clyde kluckhohn and the new anthropology

CLYDE KLUCKHOHN AND THE NEW ANTHROPOLOGY:FROM CULTURE AND PERSONALITY TO THE SCIENTIFIC

STUDY OF VALUES

John S. GilkesonArizona State University

This essay examines Clyde KlnckllOlm's relations with Huth Benedict, MargaretMead, and Cregory Bateson in two contexts: the school of culture andpersonality, and the Conlc'rence on Scienec, Philosophy, and Heligion in ThcirHelation to the Dcmocratie \Vay of Life convened dnring thc Second \Vorld\Var. Kluckholm strongly identified with the Boasian tradition. Enlisting in theBoasian campaign to make Americans marl' "culture-conscions," Kluckholmjoined Benedict and Mead as a pnblic intellectual. In this capacity, Kluckholmsonght to clarify thc' conccpt of culture and to widen its currency, cmphasizcdthe affinity between anthropology and psychiatry, amI, after 1945, searched forthe integrating principles of culturcs.

Introduction

IN 1949, CLYDE KLUCKHOHN published Mirrorfor Man: The Relation ofAnthropology to Modem Life. His book, which won a $10,000 prize offeredby McGraw-Hill for the best popular book on science, was a "manifesto"of "the New Anthropology." Popularized by Ruth Benedict and MargaretMead, the New Anthropology was, in the words of the critic RobertEndleman, "anthropology with a message"-the message that anthropolo-gists now commanded "the knowledge needed to reform the world." TheNew Anthropology had been popularized, between the world wars, byMargaret Mead, who instructed the educated public on such problemsas adolescence, child rearing, and gender roles. Ruth Benedict "forged" the

Pacific Stlldil's, Vol. :32, Nos. 213-JuneiScpt. 2009

2.51

2.52 Pacific Studies, Vol. 32, Nos. 2/3-June/Scpt. 2008

"link" between studying "the exotic primitive" and solving "the problems ofmodern society." Whereas Benedict marshaled anthropological knowledgeto shatter Americans' "ethnocentric ethical conceptions," Kluckhohn hopedto derive the "ultimate values" with which social scientists could promotea peaceful postwar world. (Endleman J 848: 28.5-6, 290).

In Mirror for Man, Kluckhohn declared that antIuopolo!,'Y was "nolonger just the science of the long-ago and far-away," it was "an aid touseful action." Thanks to the "all-embracing" or holistic charactcr of theirdiscipline, anthropologists occupied "a strategic position" to determinewhich "factors" would "create a world community of distinct culturesand hold it together against disruption." Only those experts who, likeanthropologists, were "singularly emancipated from the sway of the locallyaccepted" eould surmount the apparently "unbridgeable gap" between"competing ways of life" by laying barc "the principles that undergird eachculture" ([1949aJ 198.5:286-7). On the heels of the publication of Mirrorfor Man, Kluckhohn appeared on the eover of the January 29, 1948, issueof the Saturday Review (~f Literature, proclaiming that anthropologistsnow had "the beginnings of a science whose principles are applicable toany human situation."

Described by a reviewer as a "prophet" of the New Anthropology(Mishkin 1848, 1.5), Kluekhohn captured anthropologists' exuberance andheady optimism, born of their wartime service and access to policymakers,that they would play prominent roles in postwar reconstruction. No longerpractitioners of what Clifford Gecrtz (2002, .3)has describcd as "an obscure,isolate, even reclusive, lone-wolf sort of discipline," they would increasinglyparticipatc in "multi- (or inter-, or cross-) disciplinary work" and "teamprojects," lavishly flmded by philanthropic foundations and, in some cases,by federal agencies, dedicated to solving "the immediate problems ofthe contemporary world." This enthusiasm proved infectious. For a briefmoment, anthropology loomed as "thc reigning social scicnce" in theeyes of many political scientists, Etmily therapists, historians, and Americanstudies scholars (Pye 1973, 6.5; see also Berkhofer 1873 and Weinstein2(04).

In what follows, I examine Kluckhohn's rclations with Benedict, Mead,and Gregory Bateson in two contexts: the school of culture and personalityand the wartime Conference on Science, Philosophy, and Religion inTheir Relation to the Democratic Way of Life. Although tcchnically nota Boasian-having studied anthropology with Father Wilhelm Schmidt inVienna, Robert Marett in Oxford, and Alfred Tozzer at Harvard-ClydeKay Maben Kluekholm (180.5-1860) nonetheless strongly idcntified with"the Boasian tradition" (Handler 188.5: 80-1). He worshipped Boas as his

Clyde Kluckhohn and the New Anthropology 2.53

"anthropological god" (Kluckhohn to Robert H. Lowie, letter dated October20, 194.5 [Harvard University Archives, Clyde Kluckhohn Papers, HUG4490.3]), and "derived a major part of [his] theoretical orientation from"Benedict (Kluckhohn 1949c, 18). Kluckholm joined Benedict and Meadin communicating anthropologists' findings to the educated public, andagreed with Mead amI Bateson on the fundamental importance of biologyto anthropology (Kluckhohn, Comments on Persons Nominated forConsideration at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciencesas of Febnwnj 23, 1954 [Harvard University Archives, Clyde KluckhohnPapers, HUG 4490.6]; Kluckhohn 19.51a:121-2). In addition, he developeda "close full friendship" with Alfred Kroeber, with whom he attemptedto fix the meaning of the culture concept (Theodora Kroeber 1970, 201;Kroeber and Kluckhohn 19.52). Kluckhohn's closest intellectual afHnityamong the Boasians, however, was with Edward Sapir, and it is this affinitythat helps to explain Kluckholm's eventual turn away from psychoanalyti-cally informed culture and personality to the linguistically informed studyof values (Stocking 1996, 8).

Like Benedict, Kluckholm came to anthropology through affection forthe American Southwest. In 1922-1923, while recuperating on a ranch nearRamah, New Mexico, from the rheumatic fever that interrupted his fresh-man year at Princeton, he became "fascinated" by a nearby band ofNavajo. Kluckholm's academic interests then lay in the classics: he hadstudied Latin in preparatory school. Learning to speak "passable" Navajo,he explored Navajo Country on horseback. After resuming his studies atthe University of Wisconsin in 1924, Klllckhohn majored in Greek and, asa Rhodes Scholar, read classical archaeology in Corpus Christi College,Oxford. He then briefly studied at Harvard Law School, before travelingextensively in Europe, learning French and German, and studying anthro-pology in Vienna with Father Wilhelm Schmidt, a member of the Kulturkreis(culture circle) school of diflusionism. Returning to Oxford, Kluckhohnworked with Robert Marett, a specialist in comparative religion. From 1932until 1934, Kluckholm taught physical anthropology at the University ofNew Mexico and, as an associate of the School for American Research,directed archaeological excavations in Cha

2.54 Pacific Studies, Vol. .32,Nos. 2/3-June/Sept. 2009

Philosophical Society, Anne Roc papers, B/R261]; Kluekholm, Autobiogra-phical Sketch, ca. 1946 [Harvard University Archives, Clyde Kluekhohnpapers, HUG 4490.7]).

Culture and Personality

Although he had been analyzed in 19:31 by Eduard IIitsehmann-oneof Freud's earliest diseiples in Vienna-Kluekhohn did not overcome his"ambivalence" toward psychoanalysis until 1939 (Parsons 197:3: .30-1). Hefirst made his name as an outspoken critic of "the almost morhid avoidaneeof theory" in anthropoloS'Y and archaeology. Until anthropologists andarchaeologists made their "postulates" and "canons of procedure" explieit,and hence subject to "systematic criticism," their findings, Kluckhohn(1939, 1940) insisted, would not have any scientifle standing.

Although his dissertation had heen lihrary-hased, Kluekhohn soon earnedhis spurs as an ethnographer. In 19.36, he hegan fieldwork among theRamah Navajo that would eontinue until his death. Inspired hy the socialpsychologist, John Dollard, whom he had known from his freshman yearat Wisconsin, and by Edward Sapir, with whom he studied the Navajolanguage in New Haven in 1936-19.37, Kluckholm decided to follow arepresentative sample of Navajo children "through time" as they "aequired"their culture in "a needed experiment" to correct "the flat, one-dimensionalquality" of most ethnographies at that time (Kluckholm 1949b, v). In doingso, he became one of the pioneers of "long-term field research" in AmericananthropoloS'Y (Foster et aI., 1979, 7).

While kinship and social organization hored Kluekhohn, he paid closeattention to the details of Navajo religion, ceremonialism, and heliefs.Concerned with individual variation, he documented the frequeney of thehehaviors he ohserved, sought to determine the extent of individual partici-pation in eeremonies, and indicated whether his sourees were informants'statements or his own observations. From the outset, Kluekhohn wasstrongly oriented toward the life-history method, whieh John Dollarddefined as "a deliberate attempt to define the growth of a person in acultural milieu and to make theoretical sense of it" (Dollard [193.5] 1949,iii). Quick, however, to acknowledge the usefulness of statistical analysis,Kluckhohn put his generalizations, whenever possihle, on a quantitativebasis (Lamphere and Vogt 197.3). His concern \\ith documenting variation,combined with his life-history orientation, may explain Benedict's disparag-ing allusion to "Kluckhohn's counting noses" (Benedict to Margaret Mead,letter dated January 30, 1939, eited in Young 200.5, 74).

Clyde Kluckhohn and the New Anthropology 255

Believing that "multiple observations" and "approaches" would eliminateany "distortions" stemming from personal bias or from the "stereotypedfashions" prevalent in the fieldworker's discipline, Kluckhohn engaged ina number of cross-disciplinary collaborations (Kluckhohn 1949b, vi). Withthe physiologist Leland Wyman, he compiled a taxonomy of Navajo rituals;with the psychiatrist Dorothea Leighton, he produced two books on theNavajo for the Indian Education Research Project; and with the biologicalanthropologist James N. Spuhler, he studied Navajo genetics (Kluckhohnand Wyman 1940; Kluckhohn and Leighton 1946; Leighton and Kluckhohn1947; Spuhler and Kluckhohn 1953). It is small wonder, then, that the1940s and 1950s were known as "the Kluckhohn era" in Navajo studies(Witherspoon 1975, ix).

As an undergraduatc at Wisconsin, Kluckhohn had taken his first coursein psychology from Norman A. Cameron~at that time a "brass instrument"bchaviorist who had little use for Freud. Kluckhohn, however, "stoppedranting about Freud's anthropological errors" when he discovered the"unconscious" during his analysis in Vienna (transcript of Anne Roe's inter-view with Clyde Klllckhohn, 19,50 [American Philosophical Society, AnneRoe Papers, B/R261J). In 1939, Kluckhohn accepted a fellowship from theCarnegie Corporation. This allowed him to study psychology and psychiatrywith Ralph Linton at Columbia, to present material on the Navajo in theseminar on culture and personality run jointly by Linton and the psychia-tJist Abram Kardiner, and to participate in Sandor Rado's seminar onpsychoanalytic theory at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute (CharlesDollard to Kluckhohn, letter dated March 3, 1939; Ralph Linton toKluckhohn, letters dated 9 and February 13, 1939, and March 26, 1939[Harvard University Archives, Clyde Kluckhohn Papers, HUG 4490.:3]; seealso Kluckhohn 1944a 1989, 23711). While in New York, Kluckhohn becameone of Mead's numerous proteges (Lagemann [1989] 1992, 166; Sahlins1984, 1).

In 1941, Kluckhohn collaborated with O. Hobart Mowrer and Henry A.Murray in offering a cooperative seminar on "socialization" modeled on theLinton-Kardiner seminar. Mowrer, an experimental psychologist, had cometo Harvard in 1940, after six years at the Yale Institute of Human Relations,where he worked with John Dollard and others on integrating learningtheory and psychoanalysis. In 1944, Kluckhohn and Mowrer outlined a"conceptual scheme" for culture and personality that fused "concepts" and"postulates" drawn from anthropology, learning theory, and psychoanalytictheory (Kluckhohn and Mowrer 1944; Mowrer and Kluckhohn 1944).Kluckhohn, like Mead, had more use for Kurt Lewin's field theory than didMowrer (Kluckhohn to Norman A. Cameron, letter dated October 24,1944

2.56 Pacific Studies, Vol. :32,Nos. 2/3-J\mt'/Sept. 2009

[Harvard University Archives, Clyde Kluekhohn Papers, HUG 4490.3];Margaret Mead to Kluckhohn, letter dated December 10, 1943 [Librarv ofCongress, Margaret Mead Papers, Box C10]; Kluckhohn to Mead, l;tterdated Dt'cember 28, 194:3 [Harvard University Archives, Clydt' KluckholmPapers, HUG 4490.3]).

Kluckhohn found the clinician Henry Murray, Director of the HarvardPsychological Clinic and developer of the Thematic Apperception Test,more congenial than Mowrer. Murray's press-need formulation (in which"press" designated the "temporal gestalt of stimuli" ascertainable by afieldworker, and "need" designated the informant's motivation) providedBenedict with the "psychological ground-work" to go "beyond relativity,"to search for the "fundamental social and cultural arrangt'ments" that"minimize[d] hostility and conflict (aggrt'ssion)" (Benedict to Murray, letterdated July .30, 1944, cited in CafTrey 1989, :30.5; Benedict, reply toQuestionnaire from the Conference on Science, Philosophy, and Religion,1943, cited in Young 200.5, JOO). To Kluekhohn, Murray was "the greathumanist" whom he himself aspired to be. Kluekholm thus followed Murrayin "defining humanistic social science as the systematic study of 'the wholeman'" (Kluckhohn to Murray, letter dated July 18, 1944, cited in Robinson1992: 294-.5). In ] 948, Kluckhohn and Murray published Personality inNature, Society, and Culture, the first collection of readings from theperiodical literature in culture and personality, designed in part to teach"social science to psychiatrists" (Kluckhohn to Roger Shugg, letter datedMay 8, 1948 [Harvard University Archives, Clyde Kluckhohn Papers, HUG4490.7]). As Kluckhohn and Murray explained in their Introduction, "allresearch in [the] field [of culture and personality] is in the last analysisdirectly or indirectly oriented to one central type of question: What makesan Englishman an Englishman'? an American an American'? a Russian aRussian'?" (Kluckholm and Murray 1948, xiv).

\Vhen the American Psvchiatric Association invited Kluckhohn in 1944.to assess psychiatry's impact on anthropoloh'Y, he credited Benedict, Mead.and Sapir with having promoted a "rapprochement" between the twodisciplines. Kluckhohn perceived in Benedict's work an "attitude" thatcould "only be described as 'psychiatric.'" He attributed Mead's standing as"possibly the best-known anthropologist in psychiatric circles" to her "fielddata," tests of psychiatric problems in the field, and "idiom," which psychia-trists "found intelligible." However, it was Sapir, according to Kluckhohn,who had done the most to make "possible some real fusion between thetwo disciplines." The "tough insights" Sapir drew from psychiatry had"forced" anthropologists to reconstruct their "postulates." Thanks to Sapir's"conceptual refinements," anthropologists were no longer able to regard

Clyde Kluckholm and the New Anthropology 2.57

individuals as the "more or less passive carrier[s] of tradition," or cultureas "a supcrorganic, impersonal whole" (Kluckhohn 1944b: .597, 600-603).

In 194.5,Kluckhohn evaluated the use of personal documents in anthro-pology {elrthe Social Science Research Council's Committee on Appraisalof Research. He drew on his collaboration with Dorothea Leighton todiscuss the "interpersonal" aspects of fieldwork. Urging anthropologists"to take more account of the 'human' side of their materials," Kluckhohnsuggested that they act as "a blank screen" on which informants couldproject their own lives. Kluckhohn was convinced that until anthropologistslearned how to "deal rigorously with the 'subjective hlctorS' in the livesof 'primitives,''' their work would remain "flat and insubstantial" (Kluckhohn194.5e: 86, 122, 162-3; Bashkow 1991: 189-90).

Kluckholm was also convinced of the existence of "certain affinities"between the anthropologist and the psychiatrist. Both were interestedin "total personality" and "the whole man." Both were practitioners ofdisciplines that were "innocent of statistics," "observational" as opposed to"experimental," and "holistic." Finally, fieldwork was, to Kluckhohn's mind,as "fundamentally revealing" of the relationship between the anthropologistand informant as analysis was of the relationship between the psychiatristand analysand. Thanks to the influence of psychiatry, Kluckhohn (1948:440-1, 19.56a, 906) thought, anthropologists were gaining "a better under-standing of and control over their principal instruments-themselves."

vVhat Kluckhohn most wanted from psychoanalysis was "a theory ofraw human nature." Like Benedict and Mead, he had earlier consideredFreudian theory "strongly culture-bound," and had found the work of "cul-turalists," such as Erich Fromm and Karen Horney, more congenial thanthat of the orthodox Freudian, Geza R6heim. By the late 1940s, however,Kluckhohn's own views were converging with R6heim's. The culturalists,Kluckholm had come to believe, went too f~lrin discounting the influenceof biology and in paying more attention to cultural differences than tocultural "universals." Besides, Kluckhohn's fieldwork among the Navajohad convinced him of the "astonishing correctness" \vith which Freud haddepicted a number of universal "themes in motivational life." While the"expression" and "manifest content" of these themes varied from cultureto culture, "the underlying psychologic drama," Kluckhohn believed,"transcend[ ed] cultural di{Terence." It was now time for anthropologists toturn their attention from the differences among cultures to the similarities(Kluckhohn and Morgan [19.51] 1962: 3.50-1; Wolf [1964] 1974,36, .39).

Like Benedict and Mead, Kluckhohn had studied "Culture at a Distance"during the Second World War. While working alongside Benedict in theForeign Morale Analysis Division of the Office of War Inf

2.58 Pacific Studies, Vol. 32, Nos. 2/3-June/Sept. 2009

1944-194.5, Kluckhohn came to appreciate her uncanny ability to "saturate"herself in library materials and to grasp "the essential dynamics of Japanesepersonality and culture" without having engaged in fieldwork (see alsoTannenbaum 2009 and Schachter 2(09). Then, while serving as a consul-tant to the American occupation forces in Japan in 1946-1947, Kluckholmwas "astonished to discover" how well "he knew what was coming inunfonnalized situations," thanks to his conversations with Benedict and hisreading of her book, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, published in1946 (Kluckhohn 1949c: 18-9; Benedict 1946).

Like Benedict and Mead in the Columbia University Research inContemporary Cultures, Kluckhohn attempted, after 194.5, to refinemethods that had been hurriedly improvised during the war. As Directorof the Harvard Russian Research Center from its inception in 1948until 19.54, Kluckhohn sponsored research intended to be at once interdis-Ciplinary, experimental, coherent, and "cumulative," and to incorporate themethods and insights of the behavioral sciences. Together with Alex Inkelesand Raymond Bauer, he analyzed more than 400 life-history interviewswith "displaced" Soviet citizens and some 2,000 questionnaires in theHarvard Project on the Soviet Social System. However, when, Kluekholmstepped down from the directorship of the Russian Research Center in19.54, the methods and insights of history, economics, and political sciencehad largely eclipsed those of the behavioral sciences (Kluckholm 1949d;Bauer, Inkeles, and Kluckhohn [19.56] 1960; Inkeles 1973; Lagemann[1989] 1992: 174-7.5; Mead and Metraux 19.5.3).

By 19.54, Kluckhohn could point to the "considerable improvement incommunication" that had occurred "between psychoanalysts and anthro-pologists" since the late 1920s. Yet, as he admitted, work in cultureand personality "suffered" from being too "fashionable," with too manypublications in the field "hasty, overly schematic, and indeed naive." Still.the "underlying notions" of culture and personality seemed to Kluckholm"basically sound." By then, however, Kluckhohn's "central interests" layelsewhere (Kluckhohn 19.54a, 961; 19.54b, 69,3). Although he continuedto review work in the field for profeSSional joumals, and for the New YorkTimes and the New York Herald Trihune, Kluckhohn tumed his attentionto the linguistically informed study of values.

The Conference on Science, Philosophy, and Religion

Kluckhohn's move toward Freudian orthodoxy, interest in the scientificstudy of values, and tum to linguistics become more understandable whenplaced against the backdrop of his participation-along with Mead,


Benedict, and Bateson-in the wartime symposia of the Conference onScience, Philosophy, and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Wayof Life. Founded in 1940 by Louis Finkelstein, provost of the JewishTheological Seminary of America, the Conference mobilized Americanintellectuals in a democratic crusade against f~lscismby sponsoring annualinterdisciplinary and ecumenical symposia. The Conference was a productof what Philip Gleason (1992) has called the "democratic revival" of the late1930s and early 1940s, an "ideological reawakening" in which Americanintellectuals responded to the rise of totalitarianism abroad by affirmingthe American way of life as a normative democratic culture. For the morereligiously inclined participants like Finkelstein, the point of the annualsymposia was to ground democratic ethics in moral absolutes. For Meadand Benedict, the point was to develop "a wartime theory of democraticculture." For Kluckhohn, the annual symposia provided a stage onwhich he could rehearse themes that, after 1945, he presented to theeducated public in publications like Mirror for Man (Gleason 1992, 165;Yans-McLaughlin 1986, 2(8).

Kluckhohn first participated in the Conference on Science, Philosophy,and Religion at the second annual symposium in 1941 when he commentedon Mead's papcr, 'The Comparative Study of Culture and the PurposiveCultivation of Democratic Values." Kluckhohn did not dissent from Mead'sdisavowal of any "finishcd blue print of the future of the absolutely desir-able way of life." He also endorsed Mead's recommendation that socialscientists devote themselves "to a direction, not a fixed goal," and "toa process, not a static systcm" (Mead 1942: 67-8; Yans-McLaughlin 1986,209).

'Where Kluckhohn did differ from Mead was in urging social scientiststo search for "ultimatc" values based on the scientific study of mankind's"universal needs" and of the "varied ways" devised to meet those needs.vVere there, hc asked, "certain cultural features which remain constant inthose cultures which give high value to the individual?" If these featurescould be discovered, they could be "incorporated" into American cultureto enhance the dcmocratic way of life. Kluckhohn (1942, 76) was thus"slightly more optimistic" than Mead that social scientists could chart "aims"as well as "general direction."

Replying to a questionnaire from the Conference in 1942, Kluckhohnidentified the principal "evil of our world" as the lack of a secular "faith"that could "give clear meaning and purposc to living," yet be compatible"with what we have learned of our world by 'scientific methods.'"Anthropologists were agrecd on the necessity of religion conceived as asymbolically enacted "system of common purposes," but no such system,

260 Pacific Studies, Vol. 32, Nos. 2/3-June/Sept. 2009

Kluckhohn insisted, should be based on "supernatural sanctions" (Kluckhohn,reply to Questionnaire from the Conference on Science, Philosophy, andReligion, dated December 7, 1942 [Library of Congrcss, Margaret MeadPapers, box E.59]). As a lapsed Protestant who had once "flirted" \vithbecoming an Episcopalian priest and who had even considcred convertingto Roman Catholicism, Kluckhohn now stood resolutely opposed to revealedreligion. He had come to believe that "scientific humanism" was "the onlyhope for American culture" (Kluckhohn 1941'1: 174-.5; transcript of AnneRoe's interview with Clyde Kluckhohn, 19.50 [American PhilosophicalSociety, Anne Roe Papers, B/R261]). Kluckhohn was one of a number ofanthropologists who played prominent roles in the Kulturkampf waged inthe first half of the twentieth century by what David Hollinger (1996) hascalled the "American liberal intelligentsia" to "de-Christianize" America'spublic culture. By the carly 1940s, this Kulturkampf had taken on ananti-Catholic animus, owing to the Concordats the Vatican had reachedwith f~lscist regimes in Italy and Germany, and to Catholic SUppOlt forFranco's insurgency in Spain (McGreevy 2003: 166-88).

During the winter of 1942-1943, Kluckhohn circulated among his friendsa "manifesto" entitled, A Declaration of Interdependence: A Creed forAmericans as 'World Citi::.ens. In this manifesto describing his vision of aworld made "safe for differences," Kluckhohn dismissed "the AmericanCentury" proclaimed by Henry Luce in L~fe magazine in 1941 (Luce 1941)as nothing more than a prescription for "imperialistic American dominationof the world." Kluckhohn's new world order, in contrast, would guaranteethe world's peoples the right to "live according to their own values andtraditions." Kluckhohn then threw down the gauntlet: Americans mustchoose. They could either "waste" the "potcntialities" of millions of menand women by beating "a frightened retreat to some single standarcl," orthey could reorient American culture around the principle of "orchestratedhet~~rogeneity" (Kluckhohn, A Declaration of Interdepenclence: A Creedfor Americans as World Citizens. Version 1b, dated January 17, 1943[Harvard University Archives, Clyde Kluckhohn Papers, HUG 4990.3]).Among the sources from which Kluckholm borrowed some of his ideaswas Mead's 1939 Introduction to From the South Seas. "vVe are at acrossroads," Mead (J 939: xxx-xxxi)wrote, "and must decide whether to goforward towards a more ordered heterogeneity, or make a frightened retreatto some single standard which will waste nine-tenths of the potentialitiesof the human race."

In "Anthropological Research and World Peace," a paper given at theConference's fourth annual symposium in 1943, Kluckholm characterizedanthropologists as "tough-minded" social scientists who insisted on the


"stupidity" of "unlinear attack[s]" on the problems of the contemporaryworld, yet criticized attempts to view those problems "too exclusively inthe light of reason." The distinctive contribution anthropologists couldmake to world peace was, in conjunction with sociologists, psychologists,and psychiatrists, to emphasize such nonrational elements in human life as"sentiments" and "unconscious assumptions." Indeed, for Kluckhohn, "thecentral problem of world peace" was to "minimize and control aggressiveimpulses" (Kluckhohn 1944c: 143-5, 149).

In "Group Tensions: Analysis of a Case History," a paper given at theConference's fifth annual symposium in 1944, Kluckhohn drew on NavajoWitchcraft, his newly published inquiry into the sources of aggressionalllong the Navajo, to locate "the conditions for universal sociopsychologicalprocesses" in "the uniformities of human neurological equipment" and "theuniversality of the great dramas of human life (birth, renewed dependency,death)" (Kluckhohn [1944a] 1989, 1945a).

During this symposium, Kluckhohn dissented from the call issued byhis Harvard colleague, the sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, for an internationalorder based on "universal adherence" to "values long since discoveredby great religious leaders and thinkers." Kluckhohn took issue with theimplication that the "integration" of mankind would be achieved only bysubordinating "all men to values which are all the same" (Kluckhohn 1945b:216-7, italics in original). In addition, he denounced the claim advancedby "official Christianity" that it was "the only perfect faith to which allhumanity must be converted" as "onc of the most dangerous threats toworld order" (Kluckhohn 1945c: 297-8, italics in original).

Finally, Kluckholm agreed with the Harvard political scientist CarlFriedrich that the culture concept could not "form the firm cornerstoneof a unified social science." There was simply too much disagreementamong "specialists" over the concept's "philosophical and methodologicalimplications." Herc Kluckholm revealed perhaps his primary reason forcollaborating with Alfred Kroeber on their 1952 compendium of culture:to fix, as best they could, the concept's meaning. Kluckhohn also objectedto "cultural determinism," which, to his mind, was just "as false as everyother unilateral 'ism.''' While agreeing with Friedrich that "the pooling of'psychological' and 'anthropological' knowledge" in culture and personalityhad "only barely opened up," Kluckholm extolled the promise of analyzing"culture structure." If anthropologists could "dissect out" patterns inexplicit (or overt) culture, they could arrive at the "integrating principles"of the "implicit culture" without having to rely on vague "intuition"(Kluckhohn 1945d: 628-9; Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952).

262 Pac!fic Studies, Vol. 32, Nos. 2/3-June/Sept. 2009

Here Kluckhohn touched on what he considercd his most importantcontribution to anthropological theory-the concept of implicit culture.Implicit culture designated the integrating principles of a culture. Becauseinformants were largely unconscious of them, these integrating principleshad to be "inferred" by the anthropologist. Kluckhohn borrowed the con-cept of implicit culture from H.alph Linton's unpublished lectures and thenrefined it by drawing on Benedict's notion of "unconscious canons ofchoice" (Kluckhohn 1964, 14.5;Herskovits 1961, 130). Indeed, Kluckhohnthought that when Benedict spoke of "patterns" in her celebrated book,Patterns (!{ Culture (1934), she meant the "configurations" or unconsciouspatterns of implicit culture, rather than the behavioral patterns of explicitculture. For Kluckholm, as for Benedict, patterning suggested the "regular-ity," as opposed to the "randomness," of culture (Kluekholm 1941b: 117,126~8; Benedict 1934). From Edward Sapir, Kluckholm learned howanthropologists could "infer" patterns. Like Sapir, he believed in theexistence of "linguistic universals" (Sapir 1927).

The Comparative Study of Values in Five Cultures

Kluckhohn designed the Comparative Study of Values in Five CulturesProject to discover the integrating principles of implicit culture. Supportedby $200,000 in grants from the Rockefeller Foundation, some forty research-ers from Harvard and nine other institutions, as well as practitioners ofseven different disciplines, conducted a series of researches between 1949and 1954 among the Navajo, Zuni, Mexican Americans, Mormons, andTexans in the Ramah area.

The project was one of the great undertakings sponsored by the HarvardDepartment of Social Relations, which had been founded in 1946 byKluckhohn, Parsons, Mowrer, Murray, and the social psychologist, GordonAllport. Before the Second World War, all had been members of the"Levellers," an interdisciplinary group interested in promoting "basic socialscience" at Harvard (Parsons 1949, 1973: 32-3) In 1943, Kluckholm sentMead and Bateson a copy of a proposed curriculum for "a unified teachingof the social sciences" at Harvard. Bateson recommended that studentsbe exposed to scientists' "ways of thinking," but that they be trained in"qualitative" rather than "quantitative" techniques (Bateson to Kluckhohn,letter dated January 18, 1944 [Library of Congress, Margaret Mead Papers,Box 03]). In 1944, Kluckhohn and Parsons attempted to bring Mead andBateson to Harvard, but James B. Conant, then President of Harvard,balked. Conant, as Kluckholm phrased it, "didn't want to commit himself

Clyde Kluckhohn and the New Anthropology 26.3

to women professors on the Harvard hiculty" (Kluckhohn to Mead, letterdated October :31, 1944 [Library of Congress, Margaret Mead Papers, boxCI6]).

The Five Cultures Projeet sought to explain why the values of theseadjacent cultures differed, even though each culture had adapted to thesame environment, had been exposed to the same streams of difTusion from"generalized" American culture, and-with the exception of the Texanswho migrated to the region in the 1930s-had interacted with each otherfor two generations (Kluckhohn [19.51c] 1962, 39.5). The project's ultimateobjective, however, was to develop a "unified theory" and a common "setof methods" for the scientific study of values. Although more than sixtybooks and articles eventually issued from the project, it produced neithera unified theory nor a common set of methods. Instead, the whole effortwas soon forgotten after Kluckholm's death (Dumont 1980: 212-.3; Powers1997; Vogt and Albert [1966] 1970: 1-.5]).

For help in comparing cultures and identifYing cultural universals,Kluckhohn turned to linguistics, the social science discipline that, in hiseyes, most resembled the natural sciences "in rigor and elegance." As FranzBoas and Edward Sapir had contended, language approached "pureculture" in illustrating "regular and patterned selection among a limitednumber of biological possibilities." Language was also that aspect of culturein which "order and predictability" had been "most successfully demon-strated." Inspired by Claude Levi-Strauss, "the most brilliant and innovat-ing anthropologist alive today," and by the linguist Roman Jakobson'sanalysis of the "distinctive features" of languages, Kluckhohn searched forcultural equivalents of the phoneme-basic units of culture comparableacross cultures (Kluckhohn 19.5.5,:347;Kluckhohn to Kenneth Setton, letterdated October 27, 19.59 [Harvard University Archives, Clyde KluckhohnPapers, HUG 4490.6]; Fischer 1973). Kluckhohn's untimely death of aheart attack in July 1960 cut short this attempt to develop a cultural "gram-mar" that would allow anthropologists to describe and compare cultures as"parsimoniously" as linguists did languages. His turn to linguistics illustratesthe way in which the discipline provided models not only for the school ofculture and personality, as David Aberle has noted, but also for the scien-tiflc study of values. Kluckhohn derived from linguistics the characteristicsof selectivity, patterning, and the largely unconscious nature of implicitculture that he emphasized in his later work (Kluckholm 19.51b, 19,56b;Aberle 19(0).

The Second World War spurred Kluckhohn's embrace of an inter-national order founded upon cultural diversity and, as its concomitant,American culture reorganized around orchestrated heterogeneity. The

264 Pacific Studies, Vo!. .32,Nos. 2/:3-Jmw/Sept. 2009

Cold War, which pitted the Unitcd States in ideological warl~lre with theSoviet Union, heightened the urgency that Klnckhohn felt for formulating"a good five-cent ideolo/,'Y"that Americans could both articulate to them-selves and communicate to foreigners. Such "a positive, clearly definednational faith" secmed essential, not only to offset Communism's appealas a secular religion but also to supersede the "compctitive individualism"and outmoded "Horatio Alger economic and achievement values" thatKluckholm ([19.50] 1962: :328-.31) dcplorcd. By 19.57, Kluckhohn thoughtthat he had detected the emergence of "a 'new' set" of American values,the "most pervasive" of which was "the weakening of the Puritan ethic withits demands for exhihitionistic achievement, unhridled 'individualism,' andcompetition" (Kluckhohn 19.58, 2(4), "Heterogeneity," he believed, wasfast becoming "one of the organizing principles of American culture"(Kluckhohn 19.58: 196-7; Morison 19.58, 4(7).

