What do you think?
Rate this book
Antropologia e Vida Moderna
Publicado originalmente em 1928, Antropologia e Vida Moderna é hoje tão atual como no dia em que saiu. A história parece repetir-se, e quase um século depois, o debate intelectual é dominado pelos mesmos fantasmas que Boas combateu no início do século passado.
A pretensa supremacia de umas raças em detrimento das outras, o recrudescimento do nacionalismo, o papel da educação no desenvolvimento dos indivíduos, a eugenia, a propalada predisposição de certas raças para o crime, eis alguns dos temas tratados neste livro, considerado um dos mais influentes do século XX.
A pretensa supremacia de umas raças em detrimento das outras, o recrudescimento do nacionalismo, o papel da educação no desenvolvimento dos indivíduos, a eugenia, a propalada predisposição de certas raças para o crime, eis alguns dos temas tratados neste livro, considerado um dos mais influentes do século XX.
226 pages, Paperback
Published April 1, 2021
25 people are currently reading
1255 people want to read
About the author
Franz Boas
373 books92 followersFranz Uri Boas was a German-American anthropologist and a pioneer of modern anthropology who has been called the "Father of American Anthropology". His work is associated with the movements known as historical particularism and cultural relativism.
Studying in Germany, Boas was awarded a doctorate in 1881 in physics while also studying geography. He then participated in a geographical expedition to northern Canada, where he became fascinated with the culture and language of the Baffin Island Inuit. He went on to do field work with the indigenous cultures and languages of the Pacific Northwest. In 1887 he emigrated to the United States, where he first worked as a museum curator at the Smithsonian, and in 1899 became a professor of anthropology at Columbia University, where he remained for the rest of his career. Through his students, many of whom went on to found anthropology departments and research programmes inspired by their mentor, Boas profoundly influenced the development of American anthropology. Among his many significant students were Alfred Louis Kroeber, Alexander Goldenweiser, Ruth Benedict, Edward Sapir, Margaret Mead, Zora Neale Hurston, and Gilberto Freyre.
Boas was one of the most prominent opponents of the then-popular ideologies of scientific racism, the idea that race is a biological concept and that human behavior is best understood through the typology of biological characteristics. In a series of groundbreaking studies of skeletal anatomy, he showed that cranial shape and size was highly malleable depending on environmental factors such as health and nutrition, in contrast to the claims by racial anthropologists of the day that held head shape to be a stable racial trait. Boas also worked to demonstrate that differences in human behavior are not primarily determined by innate biological dispositions but are largely the result of cultural differences acquired through social learning. In this way, Boas introduced culture as the primary concept for describing differences in behavior between human groups, and as the central analytical concept of anthropology.
Among Boas's main contributions to anthropological thought was his rejection of the then-popular evolutionary approaches to the study of culture, which saw all societies progressing through a set of hierarchic technological and cultural stages, with Western European culture at the summit. Boas argued that culture developed historically through the interactions of groups of people and the diffusion of ideas and that consequently there was no process towards continuously "higher" cultural forms. This insight led Boas to reject the "stage"-based organization of ethnological museums, instead preferring to order items on display based on the affinity and proximity of the cultural groups in question.
Boas also introduced the idea of cultural relativism, which holds that cultures cannot be objectively ranked as higher or lower, or better or more correct, but that all humans see the world through the lens of their own culture, and judge it according to their own culturally acquired norms. For Boas, the object of anthropology was to understand the way in which culture conditioned people to understand and interact with the world in different ways and to do this it was necessary to gain an understanding of the language and cultural practices of the people studied. By uniting the disciplines of archaeology, the study of material culture and history, and physical anthropology, the study of variation in human anatomy, with ethnology, the study of cultural variation of customs, and descriptive linguistics, the study of unwritten indigenous languages, Boas created the four-field subdivision of anthropology which became prominent in American anthropology in the 20th century.
Studying in Germany, Boas was awarded a doctorate in 1881 in physics while also studying geography. He then participated in a geographical expedition to northern Canada, where he became fascinated with the culture and language of the Baffin Island Inuit. He went on to do field work with the indigenous cultures and languages of the Pacific Northwest. In 1887 he emigrated to the United States, where he first worked as a museum curator at the Smithsonian, and in 1899 became a professor of anthropology at Columbia University, where he remained for the rest of his career. Through his students, many of whom went on to found anthropology departments and research programmes inspired by their mentor, Boas profoundly influenced the development of American anthropology. Among his many significant students were Alfred Louis Kroeber, Alexander Goldenweiser, Ruth Benedict, Edward Sapir, Margaret Mead, Zora Neale Hurston, and Gilberto Freyre.
Boas was one of the most prominent opponents of the then-popular ideologies of scientific racism, the idea that race is a biological concept and that human behavior is best understood through the typology of biological characteristics. In a series of groundbreaking studies of skeletal anatomy, he showed that cranial shape and size was highly malleable depending on environmental factors such as health and nutrition, in contrast to the claims by racial anthropologists of the day that held head shape to be a stable racial trait. Boas also worked to demonstrate that differences in human behavior are not primarily determined by innate biological dispositions but are largely the result of cultural differences acquired through social learning. In this way, Boas introduced culture as the primary concept for describing differences in behavior between human groups, and as the central analytical concept of anthropology.
Among Boas's main contributions to anthropological thought was his rejection of the then-popular evolutionary approaches to the study of culture, which saw all societies progressing through a set of hierarchic technological and cultural stages, with Western European culture at the summit. Boas argued that culture developed historically through the interactions of groups of people and the diffusion of ideas and that consequently there was no process towards continuously "higher" cultural forms. This insight led Boas to reject the "stage"-based organization of ethnological museums, instead preferring to order items on display based on the affinity and proximity of the cultural groups in question.
Boas also introduced the idea of cultural relativism, which holds that cultures cannot be objectively ranked as higher or lower, or better or more correct, but that all humans see the world through the lens of their own culture, and judge it according to their own culturally acquired norms. For Boas, the object of anthropology was to understand the way in which culture conditioned people to understand and interact with the world in different ways and to do this it was necessary to gain an understanding of the language and cultural practices of the people studied. By uniting the disciplines of archaeology, the study of material culture and history, and physical anthropology, the study of variation in human anatomy, with ethnology, the study of cultural variation of customs, and descriptive linguistics, the study of unwritten indigenous languages, Boas created the four-field subdivision of anthropology which became prominent in American anthropology in the 20th century.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
December 9, 2014
Franz Boaz was a German Jewish scholar who came to North America in the 1890s to study Native American tribes and ended up staying in the USA. He became the father of anthropology and taught many of the leading names in the early days of the field such as Ruth Benedict, Ruth Bendt and Margaret Mead. However, Boaz was also a very controversial figure. In the decades leading up to WWII, social scientists were often enamored with what I like to call the evil trinity of modern thought; eugenics, social darwinism and Nietzche's theory of the ubermensch. Social scientists wanted to find the master race and recreate a new and improved humanity long before Hitler took the lead in that department in the 1930s. But Boaz would have none of it. He was not a believer in eugenics, and he did not believe that some human types were inherently superior to others. This bought him ridicule and a reputation as a reactionary in those heady days of the 1920s and 30s. Nevertheless, even though Boaz did not live to see it, he was proven right when mankind saw what an abomination these theories could lead to in Hitler's Germany and its racial policies and death camps. In the end, Boaz and not his crusading students was proven right.
In "Anthropology and Modern Life", Boaz reiterates many of his usual themes. Most specifically he taught that environment influences human types and development far more than genetics does. He discusses research that proves this and shows that members of the same race in different environments are more different than members of different races who happen to be in the same environment. He also discusses the nature of "primitive" versus "Civilized" societies. At a time when most of his contemporaries were still referring to some races as "savages", Boaz warns us that different races develop according to their environments and not according to Western ideas of what constitutes a civilized society. His writing is downright refreshing after reading some of the writings of other early anthropologists, who were far more inclined to judge the peoples that they studied rather than study them objectively.
This book, like others by Boaz, is must reading for any student who is serious about understanding the development of the field of anthropology.
In "Anthropology and Modern Life", Boaz reiterates many of his usual themes. Most specifically he taught that environment influences human types and development far more than genetics does. He discusses research that proves this and shows that members of the same race in different environments are more different than members of different races who happen to be in the same environment. He also discusses the nature of "primitive" versus "Civilized" societies. At a time when most of his contemporaries were still referring to some races as "savages", Boaz warns us that different races develop according to their environments and not according to Western ideas of what constitutes a civilized society. His writing is downright refreshing after reading some of the writings of other early anthropologists, who were far more inclined to judge the peoples that they studied rather than study them objectively.
This book, like others by Boaz, is must reading for any student who is serious about understanding the development of the field of anthropology.
January 25, 2008
This one is dense. It's good to read if you're extremely interested in the founding of modern day anthropology. I had to read this for my Foundations of Social Theory Seminar, and I'm glad I had to, but I would not pick it up in my free time.
March 24, 2022
This is an amazing book! Boas has some really deep insights in a variety of books -- really outlining the paradigm that led to structuralism, and now critical theory. Unlike his predecessors who thought that all of biology had a direct line to anthropology -- confusing the way in which politics will use science to make judgements about people -- Boas rightly interjects that culture plays a role in shaping who we are as well, in a way that complicates any assessment about the human being as a purely biological creature. In other words, Boas understands that culture is hopelessly inseparable from who we are just as our biology is hopelessly entangled with who we are. In that sense, politics cannot also be taken out of the equation. Boas recommendation then is to expand our view of what the valid human and to understand that all humans encompass the domain of culture and that while we are not interchangeable, we cannot in good faith believe that people are by genetics or by biology or by culture purely arrangeable on some scale of value.
By recognizing the role culture plays in human development -- in the formation of who we are -- Boas modernizes anthropology bringing us to the contemporary era. What a mind this man has; he anticipates in raw form many arguments in philosophy of science or post-structuralism -- but of course these pass for musings and deceptively isolated statements. Whole books can be written from some of these sentences. This man is truly a genius.
By recognizing the role culture plays in human development -- in the formation of who we are -- Boas modernizes anthropology bringing us to the contemporary era. What a mind this man has; he anticipates in raw form many arguments in philosophy of science or post-structuralism -- but of course these pass for musings and deceptively isolated statements. Whole books can be written from some of these sentences. This man is truly a genius.
June 17, 2010
This essay felt a little bit dated, but there was a useful treatment of the effect of race on human potential- material to keep in mind to ensure we promote a racism-free society. Boas contends that any population-averaged variations in human mental ability from race to race (if you can even properly pick out a race) would be swamped by the individual-to-individual variations due to other factors. Therefore, you should never deny any individual equal participation in society, because you can't tell conclusively whether he will be subject to individual brilliance (if you can even come up with a universal definition for brilliance, that is).
I would love to see the assertions in the essay updated and supported by combining them with a much larger dose of modern statistics.
I would love to see the assertions in the essay updated and supported by combining them with a much larger dose of modern statistics.
December 18, 2012
Presenting: a book far ahead of its time. Boas uses findings of anthropological research to comment upon present social issues, namely those dealing with race. Written in a time of phrenology, segregation, pre-Nazism and scientific modernity's unfortunate peak into the categorization of human beings, this provides an enlightened rebuttal.
Though, there are a few moments where Boas becomes a man of his age. It was first apparent to me when he declared eugenics a "beautiful ideal" (regardless if he later went on to dismiss the practice.)
Though, there are a few moments where Boas becomes a man of his age. It was first apparent to me when he declared eugenics a "beautiful ideal" (regardless if he later went on to dismiss the practice.)
October 5, 2017
Extremely interesting and not too dense overview of the basic premises that have established American Anthropology as what it is today. I cannot find anything wrong really with this book; personally, I adore it, as it presents to you many examples of social issues and how anthropology can be used to tackle them. Reading this book simply will start "making you a better person," as my Anthro 101 professor would like to always say. It allows you to begin looking at culture as process rather than product, and to view all people as puzzles of hundreds of complex, beautiful little pieces. If you know nothing about anthropology, read EB Tylor's book Primitive Culture, then read this. That will give you an excellent idea of how anthropology went from a slightly racist, orientalist viewing of the world through a telescope and into the "hanging out, penetration of a society" it is today. My only problem is that, unsurprisingly, Franz Boas is Boasian; both a blessing and a curse in my opinion. His prose can be taxing because, though it is not difficult to follow, it simply overwhelms with examples. This adds considerably to his argument, but makes for sloggish reading. Be prepared to wrestle a bit.
August 8, 2020
Boas prova que é possível pensar contra a corrente mesmo quando ela está em alta e promovendo valores horríveis contra o ser humano. Leitura incrível e necessária, e extremamente atual.
December 29, 2012
Franz Boas, the daddy of American anthropology, gives his view on issues ranging from races and discrimination, nationalism, education, and... modern life. An influential book it sees, it argues many things that seem somewhat boring today because we take them for granted, especially in the first part of the book. But at the time the book was written, when racial discrimination was an important problem, who better to come and have his say on the issue than the student of man, the anthropologist? Although many of the points he makes in this and the other chapters seem common sense today, the reader may find some insightful remarks about nationalism, education, the moral developments of the modern age and so on.
