After this presentation of the ideas of two pioneers of the evolutionary trend in anthropology, we attempt to define the general outlines of this theory as evident from their thesis. In the first place, it is noted that according to this trend, the human mind can only be understood by linking it to the historical mind. Understanding theoretical practice is only possible through history as the history of homogeneous human beings contained in one general circle. As for differentiation, it is the result of a specific historical circumstance. Human societies represent a homogeneous continuum composed of evolutionary layers and parallel divisions. The concept of degrees of historical development is a basic criterion for development that follows a straight line. Human beings developed accordingly, through their unification within a specific sphere of life and within specific conditions, and through the resulting practices and economy, a cultural and societal unity.
The supporters of the evolutionary trend saw progress as the fruit of integration in material tools and the fruit of complexity in relationships during complex evolutionary stages. Progress is demonstrated by the transition from the animal stage to the primitive stage and from this to barbarism and civilization. During the industrial revolution, the criterion for progress became measured by the degree of technical development. The principle of the unity of the human race is based on the universality of technical knowledge, as expressed by Morgan, who wrote, “We find a unity in the thought of the barbaric primitives and the civilized man. It is the same thing that helped humans invent the same tools and the same utensils when they are subject to the same relationships, and what also helps in inventing the same social institutions and developing them from beginnings that cannot be seen: from the Stone Age and the arrows whose image shone in the mind of the primitive, to the mixing of metals, in which the intelligence of the barbarian is represented, and finally to moving the railway train. This is the victory of the cities.”
Thus, growth and progress leave their mark on various areas of social life. Morgan described this in his writings as follows: “Intelligence is determined by invention and discovery,” “the development of social law,” “the development of the concept of the family,” and “the development of the concept of property.” Thus, every unit, every human group/society can be counted as far as the material and mental conditions of life of the group are concerned. They can be placed in the same social class as long as they are a product of the same class. It is clear from this that Morgan viewed evolution as a straight line. Primitiveness is a state that preceded barbarism, which in turn preceded civilization, and this is what Morgan finds in all of humanity in all its various groups. The history of the human race has known a unified form in its origins, in its experience, and in its progress (this is Taylor’s opinion as well).
We can trace the same formation, which includes the stages of urbanization, to the same primary influences and causes. As for the various degrees of formation, they are equivalent to the stages of development, so that each cycle is the offspring of the previous one and a contribution to shaping the history of the future.
Thus, it is permissible to say that the opinions of evolutionists are that the history of humanity and the history of culture represents an ascending line of customs, traditions, beliefs, organizations, tools, machines, and ideas. And that humanity has passed through cultural stages that range from uncomplicated forms to complex forms and then more complex ones, and that this ascending line from the bottom to the top is similar in parts of the world as a result of the psychological unity of human beings in every place and time, which is what made the evolutionists in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries preoccupied with the idea of the development of culture and human society through stages of change from one state to another, more than they were preoccupied with the idea of discovering the basic laws that govern the process of the development of culture.
Briefly, we point out that the birth of anthropology as a profession in connection with specific theoretical trends occurred in the second half of the nineteenth century in an intellectual atmosphere in which evolutionary hypotheses and theories prevailed in the field of the natural history of living organisms and in the field of human societies alike, along with increasing Western control over world affairs. The great achievements made by the natural sciences had an impact in urging those working with social and ethical issues at the time to adopt the application of the basics of the scientific method in their studies. Thinkers in general, including sociologists and anthropologists in particular, have been concerned with a specific question: How did the world's cultures arise and develop? Despite the dominance of evolutionary thought within the framework of the emergence and development of human societies (i.e. cultures) in one line, there was also another answer to this question within the framework of the diffusion theory, whose roots extend to thinkers prior to the nineteenth century.
Advocates of this trend assume that contact between different peoples has resulted in cultural friction and a process of spread of some or all cultural traits, which explains the cultural disparity between peoples. Advocates of this trend start from the assumption that the process of spread begins from a specific cultural center and moves over time to different parts of the world through communications between peoples.
Since the theory of cultural diffusion seeks to reveal episodes that link cultures together as a result of their interaction geographically and temporally, it also adheres to the historical principle in the relations of cultures with one another.
Two schools of cultural diffusion have emerged in Europe. Friedrich Ratzel was a pioneer of the first school and adopted a historical-geographical approach influenced by the German geographical school. He focused on the importance of cultural contacts and relations between peoples and the role of those relations in the growth of culture. Ratzel claimed that agriculture relied either on the ax or the plow, which explains the differences between agricultural cultures. He was followed in this by Hahn, a specialist in human geography, and the latter claimed that the domestication of animals followed the discovery of axe-based agriculture. Although Hahn admits that axe-based agriculture may have appeared several times in different parts of the world, he emphasizes that the cultivation of the plow, the domestication of animals, and the discovery of the potter's wheel all took place in the ancient Near East and then spread from there to the rest of the world. As for Heinring Schurz, he highlighted the idea of the existence of cultural relations between the Old World (Indonesia and Malaysia) and the New World (the Americas). Leover and Pinius developed the idea of cross-oceanic cultural transmission by claiming cultural diffusion from Indonesia to Africa. In his book, which he published in 1898, entitled “The Origin of African Cultures,” he tried to prove the existence of a Malay-Negro cultural circle in West Africa, which he explained by the arrival of Indonesian cultural influence in the form of a cultural wave to the eastern coast of Africa, and then its crossing to West Africa, where the remnants of that wave still exist, while its remnants have disappeared in East Africa as a result of the subsequent Bantu and Hamitic migrations. Thus, Euphorbinius was the first to introduce the concept of the “cultural circle” into ethnology, a concept that received its subsequent development in the works of Grapes, the idea of a single origin of human culture, assuming the existence of several basic cultural centers in different parts of the world. As a result of the meeting of cultures, cultural circles arose, some fusion processes occurred, and different formations emerged, which explains the apparent differences in the basic cultures. In 1905, Grapes published his study “Cultural Circles and Classes in the Pacific Islands,” in which he used a myriad of cultural elements linked to each other to form a cultural circle. Using chronological sequence and its spread in Australia and the Pacific Islands. In 1911, Grabes published his book “The Method of Ethnology,” in which he drew the general outlines of his diffusionist school.
As for Wilhelm Schmidt, he published with Wilhelm Küppers a summary of the opinions of the “Vienna” school, and they affirmed the existence of eternal cultures that represent the oldest types of contemporary cultural groups. These ancient cultures (the Pygmies of Africa and Asia, the Vedas in Sri Lanka, the Sinui in Malaya, and the Kupu in Sumatra) represented the first cultural circle. The second circle was represented by the pastoral cultures in the regions of Siberia and Central Asia (where the Samoyeds in northern Siberia domesticated the reindeer, the Turkmen domesticated the horse, then the groups that domesticated cattle and goats... etc.).
The idea of the cultural circle includes two points: the existence and entity of the cultural circle, and the cultural circle as an ethnological research method. Schmidt defines the cultural circle by saying: “If a complete culture contains everything: the material, economic, social, ordinary and religious aspects, then we call it the cultural circle because it is integrated and returns to itself like a circle. It is self-sufficient, and thus secures the independence of its existence. It - that is, culture - in the event that it neglects or fails to satisfy one or more important human needs allows for compensation from another culture. The greater the number of compensation elements, the less this culture is a cultural circle.” (Independent). Schmidt adds that all the elements of culture are organically cohesive and not merely automatic associations. Often one of the aspects of culture in the circle dominates the rest of the manifestations, and then imprints these aspects with its own character. He gives the example of the Umayyad lineage linked to the Umayyad lineage groups who often worship the moon, while the sky god is the dominant god among the shepherds and the sun god among the totem groups of patrilineal lineage.
In his research that he published on “Diffusionism: Transmission and Acceptance” in the book “Contemporary Anthropology,” which was supervised by Thomas and published in 1956, Kupers summarized the most important points of view of the Austrian-diffusionist school. Muhammad Riad translated those points in his book “Man: A Study in Species and Civilization.”
1- Since culture and man (since his inception) are simultaneous, history in its broadest sense includes the entire period in which man appeared on earth until today.
