8/8/2019 Sahlins_1960

1/21

vMarshall D. Sahlins1930-

BackgroundSahlins was born in Chicago in 1930. His undergraduate work was doneat the University of Michigan with Leslie Whire. After his B.A. (1951)and M.A. (1952) he went to Columbia, where he got his Ph.D. in 1954.In that year he married Barbara Vollen and they set out for Fiji, wherethey lived on the small island of Moala until August 1955. The results oftheir research were published in Moala: Culture and Nature on a FijianIsland (1962).

When he returned from Fiji Sahlins became a lecturer at Colum-bia. Then in 1957 he moved to the University of Michigan. The follow-ing year his Social Stratificatiun in Polynesw was published; it is anadaptation of Karl Polanyi's concept of redistributive systems to accountfor variations in social stratification among Pacific island groups.With Elman Service, a colleague then at Michigan who had beena student of both Steward and White, he edited Evolution and Culture in1960; it is from that book that the present essay was taken.In 1964 Sahlins returned to the field, this time to New Guinea. In1968, his book Tribesmen appeared.Sahlins moved from Michigan to the University of Chicago; healso went to France to study with Levi-Strauss in the late 1960s and 1970..

He has actIvely attempted to defeat what he sees as the possible evil riJsociobiology on our understanding of human culture and society. Hi.!'an active and critical mind that ranges widely over our subject.

u"sti.atinpreforfacithaspe(parttiontionsocieat a 1

23. EVIOeIt seenevolutionary biol

Fnce and p r o g r e despite the fact thshould he pause;prominent biologi. lutionary progperhaps not ful. in the literchapter of Prinstage by stag

8/8/2019 Sahlins_1960

2/21

357

was done(1951)Ph.D. in 1954.for Fiji, where1955. The results ofNature on a Fijian

The followis an

systems to account

and Culture intaken.to New Guinea. Inhe1960s and 1970s.the possible evil of

isour subject.

MarshallD. Sahlins

IntroductionSahlins dislikes having his work called "neoevolutionism:' He says thereis nothing "neo" about it. Rather, the concept of unilinear evolution, tempered by reference to the work of Steward into "universal evolution:'relates the stages of evolution to human culture from a general point ofview. We know that all societies did not pass through the same stages,which discredits the theory of unilinear evolution. Yet, in the case ofuniversal evolution, the relationship between existing cultures (with an"s") and evolutionary stages remains uncertain. It is to this aspect of evolutionary theory that Sahlins's hypotheses of specific and general evolutionare directed.According to Sahlins, both biological and cultural evolution movein two directions at the same time. Evolution creates both diversity andprogress. Diversity in evolution refers to adaptive changes that evolve newforms out of older forms, while progress, on the other hand, refers to thefact that evolution creates more complex forms. It is general evolutionthat proVides the basis for evolutionary stages in evolution. However,specific and general evolution are regarded not as different facts but aspart of the evolutionary process. Specific evolution focuses on the adaptatIon of a particular culture to its environment , in terms of cultural evolution. General evolution focuses on the ways in which progress in a specificsociety allows us to consider that society more advanced-and thereforeat a higher level of cultural evolution.

23. Evolution: Specific andGeneralIt seems to us that Huxley has been premature in congratulating

evolutionary biology on its explicit recognition of th e difference between divergence and progress. Despite Huxley's own efforts to make th e distinction, anddespite th e fact that the distinction may well strike a bio logist as commonplaceshould he pause to consider it, it is nevertheless no t generally explicated byprominent biologists, and judging from confusion about the character of life'sevolutionary progress in recent literature (e.g., Simpson 1950: Chapter XV), itis perhaps no t fully understood. On th e other hand, the distinction has longexisted in the literature of evolutionary anthropology. E. B. Tylor, in th e opening chapter of Primitive Culture (1871), laid out th e study of cultural evolutionboth "stage by stage" as well as "along its many lines:' Yet in this, as in so much

Reprinted from Marshall D. SahlIns, E ~ o l u t i o n and eu/cure (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,1960), pp. 12-44, by permission of the publisher.

