Table of Contents

Main Points

founding theory of cultural anth.

ALSO KNOWN AS: social evolutionism

development theory

Example Subheading

Example text...

• Example bullet 1
• Example bullet 2
• Example bullet 3

Key Figures

Example text...

Key Texts

Example text...

Critiques

-       The study of culture across time and space; peoples lives are still unfolding, so there aren’t necessarily discreet answers

Culture: traditions and customs, transmitted through learning, that govern the beliefs and behavior of the people exposed to them; something that we share, something that is adapted; enabling and constraining; challenging

Cult Anthropologists teach, research, and write about it

Ethnology: examines, interprets, analyzes, and compares data gathered in different societies… looking at how different societies respond to different challenges; not necessarily looking for universals, common ground, but looking at diversity

Theory: an explanatory framework that helps us understand why something exists; what we use to explain, not necessarily provable; open ended; looking at patterns, answers, relationships; don’t use control groups

Ethnography: account of a particular community, society, or culture

Cultural Evolution: cultures evolve over time; different cultures excisting in different places; all humans have a place on line, have a capacity to be on same level as Western civ. Others are primitive, not yet at the level of western civ. Line goes towards becoming christian

            Tylor, Morgan

Key texts:

Armchair anthro: reading books from missionaries, colonial officials, travelers, traders

Critiques: discriminatory/unequal, makes presumptions abt where cultures are supposed to go, assigning ranks and values to them.

Ethnocentric- priviledged the west as superior

Ahistorical

Armchair anthropology

Based on very broad/general comparison, not getting to detail of cultural existence

Holds Western Civ as a standard for all others,

For Morgan the question of how societies developed from one evolutionary level to the next was nothing if not theoretical

his typology of developmental stages aimed at nothing less than the explanation of boh human history and human diversity

the distinction between "primitive" and "modern" societies was a theoretically argued one

mold of ahistorical, rural, tribe study

studying  "modernizing" peoples"who all wear pants" could hardly be central; to the more prestigeous arena of antrho theory145-6

definiteively refuted in early 20thC by Boas

emphasis on sorting societies according to their level of evolutionary development

from who's pt of view can one society be seen as higher than another

emperically flawed

ethnocentric 144

http://www.newyorker.com/images/2008/09/08/cartoons/080908_cartoon_4_a13481_p465.gif