7/29/2019 MINTZ, Sidney - On Redfield and Foster

1/6

Brief CommunicatzonsO N REDFIELD N D FOSTER

George Fosters article, What Is Folk Culture?, which appeared in arecent issue of the ANTHROPOLOGIST1953), adds another to the number ofcritiques of t he work of R ob ert Redfield now in the literature. T hi s is fu rt he revidence that Redfields field work and theoretical discussions have bornefru it not on ly through th e continuing efforts of his stud ent s, b ut also in thecontroversies provoked by his theses. Redfield himself, in a recent article(1953a:224), h as noted t h a t much of t he imp ortanc e of his work has come fromthe fact that it has compelled his critics to reconsider their own data withmore insight. His comment may hold for Fosters recent critique as well.Fosters ar ticle suggests th a t these two scholars differ in t he ir initial positionsin im po rtan t regards. T h e present w riter would like to note several of theseap pa re nt differences, an d t o discuss them , more as an observer tha n a s a critic.Redfield i s interested i n process, Foster i n structure

The terms process and s tructure may not be the most appropria te ,an d neither of these scholars ap pe ar s to exclude consideration of t he othersare a of in ter es t b y choice. B u t different problems re quire different categoriesof research. T he typ es form ulated to answer one set of q uestions m ay notprove useful in providing answers to an oth er. Redfield is primarily interestedin th e delineation of processes of change, qua change. A s Foster states, Red-fields inte rests in cult ura l processes are prim arily limited to w hat hap pen s tofolk societies (1953:162). Or, in Redfields own words in his late st book,W ha t becomes of t he folk society? (Redfield 19533327). T h e synch ronicstudy of four Yucatecan communities, as summarized in The Folk Culture ofYucatan, purpo rted to seek thro ugh t hi s me thod of comparison of differentlyaffe cted comm unities some general knowledge a s to th e n atu re of society andof its changes (Redfield 1941: 42-43). I n subseq uent pages, Redfield triesto define his enquiry more specifically: T he p roblem is seen as one of th e rela-tion among variables ( ib id . 344). The se variables deal with process: organiza-tion and disorganization, secularization, individualization. One may argueover the meaning an d theoretical value of these concepts; bu t thi s reader a tleast is convinced th at these, rat he r tha n th e delineation of the ty pes them-s h e s , ar e the main concern of Redfields theorizing. Accordingly, one m igh tsay t ha t Redfields ideal types are no m ore th an anchors for his interpretatio nof process. I t is in these terms th a t his fre qu en t lum ping togeth er of folkan d prim itive society (1941, 1947, 19533) serves his purposes, a t th e sametime t ha t i t is so unsatis factory fo r those of m an y of his critics. T o the presentreader, the communities of Dzitas and Chan Kom appear to be the com-munities of major interest in The Folk Culture of Yucatan; Tusik and Merida,

87

7/29/2019 MINTZ, Sidney - On Redfield and Foster

2/6

88 American Anthropologist [56, 19541on the othe r han d, seem t o be used m ore for the purpose of unde rstandingchanges in the in t e rmedia te communi t i es than as communi ty examplesthemselves. The qual i t ies involved in becoming urban are the object ofinterest , ra ther than the folk-primi t ive or urban polar types. Since it isprocess and not typology which interests Redfield, he is not confounded byunan ticipated co mb inations of folk an d urban eleme nts in a single com mu nityset t ing. Th e folk cul ture of the Y aqu i India ns of Pascu a (Spicer 1940) who l ivenext to the c i ty of T ucson , the homogen eous y et comm ercial In dia ns of Chichi-castenango (T ax 1939), a n d the existence of u rban bu t nonindividualized W estAfrican ci t ies (Hersk ovits 1 948: 606), are merely taken t o be further evidencethat processes of change operate in many di fferent ways, and along manydifferent axes. Con seq uen tly, criticisms of Redfield which a tt a c k his idealtypes while passing over his interpretations of process may be missing thepoint .I n his most recent published work, Redfield makes clear th at he knows th atpeasant society i s not the same as pr imi t ive society, and that there i s anin t imate re la t ionsh ip between the former type a nd urban soc ie ty b u t th a t nosuch relat ionship exists for the la t ter . Here he seems to equate folk andprimi t ive, while set t ing peasa nt ap ar t :

The word [peasant] points to a human type. . . . I t required the city to bring it in toexistence. The re were no peasants before the fir st cities. A n d those surviving primi tivepeoples who do not live i n terms of the city are not peasants. . ..We may summarizethe economic charac ter of the peasant village by saying that i t combines the p r imi -tive brotherhood of the precivilised folk community with the economic nexus charac-teristic o j civilized society. . . .Peasant and urbanite are, in cerlain things, one society,and the peasanl knows it [Redfield 1953b:31-38 passim]. [Ita lics mine.-S.W.M.]Aside from whatever semant ic impo rtance ma y be at tach ed to the use ofpart icular words for part icular concepts , Fosters argum ent is in ne at accordwith Redfields, a n d not a n a t ta ck up on i t . T h e folk society, in Fo sters view,is an integral pa rt of a larger society:The folk component of this larger un it bears a sym biotic spatial-temporal relation-ship to the more complex com ponent, which is formed by the upper classes of thepre-industrial center. . . .One of the most obvious distinctions between trulyprim itive societies and folk societies is that the latter, over hundreds of years, havehad constant contact with the centers of intellectual thought and development-in a nut-she ll, with civilization [Foster 1953 :163-641.Foster, however, is ap pa ren tly interested in t ry ing to estab l ish a classifica-t ion of societal, subcu ltural or com mu nity types in term s of stru cture . Fo r atypologist of cul tures, a classificatory tool which fai ls to s et a pa rt t he On a orthe Esk imo from th e vil lages of the T aras can s is not cu t t ing ver y fine. Fos ter

objects tha t , previous to his most recent work, Redfields typological dichot -omy [folk versus urban] groups all non-urban peoples together , th e m ost pr im-i t ive, isolated tribal groups, acculturated primit ives, the mixed rural cul turesof L atin Am erica, an d the peas ant peoples of Europe, an d th a t such a di-

7/29/2019 MINTZ, Sidney - On Redfield and Foster

3/6

B t i e j C o m m un i c a ti o n s 89chotomy may stereotype f ie ld research and obscure sal ient character i s t icsof the societ ies in which we are interested (Fo ster 195 3:162). Fosters con-cern with the relat ionship between the folk and nonfolk segments of a givensociety, and his emphasis on structure in defining folk society (1953:171)mak e p la in t ha t t he ques tions he asks a re no t Redfie lds , an d th a t t he answershe seeks will be correspondingly different.

Tw o conclusions em erge: fi rst , Fos ter cri ticizes Redfields ty pe s in term sof his own structural interests; he does not come to grips with Redfieldstrea tm en t of process. T o do just ice to Redfields appro ach , it is not sufficientto point out th at the types themeslves do not j ibe wi th descript ions of an yrea l communi t i es , o r tha t po lar types a re inadequate . Rather , i t becomesimp ortan t to show how these types affect his process interp retat ion, an d wherethey ma y interfere wi th such an interpretat ion. I hav e no ted elsewhere (1953)th a t Redfields omission of th e stu d y of a hene quen plantat io n co m mu nity inYu cata n, where heneque n is the basic cash crop of th e economy, certain lyaffected h is ana lysis of social chan ge, since it is probably through henequenth at the m ajor kinds of change have been int roduced in recent years into Yuca-tecan society.Second, it would seem th a t Redfields theoret ical concern with the n atu reof process has led to misinterpretat ion by his readers. This is not to a rgueth at cr it ic i sms of the characterizat ion of his folk ideal type a re unw arra nted .B ut , plainly, mo re clarification is needed w ith regard to th e difference betweens t ruc tura l t ypes on the one hand , a nd process in t e rpre ta t ion on th e o ther .Ne ither Redfield, nor Foster, n or a n y of Redfields other cri tics ha ve m ade thisdifference sufficiently clear.Redfield i s ahistorical; Foster i s interested in history

Redfields use of history, a t least in th e works discussed by Fos ter, is mini-mal , and he assigns i t l i t t le importance in get t ing at his major interest . AsFoster states, while Redfield recognizes the complex historical origins of thecul tures of Tepozt lan an d Yu ca ta n . . . [he] feels that thei r s tudy is no tgermane to the problem that interests him (Foster 1953:162-63). Fostersconcern derives from his own interest in his tory an d his appa ren t convictionthat careful his tor ical analysis might eventual ly lead to the abst ract ion ofgenera l regularities of social process fro m partic ularis tic studie s of the cul turehistories of peoples. H e does no t dwell on th e conse quen ces of Redfields lackof h istorical interest fo r a th eo ry of social process, b u t his own conc eption ofwhat folk society and folk cul ture should mean reveals his strong historicalbe nt . W hile his definition of t h e folk is esse ntially in te rm s of r elation ship s,his examples of t he form ation of Latin Am erican folk cul tu re (p p. 165-68) arehistorical examples, cul led from the c ulture history of th e Hispa nic peoples inthe New World .One of t he differences between these tw o scholars, the n, would seem to liein their w ays of ge tting a t scientific gener alizations abo ut ch ange. Redfieldspreconcept ions about the nature of change are certainly not ant ihis tor ical ,

7/29/2019 MINTZ, Sidney - On Redfield and Foster

4/6

90 A merican A nthropologist [56, 19541but Foster is plainly not in agreement when he quotes Redfield to the effectth at in Y uca tan the problems of historical analysis do not easily lead intolarger problems (Foster 1953: 163). Foster does not declare his own implicitassumption t h at th e stu dy of history and th e analysis of social processes arelinked tasks, though the assumption is present when he writes:. .. ro m the developmental point of v i e w . ., [the merging of primitive with folkor peasant society] presupposes that all human society must have been folk un tilthe beginnings of city life which, over an ever-increasingarea, encroaches upon anddestroys folk culture. Therefore, since folk culture has always existed, a study of itsorigins is coterminous with the study of the origins of culture itself, and is not aparticular facet of the dynamics of the folk culture problem [Foster 1953:1621.

It would seem here that Foster is openly criticizing Redfields failure todelimit his ideal types more sharply, when in fact his implicit criticism seemsdirected actu ally toward Redfields view th at process can be analyzed w itho utthe need for detailed historical interpretation.2Fosters alternative type for mu lat ion , and th e problem of class subculture

Fosters emphasis on t he distinctions between folk an d prim itive societiesallows him to ad vance al ter na tiv e definitions of folk culture an d folk society.H e seeks to redefine folk society and folk cult ur e in te rm s of th e relationsh ipbetween the urb an elite an d oth er segments of th e same (pre-industrial)society: th e rur al people a nd the ur ba n lower classes. Bearers of folk cultureare those who, in such a society, s ta nd in a depen dent relationship to th e cityand its governing classes. Such a formulation, however, leaves much to bedesired. At one poi nt in Fosters article, th e urb an originato rs of mu ch of w ha tare later to become folk elements are the intellectual and artistic classes(p . 165); a t an oth er, th e educated, professional classes (loc. ci t . ) ; a n d a t athird, socially superior groups (p. 168). The bearers of folk culture, on theother han d, var y from being peasant societies (p. 163) to th e lower classesof som e ty pes of cit ies (p. 169), and finally, to th e masses, whether r ura l orurban (pp. 164-65). An obvious difficulty here is the crosscutting or over-lapping of concepts which hav e to do with t he folk, with those having to dowith class. Both Redfield an d Fo ster ar e awa re of th is crosscutting. B u t neitherof them ha s given a very exacting indication of where folk culture end s an d classsubcu lture begins. Fo r example, fea tu res of a co mm unitys w ay of life m ay b eattributed in part to a preexisting folk society matrix: the culture historyof the comm unity. B ut th e retention of this way of life may, in pa rt a t least,be attri but ed as well to the wholesale incorporation of such a co m m un ity int othe bottom class of a modern class-structured society. Th e Yaqui com m uni tyof P ascua h as retained a culture which Redfield, an d perhaps F oster a s well,would label folk; also, it is isolated, homogeneous, and organized in waysanalogous to those which held for the community in its original Mexicansetting. B ut th e difference is th at now it is isolated, homogeneous, an d organ-ized similarly to the w ay i t was organized before because th e str uc tu ral rela-tionship which exists between th is com mu nity a nd th e larger society of which

7/29/2019 MINTZ, Sidney - On Redfield and Foster

5/6

Brief Communications 91it h as become a pa rt is marked by socioeconomic limitations a nd class differ-ences which set it apart-thus allowing it, an d in some ways, perhaps, compell-ing it, t o maintain its ethnic individuality.

1 have tried to show elsewhere (1953) how a rural proletarian com m unitymay exhibit certain structural features analogous to the Redfield concept offolk society, bu t t ha t these features are in fact only analogous an d not homol-ogous. Geographic isolation may be superseded by social isolation throughrat he r rigid class differentiation. H omog eneity, t he ver y wide sharing of anumber of different roles within a social group, may characterize a socialclass as well as a genetic or eth nic group, even while th e par ticu lar personnelof a given group may vary. Every man a primary producer may be sup-planted by E ver y m an a wage earner an d a consumer of sim ilar goods, pro-duced elsewhere and bought for cash. These superficial parallels with Red-fields ideal folk society ar e to be explained in term s of th e like economic st at u san d life-chances of the people concerned; t h a t is, in term s of th e form ation ofa rural proletarian class.Foster writes th at C ont ent is a useful bu t nonetheless incidental criterionin defining folk (p. 171). T he sam e m ight be said of defining class groupings.If item s of co,ntent are inc idental, to use Fosters term , if the diagnosticcriteria pertainin g to folk culture a nd society ar e structur al an d organic, andhave to do with relationships (Zoc. ci t . ) , are we not dealing primarily withsociological concepts such as class? And i f the structural relationships be-tween th e bearers of folk cult ure and th e intellectual, artistic, e duc ated , pro-fessional, o r socially superior classes or subgro ups of the same soc iety ar e classrelationships, th en Foster m ay be incorrect in assuming th at increasing indus-trialization will destroy t he so-called folk cultures of the world.No one can question the tremendous impact of urban, industrial, West-ern culture on t he w orlds primitives an d peasants. B ut industrial civilizationshave not eradicated class stratification-in fac t, in m any cases th ey havecreated class divisions where the y did no t exist before or where the y had existedin less complex forms. I n Africa, Asia, an d La tin America, for instance, m yria dnew forms of division of labor, occupational specialization, differentiation inwealth an d in access to land ha ve appeared. T he m ultiplication of alte rna tive swhich, according to Redfields formulation, app ear s in u rba n society, has ledto the growth of class subcultures. Plan tatio n and mine comm unities, and thelower classes of m an y cities, continu e to maintain m an y folk qualities instrength. Th e structu ral relationships are such th at significant cultu ral differ-ences are maintained between these groups and the socially superior groupsin t he same societies. I n other words, lower-class comm unities m ay continueto preserve older cultdral practices and elements (content) largely becausealter nati ves are no t socially and economically available or feasible, r ath er tha nbecause of any positive preference for an older, more laborious, indigenous,or folk-like way of behaving.T o sum up, Redfields and Fosters formulations differ largely becausethe ir methods an d their objectives are different. Redfield tre at s of process;

7/29/2019 MINTZ, Sidney - On Redfield and Foster

6/6

92 American Anthropologist [56 , 19541his interest in types is complementary. In the works Foster criticizes, Red-field is not concerned with history and deals only tangentially with structure.Foster is interested in structure, in history, and in a more detailed typologyof cultures. His concern with process and with history apparently springs froma structuralist viewpoint, as his criticisms of Redfield and his definitions ofthe folk demonstrate. Neither of these scholars, however, has dealt fully withthe interrelationship of concepts of the folk and the phenomenon of class.Until this interrelationship is clear, the folk culture concept may prove to bea stumbling block to the erection of a more detailed and discriminating ty-pology of societies, subcultures, and communities.

SIDNEYW. MINTZ,Yale UniversityNOTES

1 Thanks are d ue Morton H. Fried and Eric R. Wolf, who read and criticized this brief com-ment.2 Redfield, in a recent work (1953b), does make much more use of detailed history in con-structing a folk-urban developm ental schema, basing himself in large par t on t he work of Childe;bu t it is dou btful whether this is historical analysis in th e sense th at Foster might desire it .

REFERENCES CITEDFOSTER,EORGEM .

1953 W h a t is folk culture? American Anthropo logist 55: 159-73.HERSKOVITS,ELVILLE .

1948 M an a nd his works. New York, Kno pf.MINTZ, IDNEYW.1953 Th e folk-urban continuum an d the rural proletarian community. Th e AmericanJournal of Sociology 59: 136-430.REDFIELD, OBERT1941 T h e folk culture of Yu catan . Chicago, University of Chicago Press.1947 T h e folk society. Th e American Journ al of Sociology 52:293-308.1953a T h e na tur al history of th e folk society. Social Forces 31: 24-28.1953Q The primitive world and its transformations. Ithaca, N. Y., Cornell UniversityPress.SPICER,EDWARD.1940 Pascua: a Yaqui village in Arizona. Chicago, Unive rsity of Chicago Press.TAX, OL1939 Cultu re an d civilization in Gu atem alan societies. Scientific Month ly 48 : 63-67.

COMMENTSN THE PILTDOWNEMAINSIn the light of our experience in investigating and evaluating fluorine and

other constituents of archeological human and animal bone, we would drawthe following conclusions from the data presented by Washburn (1953) inhis Table 1. Neither of us has seen the 1953 report by Weiner, Oakley andClark.

The jaw, molar and canine of Piltdown 1 and the molar tooth of Piltdown2 we would regard as of very recent origin-i.e., modern in the temporal sense.The belief has been expressed in newspaper accounts, and apparently also byWeiner, Oakley and Clark, that these pieces were introduced into the gravels