Antievolutionary Criticism: The Use Of Classical Evolutionism By Sanderson

In Chapter three, Sanderson discusses the Boasian scholar’s criticism towards scholars work such as Tylor and Morgan on evolution and unilinear evolutionary schemes. Sanderson discussed four major objections to classical evolutionism argued by the Boasian’s this includes classical evolutionism being “logically flawed in employment of the comparative method in reconstructing evolutionary sequences”, classical evolutionism “employed rigid evolutionary schemes”, classical evolutionism “gave insufficient attention to the influence of diffusion”, and classical evolutionism “proposed illegitimate doctrine of process”. The comparative method was used commonly by classical evolutionist to reconstruct evolutionary sequences. Sanderson discussed Spencer,
Morgan, and Tyler and their implementation of the comparative method. Spencer in his work Descriptive Sociology individually described cultures and provided detailed information on each culture. Through the descriptions of each culture, Spencer compared each culture using theoretical generalizations, which he detailed in his work The Principles of Sociology. Additionally, Tyler used the comparative method with archeological evidence to “approximate” earlier cultures to contemporary cultures. Tyler used the comparative method in his concept of “survivals”. Tylor used “survivals” as reasonable foundations for inferences about evolutionary changes within various cultures. Similarly, Morgan took ethnographic materials from different cultures and compared cultures based on a “range of human progress from savagery to civilization”. After, Sanderson describes the usage of classical evolutionism among early evolutionists, he critics the four major objections presented by Boas and his followers on classical evolutionism.
Boas argued that a historical method should be used to compare processes of growth of cultures not results of cultures. Sanderson states how criticisms against the comparative method are still widely accepted and used among antievolutionary scholars, but “Are these criticisms valid?”. Sanderson uses Marvin Harris’s critique in response to the validity of the antievolutionary criticism. Harris states that the comparative method used by classical evolutionists was “in principle sound”, but there must be a distinction between its appropriate usage and the abuses of evolutionism by nineteenth-century evolutionists. Harris states that classical evolutionists often undervalued the diversity in ancient societies and contemporary societies, which is one of the abuses of evolutionism and as a result errors were made. However, Marvin Harris argues the usage of the comparative method if it is properly used. Boas also states that classical evolutionist were unilinear evolutionist, but Sanderson refutes this idea through statements used by Marvin Harris. Marvin Harris discusses the concept of strong unilinearism and weak unilinearism to dismiss the notion that all classical evolutionist was rooted in rigid unilinearism. Thus, Harris describes the work of contemporary classical evolutionist as weak
unilinearist. Spencer stated that classical evolutionist can be identified based on their writing analyses as weak unilinearist. Within the chapter, Sanderson continues his argument on why the Boasian critique of classical evolutionism is invalid. I believe Sanderson provided a great analysis on the invalid nature of the argument posed by Boasians regarding classical evolutionism. I agree with Marvin Harris on the usefulness of the comparative method if it is being used properly and in a nondiscriminatory/ nonethnocentric manner. I believe it is worthwhile in the discipline of anthropology to view differences within cultures as oppose to focusing solely on their similarities. Therefore, I agree with Sanderson assertion that classical evolutionism should not be devalued compared to historical particularism because classical evolutionism can help provide a helpful framework in studying cultures.