YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Paper I, Topic 6, Anthropological theories : (a) Classical evolutionism (f) Neo-evolutionism Part I

Paper I, Topic 6, Anthropological theories : (a) Classical evolutionism (f) Neo-evolutionism Part I — Transcript

by Anthropology for UPSC (Simplified IAS Academy) · 19,761 words · 3,168 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Hi everyone, in this anthropology
0:02lecture series for Paper One, today we
0:04will be discussing Topic Six, Part One.
0:06So let's begin. See, the
0:09anthropological theories that are
0:11mentioned in your UPSC syllabus. We
0:13will cover them in different parts.
0:15Alright? So in this lecture today, we
0:18will be covering Classical Evolutionism
0:21and Neo-Evolutionism. Because it is
0:23necessary to study these two together,
0:26as they are in a continuity. And if you
0:29study them, these things will become
0:31much easier for you in the upcoming
0:33lectures. Alright. And all these
0:35anthropological theories that we are
0:37going to study, we will try to study
0:39them based on certain parameters. And I
0:41suggest that when you are mentioning or
0:43writing in the exam, if you are asked
0:45any question related to anthropological
0:47theories. Then you must try and
0:50maintain this kind of particular, I
0:53could say, flow chart or approach, you
0:55can say. So first of all, you have to
0:58write about the introduction. Okay?
0:59Whichever anthropological theory you
1:01are writing about, you have to write a
1:04short and brief introduction. Then,
1:06whichever thinker is mentioned in it,
1:08we will see along with examples moving
1:10forward. So, a brief background of that
1:13particular thinker. Okay? Although I
1:16have included various brief bios about
1:18those thinkers. So accordingly, you can
1:21include them in the same way moving
1:22forward. Then, if any book is mentioned
1:24, because generally, all the
1:26anthropological theories we will study
1:28and whichever thinkers we will talk
1:29about, they must have written some book
1:31or the other that is worth mentioning,
1:33and you should mention that. Then,
1:35whichever fieldwork they had done, or
1:38study they had conducted, was done upon
1:41which tribe or which particular place,
1:43that you need to write down. Then, if
1:46you find case studies, well and good.
1:49And if you have found case studies, if
1:50you can present them with the help of a
1:52flow chart, that is much better. That
1:54will save you some time and space as
1:56well. Then, accomplishments. See, any
1:59accomplishments you find regarding that
2:02particular theory, you can write the
2:03accomplishment about that specific
2:05theory. Or if you also know about the
2:08particular thinker, then you could
2:10write that down too. Okay? And don't
2:12worry, we will understand all these
2:13things with the help of examples. But
2:14first, you need to understand what our
2:17flow will be like. Then, criticism if
2:19applicable; although generally, you
2:21will find criticism in all the theories
2:23overall. But if you find any criticism
2:26regarding particular thinkers, you can
2:28write that down. If you find it
2:29regarding the overall theory, then you
2:31should also write that down. Then the
2:34conclusion, so see, when you have to
2:36write a conclusion, you should
2:38basically conclude on a good note about
2:40how that particular theory helped in
2:42anthropology. Helped in various other
2:46studies in anthropology. So, all the
2:49anthropological theories that we are
2:51going to study will be based on these
2:53parameters. So, you can take a
2:56screenshot of this. You can write it
2:58down because all the theories you are
3:00going to cover further will be based on
3:01this. Okay? Then first of all, let's
3:05take an overview of anthropological
3:07theories. We will definitely study all
3:10the Classical Evolutionism and
3:12Neo-evolutionism that we are going to
3:14cover in this particular lecture. But
3:17overall, for the upcoming lectures as
3:19well, you should first know what
3:20anthropological theories are. Why are
3:23we talking about these? See, when you
3:25talk about anthropological theories,
3:27they are not particularly a new thing.
3:29Their history can be traced back to the
3:32early Greek philosophers like Herodotus
3:35or Aristotle's times. Because when we
3:38talk about anthropological theories,
3:40basically what they are doing is they
3:43are helping us in understanding various
3:45cultures. Okay? They are helping us in
3:49knowing about culture. And culture has
3:52existed for a long time. The time when
3:55thinkers like Aristotle and Herodotus
3:57used to be there. So they also observed
4:00and understood society. They also
4:02derived some thought processes. And in
4:05the time that followed, there were
4:07various other anthropologists and
4:08various other thinkers like Charles
4:10Darwin, who is basically known for 'The
4:13Origin of Species'. Then E.B. Tylor,
4:15L.H. Morgan, these are some prominent
4:18names. And these E.B. Tylor and L.H.
4:20Morgan, we will study about them today
4:22as well. And if you can recall whatever
4:25we have studied till now in
4:27socio-cultural anthropology, then we
4:29have discussed almost all the famous, I
4:31could say, anthropologists. Like we
4:35have talked about E.B. Tylor, we have
4:37also talked about L.H. Morgan, okay. Uh
4:39, we have also mentioned Franz Boas
4:41somewhere or the other. Then you also
4:43read about Malinowski. Although I am
4:46not saying that you have studied all
4:49the thinkers mentioned in your
4:51Anthropology theories, but one thing is
4:53for sure, whatever thinkers you have
4:55studied so far in Socio-Cultural
4:57Anthropology, particularly, we are
4:59going to consolidate all of them. We
5:02will not be studying anything new about
5:04the thinkers you have already read
5:05about. We won't be looking at anything
5:07very new. Although there will be a
5:08different lens and perspective. But you
5:10have already studied many things. So
5:12that is a good thing and an interesting
5:14thing. So, if you have covered all the
5:17previous lectures well, you will not
5:18face much trouble in the upcoming
5:20lectures. Okay? Then, in the initial
5:24phase, we mentioned Charles Darwin,
5:25E.B. Tylor, and L.H. Morgan. After them
5:29, Franz Boas, W.H.R. Rivers, Malinowski
5:31, Levi-Strauss, Ruth Benedict, Margaret
5:33Mead, and all these anthropologists
5:35came and they also gave different
5:37theories. When we study about them one
5:40by one, everything will become clear to
5:42you. Then, all the theories of the 19th
5:45century. Okay? You can divide them into
5:48certain particular schools in this way.
5:51One is Evolutionism, which will include
5:54both classical and neo-evolutionism,
5:56which we will cover in today's Part 1.
5:59Okay? Then we have, we will talk about
6:01Diffusionism. Then we will talk about
6:04Functionalism. Then
6:05Structural-Functionalism, Structuralism
6:07, and the Culture and Personality
6:09school of thought. So, these are
6:11basically your broader six schools of
6:13thought. And those mentioned in your
6:15syllabus, including Post-Modernism and
6:17some other things like Cognitive
6:18theories, etc., we will cover those as
6:20well. Okay? But from the perspective of
6:23anthropological theories, if we talk
6:25about schools of thought, you can
6:26divide them into these categories. Then
6:29, let's try to go a bit more in-depth
6:31because, so far, we have discussed what
6:33anthropological theories are and who
6:35gave them, just an overview for you to
6:37understand. Now, why study
6:39anthropological theories? Why is it
6:40important for us to study this? So, see
6:43, there was a thinking or a thought
6:46process where many anthropologists,
6:48many thinkers, believed that the
6:51different things happening in the world
6:54are all happening at the same point in
6:57time. And they also gave different
6:59reasons behind this. We will understand
7:01along with the examples. If you can see
7:04, zero was invented in India and
7:06Babylon at the same time. What does
7:08that mean? It doesn't mean that at 10
7:11o'clock on the 7th of April there was a
7:13discovery of zero and at the same point
7:16in time in Babylon there was a
7:18discovery of zero. No, nothing like
7:20that. It was basically talking about a
7:22broader, or you can say, a time frame.
7:25Within that time frame, something was
7:26discovered here in India, and then in
7:28Babylon, around the same time, a
7:29similar discovery was made. That is
7:31what it means. It's not as if it
7:33appeared in both places at the exact
7:34same moment. Something not like that.
7:36Okay? And there were some scholars,
7:39like William Ogburn and Dorothy Thomas,
7:41who wrote a book, and in this book they
7:43stated, "There are various other
7:44examples, not just the zero example,"
7:46where it is shown that the discovery of
7:48zero happened in two places
7:50simultaneously. There were various
7:52other examples, like Newton and Leibniz
7:54, who both discovered calculus. Okay?
7:56But who do we know today? We talk more
7:59about Newton. Right? Charles Darwin and
8:02Alfred Russel Wallace both talked about
8:04evolution. And both of them discovered
8:06evolution. It was not solely about
8:08Charles Darwin. But we talk more about
8:11Darwin today. That is something
8:13different. Then, in the same way, there
8:14are many such examples. We don't need
8:16to look at each and everything
8:17simultaneously, but here it is
8:19mentioned for you to understand that
8:21there are many things that may have
8:22happened in two places at once. So, if
8:25you could recall, or if you could
8:26relate it to your own experience, you
8:28might have observed sometime in your
8:30life that you and your best friend want
8:33to do the same thing at the same point
8:35in time. Right? And you say, "Okay, I
8:36felt like doing this too, and you felt
8:38the same way." Let's do it. So, what
8:40does this mean? Why did both of you
8:42decide to do one thing at the same
8:44point in time? Because there must have
8:46been some kind of connection. Perhaps
8:47your thought processes are quite
8:49similar. That is why it happened.
8:50That's the general conclusion. Right?
8:52The same goes for anthropological
8:54theories as well. So, all these other
8:58anthropologists believed that these
9:00things were able to happen
9:03simultaneously because the world shares
9:06the same basic psychological and
9:08cognitive makeup. Mark this: almost all
9:13the people living in the present day,
9:15within the same timeframe, share the
9:17same thought process. It's not that it
9:21will be entirely similar or identical,
9:23but yes, more or less, the standard
9:26things will remain the same. And this
9:28hypothesis was originally formulated by
9:31Adolf Bastian. We will also study about
9:33Adolf Bastian. And the theory he
9:36discussed, regarding the psychological
9:38and cognitive makeup being the same,
9:40was named by Adolf Bastian as the "
9:42Psychic Unity of Mankind." We will look
9:44into this when we study the theories in
9:46more detail later. And basically, Adolf
9:49Bastian was the father of German
9:51Anthropology, and he was also a German
9:53classical evolutionist. That is why we
9:55will study about him during the time of
9:57classical evolution. And he then passed
9:59on this postulate to Franz Boas, who in
10:02turn transmitted the same to all his
10:04students. So, basically, it went from
10:06Adolf Bastian to Franz Boas. Franz Boas
10:09also had various students. It was
10:11passed on to them. So, you can say
10:12things kept moving forward. And this
10:15was one of such rational concepts given
10:18by anthropologists. Then the principle
10:21formed the foundation of 19 th-century
10:23evolution, and it has taken into
10:26account cultural differences. The
10:28Psychic Unity of Mankind has influenced
10:30later anthropologists, including
10:32Radcliffe-Brown and Julian Steward.
10:34Just remember the names Radcliffe-Brown
10:36and Julian Steward for now. And we will
10:39see later how they were influenced by
10:40the ideas of Adolf Bastian. And how
10:43they gave different theories, and it
10:45also laid the foundation for what later
10:47came to be known as diffusionist
10:49anthropology. See, if you keep the
10:51syllabus in front of you in
10:52anthropology, you will see that we are
10:54studying about the classical period. We
10:56will study about classical evolution
10:58right now, okay? Along with that, we
10:59will study about neo-classical
11:01evolutionism. After that, we will move
11:02on to diffusionism. We will move to
11:04diffusion. Okay? So this happened
11:06because it was only after the gradual
11:08evolution that the process of diffusion
11:10occurred. As you may see, what Adolf
11:13Bastian provided, then it went to Franz
11:15Boas. Then Radcliffe-Brown and Julian
11:17Steward carried it forward. Then
11:19further, this diffusionism was promoted
11:21, and within diffusionism, we will see
11:23which anthropologists came next, what
11:26they contributed, and what this
11:27diffusionism basically says. It says
11:30that things have diffused from one
11:31particular place. Okay? Suppose there
11:34is a particular area. There is some
11:35culture from there. It has diffused and
11:37moved forward. Like we used to talk
11:39about the cradle of civilization. The
11:42same thing is applicable there too,
11:43that culture has diffused and gone to
11:45different places. What is that? So that
11:48is what diffusionism is, in one line
11:50you can say. And these cultural
11:52evolutionists and diffusionists differ
11:54in terms of independent inventions and
11:57spread of culture respectively. So,
11:59they had different thought processes.
12:01But the end result of their findings
12:04and their quest for knowledge was more
12:07or less the same. And what do all the
12:10things we have seen so far show? It
12:13shows that the studies among other
12:15cultures all over the globe undertaken
12:18by anthropologists have resulted in the
12:20formulation of different perspectives
12:22and understanding over time. And these
12:25different perspectives are examined in
12:27anthropological theories. So, in one
12:30word or one sentence if we have to say.
12:33So basically, anthropological theories
12:35deal with the various perspectives
12:37related to the different kinds of
12:39cultures that prevail in various
12:40societies at different points in time.
12:43Okay? It helps us in understanding
12:45these anthropological theories. So,
12:48that is what it is all about. So now we
12:51start studying about our classical
12:54evolutionism. Alright, to understand
12:58about classical evolutionism. First of
13:01all, we need to understand what
13:03evolution is. When we talk about
13:05evolution, although it's not a new term
13:07. We have been reading about evolution
13:09for a long time. And even in school,
13:10you must have read about what evolution
13:12is. So, what does evolution mean? A
13:14gradually occurring slow process. Okay?
13:17One thing that should be noted is the
13:19slow process. It is not like if
13:21evolution is happening, a particular
13:23thing is here today and it evolves
13:25instantly like this. That won't happen.
13:28It will slowly and gradually evolve
13:30from a particular x to y. Right? And
13:35these evolutions or these changes are
13:37too small to see. If you talk about a
13:40shorter time frame, you won't be able
13:42to tell quickly how much evolution has
13:44occurred or how it happened. So, it is
13:46very difficult to tell at one point in
13:47time. It will take like a long period
13:49of time, you can say. Okay? For this
13:52evolution to happen. So, that is why it
13:54is also known as an idea of time.
13:56Alright? And this is a vertical
13:58approach. And this theory of evolution
14:01was first discovered by, or you can say
14:03the idea was given by Charles Darwin in
14:06his book, Origin of Species. Okay? And
14:10if we talk about the proper definition
14:12of evolution, then Herbert Spencer gave
14:15a very good definition of evolution.
14:18Meaning, he was a contemporary to
14:19Darwin. And he wrote a book. That is
14:22known as Principles of Sociology. And
14:23according to him, what was the
14:25definition? Although it is a bit
14:27difficult, but yes, if you want to make
14:28an impression, you can write about the
14:30definition by Herbert Spencer.
14:32Otherwise, there are various other
14:34definitions of evolution, like you can
14:36say here, you can also write this. Okay
14:38? And why have I written cultural
14:40evolution here? Because what Darwin
14:42talked about, there we are mostly
14:44focusing on biological evolution. Okay?
14:46But when we are reading or talking
14:48about anthropological theories. Or
14:50anthropology, we are mostly focusing on
14:53cultural evolution. Unless it is
14:55explicitly stated that you are talking
14:57about biological evolution. Alright. So
14:59, you can look at the simple definition
15:01of cultural evolution. It may be
15:03defined as the process by which
15:05different successive forms in the
15:07socio-cultural institutions or culture
15:09of the humankind are developed over a
15:11period of time. Okay? And the same with
15:14Herbert Spencer, who redefined
15:16evolution as the change from an
15:18indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a
15:20definite, coherent heterogeneity
15:22through continuous differentiation and
15:24integration. Although it says the same
15:26thing that we understand about
15:27evolution. But it is a bit, in terms of
15:30wording, it is kind of a difficult one.
15:33Okay? Then, now we come to our main
15:35topic. Of the evolutionists. See, when
15:38we talk about evolutionists, it can be
15:40categorized into two. One is of
15:42classical evolutionists and another is
15:44of neo-evolutionists. Right? Which we
15:47saw at the very beginning of our
15:49syllabus. Then you can see both
15:52classical and neo, if I skip saying it.
15:56You assume that if I say classical and
15:58neo, it means I am talking about the
16:00classical evolutionists or the
16:01neo-evolutionists. Okay? So when we
16:04talk about the classical, you can also
16:05categorize them into British, American,
16:07and German. Okay? And when we talk
16:09about the new, you can divide them into
16:11British or American categories. I will
16:13show you how. So first, you can see,
16:15when we talk about evolutionists.
16:17Evolutionists are of two types.
16:19Classical and neo. Okay? This is Part A
16:22of your syllabus. I guess this is Part
16:24F of the syllabus. Okay? Then you
16:26divided it into British, American, and
16:29German. Then you also divided Neo into
16:31British and American. There was no
16:33contribution here from the German side.
16:35Then, when we talk about British
16:37evolutionists in terms of classical,
16:39you will find EB Tylor, Frazer, Marett,
16:41Morgan; JJ Bachofen and Adolf Bastian
16:44are your German, and your American is
16:46LH Morgan. Then one more thing I wanted
16:49to highlight is that your syllabus
16:52definitely mentions three names under
16:54classical evolutionism, that is Tylor,
16:56Morgan, and Frazer. Okay? But as you
17:00may see, here is your Tylor. One
17:03Britisher, then your Morgan here, who
17:06is an American, and then Frazer, again
17:08a Britisher; so RR Marett is not
17:10mentioned anywhere in your syllabus,
17:12nor is JJ Bachofen or Adolf Bastian
17:14mentioned, but if we look at the
17:16categorization, all of these will come
17:19under it. Okay? And when we look at
17:22Neo-evolutionism, we will see which of
17:24these are mentioned in your syllabus
17:25and which are not, accordingly. But
17:28what I have done is, since only about
17:30three are mentioned, I will be covering
17:33all of these. Okay? Because somewhere
17:36or other, we have already read about
17:38Marett in religion, so it wouldn't be a
17:39difficult task for you to understand
17:41him. Then, until you understand Adolf
17:44Bastian, you won't understand the
17:46psychic unity of mankind as well. So
17:48that is why it is better for you to
17:49understand. And then JJ Bachofen, why
17:51should we leave him out? We will read
17:53about him too. Okay? Although one more
17:55thing, you will find the same in all
17:57the theories we are going to study
17:59further. That there are various
18:01thinkers or anthropologists. But there,
18:04we will mostly limit ourselves to those
18:06whose names are mentioned. Okay? But in
18:08the case of classical evolutionism and
18:10Neo-evolutionism, it becomes essential
18:12for you to understand for a holistic
18:14understanding. Because almost all these
18:16names you have already covered. So it
18:18won't be a tough task, okay? So now
18:20let's start one by one. Then first of
18:23all, I have made this particular, you
18:25can say, a chart or a diagram, anything
18:27that you can name it. So in this
18:29diagram, I will include almost all the
18:31anthropological theories wherever it is
18:33relevant. So in this, as you can see,
18:35there is a basic idea of what we are
18:37going to study. It will be clear for
18:39you. Because I know that regarding
18:41anthropological theories, some people
18:42often wonder what we are going to study
18:44. How we are going to remember it. This
18:46is something that seems like a very big
18:47thing. But it is nothing like that.
18:49Okay? When we are talking about
18:51classical evolutionism, what is the
18:53major assumption of this school of
18:55yours? Its assumption states that when
18:59you talk about extracting the crux, the
19:01crux is that all societies pass through
19:04a series of stages. And the advocates
19:07of this, or those who gave these types
19:10of theories. Tylor and Morgan are
19:12mentioned here because it is not
19:13possible to mention all the names here.
19:15Although, if you want, you can write
19:17all the names written out here. All of
19:19those you see here are classical
19:21evolutionists. So, all of these became
19:23its advocates. So, if you want, you can
19:25write the names of all of them, or you
19:26can write the ones that are important.
19:28What is the major thing necessary to
19:30know is what the major assumption of
19:32that particular school is? Okay? So,
19:34you have learned that all societies
19:36pass through a series of stages. And if
19:39you could recall, we have read many
19:41different stages, whether it is in
19:43religion, in marriage, or in family. We
19:46have seen how different stages evolved
19:48to the present day. Right? So that is
19:51what we are going to study in this
19:53classical evolutionism. Now see, the
19:58proponents of classical evolutionism,
20:01like E.B. Tylor, James Frazer, R.R.
20:03Marett, Morgan, Adolf Bastian, J.J.
20:06Bachofen, all these are known as the
20:09unilinear evolutionists. Okay? As they
20:13believe that human culture evolves in a
20:16unilinear sequence, stage after stage,
20:19from simple to complex. As you may see,
20:21if you remember, we have used this
20:24particular chart before as well. And
20:26here I have shown you how there is
20:29savagery, then barbarism, then
20:30civilization. If you remember, when we
20:33talked about Morgan's theories about
20:35evolution. So basically, Morgan had
20:38indeed given this theory in one of his
20:40books; if you remember the name, that
20:42is well and good. So, just like Morgan,
20:45other classical evolutionists also
20:48believed that all societies were
20:50gradually evolving from one point to
20:53another in a unilinear fashion. Okay?
20:56Meaning, they are developing in the
20:58same way. All these societies are
21:00moving in this very same way. It is not
21:02like one is going this way, one that
21:04way, or another in a different
21:05direction. It is not like that. That
21:07would be the case in multilinear
21:08evolution. We will see what that is
21:09later. But for now, just know that all
21:12classical evolutionists were also
21:14believers in unilinear evolution. And
21:17according to unilinear evolution, the
21:19culture of mankind developed from early
21:21stages of savagery and barbarism to
21:23civilization. Then these evolutionists
21:27must assume that cultural parallels or
21:29cultural similarities came into
21:32existence due to the psychic unity of
21:34mankind. Because how is everyone
21:36developing at the same time? How is
21:38everyone developing in the same
21:39direction? Because there is some kind
21:41of psychic unity of mankind. All their
21:44cognitive thinking and abilities are
21:45working in a similar way. That is why
21:48it is moving in one direction. If you
21:50could understand this with an example,
21:52suppose we have all made tea or Maggi
21:55at some point in our lives. Right? You
21:58all must have made it. So, if you try
22:02to simplify and understand this, at
22:04point one, okay. At this point,
22:07everyone, like suppose there are three
22:09friends. These three friends, they
22:11never knew how to make tea or how to
22:13make Maggi. They all started using hit
22:16and trial and decided, let's prepare
22:18some tea and Maggi for breakfast or
22:20something like that, okay. So all three
22:23tried, and all three started in the
22:25same way, as their thought process said
22:27, okay, we need to make tea. So first
22:30of all, we need to, you know, boil the
22:33milk and put the tea leaves into it or
22:35something like that. They thought
22:37through the same kind of thought
22:39process. That happened because
22:41somewhere they all know what tea looks
22:43like, so they applied their minds in
22:44the same way and did things accordingly
22:46. It is not like one of them thought,
22:48okay, that's fine. Let me put the tea
22:51leaves in first. And then I will add
22:53milk and water later. It was not like
22:55that. So that was the common thought
22:57process. Similarly, if we talk about
23:00Maggi, they also know that, okay, first
23:01you need to boil some water and then
23:03put the Maggi in it. It is not like
23:05that. First put the Maggi and then add
23:06water at some point in time. It was not
23:08like that. So, these evolutionists
23:11believed that a similar type of thought
23:13process existed. For all people, and
23:17that is why the entire civilization
23:21evolved in a similar fashion due to
23:24this psychic unity. Alright? I hope the
23:27example was well understood by you.
23:30Then suggesting that human minds share
23:32similar characteristics all over the
23:35world and everyone acts and thinks in a
23:37similar way in similar environmental
23:39conditions. Similarly, if you assume
23:42that someone is living in a coastal
23:45area, or someone is in a desert area,
23:47or you are living in a place where it
23:49rains a lot, then you and your friends
23:51will think in a similar fashion. You
23:55will feel like, okay, if you are going
23:56out, you should wear a raincoat or take
23:58an umbrella along with you. Alright?
24:01It’s not like that. You know that,
24:02yes, it is raining. Environmental
24:04conditions are of this type, and you
24:06won’t go and wear two or three
24:08jackets and sweaters because that’s
24:10not very obvious, right? Considering
24:11the kind of environment. So, you and
24:13your friend, considering the
24:15environment, will think along the same
24:16lines. Because it is a very obvious
24:19thing. Although you might feel, well,
24:20what is the big deal in this? This is
24:22quite obvious. But when you think from
24:25an anthropological perspective, things
24:27were perhaps not as similar or as
24:29simple back then as they appear to you
24:31today. So, that is why they were trying
24:33to understand why this is so, how it is
24:35so. Alright? So, try to think by going
24:37into that perspective a little bit. And
24:39that is what is being mentioned here,
24:41that they think in the same way under
24:43similar circumstances and conditions.
24:46And that means all people and their
24:47corresponding societies go through the
24:49same process of development. Alright?
24:52Just like the discovery of zero was
24:54also talked about. That was an example
24:57of the psychic unity of mankind. Then,
25:00although it is not very necessary, I
25:03would suggest that you should know
25:05about unilinear evolutionism and the
25:08unilinear theory. Because you never
25:12know if UPSC might ask you, and since
25:14you have studied this unilinear
25:16evolution, you should at least know how
25:19to write 100 to 150 words on it.
25:21Alright? That is why I have included
25:23this value addition, that when you talk
25:25about unilinear evolution, you simply
25:26have to write down the definition. So,
25:28what did they believe? It refers to
25:30classical social evolution in 19
25:32th-century social theory regarding the
25:34evolution of society and culture. And
25:37it was composed of many competitive
25:38theories by various anthropologists and
25:40sociologists who believed that Western
25:43culture is the contemporary pinnacle of
25:45social evolution. Why is Western
25:46culture the contemporary pinnacle?
25:48Because they felt that the earlier
25:50societies that used to exist. They were
25:53nothing. Right? Meaning they were
25:55completely uncivilized. They didn't
25:56know anything. But today's Western
25:58culture, they are the top-most thing.
26:01Right? And the best thing that could
26:03have happened. That is why starting
26:05from zero, people have reached here
26:08today. Right? That is what the
26:09evolutionists believed. Then what does
26:11your unilinear theory say? The
26:13unilinear theory, which was given in
26:15the 19th century. Was thought to follow
26:17a unilinear pattern whereby all
26:19cultures progressively develop over
26:21time. So similarly, the things we have
26:23learned and read so far, they are
26:25presenting that in a proper sentence.
26:27And the underlying assumption was that
26:29cultural evolution itself led to the
26:31growth and development of civilization.
26:34And you can remember the name of Thomas
26:36Hobbes when you are writing about
26:38unilinear theory. So he actually, in
26:40the 17th century—because when we are
26:42talking about unilinear theory and
26:44evolutionists, these are all people
26:46from the 19th century. Long before that
26:48, there were people like Herbert
26:51Spencer, Thomas Hobbes, and Charles
26:53Darwin who talked about evolution.
26:55Thomas Hobbes was one; he declared in
26:57the 17th century that indigenous
26:59cultures had no art, no letters, no
27:01society, and he described their life as
27:03solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
27:05short—meaning the people of that time
27:07were nothing at all. But what we know
27:10at present is that there were
27:12prehistoric arts, there were some forms
27:14of writing that existed, although
27:16archaeologists or anthropologists have
27:18not yet been able to decipher them, but
27:21it is not that no culture or art form
27:23existed among the people of that time.
27:26Right? But Thomas Hobbes believed that
27:28things were like that at that time. And
27:30he, like other scholars of his time.
27:32Right? Because there wasn't much
27:34research or many studies at that time,
27:36so according to what seemed right to
27:38them, they gave the reason that
27:40everything positive resulted from the
27:42slow development away from that poor,
27:44lowly state of being; and under the
27:46theory of unilinear cultural evolution,
27:48all societies and cultures develop on
27:50the same path. Right? And the first to
27:53present a general unilinear theory was
27:55Herbert Spencer. Herbert Spencer was
27:58the first person to give this unilinear
28:01theory of evolution. You should
28:04remember this name as well. Alright? So
28:05basically, this is about your unilinear
28:08theory and things we have already
28:09studied. So I won't repeat each and
28:11everything for you now. Alright? Now
28:14let's talk about the features of
28:16cultural evolutionism. What were the
28:19features of cultural evolutionism? See,
28:22human culture as a whole of
28:24socio-cultural institutions is involved
28:27in a unilinear sequence: stages from
28:29savagery to barbarism and finally to
28:32civilization. When we talk about
28:35socio-cultural institutions as a whole,
28:37what does that mean? It means all your
28:42socio-cultural institutions, like
28:44marriage or family. Alright? These are
28:48all your socio-cultural institutions.
28:51So, all these have evolved in a
28:53unilinear fashion according to the
28:55classical evolutionists. Right? Then
28:59the direction of classical evolution is
29:01from simple to complex, similarities
29:04and dissimilarities, from indefinite to
29:06definite, and from homogeneity to
29:09heterogeneity. Alright? These are some
29:12of the characteristics of evolution
29:14described. And the different stages of
29:17evolution can be established by the
29:19historical method and comparative
29:21methods. Similarly, similarities in
29:24culture or cultural traits are caused
29:27by the psychic unity of mankind and
29:29parallel inventions. Although we have
29:31already discussed all these things. But
29:33to put things in perspective, here are
29:35the features of classical evolutionism.
29:37Then at the highest stage of culture,
29:39certain remains of earlier stages can
29:41be traced, which can be termed as
29:43cultural survival. Because it is not
29:45necessary that everything that existed
29:48before has suddenly ended or
29:49disappeared. It is possible that it
29:53evolved, but you could trace some kind
29:55of similarity with the previous stages.
29:59Right? And such remains reveal the
30:01condition of the earlier stages of
30:02human culture. So here, basically, they
30:05are talking about various tribal groups
30:07. Although there exist various kinds of
30:09controversies regarding whether you can
30:11compare today's present day with tribal
30:13or primitive societies or not. And all
30:15these things. Alright? But yes, some of
30:18their cultural aspects reveal how
30:21people used to do things in the past.
30:24Because you see various sign systems
30:26that exist even in economic
30:28institutions, like see, the barter
30:30system, even in yesterday’s Hindu
30:33newspaper, there was news related to
30:35the barter system still existing in the
30:37present day. Right, so these are some
30:40examples you can mention. Right? Now
30:44let's learn about all these
30:46evolutionists one by one. So, we will
30:49start from here first. For now, you
30:51forget about this. Okay? We will cover
30:54this part in the second half of this
30:56lecture. For now, we will start here
30:58with E.B. Tylor among the British. Then
31:00we will eventually move on to this. If
31:04we talk about E.B. Tylor, this is the
31:06younger E.B. Tylor. Although you will
31:09find many pictures of him in his old
31:11age. I thought, let's take a younger
31:13one. Okay? So, who was E.B. Tylor? I
31:15told you. You should know a brief bio
31:18about him. That you could write down.
31:20Okay? So, if you want to write about
31:22him, he was a British or English
31:24anthropologist and is also called the
31:26founder of cultural anthropology. And
31:28Tylor's ideas typify 19 th-century
31:30cultural evolutionism. And in his work
31:33"Primitive Culture" and anthropology,
31:35he defined the context of scientific
31:37studies of anthropology based on the
31:40evolutionary theory of Charles Lyell.
31:42You can mention this. Although you
31:45could include various other things in
31:46his bio, but what I felt is that if you
31:48write these three or four lines, it
31:50will suffice. Okay? If you want to add
31:52something else, you could definitely do
31:54that. Then now let's see his basic
31:58anthropological theories and his points
32:01of view. So, he basically talked about
32:04the forms of cultural growth, and hence
32:06he was known as a unilinear
32:07evolutionist. Then, unilinear evolution
32:10means that culture evolved in a
32:11unilinear sequence, stage after stage,
32:13from simple to complex. Then human
32:15culture has developed through the
32:17stages of savagery, barbarism, and
32:18finally civilization. All these are
32:20repetitions. I must tell you. And Tylor
32:22is called the father of modern
32:24anthropology for his contribution to
32:26the concept of culture. He gave the
32:28classical definition of culture in his
32:29book "Primitive Culture". And how did
32:31he define culture? So this definition
32:34becomes very important for you. Culture
32:37is that complex whole which includes
32:39knowledge, belief, art, morals, law,
32:42custom, and any other capabilities and
32:44habits acquired by man as a member of
32:46society. Okay? Then the basic idea
32:51underlying Tylor's theory was the
32:52continuity of culture in the process of
32:54development from the previous stage to
32:56the succeeding stage. See, one more
32:58thing I should tell you. Okay, remove
33:00this 'a' from Tylor here. This spelling
33:02is incorrect. So, one more thing I
33:04would like to tell you is that as you
33:06study all these evolutionisms, some
33:07things might feel repetitive to you.
33:10That is also possible because we have
33:11already studied all this during the
33:13socio-cultural [studies]. So, don't
33:15worry about the fact that there is
33:16repetition. Why are we reading the same
33:17thing over and over? Or something like
33:19that, we have to [study] in a sequence,
33:21or a sequential fashion, you may say.
33:23Okay? That is why we also saw how in
33:26material culture, first came the Stone
33:27Age, then the Bronze Age, and then the
33:29Iron Age. Things developed in this
33:32manner. Then humanity as a whole has
33:33passed through the process of cultural
33:35evolution from primitive to prehistoric
33:37to the Middle Ages. And finally, the
33:39civilized state of today. So, you can
33:40also consider this to be the concept
33:42given by Morgan. Because when we talk
33:45about savagery, then barbarism, and
33:48civilization, this concept was given by
33:51Morgan. Okay? Morgan defined this. But
33:55somewhere or the other, all the
33:57classical evolutionists you will find,
33:59whom you can also call unilinear
34:00evolutionists. Their point of view was
34:02also in a similar fashion, and the same
34:03was true for Tylor as well. Tylor also
34:06believed that things have evolved in a
34:08unilinear fashion and evolution. So,
34:11these were given as separate examples.
34:14And what Tylor also said about religion
34:17, in that too, he believed that magic,
34:20religion, and then science—this is
34:22how things eventually evolved. Okay?
34:26And he opined that animism. You have
34:29already read that he believed animism
34:32was the beginning of religion, although
34:35Marett, if you remember, focused more
34:38on animatism. Okay? Then, what was
34:42Tylor's methodology? So, Tylor
34:45developed his theory by formulating
34:46data from already published literature
34:48and visits to Mexican tribes along with
34:50archaeologists. So, when we talk about
34:54methodology, it's basically how he
34:56developed his things or how he proposed
34:59whatever theories he gave. Okay? So, it
35:02could be anything, like through field
35:04visits, with the help of some books, or
35:06by conducting some type of interviews,
35:08and so on. So, as we proceed, wherever
35:10the methodology is highly relevant, we
35:12will discuss that as well. As you can
35:15see in Tylor's case, he based his work
35:18on already published data and
35:21literature, and by visiting and
35:23studying these Mexican tribes, he wrote
35:26a book—you should write down the name
35:29, 'Anahuac' is the name of that
35:32particular book, which was written
35:35about these Mexican tribes. And he used
35:38a lot of statistical and comparative
35:40methods in arriving at his theory. All
35:43right? And this one that you can see,
35:45the stages of evolution, was agreed
35:47upon by Tylor. All right? Then, in the
35:51case of technology, he also said that
35:52first there were primitive tools, then
35:54metal came, then sophisticated tools.
35:56In the case of religion, animism, then
35:58polytheism, and then monotheism. All
36:00right? And here, sorry, this one here,
36:04you should strike it out. This should
36:07not be there. All right? It came here
36:09by mistake. Because according to him,
36:11everything evolved after animism. As
36:12you may see, this one. All right? This
36:14is the right one. You can use this in
36:16the case of religion. Then, in the case
36:18of marriage, promiscuity, then polygamy
36:20, and then monogamy. And if you want to
36:23show Tylor’s unilinear evolution, you
36:25can also present it using this kind of
36:26chart or diagram. You can show it. All
36:28right? So basically, he didn't really
36:31tell us anything new. Basically, we
36:33already knew all those things. Then,
36:34let's look at some criticisms. What was
36:36the criticism of him? The concept of
36:39the psychic unity of mankind was
36:41criticized by the diffusionists, and
36:43the diffusionists believed that only a
36:46few humans were inventive and the
36:48majority were uninitiative. Now, who
36:51were these diffusionists? When did they
36:53come, why did they come, how did they
36:54come? We will look into that. But for
36:56now, you should know that although
36:58these criticisms are not just from
37:00Tylor's point of view, you can mention
37:02them for all your other classical
37:04evolutionists as well because they will
37:06be similar. Tylor specific, you can see
37:10this one, that he presented a highly
37:12ethnocentric culture history model; in
37:14which monogamy and monotheism are kept
37:16at the top of the evolutionary chain
37:17and all societies are a way to achieve
37:19that. And why ethnocentric and ethno-
37:22and acculturation, all these things, I
37:24don't think I need to repeat them again
37:26and again. As you may see, what was his
37:28? Monotheism and Monogamy. You can see
37:32that in the case of marriage too, they
37:34stated that monogamy is the last stage,
37:36and in religion, monotheism arrived
37:37here as well. So, according to them,
37:40monotheism or monogamy were in a way
37:42the top-most things. As we saw, Western
37:45culture was the highest pinnacle for
37:47all classical evolutionists regarding
37:49evolution. So, in a way, this idea of
37:51theirs was also criticized for being
37:53ethnocentric. And the concept of
37:55survival was criticized by the
37:56functionalists. Now, who were these
37:58functionalists? We will see that ahead.
37:59For now, just know that the
38:00functionalists also criticized it. And
38:02for them, every cultural trait has some
38:05function without which a culture or
38:06society cannot exist. And as I told you
38:09, you must write a conclusion for
38:11everything. And in the conclusion,
38:13basically, what was their contribution
38:15to anthropology? How did they do it?
38:17You can conclude by writing two or four
38:19lines on this. So, two critics
38:22notwithstanding, the idea of Tylor’s
38:24evolution was prominent in that it laid
38:26the foundation to organize the
38:27discipline and formed a basis for
38:29further research in this discipline.
38:32Again, do check the spelling. Okay?
38:35Tylor. So, in this way, you can
38:39conclude their work. Then, we will now
38:42study about James Frazer. Okay? Here is
38:45the young James Frazer. See, James
38:48Frazer was basically a Scottish social
38:51anthropologist and folklorist. Scottish
38:54, of course, is a part of Britain only.
38:58Then he wrote a book, 'The Golden Bough
39:01', and if you remember, we have already
39:03covered this book in the religion
39:06chapter. And he details the
39:08similarities among magical and
39:10religious beliefs around the world. If
39:13you remember, the things he said,
39:15according to him, there was magic, then
39:18religion, and then finally, eventually,
39:20science, right? So let us see what
39:23things he mentioned. Although again, we
39:26have already studied all these things,
39:28we just need to consolidate. So, his
39:30book 'The Golden Bough' in 1892,
39:32discussed the evolution of religion and
39:35the form of magic from magic through
39:37several volumes. So basically, the
39:40chart that I mistakenly included just
39:42now. Okay? This one, this one should be
39:48there. Okay? So, he extensively wrote
39:52on how the system of ideas in humanity
39:55evolved and he developed a concept
39:57called cosmology. He referred to the
39:59system of ideas associated with the
40:01meaning of existence in relation to the
40:03cosmic universe. And he also collected
40:06data from secondary sources. And we
40:09will see that there will be a criticism
40:10for that too. And all the data he
40:14collected was from travelers and
40:16administrators. Basically, at that time
40:20, he gathered all this secondary source
40:22data from people of the East India
40:24Company in India or other colonies they
40:27had settled. And he concluded that
40:30magic, religion, and finally scientific
40:32stages came into evolution. Okay? And
40:35these mark the evolution of three
40:37different systems of knowledge. Because
40:39magic was a separate system in itself.
40:42Then, a lot of different things come
40:43under religion. Then science is again a
40:45very different thing. And the early man
40:48tried to control nature by evolving
40:50several laws; when he could not succeed
40:52, he surrendered to supernatural
40:53entities, and thus religion emerged.
40:56With the gradual progress of knowledge,
40:58science emerged. So, in this way, your
41:00development happened from magic to
41:03religion and then to science. And he
41:05had also written two principles. If you
41:08remember, we talked about both these
41:09principles. About the law of similarity
41:12. How the Ho tribes of Central India
41:15roll boulders down hill slopes to
41:18create the same kind of feeling as
41:21thundering. So that rain would
41:24eventually follow, and at the same time
41:26, there were some rites that used to
41:29make humans suffer. They used to make
41:31them bleed. So that in the same way,
41:33rain will happen. Like the law of
41:35similarity that we discussed. Then the
41:37law of contact: if you do something to
41:40someone's possession, it will have the
41:42same effect on the person who is
41:45possessing it. Right? So, we covered
41:47black magic and all these things as
41:48well. That is what the law of contact
41:50talks about. Right? Then, what was the
41:52criticism? So firstly, his contribution
41:55was narrow on religion and magic. Okay?
41:57Then, his sources of study were without
42:00any fieldwork. That is what I told you.
42:03And he is also called an armchair
42:05anthropologist. Okay? So, these are
42:07some criticisms you can mention. Then,
42:09what conclusion should you write?
42:11Conclusion: though the ideas were
42:12narrow. This was one of the only
42:15concepts that helped to develop
42:17anthropology into an organized
42:18discipline and laid the base for
42:20further anthropological thought and
42:22research. As I told you, the conclusion
42:25should be very sweet, simple, and good,
42:27on a positive note. Right? Like the way
42:30you do with GS papers. Then let's talk
42:33about R.R. Marett. R.R. Marett, if you
42:36remember, gave the concept of animatism
42:38. Then, he was the British philosopher
42:41and anthropologist who introduced the
42:44theory of pre-animism and the term
42:46animatism into the scholarly debate.
42:50And Marett’s publication, you could
42:52say, in 1900, in his paper '
42:54Pre-animistic Religion', gave him quite
42:57a lot of recognition. Gave him fame,
43:01kind of, right. Then, this R.R. Marett.
43:04If we talk briefly about him and his
43:06studies, he was a British philosopher
43:08who introduced this and that. Right.
43:10Then, Marett’s views on primitive
43:12religion differed from those of Frazer
43:14and Tylor, generally acknowledged as
43:16the greatest anthropologists of his day
43:18. Because Marett completely rejected
43:21the ideas of Tylor and the other
43:22anthropologists of that time. He said
43:26animism was not the beginning of
43:27religion; animatism was, and that is
43:29why he opposed the idea and regarded
43:31animatism as the beginning of the
43:32religious idea. This is nothing new
43:34either. We have already studied this
43:35too. Right? Then his derivation is from
43:38the ideas of mana, mulunga, and orenda.
43:41We saw how these mana, mulunga, and
43:43orenda led to the mana and mana theory.
43:47Then Marett criticized Tylor for an
43:48overly intellectual approach, as though
43:50primitive man used personal forces as
43:52explanatory hypotheses to account for
43:54dreams, nature, and other concepts and
43:56approaches to the study of religious
43:58phenomena. If you remember, we talked
44:00about how other anthropologists had
44:02taken a very intellectual approach. But
44:05R.R. Marett believed it was mostly
44:07related to belief. Because when we talk
44:10about mana, mana was basically power.
44:12Right? Mana is a power that exists, and
44:15it is not characterized by 'he' or 'she
44:18' or any such feature, but it exists.
44:21Okay? And that mana somehow influences
44:24your decision-making and your
44:26day-to-day life, and it has nothing to
44:28do with intellectual capabilities. This
44:30was Marett’s belief. And we covered
44:33all these things earlier. If you need
44:35to write about his major publications,
44:37he wrote many books. 'The Threshold of
44:40Religion', 'Anthropology, Psychology
44:42and Folklore', 'Faith, Hope, and
44:43Charity'—you can mention all of these
44:45. Okay? Then what to write in the
44:48conclusion? In conclusion, Marett’s
44:50style was always admirable and lucid,
44:52often being further illuminated by wit
44:54and a certain irony. And today, he
44:56tends to be evaluated chiefly for the
44:58work done between 1899 and 1910, often
45:00neglecting more of his mature writing.
45:03And he, however, always holds an
45:04important place in the history of both
45:06anthropology and comparative religion.
45:07So, you must have noticed that we have
45:09not mentioned criticisms here. Okay? It
45:11is not necessary for us to give such
45:14criticisms for every single person
45:16providing a theory or basically every
45:18anthropologist we talk about;
45:20criticisms will mostly be asked to be
45:22written overall. Okay? And if you want,
45:26you can write the same type of
45:27criticisms if you feel that their ideas
45:29were rejected, or this or that happened
45:30; you can write that. Although we have
45:33already discussed the criticisms of the
45:35major ones. Like we have talked about
45:37Tylor's criticisms. Okay? And we have
45:39also done Frazer's. Then we will look
45:41at Morgan's as well ahead. Then we have
45:43covered up to this point. Tylor, Frazer
45:45, Marett, then now we discuss L.H.
45:48Morgan. See, we have already seen a
45:51little bit about Henry Morgan before as
45:53well. When we talked about evolution in
45:56kinship and social structure, he has
45:59given various theories. Right? So, if
46:01you have to write a brief about him,
46:03you can write that he was an American
46:04anthropologist. Of course, and his
46:07best-known works were related to
46:09kinship, and he worked a lot on social
46:11structure. And his theory of social
46:14evolution and his ethnography of the
46:16Iroquois. Iroquois, basically he
46:19studied this particular tribe and he
46:21has given out various other concepts.
46:23So, if you can see these Iroquois
46:25Indians, it is because he felt that the
46:27Iroquois culture was changing very
46:29rapidly. So, before it diminished, it
46:31should be recorded. So, he chose this
46:33Iroquois Indian tribe for his study and
46:36work. Because he felt that the culture
46:39was changing very rapidly and he wanted
46:42to preserve that particular culture.
46:44Okay? Somewhere or the other, he wanted
46:46to record it. And that is why he gave
46:47the study. And he published a book, "
46:50League of the Ho-de-no-sau-nee or
46:51Iroquois," in 1851, and in this book,
46:53he described each and every
46:55ethnographical detail such as political
46:57and family, dance, religion, games,
46:59material culture, language, all the
47:01things you can imagine in a culture.
47:04Just think in the context of India; all
47:07those things he studied on these
47:08Iroquois Indians and mentioned them in
47:10this book. And moreover, he also
47:13emphasized marriage and the system of
47:15matrilineal descent. If you remember,
47:17he focused a lot on matrilineal descent
47:20. He was not favoring the patrilineal
47:22one. He believed that the relationship
47:24between mother and child came first,
47:26and things evolved gradually from there
47:28. Right? And he was the one who
47:30introduced the classificatory and
47:32descriptive terms of kinship. Right? We
47:35had studied about the various
47:37classificatory and descriptive terms,
47:39like Hawaiian and all those studies we
47:40had covered in that. Right? Then he had
47:45another book, 'Systems of Consanguinity
47:47and Affinity of the Human Family'. And
47:51after this book, he had others, like '
47:53Ancient Society', in which he explained
47:55'savagery', 'barbarism', and '
47:57civilization'; you can mention this as
47:58well. He also described the successive
48:02forms of the family: 'consanguine', '
48:03punaluan', 'syndyasmian', then '
48:05patriarchal', and 'monogamian'.
48:08Although I have included all these here
48:10, you can see what 'consanguine' and '
48:12punaluan' are, and you can look up
48:13their descriptions if you want. But I
48:17won't discuss them here, because I have
48:19already discussed them in the
48:21respective video. If you check the
48:23video on family, you will find all of
48:25these there. Okay? So, to save some
48:28time, I won't be discussing them here,
48:29but I have mentioned them so that those
48:30making notes can create them directly
48:32from here. Now, let's talk about the
48:34criticisms. He did significant work,
48:36particularly on family, kinship, and
48:38marriage. So let's look at the specific
48:39criticisms of that. Then we will look
48:41at his overall criticisms as well. So,
48:44regarding the criticism of his studies
48:46on family and marriage, he postulated a
48:48sequence of family evolution; however,
48:50it is not supported by the enormous
48:52amount of ethnographic data collected
48:54since, and no recent society that
48:56Morgan would call savage indulges in
48:58group marriage. Because in this concept
49:01of marriage of his, you will see that
49:03he talked about group marriage and
49:05other things as well. So when you read
49:08this, things will become clearer as to
49:09why this criticism was given regarding
49:11marriage and family. Then, if we talk
49:13about the overall criticism, the views
49:16expressed were ethnocentric. One thing
49:18you will notice is that the viewpoint
49:20of all these Britishers or Americans
49:22was somewhat ethnocentric. Okay?
49:24Because this idea of the 'white man's
49:26burden' was something they always
49:27seemed to believe in. Then it was both
49:29contradictory and speculative. The
49:30evidence was second-hand, based on the
49:33accounts of biased Europeans. This
49:35applies to them as well, and if you
49:37look at it from Frazer's point of view,
49:39it fits for him too. Because he also
49:40did not collect the data. Although,
49:43when you talk about Morgan here, he did
49:45quite a bit of fieldwork on various
49:47tribes. But yes, even then, many later
49:50scholars argue that he first conceived
49:52the theory and then later searched for
49:54the communities. So this is a major
49:57criticism; you can star mark this one,
49:59that he first thought in his mind that,
50:01"okay, I want to see this type of
50:03system," and somehow he manipulated
50:05things to prove it right. Okay? So that
50:09was the major criticism for him, and he
50:10relied upon the 19 th-century racist
50:12view of human development and a
50:14misunderstanding of biological
50:15evolution to explain social differences
50:17. So these are the few criticisms that
50:19you can write. And now let's talk about
50:22Bachofen. Okay? So Bachofen, he wrote a
50:27book. That is known as Das Mutterrecht.
50:31If I am pronouncing it right. And that
50:33Mutterrecht, which if you talk about in
50:36English, is known as "The Mother Right.
50:38" And he had a great influence on 20
50:41th-century culture, even in fields not
50:43closely related to the history of
50:45religion. Then, if we briefly look at
50:48his studies, he believed that
50:50matrilineality was the early form of
50:51reckoning kinship, where patrilineality
50:53was a developed form of kinship descent
50:55. So for him, in kinship, matriliny
50:58came first, and then somewhere later on
51:00, when descent systems and all those
51:02things happened, patriliny developed.
51:04And Bachofen observed that matriarchy
51:06was the second stage of development,
51:08before which existed a stage called
51:10hetaerism or sexual promiscuity or
51:12sexual communism. Meaning, at that time
51:15, if you talk about the initial stages,
51:18sexual promiscuity existed at that time
51:20. Okay? No such system existed where
51:23you have, like, affinity or a kind of
51:25communion among each other. That type
51:28of thing was not there. And gradually
51:30it eventually evolved from promiscuous
51:33hetaerism to matriarchy and then to
51:35patriarchy, and present-day monogamy
51:37has evolved through polyandry and
51:39polygyny. He also believed this and he
51:42published his findings on matrilineal
51:43societies under "Das Mutterrecht" or "
51:45The Mother Right," whatever you may
51:47call it, the book we just saw. Okay,
51:49this is what you can present with the
51:51help of a diagram; first came hetaerism
51:53, then matriarchy, then patriarchy, and
51:55you will see that all these evolutions
51:57we talk about, the classical evolutions
51:59. Somewhere or the other, this
52:00development is happening stage by stage
52:02. And of course, one similarity you
52:05will find is that the first stage was,
52:07you could say, a very poor and chaotic
52:10one, and there wasn't much development
52:12in it. Then gradually, you could say,
52:16the so-called perfect thing arose. That
52:18is patriarchy. Similarly, in other
52:20cases, it followed gradually in the
52:21same way. And in early stages, women
52:23were merely treated as a sexual object
52:25when the kinship lines were traced
52:26through the mother. Women began to
52:28assume authority, the residence was
52:30matrilocal, and the inheritance of
52:31property was from mother to daughter;
52:33then patrilineal followed matrilineal,
52:35and male dominance emerged; so
52:37basically, this is what has been
52:39explained here. So, this is not very
52:40difficult. You just have to remember it
52:41. You can easily remember about
52:43Bachofen. Then let’s talk about Adolf
52:45Bastian. Remember, I didn't give the
52:47criticism here because it is not
52:48directly mentioned in your syllabus. So
52:50it is not that important to remember
52:52the specific criticisms for everyone.
52:54Overall, if you remember the criticisms
52:56of classical evolutionism itself, you
52:59can fit them in anywhere. So, it is not
53:02necessary to do all kinds of
53:04spoon-feeding here. Okay? And in the
53:06conclusion, as I told you, what was
53:07their contribution? You just need to
53:09write it well in a line or two. That is
53:10what the conclusion is all about. Then
53:12talking about Bastian, we have been
53:14hearing his name from the beginning. He
53:16proposed the psychic unity of mankind.
53:17What is it? We will see what it is and
53:19what it is not. And he was a 19
53:20th-century polymath best remembered for
53:22his contributions to the development of
53:24ethnography and the development of
53:26anthropology as a discipline. Sweet and
53:28simple bio. Then, he was a German
53:30scholar. And he was interested in the
53:32idea of presenting the similarities
53:34between different types of people
53:36through a psychic kind of unity.
53:38Similarities between different types of
53:41people through psychic unity. Like how
53:44there are some people here, some here,
53:46and some here. All right? This is your
53:48Asia. This is your America part, and
53:51let's assume this is Africa. So, some
53:53kind of similarity exists among people
53:55everywhere. This is what he believed
53:57and what he wanted to prove. And he
53:59posited that there are a restricted
54:00number of ideas for people. Best
54:02elementary ideas, which are also called
54:05elemental garden kin. All right? These
54:07were very few ideas, and these very
54:09ideas were evolving simultaneously in
54:10different places. Then he argues that
54:12these ideas were developed in different
54:14environments called geographical
54:16provinces. And Bastian had modes of
54:18thought that have led some historians
54:20of ethnology to call him an
54:22evolutionist. All right? One thing
54:27about Bastian you must remember is that
54:30the various other evolutionists we have
54:32studied until now believed that
54:34everything was evolving in a unilinear
54:37fashion. But Bastian's viewpoint was
54:39slightly different from this. He
54:40believed that things were evolving in a
54:43multiplicity. All right? Something is
54:45evolving here, here, here, and here.
54:47This is happening side-by-side. If you
54:49consider evolution to be happening sort
54:51of vertically, he believed these things
54:53were all working horizontally at the
54:55same time. All right? You can
54:57understand this in this way. So, that
55:00was one of the minor differences with
55:02the other orthodox evolutionists, you
55:04could say, and he differs sharply from
55:06the predominant view of his time in
55:08that he conceived of development as a
55:10spiral, an image that foreshadowed
55:11modern concepts. All right? Then, if we
55:15talk about criticisms, Bastian's view
55:16was strongly opposed by the famous
55:18biologist Ernst Haeckel. Why did Ernst
55:20Haeckel oppose him? Because Ernst
55:23Haeckel believed that all human races
55:25—because Bastian, see, Bastian
55:27believed that people were evolving in
55:29different environmental conditions. And
55:33if you are evolving in a present
55:34environmental condition, people will
55:36think in that same way. Regardless of
55:38where you are. If the environmental
55:40condition is the same, you will think
55:42in one way. You will work in one way.
55:44That is what the main idea was all
55:45about. And the same type of thing is
55:47evolving simultaneously in different
55:49places. He believed this as well. All
55:50right? So, it means that somewhere or
55:52other, your similarity and cognitive
55:54abilities are more or less the same.
55:56That was Bastian's belief. But Ernst
55:58Haeckel said no. Because he believed
56:00that human races descended from
56:02different anthropoid species. If you
56:05remember, when we talked about
56:07prosimians and anthropoids, Haeckel
56:09believed they evolved from different
56:11anthropoids. That means they have
56:13various other capabilities. What do we
56:15mean by various other capabilities here
56:17? That is, they have different physical
56:19features, like their brain size and
56:21everything is different. And that is
56:23how their thinking process and thought
56:25process will differ as well. Okay? But
56:27what did Bastian believe? He had a
56:29monogenetic view of human origin.
56:31Meaning that human origin came from a
56:32single source. And they all have
56:34similar perspectives, similar thinking,
56:36or similar kinds of physical
56:37characteristics, which is basically
56:39what he meant to say. In the conclusion
56:41, you can write down. In the conclusion
56:43, as you know, we have to write
56:44something good. Right, so in the
56:47conclusion, you can write that he
56:49influenced various other
56:50anthropologists of his time, like you
56:53can name Franz Boas, Radcliffe-Brown,
56:55or Malinowski, because they are
56:57well-known. Although these are all
56:59well-known too, but from what we have
57:01studied so far, you will definitely
57:02remember these three, so you could
57:04mention that he influenced all of them.
57:06Then, a series of concepts of the
57:07collective unconscious was directly
57:09derived from Bastian's elementary ideas
57:10. See, although C.G. Jung's concept of
57:13collective unconscious is not something
57:16we need to study here. Okay? Not now,
57:18and you don't even need to cover it
57:20further in anthropological theories.
57:21But just to write down a good point. I
57:23have mentioned it. If you want to
57:25remember it, remember it. Otherwise,
57:27you can even skip this particular point
57:28. Okay? Then Bastian campaigned to save
57:30data from cultures that were in the
57:32process of disappearing, continuing to
57:33the International Committee on Urgent
57:35Anthropological and Ethnographic
57:36Research organized by Robert
57:38Heine-Geldern. So, this is a noteworthy
57:41point that he made some contributions
57:43to preserve and save data. That is also
57:46what you can conclude with. Right?
57:48Because basically, in the conclusion,
57:49we have to see what his contribution
57:51was from an anthropological perspective
57:53. So, this is also one of the good
57:55contributions that you can mention.
57:57Then see, we have covered all of these
58:00classical evolutionists so far. Right?
58:03We've covered the British, the
58:05Americans, and also the Germans. Now
58:09let's talk about the accomplishments.
58:11Of the unilinear evolutionists or
58:13unilinear evolution. Remember, when we
58:15talk about unilinear evolution, we are
58:17talking about classical evolution
58:18itself. Right? Because they are one and
58:21the same. So, what were their
58:22accomplishments? The early
58:24anthropologists tried to establish the
58:26scientific discipline of anthropology.
58:28Because, as you may see, we are talking
58:29about the 1800s. Okay? We are talking
58:32about times like 1861, 1852. So they
58:35were the earliest ones to help
58:37establish a kind of scientific
58:38discipline of anthropology. The
58:40anthropology that exists today. It
58:42wasn't like this back in the 1800s.
58:45Right? At that time, the existence of
58:47anthropology didn't even exist. So,
58:50slowly this eventually came into the
58:52limelight, studies were done, and
58:54various governments started
58:56understanding its importance. And that
59:00is how you will see how anthropology
59:02was used quite a lot even during the
59:04times of World War I and II. Right? And
59:07they aided in developing the foundation
59:09of an organized discipline where none
59:12had ever existed. So, writing about the
59:14accomplishments of unilinear evolution
59:16is quite easy. And they provided three
59:18basic assumptions. What were they?
59:20Let's look at them quickly. The dictum
59:21that cultural phenomena are to be
59:23studied in a naturalistic fashion. The
59:25premise of the psychic unity of mankind
59:27. This assumption was also given by
59:29them. And the use of the comparative
59:31method as a surrogate to the
59:32experimental and laboratory techniques
59:34of the physical sciences. Because, as
59:36you can see, they used the entire
59:37comparative method. Right? Like, first
59:39there was what used to exist as
59:41savagery. So they compared it to say,
59:43okay, there is some kind of civilized
59:45thing that came into the picture. So
59:47that is how they characterized it as
59:49barbarism. That it has become a bit
59:50better. Not very good. Then things
59:52became even better than this. Then they
59:54characterized it as the civilized one.
59:57Similarly, if you look at all the
59:58different stages, whether it is about
1:00:00marriage or religion, it was basically
1:00:01a comparative thing, right? How it was
1:00:05initially, how it slowly evolved, and
1:00:06eventually, the end result they arrived
1:00:08at was the pinnacle of everything. Okay
1:00:10? That used to be the best. So you can
1:00:13mention these in your accomplishments.
1:00:15Then, a criticism as a whole. So, when
1:00:17we talk about criticism as a whole, we
1:00:19are talking about the criticism of the
1:00:20entire Classical Evolutionism. Right?
1:00:22So, you can pick some of these points
1:00:24overall, and if they are specific, you
1:00:26can use them for a particular person as
1:00:28well. And if you are asked about
1:00:30Classical Evolutionism as a whole, you
1:00:32can mention it as it is. Right? So, one
1:00:34thing is that their approach was very
1:00:36ambitious. How so? Because the
1:00:37assumption that the entire mankind of
1:00:39the world passed through all these
1:00:41different stages or sequences does not
1:00:43hold good for all groups. Because they
1:00:45stated that all of mankind has gone
1:00:48through this process. Right? Whether it
1:00:51concerns marriage, family, savagery, or
1:00:53barbarism, for everything. And they did
1:00:56not even consider diffusion and
1:00:58migration. It is possible, right, let's
1:00:59assume there are some people here in
1:01:01Africa. It is possible they moved from
1:01:02here to there, and at that time, a
1:01:04completely different system might have
1:01:05been going on in this part of Asia.
1:01:07Right? So, they did not consider all
1:01:09these things. Moreover, sometimes such
1:01:11mistakes happen in policy making. Right
1:01:13? So, they ignored this aspect. So,
1:01:16that could of course be the criticism.
1:01:18And the kinship terminology Morgan
1:01:20studied, he collected data by preparing
1:01:22questionnaires and sending them to
1:01:23people working in remote areas; simple
1:01:25societies have monogamy and nuclear
1:01:27families; according to evolution, these
1:01:29should be the characteristics of a
1:01:30civilized society. It was Morgan's
1:01:33belief that all civilized societies
1:01:34would eventually turn into and
1:01:36transform into monogamy. So, you can
1:01:38also write the point about
1:01:39ethnocentrism and mention it here.
1:01:41Right? Although Morgan's name is
1:01:42directly written here. But you can also
1:01:45write overall that there was an
1:01:46ethnocentric approach of all the
1:01:48Classical Evolutionists. Then, what did
1:01:50Franz Boas have to say? Franz Boas will
1:01:53come later when we look at what he
1:01:55contributed to anthropological theory.
1:01:58So, according to him, what were the
1:01:59shortcomings in Classical Evolutionism?
1:02:00So, he criticized the lack of data
1:02:02collection. As you saw, most of these,
1:02:06of course, if you consider the
1:02:08situation of that time, it was not
1:02:10really their fault, mainly because
1:02:12traveling by ship from one place to
1:02:15another could take months, so instead
1:02:17of traveling that much, they chose the
1:02:20easiest way, but if they choose the
1:02:22easiest way, then the results won't be
1:02:24that good. Right? That is why it is
1:02:27said that you should do your work
1:02:28thoroughly and properly. So, Franz Boas
1:02:31believed that their data collection
1:02:32process was not good at all. And that
1:02:35is why you cannot rely upon it, because
1:02:37there were many biases within it. You
1:02:39are having all the data collected by
1:02:41Europeans living in different colonies,
1:02:44it will definitely have some biased
1:02:46approach in it. Then the diffusionists
1:02:48—we will study further who the
1:02:49diffusionists were and which
1:02:50anthropologists fall into this category
1:02:52—so according to them, what were the
1:02:54shortcomings in the classical
1:02:55evolutionists? So according to them,
1:02:57evolution is the only way of cultural
1:02:58change and they neglected diffusion. Of
1:03:00course, they had neglected diffusion.
1:03:02These diffusionists were quite upset
1:03:04about this. Then the functionalists who
1:03:07will come later also believed that the
1:03:09evolutionists were conjectural and they
1:03:12had no data; they did not give any
1:03:14concrete evidence. Okay? This was the
1:03:16belief of the functionalists. Then the
1:03:18evolutionists could not give any proof
1:03:19for the theory of psychic unity of
1:03:21mankind. Adolf Bastian did talk about
1:03:23the psychic unity of mankind. Although
1:03:25he also stated that, okay, these things
1:03:27were evolving at different places at
1:03:29the same time. But they could not
1:03:31provide any concrete proof. Okay? They
1:03:33stated that it was happening. Do you
1:03:35understand? But why it was happening?
1:03:38For that, they didn't give any valid
1:03:40reason you could call it. Then the
1:03:43evolutionists equated contemporary
1:03:44primitive societies with prehistoric
1:03:46societies. But as evolution happened,
1:03:48how can contemporary societies be
1:03:50equated with prehistoric societies? So
1:03:52here you can see that the classical
1:03:54evolutionists were getting trapped in
1:03:56their own words. They believed that
1:03:57everything is evolving in a unilinear
1:03:59fashion. It is not that someone has
1:04:01been left behind. Everyone is moving
1:04:02forward together. And when everyone is
1:04:04moving forward together, how can you
1:04:06study contemporary societies and tell
1:04:08how the societies that existed earlier
1:04:10used to function? Are you understanding
1:04:12my point? It shows a contradiction here
1:04:15that if everyone was evolving together,
1:04:17then the contemporary society of today
1:04:20should have also evolved. You cannot
1:04:22consider it a mirror image or a mirage
1:04:24of prehistoric society. Right? Then
1:04:27evolution is considered Victorian
1:04:28society as the highest stage of
1:04:30development. See, Victorian society can
1:04:32basically be understood through the "
1:04:34White Man's Burden" concept. Then
1:04:36another criticism was that they always
1:04:38viewed evolution as a progression.
1:04:40Right? That things are getting better
1:04:42from one stage to another. Okay? But in
1:04:45the criticism, you can also mention
1:04:48that evolution need not always be in a
1:04:50progression. What is the meaning of
1:04:52evolution? The literal meaning is like
1:04:53change. Right? That change can be
1:04:55anything. It should not be in a
1:04:57progressive or a retrogressive manner.
1:04:59It is not that things are getting worse
1:05:02or getting better. Some change is
1:05:04happening. Okay? That change can be
1:05:06anything depending upon the perspective
1:05:08. So that is the other criticism. And
1:05:11all these things led to the formation
1:05:13of neo-evolutionism. So here you got
1:05:16the answer as to why we are studying
1:05:18both of these together. Because it had
1:05:20to come in a sequence. Classical
1:05:22evolutionists came first. Whatever good
1:05:25things the classical evolutionists said
1:05:27, and whatever mess they made, after
1:05:29that neo-evolutionism came up to cover
1:05:31them up or to put their perspective for
1:05:34further progress. Alright? So before we
1:05:39cover neo-evolutionism, let us briefly
1:05:42look at the "Psychic Unity of Mankind"
1:05:44that was talked about, because if it is
1:05:47asked directly, you should be able to
1:05:50write at least 100 to 150 words on it.
1:05:54So this postulate of the Psychic Unity
1:05:57of Mankind states that all human beings
1:05:59, regardless of culture or race, share
1:06:01the same basic psychological and
1:06:03cognitive makeup. We are all of the
1:06:07same kind. So that is the main crux of
1:06:10the Psychic Unity of Mankind, that all
1:06:13people share a common psychological and
1:06:16cognitive makeup. This postulate was
1:06:19originally formulated by Adolf Bastian.
1:06:23Although we won't go into the criticism
1:06:25that he said this and gave some
1:06:26examples, but he wasn't able to prove
1:06:28it scientifically, basically you can
1:06:30say that. And you can write a brief
1:06:33overview of who this Adolf Bastian was
1:06:36here. He was known as the father of
1:06:38German anthropology and what
1:06:39contributions he made, all those things
1:06:41. Then Bastian passed it on to his
1:06:43similar-minded students like Franz Boas
1:06:45, who was quite a prominent name in
1:06:47American anthropology. And he
1:06:50transmitted it to all his students, and
1:06:52finally Edward Tylor introduced it into
1:06:5519 th-century British evolutionist
1:06:57anthropology, where it became a fixture
1:07:00defended by all the major British
1:07:02evolutionists. We have also seen how
1:07:05Tylor spoke about all these things, and
1:07:08that is how you can mention it. So, if
1:07:10you want to remember, Adolf Bastian
1:07:12proposed it. After Adolf Bastian came
1:07:15Franz Boas. Some of his students, then
1:07:19Tylor, and other British evolutionists
1:07:23also promoted this idea. Then the
1:07:27postulate indeed was essential to the
1:07:29great comparative project of
1:07:31evolutionism, which would be futile if
1:07:33cultural differences were determined by
1:07:35differing biology. And for the same
1:07:38reason, it has been central to later
1:07:40comparative projects. Like
1:07:42Radcliffe-Brown and Steward, Julian
1:07:44Steward, when we look ahead, all of
1:07:46them basically used this theory. And
1:07:49today the postulate is shared by all
1:07:50anthropologists; exceptions are hard to
1:07:52think of. So, you can write a little
1:07:55bit about this unity of mankind if you
1:07:57are asked to write. So. Okay? So here
1:08:00you can see the crux of it emerges
1:08:02right here. And all these things, we
1:08:05have seen from time to time while
1:08:06studying evolutionism overall. So you
1:08:09have to mention this. Okay? Then we
1:08:12come to the neo-evolutionists. Under
1:08:15neo-evolutionists, there are very few
1:08:17anthropologists you have to study.
1:08:20Basically, we will read about V. Gordon
1:08:22Childe. We will read about Julian
1:08:24Steward. Then we will read about Leslie
1:08:26A. White. Okay? And here, the Sahlins
1:08:29and Service you see, refers to Marshall
1:08:31Sahlins and Service. It refers to Elman
1:08:33Service. So we will read about them.
1:08:36But while they were definitely
1:08:37neo-evolutionists, they also provided a
1:08:40specific theory. That is why they are
1:08:44also called specific and general
1:08:45evolutionists, which we will see. Okay?
1:08:47For now, just remember that these three
1:08:49are definitely there. And these are
1:08:51directly mentioned in your syllabus.
1:08:52All three of these plus Sahlins and
1:08:54Service. So we are not going to study
1:08:56anything extra here. As it is written
1:08:57in the syllabus. We will study that. So
1:09:00now, let's also take a brief
1:09:02introduction to neo-evolutionism. So
1:09:05basically, these Neo-evolutionists are
1:09:07not ready to accept the unilinear
1:09:09sequence of cultural evolution. We have
1:09:11already seen that they were not happy
1:09:13at all. With the unilinear view points
1:09:15provided by the classical evolutionary
1:09:17anthropologists. So, they wanted to
1:09:20come up with something better than that
1:09:21. And in order to overcome all the
1:09:24limitations of the classical
1:09:25evolutionary theory, a new scheme was
1:09:28proposed by the Neo-evolutionists. They
1:09:31said, "Look, your ideas don't seem
1:09:34valid at all and they don't satisfy
1:09:36many things." So, we will come up with
1:09:39another theory and they argued that the
1:09:42development of culture was not
1:09:44unilinear but in the form of a
1:09:45parabolic curve. Okay? So, take a look
1:09:47here, they have changed their viewpoint
1:09:49a bit. That simple concept is gone now.
1:09:51Now things will look something like
1:09:53this. Okay? We will see how, further
1:09:54ahead. And according to this parabolic
1:09:56curve of cultural evolution, a social
1:09:58institution is born in a specific form
1:10:00in the early stage and it then develops
1:10:02into an entirely different form in a
1:10:04different direction. It again moves
1:10:06towards the original form but in a
1:10:08modified form. At one point, things
1:10:10started here. Some changes occurred in
1:10:12it. Then eventually, after these
1:10:13changes came about, some further
1:10:15changes occurred here. But there will
1:10:17definitely be some difference between
1:10:19point one and this point one-dash. Okay
1:10:21? This will be a modified version. This
1:10:23is one-dash, but what will it have a
1:10:25similarity with? It will have it with
1:10:26this one. This is what the
1:10:27Neo-evolutionists want to explain
1:10:29overall through this parabolic curve.
1:10:31Okay? And for instance, the institution
1:10:34of property was born in the form of
1:10:35communal ownership to the form of
1:10:37private ownership. That is what they
1:10:39are referring to. As you might know
1:10:42that in earlier stages, there wasn't
1:10:44any kind of system like private
1:10:46ownership of land. Even when you know
1:10:49or have studied in your GS-1 about
1:10:51various systems like the Zamindari
1:10:53system, Ryotwari system, and Mahalwari
1:10:55system, in all those systems, it wasn't
1:10:57like there was one particular farmer.
1:10:59This is his X, Y, Z land, and this land
1:11:01belongs to this farmer; he can do
1:11:03whatever he wants with it. It wasn't
1:11:05like that. Right? Many systems were
1:11:07created. We are not studying modern
1:11:09history here. So I won't go into detail
1:11:10on that. But just know that there used
1:11:12to be communal ownership. Okay? And
1:11:15moving forward, gradually private
1:11:17ownership came, and further ahead, we
1:11:19will see how things develop. And today
1:11:22again the concept of common ownership
1:11:23through the state is developing. Today
1:11:25you see that through the state, various
1:11:28governments have some concepts related
1:11:30to community ownership. I am not saying
1:11:32that this will apply to everyone. And
1:11:34they are also not saying that, but they
1:11:36are giving a brief overview or an idea
1:11:38that this might happen in some
1:11:39societies. And this could happen. Okay?
1:11:42And similarly, in the beginning, humans
1:11:43used no clothes as they used to remain
1:11:45naked. An invention of clothes made it
1:11:47possible to cover the entire body. But
1:11:49what are we seeing today? There was a
1:11:52time when humans were completely like
1:11:54nude. Then gradually they made clothes
1:11:56and started wearing them. Then
1:11:58gradually, again, the clothes kept
1:11:59decreasing. Okay? No offense to
1:12:01anything. But yes, we are seeing some
1:12:04similarity somewhere between the
1:12:06concept of nudism today and the nudity
1:12:09that existed before. Who?
1:12:11Neo-evolutionists, and this sequence
1:12:13can also be observed in the field of
1:12:14sexual relations. Like in the early
1:12:16stages, there used to be sexual
1:12:18promiscuity. Then monogamy came,
1:12:20meaning polygamy came, poly came, and
1:12:22monogamy came. Then slowly, they are
1:12:25saying that now society is again moving
1:12:27towards sexual promiscuity. And in this
1:12:30process of evolution, in successive
1:12:32stages, monogamy came into existence
1:12:33and again in the present time,
1:12:35arguments are in favor of freedom of
1:12:36sex. Right? So these were some valid
1:12:39points that they mentioned to
1:12:40substantiate what we want. As you may
1:12:43see, this is talking about the
1:12:44parabolic curve. Right? This is a
1:12:46parabola. What is this stage in the
1:12:48parabola? Which we just discussed in
1:12:50all three examples. Common ownership,
1:12:51shortage of clothes, sexual promiscuity
1:12:53. What is the second stage? Individual
1:12:55ownership came, bodies started getting
1:12:56covered, monogamy became common. Then
1:12:57the third stage will automatically be
1:12:59what? Common ownership will return.
1:13:01Nudism will return and then sexual
1:13:03freedom will be granted. So, with the
1:13:05help of this parabola and various
1:13:07examples, you can present it. Then
1:13:09neo-evolutionism can be classified on
1:13:12the basis of the nationalities of the
1:13:14proponents. As we already saw that your
1:13:17Gordon Childe belonged to Britain. Then
1:13:21Julian Steward and Leslie A. White were
1:13:23American, and they occupy the most
1:13:25significant place in the new
1:13:26evolutionary theory. You might find one
1:13:29or two more anthropologists, but we
1:13:31will limit ourselves to this for now.
1:13:34And among all the scholars, we have V.
1:13:35Gordon Childe, who is familiar to you
1:13:37as the archaeologist who proposed the
1:13:38concept of the Neolithic Revolution.
1:13:41Those of you who have watched the
1:13:43lectures related to various periods
1:13:45like the Neolithic or Paleolithic, we
1:13:46studied that. There, we also mentioned
1:13:49V. Gordon Childe. Right? Who gave the
1:13:52Neolithic Revolution? Who proposed the
1:13:54name? So that was Gordon Childe. Then
1:13:57again, as we saw in classical
1:13:59evolutionism. Let's see here as well,
1:14:01what school is this? It is the
1:14:03Neo-evolutionism school. What is the
1:14:05major assumption of this school? That
1:14:07culture evolves in proportion to the
1:14:09capacity to harness energy. We will see
1:14:12further how this evolution happened.
1:14:15Meaning, they are not talking about any
1:14:16kind of various stages like the
1:14:18classical evolutionists. They are
1:14:20saying that culture evolves in
1:14:21proportion to the capacity to harness
1:14:23energy. Okay? And how will this happen?
1:14:25We will see that ahead. Advocates:
1:14:27Leslie White, J. Steward, and V. Gordon
1:14:30Childe. You can mention all the names
1:14:31here. Just mention a few, depending on
1:14:33space constraints, you can see for
1:14:35yourself. Okay? But this is how you can
1:14:37present it. And their core idea is that
1:14:40culture evolves in proportion to the
1:14:42capacity to harness energy. Then, we
1:14:45have seen all these Neo-evolutionists.
1:14:47Gordon Childe, Steward, and Leslie. So,
1:14:50let's look at a small bio and brief on
1:14:52Gordon Childe. Again, this is the image
1:14:55of a young Gordon Childe. So, his full
1:14:57name was Vere Gordon Childe. He was an
1:15:00Australian-born British historian,
1:15:02linguist, and archaeologist. Who
1:15:03studied the European prehistory of the
1:15:06second and third millennia BC to
1:15:07evaluate the relationship between
1:15:09Europe and the Middle East to examine
1:15:11the structure and character of
1:15:13pre-literate culture of the Western
1:15:15world in antiquity. And he also
1:15:17directed the excavation of the
1:15:18important Neolithic site Skara Brae in
1:15:20Scotland's Orkney Islands. So basically
1:15:23, being an archaeologist, he also made
1:15:26significant contributions to
1:15:27archaeology, and the Neolithic
1:15:29Revolution and other things came from
1:15:32here because he was the person
1:15:34responsible for or leading the
1:15:36excavation of the Neolithic site. Okay?
1:15:39That is why he had a soft corner for
1:15:41the Neolithic Revolution and he
1:15:43provided all these insights. Then,
1:15:45let's talk about what he has to say
1:15:47about Neo-evolutionism. So Gordon
1:15:49Childe is a trained archaeologist as we
1:15:51just saw, and in his famous book called
1:15:53Social Evolution, he describes the
1:15:55evolution of culture in terms of three
1:15:57major events: the invention of food
1:15:59production, urbanization, and
1:16:01industrialization. And according to
1:16:03Childe, cultural progression was
1:16:05primarily due to the development of
1:16:07technological skills for exploiting
1:16:09natural resources. Meaning, the crux of
1:16:12this particular Neo-evolutionism that
1:16:14we just saw. What we saw, we saw that
1:16:17culture evolves in proportion to the
1:16:19capacity to harness energy. Okay? So,
1:16:22if we understand Gordon Childe's
1:16:24example that he has explained here,
1:16:26let's assume there is a particular
1:16:28culture A and this culture has a lot of
1:16:30technological advancement. Okay?
1:16:33Technology exists here. And there is a
1:16:36culture B, and this culture is not very
1:16:38technologically advanced. Okay? Or you
1:16:41may say it is less advanced. And both
1:16:44are going for doing agriculture. So
1:16:46this particular culture A will
1:16:49definitely try and deploy some very
1:16:52good machines and machinery, making
1:16:55their agriculture better in
1:16:57productivity and all other aspects as
1:17:00well. Because they can have many
1:17:02technologies, right? It is possible
1:17:04they are using better varieties of
1:17:06seeds, using some very technologically
1:17:07advanced research and everything. But
1:17:10in this less advanced culture B, the
1:17:12productivity will be lower than theirs.
1:17:15So, because of their capability to
1:17:17harness more energy, they are producing
1:17:20better results and their evolution is
1:17:22better. But because they are not being
1:17:24able to harness more energy. Their
1:17:26evolution is happening accordingly.
1:17:29That is what. I hope things are
1:17:31becoming more clear to you. Right? And
1:17:34he is credited with a large number of
1:17:36excavations and divided the
1:17:37archaeological period into Paleolithic,
1:17:39Mesolithic, Neolithic, Copper Age,
1:17:40Bronze Age, and Iron Age. Remember,
1:17:42Morgan said all these things are
1:17:44nonsense. Okay? We need to focus on
1:17:46savagery, barbarism, and civilization.
1:17:48And why did he reject it? If you might
1:17:50remember, his belief was that you
1:17:52cannot, based on any one particular
1:17:54technology, because what were these?
1:17:55Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic—
1:17:57you are calling these all Stone Ages
1:18:00here. So you cannot divide based on one
1:18:03particular thing or tool. That is why
1:18:05Morgan rejected it. And then
1:18:07considering Tylor's evolutionary
1:18:09sequence, he listed the details of
1:18:12cultural history. Now let us see how
1:18:15Gordon Childe listed it. So, as you may
1:18:17see, all these classical evolutionists
1:18:20of yours divided things in this manner.
1:18:22Now, if we talk about V. Gordon Childe,
1:18:24how did he present it? He divided it
1:18:27into Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Copper
1:18:29Age, Neolithic, the present age, and
1:18:31the Bronze Age. Then, regarding
1:18:33characteristics, depending on what kind
1:18:35of technology was available, the
1:18:37characteristics were defined as you may
1:18:39see. Right? So that is how he divided
1:18:42things. Then, the Chinese evolutionary
1:18:45sequence was based on the belief that
1:18:47technology determines the course of
1:18:48history. And schemes provided evidence
1:18:50for the classical evolutionary scheme
1:18:52of history. History through
1:18:54archaeological evidence, cross-checked
1:18:56by dating methods, and for him, the
1:18:57existence or lack of technological
1:18:59skills to exploit resources is the
1:19:01reason for the different pace of
1:19:03evolution. Right? So basically, they
1:19:05were not stringent that it happened
1:19:07everywhere at once, or that evolution
1:19:08was the same everywhere. They were
1:19:10freely talking about how evolution
1:19:12happened because of different
1:19:13technological capabilities at different
1:19:15points in time in different cultures.
1:19:17And that is how they evolved at
1:19:19different paces. Right? They were not
1:19:22developing simultaneously. It was at
1:19:23different bases depending on what kind
1:19:25of facilities or technological
1:19:26advancement they had. Then, if you have
1:19:28to write the conclusion. So basically,
1:19:31Gordon Childe substantiated the
1:19:33evolutionary idea with archaeological
1:19:35data because everything he was talking
1:19:36about was based on data. Him being an
1:19:39archaeologist was an advantage. However
1:19:41, data was only available regarding
1:19:43material culture. Right? Because only
1:19:45information about material culture was
1:19:46available. Data was not available
1:19:48regarding non-material culture, such as
1:19:50what their viewpoints, beliefs, or
1:19:51religions were at that time. You must
1:19:53have noticed that V. Gordon Childe did
1:19:55not talk about that, right? As we saw
1:19:56in evolution, there was a lot of
1:19:58discussion about religion and marriage.
1:20:00But here, since he was talking from a
1:20:02data perspective, where would he get
1:20:04data regarding marriage, religion, and
1:20:06these things, right? And therefore, we
1:20:09should not evaluate the evolution of
1:20:11non-material culture, and we should
1:20:13talk only about the material or
1:20:14economic aspects of man; right, because
1:20:16you don't have any parameters to
1:20:18evaluate non-material culture. So how
1:20:20would you do that? Right? So that is
1:20:23what he was talking about. And that is
1:20:25what you can include. Then we talked
1:20:27about Gordon Childe. Now let's talk
1:20:29about Julian Steward. Julian Steward
1:20:31was basically an American
1:20:32anthropologist. Right? Out of these,
1:20:34the one you have, Gordon Childe, was
1:20:36British. The other two are both
1:20:39American. And he is best known for his
1:20:41role in developing the concepts and the
1:20:43method of cultural ecology. Remember
1:20:45this. The concept of cultural ecology
1:20:48was given by Julian Steward, as well as
1:20:50the scientific theory of cultural
1:20:52change. We will look at what this
1:20:54cultural change and cultural ecology
1:20:56are, one by one. So basically, Julian
1:20:59Steward is an American anthropologist
1:21:02who championed the evolutionist view in
1:21:04the book 'Theory of Culture Change'.
1:21:06The book name is memorized. Then
1:21:08according to Steward, all societies do
1:21:11not go through the same evolutionary
1:21:13stages; rather, evolution is
1:21:15multilinear, that is, different
1:21:17cultures have different evolutionary
1:21:19stages. So, somewhat you will see that
1:21:22this is a concept quite similar to
1:21:23Gordon Childe's. Of course, they were
1:21:25neo-evolutionists. So it is natural for
1:21:27their ideas to align. So he was talking
1:21:29about multilinear evolution. Okay?
1:21:31Suppose an evolution begins, a
1:21:32particular society starts to evolve
1:21:34from here. One branch went this way.
1:21:35One went this way. One is going here,
1:21:37one is going there. This is how
1:21:39evolution is happening. Okay? Depending
1:21:41on which stages they are in and how
1:21:43development is taking place. And
1:21:45cross-cultural analysis is meant to
1:21:46understand the study, culture, and
1:21:48parallel evolutions. Though he agrees
1:21:50with Tylor that culture is a complex
1:21:52whole of independent cultural traits
1:21:55and can be influenced by the rest of
1:21:57them. It is not always possible to find
1:21:59specific stages of evolution for
1:22:01individual cultural traits. Like
1:22:03monotheism or monogamy. It is not
1:22:05necessary that they exist together. So
1:22:07his belief is that one culture can be
1:22:09influenced by another. But it is not
1:22:11necessary that it will be influenced in
1:22:13the same way. Okay? Suppose you are
1:22:16getting influenced by your friend who
1:22:17is a very good dancer, and you also
1:22:19want to learn dancing like him or her,
1:22:21but it is not necessary that they also
1:22:23dance. Perhaps they like to sing as
1:22:26well. So you don't necessarily have to
1:22:27do the same thing. It is possible that
1:22:28you get influenced by their dancing.
1:22:29But it is not necessary that you get
1:22:31influenced by their singing capability
1:22:33in the same way. So it is not necessary
1:22:35that you both evolve in an identical
1:22:37way. And because of that, he believed
1:22:41that the classical thinkers, basically
1:22:43the classical evolutionists, failed to
1:22:45explain not only the simple reasons for
1:22:47the differences and phases of evolution
1:22:49across different societies, but also
1:22:51the reasons for the differences in
1:22:53evolutionary phases in social
1:22:55institutions. Right? And in the book he
1:22:57wrote, The Theory of Cultural Change.
1:22:59In this, he basically defined the three
1:23:02typologies of cultural evolution:
1:23:04unilinear evolution, universal
1:23:06evolution, and multilinear evolution.
1:23:09And this unilinear evolution includes
1:23:11the thinkers like Taylor and Morgan,
1:23:12whom we just covered, and multilinear
1:23:14evolution includes all the people like
1:23:16Steward. So, if we talk about
1:23:18multilinear evolution, these
1:23:20evolutionists are interested in a
1:23:21particular culture, and Julian Steward
1:23:23belongs to this group of multilinear
1:23:25evolutionists. Steward was of the
1:23:28opinion that all cultures of the world
1:23:29have not passed through the same
1:23:31development stages; rather, their
1:23:32stages were different in different
1:23:34areas. Okay? So, it varies depending
1:23:37upon which type of culture one belongs
1:23:39to and where they come from. They will
1:23:40pass through those same phases. It is
1:23:42not necessary that everyone goes
1:23:43through the same phase. Like similarly,
1:23:45we all have our own set of, you know,
1:23:48struggles in our life. Right? So it is
1:23:51not necessary that the one who is going
1:23:53through a certain kind of struggle. The
1:23:55others will go through the same thing.
1:23:57Okay? It is possible that someone got
1:23:59everything ready-made. They are able to
1:24:02do things the way they want. It is
1:24:04possible that someone had to struggle a
1:24:05lot to achieve that particular thing.
1:24:07So that is what the crux of the idea is
1:24:09all about. And as he also gave some
1:24:11examples. The sequence of cultural
1:24:13development in ice areas, desert areas,
1:24:15forest areas, and plain areas. Just
1:24:18like you study in environmental ecology
1:24:21, when you study cultural niche and all
1:24:23these things, or ecological niche, you
1:24:25see how first a particular plant
1:24:27species arrives and then gradually
1:24:29succession happens. And that is how
1:24:32things evolve. Right? So, in the same
1:24:35way, he is talking about how different
1:24:36types of development happen at
1:24:38different stages. And in order to study
1:24:40the interaction between the environment
1:24:41and culture, he proposed the method of
1:24:43cultural ecology. Now, what is this
1:24:44cultural ecology? Let's see that. So,
1:24:47what does cultural ecology emphasize?
1:24:49It emphasizes a particular system and
1:24:51the specific environmental context in
1:24:53which they interact. So here, the
1:24:55environmental context is quite
1:24:57important in terms of which
1:24:58environmental context you are talking
1:25:00about. Okay? Are you talking about the
1:25:02desert environmental context? Are you
1:25:04talking about a place with heavy
1:25:06rainfall, or what type of place are you
1:25:07talking about? And it is concerned with
1:25:09the interrelation between cultural
1:25:11systems and the environment in which
1:25:12they exist. Humans, like all other
1:25:15animals, must maintain an adequate
1:25:17relationship with the ecology in order
1:25:19to survive. This holds true even in the
1:25:22present day as well, and although they
1:25:24achieve their adaptation principally
1:25:26through the medium of culture, the
1:25:27process is ultimately subject to the
1:25:29same rules of natural selection that
1:25:31govern biological adaptation. Suppose
1:25:33there are some tribal people who are
1:25:36entirely depending upon the forest.
1:25:39Right? So at some point in time, if
1:25:41they start cutting down all the forests
1:25:43, then what will happen? Ultimately,
1:25:45they won't even have a place left to
1:25:46live. Because they are depending upon
1:25:48the forest. They are living in the
1:25:49forest. They are getting their
1:25:51livelihood and everything from the
1:25:53forest. If one day they destroy all the
1:25:54forests themselves. Then they will be
1:25:56left with nothing. So they have to stay
1:25:57in synchronization with that forest.
1:25:59Right? So that is why you will see that
1:26:01all the tribal communities who are
1:26:03dependent upon the forest. They will
1:26:05not cut the entire tree in one go. Okay
1:26:07? They also work to protect the trees.
1:26:10That is why it is said that to conserve
1:26:13the environment, it is necessary not to
1:26:16destroy people's habitats, basically
1:26:20the tribal habitats. And that is how it
1:26:22will eventually help in restoring the
1:26:24environment. Right? So there you can
1:26:27also mention the example of cultural
1:26:29ecology. Then, universal evolution.
1:26:32Remember, he talked about three types
1:26:34of evolution. Unilinear, we have
1:26:36already seen. Multilinear, we are
1:26:37looking at. Let's talk about universal.
1:26:39So, universal evolution is concerned
1:26:41with the evolution of culture as a
1:26:43whole. And the universal evolution of
1:26:45culture treats the whole culture of
1:26:47humankind rather than a particular
1:26:49culture. And according to this view,
1:26:51evolution is a universal phenomenon,
1:26:53and every culture of the world is
1:26:55subjected to the process of evolution,
1:26:56whether it is preliterate or advanced.
1:26:59And this type of evolution is
1:27:00represented by V. Gordon Childe and
1:27:03Leslie White of America. Okay? Then,
1:27:06what methodology did Steward use?
1:27:09Because we saw that Steward was a
1:27:10multilinear evolutionist. The unilinear
1:27:13evolutionists were the ones before, and
1:27:15after unilinear, you have universal—
1:27:17and for universal, there were Gordon
1:27:18Childe and the other, Leslie White,
1:27:20whom we will study later. Okay? Now,
1:27:22let's look at what Steward's
1:27:23methodology was. He began by saying
1:27:25that not all parts of a culture are
1:27:26equally related to the environment.
1:27:28Some cultural parts are more closely
1:27:30related to the environment than others.
1:27:32And in every relationship between
1:27:34culture and environment, people exploit
1:27:36the environment in order to fulfill
1:27:38their material needs. And in the
1:27:40process, the environment also gets
1:27:42affected. So basically, their focus was
1:27:45upon the culture and the environment
1:27:47synchronization or the correlations.
1:27:50And to exploit resources, one requires
1:27:52technology. Hence, there has to be a
1:27:54relationship between the people and
1:27:56technology. Because how you exploit the
1:27:59resources of your particular
1:28:01environment, that depends upon what
1:28:03kind of technology you possess. Okay?
1:28:08Whether you have that hand-axe
1:28:09technology or today you have machines
1:28:12running on electricity or something
1:28:14like that. And these relationships are
1:28:17concerned with the economic values that
1:28:19constitute the economic system. Of
1:28:21course, it depends on whether, let’s
1:28:22assume there is a tribal society
1:28:24staying in that forest. Depending upon
1:28:26their own technological advancement. It
1:28:28is possible that in that particular
1:28:30culture where they are living, they are
1:28:32technologically advanced. Okay? But it
1:28:35also depends on whether the person who
1:28:38is trying to extract the resource from
1:28:40the environment is economically capable
1:28:42enough to exploit that culture or not.
1:28:46So, there is a kind of various
1:28:48synchronization that is needed to
1:28:50achieve a particular thing. Right? That
1:28:53is what Steward talked about, that the
1:28:56economic system is more closely related
1:28:59to the environment. Hence, he says that
1:29:02the economic system constitutes the
1:29:03core of culture, and other institutions
1:29:05are related to the economic system as
1:29:07they are not related directly to the
1:29:09environment. Be it political, religious
1:29:11, or other institutions. He meant to
1:29:13say that all of these are somehow
1:29:14related to your economic institutions.
1:29:16And hence, at the methodological level,
1:29:18he explored the relationship between
1:29:20man and environment by studying the
1:29:21economic system. Meaning, how did he
1:29:23study man and environment? With the
1:29:26help of the economic system at the
1:29:27center stage. And the environment is
1:29:29changing, and man has to survive these
1:29:31conditions. Hence, he has to keep on
1:29:32changing the cultural material such as
1:29:34tools, equipment, weapons, distribution
1:29:36of materials, resources, survival, etc.
1:29:38Okay? In today’s date, why does Iran
1:29:40want to enrich uranium? Because they
1:29:42know there is a threat to them. Right?
1:29:44And that is why they wanted to exploit
1:29:46the technology for their own security
1:29:49purpose. Right? Their purpose is that,
1:29:50right? Call it a security purpose or
1:29:52whatever the reason may be, but they
1:29:54are being able to do so. And the US is,
1:29:57like, sort of not allowing them to do
1:30:00so by imposing economic sanctions. So
1:30:03that is how you can see there is a kind
1:30:05of synchronization of all these things
1:30:07related to the economy, and that's how
1:30:08over the period of time society and
1:30:10culture evolved. All right? Then
1:30:12criticism. Of course, there must be
1:30:14something about them. Let's see what
1:30:15that is. Steward was criticized by his
1:30:18students who found that in many
1:30:20societies, the direct relationship with
1:30:21the environment is not in the form of
1:30:23an economic system, rather it is in the
1:30:25form of religion. Because you saw here
1:30:28that he placed man and environment and
1:30:30the economy at center stage. But
1:30:34Steward’s own students criticized him
1:30:36, saying there are many such societies
1:30:38where religion plays a more central
1:30:39role than the economic system. Among
1:30:43them, his student Roy Rappaport studied
1:30:46the Tsembaga Maring tribe in Papua New
1:30:49Guinea. Again, Papua New Guinea comes
1:30:52up. The tribes of Papua New Guinea are
1:30:54very interesting. And in Melanesia, he
1:30:55wrote a book called "Pigs for the
1:30:57Ancestors." We will look at the case
1:30:58study about this. And he found that
1:31:00there was a direct relationship between
1:31:01religion and the environment. All right
1:31:02? There is a direct relationship
1:31:03between religion and the environment.
1:31:05And what is this relationship? We will
1:31:06look at it with the help of the case
1:31:07study. So, basically, as we discussed
1:31:11earlier, the feast organized in Papua
1:31:14New Guinea by the Big Man. It is
1:31:17related to that. All right? But before
1:31:18that, let's have some criticisms
1:31:20related to Steward. So, the concept of
1:31:22the economic system that Steward gave,
1:31:25they are simply superstructure. Now, we
1:31:27will also see what these
1:31:28superstructures are. All right? And on
1:31:30this basis, he was criticized. And
1:31:32although we have discussed
1:31:34superstructures when we studied society
1:31:36, I guess, or when we studied the
1:31:39economy, we discussed the
1:31:40superstructure then. But we will look
1:31:42at it now as well. All right? And the
1:31:44critics of Steward showed that rituals
1:31:46regulated the ecological cycle. So,
1:31:48basically, here, ritual or religion,
1:31:49whatever you call it, is more important
1:31:51for the ecological cycle. You can
1:31:53understand this with the example of
1:31:55sacred groves as well. All right? How
1:31:57are sacred groves preserved? That is
1:31:59not an economic perspective. It is
1:32:01mostly for religious purposes. And
1:32:03through that, ecology is being saved.
1:32:04Right? And in some societies in
1:32:06Melanesia, there is a concept of the "
1:32:08Big Pig Feast." Those who offer more
1:32:10pigs at the feast win the title of the
1:32:12Big Man of Melanesia, which is this one
1:32:14. Let me conclude this for you by
1:32:15sharing a case study right here. In
1:32:17this "Big Man" or "pig-ancestor" matter
1:32:20, what basically happens is that they
1:32:22feed the pigs a lot and fatten them up.
1:32:25And then ultimately, when the pigs
1:32:27start destroying their own fields after
1:32:29getting fat, they basically slaughter
1:32:31them and have a big feast out of it. So
1:32:34, what happened in the end is that they
1:32:36fed their leftover corn to the pigs and
1:32:37fattened them. Then eventually, when
1:32:40the pig starts eating their own corn
1:32:42fields, they slaughter it and host a
1:32:44feast for the people. What is the
1:32:46ultimate result of this? They gain a
1:32:48reputation. Their influence increases.
1:32:50And that is what the entire thing
1:32:52revolves around. Even in this, there is
1:32:56no economic perspective involved. What
1:32:58is being gained here? This "Big Man"
1:33:00gains what you could call influence.
1:33:02And you can relate this to polity. Okay
1:33:04? A kind of leadership. And from this
1:33:06concern, they came to know that
1:33:07religion has a direct relationship with
1:33:09the environment. Through the process of
1:33:11the pig feast, which is a ritual in
1:33:12Melanesia to commemorate the
1:33:13environment. And the latent function of
1:33:16the practice is to regulate the
1:33:17ecological cycle. And hence it can be
1:33:20said that the economic system cannot
1:33:21always be the core of culture. So, this
1:33:24is what they denied. The various
1:33:26critics of Steward. And other
1:33:28institutions can also be a core to
1:33:30culture. But Steward did not say that
1:33:32one should follow it strictly. That is,
1:33:34the economic factor as the core of
1:33:35culture. Although he didn't say it, he
1:33:37did relate them, right? Okay? So that
1:33:39is what the various criticisms of
1:33:41Steward are all about, which you could
1:33:42write down. Then, this pig-ancestor
1:33:44thing from Papua New Guinea, you can
1:33:46look at that too. There is nothing
1:33:48different in it. It is all the same
1:33:49things. Okay? Then, what can you write
1:33:52in the conclusion? That Steward gave
1:33:54the concept of cultural ecology and
1:33:55multilinear evolution, which makes the
1:33:57study of anthropology holistic. So, as
1:33:59I told you, you can conclude in one or
1:34:02two lines. Something good, regarding
1:34:04his contribution to anthropology. And
1:34:07you can also draw the multilinear
1:34:09evolution with respect to time if you
1:34:11wish. Okay? So, we have discussed
1:34:15Julian Steward. Now let us discuss
1:34:17Leslie A. White. See, Leslie A. White
1:34:20was an American anthropologist and is
1:34:22known for his advocacy of theories of
1:34:24cultural evolution, socio-cultural
1:34:26evolution, and especially
1:34:28neo-evolutionism. Nothing new has been
1:34:30written here. If you wish, you can add
1:34:32more things about him. So, a little
1:34:35while ago we saw that Leslie White
1:34:37belongs to the category of universal
1:34:39evolutionists. Right? He is a
1:34:41neo-evolutionist, but as we discussed
1:34:44regarding Steward, that he propounded
1:34:47multilinear evolution. Similarly,
1:34:50Leslie White focused on...[referring to
1:34:52V. Gordon Childe]. And Childe focused
1:34:55on universal evolution. Okay, and he
1:34:58was quite inspired by the Boasian
1:35:01approach, basically the ideas of Franz
1:35:04Boas, but he felt that they focused too
1:35:07much on data. Okay? And then he read
1:35:11and looked at the books and literature
1:35:15of Tylor and Morgan as well. Then he
1:35:19basically found that the findings of
1:35:21the classical evolutionists were of a
1:35:24very high order. You can see that some
1:35:26had rejected them completely. But
1:35:28Leslie White was among those
1:35:31neo-evolutionists. Who said that the
1:35:33idea of the classical evolutionists was
1:35:35of a very high order. Meaning, they had
1:35:37explained quite a lot of good things.
1:35:38But there were some problems with them.
1:35:40What was that problem? That they did
1:35:42not know about the universal standard
1:35:44of measuring evolution. They were not
1:35:46aware of a universal standard. Focusing
1:35:48on just one thing, they had based all
1:35:50their theories on that. Okay? And why
1:35:53was he not very happy with Boas?
1:35:57Although he grew up within the Boasian
1:35:59approach and learned within it. But,
1:36:01they focused too much on data. They did
1:36:04not generalize. They did not provide
1:36:06many theories, which is why he did not
1:36:07like Franz Boas's approach very much.
1:36:09Okay? And what did he talk about? He
1:36:11talked about universal evolution. So if
1:36:13you look at his viewpoint here,
1:36:14technology and the extraction of energy
1:36:16can work exactly in this way. So you
1:36:19can see that as technology and energy
1:36:21extraction increase, things will evolve
1:36:23accordingly. You can present this as
1:36:26Leslie White's cake. When we look at
1:36:28things later, this cake layer will be
1:36:31understood by you in a much better way.
1:36:34Then, what were the premises of Leslie
1:36:37White? Let's look at that briefly
1:36:39because he spoke from a different
1:36:41trajectory. So for that, it is very
1:36:43important to understand this. So
1:36:44evolution is undoubtedly occurring in
1:36:47the biological as well as the
1:36:48sociocultural world. Biological
1:36:50evolution happened too. Sociocultural
1:36:51evolution happened as well. We have
1:36:53already studied many things in biology.
1:36:55Right? Even in the sociocultural aspect
1:36:57, we have seen how many things evolved.
1:37:00Be it marriage, religion, economic
1:37:01systems, or anything else. And in order
1:37:04to study the evolution of society and
1:37:05culture, we must find a universal
1:37:07standard of measurement. On what basis
1:37:09are we looking at it? How can you say
1:37:11that something is evolving? For that,
1:37:14you have certain parameters to measure,
1:37:16right? You might say, alright, you are
1:37:18learning some things. You started
1:37:21learning how to sing. Suppose you have
1:37:22started learning to sing. Back then,
1:37:24you used to sing really badly. Slowly,
1:37:26you practiced. You practiced and you
1:37:29became a better one. But there must be
1:37:31some set standard. Until when will you
1:37:33keep getting better? How long will you
1:37:34keep improving? Right? There should be
1:37:36a set standard, some universal
1:37:37measurement criteria. That yes, if you
1:37:39start singing in this way. You will be
1:37:41considered better. Because even today,
1:37:43you see there are various playback
1:37:45singers. But some like one, others like
1:37:47someone else. It depends upon personal
1:37:49choice. Right? There is no universally
1:37:51accepted criteria or norm. Then Tylor
1:37:53and Morgan did not work out such
1:37:55universal measurements. But Leslie
1:37:57White worked for the universal standard
1:37:59of measurement which he put forward in
1:38:01terms of energy and technology. Now we
1:38:03will see how he presented this idea.
1:38:05And then culture evolves when a higher
1:38:07form of energy is used. Thus, White was
1:38:09not interested in studying the
1:38:11evolution of a particular culture. You
1:38:13will see when we discuss White further
1:38:15ahead. What all things he studied. He
1:38:18didn't say that religion evolved like
1:38:19this, or marriage evolved like that.
1:38:21That these changes occurred in kinship.
1:38:23Or that the economic system is evolving
1:38:24this way. He did not talk about any
1:38:26particular culture. He talked about
1:38:28overall evolution. Okay? And he was not
1:38:30interested in the evolution of a
1:38:31particular institution either. He is
1:38:33neither talking about a particular
1:38:34culture nor a particular institution.
1:38:36And he was mainly interested in the
1:38:37most fundamental principle because of
1:38:39which evolution occurs in culture and
1:38:40that was energy. Why did it happen? And
1:38:43what were the reasons behind it? He was
1:38:45more interested in that. Then he
1:38:47describes culture as a kind of behavior
1:38:49, and behavior is treated as the
1:38:50manipulation of energy. Let's look at
1:38:52an example. What happens in simple
1:38:54societies? The amount of energy used by
1:38:56the people was significantly low. Why?
1:38:58Because the sources of energy they have
1:39:01and their technologies are not very
1:39:03advanced. Right? So, they work
1:39:05accordingly, and their evolution
1:39:07happens accordingly. But as society
1:39:09evolves, for instance, the stage of
1:39:11agriculture came in, where energy
1:39:13harnessed is much more. Earlier, in
1:39:16your simple societies, there was no
1:39:18agriculture. They were very limited,
1:39:21and you could say they produced a
1:39:23minimum amount of energy or had a
1:39:25minimum amount of energy. But as the
1:39:28agriculture stage arrived, energy
1:39:30harnessing gradually increased. Right?
1:39:32Because as technology advanced, energy
1:39:34harnessing also increased. Then, as
1:39:36time went on, higher forms of energy
1:39:39emerged. In which both pastoralism and
1:39:41agriculture were combined. Then, your
1:39:44harnessing capacity increased a bit
1:39:46more. And with the passage of time, new
1:39:49forms of energy are tapped and
1:39:50incorporated into the system. And
1:39:52energy can be measured in terms of
1:39:54harvesting per capita per individual.
1:39:56He explained this using examples, but
1:39:57you can write that down if you want. Uh
1:39:58, like he gave some other examples too.
1:40:01With the passage of time, the quality
1:40:03and quantity of energy harnessed
1:40:05increased, and therefore, civilization
1:40:07is not a stage marked by writing, but a
1:40:09stage marked by the increase in the
1:40:11amount of energy harnessed by the
1:40:12individual. That as these simple
1:40:14societies existed, what was the energy
1:40:16harnessing there? You could say it was
1:40:18at a very low level. Here, it is scale
1:40:20one. Then, gradually, as your
1:40:22agricultural societies came, energy
1:40:24harnessing became scale two. Then, your
1:40:26modern day arrived. There, energy
1:40:28harnessing increased so much. Right? So
1:40:30, as this energy harnessing capacity
1:40:33increased, evolution occurred.
1:40:35Accordingly, culture evolved. And he
1:40:37said that energy is not harnessed by
1:40:38itself; it requires technology or a set
1:40:40of techniques. That is, the use of an
1:40:42axe for cutting a tree. There must be
1:40:44something, right? At that time, they
1:40:45had nothing. They had stone tools. So,
1:40:47they couldn't really cut trees. Then
1:40:49agriculture came, and at that time,
1:40:51some techniques and tools appeared.
1:40:53Then, in modern times, many tools
1:40:54emerged. That is why your advancement
1:40:56has become greater. And without
1:40:57technique, the energy remains
1:40:58free-floating. That the thing is
1:41:00already existing for you. The tree
1:41:02existed at that time too. Right? The
1:41:04tree existed at that time as well.
1:41:05Meaning the energy was free-floating.
1:41:07But it didn't have access to it. They
1:41:08didn't have the technology to harness
1:41:10this energy. Right? I hope things are
1:41:13getting aligned. Then, what methodology
1:41:16did they use? Let's see. White said
1:41:18that the product of energy and
1:41:19technology gives rise to culture. And
1:41:20for this, we have to take these two
1:41:22possibilities into consideration. Let's
1:41:23see: energy into technology gives rise
1:41:25to culture. Whose statement was this?
1:41:27It was White's statement. Now suppose
1:41:28there is low energy and high technology
1:41:30, then what will the culture be like?
1:41:32It will be low. Right? If there is high
1:41:35energy and low technology, then also
1:41:37your culture will be low. But these
1:41:40first and second products will be of
1:41:41inferior quality; when energy and
1:41:43technology levels are both at an
1:41:44optimum, then only the product will be
1:41:46satisfactory. Meaning, energy must be
1:41:48high and so must technology. Only then
1:41:50will your culture be high. There is no
1:41:52need to explain this with an example.
1:41:53It is very well understood by itself.
1:41:55And on the basis of technology and
1:41:57energy, White gave two laws of
1:41:59evolution, later merged into one. For
1:42:01now, what are those two? They are there
1:42:02. Let's see them. What was the first
1:42:04law he gave? Other things remaining
1:42:05equal, the degree of cultural
1:42:07development varies directly as the
1:42:09amount of energy per capita harnessed
1:42:11and put to work. And the second law
1:42:12stated that other things kept equal.
1:42:15The degree of cultural development
1:42:17varies directly as the efficiency of
1:42:19technological means with which the
1:42:20harnessed energy could be put to work.
1:42:23So, this first law emphasizes energy.
1:42:26And the second one emphasizes
1:42:27technology, as you may see. Right? That
1:42:30as the amount of energy per capita is
1:42:31harnessed and put to work. And in the
1:42:33second, who are we talking about? We
1:42:34are talking about technology. Both are
1:42:36combined by White, and he gave the law
1:42:38of evolution which is the law of
1:42:39cultural development. By combining
1:42:41these two, which law did he give? The
1:42:44law of cultural development. That you
1:42:46may say. It was said here that they
1:42:47later merged into one. Right? And I
1:42:49hope I don't need to explain the first
1:42:51and second ones any further. Now let's
1:42:54understand the law of cultural
1:42:55development by Leslie White. Right?
1:42:58Which basically is formed by combining
1:43:00these two laws. So, what does this law
1:43:03say? I will explain this to you with
1:43:04the help of an example. Suppose that
1:43:07the per capita harnessing of energy is
1:43:10increased. Suppose there are five
1:43:14scientists. We can take the example of
1:43:16Corona. Okay? Assume these are five
1:43:18scientists. They have a set of
1:43:20intellectual capabilities and they are
1:43:23working towards developing a vaccine.
1:43:26Okay? These five have put all their
1:43:29intellectual capabilities, all their
1:43:31understanding and knowledge into making
1:43:33this vaccine. So, two things can happen
1:43:38: either their skill sets are increased
1:43:41, and if they are, then perhaps the
1:43:44vaccine development happens much faster
1:43:46. Okay? If it remains constant, and
1:43:50they are all working in the same way
1:43:52with the same knowledge capacity. They
1:43:54will work in that manner, and you will
1:43:56know how much time the general
1:43:57vaccination process might take to
1:43:58complete. But eventually, if you assume
1:44:02that their energy, their per capita
1:44:03energy harnessing, is increased.
1:44:06Basically, we are talking about
1:44:07knowledge here. If that is increased,
1:44:09then vaccine development will become
1:44:10faster. Okay? Similarly, if we need to
1:44:12develop a vaccine. Suppose, other than
1:44:15these scientists, there is a
1:44:16supercomputer. You must have heard that
1:44:19Japan has revealed a supercomputer,
1:44:21Fugaku. If I remember correctly, Fugaku
1:44:23! Okay, so this Fugaku supercomputer is
1:44:27planning to work for mankind in the
1:44:30future to develop technologies that can
1:44:33prevent various other things. Like, to
1:44:38help stop diseases like the coronavirus
1:44:42, help in vaccine development, and help
1:44:45in disaster management. So, this Fugaku
1:44:49is a supercomputer. Right? So, its
1:44:51capabilities will be far beyond these
1:44:53five scientists. Right? Because it is
1:44:56the number one supercomputer at present
1:44:57. So, its capability to derive the
1:45:01vaccine is faster than all these five
1:45:03scientists. Right? So, that is what you
1:45:07can understand; you can achieve
1:45:09cultural development in two cases.
1:45:12First, that you increase technological
1:45:14advancement so much that energy
1:45:16harnessing becomes very high. Or you
1:45:18increase the per capita energy
1:45:19harnessing. Okay? So, that is what you
1:45:23can substantiate or present with the
1:45:25help of, you could say, this formula.
1:45:29Right? And he did not place much
1:45:31emphasis on technology. That is why
1:45:33this theory is, he emphasizes on the
1:45:36theory. That is why this theory is
1:45:38known as the technological theory of
1:45:40evolution. Alright? If you are asked
1:45:42about the cultural theory of
1:45:43development or the law of cultural
1:45:45development or the technological theory
1:45:47of evolution, both are one and the same
1:45:48, and they are talking about Leslie
1:45:50White’s law or theory only. Alright?
1:45:52So, you have to write about that only.
1:45:54Then, let’s look at the critical
1:45:56evaluation of Leslie White. His
1:45:58theories were quite convincing since
1:46:00they showed that over a period of time,
1:46:02there is an incremental growth in the
1:46:05quantity and quality of energy. Because
1:46:07technology is increasing, energy
1:46:09harnessing is also increasing. And
1:46:11naturally, one can say that the amount
1:46:12of energy harnessed in simple societies
1:46:14is far less than in complex societies.
1:46:16Similarly, technology has grown from
1:46:18simple to complex. However, he was
1:46:20criticized for giving a negligible
1:46:22place to the role of evolution in
1:46:23particular societies. As he talked
1:46:25about universal evolution in the world,
1:46:27and that is why he is called a
1:46:29universal cultural evolutionist. Apart
1:46:31from this, he considered environmental
1:46:33factors as constant. Because he did not
1:46:35consider here that, let’s assume all
1:46:37these things, whatever evolution was
1:46:39happening, everything remains constant.
1:46:42Suppose there is a tsunami tomorrow
1:46:44where Fugaku is located. Alright? So,
1:46:46he did not consider those factors.
1:46:48Although it is capable technologically,
1:46:50it is very advanced. But if a tsunami
1:46:53comes, it is possible that even though
1:46:55it is technologically advanced, it may
1:46:57not be able to produce things in that
1:46:58particular set of time, unlike these
1:47:00five scientists who are working
1:47:02somewhere in the US and working very
1:47:04safely there. Alright? So, this was one
1:47:06of his criticisms, you could say. In
1:47:08the conclusion, you can write that
1:47:09White was criticized for ignoring
1:47:11particular cultural and environmental
1:47:12factors. His concept of energy and
1:47:14technology gives a clear idea about the
1:47:16evolution of socio-culture. We wrote
1:47:18something good. His theories did
1:47:21present a clear idea regarding
1:47:24evolution. Now at the end, let’s talk
1:47:27about specific and general evolution.
1:47:29So, basically, Sahlins and Service
1:47:31talked about this specific and general
1:47:33evolution. And Sahlins also utilized
1:47:35the concept of parallelism and
1:47:37convergence quite a bit. I won’t
1:47:38repeat parallelism and convergence.
1:47:40Because we have already discussed this.
1:47:42So, I assume that if you have watched
1:47:44the previous lectures, then you know
1:47:45about it. So, Marshall Sahlins authored
1:47:47a book, which is Evolution and Culture.
1:47:50He divided the evolution of society
1:47:51into two parts. General and specific.
1:47:54So, according to him, evolution is
1:47:55taking place. Right? So, a general
1:47:57evolution is happening. As your other
1:48:00things are evolving. Whether it's in
1:48:03terms of technology, society, or
1:48:05culture. Then gradually, a point comes
1:48:07where, due to environmental conditions,
1:48:10a specific evolution occurs; suppose
1:48:12evolution happened up to this point.
1:48:14Right? All societies have evolved up to
1:48:16this point. For instance, if we talk in
1:48:17terms of clothing, it evolved gradually
1:48:19when people started feeling that they
1:48:21should wear some clothes. Right? So,
1:48:23they started wearing those clothes. So,
1:48:25the general clothes, let's say, were
1:48:26cotton clothes available at that time,
1:48:28and they started wearing them. But
1:48:30considering environmental conditions,
1:48:33suppose there is a society staying in a
1:48:36very harsh climatic condition. Very
1:48:38harsh cold climatic condition. Then,
1:48:40just these cotton clothes won't work
1:48:42for them there. So, they have to adapt
1:48:44according to the environment. And
1:48:46because of this environment, they will
1:48:48have some specific evolution that might
1:48:50not be very much related to general
1:48:52evolution or might not be very relevant
1:48:54to general evolution. Right? This is
1:48:57what you can understand with the help
1:48:59of this particular diagram also.
1:49:00Alright? Then, what did Elman Service
1:49:02explain? Elman Service defined four
1:49:04classifications of the stages of social
1:49:07evolution, which are also four levels
1:49:09of political organization. So, Sahlins
1:49:12talked about general things. But
1:49:15Service talked about political
1:49:16organization. That is band, tribe,
1:49:18chiefdom, and state. Right? And we have
1:49:21already studied in political
1:49:23organization how these are the four
1:49:25stages that ultimately develop. And he
1:49:28also developed the managerial benefit
1:49:30theory, which states that chiefdom-like
1:49:33societies developed because it was
1:49:35apparently beneficial due to
1:49:37centralized leadership. So, he
1:49:39basically wants to explain here why
1:49:42chiefdom-like societies or states
1:49:44evolved. Because at that time, there
1:49:46was a need for leadership. There was
1:49:48some kind of resource that needed to be
1:49:50looked after, which we have already
1:49:51discussed within political organization
1:49:53. And it provides benefits to the
1:49:56followers, which over time become more
1:49:58complex, benefiting the whole chiefdom
1:50:00society. And this keeps the leader in
1:50:03power and allows the bureaucratic
1:50:04organization to grow. So, if you want
1:50:06to write a bit more detail about Elman
1:50:08Service, although this might be enough,
1:50:10you can also talk about the evolution
1:50:11of political organization here. Okay?
1:50:13Because, more or less, they are talking
1:50:15about that only. Then let's talk about
1:50:18the criticisms regarding overall
1:50:20neo-evolutionism, which came after
1:50:23classical evolutionism. What were their
1:50:27criticisms? So neo-evolution is more
1:50:29likely to be a methodology than a
1:50:31theory due to various reasons. Meaning,
1:50:33you can consider it a methodology. You
1:50:35cannot call it a theory. Unlike your
1:50:38classical evolutionists, who had also
1:50:40put forward many theories. Okay? But
1:50:42you cannot consider this a theory. Why?
1:50:45Because neo-evolutionism is based on—
1:50:48this would be neo-evolutionism. Okay?
1:50:52There are some spelling mistakes in
1:50:54this. Based on the assumption that
1:50:56regularities in culture change occur
1:50:58and are concerned with cultural laws.
1:51:01And neo-evolutionism deals with the
1:51:02form, function, and sequence of culture
1:51:05, which has empirical validity. Because
1:51:07we saw that there were archaeologists
1:51:08here and all these people worked on
1:51:10different data. And a theory has
1:51:12correctness and specificity, but
1:51:14neo-evolutionism is not a theory in the
1:51:16true sense because it lacks correctness
1:51:17and specificity. Okay? And the nature
1:51:20of culture is dynamic. That is, culture
1:51:21changes with time and space.
1:51:23Neo-evolutionism was not able to solve
1:51:25the problem of time and space to reduce
1:51:27cross-cultural similarities. So these
1:51:30are some criticisms you can write. And
1:51:32because of these drawbacks,
1:51:33neo-evolutionism remained far from
1:51:35being a theory and is regarded as an
1:51:37essential methodology. So the question
1:51:41can also be asked in a way like, why
1:51:43can neo-evolutionism not be considered
1:51:46a theory but rather only as a
1:51:48methodology? So if you elaborate on
1:51:51this entire criticism point there a
1:51:53little more, the work is done. Then, at
1:51:57the end, let's take a quick review of
1:51:59the differences between classical
1:52:01evolutionism and neo-evolutionism. Okay
1:52:04? You can divide this based on
1:52:05different features. For example, you
1:52:07can write about the nature of both.
1:52:09What was the historical background?
1:52:10What was the period? There were many
1:52:12scholars. If you want, you can mention
1:52:15two or four major names. What evidences
1:52:17did they provide? What type of data
1:52:19collection was used? Did they consider
1:52:21diffusion or not? How were the types of
1:52:24evolution? Like, inside this, it was
1:52:25unilinear. In Neo-evolutionism, we saw
1:52:27that it was multilinear, universal, as
1:52:29well as general and specific. Okay?
1:52:32Then what was cultural diversity like?
1:52:35You can tell that by looking at both.
1:52:37Psychic unity was completely rejected
1:52:39by Neo-evolutionists because they saw
1:52:41no basis for it. Ethnocentrism was at a
1:52:43very high level in Classical
1:52:45Evolutionism. We have already seen that
1:52:46. And if you look at the concept of
1:52:49parallelism, you can mention that too.
1:52:51Okay? So, if asked, you can present it
1:52:55with the help of our chart or something
1:52:57like that. Then, I have included this
1:53:02at the end for you so that you can get
1:53:05an overview of where we stand in
1:53:07history. As you may see, Charles Darwin
1:53:11gave the theory of evolution in 1871.
1:53:14As you may know, what we just studied
1:53:16is that Classical Evolutionism came
1:53:18gradually, followed by Herbert Spencer
1:53:20and unilinear theories. So, after this,
1:53:22all these things kept coming. Okay?
1:53:24Then eventually, in 1900, this talk of
1:53:27particularism by Franz Boas emerged.
1:53:30Although we have heard the name of
1:53:31Franz Boas in this particular lecture.
1:53:33But what is this particularism? We will
1:53:35see that in the next lecture. So as you
1:53:36may see, this unilinear theory came.
1:53:38This particularism came earlier. Then
1:53:40this multilinear cultural evolution,
1:53:42which includes Leslie White and Sahlins
1:53:43, came later. This came later somewhere
1:53:45down the line. That is why you may see
1:53:48that some anthropologists here were
1:53:50also quite influenced by Boas. Right?
1:53:54For instance, Leslie White was more
1:53:56influenced by Franz Boas, by the
1:53:57Boasian approach. Although he had
1:53:59rejected his ideas. But this is a bit
1:54:01of a timeline for you. So if you
1:54:03remember it, it might come in handy for
1:54:05you. Okay? So that is it for today's
1:54:07lecture, and I will come up with the
1:54:09next lecture very soon. Thank you so
1:54:11much.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Paper I, Topic 6, Anthropological theories : (a) Classical evolutionism (f) Neo-evolutionism Part I by Anthropology for UPSC (Simplified IAS Academy), generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 19,761 words across 3,168 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.