2- No researcher - ancient or modern - denies that cultural diffusion and the degree of its transmission are accepted as a reality.
3- Diffusion is an important principle in ethnological and prehistoric studies. As a result of the lack of written documents, comparative studies of cultural characteristics are needed in order to obtain spatial, temporal and causal factors.
4- Diffusers must use the scale of form and number known to the historical method. There is no doubt that this approach will not lead to a history similar to what we find in scientific historical writings. The cultural element here represents evidence based on connections, and this evidence becomes stronger as a result of the extent to which the cultural element is connected to the rest of the culture. We cannot ignore this evidence, as it represents part of the historical process.
5- Cultural spread does not represent all historical events. Studying cultural elements does not replace historical documents, but it provides important additions to this historical trend. In the event of a lack of historical documents, as is the case when studying prehistory and primitive groups, it becomes unreasonable to refrain from interpreting facts in ethnology and archaeology.
6- Diffusion studies are based on cultural similarities, even in cases where we cannot be sure of the existence of connections and migrations between cultural similarities. There is no doubt that our assertion that the two similar phenomena arose independently becomes unacceptable because it assumes something more verifiable than the previous connections. In general, we can leave the door open without making a decision.
7- Spread, transmission, and acceptance do not all proceed according to certain rules. There are always multiple opportunities for acceptance or modification, which is the opportunity of free choice for the majority of groups.
8- It follows that each case of cultural diffusion must be dealt with on its own and according to its circumstances.
It is worth noting that the idea of cultural circles was, as a whole, a more precise and better method and method than the ideas of the Second Diffusion School, which was founded in Britain by the British anatomist Elliot Smith, who was interested in human antiquities and structures. Smith, as well as his student Perry, believed that human culture arose on the banks of the Nile and flourished in ancient Egypt, approximately five thousand years BC. When conditions were available and contacts began between groups and peoples, some aspects of that ancient Egyptian culture were transmitted to the rest of the world. In his book “The Migration of Civilizations,” which he published in 1915, Smith confirms, through his study of ethnographic similarities outside Egypt, that Egypt was a center of culture and from there it moved to the world of the Mediterranean, the Middle East, Africa, India, Indonesia, the world of the Pacific Ocean, and the Americas.
In 1923, Perry published his book “Children of the Sun,” in which he identified one element that dominated the entire Egyptian culture...the belief in the divinity of kings, children of the sun, and thus the worship of the sun. Perry was interested in several Egyptian cultural elements in their global distribution, such as mummification, building pyramids, and the value that the ancient Egyptians gave to precious metals as a force that grants long life...etc.
As for America, the spreading trend found its expression in the writings of Franz Boas, the German naturalist who became fascinated by anthropology after a visit he made to Baffin Island in Canada in 1883. Boas pointed out that by studying the form and geographical distribution of the source of cultural traits and their migration and borrowing through contact between peoples, the researcher can infer how cultural traits arise and develop, and thus it is possible to arrive at a theory that has the elements of truth and proof to explain human societies and the development of Social systems or cultural traits. Based on this understanding, Boas used the term cultural regions, which refers to groups of geographical regions, each of which is characterized by a specific cultural pattern, regardless of whether any of these regions contains peoples or groups. The concept of the cultural region refers to common ways of behavior among a number of societies that are characterized by their participation in a number of aspects of culture as a result of a certain degree of communication and interaction.
According to this theoretical framework, the American school, led by Boas, sought to accomplish an accurate historical study of the various elements of a specific culture, analyzing each part or element in terms of the source of its origin, development, and use, and tracing the processes of its migration or borrowing among different peoples. As a result of this spreading trend, anthropologists began to look at human cultures, taking into account that they constitute independent entities in terms of origin and development and in terms of their main features that distinguish them from others. This puts the spreading trend in contrast to the evolutionary trend, which sees cultures as similar and that the only difference between them lies only in the degree of their technical and economic development. The diffusionist school has undermined, if not the problem of the evolutionary trend, then at least its method. The diffusionist trend at least moved away from a linear understanding of history, and on the other hand made the theory of history subsequent to the analysis of the partial histories of each society as an independent whole. Thus, Boas wrote, “When we clarify the history of a single culture and understand the influences of the environment and the psychological conditions in which they are reflected, we have taken a step forward. We can also investigate the influential causes during its formation, or during the development of that culture. Thus, by understanding the sections of growth, we can discover general laws. This method is more secure. From the comparative (evolutionary) method, which is often practiced, instead of establishing a hypothesis that deals with a pattern of development, actual history provides the basis for conclusions.
