7 Configuration and Pattern – Kroeber and Benedict

Sangeeta Dey

Contents:

1.      Introduction.

2.      Alfred Louis Kroeber.

3.      Ruth Fulton Benedict

4.      Kroeber’s “Configuration of Culture Growth”

5.      Ruth Benedict’s Theory of Pattern

6.      Summary

Learning objectives:

• Students will be able to known life history of Alfred Louis Kroeber.
• Students will be able to known the life events of Ruth Fulton Benedict.
• Students will be able to explain about the theoretical contribution of Alfred Louis Kroeber.
• Students will be able to explain the Ruth Benedict’s Pattern of culture.
• Students will be able to understand the concept of Configurations of cultural growth.

1. Introduction

Culture is the key concept of anthropology and is central to all the sub-divisions of this discipline. Culture is an attribute of the genus Homo. It is a design for living. It is the basis of human life. It rests on biology but is not biological. It is human biology such as a developed brain, nimble hands and freely moving tongue which helped humans to acquire a design for living. What has been acquired as a design of living is not biological. It is a totality of mental, rational, and material, technological processes and products which arose out of symbols, ideas ideals, rules, patterns of thinking, network of relations and material objects without which human existence is impossible or impractical. This totality is what anthropologists call culture.

Culture is not merely a loose accumulation of parts. It is a holistic phenomena and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts of culture. The awesome complexity of culture cannot be explained by merely investigating the different components of culture. Culture is a coherent system which is integrated and is not a random accumulation of bits of traits and complexes. This integrated arrangement of parts of culture gives each culture its unique configuration. This Configuration of culture, with its systems of internal relationships, is called the pattern of culture.

One of the pioneers of research in the field of patterns of culture is A.L. Kroeber. His publication “Configuration of Culture” carries an elaborate description of the growth and spread of cultures and in this work he identifies two patterns of culture – Basic or Systemic Patterns and Secondary Patterns.

According to Kroeber, the Basis or Systemic Patterns of Culture are the most stable and persistent forms of culture which do not change randomly and show consistency as coherent organizations of different traits and have a functional significance. The examples of this form of patterns are the alphabet complex, the plough complex, religious forms etc.

The Secondary Patterns of Culture, compared to the Basic forms, is relatively unstable and is subjected to change and these patterns show a greater variety in the world. The examples of this form of cultural patterns are the systems of social organization.

Another major researcher in the domain of cultural patterns is Ruth Benedict. Her work “Patterns of Culture” is influenced by Kroeber’s work in this field. However Benedict goes a step further and added a new dimension to the concept given by Kroeber. She has identified “qualities” of culture which, according to her, pervades every system of organization within the culture. She calls these qualities “Apollonian and Dyonisian Ethos”.

2.   Alfred Louis Kroeber

Alfred Louis Kroeber was born June 11, 1876. His Birth registry is Hoboken, New Jersey. Alfred was the first child of Florence Martin Kroeber and Johanna Muller Kroeber. His Father Florence Martin Kroeber and grand-father Louis Kroeber had migrated from a village “Kroebern” near Leipzig, Germany to U.S.A. in the middle of the 19th Century. His father, Florence, at an very early age after sixteen entered into business to support his younger brothers and sisters. However by the time he married, he was an established independent importer of European clocks. Florence’s principal shop was on Broadway at Franklin Street, with a branch on Union Square at New York and Kroeber, when he was a child used to help his father in delivering clock packet to the customer’s door.

Figure 1 – Alfred Louis Kroeber, Professor of Anthropology, University of California – Berkeley in 1951.

Source: http://www.americanethnography.com/article.php?id=10#.VmlVA3YrLIU

Kroeber did his B.A. (in literature) from Columbia College and then joined Master degree in literature for earning. He was then an assistant, half time in literature and half time in teaching. In 1896, Frans Boas was appointed as lecture in Anthropology, in Columbia University. For the first time Kroeber met Boas which took him to anthropology and determined later his professional life. Thus Kroeber entered in anthropology via humanities. In 1897 Boas offered a course in American Indian languages and two young men along with Kroeber enrolled with Boas. And by the end of 1897, Kroeber had made his choice of professional anthropologists and same year he became an assistant in anthropology in Columbia University. In 1898 Kroeber received a Fellowship in anthropology from the Columbia University and Boas sent him the next summer to do Theories and methods in social and cultural Anthropology his field – work among the Arapaho Indians. In 1901 Kroeber wrote his twenty-eight page doctoral dissertation on “Decorative symbolism of the Araphho” under the guidance of Boas and was awarded the degree. In 1901 when Kroeber had been awarded Ph.D. in anthropology, he got an offer to join the newly created Department of Anthropology at California, Berkeley and he accepted the offer at once. In 1906 Kroeber made Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Berkeley. For about six decades, till he died in 1960, California Berkeley remained his academic home where he organised large scale seminars and symposia and made great theoretical contribution in the domain of anthropology.

