Diffusionism and Evolutionism as Explanations of Culture Change — 2015 Paper I

Approach

• Demand of Question: Compare evolutionism and diffusionism as alternative anthropological explanations of cultural change.
• Structuring the Response: Explain their assumptions, mechanisms and major scholars, then compare their strengths and limitations systematically.
• Key Dimensions to Cover: Tylor, Morgan, Frazer, unilinear evolution, diffusion, culture circles, British diffusionism, German-Austrian school, independent invention and historical contact.

Model Answer

Introduction: Evolutionism and diffusionism were two early anthropological explanations of cultural change. Evolutionists explained similarities largely through independent development through common stages, whereas diffusionists emphasized the spread of cultural traits through contact between societies.

Evolutionist explanation

Nineteenth-century evolutionists such as:

• E.B. Tylor;
• L.H. Morgan;
• James Frazer

argued that human societies develop from relatively simple toward increasingly complex forms.

Morgan’s model illustrates this:

Savagery → Barbarism → Civilization

Evolutionists assumed:

1. broad psychic unity of humankind;
2. similar problems produce similar inventions;
3. cultural institutions develop through recognizable stages;
4. similarities between distant societies may arise through independent invention.

Culture change was therefore largely interpreted as:

Internal development → Increasing complexity

Diffusionist explanation

Diffusionists reacted against the evolutionists’ tendency to assume repeated independent invention.

They argued that cultural traits often spread through:

• migration;
• borrowing;
• trade;
• conquest;
• intermarriage;
• other forms of contact.

Thus:

Culture A → Contact → Trait transmission → Culture B

German-Austrian diffusionism

Scholars such as Fritz Graebner and Wilhelm Schmidt developed the idea of Kulturkreise or culture circles.

Complexes of related traits were believed to originate in particular centres and spread geographically.

British diffusionism

1. Elliot Smith and W.J. Perry adopted an extreme diffusionist position, arguing that many major cultural inventions originated in Egypt and subsequently spread elsewhere.

This hyper-diffusionism greatly underestimated independent invention.

Major differences

Evolutionism	Diffusionism
Emphasizes internal development	Emphasizes external transmission
Similarity due to psychic unity/independent invention	Similarity due mainly to historical contact
Focus on stages	Focus on geographical spread
Primarily developmental	Primarily historical
Tylor, Morgan, Frazer	Graebner, Schmidt, Elliot Smith
Often unilinear	Often culture-area/culture-circle oriented

Different views of cultural similarity

For an evolutionist:

Similar trait in A and B → Similar stage of development

For a diffusionist:

Similar trait in A and B → Possible borrowing/common origin

Contributions

Evolutionism drew attention to:

• long-term cultural transformation;
• comparative study;
• increasing complexity of institutions.

Diffusionism highlighted:

• migration;
• historical contact;
• borrowing;
• geographical distribution of cultural traits.

Limitations

Evolutionism was criticized for:

• speculative reconstruction;
• ethnocentrism;
• unilinear assumptions.

Diffusionism was criticized because:

• extreme forms reduced invention to very few centres;
• borrowing does not explain why societies accept, reject or modify traits;
• internal innovation and adaptation were underestimated.

Contemporary synthesis

Modern anthropology recognizes that culture changes through several interacting mechanisms:

Invention + Diffusion + Adaptation + Historical circumstances

Borrowed traits are also rarely copied mechanically; receiving societies select and reinterpret them.

Conclusion

Evolutionism explains culture change primarily through internal developmental processes, while diffusionism stresses historical transmission between societies. Both captured real processes but became inadequate when treated exclusively. Contemporary anthropology therefore views cultural change as the result of innovation interacting with diffusion, local adaptation and historical context.