The mind of primitive man

by Franz Boas

If such is the case among the greatest minds of all times, why should we wonder that the thinker in primitive society is strongly influenced by the current thought of his time? Unconscious and conscious imitation are factors influencing civilized society, not less than primitive society, as has been shown by G. Tarde, who has proved that primitive man, and civilized man as well, imitates not such actions only as are useful, and for the imitation of which logical causes may be given, but also others for the adoption or preservation of which no logical reason can be assigned.

I think these considerations illustrate that the differences between civilized man and primitive man are in many cases more apparent than real; that the social conditions, on account of their peculiar characteristics, easily convey the impression that the mind of primitive man acts in a way quite different from ours, while in reality the fundamental traits of the mind are the same.

This does not mean that no differences exist or can be found, only that the method of investigation must be different. It does not seem probable that the minds of races which show variations in their anatomical structure should act in exactly the same manner. Differences of structure must be accompanied by differences of function, physiological as well as psychological; and, as we found clear evidence of difference in structure between the races, so we must anticipate that differences in mental characteristics will be found. Thus, a smaller size or lesser number of nervous elements would probably entail loss of mental energy, and paucity of connections in the central nervous system would produce sluggishness of the mind. As stated before, it seems probable that some slight differences of this character will be found between the white and the negro, for instance, but they have not yet been proved. As all structural differences are quantitative, we must expect to find mental differences to be of the same description; and as we found the variations in structure to overlap, so that many forms are common to individuals of all races, so we may expect that many individuals will not differ in regard to their faculty, while a statistical inquiry embracing whole races would reveal certain differences. Furthermore, as certain anatomical traits are found to be hereditary in certain families, and hence in tribes, and perhaps even in peoples, in the same manner mental traits characterize certain families, and may prevail among tribes. It seems, however, an impossible undertaking to separate in a satisfactory manner the social and the hereditary features. Galton’s attempt to establish the laws of hereditary genius, and later endeavors in the same direction, point out a way of treatment for these questions which will prove useful in so far as it opens a method of determining the influence of heredity upon mental qualities.

After we have thus found that the alleged specific differences between civilized and primitive man, so far as they are inferred from complex psychic responses, can be reduced to the same fundamental psychical forms, we have the right to decline as unprofitable a discussion of the hereditary mental traits of various branches of the white race. Much has been said of the hereditary characteristics of the Jews, of the Gypsies, of the French and Irish, but I do not see that the external and social causes which have moulded the character of members of these people have ever been eliminated satisfactorily; and, moreover, I do not see how this can be accomplished. A number of external factors that influence body and mind may easily be named,—climate, nutrition, occupation,—but as soon as we enter into a consideration of social factors and mental conditions, we are unable to tell definitely what is cause and what is effect. An apparently excellent discussion of external influences upon the character of a people has been given by A. Wernich in his description of the character of the Japanese. He finds some of their peculiarities caused by the lack of vigor of the muscular and alimentary systems, which in their turn are due to improper nutrition; while he recognizes as hereditary other physiological traits which influence the mind. And still, how weak appear his conclusions, after the energy and endurance exhibited by the Japanese in their modern development and in their conflict with Russia!

Effects of malnutrition continued through many generations might be expected to affect the mental life of the Bushmen and the Lapps (Virchow); and still, after the experience just quoted, we may well hesitate before we express any definite conclusions.

It would seem, therefore, that we have no right to explain difference in mental attitude of different groups of people, particularly of closely related ones, as due to hereditary causes, until we have been able to prove that physiological and the correlated psychological traits are hereditary, regardless of social and natural environment.

A beginning in work of this kind has been made in the experimental investigations of school-children in regard to simple mental activities and simple physiological processes; in the work of the Cambridge Scientific Expedition to Torres Strait (Rivers), in which the first systematic attempt has been made to study the simple psychical re-actions of primitive people; and in the investigations carried on systematically by Dr. Woodworth on the primitive people exhibited at the World’s Fair of St. Louis. Up to this time the results are, on the whole, not favorable to the theory of the occurrence of very fundamental differences between different races.

One additional point of our inquiry into the organic basis of mental activity remains to be investigated; namely, the question, Has the organic basis for the faculty of man been improved by civilization, and particularly may that of primitive races be improved by this agency? We must consider both the anatomical and the psychological aspects of this question. I have already pointed out that civilization causes anatomical changes of the same description as those accompanying the domestication of animals. It is likely that changes of mental character go hand in hand with them. The observed anatomical changes are, however, limited to this group of phenomena. We cannot prove that any progressive changes of the human organism have taken place; and particularly no advance in the size or complexity of the structure of the central nervous system, caused by the cumulative effects of civilization, can be proved.

The difficulty of proving a progress of faculty is still greater. It seems to me that the probable effect of civilization upon an evolution of human faculty has been much overestimated. The psychical changes which are the immediate consequence of domestication or civilization may be considerable. They are changes due to the influence of environment. It is doubtful, however, if any progressive changes, or such as are transmitted by heredity, have taken place. The number of generations subjected to this influence seems altogether too small. For large portions of Europe we cannot assume more than forty or fifty generations; and even this number is probably considerably too high, inasmuch as in the middle ages the bulk of the population lived on very low stages of civilization.

Besides this, the tendency of human multiplication is such, that the most highly cultured families tend to disappear, while others which have been less subjected to the influences regulating the life of the most cultured class take their place. Therefore it is much less likely that advance is hereditary than that it is transmitted by means of education.