8/8/2019 Sahlins_1960

3/21

35 8

I

Marshall D. Sahlins

else, twentieth-century anthropology did not heed Tylor's advice. Th e dualcharacter of the evolutionary process was not recognized, and this failing hasbecome the very heart of current confusion and polemical controversy aboutsuch terms as "unilinear;' "multilinear;' and "universal" evolution, as well asabout the difference between "history" and "evolution:'It appears almost obvious upon stating it that in both its biologicaland cultural spheres evolution moves simultaneously in two directions. On oneside, it creates diversity through adaptive modification: new forms differentiatefrom old. On the other side, evolution generates progress: higher forms arisefr0m, and surpass, lower. The first of these directions is Specific Evolution, andthe second, General Evolution. But note that specific and general evolution arenot different concrete realities; they are rather aspects of the same total process,which is also to say, two contexts in which we may place the same evolutionarythings and events. Any given change in a form of life or culture can be viewedeither in the perspective of adaptation or from the point of view of over-all progress. However, the context is very important: a difference in taxonomy isrequired in examining these two aspects of evolution. Concerned with lines ofdescent, the study of specific evolution employs phylogenetic classification. Inthe general evolutionary outlook emphasis shifts to the character of progressitself, and forms are classed in stages or levels of development wi thout referenceto phylogeny.

Specific and General Biological EvolutionLife inevitably diversifies. It does so because it is perpetuated byreproduction and inheritance, so that adaptive changes are transmitted only inlines of descent. Thus in evolving-which is to say, moving in the direction of

increasing use of the earth's resources or increasing transformation of availableenergy-life necessarily differentiates into particular (breeding) populations,each adjusted to the exploitation uf a given environment. This is the specificaspect of life's evolution, the familiar origin and ramification of species. Themuch-lauded "modern synthetic theory" of biology, unifying genetic principleswith natural selection, is devoted to the untaveling of specific evolution.

The perspective required for understanding specific evolution is aphylogenetic one. We are interested in how one species grows out of anotherand how the new species gives rise to still other species. We are interested inthe precise historical and genetic relations between species, and want to showthese connections as well as to explain them by reference to natural selection.Thus we trace out the branching and rebranching oflineages, relating each newline to its ecological circumstances. Inasmuch as our perspective is phylogenetic,so is our taxonomy. While biological taxonomy was not originally phylogenetic,it has come to be primarily so used, indicating again that the decisive concernof evolutionary biology remains specific evolution.Adaptive specialization of populations is an inevitable aspect oflife'sevolution, and advance is a normal concomitant of adaptive specialization. Inthe context of specific evolution advance means that by adaptive modification

the population Iinduced by charenvironment motive advance iscumstances. Thi!structure and fun

Specifimproved functieimproved StructUIobserved or (for feimprovements: inLikewise there arlments: changes inclaws, fins, fur, andspecies need not b-en t environmentsmemo For some forfor others, decreastcharacteristics. Thchas a monopoly onany other. A "higl-"advanced" than a Ibu t he cannot swimin the animal kingcperfectly adjusted thigher species die aniches for eons. H(adapted) for any pa

Adaptiveto be judged and extadequate, indeed sulution phylogeneticcultural a n t h r o p o l o famous axiom of Cchange. Such wouldrelativism was elabOdominated Americato pursue this furthe

In sum, ing, specializing, ranevolution is often eqBut general evolutiolife, regardless of parmodification. In thtaken ou t of their rethe successive levels

