Editing Franz Boas (section)

==Later career: academic anthropology==
[[File:PSM V63 D575 Columbia university library.png|thumb|Columbia University library in 1903]]
Boas was appointed a lecturer in physical anthropology at [[Columbia University]] in 1896, and promoted to professor of anthropology in 1899. However, the various anthropologists teaching at Columbia had been assigned to different departments. When Boas left the Museum of Natural History, he negotiated with Columbia University to consolidate the various professors into one department, of which Boas would take charge. Boas's program at Columbia was the first [[Doctor of Philosophy]] (PhD) program in [[anthropology]] in America.<ref>(The first American PhD in anthropology was actually granted from [[Clark University]], though still under the leadership of Boas.)
Moore, Jerry D. (2009). "Franz Boas: Culture in Context". Visions of Culture: an Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists. Walnut Creek, California: Altamira. pp. 33.</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Lynda |first1=Leavitt |last2=Sherrie |first2=Wisdom |last3=Kelly |first3=Leavitt |title=Cultural Awareness and Competency Development in Higher Education |date=2017 |publisher=IGI Global |isbn=978-1-5225-2146-4 |page=5 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kB8UDgAAQBAJ&q=Boas%27s+program+at+Columbia+became+the+first++PhD+program+in+%5B%5Banthropology%5D&pg=PA5 |access-date=3 February 2020 |language=en}}</ref>

During this time Boas played a key role in organizing the American Anthropological Association (AAA) as an umbrella organization for the emerging field. Boas originally wanted the AAA to be limited to professional anthropologists, but [[William John McGee]] (another geologist who had joined the BAE under Powell's leadership) argued that the organization should have an open membership. McGee's position prevailed and he was elected the organization's first president in 1902; Boas was elected a vice-president, along with Putnam, Powell, and Holmes.

At both Columbia and the AAA, Boas encouraged the "four-field" concept of anthropology; he personally contributed to [[physical anthropology]], [[linguistics]], [[archaeology]], as well as [[cultural anthropology]]. His work in these fields was pioneering: in physical anthropology he led scholars away from static taxonomical classifications of race, to an emphasis on human biology and evolution; in linguistics he broke through the limitations of classic [[philology]] and established some of the central problems in modern linguistics and cognitive anthropology; in cultural anthropology he (along with the Polish-English anthropologist [[Bronisław Malinowski]]) established the contextualist approach to culture, cultural relativism, and the [[participant observation]] method of fieldwork.

The four-field approach understood not merely as bringing together different kinds of anthropologists into one department, but as reconceiving anthropology through the integration of different objects of anthropological research into one overarching object, was one of Boas's fundamental contributions to the discipline, and came to characterize American anthropology against that of
[[England]], [[France]], or [[Germany]]. This approach defines as its object the human species as a totality. This focus did not lead Boas to seek to reduce all forms of humanity and human activity to some lowest common denominator; rather, he understood the essence of the human species to be the tremendous variation in human form and activity (an approach that parallels Charles Darwin's approach to species in general).

In his 1907 essay, "Anthropology", Boas identified two basic questions for anthropologists: "Why are the tribes and nations of the world different, and how have the present differences developed?".<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Boas |first=Franz |url=http://archive.org/details/anthropologyalec00boas |title=Anthropology [a lecture delivered at Columbia University in the series on science, philosophy and art, December 18, 1907] |date=1908 |publisher=New York, The Columbia University Press |others=The Library of Congress}}</ref> Amplifying these questions, he explained the object of anthropological study thus:

<blockquote>We do not discuss the anatomical, physiological, and mental characteristics of a man considered as an individual; but we are interested in the diversity of these traits in groups of men found in different geographical areas and in different social classes. It is our task to inquire into the causes that have brought about the observed differentiation and to investigate the sequence of events that have led to the establishment of the multifarious forms of human life. In other words, we are interested in the anatomical and mental characteristics of men living under the same biological, geographical, and social environment, and as determined by their past.<ref name=":1" /></blockquote>

These questions signal a marked break from then-current ideas about human diversity, which assumed that some people have a history, evident in a historical (or written) record, while other people, lacking writing, also lack history. For some, this distinction between two different kinds of societies explained the difference between history, sociology, economics and other disciplines that focus on people with writing, and anthropology, which was supposed to focus on people without writing. Boas rejected this distinction between kinds of societies, and this division of labor in the academy. He understood all societies to have a history, and all societies to be proper objects of the anthropological society. In order to approach literate and non-literate societies the same way, he emphasized the importance of studying human history through the analysis of other things besides written texts. Thus, in his 1904 article, "The History of Anthropology", Boas wrote that

<blockquote>The historical development of the work of anthropologists seems to single out clearly a domain of knowledge that heretofore has not been treated by any other science. It is the biological history of mankind in all its varieties; linguistics applied to people without written languages; the ethnology of people without historical records; and prehistoric archeology.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Boas |first=Franz |date=1904 |title=The History of Anthropology |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1631123 |journal=Science |volume=20 |issue=512 |pages=513–524 |doi=10.1126/science.20.512.513 |jstor=1631123 |pmid=17797024 |bibcode=1904Sci....20..513B |issn=0036-8075}}</ref></blockquote>

Historians and social theorists in the 18th and 19th centuries had speculated as to the causes of this differentiation, but Boas dismissed these theories, especially the dominant theories of [[Sociocultural evolution|social evolution]] and [[cultural evolution]] as speculative. He endeavored to establish a discipline that would base its claims on a rigorous empirical study.

One of Boas's most important books, ''[[The Mind of Primitive Man]]'' (1911), integrated his theories concerning the history and development of cultures and established a program that would dominate American anthropology for the next fifteen years. In this study, he established that in any given population, biology, language, material, and symbolic culture, are autonomous; that each is an equally important dimension of human nature, but that no one of these dimensions is reducible to another. In other words, he established that culture does not depend on any independent variables. He emphasized that the biological, linguistic, and cultural traits of any group of people are the product of historical developments involving both cultural and non-cultural forces. He established that cultural plurality is a fundamental feature of humankind and that the specific cultural environment structures much individual behavior.

Boas also presented himself as a role model for the citizen-scientist, who understand that even were the truth pursued as its own end, all knowledge has moral consequences. ''The Mind of Primitive Man'' ends with an appeal to [[humanism]]:

<blockquote>I hope the discussions outlined in these pages have shown that the data of anthropology teach us a greater tolerance of forms of civilization different from our own, that we should learn to look on foreign races with greater sympathy and with a conviction that, as all races have contributed in the past to cultural progress in one way or another, so they will be capable of advancing the interests of mankind if we are only willing to give them a fair opportunity.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Boas |first=Franz |url=http://archive.org/details/cu31924026391346 |title=The mind of primitive man : a course of lectures delivered before the Lowell Institute, Boston, Mass., and the National University of Mexico, 1910-1911 |date=1911 |publisher=New York : Macmillan |others=Cornell University Library |pages=278}}</ref></blockquote>

===Physical anthropology===
Boas's work in [[physical anthropology]] brought together his interest in Darwinian evolution with his interest in migration as a cause of change. His most important research in this field was his study of changes in the body from among children of immigrants in New York. Other researchers had already noted differences in height, cranial measurements, and other physical features between Americans and people from different parts of Europe. Many used these differences to argue that there is an innate biological difference between races. Boas's primary interest—in symbolic and material culture and in language—was the study of processes of change; he therefore set out to determine whether bodily forms are also subject to processes of change. Boas studied 17,821 people, divided into seven ethno-national groups. Boas found that average measures of the cranial size of immigrants were significantly different from members of these groups who were born in the United States. Moreover, he discovered that average measures of the cranial size of children born within ten years of their mothers' arrival were significantly different from those of children born more than ten years after their mothers' arrival. Boas did not deny that physical features such as height or cranial size were inherited; he did, however, argue that the environment has an influence on these features, which is expressed through change over time. This work was central to his influential argument that differences between races were not immutable.<ref>{{cite journal|last1 = Allen|first1 = John S.|year = 1989|title = Franz Boas's Physical Anthropology: The Critique of Racial Formalism Revisited|url=https://archive.org/details/sim_current-anthropology_1989-02_30_1/page/79/mode/2up|journal = Current Anthropology|volume = 30|issue = 1| pages = 79–84|doi=10.1086/203716| s2cid = 144974459 }}</ref><ref name="Jackson2005p148">{{Cite book |title=Science for Segregation: Race, Law, and the Case against Brown v. Board of Education |last=Jackson |first= John P. |publisher=[[NYU Press]] |year=2005 |isbn=978-0-8147-4271-6}}
*{{cite web |title=Book Review: Science for Segregation: Race, Law, and the Case Against Brown v. Board of Education |url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/25.2/br_19.html |website=History Cooperative|date=18 October 2020 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |title=Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant |last=Spiro |first=Jonathan P. |publisher=Univ. of Vermont Press |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-58465-715-6}}</ref> Boas observed:

<blockquote>The head form, which has always been one of the most stable and permanent characteristics of human races, undergoes far-reaching changes due to the transfer of European races to American soil. The East European Hebrew, who has a round head, becomes more long-headed; the South Italian, who in Italy has an exceedingly long head, becomes more short-headed; so that both approach a uniform type in this country, so far as the head is concerned.<ref>Abbott, Karen, ''Sin in the Second City'', Random House, 2008, p. 206</ref></blockquote>

These findings were radical at the time and continue to be debated. In 2002, the anthropologists Corey&nbsp;S.&nbsp;Sparks and [[Richard Jantz|Richard&nbsp;L.&nbsp;Jantz]] claimed that differences between children born to the same parents in Europe and America were very small and insignificant and that there was no detectable effect of exposure to the American environment on the cranial index in children. They argued that their results contradicted Boas's original findings and demonstrated that they may no longer be used to support arguments of plasticity in cranial [[morphology (biology)|morphology]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1 = Sparks|first1 = Corey S.|last2 = Jantz|first2 = Richard L.|year = 2002|title = A reassessment of human cranial plasticity: Boas revisited|journal = PNAS|volume = 99|issue = 23| pages = 14636–14639|doi=10.1073/pnas.222389599|pmid=12374854|pmc=137471| bibcode = 2002PNAS...9914636S|doi-access = free }}</ref> However, [[Jonathan M. Marks|Jonathan Marks]]—a well-known physical anthropologist and former president of the General Anthropology section of the [[American Anthropological Association]]—has remarked that this revisionist study of Boas's work "has the ring of desperation to it (if not obfuscation), and has been quickly rebutted by more mainstream biological anthropology".<ref>Marks, Jonathan '' What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and Their Genes'', University of California Press, 2003 {{ISBN|978-0-520-24064-3}} p. xviii [https://books.google.com/books?id=HUBe0wjowLMC&dq=Jonathan+Marks+ring+of+desperation++Boas&pg=PR18]</ref> In 2003 anthropologists Clarence C. Gravlee, H. Russell Bernard, and William R. Leonard reanalyzed Boas's data and concluded that most of Boas's original findings were correct. Moreover, they applied new statistical, computer-assisted methods to Boas's data and discovered more evidence for cranial plasticity.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://lance.qualquant.net/gravleeetal03a.pdf |title=Archived copy |website=lance.qualquant.net |access-date=17 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050325220928/http://lance.qualquant.net/gravleeetal03a.pdf |archive-date=25 March 2005 |url-status=dead}}</ref> In a later publication, Gravlee, Bernard and Leonard reviewed Sparks and Jantz's analysis. They argue that Sparks and Jantz misrepresented Boas's claims and that Sparks's and Jantz's data actually support Boas. For example, they point out that Sparks and Jantz look at changes in cranial size in relation to how long an individual has been in the United States in order to test the influence of the environment. Boas, however, looked at changes in cranial size in relation to how long the mother had been in the United States. They argue that Boas's method is more useful because the prenatal environment is a crucial developmental factor.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/people/faculty/CG_pubs/gravlee03b.pdf |title=Archived copy |website=www.anthro.fsu.edu |access-date=17 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040421082034/http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/people/faculty/CG_pubs/gravlee03b.pdf |archive-date=21 April 2004 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

