11 Ecological approaches as a reaction to the theory of Unilinear evolution

Ajeet Jaiswal

Contents

1. Introduction:

2. Ecological Approaches: Ecology and natural resources dynamics

3. Anthropology and concept of evolution

4. Origins of classical evolutionism

5. Evolution

6. Unilineal evolution

6.1 Edward Burnett Tylor

6.2 Lewis Henry Morgan

6.3 Historical Particularism’s Overview

6.4 Franz Boas

6.5 Neoevolutionism’s Overview

7. Global change

8. Major objections and concerns

9. Summary

Learning objectives:

The course provides introduction information about Ecological Approaches and Unilineal evolution
It includes Anthropology and concept of evolution and Origins of classical evolutionism
The study of this module also enables the students at postgraduate level to understand the concept of Unilineal evolution, Global change and Major objections and concerns of Unilineal evolution

1. Introduction:

All animals, including man, depend on other living creatures for their continued existence. These living creatures constitute resources that are renewable; resources that will continue to support the animal that preys on them in perpetuity so long as their capital stock is not eaten into. (Wilson, 1980). Social ecology provides a framework for understanding how individuals and their social environments mutually affect each other across the lifespan. Drawing from the ideas of Kurt Lewin’s A Dynamic Theory of Personality, which conceptualized this relationship as an equation that yielded behavior,

Bronfenbrenner’s The Ecology of Human Development (1979) extended the social ecological perspective to account for the complexity of individuals developing within embedded systems. Bronfenbrenner specified micro-, meso-, exo-, and macro- subsystems, which constitute the settings and life space within which an individual develops. In this model, each of the subsystems influences the individual and the other subsystems. Moreover, Bronfenbrenner viewed the individual as moving through time and being influenced by his or her developmental and life course experiences (ontogenic development). McLeroy, et al. (1988), which appeared in Health Education Quarterly as “An Ecological Perspective on Health Promotion Programs,” further defined the social ecological model for health promotion to depict interrelated systems at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy levels, illustrated as concentric circles.

The authors subsequently add other levels of analysis, including the physical environment and culture. The social ecological model provides a framework for understanding the factors that produce and maintain health and health-related issues, allowing identification of promising points of intervention and understanding how social problems are produced and sustained within and across the various subsystems. However, the model has also yielded a growing acknowledgment of the complexity of these systems, highlighting the need for more sophisticated intervention and research methods (McLeroy, et al.1988).

2. Ecological Approaches: Ecology and natural resources dynamics

The scientific approach to natural resource dynamics involves the characterization of how the environment influences the abundance and availability of a given resource. From the ecological point of view, the environment is a collection of natural factors (physical, chemical, and biological) capable of affecting living organisms. Therefore, any factor that can be consumed or used by an organism is defined as a natural resource (Begon et. al, 1990).

The “individual – environment – population” system (Barbault, 1992), which is at the heart of ecological thought, presents a multitude of intertwined interactions that can be grouped into one of two categories: interactions between organisms (competition, predation, mutualism, etc.), and interactions between organisms and their physical environment (the environmental “conditions”).

In essence, ecology deals with the study of complex systems. A complex entity (Fogelman, 1991; Gell-Mann, 1994) is composed of different elements that interact and combine in a way that may not be obvious at first: the system’s complexity is in the eye of the observer.

The idea that the concept of complexity is inseparable from perception is not neutral but depends on the scale of observation of the system under study. In ecology, there is no scale for observing all phenomena. Conventionally, the hierarchy of scales (Allen and Starr, 1982) refers to organizational levels: cell, organism, population, community, ecosystems, landscapes, biome, and biosphere. One of the major issues in ecology is the ability to take into account the multiplicity of scales of study so that each of the phenomena studied at their specific levels can be integrated during a phase called “scale transfer”.

3. Anthropology and concept of evolution

Anthropology may be said to have begun with the concept of evolution. To understand this we must see the social context within which Anthropology came up as a discipline. Though many would claim that Anthropology truly began with the early Greek philosophers and scientists, it came up as a discipline in its true right only after the Renaissance, about the 1960s. At this time, all the different countries in Europe and England were trading and warring (Ghosh, 1994).

