rejected the
universalistic, hierarchical and over-generalized interpretations of the evolutionists. The
focus in the historicist perspective was on tracing the historical development of specific
cultures rather than on the construction of a grand evolutionary account of the progress
march of Culture.
While socio-cultural evolution explained what happened and where, it was unable to
describe the specific influences producing cultural change and development. To
accomplish this end, an historical approach was needed for the study of culture change
and development to explain not only what happened and where but also why and how.
==========================================================================
DIFFUSIONISM
The theory of diffusion emerged in the early years of the 20th century. Diffusionists view
that various cultural traits and cultural complexes develop at various times in different
parts of the world and later on diffuse over corresponding parts of earth.
Thus, diffusionists are of the opinion that culture has growth, not because of evolution, but
because of the spread of cultural traits and complexes due to historical happenings and
mutual contacts. Cultural diffusion is a process by which cultural traits discovered or
invented at one place or society are spread directly or indirectly to other societies or
places.
They emphasised upon the idea that man was basically uninventive and thus the
important inventions were made only at a particular place, from where they spread
through the rest of the world by diffusion or migration. Diffusion is taking over traits by
imitation while migration implies that the carriers moved to other places from their
original settlements carrying their cultural inventory with them, but adapting them as per
changed environmental conditions.
Therefore, cultural diffusion is a process by which cultural traits, discovered or invented
at one place or society are spread directly or indirectly to other society or places.
Although, it is difficult to trace the exact origin of a specific cultural trait. Yet diffusion of
traits can fairly be traced.
The following factors are influential in the process of diffusion:
1. Relation and communication between 2 cultural groups
2. Need and desire for new traits
3. Competition with old traits and their opposition
4. Respect and recognition of those who bring new traits
Diffusionists have explained some conditions and characteristics of cultural diffusion
which are as follows:
1. Any cultural group will adopt a culture trait of the other cultural group, only when
it would be meaningful and useful either economically or socially or both.
2. In course of diffusion, culture traits may not remain in their original form, but
changes in it can take place due to different environmental situations.
3. Process of diffusion of culture traits always follows from a developed culture to
an underdeveloped culture.
4. Process of diffusion may create culture change in groups adopting the culture of
other groups.
5. There are some obstacles in cultural diffusion- such as lack of transport and
communication facilities, ocean, river, mountain, desert, etc.
BRITISH SCHOOL OF DIFFUSIONISM
This school is also known as the Pan Egyptian School. This school was led by Elliot Smith
and W J Perry. They argued that all cultures and civilizations were developed only once in
Egypt (which was relatively advanced because of its early development of agriculture)
and then diffused throughout the world through the process of diffusion and migration.
Therefore, all cultures were tied together by this thread of common origin and as a
reaction of native cultures to this diffusion of culture from Egypt and could be
understood as such. They are also called Extreme diffusionists, because for them, Egypt
was the only centre of culture from which culture traits diffused or migrated to other
parts of the world.
G.E. Smith once visited Egypt and became a great admirer of the ancient civilization of
Egypt. He saw similarities between the Egyptian complex of large stone monuments in
association with Sun worship and that of English Megaliths. These similarities made him
draw a conclusion that English Megaliths were crude imitation of Egyptian Pyramids.
He then studied Mayan pyramids, Japanese pagodas, Cambodian and Balinese temples
and American Indian burial mounds. They all displayed certain similarities with Egyptian
pyramids. He gave his theory in his books- ‘The Origin Of Civilization’ and ‘Diffusion of
Culture’.
Smith believed that the “Natural Man” was uninventive and did not agree with the
theories of psychic unity of mankind and independent inventions as propounded by
classical evolutionists.
W.J. Perry was a devout supporter of Elliot’s scheme of diffusion of culture. He did not
make any special theoretical contribution. Perry once visited Cairo to take part in
archaeological excavations. He thus got the opportunity to see the remains of Sun
Temples in Cairo. He collected information on belief and attitudes related to Sun-worship
among the people of Cairo.
He published the information collected in a book under the title ‘The Children of Sun’. In
this book he called Egyptians as children of Sun, because only Sun-God was regarded as a
universal deity. Such ideas related to Sun-God diffused all over the world from Egypt.
He was of the opinion that pyramid structures, temple building, use of gold and silver
ornaments etc. were all the creation of Egypt’s civilization. Thus, whatever the
civilizational traits the world is possessing today, are the boons of ancient Egyptian
civilization.
As their works and findings mainly concentrated on Egypt, they are also known as
Egyptologists. They also argued that the worship of the sun which originated in Egypt is
to be found in all other parts of the world. They used migration as the main cause of
diffusion.
According to Smith, ancient Egypt was favoured by natural and ecological setting
and gave rise to cultivation. They invented pottery and later on, built cities. They
established institutions like religion, government, laws etc. According to him, all the
cultural traits developed only in Egypt, from where, it diffused to other parts of the world.
Thus, he argued that ancient Egypt was the cradle of civilization.
Apart from Smith and Perry , this school saw scholars like WHR Rivers. By profession
Rivers was a doctor in Britain. He was a member of the famous Torres Strait expedition.
This was the first interdisciplinary anthropological expedition meant to cover all sides of
primitive life by trained investigations. Rivers examined the psychological abilities of
natives, more specifically their sensory capacities. In the course of his study, he arrived at
the conclusion that there was no racial difference in a pure sense.
His famous article entitled “A Genealogical Method of collecting Social and Vital
statistics”, was published in the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Ireland. He followed methods of Genealogy in study. Since then the genealogical method
became a scientific method for collecting data in kinship organisations.
Rivers was not an extreme diffusionist but he believed in the theory of un-inventiveness
of the natural man and said that cultural similarities exist due to diffusion and migration
of cultural traits from one place to another.
WEAKNESSES OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL OF DIFFUSIONISM
1. They believed that people were uninventive and invariably preferred to borrow
the inventions of another culture rather than develop ideas for themselves. This
cannot account
2. This school of thought did not hold up long due to its inability to account for
independent invention.
3. They took into account only material aspects of the culture while explaining
cultural diffusion.
4. According to them, world civilization was a gift of Egypt. But this is not true, there
are many contemporary civilizations in the world that flourished parallel to the
Egyptian civilization.
5. Narrow and rigid scheme with over-dependence on archaeological evidence while
ignoring the ethnographic reality.
GERMAN SCHOOL OF DIFFUSIONISM (KULTURE KREISE SCHOOL)
The German school (or the German-Austrian School) was led by Fritz Graebner and
Father Wilhelm Schmidt. They were not extreme diffusionists. To account for the
independent invention of cultural elements, they proposed the theory of Culture Circle or
Kulture Kreise.
According to them, development of culture does not take place only at a particular place
like Egypt, but at several different places at different times.
They were of the view that discoveries of all things were not possible at the same time
and at the same place, rather they were discovered at several places by several
generations. Invention and discoveries were a continuous process.
They held the opinion that cultural traits or complexes developed at different places,
spread throughout the world by migration in concentric circles or cultural circles. Thus,
worldwide socio-cultural developments could be viewed as a function of interaction of
cultural circles with native cultures and other cultural circles.
The German diffusionists argue that the civilization was developed in few isolated
regions and that independent invention of cultural complexes was not a common event.
However, people moved around and developed contacts with the neighbours and
civilization was passed through these contacts. Over time these few isolated regions
would have passed on their civilization to their neighbours that diffused in concentric
circles called culture circles. The German diffusionists work to identify the centres of
culture circles and trace the spread of ideas and technology from the centres through
contact with the surrounding cultures.
The two basic rules, accepted by both Graebner and Schmidt in connection to the culture
circle were as follows:
1. Criterion of form/ Quality (Formengandke) : states that similarities between two
culture elements which do not automatically arise out of nature- material purpose
should be interpreted as resulting from diffusion, regardless of distance which
separates the two instances.
2. Criterion of Quantity: It states that the probability of Historical relationship
between 2 items increases as the number of additional items showing similarities
increases i.e. several similarities prove diffusion more than single one.
WEAKNESSES OF GERMAN SCHOOL:
1. It explains what diffusion is, but not why and how it takes place.
2. Criteria of Quality and Quantity couldn’t yield realistic results.
3. It did not present any historical record. Also in reality no concrete culture circles
could be established by anthropologists.
AMERICAN SCHOOL OF DIFFUSION
A separate American school of diffusionists led by Clark Wissler and Alfred Kroeber also
arose in the first few decades of the 20th century.
German diffusionists talked about a complex form of diffusion of culture, but they failed
to explain as to why diffusion took place. American diffusionists attempted to solve this
question. They were of the view that empirical research was the evidence to refer to the
give and take of culture traits and complexes that had taken place through the medium
of transport and communication.
On the question as to why diffusion takes place, American diffusionists answer it in the
following ways:
1. The process of imitation causes diffusion of cultural traits and complexes from
one place to another or from one cultural group to another.
2. Sometimes it looks easy to borrow some traits from other cultural groups instead
of inventing separately.
In the process of diffusion, the borrowing groups may adapt to cultural traits so that they
might be useful for them. Thus the diffused traits may or may not exist in their original
form.
In order to show the diffusion of the cultural traits and complexes, American
anthropologists devised a methodology which is known as Culture Area Approach.
They did not analyse cultural diffusion prevalent all over the world at the same time.
Instead they divided the world into different cultural areas on the basis of geographical
regions. They were of the opinion that geographical aspects of the culture cannot be
ignored in the study of culture areas.
If one passes through Europe, he or she may come across different cultural areas. If
those areas are compared, it will be found that cultural groups residing in close
geographical areas represent more uniformity than those residing in distant geographical
regions. Thus, the concept of culture area reveals geographical areas of cultural
similarities.
The methodological issues, followed in the study of culture areas, were to divide the
world or continent or country into different cultural areas. Then from each area, a list of
cultural elements or traits was prepared which reached there in course of diffusion.
Wissler also pointed out that in each culture area, there is a culture centre. It is
the core in a culture area, from where all social, economic, political and religious activities
are controlled and governed. It is the geographical area where maximum culture traits
are found and from where various culture traits diffuse to other parts. Cultural margin is
the peripheral area of a culture where minimum culture traits are found. It also
keeps borders with other cultures.
For example: Varanasi in India, can be called a culture centre of Hindu civilization.
Wissler also put forward the concept of ‘age area’. It is the relative age of cultural traits
based on geographical distribution. It means, the most widely distributed trait around
the centre would be the oldest one. According to Wissler, there are mainly two types of
diffusions: Natural diffusion and Organised diffusion.
Natural Diffusion: In natural diffusion, cultural traits of one cultural group are diffused to
one part of a different cultural group. It is transmitted through natural agencies or by
trial and error method. It is a time-consuming process and develops gradually.
Organised diffusion: In this diffusion, the cultural traits are transmitted through some
organised agencies like missionary activities, military invasion etc. Organised diffusion is a
very fast and quick process.
The origin of culture occurred in the culture centre of the culture area. A L Kroeber used
the term culture climax as equivalent to the term culture centre. Culture climax is the
portion of the culture area from where most of the culture traits in the area are spread or
concentrated. It also refers to that part of the area where people have the largest
contact of culture.
WEAKNESSES OF CULTURE AREA SCHEME
1. Culture areas are a mental construct not a physical reality.
2. Difficulties arise in establishing cultural centres and cultural boundaries. Because
migrations cause many cultural traits to appear side by side. It becomes difficult to
trace the exact place from where traits appear.
3. Culture area approach is also criticised for the reason that its scope is narrow. It
divided the world or a nation into different regions and, thus fails to explain
worldwide diffusion of culture.
4. Cultural areas emphasised too much on material aspects of culture but they failed
to explain clearly non-material aspects of culture.
5. They emphasised too much on the geographical areas and ignored other aspects
that also marks the area feeling among inhabitants such as common language,
rituals, food habits, etc.
6. They could not explain the methods by which culture area boundary could be
established with certainty.
Apart from Wissler and Kroeber , Boas also contributed to the American school , but his
approach is better studied in the form of Historical Particularism.
HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM
FRANZ BOAS
(1858-1942)
He was born and educated in Germany. Boas became Professor of Anthropology at Columbia
University in 1896, where he remained till his death in 1942. In American Anthropology, Boas
occupied an image of father, hero and guru. He trained great many anthropologists, among whom
A special mention may be made of A L Kroeber, Herskovits, M F Ashley Montagu, Ruth
Benedict and Margaret Mead. Some of the important books of Franz Boas are: Central
Eskimo(1888), Kwakiutl Text (1905), Mind of Primitive Man (1911) and Primitive Art(1927).
Franz Boas and the anthropologist O. T. Mason once engaged in a spirited debate about
the organisation of ethnographic materials in museum displays.
Mason, an evolutionist, proposed organising ethnographic displays in the Smithsonian
Institution by artefact 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 the museum were arranged
according to geographical areas, it was observed that cultural items of Indian tribes that
lived close to each other were more similar than those groups who lived further apart.
The geographical regions that displayed such internal similarities were called “culture
areas”. 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 have arisen independently.
In 1896, Boas published an article entitled “The Limitation of Comparative Method of
Anthropology” which dealt with his objection to the 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 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 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
(3) the classification of societies based on weak data and inappropriate criteria.
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 traits, 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 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 expected that if a tremendous quantity of data was collected the laws governing
cultural variation would emerge from the mass of information by themselves. Historical
particularists criticised 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 of 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 organisation of ethnographic data on all aspects of
many different societies.
Boasians 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 behaviour
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.
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.
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 judgement 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 individuals in culture formation. He said individuals react
to culture in different ways. Thus, culture and personality influence each other. These
insights were more systematically analysed by later Anthropologists like Margaret Mead
and Ruth Benedict.
WEAKNESSES OF HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM
1. The facts that are recorded even by the most diligent observers will necessarily
reflect what that individual considers important. Hence facts can also be biased.
2. Data Collection done without some preliminary theorising, without ideas about
what to expect, is meaningless, for that facts that are most important may be
ignored while irrelevant may be recorded.
3. Although it was appropriate for Boas to criticise previous ‘armchair’ theorising,
his concern with innumerable local details did not encourage a belief that it might
be possible to explain the major variations in culture that Anthropologists
observe.
4. The Boasian scheme did good to reject shallow generalisations, but obsession
with data collection is futile if it cannot be used in any meaningful way.
Previous Year Questions From Unit 6(b):
1. Write a note on Historical Particularism and Franz Boas (2021)
2. How do diffusionism and evolutionism differ , as explanations of cultural
change? (2015)