A further publication by Jantz based on Gravlee et al. claims that Boas had [[cherry picking (fallacy)|cherry picked]] two groups of immigrants (Sicilians and Hebrews) which had varied most towards the same mean, and discarded other groups which had varied in the opposite direction. He commented, "Using the recent reanalysis by Gravlee et al. (2003), we can observe in Figure 2 that the maximum difference in the cranial index due to immigration (in Hebrews) is much smaller than the maximum ethnic difference, between Sicilians and Bohemians. It shows that long-headed parents produce long headed offspring and vice versa. To make the argument that children of immigrants converge onto an "American type" required Boas to use the two groups that changed the most."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.understandingrace.org/resources/pdf/myth_reality/jantz.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101130163534/http://understandingrace.org/resources/pdf/myth_reality/jantz.pdf |archive-date=2010-11-30 |url-status=live |title=The Meaning and Consequences of Morphological Variation |author=Richard L. Jantz |website=Understandingrace.org |access-date=2017-03-04}}</ref>

Although some [[sociobiology|sociobiologists]] and [[evolutionary psychology|evolutionary psychologists]] have suggested that Boas was opposed to Darwinian evolution, Boas, in fact, was a committed proponent of Darwinian evolutionary thought. In 1888, he declared that "the development of ethnology is largely due to the general recognition of the principle of biological evolution". Since Boas's times, physical anthropologists have established that the human capacity for culture is a product of human evolution. In fact, Boas's research on changes in body form played an important role in the rise of Darwinian theory.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Massin |first=Benot |title=Volksgeist as method and ethic: Essays on Boasian ethnography and the German anthropological tradition |publisher=Univ of Wisconsin Press. |year=1996 |isbn=978-0-299-14554-5 |editor-last=Stocking |editor-first=G.W. |pages=122 |chapter=From Virchow to Fisher: Physical Anthropology and "Modern Race Theories" in Wilhelmine Germany}}</ref> Boas was trained at a time when biologists had no understanding of genetics; [[Mendelian genetics]] became widely known only after 1900. Prior to that time biologists relied on the measurement of physical traits as empirical data for any theory of evolution. Boas's biometric studies led him to question the use of this method and kind of data. In a speech to anthropologists in Berlin in 1912, Boas argued that at best such statistics could only raise biological questions, and not answer them.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Boas |first=Franz |date=1913 |title=Veränderungen der Körperform der Nachkommen von Einwanderern in Amerika |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23031137 |journal=Zeitschrift für Ethnologie |volume=45 |issue=1 |pages=1–22 |jstor=23031137 |issn=0044-2666}}</ref> It was in this context that anthropologists began turning to genetics as a basis for any understanding of biological variation.

