Tylor spends the first pages "The Science of Culture" arguing against the idea of free will. Why does he think free will is incompatible with a science of culture? Do you agree?

In "The Science of Culture," Tylor establishes his theories regarding the universal nature of mankind. His approach to anthropology is one that clearly follows the rules of the natural sciences in a very empirical way. In order to study culture, one must recognize certain laws that govern these societies. It is within this idea that Tylor bases his work. If cultural is some what of a progression, then all peoples are connected inevitably. Therefore, in order to stay true to these theories, the idea of free will would seen irrational. Tylor asserts that the idea that individuals decide how to live in their world would not allow for a scientific study of these cultures. Naturally, Tylor adamantly rejects this idea of free will because it negates his theories of universal standards and laws within societies. If free will did in fact exist, it would be evidence that no such laws existed. Personally, I have gone back and forth on the issue of free will. I do not agree that cultures can be compared and viewed from an evolutionary standpoint, and I do not necessarily believe that there are universal laws in culture. I do, however, understand that our cultures do have a strong hold on every one of our "desicions" in life. On the other hand, when I make a choice I feel as though I am in control. I still haven't made up my mind about free will.

-Alexandra Gagne

Being raised in the Quaker faith, Tylor argued against the existence of individual free will and, instead, believed that there was a single destiny for mankind determined by their psychic unity. Therefore, he carried this belief over into his discussion of how free will is incompatible with a science of culture. For Tylor, free will was not enough to generate science. Instead, Tylor wanted to establish anthropology as a “philosophy of history” which would look at how civilization has evolved through time to reach its current state. For Tylor, this point of view was comparative, meaning that he could use “simpler” societies as living examples of modern civilizations in the past. While I can understand why Tylor chose to diminish the influence of the individual, I disagree with him because I think culture can only be understood as something that affects each person differently. While culture can be seen as a larger entity influencing society, the individual opts to live within the bounds that it lays out.

- Savannah Fetterolf

As a comment to Savannah's response re: the negotiation between the individual and the larger culture/society:

There seems to be uncertainty regarding whether the individuals make the culture, or whether the culture makes the individual. You touched on a speedbump I encounter with doing ethnography: since each individual's experience with culture and society is specific and slightly unique, it seems difficult to ever take any ethnography for more than a unique account of informants' dealings with a culture (rather than a report on a culture or subculture in general.) While I have read many compelling ethnographies that are cross referenced and supported, I find it challenging to take ethnographies 'without a grain of salt.' I'm not sure that the part of a whole, or a whole-of-parts issue can be resolved in this respect.

-Jill Coen

Tylor views metaphysics and philosophy as a barrier into the true nature of humanity, and in this way, considerations of free will can only serve to deter true explanations of this emergent science. It is important to note the word science, as used in the text and title; Tylor is attempting to separate explanations of culture from explanations of religion and the like. Simply saying that humans are the way they are in culture because of freedom of choice does not provide proper grounding for science. This lends to his further discussions on methods of observation; religious input into science is considered non-rational. This is most certainly coming from an age of (or just following) scientific expansion, a call to proofs under the comparative method. In essence, free will is not a scientific notion and cannot be applied to cultural studies. To me, this viewpoint is interesting. In the history of philosophy of science, there was an enormous call to define what exactly qualifies as science, separated from pseudoscientific notions. Tylor's essay seems to be calling toward the scientific, and the only way to do that is to out metaphysical considerations and most certainly religion. Religion and science cannot coexist, as we have come to learn. But this in itself is a cultural description, and Tylor does not seem to add this to his "stuff of culture". The way western culture describes science is largely as anti-religious or anti-questionable, observation-based. In a sense, maybe we should consider free will in some respect, or at least acknowledge it, not as a scientific notion, but as a cultural description. The way he describes free will, it is certainly cultural.

-Author?

It appears to me that Tylor falls prey to a very common misconception that "science" in all its empirical glory is pre-cultural. That is to say that science is a natural truth that can be used to explain culture and human behavior and not a product of the very thing it studies. For him, this contention allows for the study of culture because it juxtaposes the acquired traits, beliefs, habits etc. of a society with the "unity of nature" and its fixed laws. The application of these laws onto social life requires that those people affected be governed completely by them. The existence of free will implies that man has the ability to act successfully against those laws, which in turn implies that the laws are neither fixed nor universal. This being the crux of Tylor's starting argument, it is understandable that he spends as much time as he does trying to negate the existence of free will as a cultural or religious crutch. Where I centrally disagree with Tylor is in his argument that such a bipolarity exists between science/nature and culture. The perceptions of science that we hold, I argue, are deeply ingrained but still culturally constructed. Therefore, the argument of an incompatibility between a "science of culture" and free will is, for me, a mute point. Both are cultural constructions that produce and interesting question. Where I remain unsure is, can an individual truly escape his culture? Sure a person can express a degree of free will within his social system, but can he ever truly escape that system?

~Lauren Deal

Tylor’s Quaker background contributed to his deterministic view of humanity and culture. His thoughts are based on rigid scientific fact. His fundamental understanding of human evolution does not allow for individual variation. Instead he believed there was a universal psychic unity among all humans. He did not distinguish the individual from that of the greater culture. Therefore, the very idea of “free will” or “acting without a cause,” (29) contradicted his predetermined view of mankind. His understanding of culture is intertwined with the laws of science. The natural laws of science are definite actions that constitute a cause and consequence. Therefore free will is incompatible with the laws of nature and science.

Although Tylor’s argument is clear, I believe that free will does exist. I believe that individuals have the ability to influence a given society and therefore their position within society is valuable for the Anthropologist to recognize. I believe that individuals are affected by natural laws, however I do not agree with Tylor’s rigidity of his “science of culture.” He used his science of culture framework to draw a universal comparison between all cultures. However, I think this universal application is flawed because he fails to understand the vast cultural differences. I believe that Tylor’s science of culture placed too much emphasis in natural laws and causation, which inevitably contradicts the very idea of free will.

-Julia Derouard

In response to Julia: I agree with your argument. I think scientists, particularly those of the physical spheres assume that all objects of study are stagnant, or at the very least predictable in change. I think a major issue with Tylor's claim has to do with time frame. It is true that individual will is not likely to affect either his/her own past or the long term future of his/her society. In the long term culture does tend to produce the larger trends scientists observe without a lot of visible influence of human will. What anthropology excels at, in my opinion, is its ability to deconstruct to the smaller scale events that define these larger trends, events in which free will, even if framed by its cultural viewpoint, does have an impact.

- Chelsey Megli

Tylor argues that humanity functions according to a science of culture. The science of culture is based on the principle that culture is a single uniform entity that different societies hold in greater or lesser degrees according to their level of sophistication. Therefore, culture follows a linear path of evolution that can be scientifically analyzed regardless of regional, ethnic, or individual differences.

Tylor was a firm believer in the power of rationality. He argues that rationality dictates the actions of every human being as well as the evolution of culture. In his view human beings make decisions based on a cause and effect analysis--ultimately choosing to take the action with the most rational outcome. Therefore, society evolves in a predictable manner towards an ever-increasing level of rationality. Tylor dismisses the idea of free will on the basis that people are not free to act without cause or effect. The circumstances surrounding the actions and decisions of a given individual are outside that individual’s control. Although Tyler acknowledges that individuals are guided by distinct and personal motivations, he argues that the pressure of external causes on their actions negates the viability of free will. Ultimately human beings are at the mercy of society which will continue on in its evolution towards a greater level of rationality and culture regardless of their individual actions.

I agree with Tylor that external causes play a significant role in determining human action. However, I do not believe that the idea of free will can be dismissed on this basis. I would argue that the ability of people to act according to their own motivations is the primary component of free will. Individuals do not always act rationally, and what is rational for one person may not necessarily be rational for another. Therefore, two individuals confronted by the same set of natural causes may choose to take two different actions, while both seeking the most rational outcome.

-Tyson Johnson

In this essay, Tylor is attempting to definitively show that the social sciences could be as verifiably based on evidence as the natural sciences. To do this, he likens culture (the presumed sole human culture, not one of individual societies) to the laws of fields like physics. Relying on the presumption of cause and effect, he rationalizes that “the fixity of its laws, the definite sequence of cause and effect through which every fact depends on what has gone before it, and acts upon what is to come after it.” If human culture follows such laws, as Tylor says, then individual actors within will carry out the practices. It then follows, that some outside law or force is dictating every person, every ritual, every interaction.

I may be misinterpreting this, but Tylor doesn’t seem to follow a hard-line version stating culture and free will are compatible. Yes, causation in behavior certainly exists, even to the degree that “each man knows by the evidence of his own consciousness, definite and natural cause does, to a great extent, determine human action.” (42) But being conscious (or unconscious) of an outsiders’ effect on an action does not in and of itself negate free will totally, a fact which Tylor seems to acknowledge. I agree with Tylor to some extent, in that human behavior is impacted by a myriad of countless elements – be they cultural, environmental, or of another sort. However, I doubt the efficacy of this alone in determining the extent of an individual’s free will.

I also disagree with Tylor as to the social sciences’ place in the sciences. It lacks the verifiability that the natural sciences have. In a hypothetical situation, you could put two individuals with the same natural causes to the same task, and they might come up with different solutions. I question the possibility that one could really control every variable – or at least to the extent that one can manipulate a scientific experiment. But then again, people aren’t automatons; we’re individuals. It seems to me, another incarnation of the nature/nurture debate, and that is not getting resolved with satisfaction any time soon.

-- Abigail Parker

Everyone so far has provided a really thorough analysis of Tylor's views, so I won't elaborate on that much more. As far as agreeing or disagreeing with Tylor's view, I'd have to disagree. I think his argument against the idea of free will is dated and supported by concepts that have fallen out of favor in anthropology (psychic unity, unilinear evolution). Someone also mentioned Tylor's view of Culture as a universal, which is also no longer a popular concept. I don't think that people are completely immune to culture and do thing's only as a result of free will, but that to a great extent behavior is culturally influenced and constructed. However, unlike Tylor I definitely think that individual idiosyncrasies have a role in behavior, and should thus be considered valid when studying culture.

- Allison Moss

Comment to the posts above

Answering to the question "can an individual truly escape his culture?" that Lauren proposed, I don't think it is possible. No matter how much one wants to disassociate from one's culture, if one grew up in that culture, it becomes automatically implanted in one's mind and is hard to get rid of it. Culture definitely affects how you speak,act and think.

I also have the same feeling as Alexandra- "I do, however, understand that our cultures do have a strong hold on every one of our "desicions" in life. On the other hand, when I make a choice I feel as though I am in control."

Giving an example from my experience, not many Japanese are vegetarian and being a vegetarian is my own decision, my free will to not eat meat. But at the same time, I realize how Japanese I am by choosing rice,tofu, sesame, seaweed, soy sauce etc over others.

Also, there are some aspects of culture that are shared cross-culturally. Asians do understand eachother and Czech people are apparently similar to Japanese in some way they interact with eachother. Thus,Tylor's belief in psychic unity and culture as a single unity is not at all a non-sense since there is a tendency and uniform characteristics created by the culture but I disagree in his disaproval of free-will. Free will does exist an it should be acknowledged. Although culture/society shape individuals, the individuals also shape culture/society.

EH

In response to Jill's response to Savannah, I too have encountered those concerns with ethnography. In working on my own projects I often struggle with how to remove myself and present the most unbiased data possible. However, I have discovered that the most successful ethnographies I have read embrace that impossibility. As you said, the question of how the individual and society are intertwined is an interesting one. I believe that the two are reinforcing. Yes we are all individuals and the product of unique perspectives but we also possess certain cultural ways of thinking that allow us to perceive cross cultural differences simply by virtue of being the outsider. I guess, my point is, I think ethnography is possible and that our “free will” or agency does not preclude our participation in culture.

I'm not sure if any of that made sense...

- Lauren Deal 

I want to go off of Sophie’s quote, “we can’t ever shake off our own culture”. In accordance with most of the posted comments, I agree that culture becomes ingrained with time. Culture is something that surrounds us and is unavoidable and yet would it be going too far to say that we can’t ever shake it off. Playing devil’s advocate maybe that “shaking off our culture” may be just the thing we can do. We may not have the power to avoid culture, and may never be able to truly escape from it, but maybe we may be able to remove ourselves from the more exterior layers of that culture that may come loose. I am thinking of those who have made a conscious effort to remove themselves from their culture and deeply implant themselves within another. Initially, one cannot help but be influenced by his or her cultural background. Even if he or she chooses to live an entirely different lifestyle, choosing to eat different things (as Emily discussed), and following different standards – those choices are conscious rejections of the culture, exhibiting the massive influence it has. But, overtime, after free will has allowed you to accept the new standards, and begin to live, think and breathe in your new society and culture, have you escaped? Yes, it may have been the old culture that brought you there, but at a point, does the new ever completely envelope the old? I think that one could appear to have escaped. Culture could be shaken off – one may act, talk and look different – but how different would they be? 

- Annie Cleary