386 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIV. No. 874 



falls into a common scheme. Unfortu- 

 nately this is not so in anthropology. At 

 the present time there is so great a degree 

 of divergence between the methods of work 

 of the leading schools of different countries 

 that any common scheme is impossible, and 

 the members of one school wholly distrust 

 the work of others whose conclusions they 

 believe to be founded on a radically un- 

 sound basis. 



I propose to consider in this address one 

 of the most striking of these divergences, 

 but, before doing so, I will put as briefly 

 as possible what seem to me to be the chief 

 characters of the leading schools of differ- 

 ent countries. To begin with that domi- 

 nant among ourselves. The theoretical 

 anthropology of this country is inspired 

 primarily by the idea of evolution founded 

 on a psychology common to mankind as a 

 whole, and further, a psychology differing 

 in no way from that of civilized man. The 

 efforts of British anthropologists are de- 

 voted to tracing out the evolution of custom 

 and institution. Where similarities are 

 found in different parts of the world it is 

 assumed, almost as an axiom, that they are 

 due to independent origin and develop- 

 ment, and this in its turn is ascribed to the 

 fundamental similarity of the workings of 

 the human mind all over the world, so that, 

 given similar conditions, similar customs 

 and institutions will come into existence 

 and develop on the same lines. 



In France we find that, as among our- 

 selves, the chief interest is in evolution, and 

 the difference is in the principles upon 

 which this evolution is to be studied. It is 

 to the psychological basis of the work of 

 British anthropologists that objection is 

 chiefly made. It is held that the psychol- 

 ogy of the individual can not be used as a 

 guide to the collective actions of men in 

 early stages of social evolution, still less 

 the psychology of the individual whose 



social ideas have been molded by the long- 

 ages of evolution which have made our own 

 society what it is. It is urged that the 

 study of sociology requires the application 

 of principles and methods of investigation 

 peculiar to itself.^ 



About America it is less easy to speak,, 

 because it is unusual in that country ■ to 

 deal to any great extent with general the- 

 oretical problems. The anthropologists of 

 America are so fully engaged in the at- 

 tempt to record what is left of the ancient 

 cultures of their own country that they 

 devote little attention to those general 

 questions to which we, more unfortunately 

 situated with no ancient culture at our 

 doors, devote so much attention. There 

 seems, however, to be a distinct movement 

 in progress in America which puts the 

 evolutionary point of view on one side and 

 is inclined to study social problems from, 

 the purely psychological point of view, the 

 psychological standpoint, however, ap- 

 proaching that of the' British school more 

 nearly than that of the French.^ 



It is when we come to Germany that we 

 find the most fundamental difference in 

 standpoint and method. It is true that in 

 Adolf Bastian Germany produced one who 

 was thoroughly imbued with the evolution- 

 ary standpoint, and the Elementargedanke 

 of that worker forms a most convenient 

 expression for the psychological means, 

 whereby evolution is supposed to have 



- 1 refer here especially to the work of the 

 "sociological" school of Durkheim and his fol- 

 . lowers. For an account of their principles and 

 methods see L'Annee sooiologique, which began to 

 appear in 1898; Durkheim, "Les Regies de la 

 Methode Sociologique, " Paris; and Levy-Bruhl,, 

 "Les fonctions mentales dans les soeietes inferi- 

 eures, " Paris, 1910. 



^ See especially A. L. Kroeber, ' ' Classificatory 

 Systems of Eelationship, " Journ. Soy. Anthr.- 

 Inst., 1909, XXXIX., 77; and Goldenweiser,,. 

 "Totemism: An Analytical Study," Journ. Amer.- 

 Folk-Lore, 1910, XXIII. 



