CULTURAL MATERIALISM

Coined by Marvin Harris in his 1968 text, The Rise of Anthropological Theory, cultural materialism
embraces three anthropological schools of thought, Marxist materialism, cultural evolution and
cultural ecology. Risen as an expansion of Marxism materialism, cultural materialism explains cultural
similarities and differences as well as models for cultural change within a societal framework
consisting of three distinct levels: infrastructure, structure and superstructure. Cultural materialism
promotes the idea that infrastructure, consisting of “material realities” such as technological,
economic and reproductive (demographic) factors mould and influence the other two aspects of
culture. The “structure” sector of culture consists of organizational aspects of culture such as
domestic and kinship systems and political economy, while the “superstructure” sector consists of
ideological and symbolic aspects of society such as religion. Therefore, cultural materialists believe
that technological and economic aspects play the primary role in shaping a society. Cultural
materialism aims to understand the effects of technological, economic and demographic factors on
moulding societal structure and superstructure through strictly scientific methods. As stated by
Harris, cultural materialism strives to “create a pan-human science of society whose findings can be
accepted on logical and evidentiary grounds by the pan-human community".

Cultural Materialists believe that all societies operate according to model in which production and
reproduction dominate and determine the other sectors of culture effectively serving as the driving
forces behind all cultural development. They propose that all non-infrastructure aspects of society
are created with the purpose of benefitting societal productive and reproductive
capabilities. Therefore, systems such as government, religion, law, and kinship are considered to be
constructs that only exist for the sole purpose of promoting production and reproduction. Calling for
empirical research and strict scientific methods in order to make accurate comparisons between

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: +91-8826486658, +918826496658, | Email: [email protected]
separate cultures, proponents of cultural materialism believe that its perspective effectively explains
both intercultural variation and similarities. As such, demographic, environmental, and technological
changes are invoked to explain cultural variation.

Leading Figures:

Marvin Harris Harris wrote The Rise of Anthropological Theory in which he lays out the foundations
of cultural materialism (CM) and critically considers other major anthropological theories; this work
drew significant criticism from proponents of other viewpoints. Harris studied cultural evolution using
a CM research strategy.

Harris developed the principle of techno-environmental and techno-economic determinism. This

His work with India’s sacred cow myth (1966) is seen by many as his most successful CM analysis (Ross
1980). In this work, Harris considers the taboo against cow consumption in India, demonstrating how
economic and technological factors within the infrastructure affect the other two sectors of culture,
resulting in superstructural ideology.

A group of people in India, do not kill or eat cows because they believe that cow is sacred. They do
not kill or sell their cattle even in extreme needs. We can see large population of cows, wandering
freely through both rural areas and streets, undisturbed by the millions of hungry and malnourished
people. The concept of sacred cow actually plays an adaptive role in the ecosystem. Cattle are very
essential in Indian economic set up where ploughs and carts are pulled by the cattle, cattle manure
is used as fertilisers and fuel. For all these, the cows need to be protected. The doctrine of ahimsa
towards cows puts full command of unorganized religion, not to destroy the valuable resource even
in extreme needs.
(Adapted from Marvin Harris, 1974. Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture)

Along with Michael Harner, Harris is one of the scholars most associated with the suggestion
that Aztec cannibalism occurred, and was the result of protein deficiency in the Aztec diet. An
explanation appears in Harris' book Cannibals and Kings.

Several other publications by Harris examine the cultural and material roots of dietary traditions in
many cultures, including Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddles of Culture.

A second case is Harris’s (1992) analysis of the demise of the Soviet Union. The deterioration of
Soviet state Communism was not, as some contend, due to the triumph of capitalism. Instead, Harris
argues that the Soviet Union collapsed because of infrastructural devolution. Per capita economic
growth in the Soviet Union was at zero or less, grain production was unchanged over the previous
decade in spite of heavy investments, and between 1970 and 1987 output per unit of input declined
at the rate of 1 percent per year. Factories, agricultural equipment, generation plants, and
transmission systems were worn and antiquated.

Such problems at the level of infrastructure were compounded by impediments at the structural level
of the Soviet political economy. State-owned factories’ budgets were allocated based on the number
of employees rather than on the efficiency of production, creating payrolls of unneeded workers.
Production quotas were stated in terms of output without quality control. “This meant that the

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: +91-8826486658, +918826496658, | Email: [email protected]
penalties for inefficient and irrational management, such as excessive inventory, over-employment,
and excess investment, were minimal and did not lead to the extinction of the enterprise”. “The
collapse of state communism and the Soviet empire,” Harris concluded, was “a case of selection
against a political economy that increasingly impeded and degraded the performance of its
infrastructure”.

Another good example of cultural materialism at work involves the study of women’s roles in the post-
World War II United States. Maxine Margolis empirically studied this phenomenon and interpreted
her findings according to a classic cultural materialist model. The 1950’s was a time when ideology
held that the duties of women should be located solely in the home (emic thought); however,
empirically, Margolis found that women were entering the workforce in large numbers (actual
behavior) (Margolis 1984). This movement was an economic necessity that increased the productive
and reproductive capabilities of U.S. households. Furthermore, Margolis argues that the ideological
movement known as "feminism" did not cause this increase of women in the workforce, but rather
was a result of this movement by women into the workforce . Thus, here we see how infrastructure
determined superstructure as ideology changed to suit new infrastructural innovations.

Leslie White (1900 – 1975) was concerned with ecological anthropology and energy capture as a
measure by which to define the complexity of a culture. He was heavily influenced by Marxian
economic theory as well as Darwinian evolutionary theory. He proposed that Culture = Energy *
Technology, suggesting that "culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year
is increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to work is increased".
Energy capture is accomplished through the technological aspect of culture so that a modification in
technology could, in turn, lead to a greater amount of energy capture or a more efficient method of
energy capture thus changing culture.

Criticisms:
Cultural materialism has been termed "vulgar materialism" by Marxists such as J. Friedman because
opponents believe that the cultural materialists empirical approach to culture change is too simple
and straightforward. Marxists believe that cultural materialists rely too heavily on the one-directional
infrastructure-superstructure relationship to explain culture change, and that the relationship
between the "base" (a distinct level of a sociocultural system, underlying the structure, in Marxist
terminology) and the superstructure must be dialectically viewed. They argue that a cultural
materialist approach can disregard the superstructure to such an extent that the effect of
superstructure on shaping structural elements can be overlooked.

Idealists such as structuralists (e.g., Durkheim and his followers) argue that the key to understanding
culture change lies in the emic thoughts and behaviours of members of a native society. To idealists,
the etic view of culture is irrelevant and full of ethnocentrism; furthermore, they argue that culture
itself is the controlling factor in culture change. In their view, culture is based on a panhuman structure
embedded within the brain, and cultural variation is the result of each society’s filling that structure
in their own way. They argue that the cultural materialist emphasis on an etic perspective creates
biased conclusions.

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: +91-8826486658, +918826496658, | Email: [email protected]
Key words

Etic behavioural mode of production: The etic behavioural mode of production involves the
actions of a society that satisfy the minimal requirements for subsistence (Harris 1979: 51). The
important thing to remember here is that these actions are determined and analysed from a
scientific perspective, without regard for their meaning to the members of the native society.
Etic behavioural mode of reproduction: The etic behavioural mode of reproduction involves the
actions that a society takes in order to limit detrimental increases or decreases to population
(Harris 1979: 1951). These actions are determined and analysed from a scientific perspective by
the observer, without regard for their meaning to the members of the native society.
Infrastructure: The infrastructure consists of etic behavioural modes of production and etic
modes of reproduction as determined by the combination of ecological, technological,
environmental, and demographic variables (Harris 1996: 277).
Structure: The structure is characterized by the organizational aspects of a culture consisting of
the domestic economy (e.g., kinship, division of labour) and political economy (Harris 1996: 277).
Political economy involves issues of control by a force above that of the domestic household
whether it be a government or a chief.
Superstructure: The superstructure is the symbolic or ideological segment of culture. Ideology
consists of a code of social order regarding how social and political organization is structured
(Earle 1997: 8). It structures the obligations and rights of all the members of society. The
superstructure involves things such as ritual, taboos, and symbols (Harris 1979: 229).

Office Complex 6, 3rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi 110060|
Ph: +91-8826486658, +918826496658, | Email: [email protected]