236 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BuU. 188 



ence to local institutions. Of paramount importance is the recognition 

 of any pattern of general subordination or even subjugation of one 

 group to the other (cf . Kedfield, Linton, and Herskovits, 1936, p. 150) . 

 Any such condition will tend to produce a more or less unilateral 

 structure of influence, that is, exerted almost entirely by one culture 

 group upon the other. As a further corollary, the major contact 

 institutions are likely to be those of the superordinate society. 



The second heading m table 37 refers to the necessity of identifying 

 the contact institutions in the community as a preliminary to the 

 study of their influence. It is also necessary to know to what extent 

 they monopolize culture contact in the community, or to what extent 

 they are supplemented by indirect and nonpersonal contacts. 



The detailed study of contact institutions begins with the considera- 

 tion of their relations with their own culture. Two important con- 

 cepts are introduced here: levels of sociocultural integration and 

 levels of organization. The first of these is adapted from Steward 

 (1951; 1955, pp. 43-63), who used it as an analytical tool in de- 

 scribing relations within a single sociocultural system. Whether 

 the culture which is manifested by any particular contact institu- 

 tion is a purely local or subcultural phenomenon, or whether it is 

 part of a national cultural synthesis (cf. Steward, 1955, pp. 64r-77) 

 has an important bearing on the role of the contact institution as 

 originator and/or transmitter. Levels of organization are a neces- 

 sary dependent of levels of integration. Sociocultural systems are 

 not necessarily formally organized at the levels at which they are 

 integrated ; however, within the system there is likely to be a hierarchy 

 of organizational levels (cf. chart J) of which the contact institution 

 is one. An additional important consideration is the total extent and 

 the areas (e.g., material culture, economics, religion, etc.) of its own 

 culture with which the contact institution is familiar and in communi- 

 cation, and thus capable of transmitting (cf. Summer Seminar on 

 Acculturation, 1954, pp. 980-981). 



The relations of contact institutions with each other are an im- 

 portant aspect of culture contact within a restricted locus, and one 

 which has been largely overlooked in earlier studies of the subject. 

 If it is recognized that contact institutions are often activated by 

 very different motives (cf. Summer Seminar on Acculturation, 1954, 

 p. 981), it should be apparent that they are not likely to present a 

 solid front of coordinated activity and interest (see, e.g., Kluckhohn 

 and Leighton, 1946, pp. 77-79). They may not even be in contact 

 with any of the same areas of their own culture. This has been 

 historically true of the position of many missionaries among the 

 various contact institutions on the Navaho Reservation. 



Finally, in the analysis of contact institutions, comes the actual 

 study of "conjunctive," or cross-cultural relations (Summer Seminar 



