Leslie White comments on the
assumption that there is a “fundamental difference…between the nature of physical reality and human
social reality” (White 5). He said this assumption denies that social sciences
can be true sciences, that physical sciences are the “exact sciences” (White
6). White argues that the assumptions that “comprise the scientific way of
interpreting reality are applicable equally to all of its phases, to the
human-social, or cultural, as well as to the biological and the physical”
(White 6). Instead of viewing science as its own entity, it should be a method
of interpreting reality (White 6). He therefore assigns three categories of
scientific study: Physical, biological and cultural. “The physical category is
composed of non-living phenomena or systems; the biological of living
organisms. The cultural category…is made up of events that are dependent upon a
faculty peculiar to the human species…the ability to use symbols” (White 15).
Although these categories can be defined and explained in each other’s terms,
“organizations of events cannot be fully understood unless they are interpreted
upon the level of their organization” (White 17). For example, human beings can
be described in biological terms (cells) or physical (atoms), but they cannot
be fully comprehended unless explained through culture. I am supportive of
whites acknowledgement to the interrelationship between these categorical
processes, that he does not simply separate and classify.
Human culture is perpetuated as
“a form of social heredity…that flows down through time from one age to the
next” as it evolves and progresses to better harness this energy (Moore and
Sanders 107). This evolution of cultural systems is similar, according to
White, in comparison to biological organisms in that they “develop, multiply,
and extend themselves (Moore and Sanders 119), and as cultural evolution
progresses, “the rate of growth is accelerated” (Moore and Sanders 116).
White explains culture as “a
process sui generis” that is
“supra-biological” or “extra-somatic” (White 16), in other words, a
self-sufficient process that can only be explained in its own terms. The most
basic unit of human culture and behavior, and thus of civilization is the
symbol (White 22). He says this behavior is “obvious, but not easy to define,”
(White 23) because humans find it obvious that other creatures cannot perform
the same acts distinction and thought humans are able to (White 23-24).
However, exactly what defines this difference in mental processes is more
difficult. There is recognized a difference of degree, or “larger power of
association” but there is no additional “building stone” in the human brain
that would account for it (White 24). Therefore he lays it out in black and
white: “Man uses symbols; no other creature does. An organism has the ability
to symbol or it does not; there are no intermediate stages” (White 25). I don’t
necessarily agree with this mutually exclusive idea. White says “It was the
exercise of the symbolic faculty that brought culture into existence” (White
33), but Homo Sapiens evolved from
earlier anthropoid ancestors who, according to White were made into men by
beginning to use symbols at some point in time. So if culture was able to
evolve out of a condition where it was not existent prior, could the same not
eventually occur in other creatures?
Although white argues that
culture is unique to homo sapiens,
“With all his culture man is still an animal and strives for the same ends that
all other living creatures strive for: the preservation of the individual and
the perpetuation of the race,” (White 34) and it is in the means used by humans
to achieve these ends that define culture. White adds that to reach these ends,
“life is a struggle for free energy…It becomes the primary function of culture,
therefore, to harness and control energy so that it may be put to work in man’s
service” (Moore and Sanders 109). White
formulated his basic law of cultural evolution, around man’s ability to harness
energy with the use of technology. This law states that “culture evolves as the
amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is increased, or as the
efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to work is
increased” (Moore and Sanders 109). White adds that the degree of development
for a given culture can be explained by this law; with the formula “E x T > C, in which C represents the degree of cultural
development, E the amount of energy
harnessed per capita per year, and T,
the quality or efficiency of the tools employed in the expenditure of the
energy” (Moore and Sanders 109).
I find White’s
arguments compelling because he redefines science as “not a body of data,” but
as a “technique of interpretation” (White 2). Although this runs into an issue,
especially in regards to his energy formula, because it is difficult to see how
to apply quantitative measurement to qualitative data. Nonetheless, I find his
formula to be a successful theory to ponder. I also found interest in his
ability to maintain the concept of interconnectedness between concepts of
separate categories. Some of his ideas are very black and white, which I find
to be difficult to maintain with concepts in anthropology, especially with
regards to culture.
Source: White, Leslie A. The Science of Culture.
New York: Grove, 1949.
No comments:
Post a Comment