Download The Evolution and Significance of Culture in Sociology and more Slides Sociology in PDF only on Docsity!
Volume i 6 Number 2.
SOCIAL FORCES
Decemnber,I
CULTURE AND SOCIOLOGY
WILLIAM FIELDING OGBURN
Universityof Chicago
T HEdefinitionof culturemostoften
quoted is that of Tyler: "Culture is that complex whole which in- cludes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society." A particular culture has been defined by Redfield as "an organized body of conventional understandings, mnanifest in act^ and^ artifact,^ which,^ persisting through tradition, characterizes a human group." Excellent definitions both,^ yet culture is one of those large concepts, like democracy or science, a definition of which seems very bare and inadequate to convey its rich meanings. Different students will emphasize different aspects of culture as most significant, and in the future impor- tant new ideas about culture may be dis- covered. At the present time the aspects of culture of most interest to sociologists may be grouped around four ideas.
The study of culture developed out of the soil of biological sociology.^ The impact of the discoveries of Darwin, partic- ularly the evolution^ of^ man from^ the anthropoids, on social thought was tre- mendous. Nothing like it had so shocked mankind since it was discovered that the earth was round and whirling through
space, held there by balancing forces. The ramifications of the latter discovery, for instance, reached as far as the theory of the state and supported the doctrine of checks and balances, so evident in our own governmental structure. Likewise the ranifications of the idea of evolution extended quite generally, especially to societies. Out of it were developed the organismic theories of the state.^ A great impetus was given to biological interpre- tations of society by such men as Spencer and Huxley. The achievements of man were seen as the direct outgrowth of his inherited capacities. The^ wasps^ build one type of house, the ants another, be- cause their biological structures are dif- ferent. It followed, by^ inference, that the Aztecs have one type of culture and the Egyptians another because their bi- ological natures are different.^ Function was seen as^ following^ structure^ very closely. The European was further along in the scale of biological evolution than the Australian black fellow since his cul- ture was more advanced. Social evolu- tion was dependent upon biological evolu- tion. The monkeys had no civilization because they had not evolved far enough. Man, however, with his larger brain case had gone further in biological progress I6i
SOCIAL FORCES, VOL. 16, NO. 2
I6z SOCIAL FORCES
and was capable of developing civiliza- tion. It is interesting that the idea of culture, which later was so often opposed to biology, was developed by one of the most biologically-minded men of the age, Herbert Spencer. He remarkedthat there was a time when there was no life on the earth. Everything was inorganic. In the course of time, inorganic matter evolved to a point when life appeared. Then the evolution of the organic matter began. When it reached the level of man, there appearedculture or, as Spencercalled it, the "superorganic" which, in turn, began its evolution. Though Spencer helped to give birth to the idea of culture, he never really saw its nature clearly. For instance, to him the superorganic was dependent in a most intimate and direct way upon the organic. The concept of the superorganic was then only the beginning of the unfolding of the concept of culture. If the variations in the organic determined the nature of the superorganicin detail, as Spencerthought, then sociology not only rested on biology, but was really a biological science. Out of the tide of enthusiasm for bi- ology, there appeared those twin absurdi- ties, the^ recapitulation theory and the successive stages theory. According to the former the individual recapitulated the (^) history of the race, so that the less evolved primitive peoples were seen only as (^) children. According to the latter theory, since social stages were determined by biological stages of evolution, they must follow in succession, as monogamy followed (^) polygamy. Supposedly Russia could not go from the household agricul- tural economy to socialism without pass- ing through capitalism. The power of education and of the diffusion of culture traits in breaking up such a succession of stages was not appreciated.
Such was the background of sociological thought when the concept of culture ap- peared. But as the phenomena of cul- tural growth were studied, it was observed that social institutions evolved into new forms in periods of history too short for any biological evolution. Hence doubt was cast on any correlation of cultural evolution and biological evolution, at least during the historical period, if not since the ice ages. Peoples of the same race were noted to have greatly different levels of civilization, and peoples of dif- ferent racial types were observed to have the same social institutions. The growth of a particular culture, ethnologists were showing, was not so much from inventions produced within that culture as from traits imported from other cultures. Thus any inevitable succession of stages was ne- gated. The close correlation of function and structure may exist when such widely dif- ferent species as rats and guinea pigs are compared, but among peoples the func- tions as measured by customs and institu- tions were not found to be correlated with any discernible structure. When an Es- kimo adult who could not count above ten and was thus supposed to be no further advanced than a child was taught to solve problems in calculus, the recapitulation theory lost its appeal. That tremendous cultural variations were possible even if there were no races and that rapid social evolution could take place if biologically men evolved not at all but were quite stationary, were ideas revolutionary to the biological sociology of the time. Culture cut the chains that tied sociology to biology. This freedom meant an actual stimulus in proposing new hypotheses and in generating new ideas about civilization, and explanations there- for on other grounds than biology. However, it should not be understood
i64 SOCIAL FORCES
variations, the group and the group's culture were no longer the same. The group might remain biologically the same yet have a succession of different cultures. Hence, for the definition of sociology to be the study of the group, implied no longer that it was the study of the culture of that group. It was customary to say at this earlier period that man created his culture. This was true if men of all time are considered and if man is being con- trasted with another species. But one cannot say that the Greeks or the Mayans created their culture, much less the inhab- itants of any one village or the peoples of any one century. The culture is rather an environment in which they live, which, if conditions are favorable, they may modify somewhat in a given time by invention. The term social heritage, often used interchangeably with^ culture, suggests the^ futility^ of^ saying^ that^ a particular group creates a culture. Concluding this part of the discussion then, the idea of culture is- necessarily at least as significant for sociology as is biology. As Darwinism and^ biology tended to give sociology a definition as the study of the group, culture, being in a way the antithesis of biology has neces- sarily changed the definition of sociology and added to the tasks of sociology the study of cultural processes.^ This change in concept of sociology itself suggests questions of new relations of sociology to ethnology and^ to^ the^ special- social sciences, such as economics and political science, which are, however, not appropri- ate for the present discussion.
