SOME UNFINISHED BUSINESS IN CULTURAL AN-
THROPOLOGY1
By JOHN
GILLIN
Cultural anthropology is a comparatively
old branch of learn-
ing if we mean by it the contemplation
of the objects of material
culture and a vague awareness of
"strange" customs. The
Babylonians of the time of Hammurabi are
said to have had
museums of artifacts recovered from the
Sumerians; and the
Greeks, notably Herodotus, evinced a
lively interest in the customs
of barbarians. It is only during the
last one hundred years, how-
ever, that cultural anthropology has
emerged as a science--"the
science of custom"--and it is
within the last thirty years that it
has made some claims to be a
generalizing science. By science, of
course, we mean the search for and
establishment of more or less
generally valid conclusions regarding
relations between entities,
established through impartial
observation, collection, measure-
ment and classification of data, and
involving rigorous checking
of hypotheses. Relatively few such
generalizations have been
established for cultural anthropology to
date.
Both physical and cultural anthropology
have for a long time
enjoyed rather a favorable position in
the minds of exact scientists,
partly perhaps because they did not
understand or care much
about them, partly because the
anthropologists made a great show
of measuring and classifying their
material, which, in the case
of the cultural anthropologists,
consisted largely of artifacts. The
tardiness in valid generalizations in
cultural anthropology has
arisen, in part at least, through
confusion as to the proper data of
the science and correlative confusion as
to the objectives to be
pursued. As long as culture was thought
of primarily in terms of
material artifacts little progress could
be made. Classify and
measure artifacts as you will, relations
of any significance between
1 Parts of this paper were
read before the Ohio Valley Sociological Society in
its annual meetings at Columbus, May, 1938.
(44)
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY: GILLIN 45
them cannot be established so long as
the human element is ignored
or relegated to second place. One of the greatest recent ad-
vances is the realization by
anthropologists that culture is a psycho-
logical phenomenon, existing in the
minds of the individuals who
compose a society, implanted in those
minds by the learning pro-
cess and social habituation, and made
manifest as the behavior of
those individuals.2 Culture
has now pretty well been shown to
consist of socially patterned and
socially practised habits--habits
of behavior, both overt and covert,
habits of doing and thinking
and feeling. Another way of putting it
is to say that culture con-
sists of socially conditioned and
organized sets of ideas, attitudes,
emotions and muscular coordinations. And
without culture no hu-
man society is or has been able to
exist. Viewed from this angle,
artifacts are in large part merely
objectivizations of certain psy-
chological patterns. Thus the mere shape
and size of an artifact
does not tell us much about it from the
cultural point of view;
practically identical artifacts have
been known to occupy very
different positions in the cultural
patterns of different peoples.3
So also mere descriptions of outward
manifestations of customs
or ceremonies are comparatively barren
culturally if we are igno-
rant of their meanings and values in the
society practising them.
By giving the above definitions of
culture, I do not mean
to imply that everything concerning
culture has now been dis-
covered and understood. But the fairly
well proven psychological
basis upon which culture rests has
provided the anthropologist with
a certain amount of connective tissue to
study. It requires that
we devote more attention to the
physiology, so to speak--i.e., the
functioning of a culture under study--as
well as to its dry bones,
or bare structure.
Now the question arises as to what are
the proper objectives
of cultural anthropology. The science of
anthropology has chosen
one of the most ambitious definitions of
its field on record--"the
2 See Ruth Benedict, Patterns of
Culture (New York, 1934), Chapters 1 and 8;
Ralph Linton, The Study of Man (New
York, 1936), Chapter 17 and passim; B. Mal-
inowski, "Culture as a Determinant
of Behavior," Factors Determining Behavior,
Harvard Tercentenary Publications (Cambridge, 1937), p. 133-69; W. I. Thomas, Primi-
tive Behavior (New York, 1937), Chapter 3 and passim.
3 See John Gillin, "The
Configuration Problem in Culture," American Socio-
logical Review (Pittsburgh), I (1936), 373-86; R. U. Sayce, Primitive
Arts and Crafts
(Cambridge, 1933), Chapter 10
("Superficial Resemblances": not discussed entirely from
this point of view, but providing
examples) and passim.
46
OHIO ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
study of man and his works." Of
course, no one man can cover
such a field adequately, and the
comparatively small group of pro-
fessional anthropologists have had to
lean heavily and properly
upon many other disciplines, such as
psychology, sociology, biology,
geography and geology, mathematics,
anatomy, etc., etc. In fact,
it is difficult, if not impossible, to
conceive of a science which can
contribute nothing to the study of man
and his culture.
