Antievolutionary Criticism: The Use Of Classical Evolutionism By Sanderson

In Chapter three, Sanderson discusses the Boasian scholar’s criticism towards scholars work such as Tylor and Morgan on evolution and unilinear evolutionary schemes. Sanderson discussed four major objections to classical evolutionism argued by the Boasian’s this includes classical evolutionism being “logically flawed in employment of the comparative method in reconstructing evolutionary sequences”, classical evolutionism “employed rigid evolutionary schemes”, classical evolutionism “gave insufficient attention to the influence of diffusion”, and classical evolutionism “proposed illegitimate doctrine of process”. The comparative method was used commonly by classical evolutionist to reconstruct evolutionary sequences. Sanderson discussed Spencer,
Boas argued that a historical method should be used to compare processes of growth of cultures not results of cultures. Sanderson states how criticisms against the comparative method are still widely accepted and used among antievolutionary scholars, but “Are these criticisms valid?”. Sanderson uses Marvin Harris’s critique in response to the validity of the antievolutionary criticism. Harris states that the comparative method used by classical evolutionists was “in principle sound”, but there must be a distinction between its appropriate usage and the abuses of evolutionism by nineteenth-century evolutionists. Harris states that classical evolutionists often undervalued the diversity in ancient societies and contemporary societies, which is one of the abuses of evolutionism and as a result errors were made. However, Marvin Harris argues the usage of the comparative method if it is properly used. Boas also states that classical evolutionist were unilinear evolutionist, but Sanderson refutes this idea through statements used by Marvin Harris. Marvin Harris discusses the concept of strong unilinearism and weak unilinearism to dismiss the notion that all classical evolutionist was rooted in rigid unilinearism. Thus, Harris describes the work of contemporary classical evolutionist as weak