3.   Ruth Fulton Benedict

Ruth Fulton Benedict was born June 5, 1887 in New York. Her father Frederick Fulton was a homeopathic doctor and surgeon and mother Beatrice Fulton was a school teacher. Mr. Frederick Fulton acquired a unknown diseases during one of his surgeries in 1888. Due to his health issues and illness, the family moved to Norwich, New York to the Ruth’s maternal grandparents. A year later he was died when Ruth Benedict was two years old, leaving his wife to support their two daughters. Mrs Fulton was heartbroken and depressed by her husband’s passing. Anything that relate to him caused her overwhelmed by grief. They left the family farm and moved to the middle-east. When Ruth Benedict was seven years old, she started writing short verses and read any book that she get on her hand. Four years later, they returned to New York and settled in Buffalo. Her mother got a job as librarian at the Buffalo Public Library. Despite the years of hardship, Benedict was able to take college degree at Vassar. She graduated in 1909 with honours. She married in 1914 to Stanley Rossiter Benedict. In this way, after marriage, she was known as Ruth Fulton Benedict. Her husband was a professor of chemistry at the Cornell University Medical School in New York City.

Figure -2: Ruth Fulton Benedict in 1937

Source: http://www.americanethnography.com/article.php?id=7#.VmlUu3YrLIU

In 1919, she met Alexander Golden Wieser, a famous American Anthropologists while attending lectures at New School for Social Research. He inspired her to join Columbia University under Professor Frans Boas. In the year 1921, she came to Columbia University and in 1922 Benedict conducted her first field study among the Serrano Indians of California under the supervision of A.L. Kroeber. In 1923, she was awarded a doctorate degree in Anthropology from the University of Columbia. Her topic of Ph.D. thesis was, ‘The Concept of the Guardian Spirit in North American’. In the same year she was appointed as a lecturer in Anthropology at Columbia University. Benedict’s concept of culture pattern was first formulated in her paper entitled, “Psychological Types in the Culture of South-West” (1928). The concept of patterns of culture was elaborated in her famous book, Patterns of Culture (1934). Her book on Japanese culture, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, (1946) is her best known work in this field. This book reveals the pattern of Japanese national character. At Columbia, she carried heavy teaching and administrative responsibilities. In 1948, Ruth Benedict attended a UNESCO Seminar in Czechoslovakia. She died in the fall of that year on her return to New York at the age to sixty-one. Though she is no more with us, but her theories of pattern of culture and her study on Japanese national character provided feed back to many social scientists to undertake more and more researches in those areas.

4.      Kroeber’s “Configuration of Culture Growth”

The “Configuration of Culture Growth” of Kroeber is a monumental book in which he discussed Indian culture, described and analysed the civilizations of Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, China etc. It is not just “another book on anthropology”. It is a huge work and the result of much labor and thought, the mature fruit of an exceptionally able and energetic mind, one that has been occupied with anthropological theories and problems for over forty years. Since this work embodies and reflects many trends and views in American anthropology since Boas went to Columbia in 1896 it would be well, in order to appreciate its full significance, to view it against this historical background.

Franz Boas show aversion towards creative synthesis, generalizations and systems. But apparently he took pride in this attitude and a number of disciples called it as “scientific rigor”, “merciless logic,” “acidly critical,” etc. Without theory, creative synthesis and generalization there can be no science. Boas adopted the approach to proceed from the particular to further particulars instead of going from the particular to the universal, which is the course followed everywhere in science. Boas produced a picture of culture from this point of view that there was no order, no rhyme or reason, to the great mass of cultural phenomena that make up the history and life of mankind. R.H. Lowie expressed it, Civilization appeared to be a “planless hodge-podge, a chaotic jumble”. But Kroeber did not accepted this view and tried to bring order out of chaos to render culture ethnology that makes sense.

