What do you think?
Rate this book
Evolution and Culture
A unified interpretation of the evolution of species, humanity, and society
131 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1960
About the author
Marshall Sahlins
53 books154 followersMarshall David Sahlins was an American cultural anthropologist best known for his ethnographic work in the Pacific and for his contributions to anthropological theory. He was the Charles F. Grey Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and of Social Sciences at the University of Chicago.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 18, 2025
This short little treatise on cultural evolution is an important picture of the dialectic opposition to Franz Boas' theories of cultural change that were developed in the 1960s. Boas held that cultural evolution couldn't be neatly categorized into stages, and that understanding cultural difference is more complex than a simple linear path to industrialized capitalism. This leads to the Boasian cultural particularism, which regarded each culture as rationally organized based on a set of internal conditions and history.
This treatise disjointedly presents a case for technological progress and energy manipulation over space as a heuristic for cultural evolution. They argue for specific versus general cultural evolution, and a number of other things that should have been expanded upon through autoethnography and other forms of fieldwork. In doing so, they narrow the definition of culture to technology. This would be alright if they had a properly broad definition of technology, but they never define it and ultimately fall into the assumption of industrial capitalist empire as the default mode of higher civilization.
This tracks from their inspiration of Edward B. Tylor, Herbert Spencer, and so on. These people and the propagation of their ideas led to a lot of racist science that persists today, and argue from a social Darwinist perspective. The authors never really address this criticism. They even lay out a "Law of Cultural Dominance" in which they define dominance and competition through one mode of being- that of military technology.
Overall, they never really address the Boasian critique, they never build on how to measure cultural evolution. Manipulation of energy over space is a fine heuristic, but it is a shallow definition of culture, and they fall into a narrow concept of energy and space. I would say they try to link culture and biological evolution, but kind of abandon it, like a lot of Social Darwinists. They extrapolate one aspect of evolution, make an impossibly broad assumption, and run with it.
They do have some interesting theoretical flourishes, and they are decidedly utopian about things, picturing a day where we have One World. Their belief in world peace, their discussions about progress, and their rootedness in history and ethnography makes this an interesting read. However, written by four authors, there isn't really an overall takeaway and the things we can takeaway are poorly developed and not very useful. Focus would've helped, a more materialist approach would've helped (although they briefly touch on things), and a direct refutation or understanding of cultural particularism would've been useful.
This treatise disjointedly presents a case for technological progress and energy manipulation over space as a heuristic for cultural evolution. They argue for specific versus general cultural evolution, and a number of other things that should have been expanded upon through autoethnography and other forms of fieldwork. In doing so, they narrow the definition of culture to technology. This would be alright if they had a properly broad definition of technology, but they never define it and ultimately fall into the assumption of industrial capitalist empire as the default mode of higher civilization.
This tracks from their inspiration of Edward B. Tylor, Herbert Spencer, and so on. These people and the propagation of their ideas led to a lot of racist science that persists today, and argue from a social Darwinist perspective. The authors never really address this criticism. They even lay out a "Law of Cultural Dominance" in which they define dominance and competition through one mode of being- that of military technology.
Overall, they never really address the Boasian critique, they never build on how to measure cultural evolution. Manipulation of energy over space is a fine heuristic, but it is a shallow definition of culture, and they fall into a narrow concept of energy and space. I would say they try to link culture and biological evolution, but kind of abandon it, like a lot of Social Darwinists. They extrapolate one aspect of evolution, make an impossibly broad assumption, and run with it.
They do have some interesting theoretical flourishes, and they are decidedly utopian about things, picturing a day where we have One World. Their belief in world peace, their discussions about progress, and their rootedness in history and ethnography makes this an interesting read. However, written by four authors, there isn't really an overall takeaway and the things we can takeaway are poorly developed and not very useful. Focus would've helped, a more materialist approach would've helped (although they briefly touch on things), and a direct refutation or understanding of cultural particularism would've been useful.
January 5, 2026
An interesting evolution (see what I did there)? of Marvin Harris' proposal about cultural materialism: Sahlins and the other authors argue that cultures evolve and that there are phenomena that can prove advances and progress (energy income-output, technology, social structure, political organization, etc.). This argument fails to consider philosophy, empathy, redistribution and collective will as other variables that indicate progress, yet, in some of the later examples about domination, the authors accept that non industrial societies (such as Russia in the XXth century and China) have demonstrated that the western idea of progress has been misunderstood, and as Edward B. Tylor said, evolution ramificates and its multilinear.
My biggest problem with the book is its biggest achievement: comparing culture to biology has been disastrous, yet the posture the authors make in this work is incredible. Culture is dialectic, it evolves (or changes if some don't like the word). We adapt, we expand: humanity subdues nature to exist, that is a fact. Where they almost fumble it is posited the existence of superior species and superior cultures, but end up recognizing that some species have not evolved in millions of years because they have not needed it, the same with some cultures, like the eskimos in thousands of years. Then, the natural question to ask is, do superior cultures even exist?
Of course, but not only because of a survival and metabolistic parameter as Sahlins and company argue (that is a mechanical view), but also because we know life expectancy can be changed, crime can be lowered, respect between others is also achievable, diversity should not be persecuted and wealth can be shared. Those are the true parameters (I believe) that mankind can use to point if a culture is superior or inferior.
Invading countries, exploiting, colonizing, killing, etc., those are the wishes and acts of capitalists and warmongers. It's clear to some of us, but of course those aren't the parameters of the whole mankind in the little existence we've had in this planet.
I, as the authors conclude, think the evolutionist perspective is enriching and superior to cultural relativism (never in my life I'm going to defend cultures that promote misoginy, exploiting, abuse, etc.), but the mistakes I think the cultural materialists make is not considering in their cultural analysis the dialectic, historic and humanistic perspective.
Still, any book that moves me in this intellectual manner is a 4 stars in the minimum. Read it!
My biggest problem with the book is its biggest achievement: comparing culture to biology has been disastrous, yet the posture the authors make in this work is incredible. Culture is dialectic, it evolves (or changes if some don't like the word). We adapt, we expand: humanity subdues nature to exist, that is a fact. Where they almost fumble it is posited the existence of superior species and superior cultures, but end up recognizing that some species have not evolved in millions of years because they have not needed it, the same with some cultures, like the eskimos in thousands of years. Then, the natural question to ask is, do superior cultures even exist?
Of course, but not only because of a survival and metabolistic parameter as Sahlins and company argue (that is a mechanical view), but also because we know life expectancy can be changed, crime can be lowered, respect between others is also achievable, diversity should not be persecuted and wealth can be shared. Those are the true parameters (I believe) that mankind can use to point if a culture is superior or inferior.
Invading countries, exploiting, colonizing, killing, etc., those are the wishes and acts of capitalists and warmongers. It's clear to some of us, but of course those aren't the parameters of the whole mankind in the little existence we've had in this planet.
I, as the authors conclude, think the evolutionist perspective is enriching and superior to cultural relativism (never in my life I'm going to defend cultures that promote misoginy, exploiting, abuse, etc.), but the mistakes I think the cultural materialists make is not considering in their cultural analysis the dialectic, historic and humanistic perspective.
Still, any book that moves me in this intellectual manner is a 4 stars in the minimum. Read it!
March 8, 2024
Argues that culture evolves, and discusses the motives and methods.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews