Culture, Genuine and
Spurious
An Excerpt from Edward Sapir's
Classic 1924 Paper
Biographical Note:
For
those who don't know of him, Sapir is a revered figure
in anthropology, a brilliant linguist and student of
Franz Boas known particularly for his analysis and
recording of a number of dying Native American languages
-- in several cases by interviewing the last living
speaker. He was active during that fertile period of
anthropology when the genius of many diverse cultures --
the genius of human culture itself, in all its forms --
was recognized and documented. Sapir's work, with
others, helped establish the intricate structure of what
were formerly regarded as "primitive" non-western
cultures, hardly worthy of serious study. In fact Sapir
and others showed how we even had a thing or two to
learn from them -- the subject of this essay.
While
it departs from a supposedly unbiased scientific
description and argues for a transformation in our own
culture, it does so from an informed scientific
perspective. It warns us -- in 1921! -- of the
corrosive cultural effects of our economic society, the
"great cultural fallacy of industrialism."
...We may accept culture as signifying the
characteristic mold of a
national civilization, while from a second conception of
culture, that of
a traditional type of individual refinement, we will
borrow the notion of
ideal form. Let me say at once that nothing is farther
from my mind than
to plead the cause of any specific type of culture. It
would be idle to praise
or blame any fundamental condition of our civilization,
to praise or blame
any strand in the warp and woof of its genius. These
conditions and these
strands must be accepted as basic .... In other words, a
genuine culture
is perfectly conceivable in any type or stage of
civilization, in the mold of
any national genius. It can be conceived as easily in
terms of a Moham-
medan polygamous society, or of an American Indian
"primitive" non-
agricultural society, as in those of our familiar
occidental societies. On the
other hand, what may by contrast be called "spurious"
cultures are just as
easily conceivable in conditions of general
enlightenment as in those of rela-
tive ignorance and squalor.
The genuine culture is not of necessity either high
or low; it is merely
inherently harmonious, balanced, self-satisfactory. It
is the expression of a
richly varied and yet somehow unified and consistent
attitude toward life,
an attitude which sees the significance of any one
element of civilization in
its relation to all others. It is, ideally speaking, a
culture in which nothing is
spiritually meaningless, in which no important part of
the general function-
ing brings with it a sense of frustration, of
misdirected or unsympathetic
effort. It is not a spiritual hybrid of contradictory
patches, of water-tight
compartments of consciousness that avoid participation
in a harmonious
synthesis. If the culture necessitates slavery, it
frankly admits it; if it abhors
slavery, it feels its way to an economic adjustment that
obviates the neces-
sity of its employment. It does not make a great show in
its ethical ideals
of an uncompromising opposition to slavery, only to
introduce what
amounts to a slave system into certain portions of its
industrial mechanism.
Or, if it builds itself magnificent houses of worship,
it is because of the
necessity it feels to symbolize in beautiful stone a
religious impulse that is
deep and vital; if it is ready to discard
institutionalized religion, it is pre-
pared also to dispense with the homes of
institutionalized religion. It does
not look sheepish when a direct appeal is made to its
religious conscious-
ness, then make amends by furtively donating a few
dollars toward the
maintenance of an African mission. Nor does it carefully
instruct its chil-
dren in what it knows to be of no use or vitality either
to them or in its own
mature life. Nor does it tolerate a thousand other
spiritual maladjustments
such as are patent enough in our American life of today.
It would be too
much to say that even the purest examples yet known of a
genuine culture
have been free of spiritual discords, of the dry rot of
social habit, devital-
ized. But the great cultures, those that we
instinctively feel to have been
healthy spiritual organisms, such as the Athenian
culture of the Age of
Pericles and, to a less extent perhaps, the English
culture of Elizabethan
days, have at least tended to such harmony.
It should be clearly understood that this ideal of
a genuine culture
has no necessary connection with what we call
efficiency. A society may
be admirably efficient in the sense that all its
activities are carefully planned
with reference to ends of maximum utility to the society
as a whole, it may
tolerate no lost motion, yet it may well be an inferior
organism as a culture-
bearer. It is not enough that the ends of activities be
socially satisfactory,
that each member of the community feel in some dim way
that he is doing
his bit toward the attainment of a social benefit. This
is all very well so far
as it goes, but a genuine culture refuses to consider
the individual as a mere
cog, as an entity whose sole raison d'etre lies in his
subservience to a col-
lective purpose that he is not conscious of or that has
only a remote rele-
vancy to his interests and strivings. The major
activities of the individual
must directly satisfy his own creative and emotional
impulses, must always
be something more than means to an end. The great
cultural fallacy of in-
dustrialism, as developed up to the present time, is
that in harnessing ma-
chines to our uses it has not known how to avoid the
harnessing of the
majority of mankind to its machines. The telephone girl
who lends her
capacities, during the greater part of the living day,
to the manipulation of
a technical routine that has an eventually high
efficiency value but that
answers to no spiritual needs of her own is an appalling
sacrifice to civiliza-
tion. As a solution of the problem of culture she is a
failure--the more
dismal the greater her natural endowment. As with the
telephone girl, so,
it is to be feared, with the great majority of us,
slave-stokers to fires that
burn for demons we would destroy, were it not that they
appear in the guise
of our benefactors. The American Indian who solves the
economic problem
with salmon-spear and rabbit-snare operates on a
relatively low level of
civilization, but he represents an incomparably higher
solution than our
telephone girl of the questions that culture has to ask
of economics. There
is here no question of the immediate utility, of the
effective directness, of
economic effort, nor of any sentimentalizing regrets as
to the passing of the
"natural man." The Indian's salmon-spearing is a
culturally higher type of )
activity than that of the telephone girl or mill hand
simply because there is
normally no sense of spiritual frustration during its
prosecution, no feeling
of subservience to tyrannous yet largely inchoate
demands, because it works in naturally with all the rest
of the Indian's activities instead of standing out as a
desert patch of merely economic effort in the whole of
life. A genuine culture cannot be defined as a sum of
abstractly desirable ends, as a mechanism. It must be
looked upon as a sturdy plant growth, each remotest leaf
and twig of which is organically fed by the sap at the
core. And this growth is not here meant as a metaphor
for the group only; it is meant to apply as well to the
individual. A culture that does not build itself out of
the central interests and desires of its bearers,
that works from general ends to the individual, is
an external culture. The word "external," which is so
often instinctively chosen to describe such a culture,
is well chosen. The genuine culture is internal,
it works from the individual to ends.
We have already seen that there is no necessary
correlation between
the development of civilization and the relative
genuineness of the culture
which forms its spiritual essence. This requires a word
of further explana-
tion. By the development of civilization is meant the
ever increasing degree
of sophistication of our society and of our individual
lives. This progressive
sophistication is the inevitable cumulative result of
the sifting processes of
social experience, of the ever increasing complication
of our innumerable
types of organization; most of all of our steadily
growing knowledge of our
natural environment and, as a consequence, our practical
mastery, for
economic ends, of the resources that nature at once
grants us and hides from
us. It is chiefly' the cumulative force of this
sophistication that gives us the
sense of what we call "progress." Perched on the heights
of an office build-
ing twenty or more stories taller than our fathers ever
dreamed of, we feel
that we are getting up in the world. Hurling our bodies
through space with
an ever accelerating velocity, we feel that we are
getting on. Under sophisti-
cation I include not merely intellectual and technical
advance, but most of
the tendencies that make for a cleaner and healthier
and, to a large extent,
a more humanitarian existence. It is excellent to keep
one's hands spotlessly
clean, to eliminate smallpox, to administer anesthetics.
Our growing sophis-
tication, our ever increasing solicitude to obey the
dictates of common sense,
make these tendencies imperative. It would be sheer
obscurantism to wish
to stay their progress. But there can be no stranger
illusion--and it is an
illusion we nearly all share--than this, that because
the tools of life are
today more specialized and more refined than ever
before, that because the
technique brought by science is more perfect than
anything the world has
yet known, it necessarily follows that we are in like
degree attaining to a
profounder harmony of life, to a deeper and more
satisfying culture. It is as
though we believed that an elaborate mathematical
computation which in-
volved figures of seven and eight digits could not but
result in a like figure.
Yet we know that one million multiplied by zero gives us
zero quite as
effectively as one multiplied by zero. The truth is that
sophistication, which
is what we ordinarily mean by the progress of
civilization, is, in the long
run, a merely quantitative concept that defines the
external conditions for
the growth or decay of cultur.eXWe are right to have
faith in the progress
of civilization. We are wrong 16' assume that the
maintenance or even ad-
vance of culture is a function of such progress. A
reading of the facts of
ethnology and culture history proves plainly that maxima
of culture have
frequently been reached in low levels of sophistication;
that minima of cul-
ture have been plumbed in some of the highest.
Civilization, as a whole,
moves on; culture comes and goes ....
It is perhaps the sensitive ethnologist who has
studied an aboriginal
civilization at first hand who is most impressed by the
frequent vitality of
culture in less sophisticated levels. He cannot but
admire the well-rounded
life of the average participant in the civilization of a
typical American In-
dian tribe; the firmness with which every part of that
life--economic, so-
cial, religious, and aesthetic--is bounded together into
a significant whole
in respect to which he is far from a passive pawn; above
all, the molding
role, oftentimes definitely creative, that he plays in
the mechanism of his
culture. When the political integrity of his tribe is
destroyed by contact with
the whites and the old cultural values cease to have the
atmosphere needed
for their continued vitality, the Indian finds himself
in a state of bewildered
vacuity. Even if he succeeds in making a fairly
satisfactory compromise
with his new environment, in making what his
well-wishers consider great
progress toward enlightenment, he is apt to retain an
uneasy sense of the
loss of some vague and great good, some state of mind
that he would be
hard put to it to define, but which gave him a courage
and joy that latter-day
prosperity never quite seems to have regained for him.
What has happened
is that he has slipped out of the warm embrace of a
culture into the cold
air of fragmentary existence. What is sad about the
passing of the Indian is
not the depletion of his numbers by disease nor even the
contempt that is
too often meted out to him in his life on the
reservation, it is the fading
away of genuine cultures, built though they were out of
the materials of a
low order of sophistication.
We have no right to demand of the higher levels of
sophistication that
they preserve to the individual his manifold
functioning, but we may well
ask whether, as a compensation, the individual may not
reasonably demand
an intensification in cultural value, a spiritual
heightening, of such functions
as are left him. Failing this, he must be admitted to
have retrograded. The
limitation in functioning works chiefly in the economic
sphere. It is there-
fore imperative, if the individual is to preserve his
value as a cultured being,
that he compensate himself out of the non-economic, the
non-utilitarian
spheres--social, religious, scientific, aesthetic. This
idea of compensation
brings to view an important issue, that of the immediate
and the remoter
ends of human effort.
As a mere organism, man's only function is to
exist; in other words,
to keep himself alive and to propagate his kind. Hence
the procuring of
food, clothing, and shelter for himself and those
dependent on him con-
stitutes the immediate end of his effort. There are
civilizations, like that of
the Eskimo, in which by far the greater part of man's
energy is consumed
in the satisfaction of these immediate ends, in which
most of his activities
contribute directly or indirectly to the procuring and
preparation of food
and the materials for clothing and shelter. There are
practically no civiliza-
tions, however, in which at least some of the available
energy is not set free
for the remoter ends, though, as a rule, these remoter
ends are by a process
of rationalization made to seem to contribute to the
immediate ones. (A
magical ritual, for instance, which, when considered
psychologically, seems
to liberate and give form to powerful emotional
aesthetic elements of our
nature, is nearly always put in harness to some humdrum
utilitarian end--
the catching of rabbits or the curing of disease. ) As a
matter of fact, there
are very few "primitive" civilizations that do not
consume an exceedingly
large share of their energies in the pursuit of the
remoter ends, though it
remains true that these remoter ends are nearly always
functionally or
pseudo-functionally interwoven with the immediate ends.
Art for art's sake
may be a psychological fact on these less sophisticated
levels; it is certainly
not a cultural fact.
On our own level of civilization the remoter ends
tend to split off
altogether from the immediate ones and to assume the
form of a spiritual
escape or refuge from the pursuit of the latter. The
separation of the two
classes of ends is never absolute nor can it ever be; it
is enough to note
the presence of a powerful drift of the two away from
each other. It is easy
to demonstrate this drift by examples taken out of our
daily experience.
While in most primitive civilizations the dance is apt
to be a ritual activity
at least ostensibly associated with purposes of an
economic nature, it is with
us a merely and self-consciously pleasurable activity
that not only splits
off from the sphere of the pursuit of immediate ends but
even tends to
assume a position of hostility to that sphere. In a
primitive civilization a
great chief dances as a matter of course, oftentimes as
a matter of exercising
a peculiarly honored privilege. With us the captain of
industry either refuses
to dance at all or does so as a half-contemptuous
concession to the tyranny
of social custom. On the other hand, the artist of a
Ballet Russe has sub-
limated the dance to an exquisite instrument of
self-expression, has suc-
ceeded in providing himself with an adequate, or more
than adequate, cul-
tural recompense for his loss of mastery in the realm of
direct ends. The
captain of industry is one of the comparatively small
class of individuals
that has inherited, in vastly complicated form,
something of the feeling of
control over the attainment of direct ends that belongs
by cultural right
to primitive man; the ballet dancer has saved and
intensified for himself the
feeling of spontaneous participation and creativeness in
the world of in-
direct ends that also belongs by cultural right to
primitive man. Each has
saved part of the wreckage of a submerged culture for
himself ....
The transformation of ends is of the greatest
cultural importance be-
cause it acts as a powerful force for the preservation
of culture in levels
in which a fragmentary economic functioning of the
individual is inevitable.
So long as the individual retains a sense of control
over the major goods
of life, he is able to take his place in the cultural
patrimony of his people.
Now that the major goods of life have shifted so largely
from the realm of
immediate to that of remote ends, it becomes a cultural
necessity for all
who would not be looked upon as disinherited to share in
the pursuit of
these remoter ends. No harmony and depth of life, no
culture, is possible
when activity is well-nigh circumscribed by the sphere
of immediate ends
and when functioning within that sphere is so
fragmentary as to have no
inherent intelligibility or interest. Here lies the
grimmest joke of our present
American civilization. The vast majority of us, deprived
of any but an in-
significant and culturally abortive share in the
satisfaction of the immediate
wants of mankind, are further deprived of both
opportunity and stimulation
to share in the production of non-utilitarian values.
Part of the time we are
dray horses; the rest of the time we are listless
consumers of goods which
have received no least impress of our personality. In
other words, our
spiritual selves go hungry, for the most part, pretty
much all of the time.
There is no real opposition, at last analysis,
between the concept of a
culture of the group and the concept of an individual
culture. The two are
interdependent. A healthy national culture is never a
passively accepted
heritage from the past, but implies the creative
participation of the members
of the community; implies, in other words, the presence
of cultured in-
dividuals ....
It is only an apparent paradox that the subtlest and
the most decisive
cultural influences of personality, the most fruitful
revolts, are discernible
in those environments that have long and uninterruptedly
supported a
richly streaming culture. So far from being suffocated
in an atmosphere of
endless precedent, the creative spirit gains sustenance
and vigor for its own
unfolding and, if it is strong enough, it may swing free
from that very at-
mosphere with a poise hardly dreamed of by the timid
iconoclasts of un-
formed cultures. Not otherwise could we understand the
cultural history
of modern Europe. Only in a mature and richly
differentiated soil could
arise the iconoclasms and visions of an Anatole France,
a Nietzsche, an
Ibsen, a Tolstoi. In America, at least in the America of
yesterday, these
iconoclasms and these visions would either have been
strangled in the
cradle, or, had they found air to breathe, they would
have half-developed
into a crude and pathetic isolation. There is no sound
and vigorous individ-
ual incorporation of a cultured ideal without the soil
of a genuine com-
munal culture; and no genuine communal culture without
the transforming
energies of personalities at once robust and saturated
with the cultural
values of their time and place ....
The individual self, then, in aspiring to culture,
fastens upon the ac-
cumulated cultural goods of its society, not so much for
the sake of the
passive pleasure of their acquirement, as for the sake
of the stimulus given
to the unfolding personality and of the orientation
derived in the world (or
better, a world) of cultural values. The orientation,
conventional as it may
be, is necessary if only to give the self a modus
vivendi with society at large.
The individual needs to assimilate much of the cultural
background of his
society, many of the current sentiments of his people,
to prevent his self-
expression from degenerating into social sterility. A
spiritual hermit may be
genuinely cultured, but he is hardly socially so ....
No greater test of the genuineness of both
individual and communal
culture can be applied than the attitude adopted toward
the past, its institu-
tions, its treasures of art and thought. The genuinely
cultured individual or
society does not contemptuously reject the past. They
honor the works of
the past, but not because they are gems of historical
chance, not because,
being out of our reach, they must needs be looked at
through the enshrining
glass of museum cases. These works of the past still
excite our heartfelt
interest and sympathy because, and only in so far as,
they may be recog-
nized as the expression of a human spirit warmly akin,
despite all differences
of outward garb, to our own. This is very nearly
equivalent to saying that
the past is of cultural interest only when it is still
the present or may yet
become the future. Paradoxical as it may seem, the
historical spirit has al-
ways been something of an anticultural force, has always
acted in some
measure as an unwitting deterrent of the cultural
utilization of the past.
. . . We know immensely more about Hellenic antiquity in
these days than
did the scholars and artists of the Renaissance; it
would be folly to pretend
that our live utilization of the Hellenic spirit,
accurately as we merely know
it, is comparable to the inspiration, the creative
stimulus, that those men of
the Renaissance obtained from its fragmentary and
garbled tradition ....
To summarize the place of the individual in our
theory of culture, we
may say that the pursuit of genuine culture implies two
types of reconcilia-
lion. The self seeks instinctively for mastery. In the
process of acquiring a
sense of mastery that is not crude but proportioned to
the degree of sophis-
tication proper to our time, the self is compelled to
suffer an abridgment and
to undergo a molding. The extreme differentiation of
function which the
progress of man has forced upon the individual menaces
the spirit; we have
no recourse but to submit with good grace to this
abridgment of our activity,
but it must not be allowed to clip the wings of the
spirit unduly. This is the
first and most important reconciliation--the finding of
a full world of spiri-
tual satisfactions within the straight limits of an
unwontedly confined eco-
nomic activity. The self must set itself at a point
where it can, if not em-/
brace the whole spiritual life of its group, at least
catch enough of its raysl
to burst into light and flame. Moreover, the self must
learn to reconcile its
consciousness of that community and of its past, not
merely that it may ob-
tain the wherewithal to grow at all, but that it may
grow where its power,
great or little, will be brought to bear on a spiritual
life that is of intimate
concern to other wills. Yet, despite all
reconciliations, the self has a right
to feel that it grows as an integral, self-poised,
spiritual growth, whose ulti-
mate justifications rest in itself, whose sacrifices and
compensations must be
justified to itself. The conception of the self as a
mere instrument toward
the attainment of communal ends, whether of state or
other social body, is
to be discarded as leading in the long run to
psychological absurdities and
to spiritual slavery. It is the self that concedes, if
there is to be any conces-
sion. Spiritual freedom, what there is of it, is not
alms dispensed, now in-
differently, now grudgingly, by the social body. That a
different philosophy
of the relation of the individual to his group is now so
prevalent, makes it
all the more necessary to insist on the spiritual
primacy of the individual
soul ....
It is in the New World, perhaps more than in any
other part of the
globe, that the unsatisfactory nature of a
geographically widespread culture,
of little depth or individuality to begin with, is
manifest. To find substan-
tially the same cultural manifestations, material and
spiritual, often indeed
to the minutest details, in New York and Chicago and San
Francisco is
saddening. It argues a shallowness in the culture itself
and a readiness to
imitation in its bearers that is not reassuring. Even if
no definite way out of
the flat cultural morass is clearly discernible for the
present, there is no
good in basking forever in self-sufficiency. It can only
be of benefit to search
out the depths of our hearts and to find wherein they
are wanting. If we
exaggerate our weakness, it does not matter; better
chastening than self-
glorification. We have been in the habit of giving
ourselves credit for es-
sentially quantitative results that are due rather to an
unusually favoring
nature and to a favoring set of economic conditions than
to anything in our-
selves. Our victories have been brilliant, but they have
also too often been
barren for culture. The habit of playing with loaded
dice has given us a
dangerous attitude of passivity--dangerous, that is, for
culture. Stretching
back opulently in our easy chairs, we expect great
cultural things to happen
to us. We have wound up the machinery, and admirable
machinery it is;
it is "up to" culture to come forth, in heavy panoply.
The minute increment
of individuality which alone makes culture in the self
and eventually builds
up a culture in the community seems somehow overlooked.
Canned culture
is so much easier to administer.
Just now [1924] we are expecting a great deal from
the European
war. No doubt the war and its aftermath will shake us
out of some part of
our smugness and let in a few invigorating air currents
of cultural influence,
but, if we are not careful, these influences may soon
harden into new stan-
dardizations, or become diluted into another stock of
imitative attitudes
and reactions. The war and its aftermath cannot be a
sufficient cultural
cause, they are at best but another set of favoring
conditions. We need not
be too much astonished if a Periclean culture does not
somehow automati-
cally burst into bloom. Sooner or later we shall have to
get down to thet
humble task of exploring the depths of our consciousness
and dragging to
the light what sincere bits o[ reflected experience we
can find. These bits
will not always be beautiful, they will not always be
pleasing, but they will
be genuine. And then we can build. In time, in plenty of
time--for we must
have patience--a genuine culture--better yet, a series
of linked autono-
mous cultures--will grace our lives. And New York and
Chicago and San
Francisco will live each in its own cultural strength,
not squinting from
one to another to see which gets ahead in a race for
external values, but
each serenely oblivious of its rivals because growing in
a soil of genuine
cultural values.
Top
|