In acculturation, both inventive and selective adaptation are emphasised: it is neither, inert nor dull. As “creative and destructive; fusions, adjustments, and reinterpretations occur between the cultures in contact, disintegrating, conflicting and developing. Such as that between “liberals and conservatives”. In fact, “As no copy is identical to the original, alien traits adopted will be modified”. The culture receiving a trait takes what can be absorbed and reject what is not compatible (1954, Siegel among others: 984-87). The process of acculturation is also not one-way, with only one society benefiting. Being a type of dispersal, it is two-way, giving and taking; the exchanges are re-interpreted and re-worked, being more selective. A cultural
…show more content…
The diffusion dispute established creation and dispersion as opposites, with authors on both sides discussing their preferences, sparing few words for the alternate side – although some, as far back as 1895, like Mason explained how both had a role in change in culture (Mason, 1895a). Soon, both were discussed not as opposites, but as co-current by American anthropologists. Simultaneously, they were established as stages in a straightforward sequence that described cultural change as a process.
Kroeber’s Anthropology (published in 1923) dedicated a chapter on invention, which he called “Parallels”, after which on “Diffusion”. He began by noting the creation versus dispersion controversy, like many other anthropologists, which, according to him existed from the difficulty in verifying autonomous inventions, limiting dispersal to a “mythical” status. Kroeber identified “truly autonomous or convergent creation” as ethereal rather than concrete. Even between inventions that were similar there would be differences and these “would not repeat together following a million” to confirm convergent invention. “Incomplete parallelism or partial convergence” might occur; a root source, definitely. “To stage an ethereal battle two opposing sides was unproductive”, stated Kroeber, as both “complimented” each other. “Dispersion and imitation indeed occur” and “autonomous developments are varyingly propagated”. Dispersal lead to “modifications”, i.e invention, and “autonomous starts” were often “assimilated or fused by dispersal” (1923, Kroeber:
The diffusion dispute established creation and dispersion as opposites, with authors on both sides discussing their preferences, sparing few words for the alternate side – although some, as far back as 1895, like Mason explained how both had a role in change in culture (Mason, 1895a). Soon, both were discussed not as opposites, but as co-current by American anthropologists. Simultaneously, they were established as stages in a straightforward sequence that described cultural change as a process.
Kroeber’s Anthropology (published in 1923) dedicated a chapter on invention, which he called “Parallels”, after which on “Diffusion”. He began by noting the creation versus dispersion controversy, like many other anthropologists, which, according to him existed from the difficulty in verifying autonomous inventions, limiting dispersal to a “mythical” status. Kroeber identified “truly autonomous or convergent creation” as ethereal rather than concrete. Even between inventions that were similar there would be differences and these “would not repeat together following a million” to confirm convergent invention. “Incomplete parallelism or partial convergence” might occur; a root source, definitely. “To stage an ethereal battle two opposing sides was unproductive”, stated Kroeber, as both “complimented” each other. “Dispersion and imitation indeed occur” and “autonomous developments are varyingly propagated”. Dispersal lead to “modifications”, i.e invention, and “autonomous starts” were often “assimilated or fused by dispersal” (1923, Kroeber: