How's this for a possible theory of world cultures?

Great Debates
1

I’m a Jared Diamond fan. I liked his *Guns, Germs and Steel *because, as far as I know, it was the first theory of the wealth of nations which was scientifically-based, made sense and was not racist or ethnocentrist. So I wonder if any budding anthropologist/historian/linguist/ethnologist out there would be willing to take a crack at this one.

Just as environments have “generations” of colonization by plant and animal life (colonizing lichens, shrubs, evergreens, then mature broadleaf forests), I hypothesize that cultures also have generations.

The oldest cultures are the ones that have continuously occupied an area since prehistory, possibly even being the first humans in the area, and have maintained a distinctive culture and language ever since. These would be the “Zero Generation” cultures, and they would include the Ainu, the Basques, the Finns, the Kurds, South Indian Dravidians, Ethiopians, Coptic-speaking Egyptians, the native Australians, and many of the Native Americans. These cultures are the equivalent of the oldest “old growth” forests.

Next are the “First Generation” cultures, which migrated to their present locations soon after the beginning of recorded history but still have been there for millennia. These would include the Chinese, Arabs and other Semitic peoples, Greeks, Mongols, Celts, Berbers, Polynesians, Madagascar islanders, Bantu, Southeast Asians, Indo-Aryans, Persians, Germans, Scandinavians, Japanese, and Mayans.

Next would be the “Second Generation” cultures, which result from blendings, conquests and migrations of 1G cultures: all the Western European cultures, all the Turkic cultures, all the Arabic-speaking North African cultures, Russians and other Slavs, Hungarians, Mexica-Aztecs, Navaho, Caribs.

“Third Generation” cultures arise from 2G cultures and are hence associated with colonization: the US, Latin America, Afrikaners, Australians.

If there are any 4G cultures, they may be offspring of 3G cultures. Israel may be one example of that.

Notice I am exclusively dealing with cultures that are still extant. For example, the Assyrian people still exist, so they would be an extant 0G culture. So would the Coptic Egyptians, who still use a language descended from Ancient Egyptian. The Sumerians and the Anasazi do not exist any longer, but if they did they would be 0G or 1G.

Whatg do you think? Is this valid? Has anybody else thought of this?

2

I suppose you could define things in that way, but how is it useful to do so? Does it increase understanding of the reason certain cultures develop, or why some civilizations become wealthier than others? I don’t even know if there’s an issue of validity, as it seems to be somewhat a priori true. Though perhaps I am not understanding properly.

3

Yeah, I think it’s an interesting way of looking at it, but does it explain any characteristics of various cultures? Theories are only useful if they help to explain the way things are.

4

Reductionist and ahistorical. You confuse the continuity of names with continuity in culture.

5

Wouldn’t any brief theory on such a broad topic as “world cultures” be, by nature, reductionist?

As well, being that there is certainly a historical component to this theory, would you care to explain your use of the term “ahistorical”?

Note that I use “theory” in its popular meaning, not its scientific one.

6

Is it even really a theory in any sense at all, popular or scientific? It looks to me like the OP just introduces some terminology. No claims are actually made about how any real-world entities designated by these terms interact, or how we can use these concepts to predict or understand history. It seems to me that, at a minimum, you have to make some sort of claim to have a theory.

Not to say that the concepts expressed by these terms aren’t provocative. Maybe an interesting theory could be built using this language. But I don’t see that any theory-building has been done yet.

7

Tyrrell’s first paragraph essentially says what I meant to say with my post. But looking at your argument again, there are still problems with it. It assumes a continuity of culture which is not fair to assume. For instance, you define Arab culture as a first generation culture. That might be true, but it does not accurately reflect Arab culture today. By assuming cultures are localized in time, you do not reflect the possibility for temporal change.

8

It’s an interesting idea, but as a history buff myself (as I like to think) a couple problems, correct me if I’m missing something.

  1. It’s based entirely on geographics, which isn’t the whole story. Where do the Mongols fit in? They migrated over Eurasia rather late in the historical time-span. Migrations aren’t adequately explained in this.
  2. It’s really hard to define what is first generation and what is second, for example.
  3. how do you define culture? By nation, geography or race? What about the Roman Empire? Are they not a culture? In the racial/ethnic sense, they were more of a conglomeration. But in terms of culture, I would venture to say they were.
  4. Another thing. The Dravidians and Aryans eventually came together in India. Are they still different cultures, today as one but yesterday as two?
9

My grandfather was born in the 1840’s. I “should” have been a Victorian but I am an early Boomer. What happens to people like me in your theory?

It’s an interesting idea though. I think that you might enjoy the book Generations which presents another theory. It is a fascinating read.

10

*Originally posted by tclouie *

I’m a big fan of Guns, Germs, and Steel as well, but I don’t think using a biological analogy will work very well in dealing with cultures as you’ve outlined above. I’m not saying it’s not possible - but I do know that anthropologists and other have tried. Check out work by Franz Boas to get his take on why using a biological analogy is problematic. (In fact, if I recall correctly, he was largely responsible for reputiating the biological analogy to the study of cultures in US anthropology).

Your generations seem rather arbitrary. Why China as second generation? Most historians, anthropologists, etc. identify Chinese culture/civilization as one of the oldest in the world. Much later than the Finns and Ethiopians.

Another factor that would need to be considered is one’s definition of culture. Language is but one part, and even here there’s variability within given cultures/civilizations. It seems that you’ve focused principally on language as the key element is defining culture - most anthropologists would consider language but a part.

Finally, you’ve completely left out much of Sub-Saharan Africa. Just because the people living there didn’t keep extensive records doesn’t mean that those people didn’t have a culture (or didn’t have an impact on other cultures).

If your interested, you might want to check out “Nonzero - The Logic of Human Destiny” by Robert Wright. In the beginning chapters, he covers Lewis Morgan (who influenced Marx) and anthropologist Leslie White. Both put forth theories of cultural evolution that were based similarly to biological evolution (Morgan, I believe, was influenced by Darwin, but I could be wrong).

11

i think you got it too basic. GG&S was probably the smallest you could break down the individual parts of cultural aspects without sacrificing massive historical nececities. Diamond himself mentions numerous times that his explinations are super-over-simplified. Your migratory patterns are simplified to the point of uselessness, IMO. Your theory needs to be more largely expanded and a better definition of the differnt cultures needs to be presented.
Take these suggestions as you will.

12

In rereading my reply, I should have been more explicit in my response in re Boas and his repudiation of a biological analogy towards culture. To be more specific, Boas’s “historical particularism” was put forth to counter the “biological determinism/social darwinism” of culture that was in vogue in the mid-1800’s to early 1900’s.

Boas (and others) agreed that cultures evolved, but that the way in which they evolved was different (or not the same as put forth by Darwin and others) from living things. Thus, his repudiation of biological determinism (a la Spencer) as a basis for studying cultures.

I recommend Marvin Harris’s “Rise of Anthropological Theory (RAT)” to gain a grounding in the “evolution” of theory in anthropology over it’s history (particularly in the US). Be forewarned that Harris is (or was - he passed away a few years ago) a cultural materialist, and the way in which RAT is structured leads one to infer that all previous theory in anthropology was moving towards a cultural materialist perspective. I’m sure many anthropologists would disagree strongly with Harris’s assessment. But it does provide tons of references/information.

Oh, and for those who are interested. Jared Diamond was recently hired by the Department of Geography at UCLA even though his formal training isn’t in geography. Don’t know what that says about geography, but being a geographer myself I’m tickled to say I can now claim him as one of our own.