II One aspect of this new relationship of sociology to ethnology and the special social sciences is the consideration of cul- ture as a whole consisting of interrelated parts. The ethnologists have always so
considered it for the primitive cultures, and have brought forward such indicative terms as culture pattern and configuration. An ethnologist goes to a primitive people and writes for the record an account of the whole culture of the people he visits, but he does not generally confine himself to any particular part as, for instance, their economic institutions, as a social scientist often does in a modern culture, such as those of Europe or North America. The mere write-up of the whole culture of a people necessarily brings out the integra- tion of the different parts into the whole, especially when comparisons are made with other cultures. No scientific body seems to do for modern civilization quite what the ethnol- ogist does for a simpler culture. Perhaps the task is too large. The historian doesn't do it. He is describing usually events rather than institutions, and the events he describes are often selected as for instance, political occurrences, mili- tary records, or economic achievements. In actual practice, the field of labor in studying modern civilization is subdi- vided. The economist concerns himself with the institutions used in the produc- tion and consumption of wealth. The political scientist deals with the govern- ments and their operation. And so on. Perhaps there is no great demand for a description of the whole of western civili- zation. What the future may produce in integrated studies of the whole of a cul- ture is not known. This demandfor an integrated picture of the whole of a culture in modern times has come nearer to fruition in the description of communities. It has long been the tradition of the sociologist to do for a particular village or city what the ethnol- ogist does for a primitive culture. The primitive culture though is more nearly a closed system than is a single modern
CULTURE AND SOCIOLOGY I
community. Hence these modern com- munity studies do not describe with com- pleteness the political, social, and economic institutions of a community. They omit what the readerswill in general know, for instance, about the religious or educational system, only noting the varia- tions supposed to be peculiar to the village being described or else facts not available for the country as a whole. While it is then true that the rise of the study of culture has forced upon the special- ists studying modern society the idea that the parts make up a whole, the demand is not so much for a description of the whole, as it is for the interrelationships of the parts. The culture pattern is of interest as a whole but also because of the inter- relationships of the parts. Thus, in some cultures, religious prac- tices are closely related to recreational activities in ceremonies, rituals, and religi- ous festivals. The economic system may be closely related to customs of hospi- tality. For instance, the interchange of gifts associated with ceremonies may be a substitute for money and serve as a medium for the exchange of goods. Or, again, wealth and economic values may be subordinated to prestige as found in rank. Religious ideas may be connected with medical practice, art forms, or even eco- nomic activities, and yet have little to do with moral questions. There are interrelationships between the parts of modern society as truly as in the cultures of preliterate peoples. But these interrelationships tend to be neglected by modern social scientists because of their specialization in particular fields. They are, though, the concern of practical men who have to deal with them. For in- stance, the points of contact between gov- ernment and business are very numerous and some study of their interrelations is forced upon government officials and busi-
ness men more than it is upon economists or political scientists. Government, to- day, as it expands its functions is making contacts with many more social institu- tions, such as the family, clubs, recrea- tional organizations, schools and church. But the political scientists seldom study as social scientists these interrelationships. How these interrelationships of different parts of society may be studied in the fu- ture is a question. But the concept of culture precipitates the issue. It is true the issue has been injected also by the pressure of practical problems, but here the demand is for a practical solution rather than a scientific study. The ethnologist objects to the treatment of any part of culture apart from the culture pattern. Thus he may say that a treat- ment of marriage alone, for illustration, throughout a region or a period of time should not be done since the full meaning of marriage cannot be appreciated except as a part of the culture. Marriage should be always studied in connection with the culture of which it is a part. The inter- relationships of the parts of culture seem to be given relatively more attention in the study of primitive cultures than in modern civilization. It hardly seems practicable that soci- ologists should be the ones to study these interrelations, though theoretically it might be argued that it is their task. They would have difficulty in covering the necessary ground to give the detailed study necessary for dealing with the prac- tical questions that arise. But, it is pos- sible that they might do much to study the interrelationship of the functions of the different social institutions, from the point of view of social science.
