Patterns of Culture

“The life-history of the individual is first and foremost an accommodation to the patterns and standards traditionally handed down in his community. From the moment of his birth the customs into which he is born shape his experience and behaviour. By the time he can talk, he is the little creature of his culture, and by the time he is grown and able to take part in its activities, its habits are his habits, its beliefs his beliefs, its impossibilities his impossibilities. Every child that is born into his group will share them with him, and no child born into one on the opposite side of the globe can ever achieve the thousandth part.”

This quotation explains the importance of enculturation—the process by which culture is learned and transmitted across the generations. Enculturation begins at birth and continues throughout the lifetime of an individual. Enculturation is a group effort and binds individuals to one another. Enculturation is important for understanding how cultures are produced and reproduced.

“All over the world, since the beginning of human history, it can be shown that peoples have been able to adopt the culture of peoples of another blood. There is nothing in the biological structure of man that makes it even difficult. Man is not committed in detail by his biological constitution to any particular variety of behaviour. The great diversity of social solutions that man has worked out in different cultures in regard to mating, for example, or trade, are all equally possible on the basis of his original endowment. Culture is not a biologically transmitted complex.”

One of Benedict’s main arguments is that culture is a learned behavior. As Benedict explains, individuals can adopt cultural traits different from their own. This ability proves that culture is not passed down through biology. Culture distinguishes humans from other species, which rely on biological instinct for their survival.

 “The careful study of primitive societies is important today rather, as we have said, because they provide case material for the study of cultural forms and processes. They help us to differentiate between those responses that are specific to local cultural types and those that are general to mankind. Beyond this, they help us to gauge and understand the immensely important role of culturally conditioned behaviour. Culture, with its processes and functions, is a subject upon which we need all the enlightenment we can achieve, and there is no direction in which we can seek with greater reward than in the facts of preliterate societies.”

From Benedict’s perspective, it is beneficial to study non-Western societies because their social institutions are not as complex as those found in Western societies. It therefore is easier to study them in their entirety. Non-Western societies also add to a more diverse repertoire of cultural forms and processes. Using a comparative approach, scholars can determine which features are specific to particular societies and which are generalizable to humankind. Although Benedict’s use of the term “primitive” is not acceptable today, her point that non-Western societies are deserving of study was forward thinking for her time.

“In culture too we must imagine a great arc on which are ranged the possible interests provided either by the human age-cycle or by the environment or by man’s various activities. A culture that capitalized even a considerable proportion of these would be as unintelligible as a language that used all the clicks, all the glottal stops, all the labials, dentals, sibilants, and gutturals from voiceless to voiced and from oral to nasal. Its identity as a culture depends upon the selection of some segments of this arc. Every human society everywhere has made such selection in its cultural institutions.”

Benedict periodically refers to the concept of the “great arc” when describing the immense diversity of cultural patterns. The selection of traits by cultural groups is highly variable, thus leading to different institutions that reflect a dominant gestalt or cultural configuration. Benedict’s reference to language also demonstrates her training with Franz Boas and her attention to anthropology’s sub-disciplines, such as linguistic anthropology, which focuses on the relationship between language and culture. In this case, language serves as a comparative example for Benedict to discuss the premise of cultural selection.

“The significance of cultural behaviour is not exhausted when we have clearly understood that it is local and manmade and hugely variable. It tends also to be integrated. A culture, like an individual, is a more or less consistent pattern of thought and action.”

This basic definition of culture is frequently referred to in introductory anthropology courses today. Culture is learned, shared, and cohesive. Benedict’s definition of culture fits in with her larger theory of cultural configurations, which similarly emphasizes patterned attitudes and behaviors.

“The Gestalt (configuration) psychology has done some of the most striking work in justifying the importance of this point of departure from the whole rather than from its parts. Gestalt psychologists have shown that in the simplest sense-perception no analysis of the separate percepts can account for the total experience. It is not enough to divide perceptions up into objective fragments. The subjective framework, the forms provided by past experience, are crucial and cannot be omitted. The ‘wholeness-properties’ and the ‘wholeness-tendencies’ must be studied in addition to the simple association mechanisms with which psychology has been satisfied since the time of Locke. The whole determines its parts, not only their relation but their very nature.”

This passage lays the foundation for Benedict’s theory of cultural configurations. She draws on the work of psychologists to describe how cultures, like sense-perceptions, are more than the sum of their parts. As applied to cultures, individual traits add up to a configuration (or gestalt) that expresses the overall aesthetics and values of a society, which ultimately reflect a dominant personality type.

“The basic contrast between the Pueblos and the other cultures of North America is the contrast that is named and described by Nietzsche in his studies of Greek tragedy. He discusses two diametrically opposed ways of arriving at the values of existence. The Dionysian pursues them through ‘the annihilation of the ordinary bounds and limits of existence’; he seeks to attain in his most valued moments escape from the boundaries imposed upon him by his five senses, to break through into another order of experience. The desire of the Dionysian, in personal experience or in ritual, is to press through it toward a certain psychological state, to achieve excess. The closest analogy to the emotions he seeks is drunkenness, and he values the illuminations of frenzy. With Blake, he believes ‘the path of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.’ The Apollonian distrusts all this, and has often little idea of the nature of such experiences. He finds means to outlaw them from his conscious life. He ‘knows but one law, measure in the Hellenic sense.’ He keeps the middle of the road, stays within the known map, does not meddle with disruptive psychological states. In Nietzsche’s fine phrase, even in the exaltation of the dance, he ‘remains what he is, and retains his civic name.’”

Benedict often uses literary and philosophical works to interpret cultural phenomena. She draws on Friedrich Nietzsche’s writings on Greek drama to set up archetypical personalities, the Dionysian and Apollonian. Whereas the Dionysian is notable for excess in all forms of behavior, the Apollonian is a model of self-control and restraint. For Benedict, these figures exemplify the cultural configuration (or gestalt) of the Kwakiutl and Zuñi, respectively.

“A good man has, in Dr. Bunzel’s words, ‘a pleasing address, a yielding disposition, and a generous heart.’ The highest praise, describing an impeccable townsman, runs: ‘He is a nice polite man. No one ever hears anything from him. He never gets into trouble. He’s Badger clan and Muhekwe kiva, and he always dances in the summer dances.’ He should ‘talk lots,’ as they say—that is, he should always set people at ease—and he should without fail co-operate easily with others either in the field or in ritual, never betraying a suspicion of arrogance or a strong emotion.”

This description of the ideal Zuñi man stands in for Benedict’s portrayal of the entire Zuñi culture as courteous, cooperative, and restrained. It is common for anthropologists to include direct quotations from respondents as primary data to support broader theorizations. In this case, Benedict cites the field research of another scholar, Dr. Bunzel, to corroborate her depiction of the Zuñi people and their culture.

“What is true is that in one culture he finds the one emotion already channelled for him, and in the other the other. Most human beings take the channel that is ready made in their culture. If they can take this channel, they are provided with adequate means of expression. If they cannot, they have all the problems of the aberrant everywhere.”

Benedict believes that cultures largely shape individual attitudes into acceptable patterns of behavior. Individuals who do not follow these patterns often experience immense social alienation and emotional distress. This situation is of concern for Benedict, who, in her personal life, did not always conform to societal expectations. She advocates for tolerance throughout her book.

“Like their version of man’s relation to other men, their version of man’s relation to the cosmos gives no place to heroism and man’s will to overcome obstacles. It has no sainthood for those who,

Fighting, fighting, fighting,

Die Driven against the wall.

It has its own virtues, and they are singularly consistent. The ones that are out of place they have outlawed from their universe. They have made, in one small but long-established cultural island in North America, a civilization whose forms are dictated by the typical choices of the Apollonian, all of whose delight is in formality and whose way of life is the way of measure and of sobriety.”

Benedict frequently uses poetic allusions to convey the dominant characteristics and core values of cultural groups. Her writing style is highly humanistic for the social sciences. In this passage, which quotes the poem “The Kings” by Louise Imogen Guiney, Benedict refers to the self-control of the Zuñi, who do not valorize individual achievement but rather place a premium on group harmony and cooperation. 

“The motivations that run through all Dobuan existence are singularly limited. They are remarkable because of the consistency with which the institutions of the culture embody them and the lengths to which they are carried. In themselves they have the simplicity of mania. All existence is cut-throat competition, and every advantage is gained at the expense of a defeated rival. This competition, however, is not like that we shall describe upon the Northwest Coast, where rivalry is in the full glare of publicity and conflict is arrogant and aboveboard. In Dobu it is secret and treacherous. The good man, the successful man, is he who has cheated another of his place. The culture provides extravagant techniques and elaborate occasions for such behaviour. In the end all existence in Dobu is brought under the domination of these purposes.”

This quotation describes the dominant cultural configuration (or gestalt) of the Dobuans, whom Benedict portrays as competitive, treacherous, and manic. Benedict compares the Dobuans to the Kwakiutl, noting that the main difference between the two is that the Dobuans prefer secrecy to the Kwakiutl’s public displays of rivalry. Her cross-cultural and comparative approach reflects anthropologists’ preoccupation with describing the features of many different cultures to determine what is specific to cultural groups and what is generalizable to all of humankind.

“The most prolific source of bad feeling is the sharp practice known as wabuwabu.

To wabuwabu is to get many spondylus shell necklaces from different places to the south on the security of one armshell left at home in the north; or vice versa, many armshells from the north on a security that cannot meet them, promising the one valuable which one possesses to many different persons in return for their gifts that are being solicited. It is sharp practice, but it is not entirely confidence trickstering. […]

To wabuwabu successfully is a great achievement, one of the most envied in Dobu. The great mythical hero of the Kula was an expert in it. Like all Dobuan practices it stresses one’s own gains at the expense of another’s loss. It allows one to reap personal advantage in a situation in which others are victimized.”

Wabuwabu is an endeavor that allows someone to profit at the expense of another. The Dobuans greatly value this practice, which they deploy in their economic and marital pursuits. Oftentimes, anthropologists use an indigenous term, like wabuwabu, to encapsulate the core values of a cultural group. Wabuwabu, with its emphasis on trickery and treachery, reflects the dominant cultural values of the Dobuans.

“The deep-seated prudery of Dobu is familiar enough to us in our own cultural background, and the dourness of Dobuan character that is associated with it accompanied also the prudery of the Puritans. But there are differences. We are accustomed to associate this complex with a denial of passion and a lesser emphasis upon sex. The association is not inevitable. In Dobu dourness and prudery go along with prenuptial promiscuity and with a high estimation of sex passion and techniques. Men and women alike rate sex satisfaction high and make achievement of it a matter of great concern.”

In this quotation, Benedict describes the sexual attitudes and preferences of the Dobuans, whom she describes as dour and prude. These characteristics do not dissuade them from engaging in prenuptial sex, however, as the Dobuans greatly value sexual fulfillment. Benedict’s discussion of sex is characteristic of anthropologists of the time, who frequently referred to the sexual practices of non-Western societies to engage the interests of a general audience. 

“In ordinary converse the Dobuan is suave and unctuously polite. ‘If we wish to kill a man we approach him, we eat, drink, sleep, work and rest with him, it may be for several moons. We bide our time. We call him friend.’ Therefore when the diviner weighs the evidence in determining the murderer, suspicion falls upon anyone who has sought out his company. If they were together for no reason that appeared customary, the matter is regarded as proved. As Dr. Fortune says, ‘The Dobuans prefer to be infernally nasty or else not nasty at all.’”

Benedict use quotations from Dobuan respondents to convey the extent of their treachery and paranoia. They are suspicious of anyone who socializes with another person for no obvious reason. To them, doing so signals malicious intent. Benedict also quotes Reo Fortune, as she relies on his fieldwork with the Dobuans as ethnographic evidence for her theorization of cultural configurations.

“Like most of the American Indians, except those of the Southwest pueblos, the tribes of the Northeast Coast were Dionysian. In their religious ceremonies the final thing they strove for was ecstasy. The chief dancer, at least at the high point of his performance, should lose normal control of himself and be rapt into another state of existence. He should froth at the mouth, tremble violently and abnormally, do deeds which would be terrible in a normal state.”

Benedict’s description of a Kwakiutl ceremonial dance highlights Dionysian attributes of excess and ecstasy. This ritualistic performance characterizes the Kwakiutl culture in its entirety. Benedict contrasts their Dionysian cultural configuration with the self-moderation of the Zuñi—a comparison that serves as an ethnographic and analytical foil throughout the book.

“The ultimate reason why a man of the Northwest Coast cared about the nobility titles, the wealth, the crests and prerogatives lays bare the mainspring of their culture: they used them in a contest in which they sought to shame their rivals. Each individual, according to his means, constantly vied with all others to outdistance them in distributions of property. The boy who had just received his first gift of property selected another youth to receive a gift from him. The youth he chose could not refuse without admitting defeat at the onset, and he was compelled to cap the gift with an equal amount of property. When the time came for repayment if he had not double the original gift to return as interest he was shamed and demoted, and his rival’s prestige correspondingly enhanced. The contest thus begun continued throughout life. If he was successful he played with continually increasing amounts of property and with more and more formidable rivals. It was a fight. They say, ‘We do not fight with weapons. We fight with property.’”

This quotation explains the motivations and rationale for why the Kwakiutl value wealth and property. They do not intrinsically value possessions per se; rather, they value the competitive display of acquiring property and publicly defeating rivals. This quotation also offers an excellent example of enculturation, which begins when a child is young and continues over the course of a lifetime.

“The object of all Kwakiutl enterprise was to show oneself superior to one’s rivals. This will to superiority they exhibited in the most uninhibited fashion. It found expression in uncensored self-glorification and ridicule of all comers. Judged by the standards of other cultures the speeches of their chiefs at their potlatches are unabashed megalomania.

I am the great chief who makes people ashamed.

I am the great chief who makes people ashamed.

Our chief brings shame to the faces.

Our chief brings jealousy to the faces.

Our chief makes people cover their faces by what he is continually doing in this world,

Giving again and again oil feasts to all the tribes.”

This quotation is representative of Benedict’s portrayal of the Kwakiutl as Dionysian. She describes the potlatch speeches of the Kwakiutl as “unabashed megalomania,” a personality trait that typifies her depiction of their overall culture. The speech itself, included as ethnographic evidence, also reveals Benedict’s humanistic and interpretive approach to describing cultural phenomena.

“The three cultures of Zuñi, of Dobu, and of the Kwakiutl are not merely heterogeneous assortments of acts and beliefs. They have each certain goals toward which their behaviour is directed and which their institutions further. They differ from one another not only because one trait is present here and absent there, and because another trait is found in two regions in two different forms. They differ still more because they are oriented as wholes in different directions. They are traveling along different roads in pursuit of different ends, and these ends and these means in one society cannot be judged in terms of those of another society, because essentially they are incommensurable.”

Benedict here explains her reasons for focusing on the Zuñi, Dobuan, and Kwakiutl cultures as ethnographic case studies. She notes that their cultural institutions are not a random assortment of beliefs and practices but rather are coherent in their realization of particular objectives and goals. The cultural attitudes and behaviors of each group are different, in large part, because their motivations are different. While it is possible to compare the three groups, they should be judged not in relation to each other but rather on their own terms—a tenet of cultural relativism that Benedict promotes throughout the book.