Due to the essentiality of having raw material and the exigencies of supplying and selling industrial produce at cheap rates in bulk, a political economy evolved that took charge of new areas found around the world, took over its government and through it became controllers of trade and commerce in these areas. The taking over of the government was additional to this major enterprise.

In the course of this exercise, the Europeans came into contact with the Other. They saw other cultures and peoples and came into contact with religions, cultures, and governments different from their own. In order to understand this strangeness, scholars began to sift through the works of earlier travelers and missionaries. To understand this strangeness and this Other-hood of a culture that was alien to theirs from this data where inaccuracies inevitably crept in, they had to recourse to their own cultures in order to formulate a model. This is the overall model that was ultimately created through the ideas prevalent in Western society at that time. It came to be known in anthropology as Classical Evolutionism. (Ghosh, 1994).

4. Origins of classical evolutionism

The idea of social evolution came from the biological model of evolution. However, the particular kind of approach that was used by social scientists depended more on the other theories that were prevalent at the time. The word ‘evolution’ comes from the Latin evolvere, literally meaning “an unrolling.” Earlier to Darwin it was used in the idea of “progress” and often used in literature and poetry. Lamarck used the word “transmutation”. Lyell uses the word ‘evolution’ only once to indicate a progress of speciation (Gould, 1991).

5. Evolution

One can then see that cultural evolution began as an evolutionary science. However, before we take a look at what cultural evolution is all about, what does the ‘e’- word really mean? The origin of the word ‘evolution’ comes from the Latin ‘evolutio’, where ‘e’ means ‘out of’ and ‘volutus’ means ‘rolled.’ Aristotle, Leibniz (1898), Immanuel Kant and Hegel, all used it in the sense of only internal forces that help in the unfolding of a developmental process, often of a biological organism or type. There was no effect of external forces or the environment. It was used in the same sense by Arthur O. Lovejoy in 1936. It was first used in biology by Charles Bonnet in 1762. He was a preformationist, i.e., he believed that the developmental stages are preformed in the foetus and unfolds over time. This is opposed to the epigeneticists, who claim that new forms are created as the foetus grows. This was used in the sense used by Bonnet also by Miall (1912), Osborn (1927) and Fothergill (1952). Lamarck did not use the word in his major work in 1809. Auguste Comte used it frequently from the 1830s but his definition was very general. Thus, up to the 1850s the word was uncommon in England. John Stuart Mill used it only once in 1843. Darwin used it in The Origin of Species only in the 6th edition (1872) without defining it (Ghosh, 1994).

6. Unilineal evolution

Unilineal evolution (also referred to as classical social evolution) is a 19th-century social theory about the evolution of societies and cultures. It was composed of many competing theories by various anthropologists, who believed that Western culture is the contemporary pinnacle of social evolution. Different social status is aligned in a single line that moves from most primitive to most civilize. This theory is now generally considered obsolete in academic circles (Murphy, 1977).

The theory of Unilineal Evolution claims that societies develop according to one universal order of cultural evolution. The theorists identified the universal evolutional stages and classified different societies as savagery, barbarian and civilization. The Nineteenth-century Evolutionists (Unilineal Evolution) collected data from missionaries and traders and they themselves rarely went to the societies that they were analyzing. They organized these second-hand data and applied the general theory to all societies. Since Western societies had the most advanced technology, they put those societies at the highest rank of civilization (Ghosh, 1994).

The Unilineal Evolution had two main assumptions that form the theory. One was psychic unity, a concept that suggests human minds share similar characteristics all over the world. This means that all people and their societies will go through the same process of development. Another underlying assumption was that Western societies are superior to other societies in the world. This assumption was based on the fact that Western societies were dominant because of their military and economic power against technologically simple societies (Murphy, 1977).

The Nineteenth-century Evolutionists or Unilineal Evolution contributed to anthropology by providing the first systematic methods for thinking about and explaining human societies. Their evolutionary theory is insightful with regard to the technological aspect of societies. There is a logical progression from using simple tools to developing complex technology. In this sense, complex societies are more “advanced” than simple societies. However, this judgment does not necessarily apply to other aspects of societies, such as kin systems, religions and childrearing customs (Carneiro, 1973).

