On Julian Steward and the Nature of Culture

Author(s): Mary W. Helms

Source: American Ethnologist, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Feb., 1978), pp. 170-183
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/643743 .
Accessed: 15/05/2014 03:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to American Ethnologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

on Julian Steward and the nature of culture

MARYW. HELMS-NorthwesternUniversity

Evolution and Ecology: Essays on Social Transformation by Julian H.

Steward. JANE C. STEWARD and ROBERT F. MURPHY, Eds. Robert F.
Murphy, introduction. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977. ix + 406
pp., illustrations. $12.95 (cloth).
In his last years Julian Steward planned to prepare a volume much like Theory of
Culture Change (Steward 1955), based on various papers he had prepared and published
during the 1960s. He did not live to complete this task. Consequently, Jane Steward, with
the assistance of Robert Murphy, compiled Evolution and Ecology, a commemorative
collection of Steward's papers intended as a retrospective of his professional interests,
theories, and ideas. The seventeen papers that, together with an introduction by Murphy,
compose the volume achieve this goal well and invite reflection on the man, his contribution, and his era.
The papers presented in Evolution and Ecology show no overlap with the articles that
compose Theory of Culture Change, although many of the same topics are considered in
the constituent essays. Two papers are published here for the first time: "Wittfogel's
Irrigation Hypothesis," a reflection on the concept of the hydraulic society; and
"Modernization in Traditional Societies," part of a chapter that Steward had originally
intended as an introduction to Contemporary Change in Traditional Societies (Steward
1967), but that was never published. Five articles predate Theory of Culture Change:
"Determinism in Primitive Society?"; the well-known "The Direct Historical Approach to
Archaeology"; "Function and Configuration in Archaeology"; "Concepts and Methods of
Area Research" (from Steward 1950); and a little-known work entitled "The Ceremonial
Buffoon of the American Indian," a shortened version of Steward's doctoral dissertation,
that first appeared in 1931 in volume 14 of the Papers of the Michigan Academy of
Science, Arts, and Letters. Ten of the papers reprinted in Evolution and Ecology postdate
Theory of Culture Change. Included here are, among others, "The Concept and Method
of Cultural Ecology" (reprinted from Sills 1968); "Cultural Evolution in South America"
(reprinted from Goldschmidt and Hoijer 1970); "Carrier Acculturation: The Direct Historical Approach" (reprinted from Diamond 1961); "Limitations of Applied Anthropology: The Case of the Indian New Deal" (from the Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society, volume 1, 1969); and "The Foundations of Basin-Plateau Shoshonean
Society" (first published in Swanson 1970).
Some of these essays, particularly those written after the publication of Theory of
Culture Change, present refinements and corrections in previously published data and
interpretation. In other instances Steward reaffirms the validity of his earlier approaches
in reply to new directions of anthropological thought. In general, the essays in Evolution
and Ecology reveal a scholar who remained in touch with the flow of his discipline to an
exceptional degree and whose later writings can be read with profit for their maturity of
thought and for the cautionary perspectives derived from a long and fruitful career. By
the same token some themes remain unfortunately consistent over the years. Steward, in
fact, appears very much as a man of his time. Like other theorists of cultural change, past

170

american ethnologist

This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and present, his major works illuminate a particularera in American anthropology as

much as they have pioneered new directions. This is to say that, whereas the papers
composing Theory of CultureChangestimulated the anthropologicalcommunity of the
1950s with their forceful developmentaland ecological perspective,to a readerof the late
1970s the papers presented in Evolution and Ecology invite considerationof Steward's
contribution within a more restrainedand more historicalperspective.The methodological and theoretical frontiers that were stimulatingin the 1955 publicationhave provided
foundations in the succeeding decades for still newer directions in anthropology that,
however, now make more apparentnot only the insightsbut also some of the limitations
in Steward'swork.

culture and environment

The variancein perspectiveslargely reflects differences in the anthropologicalclimate

of opinion between the Second WorldWarand immediate postwar era and the current
decade of the 1970s. Duringthe immediatepostwardecadessome trends in North American anthropology were reachingtheir apogee while other, heretofore nascent, directions
were in the ascendancy, though not yet fully realized. WorldWar 11and its aftermath
bluntly revealed the impact of industrialsocieties on technologically less sophisticated
peoples and, in anthropologicalcircles, forced prewarconcepts of cultural relativismto
give way to a growing recognitionof culturaldominanceand a renewedconcern with the
development of complex societies (see Wolf 1964). After the fury of world war the
traditional,self-contained,all-encompassingconcept of culture, long the underlyingpremise of Boasiananthropology,was at the height of its anthropologicalimpact, combating
psychological reductionismas its majorprotagonistfor the explanationof social behavior
(see Kaplan 1965). At the same time, however, the traditionalconcept of culture was
changing, loosening a bit to accommodate a growing interest in the functional interrelationships of particularculturalphenomenawith biologicaland environmentalfactors. But
concepts involvingenvironment, although by no means absent in Boasiananthropology
(see Hatch 1973a), were still relatively unfamiliar to many anthropologistsand held
explanatorypotential still to be realized.
Duringthe current decade the significanceaccorded environmentalfactors in anthropological paradigmshas grown tremendously, while in some anthropologicalcircles the
traditionalconcept of culture shows signs of decliningas a heuristicdevice. Indeed,where
previously, in the first half of the twentieth century, concepts of culture providedboth a
theoretical and an ideological base for the discipline,today a similartheoretical-ideological focus on (natural) environmentalconcepts, reflected in the generaluse of the term
"ecology," characterizesa significant sector of the anthropological community. This
change in focus has come about perhapsto strengthenanthropologicalscientific credentials, as Harrissuggests(1968:655), or perhapsbecauseof the uncomfortableimplications
of inevitabledisaster if the contemporaryworld of nuclearsuperpowersand of growing
population and resource imbalancesis interpretedin culturologicalterms (see Anderson
1973:206, 21 2-215).
The bulk of Steward's work falls in a middle ground, a transition period, a time of
significant transformationin Americananthropologywhen a disciplinestrongly identified
by concepts of culture was moving toward a new rapprochementwith the concept of
ecology. Steward's work and thought played a major part in effecting this shift. His
insight did much to provide a bridge between traditional acceptance of concepts of
culture and contemporary attitudes focused on an ecological perspective. Not surpris-

on Julian Steward

This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

171

ingly, duringthe years of this transitionera itself, the years also of Steward'sprofessional
career, the analytic view that developed, and that he himself did much to shape and
express, was largely dualistic in perspective as relationshipswere recognized between
select cultural practicesand particularbiological and environmentalfactors. In Steward's
work this dualism was patterned in severalways. Aspects of culture could be combined
with interpretationsof the naturalenvironmentto create a single paradigmwith which to
analyze a given society, as in the concept of "culturalecology." As a corollary to this
approach we find a reworkingof the holistic concept of culture to provide a contrast
between the environmentallyrelated "culturalcore" and additionalnonadaptive"secondary" cultural features. Environmentalfactors and cultural factors also could be applied
in different degrees to differing types of society, as in Steward'sview of nativeor tribal
peoples as primarilysubject to ecological requirementswhile complex societies were more
stronglyshapedby purely cultural(nonbiological,nonenvironmental)features.
In accordance with the general anthropologicalclimate of opinion of the postwar
years, however, Steward's dualism had distinct leaningstoward the cultural side of the
equation; which is to say, the usefulness of concepts of ecology and environmentlay in
what they could tell about the nature of culture. Although the attraction of Steward's
concept of cultural ecology when it was first presentedlay in its emphasison opening the
concept of the superorganicto include noncultural,ecological perspectives,his intellectual roots in more traditionalculturalposturesof the disciplineremainedvisible throughout
his career (see Hatch 1973b:118-123). His acceptance of the heuristicvalue of a concept
of culture in general was clearly a legacy of his groundingin Boasiananthropologyas
interpretedby A. L. Kroeberand Robert Lowie, underwhose guidanceStewardpursued
graduate study at Berkeley in the late 1920s. Indeed, a really adequate analysis of
Steward'svariouscontributions also requiresassessmentof the work of both Lowie and
Kroeber.1Many of Steward'sbasic assumptionsregardingquestions of typology and the
classificationof cultures, the validity of cross-culturalcomparisons,the natureof "causation," and the character of "primitive"societies and complex civilizationswere firmly
rooted in Kroeber'sand Lowie's anthropology. Steward refinedand redirectedthe Kroeberian and Lowien positions on these matters and, most significantly, gave them (or
portions of them) a theoretical unity through concepts of environment and ecology
stimulated in part by his college major in zoology and geology and the influence of the
cultural geographerCarl Sauerat Berkeley.In so doing, Stewardsuccessfullytransformed
a number of prewar historical-particularisttopics into major concerns of a more functionalist postwaranthropology.
At the present time, however, when ecological studies of one type or anotherare the
focus of so much anthropological interest and work, Steward's pioneering efforts to
introduce environmentalfactors into the study of society are ratherinfrequentlycited in
specific ecological case studies, though prominently referredto in theoretical essays and
general surveys of the field. This situation, which was remarkedupon by Shimkin a
decade ago (1964:12-16), may reflect Steward'sstrong emphasison culture as the more
importantelement of his ecological equations. In recent years there has been a discernible
trend in anthropological circles toward narrowing the concept of culture "so that it
includes less and reveals more" (Keesing 1974:73). One finds among anthropological
ecologists in particularconsiderable variation in the degree to which the concept of
culture is used in contemporaryecological studies and uncertaintyas to its place, if any,
as a heuristic device in ecological analyses (see Damas 1969:180-183; Vayda and Rappaport 1968; and Anderson 1973). The tendency amongthe "new ecologists" is to delete a
concept of culture from ecological analyses as much as possible, or, perhapsbetter said,
to merge culture with environment so that distinctions between the two blur and fade

172

americanethnologist

This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and tend to disappear.Those aspectsof humanlife styles of interest to ecological anthropologists are reduced instead to another form of adaptive animal behavior and man
becomes another organismfilling a niche within the ecosystem. Culture,in turn, becomes
the referent primarily for the symbolic side of human behavior (see Anderson 1973:
212-215; Vayda and Rappaport1968:492-497; Keesing1974:74-77; Moore 1974).
Steward himself voiced concern for the implications of this current trend toward
interpretingthe behavior of mankindas relativelyrather than absolutely (qualitatively)
different from other animals (see Manners1973:895-896). He made it quite clear that, in
his opinion, man was distinctive as a culture-bearinganimal and, more importantly, the
study of his lifeways, includinghis materialneeds, was basicallya study of culture. "Man
enters the ecological scene . . . not merely as another organismwhich is related to other
organismsin terms of his physical characteristics.He introduces the superorganicfactor
of culture which also affects and is affected by the total web of life" (Steward1955:31).
"The heuristic value of the ecological viewpoint is to conceptualizenonculturalphenomena that are relevantto processes of cultural evolution" (p. 44). Furthermore,while the
human capacity for culture and the resultantculturalevolution rest on biologicalpreconditions, the fact that cultural evolution is an extension of biologicalevolution "does not
imply that culturalevolution follows the principlesof biologicalevolution" (p. 69).

order from diversity

One of Steward'sdualisticecological approaches,that in which the social arrangements
of a given society are shaped by the interactionof technology and the behavioralpatterns
of work (the cultural core) with select features of the naturalenvironment,particularly
subsistence resources, has also frequently been criticized by contemporary ecological
anthropologists. It is faulted as too restrictiveand thus unsuited to the much broader
"systemic" approach currently in vogue, which perceivesa constantly fluctuating interdependency of a multitude of behavioral,environmental,even cognitive elements, all of
which are to some degree or at some times causally significant within the ecosystem.
Although in his later writingsSteward recognizedthe validity of widening the rangeof
effective environmental forces (p. 45), he always remained selective in his choice of
socioeconomic and environmentalfactors and regardedthe simpler societies affected by
these factors to be integratedby them only up to a point, for an aggregateof secondary,
"nonadaptive"traits were recognizedas part of the culture pattern of a society, too. It
must be remembered,however, that when Stewardpostulated the primacyof a restricted
cultural core he was not, strictly speaking,concernedwith ecological problemsper se and
he was respondingto an anthropologicalmilieu that no longer weighs as immediatelyor
as heavilyon us today.
Prior to and during Steward'syears of graduatetrainingin the late 1920s and in the
early years of his professionalcareerin the 1930s, anthropologistswere quite uneasy over
the theoretical limitations of the purely descriptive,highly particularisticlevel of Boasian
historicism, which viewed cultures as congeries of diffused or locally invented traits. A
search for conceptual frameworksthat could elucidate more general theories was well
under way. Steward put forth his concept of cultural ecology as a contributiontoward
this goal, encouraged no doubt by Lowie's recognition with respect to kinship that
parallelfunctional relationshipsdid exist, at least to a limited degree,and that a measure
of ordercould be empiricallyrecognizedin the culturaldomain (see Murphy1972:65). In
other words, the initial step away from Boasianparticularismrequireda searchfor crossculturalsimilaritiesto reduce the perceptionof total variationin culturaltraits to a more

on JulianSteward

This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

173

manageableform. Steward'spostulate of an adaptiveculturalcore (as distinguishedfrom

diffused "secondary"featuresor "outer embellishments")was intendedto reveala degree
of functional interrelatednesswithin a sector of culture that seemed to be least affected
by historicalvicissitudesand to facilitate a discretecross-culturalcomparisonof "regularities" (Steward 1955:88).2 It was, therefore, a notable contribution to the perceived
theoretical shortcomingsof the traditionaldiscipline. It is not surprisingthat contemporary ecological analysis, which is not faced with creating order out of a "shreds and
patches" view of culture and which is not greatly concerned with problemsof cross-cultural comparisons, finds little commonality with Steward's necessarily selective and
restrictiveparadigm.
Steward'sown dualisticecological interpretationswere sometimesweakenedor at least
limited by his dismissalof so-calledsecondaryfeaturesas nonadaptivetraits. Most serious
here was his treatment of social organization, in which, in his general views, he was
strongly influenced by Lowie. Stewardrejectedas "secondary"many forms of supracommunity and suprafamilialsocial organization(includingclans, moities, and religiousand
secular associations) which seemed to show tremendous diversity among societies and
which, he felt, could not be placed into ordered patternsshowing adaptivesignificance.
He focused insteadon the "fundamentalimportance"of the nuclearfamily as an adaptive
element. Lowie, who emphasizedthe nuclear (bilateral)family as the "absolutelyuniversal" unit of human society, had argued that this unavoidableuniversalityrested on the
biological basis of the parent-childunit, although the particularexpressionsof parenthood and childhood found in varioussocieties were understandablein social, not biological, terms (Lowie 1940:246, 251-252, 1947:63-67).
Steward adopted the view of the essentially noncultural basis of the nuclearfamily
and, if anything, emphasized its biological features more strongly than did his mentor.
For example, Steward stressed the grounding of the family in a biologically conceived
division of labor and child rearing (p. 47), although Lowie, emphasizingthe widely
varying sexual division of labor so noticeable in family life, recognized that strictly
cultural features were responsible (1947:74). Steward, however, was seeking uniform
aspects of human behaviorthat seemed to lie outside the vagariesof historicalparticularism, and the existence of such biologically determined factors of human life as child
bearingaccordinglyattracted his attention, as did prolongedhumangrowth and "biologically" (that is, genealogically) determined lines of relationship. Factors such as these
made it apparent to him that explanations of human behavior should be opened to
include fundamental nonculturalfactors. The nuclearfamily (though admittedly ethnographicallyrareas an independentsocial and residentialunit, as Stewardrecognized)in its
interrelationshipwith residence, kinship systems, and subsistence was thus considered
ecologically adaptive. In contrast, supracommunityand suprakinshipforms of social
organization,which were strictly culture traits and thus diffusable,were considerednonadaptive and secondary in the ecological context (pp. 51, 146). Although Steward later
conceded that the nuclearfamily was also determinedat least in part by culturalfactors
(pp. 119, 383), he maintained his emphasis on it as the focal point of his kinship and
ecological analyses(pp. 382-383, 390).
Yet here again it is well to remember the task that Steward faced and also the
conditions of fieldwork in which he first worked, for, as Murphyhas phrasedit, "theories
emerge from data just as much as data feeds from theory" (1970:154). In retrospectan
empirically sound approach to the new method of cultural ecology-and Steward was
empiricallyfocused almost to a fault-would requirethat the simplest and most obvious
examples, that is, those with fewest variables,be investigatedfirst. By accident of fieldwork this, in fact, occurred.The nuclearfamily, the fundamentalhumansocial unit, was

174

americanethnologist

This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

evidenced ethnographicallyamong the poverty-strickenpopulations of Shoshoni, among

whom both Lowie and Steward conducted their first fieldwork (see Murphy1972:52;
Manners1973:888, 890). Furthermore,it was, apparently, the search for sparce and
scattered subsistence resources with "elementary exploitative devices" (Steward
1949:672) that forced the dispersalof these food collectors into small clustersof nuclear
families. Thus, the Shoshoni became the clearest example of the primacy of the nuclear
family for Lowie and of the association of the behavior of these familial units with
subsistenceand environmentalrequirementsfor Steward.
In Steward'sinterpretation,as conditions moved away from this simplestcondition of
band life, as resourcesbecame more abundantand technology better developed (particularly as hunting and fishing increasedand as farmingallowed food production), population increased,communities grew in size, and greatervariationand elaboration in social
and ritualpatternscould be supported (pp. 48, 135). The social and religiouselaborations
themselves,such as clans, moities, age-gradesand other forms of associations,were compatible with the biological constraintsof age and sex characteristicof primitivesociety,
but were still in the main diffused "secondaryembroiderieson the basic social fabric"
(pp. 51, 78). Although Steward admitted that such "social elaborations"were permitted
by richereconomies and could become functionally intertwinedwith subsistenceactivities (p. 116), he noted the great diversity with which they appearedamong the simpler
hunting, fishing, and horticultural societies whose ecological adaptations, in contrast,
showed such striking parallels.Such diversity could only be explained by historicaltraditions that made these customs available by diffusion. Although their acceptance and
patterningin any given society was limited by the particularecological situation, they did
not form a system with the ecologically adaptiveelements (Steward1949:674, 678).

the native and the civilized

Had Steward graspedthe adaptivefacet of these broaderelements of social organization more clearly his ecological analyses of individualsocieties would have been significantly deepened. The considerablegap in his work between the simplesthunting-gathering bands and horticulturalcommunities on the one hand and complex states on the
other also might have been more adequatelyfilled. As it was, Stewardtended in a number
of his more generalwritingsto emphasize the strong discontinuities, indeed the qualitative differences, between socially unadorned,egalitarian("primitive")societies and internally specialized, class-structuredstates, althoughhe sensed that such structuralcontrasts
could be linked by cumulative processes such as demographicgrowth and population
nucleation (pp. 79, 135, 141, 247).
In this context Steward turned from the relativismof his Boasianpredecessorsto the
comparativedichotomies developed by nineteenth century evolutionists and revitalized
by Redfield:societas and civitas, Gemeinshaftand Gesellschaft,folk and urban (p. 79).
Steward's mid-twentieth century interpretation of these idealized contrasts of human
experience so attractive to Westernevolutionary thought became another version of his
dualist perspectiveof environmentand culture in which nativesociety evidencedprimarily biological and environmental(ecological) integrativefeatures while complex societies
were organized on strictly cultural principles. More specifically, native society was still
significantly responsiveto and influencedby, indeed directly organizedupon, the strictly
biological constants (sexual union, child rearing,the long human life span) that were
understood to underlie marriageand the family, that purportedlyformed the basis for
sexual division of labor, and that emphasized the importance of age in role structure.

On Julian Steward

This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

175

These biological principles could be modified and elaborated,but they could rarely be
supersededor eliminated in the tribal world where purely culturological(sociopolitical)
principleshad not taken complete command.
Furthermore,it was in this milieu, where humansocieties were still strongly responsive
to "natural"principles,that culturalecology operatedmost effectively, for the particular
variations of family or kinship organization depended on the relationship between a
particulartechnology and environmentalfactors (pp. 5, 7, 76, 78). One also senses in this
perspective an implication that to Steward the concept of cultural ecology may have
carried, or was associated with, a more personalphilosophicalview of the essential simplicity or "naturalness"of unhamperednative life.
In complex states, however, Steward felt that culturalecology became "increasingly
subsidiaryto other processes that underliestate formation" (p.79), essentially,it appears,
becauseno single nation-wideculturalcore of ecological relationships(or, for that matter,
of any genuinely shared nationalbehavioror NationalCharacter)could be identified (pp.
87-99, 247, 262-263). Societies based on internal specialization and hereditarysocial
classes are coordinated by new principles of integration that are explicitly political in
nature and thus are entirely cultural. Significantfeaturesof peoples' lives are regimented
now by state controls, as power over people rather than over naturalresourcesbecomes
the focus of social organization.Although the family and householdmay continue to be
organizedat least in part by biological principlesof age and sex, these are suppressedor
overshadowedas the local community becomes part of a largersociety. Similarly,the
interactionwith the naturalenvironmentis modified by the largersocial context (pp. 53,
146, 147, 249).
The organizationand operation of complex societies in effect mirrorsthe influenceof
"man's creative capacity." This distinctly cultural ability is expressedin scientific knowledge, state administration,religiousand aesthetic developments,and the applicationof
"reason"in elaboratingtechnologicaldevelopments.These, in turn, providegreaterfreedom from environmental pressures and permit a wider range of latitude for various
sociopoliticaltypes (pp. 52, 80-81; Steward1955:40-42).
Ecological and political processesare, we realizenow, intimately interdependent.Elucidation of this point has come most strongly from analysis of the critical field of
centralized nonstate societies (rank societies, or chiefdoms) that bridgeegalitarianand
state organizationsin important respects and that were becomingrecognizedas a distinct
cultural "type" during the postwar years. Steward anticipated a number of definitive
ecological and political characteristicsof these societies but failed to grasp their functional relationship.He recognizedthat such societies were organizedlargely on the basis
of class and integratedby religiouspriest-templecomplexes. He noted that "special and
delimited" powers were accorded chiefs and other influential persons in particularcontexts. He recognizedthe correlationof chiefdoms with areasof rich and diverse natural
resourcescapable of producing"surpluses"above the needs of the immediatefamily. But
he attributed the existence and the operation of centralized authority to "historical
influences" that introducedclass structuringto a particularsociety and to diffused patterns of warfare and religious cults that introduced the priests who came to assume
secularcontrols (pp. 49, 138, 142; Steward 1949:673, 674). Alternatively,Stewardconsidered such societies to fall within the category of states, which, in his interpretation,
became a very broad classification of centralized societies including "chiefdoms" and
"statelets"as well as "sultanates,empiresand other varieties"(p. 140).
Steward appreciated that functional relationshipsexisted between the sociopolitical
and the economic-ecological,most notably in the context of the influence of complex
states on local communities, in which national interests and directivesaffected the adap-

176

americanethnologist

This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

tations of the local group and the region. This theme appearsin a numberof his works,
includingthe Puerto Rican project and analyses of contact experiences of variousnative
American groups. He also expressed this perspective more broadly in the ratherselect
context of Wittfogelian-inspiredcorrelations concerning population and community
growth, managerialcontrol of irrigationagriculture,and the developmentof early civilizations in the Middle East, Asia, and native America (1955:178-209). In light of the
findings of later research Steward eventually recognized the need for revision in the
specifics of Wittfogel'shyphothesis and in his own original"trialformulation,"although
he cautioned subsequent researchersnot to err in the opposite direction by discounting
too greatly the importance of water control in their investigationsof the complex processes underlyingthe originsand operationsof ancient states (pp. 87-99, 106, 129).

diversity redux
In actuality, of course, the significanceof Steward'sinitial study of complex societies
(irrigationcivilizations) lay not so much in the matterof economic-politicalconjunctions
but in its strong exemplification of his particularconcept of "multilinearevolution.",3
The utility of the "method and theory" of cultural ecology lay in the elucidation of
examples of multilinearevolution in terms of parallelecological adaptations.This is to
say (again) that in Steward'sview the anthropologicalsignificanceof the naturalenvironment and those elements of culture directly involvedwith its exploitation (culturalcore)
lay in the greater ease and clarity with which functional order could be analytically
perceivedthere (see Murphy1970), in contrast to the seemingly particularisticwelter of
most of the other social, political, and religious traits composing a given society or
appearingcross-culturally.Indeed, the lesson to be learnedfrom the consistent and "relevant" cross-culturalregularities(similarities)in ecological adaptation that were revealed
by cases of multilinearevolution was that they seemingly stood significantlyoutside the
vicissitudes of a random and fortuitous historical particularismthat formed the basis of
Boasian classifications based on culturally unique differences. Through recognition of
similar ecological adaptations or cultural cores constituting cross-culturallysignificant
social "types," which revealeda limited numberof forms of "socioculturalintegration,"
the nature of culture emerged instead as controlled diversity (p. 152; Steward1955:5-6,
43-63, 87-92, 1940:669, 1973:46-52).
Yet recognition of the diversity of cultural traits and expressionshas tended to maintain the upper hand, both for Stewardand for us. As is well known, Steward'sown sense
of the specificity of history and the general emphasis on cultural diversificationand
uniquenessstill characteristicof much of the anthropologicaldiscipline in which he was
trained (and expressed in his own acceptance of "secondaryfeatures") made his claims
for cross-culturalcomparabilitiesratherhesitant (pp. 70-72). Although he recognizedthat
"there are typological similarities between societies of the differing cultural traditions
representedin the majorworld areas,"he felt that considerablecomparativestudy would
be necessary to isolate the definitive "dynamicsof developmentalprocess and of structural-functionaltypes" and that the varietiesof culturespast and presentdiffer so greatly
that cross-culturalregularitieswould be valid only in a limited sense (pp. 230, 236).4
This cautionary stance has been applaudedby some and criticized by others, for the
problemsof typology and classification,of order and diversity, are still with us, indeed,
will always be with us (see Lehman1964). Admittedly, the underlyingclimate of opinion
has changed somewhat.The fundamentalperspectiveof an empiricallyrecognizableorder
in cultural materialsand operationsthat Stewardchampionedand that lay at the heartof

on JulianSteward

This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

177

his researchis now largelyaccepted as a generaltenet of the discipline. In this respect it

may be said that one of the basicgoals of Steward'sresearchinterestshas been achieved.
But in the furtherpursuitof the implicationof culturalorder,particularlythose involving
cross-cultural issues, problems have arisen that threaten the further development of
Steward'sinsight.
In recent years investigationsby students of Stewardand other scholarshaveextended
the scope of cultural ecology to include the sociopolitical and ideological factors that
Steward consideredtoo diverse to be adaptive.They have also grappledwith the critical
problemof accountingfor the considerabledifferencescontained within categoriesof like
cultural types, a problem that Steward, in his necessarilypriorconcern with establishing
the validity of recognizingcultural types or categories in general,failed to consider (see
Sahlins and Service 1960:41-42; Service1971b:46-98). However,as these researcheshave
revealedthe complexities underlyingboth culturalsimilaritiesand differences,and as the
"new ecology" has gainedascendancyin anthropology,the reactionin many quartershas
been to turn away from cross-culturalquestionsof typology and classification,of similarities and differences and the reasons for them; there has been movement toward a distinctly relativisticapproachin which ecological holism (systems analysis) focuses on the
details of the functional operation of particularsocioenvironmentalinteractionsas exercises in the "logic of the unique event" (Heider1972:212-213; but see Kottak 1975).
To be sure, renewed recognition of the complexity of adaptationalprocess and detailed concern with specific cases has helped greatly to deepen our understandingof the
operation of individualsystems, both culturaland ecological. Unfortunately,this line of
investigationhas also led increasinglyaway from the admittedlydifficult issuesof change
and process as revealed in cross-culturalcomparisons,in a mannerreminiscentin many
ways of the Boasian reaction against the problemsof nineteenth century evolutionism.
Once again we not only have a focus on relativism,but we hearthe familiarstrainsto the
effect that, while cross-culturalcomparisonis an appropriategoal, the complexity of the
problem necessitates,first, a greatersharpeningof the expertise requiredfor application
of the ecological method and the development of a more sufficient data base (see Heider
1972:210-212).5 The legitimacyof these requirementsis not questioned.That they may
become ends in themselvesis feared.

history, the state, and culture change

Steward's own efforts to deal with causation and culture change frequently fell considerablyshort for a numberof reasons, includinghis dismissalof numerous"secondary
features" from adaptive consideration, his essential functionalism (see Murphy 1971),
which revealed synchronic correlations ratherthan underlying"conditions" stimulating
processual "effects," and his focus on cultural regularitiesand their persistancerather
than on cultural contrasts and change. Nonetheless, he pointed the way toward more
refined methodologies for dealing with change in several of his most notable studies,
those analyzing the adaptations of tribal societies to the economic frontiers of western
civilization. Included in this volume are "Tappersand Trappers:ParallelProcesses in
Acculturation," "Determinismin PrimitiveSociety?" and "CarrierAcculturation:The
Direct HistoricalApproach." In these essays, a distinct diachronicperspectiveis provided
by augmentationof informant'saccounts with ethnohistoric recordsand other historically based studies. This method allows the documentationover significanttime spansof
the interplay between the wider contact culture and the local ecological setting and

178

american ethnologist

This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

revealsmore clearly the resultantdevelopmentof varioussocial structuralaccomodations.

Moreoverthe ecological frame of reference is now expanded to include the wider socioculturalmilieu, the "social environment,"as well as the local naturalenvironment.
These studies, in which the use of documentaryevidence and recognitionof the social
environmentemerge, are part of the corpus of Steward'swork in which he attempted to
bridge the perceivedgap between native society and complex society. He attempted this
reconciliationby consideringthe effect of the definitive characteristicsof the latter (the
importanceof sociopoliticalfeatures)on the definitivecharacteristicsof the former (local
ecological relationships)in terms of more than the diffusion of "secondary" traits. A
comparableconjunction also is attempted in the highly influentialstudy of Puerto Rican
communities (pp. 240-296) and in the more recent project focusing on cross-cultural
regularitiesin the modernizationproceduresof certaintraditionalsocieties (pp. 297-330;
Steward 1967). In all these instances, the wider society or the "social environment"is
considered highly determinativeof local community patterns through processes of what
Steward came to call "social adaptation"(in contrast to "cultural-ecologicaladaptation")
(p. 315).
The expansion of the concept of "adaptation"to include the broadersocial milieu is
one of Steward'sgreatestcontributionsand one with tremendousimplicationsfor anthropology, most obviously in the study of contemporaryruraland urbanlife, ethnicity, and
other aspects of current complex society. Less obvious, but equally importantto anthropological interpretationare the perspectivesthat might appearif the traditionalanthropological ideology of the pristine, isolated, aboriginalcommunity or society were seriously reexamined in light of the fact that much of the world had been influenced by
complex societies of one form or anotherfor hundreds,in some areasthousands,of years
before professionalanthropologistsappeared.The basic data bank of the discipline contains much informationacquiredover the last century on the assumptionthat the native
communities visited by anthropologists were to be considered as unaffected by state
contact unless there was obvious evidenceotherwise.6
When "proof otherwise" appeared,as in the often obvious disruptionof North American Indiancultures by Europeaninfluence, the contact situation initially was regardedas
an ethnographicallycontaminatedend point for the reconstructionof "aboriginal"conditions via memory culture. Later it was examined under the rubricof "acculturation,"in
which adjustmentsof contemporary societies to reservationlife were compared with a
previous"base line" culture, derived from documents and/or the remembrancesof aged
informantsand assumedto representa pristine,precontactsituation.
Consequently, in many cases we really do not specifically know how much of the
structure and organization,of the similarityand diversity, of "traditional"societies reflect actual prestate conditions and how much reflect adaptations,perhapsof long standing, to the outlying frontiers of state influence (see Service1971a:151-157; Fried 1975).
We do not yet sufficiently appreciatethat the more accuratehistorical-and scientificassumption for anthropology would be to recognize that pristine conditions have only
rarely been availablefor anthropologicalstudy; that most of the nativesocieties we have
visited probablyhave been significantlyaffected in the past, at least indirectlyand discontinuously if not directly and continuously, by priorstate contact; that the remembrances
of the most aged informantsand even the earliest documentaryevidence may be recording already changed conditions. To be sure, both perspectivesare stated here in the
extreme, but during the century of anthropology's existence as a formal discipline the
resulting errors of interpretationhave fallen to the first assumption (no state contact
unless proved otherwise) much more than to the second (state contact unless proved
otherwise).

on Julian Steward

This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

179

Steward's work on Carrier"acculturation"and his analysis with Murphyof the contact experiences of the Mundurucuand Montagnaiswere not written with this problem
directly in mind.7 But by emphasizingthe wider realm of state influence as part of the
environmentto which adaptationsare effected and showing how even the earliest,most
marginalcontact may begin to influence local social organizations,they point in the right
direction.8 Steward'semphasison adaptationsover time also encouragesconsiderationof
how change continuously affects structureand organization.As a corollary,the developing social forms appear not just as a melange of old and new traits but as emergent
"types" of society evidencing cross-culturalregularitiesin the developmentallines they
take (see also Steward'spenetratingdiscussion of these issuesas they affected the Indian
New Deal, pp. 333-346).
It is unfortunatethat Steward'srecognitionof the importanceof "social adaptation"
has not been more influential among ecological anthropologists. Although the social
environmentmay be recognizedin general in ecological studies, analysis tends to center
on the relationshipbetween a population and its physical and/or biotic context. All too
often the conceptual frameworkis not extended to include interactionswith other sociocultural units (see Sahlins 1977:217). This omission may be most serioussince the social
environmentmay be relativelyless stable than the biologicaland physicalworld and has a
high probability of initiating adjustments in the ecological system and of determining
change (see Segraves1975:115, note 3).
The contributions of the Carrierstudies and the Tapper and Trapperanalysis are
attributableto Steward'srecognitionof the relevanceof culturehistory to anthropological enquiries. It was his general opinion that multilinearevolution "is inevitably concerned also with historical reconstruction"(1955:18). This perspective,though essential
to concern with process and change, is neglected by many contemporaryethnologists
who persist in subscribingat least in practice to the misguidedcontrastof science versus
history. The issue is a continuation of the problemthat bedeviledBoasiananthropology,
that is, how to order accurate ethnographicdata into ethnologically useful categories,
how to recognize structuralforms and processes, not only in the traits characteristicof
existing cultures but also in the details of past historical particularsrevealedby written
records and the memory of aged informants.The Boasianemphasison data control by
direct observationand participationthroughfieldworkstill constitutes the heartof ethnological research,which, as a result,continues to assumea stronglysynchronicperspective.
Insightsinto processes producingsuccessionsof forms, which requirea diachronicdimension in research methods, have been difficult to achieve largely because of unsolved
problemsof data control. Consequently,historicalperspectivesare still all too frequently
summarizedin an introductory chapter or concluding appendix on culture contact and
then largelyignoredin the study itself.
Yet the problem reflects a more fundamental dilemma. Although the difficulties of
interpreting live human behavior in its infinite variety are easily as great as those of
historical research,the vagariesof humanbehaviorare consideredmore readilyovercome
by anthropologistscum fieldworkersthan are the problemsof imperfecthistoricalrecords
by anthropologistscum ethnohistorians.Since most anthropologistsare almost as poorly
trained for ethnographicfieldwork as they are for historical research,this position in
favor of participant-observationobviously representsnot only a methodologicalstance
but also an ideological support for anthropology as a discipline, comparable in this
respect to the traditionalconcept of culture. Historicalinterests,in contrast,still bearas
ideological taint the methodological problemsassociated with nineteenth century evolutionism.
One of Steward's strengths as an anthropologist lay in his ability to combine, on

180

americanethnologist

This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

occasion, ethnographic particularsof fieldwork with those derived from historical research.Although as a professionalhe was hesitant to extend his cross-culturalfindings too
broadly, his personalvision, like that of his mentors, Lowie and Kroeber,encompasseda
certain breadth of human affairs, a strong sense of time, and an appreciation of the
ongoing stream of cultures through time. Steward also sought to strengthenthe methodological value of this perspectivefor anthropology by advocatingthe concept of cultural
ecology as a means to bring ethnologically significantorder to the chaotic diversity of
documentarydata.
He focused this researchstrategemon early historic periods, viewing them as vantage
points from which to move, via documentary researchand historic archaeology, both
forward through the contact era to contemporaryethnographyand backwardinto the
prehistoricpast. Steward'sespousal of the so-called "direct historicalapproach"to archaeology is recognizedas a definitive statement on the value of coordinatingarchaeological, ethnohistoric, and ethnographicmethods so as to place the study of prehistoricand
historic peoples into a common processualframework(pp. 201-214). Equallyimportant,
though less widely recognized, is his cognizance that "historicalacculturationstudies,"
also utilizing documentaryevidenceand historic archaeology,can place historicallydocumented peoples and ethnographicallyknown societies into a common ethnologicalframework, thereby elucidatingaspects of culture changeand adaptationin ethnology (p. 205).
Steward committed himself to the major anthropological issues of his day and
advancedthem significantly. He did not solve them, but it is unreasonableto expect that
he might have. Most of the problems Steward grappled with are issues that are never
settled. They are instead redefined, to be approachedeither with greaterrigor or from
distinctly different perspectives. At the present time both directions are observableas
contemporaryanthropologistseither continue to investigatethe potential of the concept
of cultural ecology, in the processemphasizingparticularlyits culturalfocus (see Murphy
1970) or turn to the perspectiveof the "new ecology" that places man firmly within the
naturalor physical environment. Both lines of investigationhave furtheredthe study of
particular issues of interest to Steward and both have benefited from his thought.
Steward himself recognized that, while many of the specific directivesgenerated in the
course of a scholarlylife will be found wantingunder laterexamination,such light as may
be cast on problems will, nonetheless, illuminate the steps of successors.He wrote, "a
scholar's contributions to science should be judged more by the stimulus he gives to
research-by the natureof the problemshe raisesand the interestshe creates-than by the
enduring qualities of his provisionalhypotheses." (p. 87). These words were penned in
appreciationof his friend and colleague, KarlWittfogel.They stand equally well as tribute
to julian Stewardhimself.

notes
'Steward himself has contributed to this goal with his interpretation of Kroeber's life and works.
See Steward 1973; also Murphy 1972; Harris 1968:337-341.
2The contrast between the cultural core and secondary features is closely related, although with
different emphasis, to Kroeber's contrast between reality culture and value culture. See Hatch 1973b:
107, 109, 116-117.
3According to Murphy 1972:75, Steward adopted this term from Lowie, who originally coined it
in reference to his argument for multiple lines of development of social organization. The context of
parallel processes intended by Steward in his use of this phrase was initially impressed upon him by
Wittfogel's work on hydraulic societies.
'Steward viewed his classificatory devices primarily as tools for area research and as correctives to
the traditional delineation of culture areas, which he criticized as merely a descriptive catch-all device

on JulianSteward

This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

181

for the collection of data and a technique that perpetuated the emphasis on cultural differences rather
than providing an "integrating concept" for anthropological analysis of similarities (p. 220; Steward
1955:52, 78-97).
'Admittedly notable efforts have been made in cross-cultural studies by some ecologically minded
anthropologists. See, for example, the studies summarized in Heider 1972:213-21 7.
6This perspective probably increased in American anthropology during the years following World
War II, when American anthropologists began to do fieldwork abroad in countries where disruption of
native lifeways by European colonialism was not as obvious as it was in some portions of North
America.
7 Indeed, some of Steward's ecological analyses have been appropriately criticized for his failure to
consider the possible effects of earlier state contact on social organization (see Service 1971b:46-98).
8These studies also emphasize again Steward's recognition of the unavoidable cultural element in
ecological anthropology, for the environmental resources such as rubber trees and beaver pelts utilized
in these cases became appropriate for local exploitation only when identified as such by contact agents
of the state.

references cited
Anderson, James N.
1973 Ecological Anthropology and Anthropological Ecology. In Handbook of Social and Cultural
Anthropology. John J. Honigmann, Ed. Chicago: Rand McNally. pp. 179-239.
Damas, David, Ed.
1969 Contributions to Anthropology: Ecological Essays. National Museums of Canada, Bulletin
230. Anthropological Series, no. 86. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada.
Diamond, Stanley
1961 Culture in History: Essays in Honor of Paul Radin. New York: Columbia University Press.
Fried, Morton H.
1975 The Notion of Tribe. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings.
Goldschmidt, Walter, and Harry Hoijer, Eds.
1970 The Social Anthropology of Latin America: Essays in Honor of Ralph L. Beals. Los Angeles:
Latin American Center, University of California Press.
Harris, Marvin
1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Hatch, Elvin
1973a The Growth of Economic, Subsistence, and Ecological Studies in American Anthropology.
Journal of Anthropological Research 29:221-243.
1973b Theories of Man and Culture. New York: Columbia Press.
Heider, Karl G.
1972 Environment, Subsistence, and Society. In Annual Review of Anthropology 1. B. J. Siegel,
Ed. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. pp. 207-226.
Kaplan, David
1965 The Superorganic: Science or Metaphysics? American Anthropologist 67:958-976.
Keesing, Roger M.
1974 Theories of Culture. In Annual Review of Anthropology 3. B. J. Siegel, Ed. Palo Alto, CA:
Annual Reviews. pp. 73-98.
Kottak, Conrad
1975 Some Thoughts about Links between Materialist, Marxist, and Structural Approaches in
Anthropology. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology 1. Ann Arbor: Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan. pp. 96-108.
Lehman, Frederick K.
1964 Typology and the Classification of Sociocultural Systems. In Process and Pattern in Culture:
Essays in Honor of Julian H. Steward. Robert A. Manners, Ed. Chicago: Aldine. pp. 376-396.
Lowie, Robert H.
1947 Primitive Society. New York: Liveright.
1940 Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. Second Edition. New York: Farrarand Rinehart.
Manners, Robert
1973 Obituary of Julian Haynes Steward. American Anthropologist 75:886-903.
Moore, John H.
1974 The Culture Concept as Ideology. American Ethnologist 1:537-549.
Murphy, Robert F.
1970 Basin Ethnography and Ecological Theory. In Languages and Cultures of Western North
America: Essays in Honor of Sven S. Liljeblad. Earl H. Swanson, Jr., Ed. Pocatello: Idaho State
University Press. pp. 152-171.
1971 The Dialectics of Social Life: Alarms and Excursions in Anthropological Theory. New York:
Basic Books.

182

americanethnologist

This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1972 Robert H. Lowie. New York: Columbia University Press.

Sahlins, Marshall D.
1977 Culture and Environment. In Horizons of Anthropology. Second Edition. Sol Tax and Leslie
Freeman, Eds. Chicago: Aldine, pp. 215-231.
Sahlins, Marshall D., and Elman R. Service, Eds.
1960 Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor: Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan.
Segraves, B. Abbott
1975 Ecological Anthropology: A Critical Recapitulation. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology
1. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. pp. 109-127.
Service, Elman R.
1971a Cultural Evolutionism: Theory in Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
1971b Primitive Society: An Evolutionary Perspective. Second Edition. New York: Random
House.
Shimkin, Demitri B.
1964 Julian H. Steward: A Contributor to Fact and Theory in Cultural Anthropology. In Process
and Pattern in Culture: Essays in Honor of Julian H. Steward. Robert A. Manners, Ed. Chicago:
Aldine. pp. 1-17.
Sills, David L., Ed.
1968 International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 4. New York: Macmillan.
Steward, Julian H.
1949 South American Cultures: An Interpretative Summary. In Handbook of South American
Indians 5. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 143. Washington:
United States Government Printing Office. pp. 669-772.
1950 Area Research: Theory and Practice. New York: Social Science Research Council.
1955 Theory of Culture Change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
1973 Alfred Kroeber. New York: Columbia University Press.
Steward, Julian H., Ed.
1967 Contemporary Change in Traditional Societies. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Swanson, Earl H., Jr., Ed.
1970 Languages and Cultures of Western North America: Essays in Honor of Sven S. Liljeblad.
Pocatello: Idaho State University Press.
Vayda, Andrew P., and Roy A. Rappaport
1968 Ecology: Cultural and Non-Cultural. In Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. James A.
Clifton, Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. pp. 477-497.
Wolf, Eric R.
1964 Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Date of Submission: August 29, 1977
Date of Acceptance: September 16, 1977

on JulianSteward

This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

183