Kroeber Instead of seeing civilization as a “planless hodge-podge, a chaotic jumble”, he discovers “a majestic order pervading civilization.” He writes an essay “On the Principle of Order in Civilization as exemplified by changes of Fashion.” Ha has attempted to work out a logic of the sciences in which the position of anthropology with reference to the other sciences is indicated as “The Super-Organic”. In Kroeber’s view culture and civilization constituted a separate realm of phenomena, namely the Super-organic. He did not agree with Oswald Spengler who equated the rise and decline of culture and civilization with organisms. The concept of Super-organic was not new, because “it has been named by Spencer, defined by Tylor, applied by Sumner and it was implicit in the writings of Comte and Durkheim”. However, on its simplest level, it was nothing more than a recognition of culture as a learned tradition.

Culture is not instinctive and is not biologically transmitted. It is through social interaction that culture is learned. The human beings have a great capacity for learning and they depend on this learned knowledge for their survival.

Kroeber was fully committed to the super-organic view of culture. “Configuration of Culture Growth” is simply a continuation, and the most impressive example of Kroeber attempt to find his way out of Boasian wilderness.

Firstly Kroeber viewed culture as events organized into patterns not as random and unrelated phenomena. A pattern is a system, a manifestation of order. Secondly he said culture patterns grow and these growths themselves follow patterns. Kroeber describes their life cycle in terms of “growth, realization, exhaustion and death” or “growth, saturation and exhaustion”. A culture pattern has certain specific potentialities and also certain specific limitations. When given set of potentialities is exhausted, the growth ends, there is no growth until a new set of impulses has arisen under new circumstances. Thus we have configurations of growth of culture patterns.

Kroeber wanted to study these configurations and thus undertaken a survey of the development of various aspects of culture such as philosophy, science, philology, sculpture, painting, drama, literature and music from all the countries of the world that have produced advanced cultures. On the basis of these surveys, Kroeber tries to throw light on the following questions:

1. How do the various configurations found in different regions and different historical periods compare with each other? Are the configurations of growth in philosophy in Greece, India and China, for example similar or do they differ?
2. Are the configurations of growth in one field, music, let say, like those in another field, such as mathematics or sculpture?
3. To what extent do “the several patterns of one culture tend to form, to culminate and to dissolve or atrophy simultaneously”?

Kroeber finds both similarities and differences among the configurations of growth. He finds “the several patterns of one culture” do tend to grow, mature and decline more or less together but there is considerable variation. Kroeber tried to bring order out of chaos but the reason why “Configurations” has failed to achieve success is that it suffers from two theoretical errors both traceable to Boas. As he has deviated from the Boasian line on a number of occasions, he has been criticized by Haeberlin, Sapir, Goldenweiser, Benedict as well as Frans Boas.

The first theoretical confusion of the process that is history – sequence of unique events with the process that is evolution – sequence of forms. They confuse the two temporal processes under one heading history. The one deals with phenomena as unique events with reference to specific time and place; the other deals with classes of phenomena without regard to specific time and place. The one particularizes and the other generalizes. The placing these two quite different types of process under the same heading history made to disappear the evolutionist process.

Another confused theoretical weakness is that “Configuration of Culture Growth” tried to generalize history. Kroeber begins with history with unique concrete events having specific time and place. He works with history but out of history, he tries to get something like evolution or growth. His attempt at transmutation fails, naturally; what he ends up with is, of course, histories. But it is unfair to shift the blame entirely to Kroeber because he loves facts, concrete, specific, unique facts. In “Configuration,” Kroeber tries to soar into the realm of universals, but he is unable to leave the solid earth of particular facts.

5.      Ruth Benedict’s Theory of Pattern

Another major researcher in the domain of cultural patterns is Ruth Benedict. Her work “Patterns of Culture” is influenced by Kroeber’s work in this field but credit goes to her for providing a methodological model for studying human culture in terms of Pattern rather than social contents. However Benedict goes a step further and added a new dimension to the concept given by Kroeber. She said life crisis rites are one of the several ways by which patterns of culture emerge and are reflected in the behaviour of the individuals of a group. All the basis institutions that are part of the culture tend to mirror the overall pattern of that culture. This notion was successfully highlighted by Ruth Benedict’s in her book – Patterns of Culture (1934), which is considered to be a classic work in anthropology.

Benedict emphasised that cultures must be taken as wholes, each one integrated on its own principles each with its own configuration. Benedict looked at several societies and described them in terms of their basic personality configurations pointing out how these personality types fit in with the overall configuration. Among the societies she studied were two North American Indian groups, the Zuni Indians and the Kwakiutl Indians. She described the basic configuration of Zuni culture as Apollonian. According to this configuration, the Zunis were very cooperative, non aggressive in any aspect of their life and did not seek to express their individuality. The typical Zuni was a person who sought to blend into group, who did not wish to stand out as superior or being as above the others members of the tribe. Child training patterns were designed to suppress individuality. Initiation ceremonies were characterized by a lack of ordeal and the youths were initiated in a group setting. Marriage was relatively casual. Priests are low key individuals and special powers were dedicated on a group basis. Death ceremony was an occasion of little mourning. Leadership among the Zuni was declined in every possible occasion. Thus Benedict pointed out that basis personality type was reinforced in Zuni culture thus forming an overall cultural configuration.

Kwakiutl Indians presented a cultural configuration much different from that of the Zuni. Benedict termed this configuration as Dionysian. According to this pattern, the Kwakiutls were characterized by violent, impulsive, exotic, imbalance and individuality was emphasised in every aspect of their life. The ideal man among the Kwakiutls was one who had a will to power and always attempted to show his superiority. Child training practices reinforced this pattern, emphasising the achievement of the individual over cooperation with the group. In the initiation ceremonies also, a boy was expected to go out by himself and experience a personal relationship with the supernatural. Marriage entailed a tremendous celebration and was not causal kind of ceremony like the Zuni. Leadership among the Kwakiutl society was manifested by a constant struggle for power. Religious positions included shaman, priest who wielded enormous personal power. Even the death ritual among the Kwakiutl reinforced this overall configuration. A death was a major event with much mourning and was not accepted calmly and peacefully as among the Zuni.

She has identified “qualities” of culture which, according to her, pervades every system of organization within the culture. She calls these qualities “Apollonian and Dyonisian Ethos”. Ethos refers to the attractive or emotional quality of a culture expressed in series of beliefs, thoughts and behaviour. It acts as a central force, interest theme or pattern and colors every item of culture. As it determines what people should have, do, think, and feel it, prepares all the people in a culture to express the same emotional tone in all acts, thoughts and feelings. According to its nature, ethos may be classified into two types: the Apollonian ethos and the Dionysian ethos. Cultures whose emotional qualities resemble those of Apollo and Dionysus are identified as having Apollonian ethos and Dionysian ethos respectively.

Thus Benedict’s study of cultural configurations illustrates how numerous aspects of life in a culture reinforce the basic pattern of culture. Benedict’s approach suggests that based upon configuration of the culture, the personality is more likely to conform to one type than to other. Her main point is that we have to recognise cultural differences as valid and not impose our own morals and values on all people.

6. Summary

Culture is the key concept of anthropology and is central to all the sub-divisions of this discipline. Culture is an attribute of the genus Homo. It is a design for living. It is the basis of human life. It rests on biology but is not biological. Culture is not merely a loose accumulation of parts. It is a holistic phenomena and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts of culture. Culture is a coherent system which is integrated and is not a random accumulation of bits of traits and complexes. This integrated arrangement of parts of culture gives each culture its unique configuration. This Configuration of culture, with its systems of internal relationships, is called the pattern of culture. One of the pioneers of research in the field of patterns of culture is A.L. Kroeber. His publication “Configuration of Culture” carries an elaborate description of the growth and spread of cultures and in this work he identifies two patterns of culture – Basic or Systemic Patterns and Secondary Patterns. According to Kroeber, the Basis or Systemic Patterns of Culture are the most stable and persistent forms of culture which do not change randomly and show consistency as coherent organizations of different traits and have a functional significance. The examples of this form of patterns are the alphabet complex, the plough complex, religious forms etc. The Secondary Patterns of Culture, compared to the Basic forms, is relatively unstable and is subjected to change and these patterns show a greater variety in the world. The examples of this form of cultural patterns are the systems of social organization. Another major researcher in the domain of cultural patterns is Ruth Benedict. Her work “Patterns of Culture” is influenced by Kroeber’s work in this field. However Benedict goes a step further and added a new dimension to the concept given by Kroeber. She has identified “qualities” of culture which, according to her, pervades every system of organization within the culture. She calls these qualities “Apollonian and Dyonisian Ethos”.