Historical Particularism and Cultural Ecology

¶ … Particularism vs. Cultural Ecology

Franz Boaz defined the concept in anthropology, which is known by the name of "Historical Particularism." Boas was a champion of this theory, which, although it did not by any means totally ignore the greater theoretical framework that surrounded an event, focused directly on the event itself and attempted account for this event by tying it in some way to a theory that could explain the creation of the cultural variables in the event by tying it in with environmental and historical factors. Boas gives his own account of this development:

The new historical view also comes into conflict with the generalizing method of science. It imposed upon the older view of nature in which the discovery of general laws was considered the ultimate aim of investigation. According to this view, laws may be exemplified by individual events, which, however, lose their specific interest once the laws are discovered... this view is, of course, fundamentally opposed to the purely historical view. Here the laws of nature are recognized in each individual event, and the chief interest centers in the event as an incident picture of the world.

Boaz 26)

In Boaz' view, events are defined by this historical particularism, in which he attempted to achieve some degree of compromise between an idea that culture in and of itself was the sole determinant and the opposing view that environment was the primary factor in effecting the evolution of culture within societies. According to Boas' historical view, then, one attempts to recognize the influence of the laws of nature while still taking into account the unique particulars of the event as well, in this way achieving a sort of compromise between accepting either a cultural or environmental hegemony.

After Boaz, Julian Steward developed another view, which is known as "Cultural Ecology." Cultural Ecology, too, has become a formative and important idea that has shaped subsequent developments within the field of anthropology and continues to resonate with the idea of thinkers today. The doctrine of cultural ecology is not unrelated to Boas doctrine of historical particularism:

Cultural Ecology: Anthropological theory put forward by Julian Steward, and defined by him in The Theory of Culture Change (1955) as "the study of the processes by which a society adapts to its environment." Still used as a theoretical underpinning by archaeologists and geographers.

Cultural Ecology")

Cultural Ecology, then, is immediately different in its temporal emphasis. Whereas Boaz tended to focus on one particular specific event, Steward seems to be more interested in viewing the process of interaction between environment and culture over time. Steward examined the process by which societies adapted to their environment and then considered how changes or developments in that environment then lead to cultural change:

Steward proposed focusing on that part of culture or a "culture core" which he saw as most immediately connected to the physical world, that is the subsistence or productive strategies within a culture. Overtime and history the culture core (subsistence patterns) evolved largely in response to the relevant parts of the particular or "effective environment" exploited (soil, climate etc.). Furthermore the cultural core, as a cultural trait might, in turn, shape other culture features (social organization).

Marquette)

So the point of Stewards new idea was to examine the way that environment affected culture through its changes. While he tended to disagree with the idea that culture in and of itself could be a determinant apart from environmental factors, or at least believed that it was not a determinant in the same way that environment was, he did not ignore the possibility that the "cultural core," which was related to environment might shape things. Thus, he did leave some room for the influence of culture on culture.

Roy Rappaport's version of cultural ecology, however, is similar to Steward's idea, but reflects Boaz's ideas more directly because he emphasizes the particularity of an event, as Boaz suggests, rather than focus on the overarching process of exchange between environment and culture, which is Steward's fixation:

Homeostatic Adaptation is multidimensional. Man adapts to two environments cognitive and operative Culture imposed on nature as well as nature imposed on culture. How men participate in an ecosystem depends not only on the structure and composition of that ecosystem but also upon the cultural baggage of those who enter it, what they and their descendents subsequently receive by diffusion or invent themselves the demands imposed on the local population from outside, and the needs which may be fulfilled by the local population from abroad.

Rappaport, as quoted in Marquette)

Here, we see that Rappaport is much more interested in the specifics of the historical situation as they present themselves to the observer and in considering the possibility of outside influences as well of the effects of the culture itself in subsequent developments. Thus, while Rappaport employs an overarching framework that would be in accordance with Steward's ideas about Cultural Ecology, his focus is not on the systematic development of the relationship between environment and culture, but on the particulars of any culture or historical event that is engrossed in the process of undergoing change. Indeed, Rappaport "stated that much is to be gained by regarding culture 'as part of the means by which animals of the human species maintain themselves in their environment'" (Runk). Thus, his focus on the particularities of an event reflects the influence of Boaz on his work.

In his work, Marvin Harris, too has established the link between environment and culture. In his work, he has even developed an idea, known as "Cultural Materialism," which deals with a similar interaction between culture and environment as those that have been considered above, albeit with some very important and notable differences: