ACCULTURATION ACCULTURATION THESTUDY OFCULTURECONTACT BY MELVILLE].HERSKOVITS PROFESSOROF ANTIIROPOLOGY NORTHWESTERNUNWERSITY ~].]. AUGUSTINPUBLISHER NEWYORKCITY I9J3 ALLRIGHTSRESERVED THISFIRSTEDITIONISCOMPOSEDINGARAMONDTYPECUT BY THE MONOTYPECORPORATION,AND PRINTED IN GERMANY BY J. J.AUGUSTIN,GLOCKSTADT,HAMBURGAND NEWYORK, IN APRIL 1938 FORJ. J. AUGUSTIN,PUBLISHER,NEW YORK CITY Preface The primary purpose of thisbook isto attempt to define and orient thestudyof culturecontactbydescribingsomeof theworkthat has been done in analyzing the results of contact between peoples, and tosuggestfurtherresearchintotheproblemsthatarisefromin-vestigations of this kind.Ifit is concerned only with primitive peoples, this isnot because it isheld thatthe forcesat work among primitive folkaredifferentfromthoseoperativeincontactsbetweenliterate peoples;butmerelythatthe writer,asananthropologist,hasfeltit tobe the part of wisdom todiscussthose data which fallin the field of his competence.HenFe th6ugh we will here be primarily concerned withproblemsof anthropological research, itisnonethelesshoped that whatissaidwillbeof usetoworkersinothersocialsciences, especiallytohistorians,sociologistsandpsychologists. IamgratefultotheSocialScienceResearchCouncilforhaving madepossibleaperiodof reflectionandreadingontheproblems discussedherethatIneededtopointtheconceptsthathadbeen formingin mymindduring the past yearswhile working on: Negro research-essentially an acculturation problem;andtomycolleagues on the Council's sub-Committee on Acculturation, Dr.RalphLinton andDr.RobertRedfield,forthemanystimulatingdiscussionsthat helped furtherto clarify these problems;similarly, it isa pleasure to expressmygratitudetoDr.DonaldYoung,whoparticipatedin many of these discussions.Iam also indebted to Dr. George Herzog forbibliographicsuggestionsinthefieldsof musicandlinguistics. Melville J.Herskovits New York, 27August1937. TABLEOFCONTENTS Preface,v I TheProblem,I II Some AcculturationStudies Reviewed,JJ III Suggestions for Future Research,IIl APPENDIX An Outline fortheStudyofAcculturation,IJI References,IJ7 Index,I47 I TillEPRIJJLEM I Intensivestudyof contactbetweenpeoplesisarelativelyrecent development in the anthropological repertory, and isto be attributed to a constantly increasing interest in the dynamics of human life.In research having to do with human physical form, for example, analyses of racialmixturearetakingtheirplaceattheside of thosemore conventionalstudiesinclassificationwhoseaimistodescribeand differentiateracialandsub-racialtypes.Inananalagousmanner, theattempttounderstandthenatureandoperationofhuman civilizationsthroughthestudyof"uncontaminated"primitive societiesishavingmoreand moretoshare itsplace in the attention of ethnologists with that other approach which franklyassumesthat, sincecultureisconstantlychanging,acomprehensiveprogramof researchmustrecognizethe valueinherentinthestudyof peoples whosetraditionshavebeenoraretodaybeinginfluencedbythe customsof other folk with whomtheyareincontact. More resemblances than just this are to be seen between the present status of research in physical and cultural anthropology; in both fields, newmodesof attackonoldproblemshaveforcedstudentstoa redistributionof methodologicalemphasis,whileinboththerealso exists a certain confusion asto the ends to be sought, inasmuch asthe 2 ACCULTURATION problems of racecrossing and culturecontact are of such immediate concern that the demands of the practical situations to be met tend to obscurethescientificvalueofresearchof thiskind.Thisbook, however, will only deal with the effects of contact as they are operative in the field of culture.The biological aspects therefore may be passed bywithoutfurthercomment,exceptinsuchcasesasthatofthe Eurasiansof theFar East,orincertainaspectsof contactbetween Negroes and Europeans in the New World, where the fusion of culture is intimately associated with the crossing of the physical typesinvolved. 2 Despite recent emphasis on research among peoples whose cultures are in astate of flux,or where it canbehistoricallydeterminedthat contact has produced a culture of multiple origins, recognition of the significanceof thiskindof dataisnothingparticularlynew.The wordacculturation,whichbestdesignatesstudiesof thissort,hasa respectablehistory,andby1928ithadattainedsuchethnological currencythatWebster'sUnabridgedDictionarydefineditas"the approximationof onehumanraceortribetoanotherincultureor artsbycontact."This wasrevised in the most recent edition(1934) toread"the approximation .of one socialgroup of people to another inculture or artsbycontact;thetransfer of culturalelementsfrom one social group of people to another" and, in addition to the adjective acculturallistedearlier,theverbformsacculturateandacculturize wereadded-"tocauseorinduceapeopletoadopttheculture of another."In1936 the NewStandard Dictionary defined the term as "the imparting of culturebyonepeopletoanother." The wordisstillpeculiarly American,however internationalthe interest in the study of changing cultures may be; though it hasbeen used by a few German students, the British have consistently preferred to employ the compound term "culture-contact."1 This isrecognized 1 An exception to thisstatement isinSchapera,(1936). THEPROBLEM 3 bythe editors of the New English Dictionary who, in their supplement of 1933,appendthedesignation"U.S."totheirdefinition-"the adoption andassimilation of an alienculture." Some of the uses to which the word acculturation hasbeen put may be examined, forthey throw light on its meaning, and alsodocument the statement that the conceptisnotadevelopment of recent years. One of its earliest uses wasby Powell, who in I88o wrote "The force ofacculturationundertheoverwhelmingpresenceof millionshas wrought great changes. "1 Six years later W. H. Holmes, in discussing Spanish Puelo art,employed the word asa matter of course: "The artspass from place to place and from people to people by a process of acculturation so that the peoples of unlike origin practise like arts, while those of like origin are found practising unlike arts. "2 Powell later employed the term againand again, writing in one of hisannualreportsthattheBureauofAmericanEthnologyhad acquiredspecimensof "theartsandindustriesof t h ~ partiallyac-culturizedPapagoIndians"3;and,in apopulararticledealing with thefutureof theIndians,placing it inthiscontext: " ... For suchreasonstheearly methodsdevised forcivilizingthe Indian tribes largely failed .... Progress wasmadetotheextentthat theIndianscame in contact with civilized man and learned his w y ~and industries,but it wasacculturation,not education,by which the advancewassecured.Thetriumphsof civilization,thepowerof prosperity,the wonders of industrial art,all made a deep impression on theIndian and fromthemhe learned much,but fromtheschool and books he learned little. "4 Ataboutthistimealso,Boas,discussingthespreadof folk-tales amongtheIndiansof theNorthPacificCoast wrotethefollowing, in which the word isused in itscurrent sense: tP46. 3 Powell(1896),p.44 2 Holmes(1886),p.266. 4 Powell(1895),p.627. 4 ACCULTURATION "Theartsof thetribesof alargeportionof theterritoryareso uniform, that it is almost impossible to discover the origin of even the mostspecialized formsof their productions inside of a wide expanse of territory.Acculturationof thevarioustribeshashadtheeffect that the plane and the character of the culture of most of them isthe same;in consequence of this we findalsothat mythstravelled from tribetotribeandthatalargebodyof legendsbelongstomanyin common."1 Howrapidlythetermhadgainedcurrencyinthefifteenyears followingthefirstuseof it isshownbyitsmatter-of-factinclusion in the columns of the PopularScienceMonthly of 1895by an anony-mouswriterreportingonscientificpublicationsofthepreceding month: "SimilaritiesinCulture-Prof.0.T.Masonclosesasomewhat criticaldiscussionofsimilaritiesinculture ... withtheconclusion thatsuchsimilaritiesmayarisethroughacommonhumanity,a common stress, and common attributes of Nature; through accultura-tion,orcontact,commerce,borrowing,appropriating,between peoples in all degrees of kinship; and through common kinship, race, or nationality."2 Fiveyearslater,however,Powellusedthewordinamannerthat hasaturn of meaning somewhatdifferentthantheearlier usesof it byhimself and others:"The processof culture... isbyinvention andacculturation.The invention isat first individual,but when an inventionisacceptedandusedbyothersit isaccultural... 3- ameaning that isthe more interesting since the passage quoted occurs in acontext of comment on thepossible.resultsof extendedcontact between variousIndiantribesin pre-Europeantimes. Ehrenreich ( 1905) was one of the earliest German students to take up the term.It isfound in his discussion of South American mythology, 1 Boas(1896),p.z;see also pp.9-u. 2 Vol.xlvii(1895),p.714. 3 (19oo),p.xxi. THEPROBLEM J where he speaks of the "areas of acculturation" (Akkulturationsgebieten) and"acculturationalrelationships"(Akkulturationsverhaltnis)tobe discerned in studyingthemythsof South American tribes.Amore systematictreatmentof thetheme,butone that isentirely divorced from otherthan cursory supportingdata,followedthree yearslater when Vierkandt, in analyzing the processes of cui tural change, some attention to the phenomenon and itssignificance in the fieldof culturaldynamics.The discussion,notbasedonanyfieldstudy of cultures where change was taking place or had occurred has, however, perhapsbecauseof itsdeductivenature,quitefailedtostimulate studentstofield

In the UnitedStates,though the past decade or two haveseen the wordacculturationpassinto the ethnologicalvocabulary,ithasonly beentowardthelatterpart of thisperiodthatspecificfieldstudies of theresultsof culturalcontact havebeenmade.2 Except forthe studiesrecently instituted under the auspicesof the Officeof Indian Affairs,researchof thiskindhasinthiscountrybeenconsistently directedtowardthescientificanalysisofculturalprocesses,in contradistinction to European investigation of cultural contact, which haswithequalconsistencybeen pointed towardpracticalconcerns. 3 Thesignificanceof thisforaclearunderstandingof theprocesses of acculturation that are occurring over the world is of the first order, and willbepointed out later when the differencebetween "practical anthropology" and the scientificstudy of acculturation isconsidered. 1 The onlyGerman student whohasmadesuch astudy,Wagner(1932,p.6o), speaksof Vierkandt'sworkas"inersterLinietheoretischerNatur,"and discussing his concept of "indigenous"and"foreign"typesof cultural change, says"An jedemrealen Kulturwandel werden niehr oder wenigerbeideFormen beteiligtsein." 2 Outstandingexamplestothecontrary are,of course,Mooney'spapersonthe GhostDance(1896).Radin(1913,1914)alsopublishedtwoshortpaperson culture-contactamongtheWinnebago.Thesearecommentedoninthenext section of thisdiscussion. 3 Cf.Mead(1932),p.5 6 ACCULTURATION } It is evident that the students of cultural change who have employed theterm acculturation haveseldomsoughttodefineit, or toassess itsimplicationsbeforeusingit-indeed, thisisperhaps the primary reason for the present discussion.For some the word seems to imply themeaninginherentinitsearliestuses-theresultof somewhat closecontactbetweenpeoplesresultinginagive-and-take of their cultures;forothersit p p e r ~ toholdthesignificanceimplicitin Powell'susageof19oo-theprocesswherebyaspecifictraitis ingestedbyarecipientculture; whilestillothersapparentlyaccept itasthemeanswherebyanindividual"becomesacculturated"to thepatterns of his own society,a usagethat makesthe term "accul-turation" a synonym for "education."Since all of these are but phases of cultural change,andin their psychologicalaspectequally involve the learningprocesses,it isnotstrangethatinthemindsof some students allthese meanings seem to be held simultaneously,with the result that sometimes this concept of cultural contact appears to have one meaning for them,andatothertimesthe wordisemployedin quitea different sense.1 It isof someimportance,therefore,thattheimplicationsof the term"acculturation"beclarifiedattheoutsetbeforeanyfurther discussion of itsmeaning isatten1pted,andthiscan perhapsbestbe done by considering some definitions of the word which have recently beenoffered."Acculturation,"saysLesserinhisdiscussionof the Pawnee Hand Game, " ... isa useful term for the processes by which aspectsof elementsof twoculturesmingleandmerge."2 f'eeling thatthisdefinitionistoobroad,however,hequalifiesit with the statement that acculturation must be distinguished from assimilation "asofaseparatecharacter,"andthenexplainshismearungas follows: 1 Astriking instance of thisisfoundin Bateson(I 9 3 5), p.I 79 2 Lesser (I933),p.ix. THEPROBLEM 7 "Acculturationmaybetakentorefertothe waysin whichsome culturalaspectistakenintoacultureandadjustedandfittedtoit. Thisimpliessomerelativecultural equalitybetweenthegivingand receivingcultures.Assimilation,however,istheprocessof trans-formingaspectsof aconquered or engulfedculture intoastatusof relativeadjustmenttotheformof therulingculture.The problem of acculturation,when weareconsideringthe AmericanIndiansin relationtotheiradjustmenttoEuropeanculture,isaproblemof assimilation." 1 Hethenrefinesthedistinctiondrawnintheprecedingpassageby another qualification: "In acculturation the cultural groups involved are in an essentially reCiprocalrelationship.Both giveandtake.Asaresult it isa valid problem to consider what isadopted and what not, and the whysand wherefores.Inassimilationthetendencyisfortherulingcultural group to enforce the adoption of certain externals, in terms of which superficialadjustmentseemstobe attained.The adoptingculture is not inapositiontochoose." Beforeanalyzingthisdefinition,wemayquotefromParsons' introduction to her ethnographic study of Mitla, where the same terms aredefined.It isperhaps unnecessaryto point,in passing,howthe quotation which follows, when compared with the passagesjust cited from Lesser, demonstrates the terminological confusion found among studies of this kind: "In thisbook mytask isto convey the insight whichIgot among the Zapoteca into the waysin which the traits of an oldculture may perishorsurvive,andthetraitsof anewculturebeadoptedor rejected.Forthemostpart,theanalysisisconcernedwithaccul-turation,with whattheIndiantookfromtheSpaniardratherthan withassimilation,whichisareciprocalprocessandwouldinclude 1 Loc.cit. 8 ACCULTURATION consideration of what the earlySpaniard took from theIndian in the developmentof bothSpaniardandIndianintomodernMexican. "1 Thecontradictionhereispatent,forParsons'implicationthatas-similation isa reciprocal relationshiprulesit out asapplicable tojust those situations whereLesser would employ the word; that is, where agroupof people,in makingtheiradjustmentstoamorepowerful culture,takeit overwithoutinanyappreciabledegreethemselves affectingthe patterns of the donor culture. The interchangespecifiedinLesser'sstatementmakesit difficult to include under the rubric"acculturation" many of those situations foundintheworldatthepresenttimeastheresultof theimpact of Europeancultureonnativepeoples.ForEuropemayinfluence veryconsiderablytheculture of anislandintheSouthSeas,letus say, which can inno conceivablefashionreciprocate withanyinter-change,2yetthereare few who wouldnot considerthesefolktobe undergoingaprocessofacculturation.ThecaseoftheIndians discussed inLesser's work issomewhat different,forthere hasbeen someinterchangebetweenthemandthewhites;yet,grantingthe factthattheseIndians"have not met aculture of thesame order of complexity or technical advancement" astheir own, and that "in the methodswhichhavebeenusedtoassimilatetheIndian,neither technically nor collectively astribal groups were the nativesbrought intodirectcontact with ourcultureassuch,"doesthisprecludeus fromclassifying the resulting change in the culture of the Indiansas acculturation? The methodologicalprinciple impliedbyLesser in differentiating acculturation from assimilation is one which, at best, can only be used with the greatest caution.For just when are a people free or not free to choose one or another aspect of a culture being forced on them by 1 Parsons(1936),pp.xii-xiii. 2 Arecentinstanceof thisistobe foundinFirth(1937), passim,butespecially Ch.II. THEPROBLEM f) adominating group?Doesnot the answertothisrestentirely with thejudgment of thestudent whoconcernshimself withaparticular case?In Lesser's own monograph, it is pointed out that the Pawnee, in their earlycontactswith whiteauthority,weremovedtoareser-vation from their aboriginal habitat with a consent on their part that obviouslywasbutengenderedbydespair.Heretheyweretaught agriculture,andtheyseemtohaveeagerlyacceptedthe opportunity tobecomefarmersandthusrepairtheirdamagedfortunes.That they did not succeedisasidefromthepoint;thepertinentquestion iswhether or not theinvasion of their hunting patternsbythisnew technique-whichwasintroducedbythewhites,butwhichthey willinglytook overtothebestof theirability-isacculturationor assimilation.Insofarasit wasa freechoice,it mustberegardedin termsof Lesser'sstatementastheformer;butinsofarasit was imposedbyadominantpower,it w ~ assimilation.1 Thuswhilethereisadistinctiontobedrawnbetweenthetwo concepts,thiscannot be accomplished under the terms set by Lesser, and by the same token, but for quite different reasons, the definitions advancedbyParsonsmustbeequallysubjecttomodification.For thoughthesubjectiveelementinherentinLesser'sapproachdoes not enter intoherapplicationof thetermstoMexicanculture,the differentiation of the two words on thebasisof whether the borrow-inginvolvedincontactisa one-wayphenomenon orrepresentsan interchange isinadvisable. The definition presented in an Outline on Acculturation published 1 AfurtherdifficultypresentedbyLesser'smodificationof hisdefinitionof ac-culturationisseenwherehespeaksof itas"the waysin whichsomecultura] aspect istaken into aculture and adjusted and fittedto it," since heneglectsto distinguish between the concepts of acculturation and diffusion.This point will be discussed shortly,but the question must here be asked whether diffusion can bethoughtof asanythingbutaprocessbymeansof whichsomeaspectof a given culture istaken over by a group wfto previously did nothaveit. IO ACCULTURATION bytheSub-Committee of theSocialScienceResearchCouncil1 may here alsobe subjected to scrutiny: "Acculturation comprehendsthosephenomena whichresult when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-handcontact,with subsequentchangesintheoriginalcultural patterns of either or both groups." To thisdefinition anote isappended, which must beregardedasan integral part of it: "Underthis acculturationistobedistinguishedfrom culture-change,of which it isbut oneaspect,andassimilation,which isattimesaphaseof acculturation.Itisalsotobedifferentiated from diffusion, which, while occurring in all instances of acculturation, isnot onlyaphenomenon whichfrequentlytakesplace withoutthe occurrence of thetypesof contactbetweenpeoplesspecifiedinthe definition_ givenabove,butalsoconstitutesonly oneaspectof the processofacculturation." Thisdefinitionisseentoruleoutseveralinterpretationsof the wordthathavefromtimetotimebeenmade.It excludestheap-plication of theterm tothemanner in whichan individualacquires a working knowledge of theskillsandtraditionalmodesof thought of hisown culture, which,ashasbeenstated,wouldmake"accul-turation" synonymous with "education" asused in itsbroadest sense; itindicatesthat,becauseof thenatureof thecontactspecified,th,e culturesconcernedaretaken over on agenerousscale,andthus,by implication,excludesthose situations where only asingle aspect of a cultureistransmitted;while,finallyandmostimportantly,itis entirelycolorlessconcerningtherelativecomplexityofthetwo culturesinvolved,andwhetheroneisdominatedbytheotheror contact takes place on a plane of comparative equality.This definition 1 Redfield,Linton,andHerskovits,(1936).Thisoutlineisreproducedasan appendix to the present study. THEPROBLEM II islikewisenoncommittalastowhetheraninterchangeofculture occursbetweenthe twogroupspartytothecontact,or whether the process isa matter of one of them borrowing from theother without anyinterchangeatallresulting-if,indeed,thisiseverpossible. Inaddition,asthematterhasbeenput:"It plainlydoesnotdif-ferentiatecontactsbetween historicandnon -literate folkfromthose between twoprimitivepeoples.Nordoesit touchuponthemotiv-ationsbehind studies of thesecultures... "1 Oneof thepointsinthisdefinitiontowhichobjectionmustbe raisediscontainedinthephrase"groupsof individuals."It was because of this that, in explaining the method of a specific acculturation study,astatementof theapproachusedwasphrasedasfollows: "Studiessuchasthis,concerned withapeople whoseascertainable past history shows the effect of first-hand,continued contactbetween twocultures,haveinrecentyearscometobetermedacculturation studies. "2 The problems whether culture is an entity in its own right; whether it leadsan objectiveexistence of its own; whether it canbestudied apartfromits carriers;and whetherit pursuesits own waydespite attemptstocontrolit onthepart of those wholiveunderit are of considerableimportance,andare,infact,notaltogetherasidefrom the present discussion.For the moment,it canhoweverbeassumed that culture doesnot exist apart from human beings,and that where contact between cultures ismentioned a certain human contactmust betaken for granted asthe only meansby whichculture canspread frompeople to people or fromgenerationto generation.Yet, while it isdesirable toemphasizethat culture isno mysticalentity that can. 1 Herskovits( 193 7 a),p. 2 59This paper gives the setting of studies of acculturation insofarasthishastodowiththespecificapproachesof the variousschools of anthropological thought; and alsoindicatesthe value of acculturation studiesin the general approaches to the understanding of culture. 2 Herskovits(1937b),p.323. I2 ACCULTURATION travel without its human carriers, it is alsotrue that it isnot a simple matter alwaysto know when "groups of individuals"are in contact, asoneassessesspecificsituationstheworldoverwherebodiesof traditionhavebeenorarecontinuouslyimpinging on oneanother. Thisisseenmostplainlywherethestudiesofsecondaryeffects of contact, such as contra-acculturative movements, are made.It would bedifficulttodesignatetheGhostDanceof theIndians ofNorth for instance, asanything but a phenomenon of acculturation; yet,especiallyinearliermanifestationsofthisasanalyzedby Spier,Gaytonandothers,theactualpresenceof groupsof whites amongtheIndiansisdifficulttodiscern;whileinLesser's study of onephase of theGhostDancemovement,it istheroleof the Hand Gameasaffording theIndiansa new interest in life and a point toward which they might direct this interest that issignificant, ratherthananyincorporation of phasesof theculture of the whites withwhomtheywere,indeed,in"continuousfirst-handcontact." Or, the condition of the culture of the natives of such an island group asTikopia,wherecertainelements of Europeanculture,especially inthefieldsof materialcultureandreligion, aretoday effecting an invasion of aboriginalpatterns,maybetakenasacasein point.Is the visit of the missionboat once or twicea year,andthe work of a singlemissionary(anative of anotherislandandnot himself aEu-ropean !)toberegardedas_anacculturatingforce?Certainlythis person isnot a "group of individuals," nor can it well be maintained thatrecurring visitsof those onthemissionboatconstitute"con-tinuous"contact. 4 The problem of terminology with which weare presented maybe simplifiediftherelationshipbetweenthewords"acculturation," "diffusion" and "assimilation" be further analyzed.In hisdiscussion of diffusion,Kroeber definesit asa "process. . .by whichelements THEPROBLEM IJ orsystemsof culturearespread,bywhichaninventionoranew institution adopted in one place isadopted in neighboring areas... in somecases... until it mayspread over the whole world."1 Dif-fusion,thisprocessbymeansof whichculturespreadsinspace,is contrastedbyKroeberwithtradition,whichrepresentsthemeans by which a given culture persists in time; that is, the means by which the content of a culture is handed down from one generation to another withinthe samesociety.And though both of these"rest largely on the samepsychological basis : imitation," yet "as a technical and... semi-popularterm"theworddiffusionhas"cometobenearly restrictedtoitsinterculturalmeaning"sothatonealmostnever speaksof thediffusionof culturefromonegenerationtoanother, but only from one people toanother. "Assimilation,"ontheotherhand,isdefinedas" ... thename giventotheprocessor processesby whichpeoplesof diverseracial originsanddifferentculturalheritages,occupyingacommonter-ritory,achieveaculturalsolidaritysufficientatleasttoachievea nationalunity."2 Itssignificance,wearetold,liesdeeperthanthe superficial adoption of similar traits of a common culture by a number ofgroupsofdifferentorigin;fundamentally,assimilationisnot achieved until a people have attained a unity of thought that underlies the "veneer" of acceptance of traits of a material nature.It is pointed out thatthereare"gradesandgrades" of assimilation,and that the processisnotrestrictedtothehistoricculturesalone,butthatin contactsbetweenEuropeanandnativesocieties,orbetweennative cultures with oneanother,therepercussionsof contactalsoinvolve theassimilationof thecultureintroducedbythoseto whomithas been presented. Thatthesethree wordsdonothaveidenticalmeanings,then,is obvious; it isequally apparent, however, that the significance of each 1 Kroeber,(1931). 2 Park,(1930). ACCULTURATION tantalizingly overlapstheintent of the others.Yet thedifficulty we have in distinguishing between these concepts is, in the last analysis, of nodifferentorderthanthatexperiencedbythetaxonomistin distinguishingdifferentunitsinthebiologicalseries.Inthesocial sciencesaswell,differencesof opinionmustmarkallattemptsto definetoocloselytermswhichdenoteprocessesof culturalchange assimilartooneanotherasthoselabelledacculturation,diffusion, andassimilation.It wouldthereforebewisesttodrawdefinitions thataremoreratherthanlessflexible,andnotattempttodelimit thesignificance of eachterm toorigidly.The important factisthat thesetermsmerelyrepresentphasesof asingleprocessbymeans of which either isolated traditions or considerable blocs of custom are passedonbyonehumangrouptoanother;bymeansof whicha peopleadaptthemselvestowhathasbeennewlyintroducedand to the consequentreshuffling of their traditions asthese were aligned before the new elements were presented.1 If thisapproachtotheterminologicalproblembetaken,thenin general,diffusioncanbe thought of asthat aspect of cultural change whichincludestheof techniques,attitudes,concepts and points of view from one people to another; whether it be through the medium of a singleof a group, or whether the contact is orief or sustained.Nowit isevidently usefulforpurposesof as-sorting different types of data, to distinguish in this general field those cqntacts which are brief and involve no prolonged association between anindividual and folkof a differentculture-as forexample, atraitof PolynesiancultureistakenoverbyaMelanesiangroup visitedoncebysomevoyagersfromanislandfarremoved-from thoseothertypesofdiffusionthattakeplacewhenapeopleare exposed overalongperiod of timetoaculturedifferent fromtheir own.On the basis of the investigations into culturecontact discussed 1 Bartlett (1923), p. 136, has a similar point in mind when he differentiates between "transmission by contact"and"transmissionby borrowing." THEPROBLEM IJ inthenextsection,aswellasonthebasisof researchnotreported onthere,itmustbeconcludedthatthetermacculturationisbest a2Rliedtostudiesof thistype;whilethe wordassimilation_canbe used to designate the process by means of which a synthesis of culture isachieved, whatever the degree of contact or amount of borrowing . .__Somefurtherdiscussionofthedifferencebetweentheconcepts of acculturationanddiffusionmaybeprofitable.Forthoughboth representaspectsof theprocess of transmission of culture from one grouptoanother-withthedifferencethatdiffusionappliestoall such instances of transfer, while acculturation has to do with continuous contact and hence implies a more comprehensive interchange between two bodies of tradition-the termacculturationhasfurther come to be restricted to those situations of contact over which there ishistoric control.And fromthe point of view of method,thisisperhapsthe crux of thematter,forwhileconventionalstudiesof diffusionhave assumed historic contact between peoples on the basis of the existence of similar traits in their cultures, the nature of a given contact between twofolk,detailsof themannerin whichitwasachieved,andthe degreeof itsintensityareallbeyondthepowerof thestudentto establish. Notsowithacculturation.Thehistoriccontactsofthepeoples concerned are known and the problem isone of adequately applying the historian's technique, of employing documentary materials,and of gathering information in the fieldconcerning the contact from those who tbok part or are taking part in it.In this waythe student insures theaccumulation of relevant information astohow longthecontact took place,or thecircumstancesthatbrought it about,and,in some cases,eventhecharacterof theindividuals whowereinstrumental in influencing the changesthat resulted. This use of realhistory thuscharacterizesstudies of acculturation, rather than assumptions of historical contact based on reconstructions madebyworkingoutdistributionalanalyses.Theadvantagesin J6 ACCULTURATION thisuseofhistoricaldatahavebeenrecognizedbypracticallyall those who study situations involving cultural change among primitive peoples whose past can in anymeasurebe reached.This isthe case whetherthesestudentsareconcerned,asaremost of them, withan analysisoftheeffectsofcontactbetweennativesandwhites,or whethertheyareconcernedwiththecontactsof nativetribeswith othernatives;itistrue whethertheir workisdirectedtowardthe endsof pure science,or whetJ:lertheyareprimarilyconcerned with makingmoreefficientthetask of those whogovern nativepeoples. ThusSpier, commenting on the fact that "the problems of culture growth amongprimitivepeoplescan only rarelybeansweredat the hand of dated information," and employing the "dated information" availabletohimtoanalyzetheGhostDanceof1870amongthe Klamath, seems to regard this study as one of acculturation rather than of diffusion."Itispossibletodiscoversomethingof theprocess of acculturation of thisdance complex among the Klamath," he says inbeginning thesection whereheanalyzeshisdata astheybear on the problemshe enunciates in hissentence quoted above.!Yet what isitthatdifferentiatesthiswork,orthatdistinguisheshismore inclusive study of the same dance,2 from hissummary analysis of the SunDancewhich,initsvariousforms,is"diffused"amongthe Indians of the Plains ?3 Or, to take other examples from Africa, what isit thatdifferentiatesSchapera'sconsideration of theeffect of Eu-ropean contact on the economic aspects of Kaffir life4 fromTorday's discussion of the influence of the ancient Kingdom of Kongo on the peoplesof theinterior ?5 Canit besaidthattheprocessesinvolved are of adifferent order?Or doesthedistinction lie in the factthat thecontactsinvolved weredifferent?The differenceisonly one of 1 Spier (1917),pp.4h53 2 Spier,(193 5). 3 Spier(1911),especiallythesectionpp.5ooff.,entitled"DiffusionandAs-similation." 4 Schapera,(1918).5Torday,(1918). 1HE PROBLEM IJ thedegreeto whichhistoricitycanbeestablished;inthefirstcase of eachinstancecited,thehistoryof themovementdoesnothave tobereconstructed, while in the latter it must be conjectural. Thestrategicvalueofemployingknownhistoryinstudying contactsbetweencultures,andtheneedtoexploitthisadvantageis even admitted by thosewho commonlyaremostreluctanttoallow any importance to an understanding of historical processes for students of culture,and who,inallcases,settheirfacesimmovablyagainst anytypeof historicalreconstruction.Yettheexigenciesof under-standing Africancultures,forexample,wherethecontactbetween Africanand Europeanpeopleshasbeensuchan important factorin recentyears,hascausedthosewhotakesuchananti -historical positiontorecognizethatinresearchof thiskindtheutilization of historical data is a sine qua non.The following passage may be quoted to make the point: "AnyanthropologistworkinginAfricaatthemomentisreally experimentingwithanewtechnique.Anthropologicaltheorywas evolved very largely in Oceania, where the relative isolation of small islandcommunities provided something like 'typical' primitive social groups ... The anthropologist who embarks for Africa has obviously tomodifyandadapttheguidingprinciplesof fieldworkfromthe start ... He hastoexchangehisremote island fora territory where the nativesare in constant contact with other tribesandraces.More importantstill, he hasarrived at a moment of dramatic andunprece-dentedchangeintribalhistory.Melanesiansocieties,it istrue,are having to adapt themselvesslowly tocontact with white civilisation, but p1ost of the tribes of Africaare facinga socialsituation which is, in effect,a revolution."1 Suchrecognition of the flowof history in the study of a culture, and of thedynamicnature of the phenomenon, on thepart of one whose anti -historicalorientationisperhapsbestshownbythedisregard 1 Richards(193 5),p . .zo. ACCULTURATION ofthehistoryofanthropologyfoundinthestatementquoted,is also present in the writings of otherswhoholdtoasimilarpoint of view.Indeed, the entire symposium on Methods of Study of Culture Contact1 from whichthequotationjustcited istaken,isfilledwith point afterpoint of emphasison theneed forrecognizingtheback-groundof thechangingsocietiesbeingstudied; whiletheneedfor reconstructingtheseculturesastheyexistedpriortothecontactis not only admittedbut stressed.. 2 J Sincethedifferencebetweenresearchinacculturationandother approachestothestudyof cultureisoneof degreeratherthanof kind, it followsthat the field methods to be employed in acculturation studiesarein the main those of any ethnographic research.There is, however, one special point of fieldtechnique that must be considered. ForwhereEuropeanandnativeculturesundercontactarebeing studied,theelementsfromthestudent'sownculturetendtobe taken more or less for granted by him.Hence this must be carefully guarded against lest the resulting ethnographic description be thrown badly out of focus. The proper emphasis on this point hasbeen well laid bySchapera in discussing those special aspectsof ethnological method that apply tostudiesof theresultsof contactbetweenEuropeansandnatives inSouth Africa. 3 Since"in anymodernfieldwork,"thetaskis"to obtainasfullanaccountaspossibleof theexistingtribalculture," he stressesthe need of placing allparties to the scene in_ their proper perspective;thatmissionaries,traders,andadministratorsareas importantaschiefs,sorcerers,andothernativeparticipants: 1 Africa,vols.viii-x,passim.Thissymposium,inthemain,consistsofcon-tributions by students of Malinowski, an analysis ofwhose papers on the subject of culture-contact, consisting mainly of discussions of the need for and methods to be usedinstudyingtheproblemsof"practicalanthropology"istobefoundin Herskovits,(1936). 2 Mair(1934a),pp.416ff. 3 Schapera,(1935). THEPROBLEM 19 "This iseasyenoughtosay.In practice itissometimesdifficult to apply,not so much because of technical obstacles asbecause of the outlook engendered by the training that most anthropologists receive beforegoingintothefield.If Imayrefertomyownexperience, I found it difficult, when actually in the field,not to feel disappointed athavingtostudythereligion of theKxatlabysittingthroughan ordinaryDutchReformedChurchservice,insteadof watchinga heathen sacrifice to the ancestral spirits; and Iremember vividly how eagerlyItried to findtraces of a worshipthat wasin factno longer beingperformed.Anditseemssosillytorecordthedetailsof a Christian wedding or confirmationceremony withthesamefidelity, let alone enthusiasm, with which one would note down the 'doctoring' of a garden or hut."l Allwhohavestudiedpeoplesundergoingacculturation,orfolk whose customshavebeen subjectedtoacculturationalprocessesand represent a blend of native and European or American customs, will testifytohavingexperiencedthesamefeeling.Asimilarmethod-ological caution,taken froma study of the culture of Haiti, mayalso be cited to show how the same point of view wasdeveloped asa result of field experience there: "Inattitudestowardthegods,then,inthenamesofthegods themselves,inthemannerinwhichtheyfunctioninthelivesof Haitians,andintheimportanceof theceremonialconnectedwith them,much of Mrican. tradition which hascarried over into Haitian religiouslifehasbeenretainedinpure form.Yettheintrusionof CatholiccustomintotheseAfricanpatterns-oftennoted,though generallyinpassing-alsomustbestudiedif thesignificanceof the formsof Haitian folk-religion istobegrasped.That thisaspect ofvodunhasreceivedthescantattentionithashadisprobablyto beascribedtotwocauses.The firsttakestheCatholicelement for granted,sothatevenwhereaparticularlydramaticelementof Catholic practice isseen in an African setting. . .specificmention is 10'P., ,Ct.,p.317. 20 ACCULTURATION madeof thiswithoutattemptingtodissectitshistoricorpsycho-logicalrole.Thesecondreasonforthecomparativedisregardof Catholic influence isthat for Europeansit isa commonplace.Spirit possessionandsacrifices, Africansonganddrumrhythmsaremore 'exciting' than prayersand hymnsof theChurch .... "1 On his guard against thus taking the familiar forgranted, the com-petentfield -workerotherwiseprosecuteshisstudy of acculturation along linesof generallyrecognizedmethodsof fieldprocedure,and attemptsto obtain asroundedapicture aspossible of the culture he isstudying in its present manifestations.This matter of the "rounded presentation" of a culture, whether under acculturation or in a relative stateof stability,is,however,somethingthatismoreeasilyurged than achieved,asistobeseen fromthe fieldreports of those whose theoreticalposition ismostinsistent ontheneedforcompletedata on a u l t u r ~ before the interrelations of its various aspects can be dealt with adequately.For the task of describing the life of any group, when approachedfromthepointofviewof workablemethod,almost demandsthatthephenomenabeclassifiedwithintheirseparate categories bothwhenfield data are gathered and when they are published. If suchaprocedureof breakingdownacultureisnot followed, especially where hybrid cultures or societiesin a condition of flux due topressurefromanoutsidesourcearebeingstudied,oneof two thingshappens.Inoneapproach,asinglephaseof theculture is treatedsoexhaustivelyin theattempt topursue tothe lastpoint of associationitsrelationshiptoallotheraspectsof theculturethat, seenfromthepointof viewof thissingleinstitution,thisculture failsto yieldascientifically usefuldescription of reality.The other, which isthe more common, isthat the student does not see the forest for the trees,sothat a discussion of mythology tells usmore of social organizationthanofthetalesthemselves,becausemythsarethe sanctions underlying clan organization I 1 Herskovits(1937 b),pp.27o-271. THEPROBLEM 2I Noone woulddenysoobviousastatementthatallaspectsof a culture are interrelated; students from the early days of anthropology havenotfailedto recognizethisfactaspresentingoneof themost difficult of all problems in the preparation of data for the use of fellow-workers.The point that must especially be remembered, where work is being carried out in the confused situations with which the anthro-pologist who isconcerned with acculturatedfolkmust perforce deal, isthatcertainworkingnormsregardingthepresentationof data that have been, and probably will in the future be found best adapted to thetask of the ethnologist in reporting on the cultures hestudies, can be held to with advantage even where the "rounded" presentation of the life of a people is,asit should be,the aim in view.Economics hasquite naturally itsritualistic and magicalbasisin many primitive societies;nor doesany competentstudent overlook the factthatthe lore of a people, to be living, must function in some manner that makes it valid forthat people. Butif wearetounderstandthelifeof anyfolk,it isessentialto organizethedatainaformthatpermitsustoknowthepatterning oftheirconduct,or,inpsychologicalterms,thoseconsensesof individualbehaviorpatternsthatpermitthestudentof cultureto differentiate one civilization from another.And granting the validity of the position which holdsthat: " ... culture isnot merely a system of formalpractices and beliefs. It ismadeupessentiallyof individualreactionstoandvariations from a traditionally standardised pattern; and, indeed, no culture can everbeunderstoodunlessspecialattentionispaidtothisrangeof individual manifestations ... "1 yet,asthe author of thispassage himself hasclearly demonstrated in hisownreportsof fieldwork,it followsthattobeabletocope with adegreeof variationaboutanormheightenedbytheincidentof 1 Schapera (193 5),p.319 22 ACCULTURATION impactbetweentwocultures,onemustexercisethemorecareto presentthenormsofbehaviorasclearlyaspossiblesothatthe significanceof thevariationsaboutthemcanthemorereadilybe grasped. To put the matter somewhat differently, it isnecessary to know the "style"ofaculture-which ismerelyanotherwayof sayingthat wemustknowitspatterning-inpreciselythesamewaythatthe studentofartmustknow stylesthatcharacterizethevarious periodsof art-history in orderto cope with the individual variations that are examplified in the works of artists of a given epoch.It is on thisbasisalonethatanintensiveanalysisofthechangingmodes of paintingcanbemade,anditisinpreciselythiswaythatthe ethnologist must establish a basis from which he, or others, can make furtherstudiesintospecificaspectsofaculture.Therounded presentation, which holdsthe several sub-divisions of culture clearly in mind,mustprecedethedetailedstudy of anyphaseof aspecific culture.Butit mustberoundedin thesensethat whileit treatsall of the subordinate patterns within the several large divisions of culture soastogiveasenseof thefullnessof thelifeof apeople,itmust notstraintoomuchtointegrateallaspectswitheachotherlest confusionalsoresult.Becausesomeemphasishasproperlybeen placedontheinterdependenceof allaspectsof culture,itdoesnot follow that the independence of its principal phasesshould be forgot-ten.Religioncan indeedbediscussed without constant referenceto social organization;economics withoutanalysesof art. This is especially to be kept in mind when gathering and presenting fieldmaterialsfromculturesinastateof flux.For here,asalmost nowhere else,it isnot only essential that a full be given of the situation asit exists,but one that is of the greatest clarity, for on this depends the measure of success that will later be achieved by the all-importantsucceedingstepsof analyzingtheresultsof cultural contact.And whileafullpresentationdemandstheunderstanding THEPROBLEM 2J of allaspectsof culture,aclear one isbestachievedif treatment of theseveralsubdivisionsof culture,therecognitionof theexistence of which empirically developed out of the study of many civilizations, benothandicappedbyanexclusiveemphasislaidwherethose impingeoneuponanother. 6 Beforesuchananalysisof thedatacanbeundertaken,however, thehistoriccontrolmustbesetup.Thisisdoneintwoways;by; fieldstudy tending to reconstruct the life of the people asit was lived before the acculturative processset in, and by means of documentary evidence.Neither of these present any difficulties in method that are peculiarenoughtothestudyofacculturationtomeritextended discussionhere.Thatquiteworkablereconstructionsoftribal customthatnolonger flourishcanbeachievedhasapparentlybeen difficultto comprehendbythose whoarecommittedtothemethod ofintensiveinvestigationof individualprimitivesocietiesasthey operateinaconditionof relativeequilibrium.Anditisperhaps understandablethat those who hold that"uncontaminated"societies offerthesolevalidmaterialforstudyingcultureareapprehensive of reconstructionsof traditions which,in their fullness,existbutin the memory of those who lived in earlier times.That the "difficulties of studyingthe traditionalnativeculture, whichhaslargelybecome athingofthepast... "1-as onewriteronculture-contactputs it-should thereforebestressedbythem isnot only understandable, but hasa certain cautionary value that should not be underestimated. Yet isthe ethnological documentation of the "base-line" from which change in a given culture took itsdeparture really asimpossibleasit wouldseemtothosewhotakethispointof view?Canwedono betterinthisimportantphaseof ourproblemthanthefollowing passage would seem to indicate? 1 Wagner (1936),p.317. ACCULTURATION "It isobviousthat suchareconstruction can never havethesame factual value as the results of direct observation.It will be of the same abstract, generalised type asall field-work results obtained by relying solely on the statements of informants and not checking them against datatakenfromactualpractice.It willbelackingintheeveryday detail which isanessentialelementtosatisfactoryfieldwork,andit will be subject not only to the inevitable distortion of memory, but to that of prejudice, sometimes in favour of the old order and sometimes againstit.It willnotgiveanaccurate,acomplete,oradynamic picture of nativelife,andif suchareconstruction waspresentedas thesoleresult of a fieldstudy,it wouldhavelittle value ... Never-theless it seems to me essential for this type of inquiry .... "1 Happily,thedifficultiesinthewayof obtainingreconstructions are in factnot as overwhelming asthis passage would make them out to be.May it not be that this groping with what, for them, isa new problem~ method, arises from a lack of knowledge of the techniques of Americanstudents who have worked withthedislocatedcultures of Indiantribes,andhave obtainedhighlysatisfactoryresults,even wheretheconditionsof nativelifearesobrokenastotestseverely theingenuityof theethnographer?Whateverthecase,itshould be recognizedthat by means of ajudiciousemployment of questions answered by a number of informants, and by balancing such material againstreportsof those whohadcontact withthetribeinthedays of itscultural vigor and the findingsof colleagues who have worked with related tribes, it is entirely possible to obtain workable descriptions of the antecedent patternings of cultures that today are only fragmentary -accounts which,moreover,canevenattainthelivingquality of a fieldstudy of atribe that at present hasa relatively stable existence.2 1 Mair (1934a),pp.416-417. 2 Thisisexemplifiedin anynumber of American monographs, of whichLowie's study of theCrow (193 5)may be taken asan outstanding instance;the method-ologicaldiscussionintheintroduction(especiallypp.xvii-xviii)isparticularly germanetothepointunderconsideration.Anotherexampletoberemarked, THEPROBLEM 2J Thereconstructionthusobtainedisthepointofdeparturefora studyof theeffectsof theimpact onthecultureunderanalysisof a foreign body of tradition whose results are at hand through observation of the contemporary mode of life. Though the discussion of the necessity for obtaining reconstructions of theearlier lifeof apeoplehashere followedthat of theneed for thedescriptionof theirlifeasit islivedatpresent,therearecases wherethe wisestpracticeintheactualstudy of acculturation would seemto be to derive the base-line from which the changes developed first,andthen,onceequipped withthe insight into pastconditions, toobtainrelevantdataconcerningthecontemporarymannerof living.Wheresuchacourseisfollowed,theevaluationof changes ,that have ocurred asa result of contact willbesurer,and an under-standing of the effecthadbythe forcesoperative in the situation of changemoreclear,than.if thepresent-daycultureisfirststudied withoutreferencetothepast.Thishasbeenemphaticallytruein studies of the New World Negroes, where,because of a disregard of African background,the realsignificanceof manycustomshasbeen missed, important aspects of culture not readily revealed to the student havebeenoverlooked,anderroneousconclusionsdrawn.Without laboringthepoint, it mustbeemphasizedthatthestudyof cultural change-or,forthatmatter,thestudyof cultureasawhole-can notbeattempted withoutavividsenseof thehistoricallydynamic natureof thephenomenon.Hence,themorebackgroundthatis available,thebetterthetreatment;or,conversely,andevenmore importantly, the lessthe sense of history, the more sterile the results. Thatallactualhistoricaldocumentsbearingonagivensituation where aspecifictribal institution of the past ispresented in considerabledetail, isfoundin McKern (1922).From the Mrican scene, a well-balanced recognition of the possibilities inherent in reconstructions, as well asof the drawbacks of t i ~modeof approach,istobehadinSchapera'spapertowhichreferencehas alreadybeen made(193 5,pp.321-322). 