We believe that most of cultural anthropology is contained in this text: the concept of culture, descriptive analysis of the physical environment, psychological interpretation, and skepticism about history. In his statement, Boas was interested in questioning the method that governs traditional anthropological work. However, there is criticism of the concept of classes and segments. We find in Lovy's book "Primitive Society" (1920) a complete rejection of Morgan's basic concepts: a single-linear succession of evolutionary classes, the concept of kinship system, the concept of descent, etc. Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown, as we will see, drew these results in their various dimensions.
The functional trend is one of the basic theoretical trends in anthropology and sociology. This trend took shape as a theoretical approach to studying human cultures at a time when the spread trend arose in both Europe and America as a reaction to the premise of the evolutionary trend. However, the idea of function is ancient and found expression in the works of philosophers and thinkers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The functionalist trend was mainly associated with social anthropology in Britain under the names Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown.
Functionalism was associated with the organic trend in the natural sciences. The functional trend in social anthropology was defined by its focus on studying human cultures individually according to their spatial and temporal reality, because functionalism is not a simultaneous study as much as it is instantaneous. In this, the functional trend differed from historical studies, the distinctive tendency of each of the two evolutionary and diffuse trends. The trend, which became known as organic similarity, was initially evident in the works of Scottish moral philosophers such as Adam Smith, David Hume, and others who saw society as a natural order arising from human nature, not from the social contract. Montesquieu used the concept of system in his book “The Spirit of Laws” by laying the foundations of the overall social system based on the functional connection of the parts of society. The idea of the social system became the powerful factor in laying the foundations of comparative sociology and social anthropology. Functional analysis has become an essential input into the analyzes of sociologists and social anthropologists to link the social system and its function to the characteristics of the behavior of the individuals who compose that system. The social system includes a number of systems, each system performing its specific function in order to maintain the integrity of the system. Functionalists view human societies as social systems whose parts depend on each other and each part of which enters into a number of necessary relationships with the other parts. Herbert Spencer went further on the subject of similarity, as he likened society in terms of structure and function to a living organism, considering that society grows and develops just as the first grows and develops.
Spencer used the terminology of the natural sciences in his functional structural analyzes of society and social life, such as physiology, morphology, ecology, etc. He clearly pointed out that the building consists of the parts that are included in its composition and in infinite partial elements that play their role in the process of support between all the parts that are included in the composition of the overall building.
Emile Durkheim is truly considered the link between the thought that prevailed in the nineteenth century and the new trends of social thought that appeared at the beginning of the nineteenth century and the new trends of social thought that appeared at the beginning of the twentieth century. Durkheim took a position rejecting the organic explanations offered by supporters of the organic trend such as Herbert Spencer, ruling out the possibility of explaining social phenomena through organic similarity. Durkheim sought to liberate social phenomena from their psychological contents and to strip them of their biological origins by focusing on studying these phenomena from a purely social point of view within the limits of sociology. Durkheim believes that a social phenomenon must enjoy its independence as a stand-alone phenomenon, that is, it has its own independent existence from biological phenomena. It can only be affected socially and can only be explained on social grounds. In his book “The Division of Labor,” Durkheim used function in two senses: first, by referring to a system of vital movements necessary for the life of an organism, and second, by referring to the relationship between those vital movements and the needs of the organism (the function of breathing and digestion, for example). Durkheim used the concept of role synonymous with the concept of function, because when he talks about the function of religion, for example, he refers to the role that religion plays in social life. Durkheim advises his students in his words: If you want to study a social phenomenon, you must reach the cause that led to the function that the phenomenon performs.
Bronisław Malinowski continued