Cultual Materialism Doc

8/3/2019 Cultual Materialism Doc

1/7

Document of Cultural Materialism

Submitted to Dr. Waheed Chaudhary

Submitted by SAIMA, ANAM, SOHAIB, SIDRA

(M.Phil 2nd Semester)


2/7

Cultual MaterialismIn the introduction of The Rise of Anthropological Theory, Harris described culturalmaterialism as the sociocultural analogue of Darwinian selection and immediatelyidentifies it as nonidealist and evolutionary. There will be no appeal to human nature, tothe utter uniqueness of different cultures, or to such intangibles as core values,superorganic configurations, or deep structures. Instead, Harris developed the principleof techno-environmental and techno-economic determinism. This principle holds thatsimilar technologies applied to similar environments tend to produce similararrangements of labor in production and distribution, and that these in turn call forthsimilar kinds of social groupings, which justify and co-ordinate their activities by means

of similar systems of values and beliefs. Translated into a research strategy,

theprinciple of techno-environmental, techno-economic determinism assigns priority to thestudy of the material conditions of sociocultural life, much as the principle of naturalselection assigns priority to the study of differential reproductive success. (Harris1968:4)Harris distinguished his position, cultural materialism, from philosophical materialism(such as, questions of the priority of matter or mind) and from dialectical materialism(the body of concepts formulated by Marx and Engels). He considered philosophicalmaterialism irrelevant to considerations of sociocultural phenomena and subsumeddialectical materialism as a subset of cultural materialism. In the opening pages ofTheRise of Anthropological Theory, Harris states, I shall demonstrate that the failure toapply the cultural-materialist strategy resulted not from any reasonable program oforiented research, but from the covert pressures of the sociocultural milieu in whichanthropology has achieved its disciplinary identity (1968:5). With that, the challengehas been made. Harriss most concise and also complete presentation of his theory isCultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture (1979).There is also a distinction between Emic (phonemic) and Etic (phonetic), as we knowEmic is natives perspective and Etic is outsiders view. Harris, generally is in the favour


3/7

of Etic perspective, although he praises emic perspective, yet his tilt toward the eticapproach is traceble in many of his works and writings.Harris then lays out three basic points of his methodology to study and analyse thesocieties, by using these three features, Harris explained the sacred cow phenomenonin india, and also he explained the fall of russian empire through the prism of his cultural

materialism. These three points are, Infra-Structure , Structure, and super structure.

Infrastructure

It includes - the basic practices that provide for survival and continuation of the

society, especially subsistence (food production practices) and technology, but

also other basics such as how people survive the weather (housing, clothing,

heating, moving seasonally, etc.) how they move around (walking, horseback,

cars, etc.) and trade: how they exchange these necessary goods and so on

Structure

how social relations are arranged social organization, kinship, distribution of wealth

and status (such as social classes) organization of power (politics)

Super-structure

systems of meanings religion, symbols, philosophy, ideology, worldview, aesthetics

(art, design, music, dance)

Harris main argument can be comprehended briefly in a way that, Cultural Materialismis a view, where changes in infra- structures change the structure and superstructure.In other simple words, material realities of every day life determine the culture. In short,understanding cultural patterns first requires explaining phenomena in terms ofinfrastructurethe culture/nature interface, as expressed by such dimensions assubsistence, settlement, population, demography, and so onand then understandinghow such changes reshape structure and superstructure.

Except the earlier work of Harris, all his major works revolve around his own coined

paradigm Cultural Materialism. Harris coined this word as he says himself Although Idid not invent cultural materialism, I am responsible for giving it its name (1979: x)Using the paradigm of the cultural materialism, Harris applied cultural materialism intopractice, by analyzing the phenomenon of sacred cow in india, and also explained thefall of soviet empire

To someone from the meat-eating background, the notion of cows wandering freely inIndia while people starve is a paradoxical waste of protein. The Hindu ban on the


4/7

slaughter of cattle and the consumption of beef would seem non-adaptive , a case wherecultural rules run against common sense and, by extension, an illustration that mentalsuperstructure, and not infrastructure, is prior.(that is contrary to Harris who emphasizeson infrastructure).

India has more cows than any other nation in the worldan estimated 180

million plus 50 million water buffaloa waste created by illogical religious belief,but harris does not agree with this notion, and he came up with a wonderful

explanation for this through the prism of cultural materialism. How the

infrastructure produced a sacred cow? Was the question of research for Harris.

Harris cites Vedic texts describing a beef-eating past (before 600 B.C.) when

cattle were slaughtered for communal, carnivorous feasts. But as the human

population increased and grazing lands were converted to farmlands, beef

became too expensive and eventually was limited only to privileged castes.