Contemporary anthropologists view Unilineal Evolution as too simplistic to explain the development of various societies. In general, the Unilineal evolutionists relied on racist views of human development which were popular at that time. For example, both Lewis Henry Morgan and Edward Burnett Tylor believed that people in various societies have different levels of intelligence, which leads to societal differences. This view of intelligence is no longer valid in contemporary science. Unilineal Evolutionism was strongly attacked by Historical Particularists for being speculative and ethnocentric at the early twentieth-century. At the same time, its materialist approaches and cross-cultural views influenced Marxist Anthropology and Neo-evolutionists (Carneiro, 1973).

6.1 Edward Burnett Tylor (1832–1917, Great Britain)

The founder of cultural anthropology was the English scientist Edward Burnett Tylor. He adapted Charles Darwin’s theory of biological evolution to the study of human societies. Tylor’s own theory asserted that there is a progressive development of human cultures from the most primitive to the highest stages of civilization. He believed that societies evolve in much the same way as do biological organisms. In developing the concept of “survivals,” he noted that ancient customs and beliefs often survive in modern cultures, although somewhat transformed (Opler, 1964).

6.2 Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881, The United States)

Lewis Henry Morgan is a unilineal evolutionist who claimed that societies develop according to one universal order of cultural evolution. Morgan believed in a hierarchy of evolutionary development from “savagery” to “barbarism” to “civilization.” According to Morgan, the crucial distinction between civilized society and earlier societies is private property. He described “savage” societies as communistic, contrasting with “civilized” societies, which are based on private property.

Although Morgan’s theory has been criticized for being speculative and ethnocentric, his evolutionary theory influenced the development of anthropology. First, Morgan outlined the importance of the study of kinship systems for understanding the social organizations. Second, Morgan conducted cross-cultural research that attempted to be systematic and large-scale. Finally, Morgan organized anthropological data and formulated the evolutionary theory rather than simply collecting cultural data (Garbarino, 1977).

6.3 Historical Particularism’s Overview

Historical Particularism claims that each society has its own unique historical development and must be understood based on its own specific cultural and environmental context, especially its historical process. Historical Particularists criticized the theory of the Nineteenth-century Evolutionism as non-scientific and claimed themselves to be free from preconceived ideas. They collected a vast amount of first-hand cultural data by conducting ethnographic fieldwork. Based on these raw data, they described particular cultures instead of trying to establish general theories that apply to all societies.

The Historical Particularists valued fieldwork and history as critical methods of cultural analysis. At the same time, the anthropologists in this theoretical school had different views on the importance of individuals in a society. For example, Frantz Boas saw each individual as the basic component of a society. He gathered information from individual informants and considered such data valuable enough for cultural analysis. On the other hand, Alfred Kroeber did not see individuals as the fundamental elements of a society. He believed a society evolves according to its own internal laws that do not directly originate from its individuals. He named this cultural aspect superorganic and claimed that a society cannot be explained without considering this impersonal force (Garbarino, 1977).

Historical Particularism was a dominant theoretical trend in anthropology during the first half of the twentieth century. One of the achievements of the Historical Particularists was that they succeeded in excluding racism from anthropology. The Nineteenth-century Evolutionists explained cultural similarities and differences by classifying societies into superior and inferior categories. Historical Particualrists showed that this labeling is based on insufficient evidence and claimed that societies cannot be ranked by the value judgment of researchers.

6.4 Franz Boas (1858-1942, Germany-The United States)

Franz Boas is considered one of the founders of academic anthropology and is also credited with the theory of Historical Particularism. Until Boas presented Historical Particularism, many anthropologists believed that societies develop according to one universal order of cultural evolution. This belief, called the Unilineal Evolution, explained cultural similarities and differences among societies by classifying them into three sequential stages of development: savagery, barbarism and civilization. Boas criticized this belief as based on insufficient evidence.

For example, Unilineal Evolution claims that matrilineal kin systems preceded patrilineal kin systems and that religions based on animism developed before polytheistic religions. Boas argued that this ordering is merely an assumption because there is no historical evidence or way to demonstrate its validity. He also criticized Unilineal Evolution for its method of gathering and organizing data. At that time many anthropologists relied on missionaries or traders for data collection and anthropologists themselves rarely went to the societies that they were analyzing (Haviland, 1993).