===Linguistics===
Boas also contributed greatly to the foundation of linguistics as a science in the United States. He published many descriptive studies of Native American languages, wrote on theoretical difficulties in classifying languages, and laid out a research program for studying the relations between language and culture which his students such as [[Edward Sapir]], [[Paul Rivet]], and [[Alfred Kroeber]] followed.<ref>{{cite journal|last1 = Jakobson|first1 = Roman|last2 = Boas|first2 = Franz|year = 1944|title = Franz Boas' Approach to Language|journal = International Journal of American Linguistics|volume = 10|issue = 4| pages = 188–195|doi=10.1086/463841| s2cid = 144088089 }}</ref><ref>Boas' view of grammatical meaning. R Jakobson – American Anthropologist, 1959</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1 = Mackert|first1 = Michael|year = 1993|title = The Roots of Franz Boas' View of Linguistic Categories As a Window to the Human Mind|journal = Historiographia Linguistica|volume = 20|issue = 2–3| pages = 331–351|doi = 10.1075/hl.20.2-3.05mac }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1 = Darnell|first1 = Regna|year = 1990|title = Franz Boas, Edward Sapir, and the Americanist Text Tradition|journal = Historiographia Linguistica|volume = 17|issue = 1–2| pages = 129–144|doi=10.1075/hl.17.1-2.11dar}}</ref><ref>Stocking, G. W. 1974. "The Boas plan for the study of American Indian languages," in Studies in the history of linguistics: Traditions and paradigms. Edited by D. Hymes, pp. 454–83. Bloomington: Indiana University Press</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1 = Postal|first1 = Paul M.|year = 1964|title = Boas and the Development of Phonology: Comments Based on Iroquoian|journal = International Journal of American Linguistics|volume = 30|issue = 3| pages = 269–280|doi=10.1086/464784| s2cid = 145771488 }}</ref>

His 1889 article "On Alternating Sounds", however, made a singular contribution to the methodology of both linguistics and cultural anthropology.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Boas |first=Franz |date=1889 |title=On Alternating Sounds |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/658803 |journal=American Anthropologist |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=47–54 |jstor=658803 |issn=0002-7294}}</ref> It is a response to a paper presented in 1888 by [[Daniel Garrison Brinton]], at the time a professor of American linguistics and archaeology at the [[University of Pennsylvania]]. Brinton observed that in the spoken languages of many Native Americans, certain sounds regularly alternated. Brinton argued that this pervasive inconsistency was a sign of linguistic and evolutionary inferiority.

Boas had heard similar phonetic shifts during his research in Baffin Island and in the Pacific Northwest. Nevertheless, he argued that "alternating sounds" is not at all a feature of Native American languages—indeed, he argued, they do not really exist. Rather than take alternating sounds as objective proof of different stages in cultural evolution, Boas considered them in terms of his longstanding interest in the subjective perception of objective physical phenomena. He also considered his earlier critique of evolutionary museum displays. There, he pointed out that two things (artifacts of material culture) that appear to be similar may, in fact, be quite different. In this article, he raises the possibility that two things (sounds) that appear to be different may, in fact, be the same.

In short, he shifted attention to the ''perception'' of different sounds. Boas begins by raising an empirical question: when people describe one sound in different ways, is it because they cannot perceive the difference, or might there be another reason? He immediately establishes that he is not concerned with cases involving perceptual deficit—the aural equivalent of color-blindness. He points out that the question of people who describe one sound in different ways is comparable to that of people who describe different sounds in one way. This is crucial for research in descriptive [[linguistics]]: when studying a new language, how are we to note the [[pronunciation]] of different words? (In this point, Boas anticipates and lays the groundwork for the distinction between [[phonemics]] and [[phonetics]].) People may pronounce a word in a variety of ways and still recognize that they are using the same word. The issue, then, is not "that such sensations are not recognized in their individuality" (in other words, people recognize differences in pronunciations); rather, it is that sounds "are classified according to their similarity" (in other words, that people classify a variety of perceived sounds into one category). A comparable visual example would involve words for colors. The English word ''[[green]]'' can be used to refer to a variety of shades, hues, and tints. But there are some languages that have no word for ''green''.<ref>Berlin, Brent and Paul Kay 1969 ''Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution''</ref> In such cases, people might classify what we would call ''green'' as either ''yellow'' or ''blue''. This is not an example of color-blindness—people can perceive differences in color, but they categorize similar colors in a different way than English speakers.

Boas applied these principles to his studies of [[Inuit languages]]. Researchers have reported a variety of spellings for a given word. In the past, researchers have interpreted this data in a number of ways—it could indicate local variations in the pronunciation of a word, or it could indicate different [[dialect]]s. Boas argues an alternative explanation: that the difference is not in how Inuit pronounce the word, but rather in how English-speaking scholars perceive the pronunciation of the word. It is not that English speakers are physically incapable of perceiving the sound in question; rather, the phonetic system of English cannot accommodate the perceived sound.

Although Boas was making a very specific contribution to the methods of descriptive linguistics, his ultimate point is far reaching: observer bias need not be personal, it can be cultural. In other words, the perceptual categories of Western researchers may systematically cause a Westerner to misperceive or to fail to perceive entirely a meaningful element in another culture. As in his critique of Otis Mason's museum displays, Boas demonstrated that what appeared to be evidence of cultural evolution was really the consequence of unscientific methods and a reflection of Westerners' beliefs about their own cultural superiority. This point provides the methodological foundation for Boas's [[cultural relativism]]: elements of a culture are meaningful in that culture's terms, even if they may be meaningless (or take on a radically different meaning) in another culture.

===Cultural anthropology===
{{main|Boasian anthropology}}
[[File:Boas Kwakiutl mask drawing - cropped.jpg|thumb|right|Drawing of a [[Kwakiutl]] mask from Boas's ''The Social Organization and the Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians'' (1897). Wooden skulls hang from below the mask, which represents one of the cannibal bird helpers of Bakbakwalinooksiwey.]]

The essence of Boas's approach to ethnography is found in his early essay on "The Study of Geography". There he argued for an approach that

{{blockquote|... considers every phenomenon as worthy of being studied for its own sake. Its mere existence entitles it to a full share of our attention, and the knowledge of its existence and evolution in space and time fully satisfies the student.}}

When Boas's student [[Ruth Benedict]] gave her presidential address to the American Anthropological Association in 1947, she reminded anthropologists of the importance of this [[idiographic]] stance by quoting literary critic A.&nbsp;C.&nbsp;Bradley: "We watch 'what is', seeing that so it happened and must have happened".

This orientation led Boas to promote a cultural anthropology characterized by a strong commitment to
* [[Empiricism]] (with a resulting skepticism of attempts to formulate "scientific laws" of culture)
* A notion of [[culture]] as fluid and dynamic
* [[ethnography|Ethnographic]] fieldwork, in which the anthropologist resides for an extended period among the people being researched, conducts research in the native language, and collaborates with native researchers, as a method of collecting data, and
* [[Cultural relativism]] as a methodological tool while conducting fieldwork, and as a heuristic tool while analyzing data.

Boas argued that in order to understand "what is"—in cultural anthropology, the specific cultural traits (behaviors, beliefs, and symbols)—one had to examine them in their local context. He also understood that as people migrate from one place to another, and as the cultural context changes over time, the elements of a culture, and their meanings, will change, which led him to emphasize the importance of local histories for an analysis of cultures.

Although other anthropologists at the time, such as [[Bronisław Malinowski]] and [[Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown]] focused on the study of societies, which they understood to be clearly bounded, Boas's attention to history, which reveals the extent to which traits diffuse from one place to another, led him to view cultural boundaries as multiple and overlapping, and as highly permeable. Thus, Boas's student [[Robert Lowie]] once described culture as a thing of "shreds and patches". Boas and his students understood that as people try to make sense of their world they seek to integrate its disparate elements, with the result that different cultures could be characterized as having different configurations or patterns. But Boasians also understood that such integration was always in tensions with diffusion, and any appearance of a stable configuration is contingent (see Bashkow 2004: 445).

During Boas's lifetime, as today, many Westerners saw a fundamental difference between modern societies, which are characterized by dynamism and individualism, and traditional societies, which are stable and homogeneous. Boas's empirical field research, however, led him to argue against this comparison. For example, his 1903 essay, "Decorative Designs of Alaskan Needlecases: A History of Conventional Designs, Based on Materials in a U.S. Museum", provides another example of how Boas made broad theoretical claims based on a detailed analysis of empirical data. After establishing formal similarities among the needlecases, Boas shows how certain formal features provide a vocabulary out of which individual artisans could create variations in design. Thus, his emphasis on culture as a context for meaningful action made him sensitive to individual variation within a society ([[William Henry Holmes]] suggested a similar point in an 1886 paper, "Origin and development of form and ornament in ceramic art", although unlike Boas he did not develop the ethnographic and theoretical implications).

[[File:The Walas'axa (Kuhnert).jpg|thumb|left|A painting by [[Wilhelm Kuhnert]] illustrates the 1894 [[potlatch]] ceremony at Tsaxis, titled "The Walas'axa". Painting printed as Plate 36 in the classic [[Kwakiutl]] study ''The Social Organization and the Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians'', written by Boas (1897).]]
In a programmatic essay in 1920, "The Methods of Ethnology", Boas argued that instead of "the systematic enumeration of standardized beliefs and customs of a tribe", anthropology needs to document "the way in which the individual reacts to his whole social environment, and to the difference of opinion and of mode of action that occur in [[Urgesellschaft|primitive society]] and which are the causes of far-reaching changes". Boas argued that attention to individual agency reveals that "the activities of the individual are determined to a great extent by his social environment, but in turn, his own activities influence the society in which he lives and may bring about modifications in a form". Consequently, Boas thought of culture as fundamentally dynamic: "As soon as these methods are applied, primitive society loses the appearance of absolute stability ... All cultural forms rather appear in a constant state of flux ..." (see Lewis 2001b)

Having argued against the relevance of the distinction between literate and non-literate societies as a way of defining anthropology's object of study, Boas argued that non-literate and literate societies should be analyzed in the same way. Nineteenth-century historians had been applying the techniques of [[philology]] to reconstruct the histories of, and relationships between, literate societies. In order to apply these methods to non-literate societies, Boas argued that the task of fieldworkers is to produce and collect texts in non-literate societies. This took the form not only of compiling lexicons and grammars of the local language, but of recording myths, folktales, beliefs about social relationships and institutions, and even recipes for local cuisine. In order to do this, Boas relied heavily on the collaboration of literate native ethnographers (among the Kwakiutl, most often [[George Hunt (ethnologist)|George Hunt]]), and he urged his students to consider such people valuable partners, inferior in their standing in Western society, but superior in their understanding of their own culture. (see Bunzl 2004: 438–439)

Using these methods, Boas published another article in 1920, in which he revisited his earlier research on Kwakiutl kinship. In the late 1890s, Boas had tried to reconstruct transformation in the organization of Kwakiutl clans, by comparing them to the organization of clans in other societies neighboring the Kwakiutl to the north and south. Now, however, he argued against translating the Kwakiutl principle of kin groups into an English word. Instead of trying to fit the Kwakiutl into some larger model, he tried to understand their beliefs and practices in their own terms. For example, whereas he had earlier translated the Kwakiutl word ''numaym'' as "clan", he now argued that the word is best understood as referring to a bundle of privileges, for which there is no English word. Men secured claims to these privileges through their parents or wives, and there were a variety of ways these privileges could be acquired, used, and transmitted from one generation to the next. As in his work on alternating sounds, Boas had come to realize that different ethnological interpretations of Kwakiutl kinship were the result of the limitations of Western categories. As in his work on Alaskan needlecases, he now saw variation among Kwakiutl practices as the result of the play between social norms and individual creativity.

Before his death in 1942, he appointed [[Helen Codere]] to edit and publish his manuscripts about the culture of the Kwakiutl people.