May 30, 2024
THE FAMED ANTHROPOLOGIST LOOKS AT A VARIETY OF SOCIAL ISSUES
Franz Uri Boas (1858-1942) was a German-born American who has been called the "Father of American Anthropology.” His students included A. L. Kroeber, Ruth Benedict, Edward Sapir, Margaret Mead, Zora Neale Hurston, etc. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to a 256-page 1962 paperback edition.]
He wrote in the first chapter of this 1928 book, “Anthropology is often considered a collection of curious facts, telling about the peculiar appearance of exotic people and describing their strange customs and beliefs. It is looked upon as an entertaining diversion, apparently without any bearing upon the conduct of life of civilized communities. This opinion is mistaken. More than that, I hope to demonstrate that a clear understanding of the principles of anthropology illuminates the social processes of our own times and may show us, if we are ready to listen to its teachings, what to do and what to avoid.” (Pg. 11)
He observes, “Single traits can be brought into ascending series in which the racial forms differ more and more from animal forms… The hair coat of apes is moderately strong. Among human races the Australians, Europeans and a few scattered tribes among other races have the simplest body hair; Mongols the least… The loss of pigmentation in the blond-blue-eyed races; the blackness of the hair of the Negro are traits that do not occur in any wild mammal form… The frizzliness of the Negro hair and the curliness of the hair of other races… do not occur in wild animals.” (Pg. 39, 42)
He points out about mental testing results, “The northern Negroes passed the tests much more successfully than those from the South. Chicago Negroes are adjusted to city surroundings. They… are accustomed to a certain degree of equality, owing to similarity of occupation… All these are lacking among the Louisiana rural Negroes. Dr. [Otto] Klineberg has shown what is actually happening. He studied the results of intelligence tests applied to Negroes who had moved from the country to the city and also to those who had moved from southern, more leisurely communities, to New York. He found that within a number of years they became adjusted to the new environment… those who had lived in the cities or in New York showed the better results the longer they had lived in their new environment. The reason must be looked for in the character of the tests which are based on the experiences of city life and not on that of a rural community.” (Pg. 56-57)
He suggests, “The federation of nations is the next necessary step in the evolution of mankind… Such federation of nations is not a Utopian idea… In fact, the whole development of mankind shows that this condition is destined to come… It would be instructive to follow in detail the development of modern nations from tribal units that considered every alien an enemy who must be slain, but we can only imagine the course of the gradual changes that have taken place.” (Pg. 97-98)
He says of Eugenics, “This question cannot be decided from a scientific point of view. The answer depends upon ethical and social standards. Many defective families have produced individuals who have given us the greatest treasures our civilization possesses. Eugenists might have prevented Beethoven’s father from having children. Would they willingly take the responsibility of having mankind deprived of the genius of Beethoven?” (Pg. 119)
He points out, “When thoroughly established the level of consciousness of an automatic action is the same as that of an instinctive reaction… This distinction is particularly clear in the use of language. The FACULTY of speech is organically determined and should be called, therefore, instinctive. However, WHAT we speak is determined sole by our environment. We acquire one language or another according to what we hear spoken around us… As adults we find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to acquire complete mastery of new articulations and new structures such as are required in learning a foreign language. Our linguistic habits are not instinctive. They are automatic.” (Pg. 139)
He states, “No matter what kind of measurements, experiments, and tests may be desired, their relation to the actual personality is always indirect. Without detailed study of the individual a proper pedagogical treatment is unattainable. What is true of a group cannot be applied to an individual.” (Pg. 181)
He notes, “There is no evolution of moral idea. All the vices that we know, lying, theft, murder, rape, are discountenanced in the life of equals in a closed society. There is progress in ethical conduct, based on the recognition of larger groups which participate in the rights enjoyed by members of the closed society, and on an increasing social control.” (Pg. 227-228)
He concludes, “The forces that bring about the changes are active in the individuals composing the social groups, not in the abstract culture. Here, as well as in other social phenomena, accident cannot be eliminated, accident that may depend upon the presence or absence of eminent individuals, upon the favors bestowed by nature, upon chance discoveries or contacts, and therefore prediction is precarious, if not impossible. Laws of development, except in most generalized forms, cannot be established and a detailed course of growth cannot be predicted. All we can do is to watch and judge day by day what we are doing, to understand what is happening in the light of what we have learned and to shape our steps accordingly.” (Pg. 246)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying the historical development of anthropology.