Let us fir

8/8/2019 Sahlins_1960

4/21

35 9

Th e dual

o n , as well as

On onedifferentiateandn areprocess,

be viewedisof

of progress

byted only inof

populations,is the specifics. Th e

evolution.is a

of anotherinterested into show

ing each newphylogenetic,phylogenetic,concern

Inmodification

Evolurion, Specific anJ General

the population is enabled to maintain or better itself in the face of a threatinduced by changing environment or that it is enabled to exploit the sameenvironment more effectively than before. In any case, in the specific perspective advance is characteristically relative-relative to the environmental circumstances. This can be illustrated by looking at adapting species in terms ofstructure and functioning.Specific advance is manifest both in improved structure andimproved functioning of members of an adapting population, althoughimproved structure usually receives greater attention because it is more easilyobserved or (for fossils) deduced. There are many possible kinds of functionalimprovements: in vision, smell, speed, or in temperature control, and so on.Likewise there are many possible kinds of concomitant structural improvements: changes in limb structure, in the brain, in the eyes, the development ofclaws, fins, fur, and the like. But that which is a significant improvement for onespecies need not be so for another, for they may be adjusting to radically different environments or in radically different ways to the same kind of environment. For some forms in some habitats, increase in size is an adaptive advance,for others, decrease in size is selectively advantageous, and so with all othercharacteristics. Therefore, no one organism, however high in general standing,has a monopoly on or even necessarily more kinds of adaptive advances thanany other. A "higher species;' in other words, is no t in every respect more"advanced" than a lower: man's color vision may be superior to that of the fish,but he cannot swim as well, nor for that matter is his eyesight the most perfectin the animal kingdom. Moreover, higher organisms are no t inevitably moreperfectly adjusted to their environments than lower. On the contrary, manyhigher species die out while lower forms continue to survive in their particularniches for eons. Higher forms are often more generalized, less specialized(adapted) for any particular niche, than lower.

Adaptive improvement is relative to the adaptive problem; it is soto be judged and explained. In the specific context each adapted population isadequate, indeed superior, in its own incomparable way. Considering life's evolution phylogenetically we can be only biological relativists. At this point thecultural anthropologist will probably be unable to refrain from linking thefamous axiom of cultural relativism with a specific perspective on culturalchange. Such would be a correct historical inference: the philosophy of culturalrelativism was elaborated precisely by the historical-particularist school whichdominated American anthropology through the first half of this century. Butto pursue this further now is to anticipate a later discussion.

In sum, specific evolution is the phylogenetic, adaptive, diversifying, specializing, ramifying aspect of total evolution. It is in this respect thatevolution is often equated with movement from homogeneity to heterogeneity.But general evolution is another aspect. It is the emergence of higher forms oflife, regardless of particular lines of descent or historical sequences of adaptivemodification. In the broader perspective of general evolution organisms aretaken out of their respective lineages and grouped into types which representthe successive levels of all-round progress that evolution has brought forth,Let us first illustmte the difference between geneml and specific

8/8/2019 Sahlins_1960

5/21

360 Marshall O. Sahlins

evolution with a diagram. Suppose it is possible to plot the phylogenetic originsof tne major lineages of animal life. A good way of doing this graphically wouldbe in the shape of a climbing vine-not a tree, for there is no trunk, no "mainl i n e ~ e a c h larger branch of the vine representing a major divergence oflife throughtime, and smaller branches representing diversification of major lineages. Butthe vine has a dimension of height as well as a temporal extension of branches.Suppose that the height is "evolutionary height;' that is, that the distance ofany form from the base indicates degree of over-all progress according to someagreed-upon criterion. A series of horizontal lines could then be drawn acrossthe vine, with the vertical intervals between them indicating levels of generalprogress through time. Thus on the diagram, life's evolution is depicted in itslateral, branching dimension as well as in its vertical, progressive one.

Time

1he difference between specific and general evolution can also beillustrated by reference to a familiar group of animals, primates. The primatesare customarily divided into four broad formal categories: prosimian, NewWorld monkeys, Old World monkeys, and hominoid. Each of the latter three,according to Simpson (1950), originated from a different line of prosimian, notone developed out of another. Phylogenet ically or specifically, the study of pri-mates consists of tracing the early prosimian radiation, determining how, when,

and why each 0course of divergimplicitlyaccepsentatives, can bof over-all standWorld monkey, wof phylogeny, ithierarchy is comlife, and a numbth e levels represeimplication of thof general evoluindicative of the

As wihighly developeda goldfish than ano one is ancestrIn what sense canTo anticipate agaicultures. Eskimo,and are unrelatedhigher on the evo

BeforeAnyone will recogto general evoluticment respectively.species or populattion the unit of stor differentiates idefinition of specexplicitly about thhowever, the conCtheir characteristiqof organisms of a gProduction of divel

Th e dildetermining critentionary success ofdevelopment of intained by utilizingsmaller number of"higher" educatiorpurposes, and a medegree of general cNow toabandon relativisrrabsolute, that are re

8/8/2019 Sahlins_1960

6/21

36 1

no "maine n c e oflife through

Butof branches.distance ofaccording to some

is depicted in its

Invertebrates ". , . . - - - - - /