Conclusion

At the timc of his death, Kluckholm had just begun a well-earned respitefrom teaching, thanks to a multiyear grant he received from the FordFoundation in 19.57. Kluckhohn looked f()rward to synthesizing his manyyears of fieldwork among the Navajo, shaping the summary volumes of theComparative Study of Values in Fivc Cultures Project, and preparing a newedition of Navaho vVitchcrnft. He also hoped to make some progress ontwo books-one on "anthropological theory," the other on "anthropologicalstudies of modern civilizations" (Kluekhohn to Bernard Berelson, letterdated June 1, 19.57[Harvard University Archives, Clyde Kluckholm Papers,HUG 4490.6]; Parsons 197:3,.36). By then, Kluckhohn had earned a well-deserved reputation as fieldworker, theorist, promoter of interdisciplinaryand multidisciplinary projects, and prophet of the New Anthropology.

Kluckhohn's wide-ranging interests well equipped him to representanthropolo/,'Y, not only to profeSSional colleagues in other disciplines hutalso to educated Americans. As a public intellectual. Kluckhohn exempli-fied a long and rich tradition in American anthropology stretching from hisanthropological god, Franz Boas, to his student, Clifl(m} Geertz (Stocking[1979] 1992: 92-11.3; Ortner 1997). Influenced more by Benedict thetheorist, than by Mead the popularizer, Kluckhohn endeavored to makeAmericans culture-conscious. Like Benedict, he wanted to go "beyondrelativity." For Benedict, going heyond relativity meant finding the socialand cultural arrangements that fostered social cohesion; for Klnckholm, itmeant searching for the organizing principles of cultures. Hence his turn,after 194.5, to linguistics. As a practitioner of culture and personality,


Kluckholm was interested in discovering the personality characteristics thatdistinguished Americans from other peoples; as a student of values, indiscovering the organizing principles that distinguished American culturefrom other cultures. Although Kluckhohn died before he could produce theauthoritative account of the Navajo that would have constituted his legacy,he should be recalled, nonetheless, as an eloquent spokesman for anthro-pology's unique position in the American academy as "the most scientiHcof the humanities, the most humanist of the sciences" (Wolf [1964] 1974,88).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article began as a paper presented at the symposium, "Gang of Four: GfPgoryBatesou, Ruth Benedict, Heo Fortune, and Margaret Mead in Multiple Contexts," atthe annual mcetings of the Assodation for Sodal Anthropology in Oceania, in Kaua'i,Hawai'i, in February 200.5. Quotations from the Kluckhohn Papers are reproducedcourtesy of dIP Harvard University Archives. I am grateful to the American PhilosophiealSociety lilr permission to quote from Anne Roe's intcrview with Clyde Kluekholm in theAnne Hoe Papers. I am also grateful to Mary Catherine Batesou and the Institute forIntercultural Studies in New York filr permission to quote from Kluckholm's correspon-denee with Margaret Mead ami Gregory Bateson in the Margaret Mead Papers at theLibnlly of Congress. I would like to thank Gerald Sullivan, Sharon \V. Tiffany, and SusanE. Gray for their comm('nts on earlier drafts of this mticle.

REFERENCES

Aberle, David F.1960 Inlluem'e of liuguisties on early eulture and personality theory. In Essays in

the science of cllltllre in honor of Islie A. 'White, ed. Gertrude F. Dole andHobert L. Carneiro, 1-29. New York: Crowell.

American Philosophical Society, Anne Hoe Papersvar. American Philosophical Society, Anne Hoe Papers. Philadelphia: American

Philosophical Society Library.

Bashkow, Ira1991 DY1l

266 Pac!f7c Studies, Vol. .32, Nos. 2/.3-JIlTle/Scpt. 2009

Bell('dict, Huth Fultou19:34 Pattcrns of clIltllrl'. Bostou: Houghton Mifllin.1946 The I'hrysallthl'lI/llIlI and III(' su;ord. Boston: Honghton Mifllin.

Berkhol"cr, Hobert F .. J r.197.3 Clio and the culture concept: Son](' impressions or a changing relationship

in American historiography. In The idea of mltllrl' in til(' social scicncl's.cd. Lonis Schneider and Charles Bonjcan, 77-100. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Cafrrey. Margaret M.19S9 RlIth Bl'nl'dicl: SI ranger in this land. Anstin: Univcrsitv or Texas Press.

Dollard. John19.3.5 Criteria for Ihl' life history: With analyses of six nolabll' do('tll/I('nls. Ncw

Haven. CT Yale Universitv Press. Heprillt ('dition. W49. New York PeterSmith.

Dnmont. LouisWilO On value. Proceedings of the British Amdi'llll/ 66:207-41.

Emlleman, Robert1949 TIl(' new anthropoloh'Y and its ambitions: The science or man in messianic

dress. COIIIIIU'ntary il (October): 2il4-91.

Fischer. John L.W7:3 . Linguistic models and the stndy of culture: Clyde Kluckholm's approach. In

ClIltllrl' and life: Essays in 1I/i'lI/on/ of Clyd,' KlllckllOlnl. cd. Walter W. Tavlor.John I,. Fischer, and Evon Z. Vogt. 1.36-.56. Carbondalc: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press.

Foster. George M .. Thayer Scudder. Elizabf'th Colson. and Hobclt V. Kemper, cds.1979 LOllg-ll'rlllficld research ill social allthropology. New York AcadenJic Press.

Geertz, Clifford2002 An inconstant profc'ssion: TIl(' anthropological lire in interesting times. AlIlIlIal

Review of Anthropology :31 (October): 1-19.

Gleason, Philip1992 Speaking of diversity' I,mlgllagl' alld l'lllllicily ill ItCl'lItid/,-ccnlllry AlIlI'riCll.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Handler, Richard, cd.19[J.5 Schncidcr Oil Schneider: The conversion of Ihl' Jews alld olher alllhropologimi

stories. Durham, NC: Duke Universitv Press.


Harvard University Archiv('s, Clyde Kluckholm papersvar. Harvard University Archives, Clyde Kay Maben Kluekholm Papers. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Archives.

Herskovits, Melville J.1961 Clyde Kay Maben Kluekhohn, January 11, 190.5-July 28, 1960. Biographical

AJemoirs of till' National Acadl'lny of Sciences 37: 129-5:3.

Hollinger, David A.1996 Sciencc, Jcws, a/l(l culture: Studies in mid-twentieth-century American

intellectual history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Inkeles, Alex1973 Clyde Kluckholm's contributions to studies of Russia and the Soviet Uniou. Iu

Culture and life: Essays innwl/wn) of Clyde Klucklwhn, ed. \Valter \V. Taylor,John 1" Fischer, and Evon Z. Vogt, .58-70. Carbondale: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press.

Kluckholm, Clyde1939 The place of theory in anthropological stndies. Philosophy of Science 6 (July):

328-44.1940 The conceptual structure in middle American studies. In The Maya and their

wighbors, cd. C. 1" Hay, H. Linton, S. K. Lothrop, H. L. Shapiro, and C. C.Vaillant, 41-51. New York: Appleton-Century.

