The Major Problems with the Evolutionist Practice of Classifying Cultures - Essay Example

Social Anthropology Task: The society and cultural diversities of various communities progressively differ as per the customary beliefs of each community. In addition, these cultures continually develop in regards to the time progression. In light of this, early anthropologists and social scholars held the view that cultures develop or evolve through given series or phases that are synonymous to any community in order to get to a common end. This evolutionary concept of societies as brought forth by early anthropologists had the conception that societies and cultures generally evolved from simple and basic forms to more complex and intricate systems over time (Evans-Pritchard 2004, p. 87). This evolutionary progression of societies and cultures was highly applauded, as most anthropologists touted it as the preeminent means of truly understanding the societal setting in terms of development. Through this, such social anthropologists and theorists as Henry Morgan highly relied on this conception of social evolutionism to describe the various developmental stages that societies and cultures were undergoing. This position perceived societal and cultural differences as being the result of the given societies undergoing varied stages of the social evolutionistic phases (Evans-Pritchard 2004, p. 112). However, with the continued research and analysis, speculations have arisen over the realism of this social theory of classifying cultures into varied developmental stages. The emerging contemporary view on this was that the theory has imperfections and cannot be fully referred to in explanation of the cultural diversities and differences that exist (Kuper 1988, p. 199). While the earlier anthropologists held the view that societal development took place as a single entity, subsequent social anthropologists are of the view that this societal development is variant upon each society, with each exhibiting its own levels of developmental stages distinct from others. In delimiting the shortcomings of the evolutionist practice of classifying cultures into subsequent stages of progressive development, classical theorists argue that the theory fails to look at the varying environments in which the different societies are traced. This provides a possible perspective from which the social evolutionism theory fails to fully capture the manner in which societies are set. Furthermore, such early anthropologists as Edward Taylor specifically relied upon information from indigenous cultures, and drew conclusions from such findings and generalizing them to the entire societal development theory thereby enhancing further the possibility of the theory having shortcomings (Evans-Pritchard 2004, p. 109). Such ethno centered conclusions and judgments by these early theorists failed to capture the true bearing of how societal and cultural developments could have occurred. Furthermore, the evolutionist practice of classifying cultures into progressive stages presents a challenge in the manner in which it conceives the society as culturally developing in a progressive pattern. This is essentially in the manner in which it depicts a succession from a primitive society to a civilized one. This gives the impression of the existence of an initially primitive society, a perception that is open for scrutiny. Indeed, Adam Kuper disposes this conception of the existence of a primitive society, and points out that the primitivism of the primeval societies as enthused by the theorists of societal evolutionism is a mere analysis of the contemporary society with a critical lens (Kuper 1988, p. 249). This highlight, therefore, puts the theory of progressive cultural development as a devious representation of societal development. One of the core problems with social evolution theories pertain to the idea that the theories give a blur definition of civilization and primitivism. Civilization and primitivism continue to evoke subjective standpoints because the words connote different concepts in given contexts. In addition, cultures are unique whereby no community would herald their culture as inferior. Social evolutionary theories seem to rely on a scale of rating whereby certain behavior forms are heralded as superior. In this sense, certain communities receive the unfair rating of their culture as inferior. In other instances, civilization has mainly adopted its definition from technological shifts that occur in societies to generate new modes of life. In such a case, civilization takes a leaning way of defining itself. According to Adam Kuper, most evolutionary theories were based on the ideas of Darwin about the origin of human beings (Kuper 1988, p. 3). This aspect waters down many anthropological explanations for inferiority and superiority aspects of culture since the theories are not original thoughts. Darwin’s explanation mainly intended to capture origin of human beings. It did not entail cultural explanations since the human being’s main concern has been to survive through generations. Culture is an unintended outcome of the scientific efforts of survival. The explanations of culture should articulate in a distinct manner and deviate from scientific explanation for life. In close relation to this, anthropology discredits its evolutionary explanations for culture since there is a divide between research orientations. On one hand, there are researchers who achieve a more descriptive and interpretive approach. This is the initial anthropological approach in attaining information about given aspects of culture. However, there is increasing utility of intensive scientific approach as anthropologists gamble with tools such as evolutionary ecology and molecular biology (Maini 2000, p. 65). This creates a highly complex scenario for research since there are inadequate resources for validating new theories. On the other hand, the traditional anthropologists continue to dominate departments thereby pushing the threatened colleagues into biology departments. Additionally, there seems to be no distinct explanation for stability of cultures in the recent times (Harrison & Wood 2011, p. 347). Cultures face transformation through economics, technology and adaptation. In its maturity, culture achieves different forms. However, societies, which are deemed as sophisticated, tend to retreat to original cultures by sieving adaptations. This is pursuit towards maintaining original forms of culture. In addition, social evolution explanations of culture fail credibility issues since they are mainly western thoughts. Anthropology should strive to offer contextual definitions of culture and explain the significance of given aspects of the same. In the study towards culture, anthropology may easily ignore the significant of certain practices which they deem as mundane (Maini 2000, p. 56). In the particular context, such a practice may entail a considerable value such as bonding a community. The focus of anthropology may entail mere reporting of practices which are susceptible to subjective viewership of biased audiences. In addition, social anthropology uses large samples to analyze communities. In practical contexts, societies that possess common characteristics may possess certain stark disparities that are ignored in anthropological research. This is because the particular communities possess differential aspects of culture that takes critical studies to observe. Additionally, there are other major problems with the evolutionist practice in the classification of cultures into stages of progressive development. For example, according to Adam Kuper’s view his book The Invention of Primitive Society, the classification of cultures into stages generated a situation of racial disharmony and inferiority. In other words, Kuper believes that the views of former social evolutionaries such as Henry Maine and Lewis Henry Morgan intended to present their anthropological arguments in a lopsided manner (Epstein & Gluckman 2012, p. 145). Alternatively, the decision by Darwin and others to makes classifications in terms of progressive development only heightened the gap between humanity in the context of connoting primitivism. On the other hand, another problem is based on the inability to critique the ethnocentric judgments made by early anthropologists such as Charles Darwin, Durkheim and Maine among others. These scholars were skewed in their researches because other pertinent areas of study such as Africa and Asia were evaluated without considerations of their history. There were also cases of ethical considerations that have not been put into focus especially the marginalized groups during the rating. Alternatively, another major problem involves the historical roots of determining the progressive development of a culture without making the necessary considerations. In other words, the extensive setbacks facing evolutionists in their classification on progressive development is based on inadequate research on various cultures (Patrick, E 2006, p.108). For instance, the historicity of the communities includes their ethnologies, customs and folklore narratives in shaping their lives in different aspects. This suggests that the lack of connection between their traditional lives and the modern existence in the context of socio-economic and political factors will also play a fundamental role in determining their progress. However, it is also critical to observe that the evolutionists’ major problem in culture classification lead to demeaning of other people. There are certain cases whereby the guiding theories of assessment of development are not explored to conclusion such as the colonialism. In that respect, it is critical to note that colonialism played a fundamental role in stunting the growth of people who cultures were destroyed (Epstein & Gluckman 2012, p. 156). This means that the allegations of arm chair theorists that Africans were lazy from the start are devoid of merit and validity. Instead, their method of evaluating the problems of inferior cultures and the suggested methods have ensured that a bias is noted in the classification. On that account, it is critical for evolutionists to make the above considerations during cultural progressive classifications to achieve a rational balance. This begins with understanding both the ethical considerations and the historical roots of the cultures in question. Additionally, there is also a critical urgency to comprehend the issues of economic and political capabilities of various cultures (Patrick, E 2006, p.115). In other words, social evolutionaries should indulge into the depths of the cultures under classification to help understand their motives of existence. This also spreads to the areas of cultural domination that is characterized by superior nations that manipulate the smaller ones in the aspects of progression and development. in the same view, it would also reduce the aspects of inequality that misguide most evolutionists in their classification endeavors in social anthropology. Bibliography Epstein, A & Gluckman, M 2012, The Craft of Social Anthropology, Transaction Publishers, New York. Evans-Pritchard, E. 2004, Social Anthropology, Taylor & Francis Group, Massachusetts. Harrison, T, & Wood, B 2011, ‘The evolutionary context of the first hominins’, Nature journal, vol. 470, no. 7334, pp. 347-347. Kuper, A. 1998, The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformations of an Illusion, Routledge, London. Maini, D, 2000, Social anthropology, Mittal Publications, New Delhi. Patrick, E 2006, Social Anthropology, SAGE, New York. Read More