What do you think?
Rate this book
The Evolution of Culture
One of the major works of twentieth-century anthropological theory, written by one of the discipline’s most important, complex, and controversial figures, has not been in print for several years. Now Evolution of Culture is again available in paperback, allowing today’s generation of anthropologists new access to Leslie White’s crucial contribution to the theory of cultural evolution. A new, substantial introduction by Robert Carneiro and Burton J. Brown assess White’s historical importance and continuing influence in the discipline. White is credited with reintroducing evolution in a way that had a profound impact on our understanding of the relationship between technology, ecology, and culture in the development of civilizations. A materialist, he was particularly concerned with societies’ ability to harness energy as an indicator of progress, and his empirical analysis of this equation covers a vast historical span. Fearlessly tackling the most fundamental questions of culture and society during the cold war, White was frequently a lightning rod both inside and outside the academy. His book will provoke equally potent debates today, and is a key component of any course or reading list in anthropological or archaeological theory and cultural ecology.
- GenresAnthropology
400 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1959
118 people want to read
About the author
Leslie White
32 books9 followersLeslie Alvin White was an American anthropologist known for his advocacy of theories of cultural evolution, sociocultural evolution, and especially neoevolutionism, and for his role in creating the department of anthropology at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor. He was president of the American Anthropological Association (1964).
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
September 17, 2012
Largely influenced by Marxist materialism, materialists in American anthropology first and foremost believe that technological and economic factors play the primary role in molding society. Proponents of the materialist paradigm look at the infrastructure, structure, and superstructure that keep people alive, hold society together, and give life meaning in any given society. Leslie White’s The Evolution of Culture (1959) and Julian Steward’s Theory of Culture Change (1955) reflect the early foundations of the materialist framework; while each had differing perspectives on cultural evolutionism, together they played a significant role in the development of neo-evolutionist theory, and both had a tremendous impact on “New Archaeology.”
As a second generation Boasian, White was trained in the anti-evolutionist tradition; however, as a professor at the University of Buffalo, he realized that he found the doctrines of anti-evolutionism untenable. Most often credited with the reemergence of evolutionism within anthropology, White believed there were objective ways of evaluating cultures, such as his theory of energy capture, which he used as a means to better understand the culture of mankind as a whole. White believed culture is man’s extra-somatic means of adaptation (culture helps people survive) and that there is a basic law of cultural evolution (Energy x Technology = Culture.) Hypothesizing that more evolved cultures will use more energy, the premise of White’s E x T = C argument is that energy usage is the basis for cultural evolution; the larger a population is in numbers, the more complex of a society it will be, and the more hours its members will spend at work. In his book White also addressed the concepts of diffusion vs. evolution, stating that these two processes are not antagonistic but work harmoniously together, the one originating culture traits while the other spreads these traits far and wide.
Also trained in the Boasian tradition, Steward, like White, was a cultural evolutionist; however, Steward was primarily a cultural ecologist, focused on the interplay between culture and the environment and, more specifically, the impact of the environment on culture. Steward, who engaged in both archaeological and ethnographic fieldwork, shifted anthropological studies of trait distributions to a more focused concern with total cultures, and what influences had shaped them. By focusing on the “cultural core – the constellation of features which are most closely related to subsistence activities and economic arrangements,” Stewart believed he was able to determine regularities in the functional relations of culture patterns and in the process of cultural change. (Steward 1955: 37) His chapters on Great Basin Shoshoneans, the impact of irrigation on the formation of the state, and the ecological factors in social change, all clearly illustrate his empirical analysis. Steward distinguished himself from White by stating that his form of cultural evolution was multi-lineal, while White’s was universal. Steward felt that while universal stages might be valid, they were not very useful; he, in turn, searched for parallels of limited occurrence instead of universals. As a long-time professor at the University of Illinois, Steward trained the next generation of anthropologists, including Morton Fried, Eric Wolf, and Elman Service, in his nomothetic (law-making) approach to anthropology.
I take issue with the way White portrays culture as a generalized, world-wide phenomenon; he seems completely unwilling to recognize the potential for distinctive patterns that are the product of regional variation. Also, by prefacing his dialog of man’s control over energy sources by discussing the laws of thermodynamics, entropy, galaxies, organic life, and the universe in general, White paints culture as if it is the manifestation of universal, almost cosmic, principles. While I am a huge fan of Boas’ culture history approach, I’m sure anthropologists of the time felt somewhat constrained by the limiting nature of this approach in describing or outlining the broad path of culture change that had occurred around the world. White’s evolutionism was somewhat helpful in this regard, but it was most likely not embraced and applied more vigorously by archaeologists because they were unsure of how to apply it. On a positive note, White does do a good job of elucidating how technological change causes social change.
I much prefer Steward’s cultural ecology approach, and I believe he was successful in developing “a methodology for determining regularities of form, function, and process which occur cross-culturally.” (Steward 1955: 3) Before reading Theory of Culture Change I had not realized the impact this methodology had on the formation of Binford’s middle range theory.
As a second generation Boasian, White was trained in the anti-evolutionist tradition; however, as a professor at the University of Buffalo, he realized that he found the doctrines of anti-evolutionism untenable. Most often credited with the reemergence of evolutionism within anthropology, White believed there were objective ways of evaluating cultures, such as his theory of energy capture, which he used as a means to better understand the culture of mankind as a whole. White believed culture is man’s extra-somatic means of adaptation (culture helps people survive) and that there is a basic law of cultural evolution (Energy x Technology = Culture.) Hypothesizing that more evolved cultures will use more energy, the premise of White’s E x T = C argument is that energy usage is the basis for cultural evolution; the larger a population is in numbers, the more complex of a society it will be, and the more hours its members will spend at work. In his book White also addressed the concepts of diffusion vs. evolution, stating that these two processes are not antagonistic but work harmoniously together, the one originating culture traits while the other spreads these traits far and wide.
Also trained in the Boasian tradition, Steward, like White, was a cultural evolutionist; however, Steward was primarily a cultural ecologist, focused on the interplay between culture and the environment and, more specifically, the impact of the environment on culture. Steward, who engaged in both archaeological and ethnographic fieldwork, shifted anthropological studies of trait distributions to a more focused concern with total cultures, and what influences had shaped them. By focusing on the “cultural core – the constellation of features which are most closely related to subsistence activities and economic arrangements,” Stewart believed he was able to determine regularities in the functional relations of culture patterns and in the process of cultural change. (Steward 1955: 37) His chapters on Great Basin Shoshoneans, the impact of irrigation on the formation of the state, and the ecological factors in social change, all clearly illustrate his empirical analysis. Steward distinguished himself from White by stating that his form of cultural evolution was multi-lineal, while White’s was universal. Steward felt that while universal stages might be valid, they were not very useful; he, in turn, searched for parallels of limited occurrence instead of universals. As a long-time professor at the University of Illinois, Steward trained the next generation of anthropologists, including Morton Fried, Eric Wolf, and Elman Service, in his nomothetic (law-making) approach to anthropology.
I take issue with the way White portrays culture as a generalized, world-wide phenomenon; he seems completely unwilling to recognize the potential for distinctive patterns that are the product of regional variation. Also, by prefacing his dialog of man’s control over energy sources by discussing the laws of thermodynamics, entropy, galaxies, organic life, and the universe in general, White paints culture as if it is the manifestation of universal, almost cosmic, principles. While I am a huge fan of Boas’ culture history approach, I’m sure anthropologists of the time felt somewhat constrained by the limiting nature of this approach in describing or outlining the broad path of culture change that had occurred around the world. White’s evolutionism was somewhat helpful in this regard, but it was most likely not embraced and applied more vigorously by archaeologists because they were unsure of how to apply it. On a positive note, White does do a good job of elucidating how technological change causes social change.
I much prefer Steward’s cultural ecology approach, and I believe he was successful in developing “a methodology for determining regularities of form, function, and process which occur cross-culturally.” (Steward 1955: 3) Before reading Theory of Culture Change I had not realized the impact this methodology had on the formation of Binford’s middle range theory.
September 22, 2011
In The Evolution of Culture: the Development of Civilization to the Fall
of Rome, Leslie A. White demonstrates his theoretical perspective as to
how civilizations evolved though the use of technology. Taking a
scientific approach and influenced by Morgan, White shows how the
development of technology was the primary catalyst for change (38). He
supports his perspective though the use of energy exchange demonstrating
that as the more advanced the culture becomes th more energy they use
thus reaching a peak in which technology benefits allowing individuals
to become more efficient (55). Culture thereby takes a evolutionary
stand point as cultures appear to follow a general path to civilization.
It was through the domestication process that agriculture appeared thus
making the energy expenses more economical (289) and in White's views,
economics plays a large role in the success of peoples.
of Rome, Leslie A. White demonstrates his theoretical perspective as to
how civilizations evolved though the use of technology. Taking a
scientific approach and influenced by Morgan, White shows how the
development of technology was the primary catalyst for change (38). He
supports his perspective though the use of energy exchange demonstrating
that as the more advanced the culture becomes th more energy they use
thus reaching a peak in which technology benefits allowing individuals
to become more efficient (55). Culture thereby takes a evolutionary
stand point as cultures appear to follow a general path to civilization.
It was through the domestication process that agriculture appeared thus
making the energy expenses more economical (289) and in White's views,
economics plays a large role in the success of peoples.
April 12, 2011
Preface: "In this work we present and demonstrate a theory of the evolution of culture from its origins on anthropoid levels to relatively modern times."
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews