A recurring feature of early twentieth-century anthropological theory was an emphasis on the superorganic and supraindividual nature of culture.
Culture was often treated as a reality above and beyond individuals, governed by its own laws and patterns.
The Superorganic Concept
The idea of the superorganic is most fully developed in the work of Alfred Kroeber (see pp. 69–73). His position can be summarized as follows:
- Culture possesses a superorganic property
- Cultural patterns:
- Vary independently of individuals
- Are not reducible to psychology or biology
- Culture, society, and the individual are:
- Discrete
- Irreducible phenomena
This perspective strongly shaped early cultural anthropology.
Sapir’s Alternative View of Culture
Edward Sapir rejected broad, abstract generalizations about society.
Instead, he emphasized the centrality of the individual.
“There are as many cultures as there are individuals in a population”
(quoted by Benedict 1939:407)
This radical position challenged the assumption that culture exists as a unified, homogeneous system shared equally by all members of a society.
Culture and Personality: Sapir’s 1938 Intervention
“Why Cultural Anthropology Needs the Psychiatrist” (1938)
Sapir’s views are developed most clearly in his 1938 article
“Why Cultural Anthropology Needs the Psychiatrist” (1968e:569–577).
He begins by discussing J. O. Dorsey’s study of the Omaha Indians, in which Dorsey repeatedly made general statements such as:
- “The Omaha believe…”
Only to follow them with remarks like:
- “Two Crows denies this.”
As a student, Sapir initially found this troubling:
- He expected anthropology to present a seamless cultural picture
- Dorsey instead exposed internal disagreement
In retrospect, Sapir concluded that Dorsey was ahead of his time.
The Significance of Individual Variation
Sapir realized that Dorsey was not studying:
- “a society”
- “a specimen of primitive man”
- or a fixed cultural system
But rather:
- A finite, though indefinite, number of individuals
- Who claimed the right to differ, even on matters considered culturally central
This insight reframed culture as lived, negotiated, and contested.
The Case of Two Crows: Methodological Implications
Sapir was particularly intrigued by Two Crows’ contrariness.
Example: Omaha Clan Structure
- Most Omaha informants report eight clans
- Two Crows insists there are seven
Sapir asks:
- How could this be?
Possible explanations include:
- One clan may no longer exist in practice
- The clan may persist in memory, but not meaningfully
- Two Crows’ own clan history or social relations may bias his perception
Sapir concludes that Two Crows possesses:
- A special kind of rightness
- Partly factual
- Partly personal
A Paradox of Culture
Sapir arrives at a striking conclusion:
- Normative behavior and deviant behavior are equally cultural
- Culture is not rules imposed from above
- Culture is a consensus of opinion
“The world of socialized behavior is nothing more than consensus of opinion”
(Sapir 1968e:572)
Because individuals can influence others:
- Individual divergence always carries the potential to become cultural
Sapir vs. Other Anthropological Models
Sapir and Benedict Compared
| Aspect | Sapir | Ruth Benedict |
|---|---|---|
| Individual–culture relation | Interdependent | Dichotomous |
| Deviance | Equally cultural | Maladaptation |
| Cultural fit | Variable, negotiated | Measure of success |
| View of culture | Consensus among individuals | Pattern imposed on individuals |
Sapir explicitly rejected the notion that individuals who diverge from cultural norms are failures or deviants in any absolute sense.
Individual and Culture: A Mutual Dependency
Sapir denied any fundamental opposition between the individual and culture:
- Culture requires:
- Creative participation of individuals
- Individuals require:
- A cultural heritage to work with
“There is no real opposition… between the concept of the culture of the group and the concept of individual culture”
(Sapir 1968c:321)
Language as the Purest Form of Cultural Practice
Sapir extended this reasoning to language, the clearest example of cultural behavior.
Language, Society, and Communication
- Society depends on:
- Processes of communication
- Society is not static:
- Not merely a sum of institutions
- Instead, it is:
- A dynamic network of understandings
- Constantly reaffirmed through interaction
Society is “being reanimated or creatively reaffirmed from day to day by particular acts of a communicative nature”
(Sapir 1968b:104)
Group / Key Conclusion
For Sapir, culture is not a superorganic force standing above individuals. It is a living consensus, continuously created, challenged, and renewed through individual action, disagreement, and communication. Language exemplifies this process, revealing culture as dynamic, negotiated, and fundamentally human.