Boas argued that those armchair anthropologists organized that second-hand data in unsystematic manners to fit their preconceived ideas. Based on his principle that cultural theories should be derived from concrete ethnographic data, Boas strongly advocated fieldwork. He developed the method of participant observation as a basic research strategy of ethnographic fieldwork. Based on this method Boas collected a vast amount of first-hand cultural data from Native American tribes in the United States. Using detailed ethnographic studies he argued that a society is understandable only in its own specific cultural context, especially its historical process. Boas did not deny the existence of general laws on human behavior and developed the position that those laws could be discovered from the understanding of a specific society (Haviland, 1993).

In later years Boas became skeptical about the possibility of deriving cultural laws because he realized that cultural phenomena are too complex. Besides presenting the theory of Historical Particularism, Boas left a tremendous impact on the development of anthropology. By claiming that societies cannot be ranked by the degree of savagery, barbarity or civility, Boas called for an end of ethnocentrism in anthropology. Also because of his influence, anthropologists began to do ethnological fieldwork to gather sound evidence. His position that culture must be understood in its own context has been passed on to anthropologists as a basic approach to cultural analysis (Peoples and Garrick ,1991).

6.5 Neoevolutionism’s Overview

The theory of Neoevolutionism explained how culture develops by giving general principles of its evolutionary process. The theory of cultural evolution was originally established in the 19th century. However, this Nineteenth-century Evolutionism was dismissed by the Historical Particularists as unscientific in the early 20th century. Therefore, the topic of cultural evolution had been avoided by many anthropologists until Neoevolutionism emerged in the 1930s. In other words, it was the Neoevolutionary thinkers who brought back evolutionary thought and developed it to be acceptable to contemporary anthropology (Peoples and Garrick ,1991).

The main difference between Neoevolutionism and Nineteenth-century Evolutionism is whether they are empirical or not. While Nineteenth-century evolutionism used value judgment and assumptions for interpreting data, the new one relied on measurable information for analyzing the process of cultural evolution. The Neoevolutionary thoughts also gave some kind of common ground for cross-cultural analysis. Largely through their efforts, evolutionary theory was again generally accepted among anthropologists by the late 1960s (Haviland, 1993).

7. Global change

Later critics observed that this assumption of firmly bounded societies was proposed precisely at the time when European powers were colonizing non-Western societies, and was thus self-serving. Many anthropologists and social theorists now consider unilineal cultural and social evolution a Western myth seldom based on solid empirical grounds. Critical theorists argue that notions of social evolution are simply justifications for power by the elites of society. Finally, the devastating World Wars that occurred between 1914 and 1945 crippled Europe’s self-confidence. After millions of deaths, genocide, and the destruction of Europe’s industrial infrastructure, the idea of progress seemed dubious at best (Kareiva and Wennergren, 1995).

8. Major objections and concerns

Thus modern socio-cultural evolutionism rejects most of classical unilineal evolutionism due to various theoretical problems:

The theory was deeply ethnocentric—it makes heavy value judgements on different societies; with Western civilization seen as the most valuable.
It assumed all cultures follow the same path or progression and have the same goals.
It equated civilization with material culture (technology, cities, etc.)
It equated evolution with progress or fitness, based on deep misunderstandings of evolutionary theory.
It is contradicted by evidence. Some (but not all) supposedly primitive societies are arguably more peaceful and equitable / democratic than many modern societies.

Because social evolution was posited as a scientific theory, it was often used to support unjust and often racist social practices—particularly colonialism, slavery, and the unequal economic conditions present within industrialized Europe.

Thus, classical evolutionism or unilineal evolutionism may be summed up as (Ghosh, 1994):

Culture or society proceeds through a single line of development.
It has set stages of similar content for all people.
However, the pace of development varies from society to society.
Though Morgan and Tylor believed in some diffusion having taken place, but the unilineal aspect was seen to be very strong.
The presence of survivals or vestigial patterns from the past which had lost their function but continued to be used by society, were taken to be proofs that society had gone through the earlier stages proposed. Hence, Morgan saw matrilineality as a survival that preceded patrilineality.
The methodology used in this period was called the comparative method. Social traits were compared to see which stage of evolution it belonged to. Thus living tribal people became the hallmark of earlier stages of human existence.
More or less, all of the classical evolutionists believed in some form of social Darwinism. As a result, since some were more fitted than others to survive, it justified imperialism and colonialism.