Franz Uri Boas (1858-1942) was a German-born American who has been called the "Father of American Anthropology.” His students included A. L. Kroeber, Ruth Benedict, Edward Sapir, Margaret Mead, Zora Neale Hurston, etc. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to a 256-page 1962 paperback edition.]
He wrote in the first chapter of this 1928 book, “Anthropology is often considered a collection of curious facts, telling about the peculiar appearance of exotic people and describing their strange customs and beliefs. It is looked upon as an entertaining diversion, apparently without any bearing upon the conduct of life of civilized communities. This opinion is mistaken. More than that, I hope to demonstrate that a clear understanding of the principles of anthropology illuminates the social processes of our own times and may show us, if we are ready to listen to its teachings, what to do and what to avoid.” (Pg. 11)
He observes, “Single traits can be brought into ascending series in which the racial forms differ more and more from animal forms… The hair coat of apes is moderately strong. Among human races the Australians, Europeans and a few scattered tribes among other races have the simplest body hair; Mongols the least… The loss of pigmentation in the blond-blue-eyed races; the blackness of the hair of the Negro are traits that do not occur in any wild mammal form… The frizzliness of the Negro hair and the curliness of the hair of other races… do not occur in wild animals.” (Pg. 39, 42)
He points out about mental testing results, “The northern Negroes passed the tests much more successfully than those from the South. Chicago Negroes are adjusted to city surroundings. They… are accustomed to a certain degree of equality, owing to similarity of occupation… All these are lacking among the Louisiana rural Negroes. Dr. [Otto] Klineberg has shown what is actually happening. He studied the results of intelligence tests applied to Negroes who had moved from the country to the city and also to those who had moved from southern, more leisurely communities, to New York. He found that within a number of years they became adjusted to the new environment… those who had lived in the cities or in New York showed the better results the longer they had lived in their new environment. The reason must be looked for in the character of the tests which are based on the experiences of city life and not on that of a rural community.” (Pg. 56-57)
He suggests, “The federation of nations is the next necessary step in the evolution of mankind… Such federation of nations is not a Utopian idea… In fact, the whole development of mankind shows that this condition is destined to come… It would be instructive to follow in detail the development of modern nations from tribal units that considered every alien an enemy who must be slain, but we can only imagine the course of the gradual changes that have taken place.” (Pg. 97-98)
He says of Eugenics, “This question cannot be decided from a scientific point of view. The answer depends upon ethical and social standards. Many defective families have produced individuals who have given us the greatest treasures our civilization possesses. Eugenists might have prevented Beethoven’s father from having children. Would they willingly take the responsibility of having mankind deprived of the genius of Beethoven?” (Pg. 119)
He points out, “When thoroughly established the level of consciousness of an automatic action is the same as that of an instinctive reaction… This distinction is particularly clear in the use of language. The FACULTY of speech is organically determined and should be called, therefore, instinctive. However, WHAT we speak is determined sole by our environment. We acquire one language or another according to what we hear spoken around us… As adults we find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to acquire complete mastery of new articulations and new structures such as are required in learning a foreign language. Our linguistic habits are not instinctive. They are automatic.” (Pg. 139)
He states, “No matter what kind of measurements, experiments, and tests may be desired, their relation to the actual personality is always indirect. Without detailed study of the individual a proper pedagogical treatment is unattainable. What is true of a group cannot be applied to an individual.” (Pg. 181)
He notes, “There is no evolution of moral idea. All the vices that we know, lying, theft, murder, rape, are discountenanced in the life of equals in a closed society. There is progress in ethical conduct, based on the recognition of larger groups which participate in the rights enjoyed by members of the closed society, and on an increasing social control.” (Pg. 227-228)
He concludes, “The forces that bring about the changes are active in the individuals composing the social groups, not in the abstract culture. Here, as well as in other social phenomena, accident cannot be eliminated, accident that may depend upon the presence or absence of eminent individuals, upon the favors bestowed by nature, upon chance discoveries or contacts, and therefore prediction is precarious, if not impossible. Laws of development, except in most generalized forms, cannot be established and a detailed course of growth cannot be predicted. All we can do is to watch and judge day by day what we are doing, to understand what is happening in the light of what we have learned and to shape our steps accordingly.” (Pg. 246)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying the historical development of anthropology.
July 3, 2007
A classic book in the field of anthropology. Enlightening.
April 25, 2012
One of the definitive books by the father of Anthropology.
