Cultural Perspective 49
Chapter Four: A Cultural Perspective
As noted in the previous chapter, some studies examine the transmission of cultural
elements between societies, and the consequent cultural ramifications. These studies can be
grouped under the cultural perspective of diffusion. Disciplines that are included in the field of
this perspective are anthropology, archaeology, and geography. Anthropology and geography
have contributed the most to an understanding of cultural diffusion. The discipline of
anthropology has the longest history of interest in diffusion, and will be discussed first. The
concept of diffusion in archaeology will be briefly presented after anthropology, to contrast the
different usages of the term. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of diffusion in
geography, another major contributing discipline to a cultural perspective on diffusion.
Anthropology
As discussed in the chapter on historical foundations, anthropology is the oldest of the
social science disciplines that study diffusion, starting in the late 1800s as a means of
understanding the nature of the distribution of human culture across the world. Prominent
scholars from this time include Tylor (1865), Ratzel (1882-1891), and Frobenius (1898). The
majority of studies on the spread of culture were conducted by anthropologists in the early
1900s, as interest in ethnology was stimulated by the exploration and study of non-literate
peoples. Today, anthropologists study diffusion in terms of tracing historical trends in culture
and language.
Typical innovations studied by this tradition are technological, such as steel axes
(Sharp, 1952) and horses (Wissler, 1914), but ideological matters such as the Sun Dance (Spier,
1921) can be investigated as well. The spread and adoption of linguistic elements, known as
© Rebecca Miller, 2001
Cultural Perspective 50
lexical acculturation, is also studied (Brown, 1994; Jameson, 1991; Renfrew, 1992). The
exploration of human cultural history is supported by the work of archaeologists.
Anthropologists focus on a tribe or a village, instead of a random sample of individuals.
In fact, the major contribution of anthropology researchers is the methodological approach they
use: participant observation (Rogers, 1995). By attempting to adopt the perspective of the
respondents, the anthropologist can provide “valuable insights into the micro-level details of
diffusion” (Rogers, 1995, p. 46). The down-side to this type of research approach is the
consequent inability to generalize the results, and other disciplines have seldom used such a
qualitative approach. However, anthropology has offered other important contributions to the
theory of diffusion, due to its qualitative methodology.
Since anthropologists attempt to understand the diffusion of an innovation from the
point of view of their respondents, these researchers can point out the pro-innovation bias that
often afflicts diffusion studies, while overcoming it themselves. The pro-innovation bias is the
assumption that “an innovation should be diffused and adopted by all members of a social
system, that it should be diffused more rapidly, and that the innovation should be neither reinvented nor rejected” (Rogers, 1995, p. 100). With the participant observation technique,
anthropologists can understand how an innovation may not be appropriate for the targeted
audience, may require a slow diffusion rate, and may also require re-invention. The opportunity
to observe an innovation diffuse from a participant’s perspective has allowed anthropologists to
contribute to a better understanding of the pro-innovation bias.
Anthropologists have also provided research on an innovation’s rate of adoption. In
particular, they have demonstrated that a lack of a cultural understanding of the receiving
population can lead to unsuccessful adoption. The diffusion studies edited by Spicer (1952)
© Rebecca Miller, 2001
Cultural Perspective 51
provided several case examples of this phenomenon. For example, the spread of a hybrid corn
in New Mexico was ultimately unsuccessful due to the change agent not understanding the food
habits and preferences of the population (Apodaca, 1952). The decline in the proactive
insertion of technology to developing regions and nations has resulted in a decrease of studies
on this phenomenon. However, the results from the early studies on the relation between
culture and adoption rate remain a valid concern whenever the planned diffusion of innovations
is programmed.
Another contribution from the early work of anthropologists was the emergence of
research on the consequences of innovations. Anthropology scholars can combine their ability
to understand the culture of their respondents with the long-term data gathering of qualitative
methods for a unique look at what consequences an innovation may eventually cause. Since
anthropologists have focused on the insertion of innovations into developing areas of the world,
these researchers have brought to the attention of other diffusion scholars the importance of
accounting for potential consequences (Sharp, 1952; Linton & Kardiner, 1952). The concepts
of intended/unintended, desirable/undesirable, and direct/indirect consequences are derived
from work done by anthropologists.
Current diffusion research in the discipline of anthropology has continued to revisit
issues concerning the role of diffusion in cultural transmission, as well as the changes that
occur to cultural elements as they diffuse. For example, Diamond (1995) compared the role of
diffusion and independent invention in the spread of domesticated cattle, concluding that the
on-going debate of diffusion versus invention cannot be definitively resolved, at least as far as
the domestication of cattle was concerned. Lewis (1996) considered the changes in meaning
made on an American cultural element once it had diffused throughout an Asian culture (and
© Rebecca Miller, 2001
Cultural Perspective 52
vice versa), and Dean (1997) looked at the impacts of the spread of American culture in Europe
after World War II. Now that the cultures of the world have been thoroughly explored and
documented, much current anthropological research concentrates on describing the history of
cultural diffusion.
Archaeology
The discipline of archaeology falls into the cultural perspective of diffusion since
archaeologists are interested in tracing the spread of ancient cultures through the study of
artifacts. Archaeology utilizes scientific methods like carbon-dating of artifacts to piece
together a pre-history of an area, which is then compared with the pre-history from another area
to determine the possibility of a past link. An anthropological view of cultural diffusion was
originally used to explain the spread of artifacts noted by archaeologists (Edmonson, 1961).
However, the current dominant explanation for spread in archaeology is diffusion due to
population growth and displacement, called “demic diffusion” (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza,
1971). Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1971) argued that the “Neolithic Revolution” of
replacing foraging with agriculture was spread in an actual colonizing movement, not through
simple sharing of culture when peoples meet.
The possibility of demic diffusion can be traced through genetic analysis, the hypothesis
being that gene patterns observed in human genetic analysis is congruent with the direction of
the spread of agriculture (Cavalli-Sforza, 1993). Fix (1996) argued against the demic diffusion
model, stating that the demographic differentials between farmers and foragers are too great to
generate a continuous wave of population spread. Although researchers in the discipline of
archaeology focus on the spread of culture, they use sophisticated scientific methods to gather,
measure, and compare their data.
© Rebecca Miller, 2001
Cultural Perspective 53
Geography
The discipline of geography has long been concerned with the spread of innovations,
focusing on the roles of space and landscape as the determining elements of diffusion.
Diffusion in this discipline is usually labeled “spatial diffusion” to reflect the concern with
space. A major theme for geographers is the origin and diffusion of technology (Broek &
Webb, 1978), and the interaction of innovations and the environment (Ormrod, 1992).
Researchers outside the geography discipline are also interested in spatial diffusion; they use
spatial diffusion as a mechanism to explain the spread of an innovation. These researchers can
employ the concept of spatial diffusion to study a variety of innovations; the choice of
innovation depends on their own disciplinary interest. For example, sociologists use spatial
diffusion to examine cultural effects (Tolnay, Deane & Beck, 1996), while linguists focus on
language elements (Wikle & Bailey, 1997). Spatial considerations in diffusion are of interest to
many different types of researchers, both inside and outside the geography discipline.
The roots of diffusion in the discipline of geography are found in the cultural
anthropologist Friedrich Ratzel, one of the early German-Austrian diffusionists (Larkin &
Peters, 1983). Ratzel’s work directly influenced one of the foundational scholars of diffusion in
geography, Torsten Hägerstrand (Pred, 1967). Hägerstrand (1967) pioneered the application of
a Monte Carlo simulation approach to the investigation of the impact of spatial distance on
diffusion. The Monte Carlo simulation model combines a random element of probability with
rule boundaries set by the creator of the simulation, and had been primarily used by physical
and natural scientists (Hägerstrand, 1965). The Monte Carlo technique utilized by Hägerstrand
enabled geographers to experiment with scenarios by running modifiable simulations of
distribution. This technique was utilized by researchers outside of geography who were
© Rebecca Miller, 2001
Cultural Perspective 54
interested in the use of spatial diffusion to explain diffusion patterns (for example, Shannon,
Bashshur & Metzner, 1971; Hedstrom, 1994). The development of advanced computing
capabilities has increased the ease of use of this modeling technique.
While Hägerstrand’s most significant contribution to the geographical study of diffusion
is methodological, his pioneering work contributed in other ways to diffusion research. Specific
contributions to diffusion study concerned the “neighborhood effect” and individual resistance
to innovations. The neighborhood effect is shown by an analysis of the rank order of
acceptance of an innovation, which reveals that there is a greater likelihood that someone
spatially close to an adopter will also adopt. As Hägerstrand noted, “the effect … strinkingly
demonstrates the individual’s dependency upon the social environment” (p. 163). Furthermore,
the neighborhood effect is driven by “private information,” that is, information conveyed by
interpersonal communication (p. 164). Hägerstrand was aware of the social factor of diffusion,
and his work has been recognized as an example of the importance of communication (Strang
& Soule, 1998).
The concept of resistance lies along similar lines as the distribution curve noted by
Ryan and Gross (1943), and later identified as adopter categories by Rogers (1962). In
modeling the spread of information regarding a fictional innovation amongst a community,
Hägerstrand defined resistance as “the sum of direct contacts concerning the innovation made
with already accepting individuals prior to P’s own acceptance” (1967, p. 265). For his model,
he assigned resistance in such a way as to mimic a distribution of a few people with low
resistance, the majority with moderate resistance, and a few with high resistance (similar to
Rogers’ innovators, early/late majorities, and laggards). This distribution in the mathematical
model resembled the empirical data gathered on the actual spread of an innovation.
© Rebecca Miller, 2001
Cultural Perspective 55
Ormrod (1990) called for a return to the consideration of resistance as an explanation
for the successful spread of an innovation. Ormrod maintained that the current improvements in
communication and transportation are leading to a convergence of time and space that is
weakening the “communication-based theory” (1990, p. 109). With the disappearance of
clearly articulated space and time, another model for understanding diffusion is needed.
Hägerstrand’s concept of resistance may more accurately explain diffusion than the current
model of diffusion.
Gould (1969) discussed four types of geographical diffusion. Expansion diffusion
involves communicating an innovation from knowers to nonknowers while relocation diffusion
involves the actual movement of the knowers to a new location (what archaeologists call
“demic diffusion”). Contagious diffusion requires close personal contact and is controlled by
distance, so it is a type of expansion diffusion. Hierarchical diffusion results when large places
or important people are the first to know, and the knowledge then trickles down through an
established hierarchy. These terms are still used in spatial diffusion studies; Graff and Ashton
(1994), for example, found that the spread of Wal-Mart stores was characterized by elements of
contagious and reverse hierarchical diffusion.
Recent work on diffusion in the geography discipline has converged around the
historical geography perspective, utilizing diffusion in geographical terms to explain the growth
and spread of different innovations. Such innovations range from synthetic fertilizers
(Chapman, 2001), to qanats (a type of aqueduct) (Lightfoot, 2000), to pasta (Alexander, 2000).
Other studies in geographical diffusion examine the role of geography in the diffusion of a new
information technology (Baptista, 2000). Methodologies used by geographers typically involve
the analysis of documents, maps, and spatial measurements, and the use of multiple regression
© Rebecca Miller, 2001
Cultural Perspective 56
to determine correlations. Many types of innovations can be examined with a spatial diffusion
lens, and the dominant methodology is quantitative.
Summary
Anthropology is the study of humans, and diffusion research within this discipline and
related ones, such as archaeology and geography, focuses on the cultural ramifications of the
transmission of innovations. The primary contributions from the cultural perspective have been
the qualitative method of participant observation utilized in anthropology, and the experimental
quantitative modeling used in geography. The diffusion of cultural elements is the oldest
concern in diffusion study, yet researchers in anthropology and its related disciplines continue
to further the understanding of cultural transmission.
© Rebecca Miller, 2001