How do diffusionism and evolutionism differ as explanations of Culture Change?

Evolutionism: A Framework of Progress

Evolutionism, largely associated with figures like Lewis Henry Morgan and Edward Burnett Tylor, proposed that cultures progress through a series of predictable stages, often mirroring the evolutionary theories prevalent in biology at the time. Morgan's "Stages of Societal Evolution" (1877), progressing from savagery to barbarism to civilization, became a cornerstone of this approach. Tylor, in his "Primitive Culture" (1871), defined culture as "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society," and posited a unilineal evolution of religious beliefs from animism to polytheism to monotheism.

Core Tenets of Evolutionism

• Unilineal Evolution: All societies progress through the same stages.
• Psychological Uniformity: Human minds operate similarly across cultures, leading to predictable patterns of development.
• Orderly Progression: Cultures evolve through a sequence of stages, each representing a higher level of complexity.

Diffusionism: The Role of Contact and Borrowing

Diffusionism arose as a critique of Evolutionism, particularly in response to the perceived inability of evolutionist models to explain certain cultural anomalies. Diffusionists, like Franz Boas and his students (e.g., Clark Wissler), argued that cultures change primarily through contact and the borrowing of traits from other cultures. Boas’s work challenged the ethnocentric biases inherent in evolutionist theories and emphasized the importance of historical context in understanding cultural practices. The concept of a "culture area," a geographically defined region with shared cultural traits due to contact, became central to diffusionist thinking.

Core Tenets of Diffusionism

• Cultural Contact: Cultural change is primarily driven by borrowing from other cultures.
• Rejection of Unilinealism: Cultures do not necessarily progress through the same stages.
• Historical Particularism: Each culture is unique and must be understood within its specific historical context.

Comparing Evolutionism and Diffusionism: A Direct Contrast

Feature	Evolutionism	Diffusionism
Primary Driver of Change	Internal development; inherent stages of progress	External contact and borrowing
View of Cultural Stages	Linear, progressive sequence	No universal sequence; cultures develop independently
Role of Contact	Minor influence; often seen as delaying or distorting progress	Central role in shaping cultural traits
Methodology	Comparative analysis of societies, often based on limited data and ethnocentric biases	Historical research, linguistic analysis, and detailed fieldwork
Key Figures	Lewis Henry Morgan, Edward Burnett Tylor	Franz Boas, Clark Wissler

Limitations and Decline

Both theories faced significant criticism. Evolutionism was criticized for its ethnocentric biases, its reliance on limited and often inaccurate data, and its failure to account for cultural diversity. The concept of universal stages of development proved untenable when confronted with the complexities of cultural variation. Diffusionism, while more nuanced, struggled to explain the origin of cultural traits – if everything was borrowed, where did the initial innovations come from? Furthermore, it sometimes lacked a robust framework for understanding why certain traits were borrowed and others rejected.

The rise of functionalism, pioneered by Bronislaw Malinowski and A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, and later structuralism, championed by Claude Lévi-Strauss, provided alternative perspectives that emphasized the internal dynamics of cultures and the underlying structures of thought, effectively eclipsing both Evolutionism and Diffusionism. These newer approaches prioritized fieldwork and participant observation, moving away from the armchair theorizing that characterized earlier anthropological endeavors.

Case Study: The “Firestick” Phenomenon

The “firestick” – the practice of using controlled burns to manage vegetation – provides a useful example. An evolutionist might have viewed its development as a sign of increasing sophistication, a stage in the progression of human technology. A diffusionist, however, would focus on how the practice spread between different groups in Australia and other regions, analyzing the routes and mechanisms of cultural exchange. The actual spread was far more complex, involving both independent invention in some areas and diffusion from others, highlighting the limitations of both simplistic models.

Evolutionism and Diffusionism represent crucial, albeit flawed, attempts to understand the processes of culture change. While evolutionism attempted to impose a universal order on cultural diversity, diffusionism correctly emphasized the importance of cultural contact. However, both theories were ultimately undermined by their methodological limitations and the emergence of more sophisticated anthropological approaches. Their legacy lies in demonstrating the complexities of cultural change and prompting a shift towards more nuanced and historically grounded perspectives within the discipline of anthropology.