III A third significance of the concept of culture lies in its contribution to the study
CULTURE AND SOCIOLOGY I 67
relationships. As an illustration, the relationship that exists between science and religion has been disturbed at various times by virtue of discoveries in science relating to the nature of the world and of man. These acute tensions become eventually smoothed out, but for the time there is a serious maladjustment, usually for the part of culture which receives the force of invention, social or mechanical. These strains are in many cases caused by the fact that there is a delay or lag in keeping up with the precipitating changes. In modern society mechanical invention and scientific discovery are, in fact, the precipitators of many changes in other parts of culture. So that the various social organizations, philosophies, habits, are forced to adjust, after a delay, to new situations brought about by these mechan- ical and scientific innovations. Thus the study of cultural evolution gives rise to important hypotheses of a purely cultural nature.
IV
A last influence of culture to be con- sidered here is on social psychology. It seemed, from the so-called instinct psy- chology, that one could start with a blue print of man's original nature and read off his social institutions. One started with motives and found there the explanation of custom and other human behavior. But inquiries into the explanation of cultural phenomena have reversedthe proc- ess. It is better to start with the cul- tural phenomena and by history and de- scription to arrive at motives as the end result. (^) Similarly the social institutions must first be accounted for on cultural ground before one can be sure what parts of original nature are involved. A psy- chological inventory of original nature cannot be used as a blue print for predict- ing social organization.
This approach radically revised the ex- planation of personality. It was once thought that personality was largely the gift of inheritance. But the personality of the young is now held to be more the outgrowth of group experience and of the culture pattern in which the child is reared. Group relationships, as in the family, church, school, club, playground, are of great importance in shaping the personalities; but so also are the culture patterns carried by the group, be they those of warlike (^) Sparta or the peaceful Greenland Eskimo. This study of cultural and group influ- ences on the personality of children is not as amenable to study by the ethnologist as is the description of culture pattern. The ethnologist is not in a good position nor well equipped to watch the growth of young children in a primitive culture, though comparisons may be made in the personalities of adults in different cultures. The early Icelanders were so murderous that it was thought they could never settle the island because they killed each other off so fast. But the culture pattern has changed and it is said there were only a dozen murdersin Iceland in the nineteenth century. Comparative studies show the influences of different cultures on produc- ing different personality traits. The de- velopment of personality ceases then to be wholly in^ the^ province of psychology. The psychologist who works in the labor- atory is concerned with^ the account of general inventories, habits and the proc- esses of (^) the conditioned reflex, rather than the influence of particular culture patterns on young people. The labora- tory psychologist is not well trained for studying the various cultural stimuli, as appear in custom and institution, which shape personality. Likewise it is a study not to be undertaken by special social scientists such as economists or political
i68 SOCIAL FORCES
scientists. The study of personality would seem to fall within the sphere of activity of the special science of education or of the general science of sociology as well as in psychology. If sociologists acquire the task of studying personality as influenced by culture, they cannot be concerned with only one institution. The family may be the most important. But schools, churches, communities, clubs, occupations, etc., must all be studied. He really must look at culture as a whole. The sociologist, trained in psychology, is also in a very good posi- tion to make such studies because of his interest in the group and group processes, which are particularly important in stamping the culture pattern on the indi- vidual, in making him conform to the pattern or become a variant. Also in studying the influence of culture on the individual, it is. necessary to view culture as a whole. With regard to the old question of the psychological adjustment of man, the primitive hunter, to modern culture, the question is not now expressed in the earlier biological language of adaptation and environment. It is rather phrased in the expression the interrelationship be- tween personality and culture.^ Though personality may be the product of culture, the individual may deviate from the pat- tern and hence not be adjusted. If the deviation is rather far, he may be called a neurotic personality. In a modern society there are patterns within patterns. Society is heterogeneous and consists of many groups, with different folkways, so that the effect of culture on the person- ality is far from simple. The new ap- proach to culture and personality is not wholly due to the growing apprecia- tion of culture. Psychology also makes its contribution. Researches there have
shown many marvelous new habits that can be set up on the principle of the con- ditioned reflex. Thus the modifiability of original nature, rather than a relatively rigid set of instincts, is a lesson from psychology that offers a basis for de- scribing the different effects of culture on personality. Not even the different personalities of the sexes, is now admitted to be wholly determined by the obviously different sexual co stitutions of male and female. But traits which are considered masculine in our culture are found to be feminine in other cultures and vice versa. Further- more, as cultural change is now taking place in modern culture, the feminine per- sonality is quite different today from what it was so years ago in, say, the Victorian era. No doubt there are limits to which biological nature can be bent; and what is more important, there is probably some kind of biological norm of behavior to which, as culture moulds personality, there is a more harmonious relationship established. But for the moment, the culture enthusiasts are forgetting the biological limits to cultural influence, even though there be an alarming number of psychotics. With a fixed biological nature and a rapidly changing culture, optimistic man with notions of progress is even looking forward to possibilities of bending culture to make a better relationship. But the question on the other hand is being raised whether a rapidly changing culture, with all its lags and inequalities of rates, of change and uncertain futures, is not a more difficult one to which to make an adjustment than a stationary culture. Personality and culture is more often viewed as a one way relationship. But, of course, a personality may influence cul- ture. The question of the impact of the