9. Summary

All animals, including man, depend on other living creatures for their continued existence
Bronfenbrenner’s The Ecology of Human Development (1979) extended the social ecological perspective to account for the complexity of individuals developing within embedded systems.
The social ecological model provides a framework for understanding the factors that produce and maintain health and health-related issues
The scientific approach to natural resource dynamics involves the characterization of how the environment influences the abundance and availability of a given resource.
The “individual – environment – population” system, which is at the heart of ecological thought ecology deals with the study of complex systems
The idea that the concept of complexity is inseparable from perception is not neutral but depends on the scale of observation of the system under study.
Anthropology may be said to have begun with the concept of evolution. The idea of social evolution came from the biological model of evolution One can then see that cultural evolution began as an evolutionary science
Unilineal evolution (also referred to as classical social evolution) is a 19th-century social theory about the evolution of societies and cultures
The theory of Unilineal Evolution claims that societies develop according to one universal order of cultural evolution.
The Unilineal Evolution had two main assumptions that form the theory
The Unilineal Evolution contributed to anthropology by providing the first systematic methods for thinking about and explaining human societies.
both Lewis Henry Morgan and Edward Burnett Tylor believed that people in various societies have different levels of intelligence, which leads to societal differences.
The founder of cultural anthropology was the English scientist Edward Burnett Tylor
Lewis Henry Morgan is a unilineal evolutionist who claimed that societies develop according to one universal order of cultural evolution.
Historical Particularists criticized the theory of the Nineteenth-century Evolutionism as non-scientific and claimed themselves to be free from preconceived ideas.
Historical Particularism was a dominant theoretical trend in anthropology during the first half of the twentieth century.
Franz Boas is considered one of the founders of academic anthropology and is also credited with the theory of Historical Particularism.
Boas argued that those armchair anthropologists organized that second-hand data in unsystematic manners to fit their preconceived ideas.
The theory of Neoevolutionism explained how culture develops by giving general principles of its evolutionary process.
The main difference between Neoevolutionism and Nineteenth-century Evolutionism is whether they are empirical or not
modern socio-cultural evolutionism rejects most of classical unilineal evolutionism due to various theoretical problems

you can view video on Ecological approaches as a reaction to the theory of Unilinear evolution

Glossary

Evolution – the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Ecology– Ecology is the study of the interaction between living and nonliving components of the environment. This pertains to the relationship between an organism and all aspects of its environment.

Unilineal evolution– Unilineal evolution (also referred to as classical social evolution) is a 19th-century social theory about the evolution of societies and cultures. It was composed of many competing theories by various anthropologists, who believed that Western culture is the contemporary pinnacle of social evolution. Different social status is aligned in a single line that moves from most primitive to most civilize. This theory is now generally considered obsolete in academic circles.

References

Allen T.F.H. and Starr T.B. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Barbault R. 1992. Ecologie des peuplements. Structure, dynamique et évolution. Masson, Paris.
Begon M., Harper J.L. et Townsend C.R. 1990. Ecology. Individuals, Populations and Communities. Blackwell, Cambridge.
Bronfenbrenner, Urie, ed. 2005. Making human beings human: Biological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1979. The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Carneiro, Robert L. 1973. Classical Evolution in Raoul Naroll and Frada Naroll (eds.) Main Currents in Cultural Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., pp. 57-121.
Fogelman Soulié F. 1991. Les théories de la complexité autour de l’œuvre d’Henri Atlan. Seuil, Paris.
Garbarino, Merwyn S. 1977. Sociocultural Theory In Anthropology: A Short History. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gell-Mann M. 1994. Le quark et le jaguar. Voyage au cœur du simple et du complexe. Albin Michel Sciences, Paris.
Ghosh, Abhik. 1994. A Brief History of Anthropology, Book One: From Philosophy to Anthropology. Delhi: Arvind Publications.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1991. The Moral State of Tahiti – and of Darwin in Natural History, vol. 100, No. 10, October, pp. 12, 14, 16, 18-19.
Haviland, William A. 1993. Cultural Anthropology, Seventh ed. Fort Worth, etc.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Kareiva P. and Wennergren U. 1995. Connecting landscape patterns to ecosystem and population processes. Nature, 373: 299-302.
Kurt Lewin’s A 1935. Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers (New York: McGraw-Hill,
McLeroy, Kenneth, Daniel Bibeau, Allan Steckler, and Karen Glanz. 1988. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education and Behavior 15.4: 351–377.
Morgan, Lewis H. “Ancient Society by Lewis H. Morgan 1877.
Murphy, Robert F. 1977. Introduction: The Anthropological Theories of Julian H. Steward in J.C. Steward and R.F. Murphy (eds.) Evolution and Ecology, Essays on Social Transformation by Julian H. Steward. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 1-39.
Opler, Morris. 1964. Causes, Progress and Dynamics in the Evolutionism of E. B. Tylor in Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 20: 123-44.
Peoples, James and Garrick Bailey. 1991. Humanity: An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. St. Paul, etc. : West Publishing Co.
Wilson D.S 1980. The Natural Selection of Populations and Communities Benjamin and Cummings, California (1980)