The cultural anthropologists are by
definition those who de-
vote themselves primarily to the study
of culture, in distinction
to the physical anthropologists who are
primarily concerned with
man's biological characteristics and
evolution. The two fields are
of course closely interdependent, and
the student working in one
field who is ignorant of the
contributions of the other can expect
little progress in his understanding of
man. But physical
anthropology is essentially a branch of
zoology and its methods
of investigation are closely allied to
the methods and procedures
of that science, while cultural
anthropology is one of the social
sciences and may be expected to share in
methodological develop-
ments within the general field of social
science. It is generally
recognized that culture is "what
men live by," and that a complete
or even a more adequate understanding of
it would go a long way
toward enabling us not only to correct
many of the ills which at-
tend human social existence, but also to
make useful predictions
regarding human behavior in the future.
At the present time cultural
anthropology may be divided
into three branches as follows. Prehistoric
archaeology attempts
to describe the cultures of extinct
peoples. Such descriptions,
however, must be made from examination
of material remains.
Intelligible description by prehistoric
archaeologists depends upon
their knowledge of living cultures, and
the patterning of life dur-
ing early times must be deduced from
artifacts on the basis of
analogy to known functioning cultures.
At best, such reconstruc-
tion is bound to be incomplete, but it
is the only means we have of
shedding light upon the origins and
development of human culture
in periods and places where little or no
documentary evidence is
available. Linguistics, as a
branch of cultural anthropology, deals
primarily with the study and recording
of the languages of pre-
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY: GILLIN 47
literate peoples, although in the larger
sense its students are con-
cerned with the entire interplay of
verbalizations and their sub-
stitutes with the other aspects of
culture. The third branch of
cultural anthropology goes under the
various designations of
social anthropology (the term preferred
by the "functionalist"
group), ethnology and
ethnography. Regardless of the differences
intended by the use of these several
terms the third branch is con-
cerned with the study of living
contemporary cultures from all
points of view--structure, function, and
process. In practise, the
anthropologists perusing these data have
dealt largely with con-
temporary preliterate cultures, although
several studies have been
made of "civilized" cultures.4
On the whole, however, the study
of the complex interrelations of western
culture has been left to
the sociologists, who are faced with the
tremendous task of keep-
ing us informed of and attempting to
explain the many aspects
of our civilization.
It seems therefore that students of
culture have two objec-
tives: first, to discover and describe,
insofar as is possible, the
origins and development of human
cultures. This is the recon-
struction of unwritten history. Secondly, they must record,
analyze, explain, and eventually
generalize reliably upon the ways
and characteristics of culture in all of
its manifestations. This
means that the human social animal must
be studied both inten-
sively and extensively.
Now I propose to mention a few fields of
research to which
cultural anthropologists might
profitably devote their attentions
and to which laymen might profitably
devote their support, pro-
vided they are interested in human
progress through science.
This does not pretend to be an
exhaustive list, but only a sug-
gestive one.
1. First it seems to me that a
well-planned attack on human
cultural problems would complete the
record and description of
cultural variations before it is too
late. It is surprising to note
4 E. g., R. S. and H. M. Lynd, Middletown (New York,
1929), and Middletown
in Transition (New York, 1937); W. L. Warner's study of Newberryport,
Mass., now
in press; the Harvard study of rural
Ireland, of which the first published document
is Conrad Arensberg, The Irish
Countryman (London, 1936); John Dollard, Class and
Caste in a Southern Town (New Haven, 1937); Hortense Powdermaker, After Free-
dom (New York, 1939).
48
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
that a great deal more money--some
estimates give ten times as
much--is spent each year in collecting
zoological and botanical
specimens than is devoted to collecting
of data concerning the
human cultures which are rapidly
disappearing before the spread
of European civilization. This is true
in spite of the fact that
much more useful knowledge can be
derived from the study of
dead biological specimens than from the
study of dead human
cultures, even in cases where the latter
leave archaeological re-
mains.4a At the present time
the two least explored areas cul-
turally are South America and the island
of New Guinea. In
South America, part of which I know at
first hand, each year
finds the progressive breaking down of
aboriginal patterns of
behavior which will be forever lost if
not recorded. Unless west-
ern culture itself collapses in that
time it is safe to say that another
fifty years will see the destruction of
practically all of the aborig-
inal cultures of that continent.
The recording of these cultures is not
an idle search for
curiosities. It is a matter of getting
on record all possible varia-
tions of human behavior under the
influence of culture, so that we
shall have as broad a base as possible
for our generalizations.
The botanist attempting to arrive at
useful generalizations on
plant life does not content himself with
pulling up and examin-
ing a few weeds in his back yard. He
must base his generaliza-
tions on as wide a variety of plant life
as it is possible to secure.
So also the cultural anthropologist must
not neglect the wide
range of cultural manifestations.
Furthermore, the use of the
laboratory procedure for simplifying
situations and isolating fac-
tors is practically impossible in
cultural studies. For this rea-
son the cultural anthropologist must
study simplified cultural
situations as they occur in nature, i.
e., among the simpler and
more primitive cultures. As Benedict
says:
The problems are set in simpler terms
than in the great Western civi-
lizations .... Modern civilization has
grown too complex for adequate
analysis except as it is broken up for
the purpose into small artificial sec-
tions. And these partial analyses are
inadequate because so many outside
4a The highly valuable activities of
zoological and botanical scientists should not,
in my view, be curtailed in the least.
If, however, study of the structure and be-
havior of exotic plants and lower
animals are deserving of considerable financial and
scientific support, investigation of the
structure and behavior of man himself should be
hardly less deserving.
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY: GILLIN 49
factors cannot be controlled. ... In
primitive society, the cultural tradl-
tion is simple enough to be contained
within the knowledge of individual
adults, and the manners and morals of
the group are moulded to one well-
defined general pattern. It is possible
to estimate the interrelation of traits
in this simple environment in a way
which is impossible in the cross-cur-
rents of our complex civilization.5
The question of investigating the
remaining primitive cul-
tures of the earth is placed first on
the agenda of "unfinished
business," because it is the one
vital task which cannot be ap-
proached with gentlemanly leisure and
because its successful ac-
complishment underlies so many of the
other problems which
await solution. Furthermore, the cost of
such investigations is sur-
prisingly low in comparison with many
other types of field work,
as the present author knows from his own
experience. Large and
elaborately equipped expeditions, such
as are often required in
certain other types of investigation,
are not necessary in ethnology.
The good ethnologist, aside from note-books, photographic and
measuring instruments, carries most of
his scientific equipment
in his head, and he knows that a large
retinue may destroy the
very thing he has come to study, namely,
the aboriginal patterns
of culture.
2. Following are some of the problems
whose solution may
reasonably be expected to be furthered
by ethnological study.
a) Acculturation problems are those
arising from contact of
cultures. Many characteristics of
culture, as of any other class
of phenomena, can only be adequately
understood when the system
we are investigating is placed under
stress. Culture contact, rather
than manipulation in the laboratory,
provides us with material for
study of cultural stress and strain. The
changes which are occur-
ring within our own culture are the
source of many of the most
vexing contemporary social problems. Yet
we know relatively
little about the general characteristics
of cultural systems when
undergoing change. The contacts between
simple, preliterate cul-
tures and others offer us a
simplification of the situation which is
the desire of all investigators.
However, it is no exaggeration to
say that within a relatively short time
none of these simple in-
tegrated cultures will remain to be
investigated under strain of con-
5 Benedict, Patterns of Culture, p.
17-8.
50
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
tact. At present there are many
situations of this sort available
in South America, Oceania, Africa, and
to a lesser extent in Can-
ada, Asia, Australia, and among some
North American Indian
tribes in the United States. A
well-planned investigation of human
cultures would make a concerted attack
upon several of these
cultures simultaneously and with
comparable methods.
b)
Problems of the individual and his relation to culture
cover one of the largest areas of
maladjustment in modern society.
Yet we know very little concerning the
formation of so-called
normal personalities outside our own
culture, almost nothing of a
general nature concerning deviations
from the norm. Why is it
that modern civilization seems to have
the highest incidence of
neuroticism? What types of culture
patterns provide the best op-
portunities for personal adjustment and
"happiness"? What are
the limits beyond which no culture can
mold the individual per-
sonality without its disintegration? We
should have a much
surer grasp of the problems of crime,
mental breakdown, social
maladjustment, education, and so on, if
we understood more pre-
cisely the impact of culture upon the
personality in other cultures,
as well as in our own.
c) The problems of social control need
vastly more elucida-
tion. There are societies on record with
fairly advanced cultures,
for example the Pueblos, which seem for
long periods of time
to have been able to maintain control in
moderately large popula-
tions without show of force or
tyrannical authority. But is dem-
ocratic control possible in a society
organized around many
divergent interests? And what accounts
for the dominating in-
terests of a culture--environment, race,
historical accident, and
what else; and how are these factors
combined? What is the re-
lation between cultural interests and
individual personality de-
velopment? What degree of diversity can
be tolerated without
cultural and social collapse?
d) What independent influence in culture
patterning is to be
attributed to the factors of sex
difference, age difference, and
blood relationship?6
6 Margart Mead has undertaken to study
some of these problems, but we cannot
expect her to cover the world; see her Sex
and Temperament in Three Savage So-
cieties (New York, 1935); Coming of Age in Samoa (1930);
Growing Up in New
Guinea (1928).
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY: GILLIN 51
e) What substitutes for war and violent
conflict have ever
been devised which actually work?
f) The so-called categories of thought
or logical absolutes,
such as time, space, beauty, etc.,
should be explored as functional
entities in the range of cultural
settings, rather than as mere
curiosities.
g) The ultimate objective of the
cultural anthropologist is,
in my view, the understanding of
cultural wholes. Once we
succeeded in establishing scientific
methods for handling cultures
as dynamic integrated systems or
configurations, many of the more
specific questions would fall into their
proper perspective. In many
other sciences this approach has proved
the most productive.
Configurations so far known, whether
they be atoms or solar
systems, are characterized by patterns
of dynamic interrelations
between entities or points. In fact,
such might be given as a
definition of reality. Now, with culture
our problem is to under-
stand the system, and the first step is
to establish verifiably the
points, then the relationships. Insofar
as theoretical thought has
proceeded along these lines the culture
trait has been accepted
as the basic type of point, connected by
relations of various sorts
with other points to compose a cultural
system. However, con-
fusion exists as to the definition of
traits and of relations. In
other words, a large amount of field
investigation and theoretical
cogitation remains among the
"unfinished business" before these
cultural wholes, which we so glibly
refer to as patterns, con-
figurations and systems, will be
adequately understood and com-
pared.
3. In archaeology many advances have
been made in tech-
nical methods of preserving specimens
and in establishing chrono-
logical relations between cultures.
Large areas of the earth still
remain to be explored archaeologically
and long periods of time
during which human culture was
developing still remain to be
filled by the investigations of the
archaeologists. There is no
danger of archaeology dying out for lack
of work to do, provided
it has the funds to carry it on.
There was a time, however, when there
seemed to be danger
of archaeology's dying out through
sterility. Investigators became
52
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
so absorbed in cataloguing artifacts and
establishing time relations
between them that they seemed to lose
all interest in the fact
that their finds, after all, have no
significance except as they shed
light on human life and culture.7
Part of the unfinished business in
archaeology is to advance
scientific interpretation of results so
that other scholars may grasp
the human, cultural problems so far as
possible of the societies
whose remains are excavated. One
significant attempt along this
line is now being made by the Lithic
Laboratory for the Eastern
United States at the Ohio State Museum
under the direction of
H. C. Shetrone. Mr. Shetrone and his
associates have set out to
investigate thoroughly the muscular
skills involved in manufac-
ture, sources of supply, uses and
distribution of stone implements.
When they have carried their program
through we should have
for the first time a clear appreciation
of the lithic industries which
have engaged the major part of man's
industrial activity during
ninety-nine percent of his existence
upon the earth. The Lithic
Laboratory operates on the theory that
stone artifacts are not
merely given data in themselves, but
that each artifact represents
a human and cultural problem which some
individual, conditioned
by his group culture, solved. It is to
be hoped that similar pro-
grams of research in archaeology will
enlarge our understanding
of other types of excavated remains
along culturally significant
lines.
Without going into more detail, I trust
that I have suggested
that cultural anthropology, far from
being a collection of esoteric
specialties of no human significance, is
properly concerned with
the problems of cultural conditioning
which makes social human
beings what they are. Culture is still
but incompletely known,
and ample "unfinished
business" of the utmost importance remains
for the cultural anthropologists.
7 For further discussion of this point,
see Julian H. Steward and Frank M.
Setzler, "Function and
Configuration in Archaeology," American Antiquity (Menasha,
Wis.), IV (1938), 4-10.
SOME UNFINISHED BUSINESS IN CULTURAL AN-
THROPOLOGY1
By JOHN
GILLIN
Cultural anthropology is a comparatively
old branch of learn-
ing if we mean by it the contemplation
of the objects of material
culture and a vague awareness of
"strange" customs. The
Babylonians of the time of Hammurabi are
said to have had
museums of artifacts recovered from the
Sumerians; and the
Greeks, notably Herodotus, evinced a
lively interest in the customs
of barbarians. It is only during the
last one hundred years, how-
ever, that cultural anthropology has
emerged as a science--"the
science of custom"--and it is
within the last thirty years that it
has made some claims to be a
generalizing science. By science, of
course, we mean the search for and
establishment of more or less
generally valid conclusions regarding
relations between entities,
established through impartial
observation, collection, measure-
ment and classification of data, and
involving rigorous checking
of hypotheses. Relatively few such
generalizations have been
established for cultural anthropology to
date.
Both physical and cultural anthropology
have for a long time
enjoyed rather a favorable position in
the minds of exact scientists,
partly perhaps because they did not
understand or care much
about them, partly because the
anthropologists made a great show
of measuring and classifying their
material, which, in the case
of the cultural anthropologists,
consisted largely of artifacts. The
tardiness in valid generalizations in
cultural anthropology has
arisen, in part at least, through
confusion as to the proper data of
the science and correlative confusion as
to the objectives to be
pursued. As long as culture was thought
of primarily in terms of
material artifacts little progress could
be made. Classify and
measure artifacts as you will, relations
of any significance between
1 Parts of this paper were
read before the Ohio Valley Sociological Society in
its annual meetings at Columbus, May, 1938.
(44)