26 ACCULTURATION shouldbeexhaustivelyanalyzedgoeswithoutsaying.Especiallyin thecaseof contactbetweenEuropeanandnon-Europeanpeoples willmaterialof thissortproveimportantin indicatingthemanner andintensity of thecontact,and,in some instances,eventhetypes of personswho wereinfluentialin it.Information of thischaracter hasbeen neglectedtoa surprising degree,not only in studies of ac-culturation-wherethisisinexcusable-butalsoinstudiesofthe ethnology of relatively undist1;lrbedfolk.Yet the light such materials shedonchangingcustom,thestrictlyethnologicaldatathatthey supply-sincetheearlytravellerswerefarkeenerobserversthan ethnologists generallycreditthem with havingbeen-and thesense of surenessintimedepthafforded,areof thegreatest valueinthe study of anycivilization,acculturated or not. Soimportantisit tohaveadequatedataof thistypethatinthe caseof thecontemporaryculture of Mexico,wherethereisknown hybridity ofbackground,theunsatisfactorydocumentaryevidence concerningtheprecisemodeofcontactbetweentheIndianand Spanish peoples, and the lack of detail concerning the cultures which, severalhundredyearsago,weremergedintopresent-dayMexican civilization,havemade it seem preferable to some studentsto set up aseries of categories of differentdegrees of exposure to the present-day outer world; and on thisbasisto analyzethe differencesbetween thepeople whosemodesof lifefitintosuchcategories, 1 rather then tophrase research in terms of the integration of Spanish andIndian culturesintothatof theMexicantoday.Tocomparecommunities of the order of city,town,and village,and toexpressthe differences betweenthem"intermsof aprocessof transition"representsan attack ontheproblemsof cultural change thathassignificance,and shouldbothyieldresultsof importanceandstimulateinvestigators to new modes of approach elsewhere.In the sense of being research into the working out of processes of acculturation a long time removed 1 Redfield,(1934). THEPROBLEM 27 fromtheoriginalimpulses,indeed,analysesofthistypemaywell be regardedasa profitable form for other acculturation studies.And thoughthedifficulties of employing historicsourcesintheMexican scenearestressedbysomestudents whoareinterested in analyzing thehistoricalbackgroundofthepresentacculturatedMexican societies more than by others, 1 and for the very reason that, "wisdom in ethnology,asin life,consistsin havingmore than one method of approach,"2 thisapproachwellmeritsfurtherutilizationwhereit canbeapplied. 7 Withinformationconcerningthehistoricsettingof thecontact inhand,theculturesinvolvedinthecontact understood,andthe presentbodyof traditionsofthepeopledescribed,theanalysisof thesedatamaythen. proceedwithprofitalongthelinessuggested in the Outline of theSub-Committee on Acculturation of theSocial ScienceResearchCouncilthathasalreadybeencited.Thenature of thecontact,andtheindividualsconcernedinit;therolethese personsplayed,and,if possible,thereasonswhytheyexertedtheir influenceastheydid;whetherthecontactwasfriendlyorhostile, andwhetherornotthetwogroupsweresimilarordissimilarin numbersor in theforcefulnessof theircultures:allthese should be pointed towardan understanding of both fielddataandthe relevant historicalliterature.Which culturalelementswereacceptedor,of equalimportance,thosewhichwererejected,togetherwithany available information asto why they were accepted or rejected, should alsobeexhaustivelyanalyzed.Finally,viewingthecultureunder investigationasagoingconcern,aninquiryintotheprovenience of theeletnentsof thisculture,andthemannerin whichtheyare integratedinto the totality of the resulting culture will round out the 1 Beals,(1936). 2 Parsons(1936),p.479 ACCULTURATION presentationand,in makingavailableanadditionalexampleof that type of culturalchangethat iscalled acculturation, will permit usto furtherourunderstandingof theprocessesof culturaldynamicsin general. One questionthat wasraisedasaresult of the publication of this Outline on Acculturation-but one that is by no means only pertinent toacculturationstudies-derives fromtheemploymentof the word "traits."Isit advisable,it isasked,in analyzingaculturethathas beensubjectedtoanacculturativeprocess,tocontentoneself with what has been described asa "sorting-process into one of two pigeon-holes ?"Do not factstreated in this manner "tend to remain discrete andnon -comparable";doesnotthe"scholarlyeffortcometorest when the assignment to one heritage or the other hasbeen made ?"1 Moreover,isitnotalsotruethat"assimilationisoneof themost subtleand. elusiveof socialprocesses,whichdoesnotrevealitself bypluckedthreads,byisolatedfacts... ?"2 These points are well taken, for no ethnographic study which aims at being more than a tabulation of cultural itemscan rest with mere enumerationwhich,inthecaseof acculturation,takestheformof assigning to one source or another the specific elements in the present culture of apeople whohaveundergoneascertainablecontact.No typeofethnologicalinvestigationcouldbefartherremovedfrom thatwhichemployedthe"classical"comparativemethod,orfrom the so-called "historical" schools of ethnological thought as exemplified in the generalizations about the contact of peoples made by the British andGermandiffusionistschools,thanthat whichcharacterizesthe studyofacculturation.Inagivenculture,theassignmentof one 1 Redfield(1934),pp.58,61. 2 Parsons(1936),p.:ri.ItmayberemarkedthatParsons'useof thewordas-similation, that hasbeen discussed above, doesnot forthe present purpose lessen therelevance of thequotation, since its significance isquite that of acculturation in the presentdiscussion. THEPROBLEM elementor anothertoaspecificsourcemerelyclearsthegroundso that wecanunderstandthekindsof thingsthat weretaken over or rejected,thewaysinwhichtheywereintegratedintotheculture, and,fromthisandthestudy of many acculturative situations, of the possibilityof workingoutgeneralprinciplesofculturalchange. Asamatter of fact,thismanner of treatingculturesascomposed of smallpiecestermed"traits" ismore arguedagainstthan actually manifested in acculturation studies.If one goes through the literature, it isfoundthat in noseriousattempt to analyzesucha situationhas the student whohasbroken down the hybrid body of traditions with which he is concerned into elements, and assigned the various elements totheirsourcesof origin,beencontentwiththisassignmentof "traits."Thisistruewhetherthestudyisconcernedwithfolk inhabitingtheislandsof Melanesia,or withpeoplesof thePhilip-pines; whether it hastodo with the Negroes of South Africa or the New World; whether it deals withbroken cultures of Indians of the UnitedStatesorthelivingculturesofIndiansofMexico.Itis merely a step in method; and an essential step, be it said, if statements such as"in cultural contact,traits of material culture give waymore readilythannon-materialones"or"inachangingculture,women manifest greater conservatism than men," or any other generalization of thiskind are tobeinvestigated.Butthisisonlyanother wayof saying that the procedure isbut a means to the endof understanding culturalchange,which,whetheramongpeoplewherethehistoric contactsareascertainable,oramongthose. wheretheymustbe inferred,constituteoneofthemostimportantproblemsofthe ethnologist. 8 Inreadingthepublishedmaterial onculturalcontactandaccul-turation,onecannotbutbeimpressed withthe proportion of these discussionsthatareconcernedwith whathascometobecalled JO ACCULTURATION "practical" or "applied"anthropology.It isnot thepurpose of this discussiontoassessthedegreeto whichtheresourcesof anthrop-ologyjustify the application of anthropological knowledge to current problems,thoughthisisamatterof someimportanceboth inthe realms of physical and cultural anthropology.Nor is it proposed here to discuss whether or not the scholarcanexert effective influencein the face of those social and economic imponderables that are operative inmostsituationswherethe.knowledgeofanthropologymight conceivablybeput to practical use.1 Here wecan only consider the effectsof these practicalapplicationsof ethnology onthescientific study of the processes of culture. It isin nosense tobeclaimedthat studies of scientificvaluehave not been madeby those whoseprimary concern is withthepractical applicationsofanthropologytotheproblemsof European -native contact.Yet it isnone the less true that when practical results are the endof suchstudies,asenseof historicalperspectiveisordinarily lacking.Whetherthisisaresultof theessentiallyad hocapproach of researchundertaken withpracticalproblemsin ffi:indcannotbe said;toestablishthe fact,however,nogreatamount of readingof available publications of this type need be done, nor of the discussions of generalproblemsof policyregardingthedirectionstobegiven the changing life of the native. 2 Theconcentrationonthepracticalconcernsof European -native contact has another consequence that results from this over-specializa-tion on one kind of contact.That fromthe point of view of culture-history,contactsofthesortnowoccurringbetweennationalsof colonizing governmentsandnativepeoplesare of nodifferent order 1 These pointsare discussedin Herskovits,(1936). 2 See,forexample,thenumerouspaperson practicalanthropology,itsmethods andaims,thatarefoundinmostrecentissuesof thejournals"Oceania"and "Africa,"aswellassuchworksasthoseofSchrieke(192.9),Elkin(1937), Williams(1933),and Westermann (1934). THEPROBLEM JI than those that have certainly occurred sincerecordedhistory began -and perhapssince mankindhasinhabited theearth-issomething that seemsrarelytoholdaplaceinthe underlyingapproachtothe subjectbythoseconcernedwithit.Anillustrationof thismaybe taken from one of the most comprehensive studies of culture-contact that hasbeen carried on from the point of view of practical anthrop-ology:"At no time in the history of mankind hasa clash of nations, peoples, races, andtheir cultures,traditions, prejudices, interestsand abilities taken place like today. "1 Yet one cannot but wonder whether, inthelightof ourhistoricalknowledgeoftheexpansionofthe empires of the Far East aswell as of Europe inancientandmedieval times,tosaynothing of thespreadof peoples over thenon -literate world, one can speak of a qualitative difference between the contacts of peoples in earlier timesand thosethat are taking placeat present. Thereis,furthermore,anotherconsiderationthatistoooften o v e r l o o ~ e bythose who are occupied with theproblems of applied anthropology.Abasicjustificationof ethnologicalresearchisthat itgivesabroadbackgroundagainst whichtojudge our ownrules of behavior,andamore inclusive viewof humanculturesthancan beattainedbyanyother socialdiscipline.Thisisbecauseitalone offers data against which we can project customs peculiar to ourselves and,in the manner of scientificresearch,testgeneralizationsarising out of thestudy of the patterns of our culturebyseeing whether or not these generalizations have validity when applied to peoples whose customshavenohistoricalconnectionwithourown.Arenot anthropologiststhemselves,indevotingthemselvestothestudyof the contact between their own culture and native civilizations, likewise in danger of narrowing, then, the point of viewthey have attained? The uncritical tendency to seenativecultures everywhere forced out of existenceby the overwhelming drive of European techniques;the feeling that these "simpler" folk must inevitably accept the sanctions of 1 Thurnwald(193 5),p.1. )2 ACCULTURATION their moreefficientrulersastheydosomeoftheoutwardmodes of life of those under whose control they live; all these reflect a type of ethnocentrismthatshouldbeabsentfromthescientificstudies of ananthropologist.Itisforthisreasonthat,torealizetothe utmost the scientificgain tobehadfromstudiesof culturecontact, thosesituationswherenationsof Europeor Americawereorare todayin no wayinvolvedshouldbe firstsought out forstudy,since herethestudentwhocomesfromthesecountriescaninnowise identifyhimself withtheprocessesheisstudying.Inthismanner scientificobjectivitywillbeenhanced;otherwiseinitsstudyof culturesincontact,anthropologymustsuffer,withoutcheck,from the same handicaps under which other social sciences labor in neglect-ing to look beyondthe horizon of our own culture. II SOMEACCULTURATIONSTUDIESREVIEWED I The precedingsectionhassoughttoindicatetheearlierusesof the term "acculturation" and its various and often conflicting meanings. Adefinitionof the wordhasbeen offeredsothatstudiesof accul-turationmaybe orientedfromthepointof viewof theendstobe soughtin them;andtomake forresultsof thegreatestusefulness in futureresearch into those problems of cultural dynamicsthat can bestudiedthrough an analysisof the principlesthatgovernhuman behavior under the varying circumstances of contact between peoples of differentcultures. To documentandclarifythe conceptsthatunderlieboththede-finitionthat hasbeen givenand the problemsinthefieldof culture contactthataretobe outlinedinthesectionthatfollows,aseries of brief analysesare here undertaken of some of the studies of accul-turationthathavebeenmade.Thesestudiesbynomeanscompre-hend all those that might have been considered, and in the bibliography, which itself isfar from complete, still other titles will be found. How-ever, most of the full-length portraits of individual cultures that today exhibittheeffectsof prolongedculturalcontactarediscussed,while certainreportsthatdealwith investigations of theresultsof accul-turation in the field of religion are also presented to indicate the manner 34 ACCULTURATION in whicheffectiveresearch into arestrictedaspect of a single culture experiencing contact, or even into the adventures of a single institution in sucha culture can be prosecuted. Inthesecompressedanalyses,thedataarepresentedwiththe primarypurposeinmindofmakingavailabletothestudentthe materialsathand,sothathemaybethebetterguidedinhisfield studies.Sodifferentarethesituationswith whichthestudentof culture contact iscalled uponto deal,andso varied are the method-ologicalproblems presentedinwhatistheessentially pioneer work that must bedone at the present time in studying acculturation,that ithasbeenfeltnecessarynotonlyto considerthehistoryof accul-turationandthedelimitation of thefield,the problemsthat canbe mostprofitablyattackedandthecautions thatmustbeobserved in studyingthem,butalsotoaffordthoseconcerned with researchof thistypetheopportunitytofollow for themselvesthe reportsupon whichtheconclusionsthatwill comprisethefinalsectionofthis workareinlargemeasurebased. 2 Attheoutset,researchthatpresentsallphasesof thelifeof ac-culturated folkmaybereviewed.Here,althoughthenature of the data in each willbe sketched,emphasis will be placed on the implica-tionsofthesestudiesfortheproblemsof culturaldynamicsand therOleof theindividualinculturalchange,and on theevaluation of thehypothesesthathavebeenadvancedonthebasisof these investigations. a.Parsons,ElsieClews,]}Jitla,Townof theSouls.1 Tworeasons,wearetold,actuatedthisstudyof theZapotecan townof 1litla insouthern1Iexico.Specifically,it wasundertaken toobtaincomparativedatatothrowlightonposstbleSpanishor Indian derivationsof certain aspectsof PuebloIndian cultures.But 1 Excerptsfromthis volumeare givenwith the kind permissi