Suggested Readings

Aron, Raymond. 1967. Main Currents In Sociological Thought (In 2 Vols.) translated by Richard Howard and Helen Weaver. England: Penguin Books, Ltd.
Beattie, John. 1964. Other Cultures: Aims, Methods and Achievements in Social Anthropology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Becker, Howard and Harry Elmer Barnes. 1961. Social Thought From Lore to Science (in three volumes).
Berdichewsky, B. 1979. Anthropology and the Peasant Mode of Production in B. Berdichewsky (ed.) World Anthropology: Anthropology and Social Change in Rural Areas. The Hague: Mouton Publishers, pp. 5-39.
Bloch, Maurice. 1983. Marxism and Anthropology: The History of a Relationship. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bohannan, P. and M. Glazer (eds.). 1977. High Points in Anthropology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Clammer, J. (ed.). 1978. The New Economic Anthropology. The Macmillan Press.
Dole, Gertrude E. 1973. Foundations of Contemporary Evolutionism in Raoul Naroll and Frada Naroll (eds.) Main Currents in Cultural Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., pp. 247-279.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1981. A History of Anthropological Thought. Andre Singer (ed.). London: Faber and Faber.
Forman R.T.T. et Gordon M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Friedmann, Jonathan. 1974. Marxism, Structuralism and Vulgar Materialism in Man (N.S.), 9: 444-469.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 2000(b). The First Day of the Rest of Our Life Or, What I Did on January 1, 2000 in Natural History, vol. 109, No. 3, pp. 32-38, 82, 84-86.
Harris, Marvin. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers.
Hegel, G.W.F. 1966. The Phenomenology of Mind translated by J. B. Baillie. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., New York: Humanities Press Inc.
Hodgen, Margaret. 1965. Early Anthropology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hofman, Alexander and Alexander Kovalev. 1979, 1989. Naturalism in Sociology of the Turn of the Century in I. S. Kon (ed.) A History of Classical Sociology. Transl. by H. Campbell Creighton. Moscow: Progress Publishers, pp. 57-95.
Hudson, Charles. 1973. The Historical Approach in Anthropology in John J. Honigmann (ed.) Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co.
Kon, Igor. 1979, 1989. Herbert Spencer’s Sociological Conception in I. S. Kon (ed.) A History of Classical Sociology. Transl. by H. Campbell Creighton. Moscow: Progress Publishers, pp. 43-56.
Leaf, Murray J. 1979. Man, Mind and Science: A History of Anthropology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lowie, Robert H. 1937. The History of Ethnological Theory. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.
Ricardo, David. 1911. The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Dent: London and Melbourne (Everyman’s library).
Russell, Bertrand. 1947. History of Western Philosophy and its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Seddon, D. (ed.). 1978. Relations of Production. London: Frank Cass.
Spencer, Herbert. 1977. The Evolution of Society in Paul Bohannon and Mark Glazer (eds.) High Points in Anthropology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, pp. 3-28.
Steward, Julian H. 1960. Review of White’s ‘The Evolution of Culture’ in American Anthropologist, vol. 62, pp. 144-48.
Steward, Julian H. 1955. Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Upadhyay, V.S. and Gaya Pandey. 1993. History of Anthropological Thought. New Delhi. Concept Publishing Co.
Voget, Fred W. 1973. The History of Cultural Anthropology in John J. Honigmann (ed.) Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., pp. 1-88.
Voget, Fred. W. 1975. A History of Ethnology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
White, Leslie A. 1987. Energy and the Evolution of Culture in Herbert Applebaum (ed.) Perspectives in Cultural Anthropology. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 236-253.