Discuss How Benedict's Work Developed Boas Vision of Anthropology And Whether It Also Represented a New Direction In American Anthropology - Essay Example

?Discuss how Benedict's work developed Boas vision of Anthropology and whether it also represented a new direction in American anthropology. Ruth Benedict was an early 20th century anthropologist and is known for work such as “Patterns of Culture” and “The Chrysanthemum and the Sword”. Importantly, Benedict was mentored by the father of American anthropology, Franz Boas. Many of Boas’ ideas can be found in Benedict’s work, including the idea of historical particularism and the strong belief that culture is a social construct (Herskovits, 1973). Both believed that the best way to study a culture is to study each as a separate entity, through a particular historical lens (Herskovits, 1973), which will allow traits and customs from the culture to become more apparent. The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the work of Benedict in light of her relationship with Boas and how Boas influenced Benedict’s work, including an emphasis on the importance of the human race. Additionally, the essay will examine how American anthropology was influenced by these two important figures (as well as another important anthropologist, Margaret Mead, whose work contains influence from both Benedict and Boas), allowing the discipline to take a new direction and focus away from culture-trait diffusion. One of Benedict’s most famous works is “Patterns of Culture”. Published in 1934, the work focuses on the idea that cultures encompass an element of human personality on a larger scale (Mead, 1974). An example of this could be the typical association of German culture with efficiency, or restraint in Pueblo cultures of North America (Mead, 1974). These cultures had such strong personalities of their own that these would be reflected in some way in the majority of individuals that belonged to that culture (Boas & Stocking, 1974). As is often quoted about this theory, "culture is personality writ large" (Modell, 1988), meaning that there is a culture-personality isomorphism. Another important element of “Patterns of Culture” is that of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is the belief that each culture should only be studied as a whole. The moral and societal beliefs of that culture should be studied within that culture, and the anthropologist should attempt to distance themselves from their own culture when analysing another (an idea much championed by Margaret Mead [Isaia, 1999]). This anthropological method is still considered to be highly effective today, as it reduces bias in analysis (Young, 2005). The idea of cultural relativism is also much championed in the work of Boas. Like Benedict after him, Boas held the belief that each cultural system only has meaning when studied as a whole, apart from other cultural systems. The moral compass of that particular culture should not be judged against our own moral compass, because they have to be seen relatively (Herskovits, 1973). Additionally, both Boas and Benedict understood that culture and cultural systems change over time, which means that there is an element of historical relativism found in both their works (Herskovits, 1973). This means that an anthropologist should look at a culture as an entity in both time and space to fully understand the rituals and symbols found within it (Herskovits, 1973). It is interesting to see how Benedict took these original ideas about cultural anthropology from Boas and developed them with her own fieldwork and evidence. For example, some of Benedict’s early fieldwork was a continuation of Boas’, working with the Kwakiutl Native American group. Benedict began gathering evidence that, whilst the customs of the Kwakiutl may seem strange, they are intelligible when considered as a part of the whole. This thought was followed on with her own fieldwork on the Pueblo group, found in New Mexico. Again, many of the customs and symbols found in Pueblo culture may seem alien to those reading “Patterns of Culture”, but Benedict (like Boas before her) encouraged the reader to think outside of their own culture to aid understanding. Another interest that both Boas and Benedict shared was an interest in folklore, and both were passionate about the inclusion of folklore into the traditional anthropology discipline. Benedict herself was a member of the American Folklore Society (), suggesting that she had a lot of influence over folkloric studies and was considered to be an important influence. Boas believed that folklore studies needed to be studied more rigorously to ensure that its scholarship was worthy (). Many of the approaches to anthropology used today (such as extensive fieldwork, the use of the scientific method and of guidelines) were championed by Boas in the study of folklore. Additionally, Boas felt that the study of a cultural folklore was important in understanding many of the ‘traits’ of that culture, something echoed in the work of Benedict. Benedict took these rigorous guidelines that Boas had set out for folkloric scholarship and incorporated them into the study of the religion and folklore of many different Native American groups. There is some evidence in “Patterns of Culture” that Benedict was familiar with much of the folklore of these groups, either from her own fieldwork or that of Boas or Margaret Mead (Young, 2005). What Benedict has done, however, is build upon the importance of folklore in these cultures and allowed it to be seen with equal interest to more traditional anthropological studies of ritual and magic (Herskovits, 1973). By doing this, Benedict has taken one of Boas’ major interests and incorporated it into her own work. Additionally, the work of Benedict and Boas on folklore has allowed its study to become more prominent as part of American anthropology. Benedict also made other deviations from Boas’ work. One of the main beliefs of Boasian anthropology is to let the fieldwork and research speak for itself, without making any generalizations. Boas felt that it was necessary to learn from other cultures without using them to shape grand theories which may be inappropriate or shaped by personal beliefs and research agendas (Young, 2005). In this sense, Benedict represented a deviation from this. In “Patterns of Culture”, Benedict came up with a ‘grand theory’ of national personalities, emphasizing that certain countries or cultures can be associated with certain traits. In this sense, “Patterns of Culture” represents a deviation from Boas’ theories and anthropological style because it makes generalizations based upon fieldwork. However, it is important to note that Benedict used many of Boas’ methods when formulating this theory, and therefore can be considered an amalgamation of Boas’ teaching and her own personal research style. Importantly, Benedict was not the only one of Boas’ students to formulate theories using Boasian methodology. For example, Alfred Kroeber used the style of Boas and the work of Sigmund Freud to formulate ideas about the links between cultural anthropology and psychoanalysis (). Like Benedict, Kroeber represents a union between Boas’ teaching and methodology and personal research interests to formulate a greater overarching theory. One of Kroeber’s own students, Julian Steward, represents another individual heavily influenced by Boasian empiricism and relativism. Using these ideas, Steward made important contributions to the discipline of cultural ecology. Cultural ecology represents the idea of how humans have evolved to adapt to their natural environment (), an idea which is far removed from Boas’ work but again based on Boasian foundations. This shows how far reaching Boas’ influence was within the field of ecology and how his students themselves have gone on to inspire future generations of American anthropologists. As previously mentioned, much of Benedict’s work “Patterns of Culture” focused on the notion of “personality-writ-large” (Modell, 1988). Boas did not concentrate on this type of anthropology. Boas did not have any preoccupation with the idea of a national culture, as Benedict did, preferring to focus more on the development of anthropological theories such as the aforementioned historical empiricism. Boas also criticised much of the way that fieldwork was done in anthropology at the time, arguing that it should be conducted in a scientific manner to give replicable and accurate results (Herskovits, 1973). In this way, Benedict built upon the ideas that Boas instilled in her at her time at Columbia, by focusing on fieldwork done by herself and others. She also used the notion that it is important for an anthropologist to distance themselves from the culture that they are studying, allowing them to see the culture as a whole without mixing their own cultural ideals and morals in judgement. However, importantly, Benedict used these ideas from Boas and developed them into her own distinct theory about cultural identity. In this way, we can say that Benedict developed Boas’ theories, ideas and teachings without being completely derivative. It is interesting to consider whether the work of Boas and Benedict represented a new direction in American anthropology. It is evident when reading any anthropological textbook or any work by an anthropologist in contact with either of these two individuals that they had an enormous impact on the way that anthropology was practiced in an academic setting. Margaret Mead, one of the most important and influential anthropologists of the 20th century, had close personal contact with both Boas and Benedict and referenced many of the same anthropological theories (Isaia, 1999). Perhaps the most important change that Boas made was to encourage empiricism within the discipline, without relying too heavily on speculation (Isaia, 1999). Indeed, almost all anthropologists today conduct their fieldwork in a manner similar to Boas’ careful scientific style (Isaia, 1999), and it is currently accepted as being one of the most important developments in how anthropology is practiced worldwide. Additionally, the cultural relativism which was so promoted by Boas and developed by Benedict (as well as Margaret Mead and many of Boas’ students) has come to be a cornerstone of most academic anthropology (). Many academic textbooks promote the idea that a degree of neutrality is needed for true anthropological research (Young, 2005). It is easy to assume that all cultures share the same moral and ethical values as our own, but many do not. Many make the mistake of assuming that other cultures are somehow ‘wrong’ for not adhering to ‘our’ values (), which ruins empirical fieldwork. In this sense, Boas and Benedict had a huge impact on American anthropology and how it has developed into the scientific field that it is today. Another huge impact that Boas has made on the field of American anthropology regards racism. Much of Boas’ work is highly critical of racism and race prejudice (). Boas felt that it was truly important to get to know other cultures and to understand them from an empirical perspective, which suggests that all races and cultures are equally important despite their differences. Additionally, Boas felt that it was necessary to learn the local language when conducting fieldwork, again showing an extremely open mind towards other cultures (). As a Jewish scientist, Boas was also highly critical of the Nazi party in Germany (Young, 2005), which was against some scholars view of eugenics at the time. However, American anthropology (and indeed, the majority of American academic disciplines today) feel that a denunciation of Jewish science is critically wrong and has no place in academia (Boas & Stocking, 1974). It is this type of viewpoint that has allowed Boas to remain relevant to the discipline today. In conclusion, Franz Boas was extremely influential in the work of his students, including Ruth Benedict. In Benedict’s work, there is evidence of an adherence to Boas’ historical relativism, cultural relativism and empirical fieldwork, all of which remain important theories in modern American anthropology. Indeed, Benedict built on these strong foundations to develop her idea of cultural identity and national personalities (Mead, 1974), including some of Boas’ fieldwork in her own research. Overall, the work of Boas and Benedict have been highly influential in the field, having been incorporated into the work of important anthropologists such as Margaret Mead. Particularly important are the emphasis that Boas put onto cultural relativism, suggesting that anthropologists need to be careful when examining other cultures to take the culture as a whole without judgement using personal morals and ethics. Additionally, Boas was highly critical of racism within the field, something which is generally championed by anthropologists working in the field today. Bibliography Boas, Franz. A Franz Boas Reader: The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-1911. University of Chicago Press, 1974. Print. ---. Anthropology and Modern Life. Courier Dover Publications, 1962. Print. Herskovits, Melville Jean. Franz Boas: The Science of Man in the Making. A. M. Kelley, 1973. Print. Isaia, Malopa’Upo. Coming of Age in American Anthropology: Margaret Mead and Paradise. Universal-Publishers, 1999. Print. Mead, Margaret. Ruth Benedict: A Humanist In Anthropology. COLUMBIA University Press, 1974. Print. Modell, J. (1988). Ruth Fulton Benedict (1887-1948) in Gacs, U; Khan A. McIntyre, J. and Weinberg, R. (eds.) Women anthropologists: A biographical dictionary. New York: Greenwood Press. Pp.1-7. Young, Virginia. Ruth Benedict: Beyond Relativity, Beyond Pattern. U of Nebraska Press, 2005. Print. Read More