1941a The way of life. Kenyon Review 3 (Spring): 160-79.1941b Patterning as exemplified in Navajo culture. In Language, cult lire, and

personality, ed. Leslie Spier, A. Irving Hallowell, and Stanley S. Newman,109-30. Menasha, \VI; Sapir Memorial Publication Funcl.

1942 ComnH'nt OIl Thc comparative study of crt/ture and the purposive cultivationof democratic valucs, by Margaret Mead. In Science, philoSOIJhy, and religioll:Second sy,nlJOsilllll, cd. Lyman Bryson and I,ouis Finkelstein, 72-6. New York:Hal1wr.

1944a Navajo witchcraft. In Papers of the Peabody AI,/sellin of American Archaeologyand Ethnology, vol. 22, no. 2. Heprint edition, 1989. Boston: Beacon Press.

1944b The influence of psychiatry on anthropology in America during the past onehundred years. In Onc hU/l(lred years of American psychiatnJ, ed. James K.Hall, Cregory Zilboorg, and Henry A. Bunker, .597-605. New York: ColumbiaUniversitv Press.

1944c Anthrop(;logical research and world peace. In Approaches to world peace:Fourth sy,nIJosillln, cd. Lyman Bryson, Louis Finkelstein, and Hobert M.MacIver, 143-52. New York: Hal1)('r.

194.5a Croup tt'nsions: Analysis of a case history. In Approaches to national lIllity:Fifth symposium, eel. Lyman Bryson, Louis Finkelstein, and Hobert M.MacIver, 222-31. New York: Harper.

1945b Comment OIl Theses 011 gron,) tensions, by Pitirim Sorokin. In Approachesto national unity: Fifth symposium, eel. Lyman Bryson, Louis Finkelstein, andRobert M. MacIver, 21.5-17. New York: Harper.

268 Pacific Studies, Vo!. .32,Nos. 2/.3-June/Sept. 2009

194,5c COllllllellt Oil SOllie requisites for beller ullderstalldillg betlceell the East a/1(1'"Vest, by Taraknath Das, In Approa('hes to lIatiollal ullily: Fifth SyIIlIJOSi/III1,ed, Lyman Bryson, Louis Finkelstein, amI Hobcrt M, MacIver, 297-:300, :'\Ie\\'York:' Hmvcr.'

I94.5d Comment on The IJrob11'1IIof ('OllllllllllicrttiOIl bet ICeI'll ('ultures se('11 as illtl'-gmted wholes, by Carl J, Friedrich. hI ilpproac!lCs to lIatiollal ullity: Fift/isymposiulII, cd, Lyman BlySOl!, Louis Finkelstein. and Hobert M. Machcr,628-.34. New York: Ilarper.

194.5e Thc personal document in anthropological sciencc, In The l)('('sollrd dO('/lIllClltill history, allthropology, alld sociology, 79-17:3, cd, I,ouis Cottschalk, ClvdeKlnckholm, aud Hol)(,lt Angell. Ncw York: Social Science Hesmrch Council.

1948 An anthropologist looks at psychology. Alllericrtll PSljl'llOlogist :3 (()ctobcr):4:39-42.

HJ49a Mirror for lIIall: The rl'latioll of allthropology to /llOdem life, New York:McCraw-HilL Heprint edition. 198.5.Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

1949b Thc Hamah Project. In Gregorio, the ha/1(1 trl'lllbler, ed. Alexam!n II. Leightonand Dorothea Leighton, v-x. In Papers of the Pml)()dy Mllselllll of /\lIIl'rimllArclwl'Ology and Etllllology, vol. 40, no. I.

1949c Hcmarks. In Hutll Fldtoll Belledi('t: A McmoriaL 18-9. New York: VikingFund.

I949d Hussian research at Harvard. ,"Vorld Politi('s I (january): 267-71.19,50 Mid-centnry manners amI morals. In Twentietl; r'l'lIfl;n! 1lIIli/llifl'd. ed. Bruce

Bliven, 30:3-J,5. New York: Lippincott. Hcprint('(l in Culture alld I}('hacior,ColIl'l'tl'd essm!s of Clyde Klu('kllOhll, ed. Hichard Kluckhohn. :32:3-:3,5.]\;ewYork: Frec Press, 1962.

19.5la Ikview of The Iwtllre of lIatuml history, by Marston Batl's. A/llCrirYIIIAllthrolJologist ,53 (January): 121-2.

19.5lb An anthropological approach to the study of values. Bulletill of the Allleri('allA('adl'llly of Arts aY/d Sciellcl's 4 (March): 2-:3.

19.5lc Values and valne-oricntations in the theory of action: An exploration indefInition and classification. In Towrml a gcY/eml thl'on! of actioll: TheoreticalfouY/datiolls for the social sciI' IICI'S, cd. Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils.:388-433. Cambridgc, MA: Harvard University Press. Ikprint edition, 1962.Ncw York: Harper.

19.54aCulture and behavior. lul/rllldbook of social psychology, ed. Cardner Lindzey,B21-76. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addison-\Vesley.

19,54bSonthwesteru studies of culture amI personality. Allleri('all Allthropologist ,56(August): 68.5-97.

19,5,5 Anthropology. In \Vltat is scieY/cl'," ed. James H. Newlnan, 319-,57. New York:Simon aud Schuster.

19.56aThc impact of Freud on authropology. Bulletill of the Nl'1c York Amdl'IIIY ofMedicine :32 (December): 903-7.

19,56bToward a comparison of value-emphases in different cultures. lu The stateof tltl' social scil'lu'es, e(1. Leonard D. \Vhite, 116-32. Chicago: Universitv ofChicago Press.

HJ.58 Have thene beeu (liscemible shifts in Amcrican values during the past genera-tion? In The Alllerican stylc: Essays ill value alld per{onllrlllcc, ed. Elting E.Morison. 14.5-217. ]\;ew York: Harper.

1964 Covert or Implicit Cnlturl'. In A dictiollary of tllC social sciellcl's. cd. JulinsCould and William L. Kolb, 14.5-6. New York: Free Press.

Clyde KluL'khohn and the New Anthropology 269Kluckholm, Clyde, a!HIDorothea Lcighton

1946 The Navajo. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kluckhohn, Clyde, and William Morgan19,51 Some notes on Navajo dreams. In Psychoanalysis and culture: Essays in honor

of G(;:;aRdileilll, cds. C. B. Wilbur aud \Varner Muenstcrberger, 120-31. NewYork: Intemational Universities Press. Repriuted iu Culture and behavior:Collected essays of Clyde Klucklwhll, cd. Richard Kluckhohn, 3,50-63. NewYork: Free Press.

Kluckhohu, Clyde, a!HIO. 1I0bmi Mowrer1944 "Culture aud personality": A conceptual scheme. AlIlericall Anthropologist 46

(January): 1-29.

KluckllOhn, Clyde, aud lIemy A. Murray, eds.1948 Persollalily ill Ilature, society, and culture. New York: Knopf.

Kluckholm, Clyde, and Leland \Vyman1940 An int roduction 10 Navajo dumt practice

observed in four chants. Menasha,Association.

with an accoullt (if the behaviors\VI: American Anthropologieal

Kroeber, Theodora1970 Alfred Kroeber. A personal configuration. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University

of California Press.

Kroeber, Alfred, a!HIClyde Kluekholm1952 Culture: A critical review of COllC('ptsand definitions. In Papers of the Peabody

Afuseulll of AlIlerican Archamlogy and Ethnology, vol. 47, no. I.

I,agemann, Ellen Condliffe1989 Politics of kllowledge: The Carnegie Corporation, ,Jhilanlhropy, and public

policy. Boston: University Press of New England. Reprint edition, 1992.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lamphere, Louise, a!HIEvon Z. Vogt197:3 Clyde Kluckholm as ethnographer a!HI studeut of Navajo ceremonialism. In

Culture alld life: Essays ill 1l1e/lion.! of Clyde Kluckholul, cd. Walter W. Taylor,Jolm 1" Fischer, and Evon Z. Vogt, 94-135. Carbondale: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press.

Leighton, Dorothea, and Clyde KluddlOlm1947 Childrell of tile people. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Library of Congress, Margaret Mead Papersvar. The Margard Mead papers and South Pacific dhnographic archives.

\Vashington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Manuscript Division.

270 Pacific Studies, Vol. 32, Nos. 2/3-June/Sept. 2009

J ,uce. Hen!)'1941 TIl(' AnH'rican centllly. Life Magr!::;ille (Februa!)' 17).

McGreevy. John T.200:3 GatllOlicis/1I a/l(l Allwri('(fll freedolll. New York: Norton.

Mpad, Margaret19,39 Frolllllw SOlllh S('(fs: Sllidies of adolescellcc alld scx ill IJrilllilive societies. \Jew

York: \Villialll Morrow.1942 Comparative study of cultnre and the pnrposive cultivation of democratic

valm's. In Sciclice. philosophy. alid religioll: Se('()lId SljIlIIJosi/lIIl. (d. LvmanB!)'son and Louis Finkelstein. ,56-69. New York: Harper.

Mead. Margaret, and Rhoda M6traux. (ds.19,53 The sllidy of cllillire al a dislallre. Chicago: Universitv of Chicago Press.

Mishkin. Ikruard1949 Science on the March. Nnc York Tilllcs Book Rn:inc Janumy :30: I.5.

Morison. Elting E.. cd.1958 The Alllericall slyle: Essays ill vallie alld pnfonl/{ll/ce. New York: IlmJlcr.

Mowrer. O. Hobart, and Clyde Klnckholm1944 D)~Jalllic Theo!)' of Personality. III Persollalillj alld Ihc IJellflvioml disordcn.

ed. Joseph McV. Hunt. 69-135. New York: Rouald Press.

Ortner, Sher!), B., ed.1997 The [Ltc of "cultnrp": (;eertz and bevond. llcpresclllaliolls ,59 (Sulllllwr):

1-162.

Parsons. Talcott1949 Toward a eommOll language for the area of applied seience. In Essays ill

sociological thcory. plirc alld applied, 42-,5 I. Clencoe. IL: Free Press.!H73 Clyde Kluckholm and the integration of social science. In Gllillirc alld life'

Essays ill IIwlllOry of ely de KllickllOhll. I'd. Walter W. Taylor. John L. Fischer.and Evon Z. Vogt, ,30--57. Carbondale: Sonthem J1linois University Press.

Powers. \Vil!ow Roberts1997 The llarvardfive f'Illtlires WIrICS Sf/uly alld poslicarflllthropology. Ph.D. diss ..

University of New Mexico.

I've, I,ucian \V.~ 1973 Cultnre and political science: l'robleuls in the evaluation of the COlIC('pt

of political eultnre. In The idea of CIIlllire ill Ihe social sciellces. eel. J ,ouisSclmeider and Char!ps Bonjean, 65-76. Cambridge: Cambridge UniwrsitvPress.


Robinson, Forrest C.1992 Love's story told: A life of Henry A Afnrmy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Sahlins, Marshall1984 Views of a cnlturc heroine. New York Times Book Review August 26:1, 20-1.

Sapir, Edward1927 The unconscious patterning of behavior in society. In The unconscious: A

synlJ)()sillln, cd. Ethel S. Dummer, 114-42. New York: Knopf.

Sehachter, Jndith2009 \Vriting lives: Rnth Benedict's journey from biographical studies to anthropol-

ogy. In Gang of fonr: Gregonj Bateson, Rnth Benedict, Reo Fortune, andMargaret I\:fead in multiple contexts, ed. Cerald Sullivan and Sharon Tiffany,special issue, Pacific Studies 32 (2-:3): 348-66.

Spuhler, James N., and Clyck Kluckhohn19.5:3 Inbreediug coenIcients of the Ramah Navajo population. Human Biology 2.5

(Decnu!wr): 29,5-:317.

Stocking, Ceorge W., Jr.1979 Anthropology as Kulturktlln]Jf Scien('(~ami politics in the career of Franz Boas.

In The ct!lIlOgmp!wr's magic and other essays in the history of anthropology,92-113. Madison: University of\Visconsin Press, 1992.

Stocking, Ceorge W., Jr., ed.1996 Schneider on Kluckholm, 1964: Myth ami memory, the oral and the written,

historical retrospect and self-representation in the historiography of modernAmerican anel British anthropolol-,'y.History of Anthropology Newsletter 23 (2):7-14.

Tannenbaum, Nicola 13.2009 Huth Benedict ami the study of Thai culture. In Gang offour: Gregory Bateson,

RIlt!1 Benedict, Reo Fortune, am! Afargaret Mead in multiple contexts, cd.Cerald Sullivan ami Sharon Tifhny, special issue, Pacific Studies 32 (2-:3):367-91.

Vogt, Evon Z., and Ethel M. Albert1966 People of Rimrock: A study of values in .five cultures. Cambridgc, MA: Harvard

University PH'SS.Heprint edition, 1970. New York: Atheneum.

\Veinstein, Deborah F.2004 Culture at work: Family therapy ami the culture concept in post-\Vorlel \Var

H America. Journal of the History of the Behavioml Sciences 40 (Winter):23-46.

272 Pac!fic Studies, Vol. :32, Nos. 2/:3~Jullc/Sept. 2009

\Vitherspoon, Cmy197.5 Nav(!jo killship andnwrr?agc. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wolf, Eric H.1964 Anthrol)(Jlo{!,y. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Heprint edition, ](J74.

New York: Norton.

YaIlS-McLaughlin, Virginia191\6 Science, delllocracy. and ethics: Mohilizing cnlture and personalitv for \Vorld

\Var II. In AfalillOu;ski, Rivers, Belledict and Others: Essays on CIlltllrc andpersonality, ed. Ceorg

clyde kluckhohn and the new anthropology

Documents