Editing Franz Boas (section)

===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.