“Facile generalizations about the integration of culture are most dangerous in field-work. When one is mastering the language and all the idiosyncrasies of behaviour of an esoteric culture, preoccupation with its configuration may well be an obstacle to a genuine understanding. The fieldworker must be faithfully objective. He must chronicle all the relevant behaviour, taking care not to select according to any challenging hypothesis the facts that will fit a thesis. None of the peoples we have discussed in this volume were studied in the field with any preconception of a consistent type of behaviour which that culture illustrated. The ethnology was set down as it came, with no attempt to make it self-consistent. The total pictures are therefore much more convincing to the student.”

This quotation describes best practices for conducting and writing up anthropological research. Benedict notes that language acquisition is important as well as making accurate and objective observations of attitudes and practices. She cautions against preconceived ideas when observing a cultural group and not selectively picking examples to create a cohesive or consistent pattern of a culture. While Benedict values anthropological fieldwork, almost all the research presented in this book is secondary since it derives from the ethnographic accounts of other scholars.

“The difficulty with naïve interpretations of culture in terms of individual behaviour is not that these interpretations are those of psychology, but that they ignore history and the historical processes of acceptance or rejection of traits. Any configurational interpretation of cultures also is an exposition in terms of individual psychology, but it depends upon history as well as upon psychology. It holds that Dionysian behaviour is stressed in the institutions of certain cultures because it is a permanent possibility in individual psychology, but that it is stressed in certain cultures and not in others because of historical events that have ruled it out. At different points in the interpretation of cultural forms, both history and psychology are necessary; one cannot make the one do the service of the other.”

This quotation emphasizes the importance of incorporating historical analyses in anthropological research. Benedict privileges psychological theory in her configurational approach to cultures yet also states that certain cultural traits are prevalent because of historical events that have (or have not) occurred. In her description of cultures like the Zuñi, Dobuans, and Kwakiutl, however, Benedict offers little historical context and does not elaborate on the origins of how or why certain cultures adopt particular personality traits.

“The cultural pattern of any civilization makes use of a certain segment of the great arc of potential human purposes and motivations, just as we have seen it in an earlier chapter that any culture makes use of certain selected material techniques or cultural traits. The great arc along which all the possible human behaviours are distributed is far too immense and too full of contradictions for any one culture to utilize even any considerable portion of it.”

Benedict again uses the metaphor of “the great arc” to draw attention to the immense range of cultural traits that humans can select to create culture. Their choices, by emphasizing some traits over others, give form to dominant patterns and configurations. However, while focused on coherent patterns, Benedict does not subscribe to an organized typology of cultures. Rather, as she states, the combination of choices is infinite, and as such, so is the possibility of dominant cultural configurations.

“Society in its full sense as we have discussed it in this volume is never an entity separable from the individuals who compose it. No individual can arrive even at the threshold of his potentialities without a culture in which he participates. Conversely, no civilization has in it any element which in the last analysis is not the contribution of an individual. Where else could any trait come from except from the behaviour of a man or a woman or a child?”

One of the main arguments of Benedict’s work is that individuals make up society, and society comprises the contributions of individuals. They are inseparable, as each fundamentally shape and mutually reinforce the other. This quotation also recognizes that culture is grounded in the behavior of individuals, an idea that is significant for its insight that anthropological investigations should focus on “practice.”

“Western civilization tends to regard even a mild homosexual as an abnormal. The clinical picture of homosexuality stresses the neuroses and psychoses to which it gives rise, and emphasizes almost equally the inadequate functioning of the invert and his behaviour. We have only to turn to other cultures, however, to realize that homosexuals have by no means been uniformly inadequate to the social situation. They have not always failed to function. In some societies they have even been especially acclaimed.”

This quotation is an example of cultural relativism and Benedict’s sensitivity towards individuals who do not conform to societal norms. Through case examples of homosexuality, she explains that individuals who have different sexual orientations or identify as non-binary are often respected in non-Western societies, where they assume special roles of influence and power. This quotation shows that seemingly scientific and clinical categories of “abnormality” are cultural constructions, too.