Beginning in the fifth century B.C., religions (Buddhism and Jainism) developed

that banned killing, and during subsequent centuries milk, not meat, became the

ritual food, and cow worship became part of Hinduism. But the need for oxen asplow animals meant that cows were always necessary. Animals are needed on

small farms. Today tractors are only more efficient on larger farms, and they

break down and are expensive to repair. The poorest of Indias farmers are the

real owners of the supposedly stray animals wandering in the landscape; with no

pasturage, the cows scavenge food from roadside vegetation, food stands, and

garbage heaps. Producing little milk and only an occasional ox, the cow is

nonetheless cost-efficientsufficient reason for protection from slaughter. Cows

are needed to pull plows (male cattle: bulls, bullocks, oxen)provide fertilizer

(dung), provide fuel (dung), provide milk (female cattle: cows), provide leather,

horn, meat, etc. to non-Hindus, Supporting Indian humped cattle is almost cost-

free, In times of drought or famine, people would be tempted to eat them but

this(eating cow in famine) would be disastrous in the longer run since next

season, there would not be enough cattle to plow, fertilize, provide milk, etc. A

simple rule against eating cows would not be enough to stop hungry people from

doing, so a really strong, religious prohibition does the job necessary to

overcomes desperate individuals short-term needs for the long-term survival

benefit of the group, it may not have been invented for this practical purpose, but

groups that held this belief did better than those that did not, so over time, it

became widespread. Harris proves that the infrastructure is responsible for thesacredness of a cow rather than the super structure .

Giving a lecture at the distinguish American Anthropological Association in 1992, Harris

defined fall of Russian empire from the lens of cultural materialism in which the notion of

infrastructure is embedded. The demise of the soviet empire was not the triumph of

American Foreign policy and perestroika(the restructuring of bureaucracy and private


5/7

business) but contrary it was due to infrastructural devolution. On the eve of

perestroika, per capita economic growth in the Soviet Union was at zero or less, grain

production was unchanged over the previous decade in spite of heavy investments, and

between 1970 and 1987 output per unit of input declined at the rate of 1 percent per

year. Factories, agricultural equipment, generation plants, and transmission systems

were worn and antiquated. The diffusion of technological innovations took three times

longer in the Soviet economy than it did in the Western economies. Inadequate

distribution systems meant that 20 percent to 50 percent of the wheat, potato, sugar

beet, and fruit harvests were lost between farm and store, as was the decrease in life

expectancy for Soviet males. Harris points out that in the 1970s1980s infant mortality

increase in Kazakhstan by 14 percent, Turkmenistan by 22 percent and in Uzbekistan

by 48 percent (1992). The perception that Russia was benefiting at the expense of the

other republics intensified nationalistic movements. Harris concluded that degradation of

the infrastructure in Soviet Union was the real cause of the Soviet collapse.

Cultural materialism contributed many feathers to the tapestry of Anthropological

knowledge, main contributions are

a. Its research strategies that challenged anthropology to be grounded on scientific

methods

b. Its holistic view of anthropology, which integrates the methods and findings of all

sub-fields of anthropology

c. Use of clear and intelligible language and aim to communicate anthropological

knowledge across boundaries.

d. The belief that cultures can be studied across geographical and temporal

boundaries.

e. Aim to develop broad theories of culture

Criticism

Harriss argument is this: anthropology is a science, science is based on laws,

infrastructure is (most likely) governed by laws, therefore anthropology should focus oninfrastructure. But what if anthropology is not a search for law like generalizations?

What if it is a humanistic discipline, or one that is not an experimental science in search

of law, but an interpretive one in search of meaning, as Clifford Geertz (1973:5) stated.

Finally, how can we be so dismissive of the informants emic viewpoint if culture is

rooted in values and meanings held by individuals? Why should we give research

priority to etic research focused on infrastructure when as anthropologists we are


6/7

interested in the rich diversity of human cultures? Doesnt cultural materialism reduce

human culture to mere matters of eating and breeding? These are some of the issues

that emerged in the 1970s and later as American anthropology split into two major

camps: those who argued for an anthropology grounded in the humanities and those

such as Marvin Harriswho advocated an anthropology modeled on natural science.


7/7

Bibliography

1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture.

New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.

1974 Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture. New York:

Random House.

1977 Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Cultures. New York: Random

House.

1979 Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. New York:

Random House.

1985 Good to Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture. New York: Simon and

Schuster.

1992 Distinguished Lecture: Anthropology and the Theoretical and Paradigmatic

Significance of the Collapse of Soviet and East European Communism.

American Anthropologist 94:295305.

2009 Visions of culture : an introduction to anthropological theories and theorists

/ Jerry D. Moore. 3rd ed.

Web Links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_materialism_(anthropology) www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/cultmat.htm www.cultural-materialism.org www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Harris/Index.htm epistemic-forms.com/FacSite/.../marvin-harris-culture-material.htm http://www.bookrags.com/biography/marvin-harris-soc/ www.ishk.net/cultural_materialism_riddles.pdf

Documents

Cultual Materialism Doc