5 Diffusionism

Vineet Kumar Verma

Table of Contents

Introduction

1. History of Diffusionism Approach

2. Theories of Diffusion and Migration

3. Types of Diffusions

• Contagious diffusion
• Hierarchal contact
• Stimulus diffusion
• Relocation Diffusion

4.      Features of Diffusion

5.      Schools of Diffusionism

5.1 British School of Diffusionism

• G.E. Smith (1871-1937)
• W. J. Perry (1887-1949)
• W. H. R. Rivers (1864-1922)

5.2 German School of Diffusion

• F. Ratzel (1884-1904)
• F. Graebner (1887-1934)
• F.W. Schmidt (1868-1954)

5.3 American School of Diffusionism

• Franz Boas (1858-1942)
• Clark Wissler (1870-1947)
• Alfred Kroeber (1876-1960)

6. Critics

Summary

Learning Objective

• To introduce students the history of anthropological thought by tracing its historical development Diffusion School
• To classify the course of historical development, academic, and Anthropological importance in terms of its development
• To focus on the founding thinkers and anthropologists, theories and ethnographic researches that have constructed histories of anthropology (British, American and German) in the historical process
• To explore the formation and emergence of anthropology as a discipline in the late 19th century to the late 20th century.

Diffusionism

One theoretical orientation will arise and may grow in popularity until another is proposed in opposition to it. Often, one orientation will capitalize on those aspects of a problem that a previous orientation ignored or played down. Anthropological thought deals with theories developed and contribution made by different anthropologists. Literature available suggests that the man, his culture and society, have been subject of study; the subject was taught under different social sciences, because in the beginning, it was difficult to decide the subject matter of anthropology. Diffusionism is the term used by anthropologists and sociologists to account for the spread, through time, of aspects of culture artistic traditions, language, music, myths, religious beliefs, social organization, and technological ideas from one society or group to another. Also remaining unexplained is the situation of culture that have had no contact with each other or with any other culture, yet exhibiting similarities and parallels with each other. Notwithstanding the limitations, the diffusionists‘ school captured the attention of anthropologists for a long time nurturing their faculty of critical appraisal.

Diffusionism refers to the diffusion or transmission of cultural characteristics or traits from the common society to all other societies. They criticized the Psychic unity of mankind of evolutionists. They believed that most inventions happened just once and men being capable of imitation, these inventions were then diffused to other places. According to them all cultures originated at one point and then spread throughout the world. They opposed the notion of progress from simple to complex forms held by the evolutionists. They also held that primitive or modern is also a relative matter and hence comparative method is not applicable. They looked specifically for variations that gradually occurred while diffusion took place.

History of Diffusionism Approach

The Diffusionism approach, popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was developed by two main schools—the British and the German-Austrian. In general, diffusionists believed that most aspects of high civilization had emerged in culture centres from which they then diffused outward. Diffusion, as an anthropological school of thought, was a viable part of the development of anthropological concepts about how societies change due to the spread of culture traits and independent inventions. However, it was suffused with ethnocentric ideas and, as a school of thought, was only a small part of what should be the total analysis of world cultures.

A more holistic approach, stemming from the play of Diffusionism against evolutionism, has provided a more adequate understanding of the overall picture. It is difficult to predict what anthropological theory will be like in the future. Some ideas are likely to be discarded or ignored, and others revised. Scholarly disciplines and theories are very much the products of their times, and understanding how and why ideas have changed is part of what we need to understand. But some theoretical approaches and theories lead to greater understanding because they are more predictive of the world around us. In the next chapter, we examine the logic of explanation and evidence and how theory can be tested by anthropological research.

Theories of diffusion and Migration

Cultural diffusion is the spread of cultural trends across locations. Beliefs, practices, and ideas get shared from person to person, and sometimes even around the world. Many cultural practices are spread by a type of cultural diffusion called expansion diffusion. This is when a trend is spread from its originating place, outward.

There are several forms of this type of diffusion: contagious, hierarchical, and stimulus diffusion.

Contagious Diffusion: when a cultural trend is transmitted from person to person from an original source to numerous others, similar to a virus. Even the name ‘viral videos’ speaks to the idea of a contagion, spreading an idea almost like an illness would spread through contact and interaction. As cultural trends gain in popularity and draw our attention, profit may become a motive in perpetuating the trend. Think of how viral videos add advertising or companies pick up on Internet memes to sell more products as a result.

Hierarchical Diffusion: Another form of expansion diffusion is hierarchical diffusion, or when a cultural trend is spread from one segment of society to another, in a pattern. Consider how hip hop culture emerged from within urban areas, but is now known in all regions of society including suburban and rural areas, as well.

Stimulus Diffusion: Finally, stimulus diffusion is when a cultural trend spreads, but is changed by those adopting the idea.

Relocation Diffusion: Expansion diffusion and its various forms are not the only way that ideas and practices are passed along to others. Another way that culture spreads is by relocation diffusion, when a person migrates from their home and shares their culture with a new location. Relocation diffusion accounts for much of the folk culture that can be seen in different regions based on migration patterns.

School of Diffusion

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, although the cultural evolutionism of Tylor and Morgan was still popular and ―race‖ theory was at its height, Diffusionism began to take hold among anthropologists in several parts of the world. The two main schools with a diffusionists viewpoint were the British and the German-Austrian.

1. British School of Diffusion

The main spokesmen for the British school of Diffusionism were G. Elliott Smith, William J. Perry, and W. H. R. Rivers. Smith and Perry stated that most aspects of higher civilization were developed in Egypt (which was relatively advanced because of its early development of agriculture) and were then diffused throughout the world as other peoples came into contact with the Egyptians. People, they believed, are inherently uninventive and invariably prefer to borrow the inventions of another culture rather than develop ideas for themselves.

G.E. Smith and W.J. Perry were considered ‗extreme diffusionalist‖. G.E. Smith visited Egypt to understand the anatomy of mummies. He found the complexities of procedures in Mummification. Hence, it made him think it was their own invention, unique and it was their own. He linked mummification to other cultural traits construction of pyramids, stone monuments (Megalithic). Back home in England, he saw stone monuments, hence he assumed it as a prototype of Egypt, hence,

Egyptian were centred around ― The sun worship belief system complex‖. Hence, his aim became support his hypothesis of sun worship belief culture complex. Hence they are considered as heliocentric school of thought or pan Egyptian. These traits can be seen in different parts of the world. He found evidences similar to Egyptians around the world. Ex: Mayan pyramids.

Smith & Perry‐ The diffusion of culture‐1927 The origin of civilizations.

The moderate diffusionalist thought was put forth by W.H.R. Rivers‐ Genealogical method. Working among the Todas of Nilgiri Hills 1906. (The history of Melanesian society‐1914)‐ Especially among mortuary ritual. Mortuary rituals among the same society (Australian aboriginals), Burial Cremation, Placement of corps on platform.

2.  German School of Diffusion

German school of Diffusionism also called cultural historical school or cultural circle or Kulturkreise. Methodology of the cultural historical school to distinguish based on functional reason and similarities due to historical contact. Ex: All arrows must have a sharp point, and all bows must have a sting. Functional similarities based on Function or Form. Ratzel noted that use of bow and arrow in other places existed, but Africa and Australia exhibit similarities in terms of material used, feathers of a particular bird, arrangement etc, these not explained based on functional reasons, but based on historical contact due to migration. This viewpoint was never widely accepted, and it has now been abandoned completely. Inspired by Friedrich Ratzel, Fritz Graebner and Father Wilhelm Schmidt led the early 20th-century German Austrian diffusionists school. This school also held that people borrow from others because they are basically uninventive. In contrast to Smith and Perry of the British school, who assumed that all cultural traits originated in one place (Egypt) and filtered out to cultures throughout the world, the German-Austrian school suggested the existence and diffusion of several different cultural complexes (Kulturkreise, plural in German). Like the British diffusionists, however, the Kulturkreise (singular) school provided little documentation for the historical relationships it assumed.

3. American School of Diffusion

A separate American Diffusionism school of thought, led by Clark Wissler and Alfred Kroeber, also arose in the first few decades of the 20th century, but it was more modest in its claims. The American diffusionists attributed the characteristic features of a culture area to a geographical culture centre, where the traits were first developed and from which they then diffused outward. This theory led Wissler to formulate his age-area principle: If a given trait diffuses outward from a single culture centre, it follows that the most widely distributed traits found to exist around such a centre must be the oldest traits. Although most anthropologists today acknowledge the spread of traits by diffusion, few try to account for most aspects of cultural development and variation in terms of diffusion. For one thing, the diffusionists dealt only in a very superficial way with the question of how cultural traits are transferred from one society to another. The failing was a serious one, because one of the things we want to explain is why a culture accepts, rejects, or modifies a trait that one of its neighbours has. Also, even if it could be demonstrated how and why a trait diffused outward from a cultural centre, we would still be no closer to an explanation of how or why the trait developed within that centre in the first place.

Franz Boas (1858‐1942): Pattern of cultural organization leads to macro pattern, aim is to reconstruct the prehistory of American Indians. The reason why people‘s cultures in a particular geography are same because of particular history doesn‘t relate it to any material evidence. Though no two cultures are alike, but cultures in close proximity tend to be alike. Thereby focusing on similarities in particular culture and differences in culture across geographers

• Culture area: The area in which similar, cultures are found is called culture area, is geographical area/ physical environment occupied by no. of independent groups/ tribes with similar cultures (subsistence pattern).Species of plants/crops/animals. They survive on or economic pattern. Major criteria of their way of life
• Culture  centre/Core:  The  circle  within  each  circle  area  is  culture  centre  associated  with  most favourable environment of the culture type. It occur in its peak. Ex: Bison hunting in Great Plains.
• Culture determinism: Culture comes from culture, no external material determining culture. They are idiographic (particular‐history), not homothetic (Scientific), this is called culture determinism.
• Age area: Used to understand the age of the trait which is seen in the major, wider distribution of the trait from its centre, the older the trait. Boas critiqued evolutionism to the core three grounds : Empirical, Theoretical, Methodological. He rejected the homothetic approach and favoured for idiographic (Inductive) from particular to general theory building. Hence, he plunged into ethnographic particularism‐ particular geography‐ history (Unique aspect of the culture is highlighted) because historical accidents. Concept focusing on the particularity of the culture based on its unique geographic and historical context. This lead to concept of cultural relativism, idea that each culture must be studied and makes sense in its own context( particular and unique). Cultural relativism is against ethnocentrism, hence cultural determinism. It was ―culture that shaped human thought and behaviour, its not because of biology.‖
• Cultural Relativism: The idea that people‘s values and customs must be understood in terms of the culture of which they are apart.
• Cultural Materialism: According to cultural materialists, technology and economic factors are the most important ones in moulding a society. They also believe that types of technology and economic methods that are adopted always determine the type of society that develops. This is known as determinism.

Alfred Kroeber:

An engaged anthropology is committed to supporting social change efforts that arise from the interaction between community goals and anthropological research. Because the study of people, past and present, requires respect for the diversity of individuals, cultures, societies, and knowledge systems, anthropologists are expected to adhere to a strong code of professional ethics.

Criticism

• The diffusionists approach was slowly being replaced by studies concerning acculturation, patterns of culture, and the relation between culture and personality. Boas discussed how the “impact of one society upon another could not be understood merely as the addition or subtraction of discrete culture traits, but as a potentially major transformation of behaviour, values, and mode of adaptation”
• By World War I, Diffusionism was also being challenged by the newly emerging Functionalist school of thought lead by Bronislaw Malinowski and A. R. Radcliffe Brown. They argued that even if one could produce evidence of imported aspects of culture in a society, the original culture trait might be so changed that it served a completely different function that the society from which it diffused.
• In the 1920s, Boas and other American anthropologists, such as Robert Lowie and Ralph Linton, argued that cultural change had been influenced by many different sources. They argued against “the grand reconstruction of both evolutionists and diffusionists”.
• James M. Blaut (1993) believed that extreme Diffusionism was racist. However, he did believe that as a process, Diffusionism was important. He criticized extreme Diffusionism because he believed that it contributed to the prevalent belief that “European style societies” were more innovative than non European societies and that the proper form of development would progress according to whether or not these culture traits had diffused from European societies.

In short all anthropologists of one kind or another are liable to investigate almost everything about human beings: our emotions, our behaviours, how people organize their living, our language, our religion, our behaviours and so forth. A good way to emphasize anthropology‘s broad scope is to say anthropologists are interested in all human beings – whether living or dead, are interested in many different aspects of humans, including their technologies, family lives, political systems, religions and languages. According to the rise and development of different social institution as well as social facts, arts, religion, morals and various other facets of human behaviour, which are taught under the purview of culture, the interpretations of which form the subject matter of anthropological thought.

This meagre statistic expanded in the 20th century to comprise anthropology departments in the majority of the world’s higher educational institutions, many thousands in number. Anthropology has diversified from a few major subdivisions to dozens more. Practical anthropology, the use of anthropological knowledge and technique to solve specific problems, has arrived; for example, the presence of buried victims might stimulate the use of a forensic archaeologist to recreate the final scene. Organization has reached global level. During the last three decades of the 19th century a proliferation of anthropological societies and associations occurred, most independent, most publishing their own journals, and all international in membership and association. The major theorists belonged to these organizations. They supported the gradual osmosis of anthropology curricula into the major institutions of higher learning.

Summary

In above discussion, we will be able to outline major and historical developments in the discipline of anthropology and have a clear chronological development of anthropological theory by the end of the term. While diffusion did provide an explanation for spread of culture traits it could not explain the origin of the trait. In focusing on the spread of culture traits from one area and its acceptance by another area, it minimized the creativity of human beings. In fact, one of the major debates in anthropological literature of earlier times was on diffusion vs. invention. It was said that diffusion could not account for independent invention or for culture change. Diffusionism refers to the diffusion or transmission of cultural characteristics or traits from the common society to all other societies. They criticized the Psychic unity of mankind of evolutionists. They believed that most inventions happened just once and men being capable of imitation, these inventions were then diffused to other places. Situations of prolonged periods of contact between two or more culture in which each adhered to its own distinctive way of life or those in which culture contact leads to selective borrowing pose a threat to the validity of the general premise of diffusion.

Also remaining unexplained is the situation of culture that have had no contact with each other or with any other culture, yet exhibiting similarities and parallels with each other. Notwithstanding the limitations, the diffusionists‘ school captured the attention of anthropologists for a long time nurturing their faculty of critical appraisal. More seriously, the diffusionist‘s school represented a modest attempt to explain the presence of similar culture traits in widely separated cultures through contact between them. It was not easy to discount it as a principle devoid of any merit. In fact, it provided the foundation for the development of crucial ideas and concepts that were employed not only by anthropologists but specialists of other disciplines. In doing so it served as a melting post of inter-disciplinary critical thinking.

REFERENCES

• Asad, T (ed.) (1973) Anthropology and the colonial encounter, Ithaca: London
• Blumer, H (1967) „Threats from Agency-Determined Research: The Case of Camelot‟ in Horowitz, I (ed.) The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot: Studies in the Relationship between Social Science and Practical Politics, MIT: London
• Boas, F. 1920 “The Methods of Ethnology” American Anthropologist 22/4, 311-321
• Brown, R (1973) „ Anthropology and Colonial Rule: Godfrey Wilson and the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute, Northern Rhodesia‟ in Asad, T (ed.) Anthropology and the colonial encounter, Ithaca: London, pp. 173-199
• Fabian, J (1983) Time and the other: how anthropology makes its object, Colombia University: New York
• Geertz, C (1988) Works and lives: the anthropologist as author, Polity: Cambridge
• Gellner, E. 1995 “James Frazer and Cambridge Anthropology” in Anthropology and Politics:Revolutions in the Sacred Grove Oxford: Blackwell, 102-117
• Grillo, R & Rew, A (eds.) (1985) Social anthropology and development policy, Tavistock: London Grimshaw, A & Hart, K (1994) „Anthropology and the Crisis of the Intellectual‟,Critique of Anthropology 14 (3): pp. 227-262
• Harris, M. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
• Herskovits, M. J. 1955. Cultural Anthropology. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.Pvt. Ltd.
• Hodgen, M.A. 1971 [1964] “The Classical Heritage” in Early Anthropology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 17-48
• Jha, M. 1983. An Introduction to Anthropological Thought. New Delhi: Vikas PublishingHouse
• Knauft, Bruce, 2006. Anthropology in the Middle. Anthropological Theory, 6:407-430.
• Kroeber, A. !952. The Nature of Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
• Kuklick, H. (ed.) 2008 A New History of Anthropology Oxford: Blackwell
• Kuper, A. 1973 “Anthropology and Colonialism” in Anthropology and Anthropologists: The Modern British School London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 99-120
• Lewis, Herbert S. 2001. The Passion of Franz Boas. American Anthropologist 103:447-467.
• Linton, R. 1936. The Study of Man: An Introduction. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts.
• Lowie, R. H. 1937. The History of Ethnological Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston
• Malefijt, A. 1974. Images of Man: A History of Anthropological Thought. New York: Alfred Knopf
• McGee, R. Jon & Richard L. Warms. 2003. Anthropological Theory: An introductory History. The McGrawHill Higher Education.
• Moore, Jerry D. 2009. Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists. Third Edition. Altamira Press.
• Murphy, R. 1989. Cultural and Social Anthropology: An Overture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall
• Redfield, R. R. Linton and M. J. Herskovits. 1936. Memorandum on the Study of Acculturation. American Anthropologist xxxviii:149-152