August 14, 2025
As the title suggests, this book delves into the depths of modern humans. If you're already familiar with books on anthropology, much of the information within this one will likely be in your mind already. Published by DoğuBatı Publishing, this book acts almost as a textbook, providing pure information. I believe this book is capable of answering at least some of your anthropological questions with a few sentences. Of course, the vast field of anthropology has immense diversity within it. As the name suggests, this book focuses on a narrower scope, making its subject matter clear.
TR:
Kitabın adından da anlaşılacağı üzere bu defa modern insanın derinlerine inliyor. Aslında antropoloji kitaplarına daha önceden aşinaysanız bu kitap içinde yer alan bilgilerin birçoğu zaten zihninizdedir. "DoğuBatı Yayınevi" tarafından basılan bu kitap salt bilgi vermesi ile bir nevi ders kitabı niteliği de taşıyor. Bence bu kitap her kafanıza takılan antropolojik sorunuza en azından birkaç cümle ile bilgi verebilecek düzeyde. Elbette koskoca antropoloji kendi içinde de muazzam çeşitliliğe sahip. Bu kitap biraz daha dar bir çevresiyle isminden de anlaşılacağı üzere nelere değindiğini belli ediyor.
TR:
Kitabın adından da anlaşılacağı üzere bu defa modern insanın derinlerine inliyor. Aslında antropoloji kitaplarına daha önceden aşinaysanız bu kitap içinde yer alan bilgilerin birçoğu zaten zihninizdedir. "DoğuBatı Yayınevi" tarafından basılan bu kitap salt bilgi vermesi ile bir nevi ders kitabı niteliği de taşıyor. Bence bu kitap her kafanıza takılan antropolojik sorunuza en azından birkaç cümle ile bilgi verebilecek düzeyde. Elbette koskoca antropoloji kendi içinde de muazzam çeşitliliğe sahip. Bu kitap biraz daha dar bir çevresiyle isminden de anlaşılacağı üzere nelere değindiğini belli ediyor.
July 1, 2025
A landmark volume that proved seminal upon initial publication, Franz Boas' Anthropology and Modern Life touches on a variety of subjects pertaining to the discipline of anthropology, such as race, education, criminology and the stability of culture, among others.
What surprised me most was to learn that Boas was not an anti-evolutionist as some have characterized him but on the contrary a remarkable anthropologist that believed in the evolution of human cultures over time. He stressed the need for anthropologists to steel themselves and try to study other human cultures with an unbiased eye and try to ascertain which traits are universal to mankind (rooted in biology) and which are conditioned by culture.
Although what Boas writes might seem self-evident now it was revolutionary during his time and set the standards by which all future anthropological work would be measured by.
Widely considered Boas' magnum opus, Anthropology and Modern Life is a must-read for anyone interested in the subject.
What surprised me most was to learn that Boas was not an anti-evolutionist as some have characterized him but on the contrary a remarkable anthropologist that believed in the evolution of human cultures over time. He stressed the need for anthropologists to steel themselves and try to study other human cultures with an unbiased eye and try to ascertain which traits are universal to mankind (rooted in biology) and which are conditioned by culture.
Although what Boas writes might seem self-evident now it was revolutionary during his time and set the standards by which all future anthropological work would be measured by.
Widely considered Boas' magnum opus, Anthropology and Modern Life is a must-read for anyone interested in the subject.
July 29, 2025
Franz Boas’s pioneering work fundamentally reshaped anthropology by emphasizing cultural relativism and the importance of fieldwork in understanding the diversity of human societies. His challenge to ethnocentrism remains vital today, especially as we navigate globalization and modernity’s impact on traditional cultures. Boas taught us that to truly grasp “modern life,” we must appreciate the unique historical and cultural contexts shaping each society, rather than imposing external judgments. This perspective encourages respect and deeper insight into how cultures adapt and transform in a rapidly changing world.
— José Azuaje-Fidalgo
— José Azuaje-Fidalgo
November 16, 2025
mostly interesting from a historical perspective, as the arguments he lays out are nowadays taken as common sense (there is no race, man is not monogamous by nature, there are both biological and social factors that play a role in the individuals character). After all, anthropology tells us mostly what we cannot know about human nature (which is a lot), and only very little of what we do not about the nature of man.
May 11, 2012
As dated as it seems, Anthropology and Modern Life was certainly quite extraordinary for its time; when Broca, Goddard, Lombroso and the social darwinists were at the peak of scientific legitimacy.
August 25, 2014
The context is obviously dated, but his message still resonates. A solid Anthropology book with many intriguing theories/ideas for anyone who know nothing of Anthropology, or have been studying it for years.
January 28, 2010
Really good!
November 20, 2010
Boas at his best.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews