24/7 Customer support here

The investigation of the evolutionist and distributional viewpoints of anthropological science

   The biggest aspects of anthropology that attract scientists these days are the investigations of connection of different cultures as well as regarding the changes that these peoples and cultures have developed over years and centuries. It is vital to understand that scholars are still looking into the same issues as they did when this discipline was just born a few centuries ago.

   Both theories that this paper is going to discuss will be approached through comparison and analysis. The evolutionist and distributional viewpoints were one of the first anthropological theories their input into the science as we know it now is difficult to overestimate.

   The evolutionist perspective emerged between the periods of 1860-1890's. This theory was influenced by natural science using Darwin's theory as a basis to explain how new forms of life have developed and adapted and this applied to culture, because the natural and human worlds were governed by the same laws of evolution.

   This view led to the development of the notion that new types of society develop out of others. Evolutionist anthropologists used this idea to explain how because of this succession a psychic unity existed with humans everywhere sharing the same biologically grounded intellectual skills and characteristics. Another explanation used, was the existence of 'stages of progress'. The stages went from one extreme to another with the 'primitive' society at one end and the 'modern' at the other. Stocking (1968) reviewed the work of Tylor who was an evolutionist anthropologist during the 1860's. Stocking cited that such anthropologists treated human differences as associates of evolutionary stages and that the more 'primitive' societies would evolve to eventually become the further developed, more ethical white, western society.

   The methods which were to retrieve information about the different cultures were not that of which were used by distributional anthropologists or more recently to those that we use today. Instead they were what one would refer to as the methods used by arm chair anthropologists. These types of data gathering are referred to as such because the anthropologist would use secondary sources this meant using the writings from other travelers to study the other cultures. This type of method was extremely flawed in the sense that the sources were weighed down by the bias from the colonial explorers as well as inaccuracy and misinterpretation in the accounts of events. Stocking (1968) also indicated that the terminology was very ethnocentric with the belief that the colonials were more powerful and above the rest and so would refer to the native people as 'them' and 'dirty'. If those types of phrases were used today, they would seem highly offensive and ethically wrong. A cultural hierarchy was unavoidable especially with terms such as 'lower' and 'primitive' used to describe the people and the culture or society. Because of this perception, evolutionists saw culture as means of striving towards perfection (Nzimiro, 1979). Further critics are made on the methods used by anthropologists such as Tylor and Frazer. "Seen as some of the ethnological works of the time, where cranial measurement, descriptions of tools and implements, accounts of ceremonies and anything else that might occur to the author are bundled together." Fortes (195: citied in Nzimino, 1979, pg 72). This demonstrates how scientific techniques were the main source of data collection. The data gathering and theorising was kept separate to make the sample more scientific.
The distributional theory derived at a later date during the late 1890's. This type of theorising was not of as greatly associated with scientific nature as was the evolutionist approach. Instead the evolutionary elements were either minimized or neglected completely. The distributional approach stemmed from the belief that people's beliefs and habits could only be understood with knowledge of history. It also looked at cultural similarities, due to contact with each other. Distributionalists also took into the account of genetics, when on one of the expeditions one of the ethnographers (Rivers) collected all information about the families. Other proposal as to why some societies were not as advanced was the possible isolation from advanced societies. Therefore this theory explains the genetic, historical and geographical explanations about cultural similarities or differences. Overall the methods which the distributionalists used were of greater validity and reliability in terms of being able to learn about the cultures.

   Ethnographic research was carried out by the anthropologist themselves rather than merely writing about other explorers experiences. An example of this is Haddon's expedition to the Torres Strait in 1898 Haddon spent approximately 7 months in the Torres Straits. He was among the indigenous people, where he hired someone to interpret in order to communicate with the locals. The main areas of interest of study were the arts, music and psychology of the people. Haddon's mission gave the native people a voice by writing with them rather than about them. He also explained his whereabouts to them as well sending them copies of the published journals. Haddon gave descriptive passages in his writings where people were seen as human beings rather than objects of scientific interest.

   The methods of both the distributional and evolutionist theories were revolutionary at the time. Since then the discipline has developed in terms of methodology and theories. For example "Tylor's culture concept loses in its actual usage much of the significance which modern anthropologists have attributed to it" Stocking (1968). Edward Tylor’s comparative methods meant he revolutionized at his time the concept of looking at the similarities as well the differences. Since then modern day anthropologists also take out this point of view, with one of the interests of studies to note the refining similarities between cultures as well as within which is a fairly modern concept as it was not considered during both the evolutionist and distributional periods because the main concern was to find out where we came from.

   I think that in terms of great revelations that the distributional theory is what set the scene for the modern day method of studying.
Ethnography is now a type of fieldwork that is highly acclaimed however rather than to conclude with simply stating how one theory helped the development of the present day discipline would be to ignore the workings of the other. The evolutionist approach's theory is one that is not really an aspect of cultural evolution that is taken into consideration as passionately as it was when first derived. Without the methods being so flawed there would not be such a well credited method of data collection especially given the type of research, which exists now. Therefore it is fair to say that we have learned from our mistakes.

Bibliography:

1. Eriksen, T.H, (2001), Fieldwork and Interpretation in, Small Places, Large Issues,
2. London: Pluto Press
3. Service, E.R, (1975), Origins of the State and civilization: The process of cultural evolution.
4. Stocking,G.W.Jr, (1968), Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the history of anthropology, New York: Free press

BACK TO ANTHROPOLOGY